The following comes from a Jan. 9 email sent to California Catholic Daily.
Dear faithful friend,
I have appealed to my bishop and in turn, to several of his brother bishops and then their adjutants regarding the odd political focus by the Roman Catholic Church in California. My appeals are based on the scriptures and the teachings of the Roman Catholic Catechism.
It appears that mundane and cosmopolitan ideas compete as a ‘moral foundation’ and have supplanted the Church’s actual teaching on moral and civic duty, particularly as this applies to our present moment in history. This confusion of culturally approved ‘good things’ with the necessary things, is by definition scandalous (Catechism. 2289)….
Respectfully yours,
Paul O’Malley
P.S. I note that today’s California Catholic Conference email alert leads with Jerry Brown, under the aegis of: Economic Justice. He is often presented heroically, despite his unalloyed advocacy for killing human babies for ‘choice’ and his sponsorship of non-physician abortions in our state.
Below is the last in a string of e-mails I have exchanged with representatives of the bishops. This details their championing of Mr. Brown’s social order, and their silence on his genuine propagation of intrinsic evil.
From: Paul O’Malley <paulomalley38@gmail.com>
Date: January 6, 2015 at 12:19:06 PM PST
To: <archbishop.gomez@la-archdiocese.org>
Subject: Roe v. Wade and Catholic disordered political thinking
….The bishops of California via the Los Angeles Archdiocese, are boldly admitting how they prefer to address abortion. And this may explain a lot about current California politics. The official Church publication, The Angelus, (the LA Tidings online version) on December 26, 2014, details the fact the Catholic Church in Los Angeles will no longer refer to the Roe v Wade decision as a ruling to be mourned or challenged.
The Church will instead organize a massive festival. The Roe day is now to be a Celebration of Life in its many expressions by those who are alive.
“We differentiate ourselves by not focusing on the political side of pro-life issues,” declares Kevin Kast, coordinator of the event. To keep a tight lid on the new message, participants, “are not to hand out literature or to educate,” Kast continues. His supervisor, director of Life Justice and Peace, Kathleen Buckley-Domingo, reiterates in the article that on the anniversary of Roe, “There is not to be protest or political rallying” at the festivities.
In an earlier guideline to invited groups, Kast warned that participants would be screened. Only a ‘holistic’ position on affirming life is permitted. A game plan and materials must be approved. Finally, only ‘social service’ projects are allowed involvement.
The largest, politically-active religious organization in California is officially declaring that abortion is not to be presented as a political issue.
This is the same Catholic Church fresh from open political agitation for drivers licenses for foreign nationals. They were successful. Bishop Jaime Soto, president of the California Bishops Conference, and nationally the leader of the bishops’ political efforts to change the laws governing immigration, routinely invokes the presumed ‘Right to Life’ of these foreign nationals in justification for his political activities.
Ned Dolejsi is the most prominent layman/employee of California bishops; he is director of the Calif. Catholic Conference of Bishops. He formerly worked in the same capacity for shamed Archbishop Hunthausen of Seattle, 1987-1996. (Pope John Paul II had removed Hunthausen for the false teachings and odd moral policies that emanated from that policy office.)
Dolejsi, with the express permission of the California bishops, is still extremely political, but a bit quiet on abortion-related issues. He was a principal ‘community organizer’ for the recent effort to ban the death penalty. For that initiative he personally directed Roman Catholic parish involvement statewide. Once again, his political activity is asserted to be actually ‘based’ in the political “right to life.” This confusion comes from a false notion that convicted criminals adjudged by authorities to have violated the right to life of others, must now be protected under that same right to life.
Section 2267 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church is very clear that the death penalty is not morally excluded from consideration by the law – it may be used ethically. Agitating for an absolute ban on the death penalty pales in moral significance to the intentional, legal dismemberment of living babies in the womb.
On the other hand, Section 2273 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church instructs that “the right to life of the innocent individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation.” The Church charges its teachers that the abortion issue is therefore by its very definition, political.
On the West Coast, why are political issues that the real Catechism teaches to be incidental, now elevated to that of highest political priority? And why is the one issue that the Catechism declares to be an essential element of civic and legislative concern, now prohibited from political discussion?
For those who may be confused, the word ‘holistic’ used as the ‘guideline’ by OneLife:LA is not in anyway related to the word ‘holy’. Bishops and their representatives who instruct and act for the faithful should repudiate such disordered and errant thoughts and instructions, particularly on the anniversary of Roe v Wade.
Respectfully,
Paul O’Malley
On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 1:16 PM, David Scott <DScott@la-archdiocese.org> wrote:
Paul,
Archbishop Gomez and I had a good conversation about your note. He asked me to thank you for it and to try to explain a little more about what he is thinking with OneLife LA.
First, as you know, the Archbishop has been clear that human life is sacred and that he believes the right to life is the foundation of every other right in civil society and that we need to do all we can to defend unborn life and defeat the culture of abortion in our country. If you have not seen it, please read his essay in L’Osservatore Romano on the topic.
I appreciate your respectful presentation of your opinions on OneLifeLA, Paul. But we have to disagree with the conclusions you are drawing. With due respect, Paul, I don’t think your conclusions are warranted given the facts.
Please review the speakers and our partners and our topics for the event — choosing life over abortion, the dignity of persons living with handicaps, human trafficking, terminal illness and euthanasia. It will be a beautiful, hopeful celebration yes, not a political rally. But there is no mistaking that this is a pro-life event that highlights the sanctity and dignity of human life from conception to natural death.
Ben Shapiro is calling it the “largest pro-life event in Southern California.” I think he’s right. One of our partners, 40 Days for Life, is looking forward to offering free pro-life training in conjunction with the event.
Also as you may know, we have joined OneLife LA to the U.S. bishops’ “9 Days for Life” commemoration of Roe v. Wade and, the Saturday following OneLife LA, we will hold our annual Requiem Mass for the Unborn at the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels.
That’s what we’re doing, Paul. I appreciate that you would rather us hold a different kind of event. But I hope you will reconsider sharing your criticisms with others. I don’t think the things you are saying are not fair or accurate. Our commitment to end abortion and create a culture of life is clear and on-going.
I hope you will join us for OneLife LA. If I can help further, please don’t hesitate to contact me.
Wishing you all God’s blessings in the year to come.
peace, David
David Scott | Vice Chancellor for Communications
From: Paul O’Malley <paulomalley38@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 11:28 PM
Subject: Re: FW: Roe v. Wade and Catholic disordered political thinking
To: David Scott <DScott@la-archdiocese.org>, archbishop.gomez@la-archdiocese.org
Thank you David, and please thank Archbishop Gomez.
Those ideas are very attractive. Please understand there are many, many wonderful people and stars and bands and issues presented, and well, just know that I am not in any way contesting how wonderful these good people of the festival are.
Did you think I was doing that? I am not.
I don’t think you understand the actual nature of Roe v Wade. And while we all love good things I am genuinely concerned that these “good things” are conflated with the issues at hand in Roe and the civic process that Roe did violence to… and which call the faithful to action – it is the law itself which must protect the lives of the innocent. (Catechism of RCC section 2273)
My pressing concern is that this conflation of ‘other good stuff’ is becoming more and more intentional and it is NOT the actual teaching of scriptures or the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church.
As you know from studying the Catechism and scripture, the heart of learning is understanding and making moral distinctions.
Please re-read your e-mail above, and please encourage His Excellency to also read it.. Nowhere do you refer to the innocent human life. That is in fact the only moral distinction at stake in the Roe v. Wade decision: The government in 1973 authorized intentional taking of an innocent human life. The adjective and clear moral distinction of “innocent” is used widely in the Catechism.
You have refused to use it.
Your generic insistence above and elsewhere, to erroneously remove such a distinction and sweepingly refer to human life without moral distinction is – exactly that… teaching which now lacks moral distinction. This results in ‘moral’ conclusions collateral with the secular moralists of this age.
The societal ethics at stake in Roe is the killing of innocents. Not the killing of human beings. Please do not simplistically conflate these two. The Nuremburg laws of the 1930s and the subsequent Nuremburg trials of 1948 dealt very clearly with the evil of a government licensing the killing of innocents which the law should instead protect.. It did not condemn Germans for killing in warfare. It did not condemn them for killing capital criminals. The moral evil of the National Socialist regime was that they killed the innocent.
Why does your response NOT recognize this essential moral distinction of the laws and the duty of the laws in all just societies, to protect the innocent? Why is your fiesta silencing the faithful and ignoring the explicit urging of the Catechism to ensure that the laws protect the innocent? Why is this essential moral distinction absent from your moral teaching?
Roe s. Wade does not urge the American citizens to become better social workers so that then there will be fewer abortions. This is the interpretation of NOW, NARAL, and all pro-choice advocates (including vocal pseudo-Catholics Gov. Brown and Congresswoman and former speaker, Nancy Pelosi.) “Roe is the law,” they say. Accept it; leave it alone. If you don’t like abortion, go be a social worker and take care of those kids we don’t kill.” Roe does not invite the faithful to ignore its existence and go do other good things. Roe, just as the Dred Scott and Nuremburg laws, invites the faithful to stand clearly against it. to work through the civic process to change that law.
Sex trafficking is truly evil. I am in complete agreement. But you are confusing the faithful when you ‘equate it’ with abortion. Please understand, Sex trafficking is illegal. The law already agrees with you and me that this is evil. If I see girls going into a building where I suspect they will be pimped, I can call a policeman and he, as an agent of the law will act to protect them. If I see girls induced to go into a building where they will be coerced into having an abortion, this is perfectly legal. In California the government finances it all. The Law protects abortionists and the Catechism urges us to actively redress such laws. If I call the police he will protect the abortionist, but he will still arrest the trafficker. The moral and legal distinction is clear.
It is this inversion of the law that is the evil that is palpable and present due to Roe v. Wade. But it is intentionally beclouded in the cultural milieu and beclouded by poor moral teachers enamored of the present government and cultural values of a political partisans. (again 2273 et. seq.)
Is the death penalty ‘equal in stature’ to the abortion issue? It clearly is not. The Catechism is clear that it is not. If I am wrong please Excellency, clarify where. I need to understand how that is the case. It is only the ‘seeming relationship offered by the culture has been used to supplant and obfuscate the true intrinsic evil being practiced in legal abortion on demand. The use of the death penalty is clearly a prudential evil… but when the teachers of the Church declare without distinction, ‘all these issues are about Life.’ This is now all ‘pro-life’. This is disordered thinking.
This false teaching is beneficial to the status quo that perpetuates the evil of legal killing of the innocent and acceptance of government officials who embrace it. If the governor asks the people to give their voice on what laws are to be enforced, and if the employees of the bishops go to the faithful and insist that the people at such opportunity instead, “Call for Barabas” This is an evil act designed to confuse the people of God and to support the political status quo.
If I am wrong please explain how this equivocating of guilt and innocence is a clear moral teaching. I would genuinely be willing to see this in the scriptures or the Catechism or the historic teachings of the Church. But I do offer above an historic action from the scriptures of such error in relation to government officials.
At your festival many good things, social programs and religious views of abortion (40 Days, a public prayer group, does not work to change the laws, and this comports with the fiesta of OneLifeLA, as it refuses all things of political policy based on the Roe anniversary. But the oddity is not the presence of 40 Days, it is that the prelates are assertively political if the ‘right to life’ is redefined to apply to other political issues. Am I wrong? Have I misread the recent publications of the Church and secular newspapers?
Why do those new ‘interpretations of the right to life’ that are deemed appropriate for political activity and education, exclude the taking of innocent human life, the one, singular moral requirement placed on all civil societies? Could you please have the archbishop clarify this?
40 Days people are very, very nice people. All the folks at OneLife are nice and good folks. Governor Brown will be pleased that these good folks will not hold him accountable for his extension of Roe v. Wade beyond its own parameters. Roe said abortion was ‘between a woman and her physician’. Governor Brown has ruled abortionists no longer need be physicians. But you are silent on that law or the moral need to oppose it. This may not be discussed at OnelifeLA. Or am I in error? May it be presented as an item of concern?…
“Lets use the issue of abortion to have a big party and make people feel good about themselves.”
“Paul O’Malley” has performed an important and necessary service. He has told Abp. Gomez, and his minions, that, in effect, what they are doing, while “nice” and all, is not implementing Catholic teaching on abortion and the murder of innocents.
Why is this important; for several reasons, two in particular: (1) O’Malley points out that the redefinition of Catholic “activism” regarding abortion (i.e., making it a “non-political” “celebration” of like, instead of confronting it legally and politically) really is a capitulation to the reality of the murderous process; and (2) by this capitulation, the Catholic Church is, in essence, accepting of the process; the “celebration” then becomes a sort of happy good-bye to the millions of dead babies, as if they had died of a disease, instead of a wanton, calculated partnership of profit making entities, like Planned Parenthood, and Mothers-to-be.
The chilling words of Mr. Scott read much like apologists for the early days of Hitler and National Socialism. Of course, two other simply awful psuedo-Catholic posiions also come to mind: (1) the “seamless garment of life” by the deluded Cardinal Bernardin, that continues to give comfort to those committing mortal sin and believing that it is not so bad (I do other good things, too); and (2) the deadly words of Abp. Cupich, who in Spokane did all he could to reign in priests from “publicly” affirming their Faith by praying in front of abortion centers.
“The chilling words of Mr. Scott read much like apologists for the early days of Hitler and National Socialism. ”
St. Christopher. Thank you for your excellent post. May God continue to bless Paul O’ Malley for his faithfulness and also for sharing this email with the faithful. It is truly chilling to hear the way Mr. Scott responded for Archbishop Gomez. His response was almost as chilling as the chillingly informative response that Archbishop Gomez personally gave to my friend at the Religious Ed Congress when she approached him in person and expressed her concerns over his close working ties with the Marxist group La Raza. My friend waited until Archbishop Gomez had finished a conversation with a group that was passing in between talks at the REC. My friend was respectful, she even knelt down and kissed his ring. My friend said, “Your Excellency I would like to express my concerns with you because I am deeply troubled by your continuous close working ties with the Marxist group known as La Raza. Archbishop Gomez said, “Oh I don’t think that the group La Raza is Marxist”…and my friend then said, “Archbishop Gomez, please take the time to educate yourself on this group. Yes, they are Marxist and your close ties with this group are as troubling to many as it would be for Cardinal George to have supporting close ties to the Klu Klux Klan.” Archbishop Gomez gave no response.
The very fact he puts on the REC should tell a lot.
Dave N. a couple of people on this site keep mentioning the REC as an awful thing, but won’t give specifics. What is wrong with the REC? Can you be specific? If it is so wrong, why do 35-40,000 people attend each year? Why is youth day one of the largest gatherings of youth in the country? On the surface I have to assume that the good outweighs the bad, but no one wants to say what the bad is.
“If it is so wrong, why do 35-40,000 people attend each year?” = Because NO ONE is guarding the Deposit of Faith or Jesus’s lambs.
Bob One, Jesus did not refer to us as “sheep” for no reason. But then again you already knew that…..In fact YOU and many others have been absolutely banking on that fact.
Hosea 4:6 My people have been silent, because they had no knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will reject thee, that thou shalt not do the office of priesthood to me: and thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I also will forget thy children. Douay-Rheims
Catherine, I think your friend should give you examples of how La Raza is Marxist. I had some dealings with them 30 years ago, and I have been on the net searching for some info that would prove they are Marxists, and can’t find anything. They are ardent in their pursuit of their goals of improving the lot of Hispanics who live in this country, including getting government grants and being equally strong in their advocacy. None of that is Marxism, however. Can your friend give us some current info on how La Raza is not doing good things for “the People”.
Bob One, When you are tied right in with a Revolutionary Struggle website that has it’s web address as:
https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/ncm-7/lrs-2/introduction.htm
Then that is an excellent indicator of an affiliation with Marxism. Our Lady of Fatima said that if men did not repent that Russia would spread her errors throughout the world. Faithful Catholics are now questioning if Russia’s errors and tactics are being encouraged and promoted by our very own shepherds.
Taken from the: U.S. League of Revolutionary Struggle (Marxist-Leninist)
Peace Justice Equality and Socialism
• Program
• Some Points on Strategy and Tactics
From the Second Congress of the U.S. League of Revolutionary Struggle (M-L) April 1984
The U.S. League of Revolutionary Struggle (M-L) is a nationwide multinational organization. We are workers, students, unemployed, professionals and others, united by a common commitment to socialism and communism. Some of us are young, while others have had years of experience in the people’s struggles.
continued……
continued from January 16, 2015 at 8:49 pm
The League itself is a relatively new organization. Many of us became revolutionaries through the struggles of the 1960s and 1970s. We were active in the oppressed peoples’ movements, especially those of the Afro-American, Asian, Chicano and Latino peoples. We were also active in the trade union and workers’ struggles. Others of us gained experience in the student or women’s movements.
The League formed in 1978 primarily through the mergers of a number of revolutionary organizations, such as the August Twenty-ninth Movement (M-L), East Wind, I Wor Kuen, the New York Collective, the Revolutionary Communist League, and Seize the Time, among others. These organizations in turn trace their roots to the Congress of Afrikan Peoples, *La Raza Unida Party* and other oppressed nationality organizations of the 1960s.
We formed a new communist organization because we believed that the existing “communist party” was not playing a leading role. In fact, it had abandoned the need for revolution and degenerated into a misleading and reactionary group which promoted and still promotes the interests of the imperialist Soviet Union. A genuine communist party is needed that truly represents and fights for the interests of the working people, oppressed nationalities and socialism. Our central task is to work with others to form this new communist party.
Our guiding theory is Marxism-Leninism-Mao Zedong Thought.
https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/ncm-7/lrs-2/introduction.htm
Bob One writes “I think your friend should give you examples of how La Raza is Marxist.” = More history
The Struggle for Chicano Liberation August, 1971
Resolution adopted at the Twenty-fourth National Convention of the SWP in August 1971, printed in SWP Internal Discussion Bulletin
Transcribed & marked up by Andrew Pollack for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL).
https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/document/swp-us/chicanlib2.htm
The ruling class will never grant freedom to oppressed nationalities, including La Raza. The national liberation of the Chicano people can be won only in the process of the socialist revolution, which will have a combined character: a social revolution by the working class to establish its own state power, combined with a revolution by the oppressed nationalities for their self-determination. The predominantly proletarian composition of the Chicano people indicates that they will be in the forefront of the revolutionary struggle of the working class as a whole, as well as fighting alongside other oppressed nationalities for their national self-determination.
continued……
article taken from “The Struggle for Chicano Liberation, continued for Bob One from January 16, 2015, at 10:26 pm
Taken from:
https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/document/swp-us/chicanlib2.htm
‘The Struggle for Chicano Liberation’ August, 1971
“Although more than half of the Catholics in the Southwest are Chicanos, the Catholic Church hierarchy has continuously insulted its Chicano membership by its racist practices and refusal to use its immense resources to support the Chicano movement. Groups have formed such as Católicos Por La Raza in Los Angeles, which has demonstrated at churches against the current state of affairs in Los Angeles County where, they say, property owned by the Catholic Church is valued in excess of $1 billion yet Chicano children “are praying to La Virgen de Guadalupe as they go to bed hungry.”
“Raza women have begun to discuss and act against their triple oppression as members of an oppressed nationality, as workers, and as females in a patriarchal bourgeois society. Most Chicanas are brought up in Catholic families, and thus have to cope with an especially reactionary morality which rationalizes the subordination of women in the family and in society, including strictures against the right of women to control their own bodies, the right to abortion and contraception.”
This group is not mentioned on any of those pages you linked to.
Where did you get your information that they were linked with them.
The name of the group is the National Council of La Raza.
“It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is. = Slick Anonymous Willie
When writing to a Bishop, I have had the best results by:
1) Keeping the communication brief;
2) Stating the problem;
3) Providing the Bible verse number, and CCC paragraph number,
or GIRM paragraph number, or Code of Canon Law paragraph number
– as appropriate;
4) Conclude with what should be done to fix the problem.
Always be respectful and polite.
Glad to see there are many others willing to approach and discuss issues with a Diocese Bishop for the good of the Church (or Diocese, or Parish).
Always be respectful….Yes, of course, always respect the devil, Mike. That will get your message a quicker toss into the waste basket. These people are demonic! Look at Brown…Years ago he spent time with Mother Teresa of Calcutta, returned and continued his advocacy/promotion of abortion! These “bishops” and the laity cited in this article are on their way to hell and they must be told so in no uncertain terms… They champion Obama and other evil men such as Brown etc. The time is long past for treating them with respect! And please don’t repeat the old canard about “o-beee-di-ence!” An unjust order or policy is not licit, whether it comes from a bishop, a deluded lay person or even a radical pope! It’s too late in the game for western salvation and civilization and the honor of God! Almost a hundred years ago Our LAdy of Fatima said that most souls go to hell because of sins of the flesh. That includes especially prelates who enable theses sins and help INSTITUTIONALIZE them! Wake up and tell these scum that hell is a very bad place and eternity is a long, long time!
And what response did you get from a Bishop, John D, when you wrote to him and told him he is scum?
When speaking to the Clergy, one can be CLEAR and FIRM, and provide OFFICIAL Church documentation – without being rude.
We must always respect the Office of the Clergy – Pope, Cardinal, Bishop, Priest.
ALL are not good, and ALL are not bad. No one is perfect – just like the 12 chosen Apostles.
Mike, good advise! I have had some experience working with folks in a Chancery office and others who are knowledgeable about how they work. The Bishop, generally, will not see all of his correspondence, only what the staff wants to let him see. But, you are correct, it should all be on one page and as factual as possible. Long paragraphs are not well received. Also, you want to pick your battles. The Chancery, like any organization, does not want to deal with chronic complainers. More than a couple of letters a year will be ignored by a lot of the staff. To get noticed, consider having a dozen or more people write about the same issue. I wouldn’t expect the courtesy of a reply. Also, consider that the Church works at warp speed over a century or two to make changes.
MIKE excellent guidance. You are a noble faithful Catholic. For years and years weve had issues trying to get a Latin Mass parish but at that time our bishop was not in our favor. It took kindness, perseverance and prayers. It was the lay faithful in full communion, that helped get that to happen and their holy witness, humility and patience that helped make it happen. Now we also have holy OF parishes too because people do what you suggested here. Mother Angelica also has cinveyed what you suggested. Even the saints displayed such holy wirness.
“It took kindness, perseverance and prayers.” “Even the saints displayed such holy wirness.” = There see…. you have no excuse. Calling Ann Malley an evil witch is not noble or being a holy witness or evangelizing. Thank you for admitting your culpability in scattering the sheep even more. Our Lord had words for those who scattered his sheep. When our Lord left the ninety nine sheep to go out and search for the one lost sheep, he did not attack the one lamb up, he picked up that lamb and lovingly held that sheep and brought him back to the fold. You have driven the scattered sheep away who came to visit this website. All you needed to do was show kindness with prayers and then defend the crisis that is taking place in our own “full communion” backyard.
You have not shown kindness or perseverance. And for those who do not believe that sheep can be scattered, then you are calling Jesus a liar. Focus on the mess in our own “full communion” house instead of attacking those who have stayed away because of ambiguous flip floppers such as yourself. St. Christopher IS truly evangelizing. He posted that everyone should remain in full communion and Ann is listening to him. Stop your ambiguous flip flopping and practice what you just posted.
continued….
continued from January 15, 2015 at 8:14 am
Jeremiah 23: [1] Woe to the pastors, that destroy and tear the sheep of my pasture, saith the Lord. [2] Therefore thus saith the Lord the God of Israel to the pastors that feed my people: You have scattered my flock, and driven them away, and have not visited them: behold I will visit upon you for the evil of your doings, saith the Lord. [3] And I will gather together the remnant of my flock, out of all the lands into which I have cast them out: and I will make them return to their own fields, and they shall increase and be multiplied. [4] And I will set up pastors over them, and they shall feed them: they shall fear no more, and they shall not be dismayed: and none shall be wanting of their number, saith the Lord. [5] Behold the days come, saith the Lord, and I will raise up to David a just branch: and a king shall reign, and shall be wise, and shall execute judgement and justice in the earth.–Douay- Rheims
…and I’d rather be labeled slime by certain individuals than courted falsely by the saccharin of honorable, noble, well spoken that in the past has proved nothing but the fools gold of lies one often receives before being cut to the quick. Beware of flatterers. A good saying for good reason.
Catherine, grow up.
Most everyone has heard enough of your bickering with a very few of the women. Take your personal arguments to a private site.
You have not shown kindness in many of your posts either.
As Jesus said – take the log out or your own eye prior to taking the splinter out of your brother’s. Those who do not he called hypocrites.
I’m sure Ms Malley is capable of defending herself, and you are not needed.
…thanks for giving me credit for being fully grown, Steve, but even adults appreciate a solid defense. And consistency in position. Others, not so much. That’s why the “kindness, perseverance, and prayers” are too often only words on posting instead of sustained and consistent action – even here on CCD.
Thanks, Catherine.
“Take your personal arguments to a private site.”
Steve,
I am very sorry you are so sensitive. You know you do have the freedom to read or ignore posts. Yes, I have challenged a few women and 1 in particular who kept claiming that the Catholic Church does not value women and who also pre-canonized a priest who promotes same sex marriage.
Also, women posting on Catholic websites who publicly pre- canonize clergy (who promote same sex marriage) is not a private matter.
Thank you Steve. God bless you. Its interesting, they have been calling me tons of names, mocking my comments, taking out context my words for months to no end and i finally describe rightfully their behavior i receive this “warm” welcome and these past few months that me using evil slime this one instance. Its interesting how hypocritical they expect charity yet they do not give it. I have been more than enough kind to their attacks. Thank you Steve you called it for what it is. God is merciful and just through you. Pax Christi
Playing victim Ann? Or as you have once said “manufactured martyred syndrome? I’m only using the very words you have used on me when I tried to correct on how you ladies go on a rampant to molest or stop any good civil dialogue, look RR just proved my point as well. You ladies do personal attacks and cause others to get into it with you. Its unholy behavior. I don’t have to do much because these ladies do it on their own. They are the real instigators. God love them more.
Have fun with that. Now RR is jumping in and the threads tell the opposite of what she is slandering me with. Thank you RR, I appreciate your words, they show exactly what I have to deal with often here. You are all good at displaying it. Bad will and unconfessed pride is easy to see from your own words and how the threads go. PAX Christi…
Abeca, stick with the PAX Christi and let the rest go. Your stirring up ‘unholy’ behavior as you term it is, well, not of God. Try to let go. You do not ‘have’ to deal with anything, but rather choose to create problems…. but much like issues within the Church, there is no need to manufacture things. There is enough going on already. So let’s deal with that, okay.
Try to have a good weekend.
…methinks the term was ‘slime’, Catherine, although I might have missed the ‘witch’ comment. Either way, the individual involved believes Eye of the Tiber to be actual news, so that pretty much says it all. Confused. That’s as charitable as I can be with the dear lady as she has showed herself to be a real corker.
God bless you for not scattering the sheep.
“…And I will set up pastors over them, and they shall feed them: they shall fear no more, and they shall not be dismayed: and none shall be wanting of their number, saith the Lord.”
I am very grateful to trust in the Lord who has given me shelter wherein I can be fed and not be afraid or dismayed anymore than I already have been.
Catherine, Abeca offered a comment to support another poster. Why do you always have to use her well intentioned posts as an opportunity to tear her down? How about trying to lift people up instead of kicking them onto the curb all the time? Try it, just once. You might find your soul rests a little better.
The article is faith demands a layman to express his thoughts. I suggest all go if you want to follow this great exhibition that these two ladies love to bring. Go to churches worth driving to and pravda article. Have fun understanding these ladies. Im done. Ill offer up my morning prayers for Catherine and Ann Malley. Its the best i can do for now. Peace in Christ.
Thank you YFC you too noticed her patterns. She also gets her facts all twisted. Bearing false witness is a sin. Im getting more and more concerned about her behavior here. We must pray for her. I will continue. God bless you.
No, YFC! Abeca instigated the response from Ann and Catherine. She said, ” It was the lay faithful in full communion.” Abeca is very sneaky and deceitful here. She had to throw in a dig to Ann and Catherine by saying this because she has told them many times that they “are not in full communion.” She could have just said the lay faithful, but she had to instigate and say “in full communion. “So, if you and Steve want to reprimand anybody for starting things, then Abeca is the one you should tell to stop “bickering” (Steve) and “tear down.” (YFC) Abeca is an instigator and a dirty fighter!
NO RR…you don’t know what you are talking about. You defend the defiance of the SSPX so I am not surprised that you would make such comments. I am not sneaky nor am I deceitful, you only see malice because you refuse to acknowledge the hypocrisy and doubles standards of those whom you defend, So shame on you lady. Like I said before, that one long article thread, I used it to show their double standards and hypocrisy….so not surprised that RR would step in. Same ole same ole. After all the church has declared SSPX illegal/ illicit and they are angry about that. It was their choice to not be in full communion and now here we see the results of their actions against Christ’s church.
…there is no anger at being labeled illicit for political expediency, Abeca, just acceptance and moving forward in full Faith. Someone has to take the hit for being the baddie…. while keeping the Faith.
RR,
Once again you nailed it. Thank you for calling a spade a spade.
Catherine i never called Ann an evil witch. I have no clue what you are refering to. I think you are confusing something refer to the article date and time. Witch? From what i can recall we have had heated disagreements and you ladies do a fine job of provoking but to call her a witch is not my style. If i did i would like you to recall the exact time and date. Lets clear the air by showing me when? I do recall a while back someone calling you that and i defended you. Well God have mercy, you sure love to argue and still you ladies take no accountability for your part. Again im amazed by your holy behavior to pick fights.
God bless you, Abeca, but I take your calling me, and those with whom I associate, slime as a compliment. I have no desire to be welcomed by you and/or affirmed by you for your ‘criteria’ is no criteria at all. I pray for you, lost sheep that you are. For while you may be in the sheep fold, your understanding of what that means is highly questionable. You could be just as easily led off a cliff….which is precisely why lay faithful need to stop following ‘shepherds’ blindly and following and sticking up for the actual Faith. (That is why we should be grateful to CCD for exposing the rot – so that it can be combated out of love of God and His Church.)
I understand you take issue with that, but that is your issue.
January 14, 2015 at 10:15 pm article faith demands a layman to express this thoughts:
“This is exactly how I predicted it to be. The ladies and their SSPX supporters would all come and take the bait. They are the evil slime that also corrupts our church just like the gay activists. Judging them by their own words and their own disobedience. I posted strong facts about the SSPX and what the church teaches and then also posted a few, very few weak articles from other sources, they only reflected on the weak ones but still they deny the truth from the strong ones. Shame on them for their schismatic ways and heretical point of view. On another thread I posted the question ” does anyone know where the first same sex union was performed, what country” It was a trap to show the double standards and the twisting of words that Catherine seems to continue here, it worked, she posted as I suspected alone came her accomplice! Never fails. . Its not hard to see that these ladies have a lot in common with those who distort the truth about the natural law. They are both blinded and focus on what is fitting to their agendas. Glad that we can see how these ladies work. This thread and others are a perfect display of how hard they are trying to bear false witness and their double standard.”
I may have been a bit harsh but hey Jesus also used words of admonishment and I am only following the guidelines of the saints when referring to those who promote schism and heresy.
From holy bible:
Douay-Rheims Bible
“Give not that which is holy to dogs; neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest perhaps they trample them under their feet, and turning upon you, they tear you.” Matthew 7:6.
Our Lord was harsh. The Magesteium warns that we can not fulfill our Sunday obligation nor we can not go to confession to any SSPX because:
” In order to make this clear once again:
until the doctrinal questions are clarified,
the SOCIETY has NO CANONICAL STATUS in the CHURCH,
and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – DO NOT LEGITIMATELY EXERCISE ANY MINISTRY in the CHURCH. ” UNQUOTE – Pope Benedict XVI, March, 2009.
https://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica_en.html
They do not corrupt our church. They are not in the Church. They corrupt this website because they come here to confuse and deceive the Children of God.
Anonymous you are correct, you said it better than I have. I appreciate your correction.
Ann Malley thank you and God bless you too. I mean it. I hope and pray the best for you in whatever our Lord wills. I will continue to pray for you, offering the rosary as well. I have nothing against you, never have. Its like Anonymous has pointed out and amongst other things, its all about saving souls for me, nothing else, I have no agenda’s other than what our Lord commands. I know that you view me as something else with malice heart but I can’t control how you view things. There is no need for this war against each other, never had that intention but you ladies take it so far….what’s a person to do….but to continue to pray and apply holiness. We are human and its not always easy but its always a new day. God gives us that. Praise Be Jesus Christ!
…try being harsh on yourself, Abeca. That is what you are called to be, you know. With others, you are called to be kind. As for me, you engage as one wholly misguided, enamored of imaginary pearls that you seem intent on everyone acknowledging even though they are often covered in that which isn’t very pretty.
Your odd posts promote schism from reality and clear thinking which works to the detriment of God’s Church, Abeca. Nobody wants to join an organization that cannot behave rationally or answer for its own mistakes. So try accepting your own culpability in smearing Pope Francis, something you surely must accept because you compared him to one you consider an excommunicated schismatic heretic.
…and, sorry, but you are no Jesus. So giving yourself a pass for behaving as you do is completely unjustified and just plain odd.
Be well.
Ok i take it back. Its not being harsh. You deserve it. You ladies are not holy. God have mercy. Go to your new troubled paradise as Ann Malley likes to call it. Stop bickering and stop harassing the faithful here.
So Ann are you calling Jesus Church “an organization”? You sound protestant if you are.
Abeca Christian, you are in a fight with people who do not obey Christian doctrine or morality.
They are always going to be meaner than you.
It may look like they win but in God’s eyes they have lost, even before they have posted their sinful thoughts.
Yes, pray for them. Pray to Servant of God Fulton J Sheen, especially for the one who thinks Catholics “join an organization.”
Pray to St. Joseph, patron of the Universal Church, St. John Bosco and the Blessed Mother under her title Our Lady, Help of Christians.
Pray also to St. Longinus who pierced the Heart of Jesus for his intercession for their conversion.
I will pray, too.
The Lord has admonished me and i will share the admonishment:
Dishonoring a person, usually to their face, and often in the hearing of others. It is done openly, audibly and is usually rooted in anger and personal disrespect. It may include name-calling, caricature, profanity and even cursing (which will also be treated later). For the most part, we do not consider reviling to be a form of gossip per se, (since gossip is usually conducted apart from the offended person and reviling to their face). But reviling is a sin of speech that ought to be mentioned here, since it is annexed to the general dishonor and harming of the reputation of others that is at the heart of gossip. Reviling as such is intended to cause personal embarrassment or dishonor.
Abeca is in over her depth by choice, engaging in baiting and then crying foul because she will not take ownership of the confused fires she lights. Like a child in a forest with a book of matches who wants to be considered adult enough to have the matches, but then looks to everyone else as to why the forest is aflame.
I pray God to bless you more, Abeca, and that you take the time to receive said blessings and use them accordingly to build up by way of humility and true witness. Your efforts here are, as usual, nothing but advertisement to that which you ‘say’ you despise.
So in answer to your question, dear lady, no Jesus is not an organization, but that is precisely how you represent Him by your odd, inconsistent flip-floppy representation. Take ownership, dear lady. And if you prefer not to be harassed as you call it, stop calling attention to yourself by way of continued absurdity.
Hope you had a great weekend. I did :)
1Peter 2:1
…even the Devil can quote scripture, mous. Look to it.
Of course the devil can quote Scripture. He does it to mislead. How does that apply to 1Peter 2:1
So put away all malice and all guile and insincerity and envy and all slander.
It would seem that whoever told you that would be giving you good advice in keeping with the will of God, development of virtue and the path to holiness.
It seems that you just say things that you think are smart and mean and you don’t even think them through.
Even the devil refused to be in full communion, he had his chance, So what”s your point? …..so leave anonymous alone. If holy scripture does not move your heart, then are you doing his work? He may quote it because it does not move him….does it move you Ann Malley. Only time will tell.
It applies, Anonymous, when dear ‘ladies’ use the smear of malice to cover their own true malice which is covered with saccharine niceties. As if nobody can detect evil as long as there is a thick enough coating of sweeties on top. Or that malice is kept at bay only when she is handled with kid gloves.
As for ‘moving one’s heart’ common sense and reason doesn’t move the minds of others. So if you want to spread the value of full communion – that is true unity, not just the emptiness promoted by your disjointed sense of what unity means on paper – then be consistent dear lady. And be honest regarding your own depth perception issues, especially as concerns.
You still will not answer to your own smearing of Pope Francis as one who causes confusion etc.
Ann Malley no confusion. And when did you decide to be obedient to Pope Francis? You use him often but still no conversion from you to be in full communion. Is that hypocrisy in the highlight? Just wondering?
Charity is not to be abused just because you can’t take admonishment, even holy admonishment is charity. Well if we keep this up, this may go in circles to no end with you ladies..
You preach yet you call another or insinuate them the devil for quoting scripture. So what do you expect, hugs and kisses for your unkind replies. Would it have hurt you to say “thank you for the scripture quote” and then read it and reflected. That is an act of humility.
Sounds like the Abp and his staffer Scott do not know how serious abortion is and that the baby feels sensations and pain after 9 weeks and 3 days.
Some time ago someone posted that if all Bishops saw their brother Bishops being poisoned or burned with chemicals,
or dismembered while alive
that they would be more urgent in their response to abortion.
By 8 weeks and 2 days: ” Touching the embryo elicits squinting, jaw movement, grasping motions, and toe pointing. ”
https://www.ehd.org/movies.php?mov_id=47
Sounds like many of the high ranking clergy need some serious educating.
“Sounds like many of the high ranking clergy need some serious educating.” That and a spine transplant.
“Thou Shall NOT Kill” – GOD (Ex and Deut)
CCC: ” 2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense.
The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life.
“A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,” “by the very commission of the offense,” and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.
The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy.
Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society. ”
and
CCC: # 2271, 2322.
On it’s website, one of the ways OneLife LA suggested getting involved is buying a meal for someone. Of course if they’ve just been aborted that’s tough to do.
Positive pro-life work is important but so is keeping our noses to the political grindstone. 2014 was a very successful pro-life year. Nationwide many abortuaries were closed and many states passed laws restricting the evil practice of abrotion.
Touching hearts is fine, but we must remember this is a war and we need to continue the fight on ALL fronts. No retreat, no surrender, no compromise, and no wimps!
Abortion is the murder of an INNOCENT human being for the convenience of another.
Yet the Bishops violate part of Church teaching regarding the “Death Penalty”.
The Church ALLOWS the DEATH PENALTY with restrictions. CCC: 2267.
Those convicted of very serious crimes can be unjust aggressors to prison employees and other prisoners, and kill or seriously harm others.
Prisons can be extremely dangerous places.
“WORTHINESS to RECIEVE HOLY COMMUNION, General Principles –
Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict) Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.”
https://www.priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/04-07ratzingerommunion.htm
QUOTE: ” 3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia.
For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war,
he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion.
While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment.
There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia. ” UNQUOTE.
There are approximately 1 MILLION abortions in the USA each year.
This is the USA number already for 2015.
https://www.numberofabortions.com/
WHAT is WRONG with this PICTURE ? ? ? ? ?
Total number of ABORTIONS (MURDER of the innocent) in the entire USA in 2014
was approx.: 1,107,039.
Total number of State EXECUTIONS (of dangerous criminals) in the entire USA in 2014
was: 35.
Yet we hear more about the death penalty from the Bishops and their Staff’s than abortion.
And the Bishops refuse to do EVERYTHING they can (especially with ‘Catholic’ politicians) to stop abortions.
Since abortion is by approved important politicians, such as our Jesuit-educated “Catholic” Governor Brown and vocal “Catholic” U.S. Representative Nancy Pelosi, it must be acceptable. These people and others of their ilk cause scandal and may lead other people to believe that abortion is a good way to eliminate an unwanted pregnancy. If the bishops and priests in their sermons never mention that abortion is a sin, many people may not be aware that it is a mortal sin.
Sarah you are right.
When Bishops and Priests do not teach which is their first task (CCC 888) in their vocation, they are responsible for the sins of others.
When Bishops do not correct and set a moral example regarding public scandal by Catholic politicians, the Bishops remotely participate in the sin and add to the mortal sin of scandal. (CCC: 2286, 2285).
They need to confess these sins with the purpose of amendment to never commit them again.
Sins of others –
CCC: ” 1868 Sin is a personal act. Moreover, we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them:
– by participating directly and voluntarily in them;
– by ordering, advising, praising, or approving them;
– by not disclosing or not hindering them when we have an obligation to do so;
– by protecting evil-doers. ”
There are zero excuses for any Bishop (or Priest) not to publically correct any CATHOLIC POLITICIAN or
POLITICAL PARTY
who supports any of the Intrinsic evils of: ABORTION, CONTRACEPTION, EUTHANASIA, HUMAN CLONING, HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE, or EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH.
It is the Culture of Death that the California and National Democratic Party sustains. We Carholics are against it, although the Bishop of Rome does not want to emphasize it too much. But we disagree with His Holiness’ Ideology and want to go with Saint Paul II on this one.
Abortion and sodomy are the two sacraments of Satanism. Each destroys life and condemns souls to hell. Supporters of abortion and sodomy are nothing more than angels from hell.
I go with Juergensen on this one.
Gentlemen i agree with you both. The saints spoke very vividly about us. Warning souls of the dangers of those acts against the natural law.
The saints spoke very vividly about it. You are only conveying what the church continues to teach in regards to those serious sins against the Natural law. God bless you.
Catherine types” Remember the Website Abeca Christian meet Your Fellow Catholic “The saints spoke very vividly about *us*.” = I go with Juergensen and then I go with a relaxed 2:13 am Freudian slip and a 10:01 am “Thou doth correct too much.” The us was a typo, the saints spoke very vividly about it. IT thank you for asking for clarity on my typo. Its it. Not us ….
gosh these ladies have complicated minds. Where do they come up with so much malice and assumptions killing off juergensens comments when I agree with Juer. .
YFC can you just apologize for that website you created? Let these ladies be done with that. I know what YFC did, I know….I have not forgotten. I have offered it up, his offenses and slander against my good name, just like I do with you ladies and the rest is between God and I. Not for you ladies to know how I decide to deal with the sufferings that I endure here on earth. I have been through worst! My house was vandalized, I have been shunned due to my Catholic faith and morals etc etc…
Sin complicates things remember Catherine. Remember that, sin is ugly and evil and it tears people away from God. I hate sin, and because I hate sin, I pray for the conversion of all sinners. I won’t let sin tell me that I should hate my enemies because of their hatred towards my faith and morals. We win battles with love. Jesus love, truth and holy admonishment. His most holy and Apostolic Catholic church contains all the wholeness of the truth, sinners who persevere in the faith, also know that Christ’s church is meek and humble, its Christ’s body and heart, its available for all sinners, who wish to do so, to reconcile through holy confession, to walk the walk, talk the talk and to carry their cross. This life is temporary. Live it wisely!
Remember the Website Abeca Christian meet Your Fellow Catholic
“The saints spoke very vividly about *us*.” = I go with Juergensen and then I go with a relaxed 2:13 am Freudian slip and a 10:01 am “Thou doth correct too much.”
Taken from Wikipedia
Freudian slip also called parapraxis, is an error in speech, memory, or physical action that is interpreted as occurring due to the interference of an unconscious (“dynamically repressed”) subdued wish, conflict, or train of thought guided by the ego and the rules of correct behaviour. They reveal a “source outside the speech”. The concept is thus part of classical psychoanalysis.
Slips of the tongue and of the pen are the classical parapraxes.
“…Slips of the tongue and of the pen are the classical parapraxes.”
This is often very true, Catherine, which is why, in my view, many here who tout their desire to fight schism are, in reality, fighting the schism in their own mind/heart. And is easier therefore to blame an outside source for ‘sowing’ discontent when, in reality, the discontent is right there in the person’s own heart and soul – hence the Freudian slips.
That also explains why one who takes to labeling others refuses to take ownership of having smeared Pope Francis. To admit as much is to admit the disconnect that lies deep within one’s own heart/mind. And that is something certain individuals seem incapable of doing for it negates the false front they have created about themselves *for* themselves.
God bless you for posting!
Now girls, here’s a filmstrip for you to watch an pray about after school: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m35gQzsHi0U
“This is often very true, Catherine, which is why, in my view, many here who tout their desire to fight schism are, in reality, fighting the schism in their own mind/heart.”
Thank you Ann Malley!
Ann, Anyone who *honestly sees or honestly cared* about the devastation in the vineyard would be joyful and thrilled about a reuniting with *anyone* who loves the true faith. This includes the SSPX who are not in “full communion” but who have in many aspects preserved the teachings and the Traditions of our faith much better than false shepherds who pretend to be in “full communion” when it publicly suits them while privately undermining those very teachings and Traditions that the gospel said to “hold fast” too. Ann Malley, I do not think that when the next meeting takes place with the SSPX that the Vatican will call the SSPX “slime.” to their face. That would not be very “pastoral.”
I have never attended a SSPX Mass or an Independent chapel but I am also called “slime”. Something is wrong with this picture as can be witnessed in the courageous letter that Paul O”Malley wrote vs. the extremely lame responses that he received. I believe that there is a DREADED FEAR of reuniting with the SSPX, regarding many things, and especially in the case of gainfully employing Vice Chancellors of Communications or “professional Catholics” as Pope Benedict XVI referred to them.
There are many fearful of a reunion with the SSPX, but there are others out there who are just useful because they have no understanding. The focus on ‘manners’ is paramount because the focus is on themselves and not the Faith they say they love. ‘They’ are so convinced that manners and not true charity cover a multitude of sins that they strive for little more than a facade of sweetness.
Common enough problem. I find the following rather telling:
https://www.churchmilitant.tv/scripts/vort-2015-01-14.pdf
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2ugh_DuYMM
As for praying after school, YFC, to whom do you pray after spreading your homosexual sexual agenda on a Catholic website under the false guise of charity? As long as you’re on the playground, you may as well stop sitting on the sidelines and play for real.
Ann Malley no fearful of a reunion with the SSPX. Many just need to be warned not to associate with them not until they re-unite fully with Christ’s church. We have Marionrites, we have Ukrain Rite, we have other rites that are in full communion and still kept their mass holy. Its the SSPX pride and even some of the heretical standings that maintain them in schism with Christ’s church. Like I said before and still say it again:
The SSPX situation has created much complications and it concerns me because of the many souls that will be mislead by the SSPX’s schism and heretical consequences. The more people make excuses to break away, the more heretical their teachings become. What is most harmful is that they appear to be Catholic and held the traditional element but once they broke away, the beautify of that traditional part, is no longer the church because of its actions against church and what they have done to their sacraments as not being legal, that its hurting souls instead!
Name the heresy, Abeca. You cannot because there is none only the manufactured nonsense that you dredge from sites like Eye of the Tiber. You do not understand the issue plain and simple. And that is okay. So be charitable and stop beating up the faithful while embracing those who would destroy the Faith. That’s not forgiving and forgetting, that’s foolishness.
Abeca: Wrong! In your post of Jan.20th at 2:44 P.M. you accuse the Pius x of everything that the Novus Ordo has done. Insert the Novus Ordo into wherever SSPX was written by you in your post and that is what has truly happened. The Pius X has remained with tradition and it was the Novus Ordo(post Vatican II) that totally changed the sacraments and the Mass of all ages that countless saints had given their lives for. The liberal bishops, priests, freemasons, and Protestants took over Vatican II and totally changed the Church and made up the New Mass which has been a fail since it has been said. If you do not see the problems of the Novus Ordo Church, then I can’t help that. As for me and mine, we will hold steadfast in the traditions of the Church and attend exclusively the Traditional Latin Mass with the original and unchanged sacraments until Christ comes again to fix the mess that man has made in His Church. It will go back to the Mass of all times because Mother Mary has said that Her Immaculate Heart will triumph. I think I can speak for the Pius X and anyone who holds on to the Traditions of the Church in this time of trial of the Church. They can correct me if I am wrong in what they believe.
Ann Malley, the heresies include a dismissal of a solemn ecumenical council, false teachings about the Mass, and ordination of Bishops without the consent of the Pope. And we didn’t read that in the Eye of the Tiger, although you want to belittle your opponents by constantly reminding us that we once – one time – mistook a parody site for a real news site. But continuing to humiliate your opponents will not remove the fact that SSPX remains in heresy and exercises no legitimate ministry within the Church.
“the SSPX who are not in “full communion” but who have in many aspects preserved the teachings and the Traditions of our faith.”
I would say tradition, not Tradition and I would say they have preserved most of the teachings of the Church but not all of them.
1. With due regard for can. 194, part 1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a heretic or a schismatic incurs automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication and if a cleric, he can also be punished by the penalties mentioned in can. 1336, part 1, nn. 1, 2, and 3.
2. If long lasting contumacy or the seriousness of scandal warrants it, other penalties can be added including dismissal from the clerical state.
Canon 1369 A person who uses a public show or speech, published writings, or other media of social communication to blaspheme, seriously damage good morals, express wrongs against religion or against the Church or stir up hatred or contempt against religion or the Church is to be punished with a just penalty.
Canon 1373 One who publicly either stirs up hostilities or hatred among subjects against the Apostolic See or against an ordinary on account of some act of ecclesiastical power or ministry or incites subjects to disobey them is to be punished by an interdict of by other just penalties.
Canon 1384 Outside the cases mentioned in cann. 1378-1383, one who illegitimately carries out a priestly function or another sacred ministry can be punished with a just penalty.
YFC, continuing to expound on your misunderstanding of what constitutes heresy only underscores you being one intent on destroying the Church from within. The same could be said for your intimation that there is any intention of dismissing a ‘solemn’ council as you term it. Quite the contrary, such a council needs to be reviewed in its entirety, combed through very carefully for the imprecision of language that is, every day, causing confusion among the Faithful, that is those who actually hold to the fullness of Faith – something which you do not.
For where language is imprecise, a true dismissal as to what the Church actually teaches will occur and that is exactly why there is such disparity in what many ‘feel’ the Church actually means in her teachings. Look to the fruits, YFC. And follow +Kasper if you’d like, but it won’t be toward the fullness of Faith and the defending of Holy Mother Church.
Eye of the Tiger? Sorry, that’s a song.
The anonymous hider writes,
“Canon 1369 A person who uses a public show or speech, published writings, or other media of social communication to blaspheme, seriously damage good morals, express wrongs against religion or against the Church or stir up hatred or contempt against religion or the Church is to be punished with a just penalty.” = Anonymous is worried. He is also really giving himself away. Our hider is now pulling out the ol’ dusty for the disobedient but rather trusty “let’s use the ol’ Canon Law threats on those darn Traditional Catholics who just don’t seem to drink or swallow the new kool aid flavors of Catholic-lite teachings that will readily accommodate each and every comfort zone imaginable.” Especially when even telling high school students that Jesus could have been gay. Just work at the soup kitchen on each Thursday and ignore the rest. Let us journey off of the cliff together in ear tickling harmony.
There were no publicly written Canon Law threats for Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Governor Cuomo, and so on and so on and so on and so on.
God bless California Catholic Daily! Anonymous has been trying to silence everyone for quite some time.
Ann Malley many of us have asked, repeatedly, what in Vatican II do you find confusing, so that you might seek counsel to understand it. But you constantly refuse, which basically telegraphs that you want it to be confusing so that you don’t have to obey it. So let me ask again, what EXACTLY in VII do you find confusing?
YFC, unlike you, I am not confused, but rather find current climates in the Church ‘confusing’. You can visit the following for clarity:
https://sspx.org/en/faq-page/what-should-catholics-think-vatican-ii-1988
If you choose not to visit, then please, cease and desist pretending that you desire understanding. So seek council to understand, YFC, that is understand the decided ‘change’ that has occurred, the selfsame change that you even now seek to implement inside Mother Church under the guise of charity.
Anonymous, if you are truly concerned about perceived defamation (as per the canons you posted) then you should not ask questions of anyone regarding what is posted here on CCD. I do not invent the stories posted here, nor do I encourage anything save the promotion of the fullness of the Faith.
It is you and your entourage who, through fear it seems, and others out of a sense of self preening and mussed feathers, seek to pillory the observer, instigating the very discussions you seem to find worthy of condemnation.
Look to it then with regard to your own behavior, Anonymous. For your pulling the card that you have not only shows you have no other defense for your ferret like obsession, but that you do not know the Faith to which you purport to cleave.
God bless you and all your followers none-the-less.
YFC: What exactly do you find confusing about the fact that ACTIVE homosexuality is MORTALLY SINFUL? Why don’t you obey Church teaching? Why does this Church teaching confuse you so much? Why do you promote and support ACTIVE homosexuality on a Catholic site and have the gall to question someone else about Church teaching? Really?
Catherine, how silly.
It is not a threat.
But it is something for people to ponder and examine their conscience.
You seem to have fallen for the error that if your neighbor sins, it’s OK for you to sin.
Catherine, JESUS WAS NOT GAY.
How absurd.
Why would you even write such a thing?
Now, I am not trying to silence you but I do think you should not say THAT.
Ann Malley, you know how to insult. Maybe you could learn how to love.
Why do this thing?
This is so offensive to God.
Anyone who is offended by a Scripture verse, a quote from a Catechism or Church document does not have their heart in the right place.
It seems as if anger and vainglory have overtaken the hearts of some of our commentators.
Please pray to the Holy Spirit before posting and really search your hearts as to whether your post is intended to give glory to God or just to needle someone who said something you don’t agree with.
You are risking your eternity and your friendship with God by getting into this bad habit.
“Now, I am not trying to silence you but I do think you should not say THAT. = A Catholic high school teacher should NEVER TEACH THAT, but it already happened.
And yes, when this took place, the school, the principal and the bishop was notified. The teacher never got into trouble but the students were told that and the evil deed was done. There is absolutely no fear of being disciplined for a good reason. We still have in many cases, the same team in charge. How ABSURD you ask? Why do you think parents homeschool? Where in the world have YOU been? Oh, that’s right, you’ve been too busy worrying and fomenting you’re false fears about the DREADED SSPX, all while this is taking place in our own “full communion” backyard. Please pull your featherhead and beak out of the sand and stand up for the faith instead of attacking our brothers and sisters in Christ who will hopefully one day prayerfully sit in a pew right next to you, for they will also be forgiving of your lack of charity. Meanwhile, your “style” of charity begins at home and like many other dioceses, the diocese of Orange, California still needs a tremendous housecleaning. Sweeping it under the rug is tantamount to still ignoring and still hiding the root cause of the sex abuse scandals.
“It is better that scandals arise than the truth be suppressed.” — St. Gregory the Great
“We’ve had enough of exhortations to be silent! Cry out with a hundred thousand tongues. I see that the world is rotten because of silence.” – St. Catherine of Siena
Ann Malley, I thought the canon laws were applicable and worthy of posting.
I did not have you in mind when I posted them.
I would add to my critique that while it is correct to say that the SSPX is not in full communion with the Church, it is more correct to say they are not in communion with the Church.
I think there is a lot of confusion in some posters concerning the difference between the Catholic Faith and the Catholic Church. The SSPX call themselves Roman Catholic and believe much of the Traditional Catholic Faith. But they are not a part of the Catholic Church. There are other groups and individuals who have also chosen to be independent of the Catholic Church while retaining most of the elements of the Catholic Faith. This is schism and it incurs an automatic excommunication.
There is also confusion concerning why the SSPX is not in communion. They have refused to be. It is as simple as that.
An error has been introduced here that it is OK to go to one of these independent people or groups for Mass if one is upset about something someone in the Catholic Church did or said. Of course it isn’t. Catherine is an example of someone who has not followed that temptation. She should not excuse or defend others who do.
No, Anonymous, there is no schism. Even Rome treats the Society as a ‘Catholic’ institution. And the faithful can fulfill their Sunday obligation at a Society chapel. So your assertions of ‘simple as that’ is erroneous just as your continued misunderstanding of believing that folks attend SSPX chapels because “they are upset about what someone in the Catholic Church did or said.”
But God bless you just the same.
Ann Malley, I am not confused. You are the one who said that Vatican II has — your words — “a council needs to be reviewed in its entirety, combed through very carefully for the imprecision of language that is, every day, causing confusion among the Faithful, that is those who actually hold to the fullness of Faith”. I asked you over and over again, what language do YOU find imprecise that is causing confusion? You reject the question asked of you, and turn it around to say that I am confused. I’m not confused. So let me ask again – you find the language of Vatican II imprecise and causing confusing. WHAT SPECIFIC language, what teaching, what doctrine, do you find confusing?? Let’s discuss it so that you might find clarity. What language is imprecise? What is confusing? You make the accusation, so back it up!
Anonymous Ann Malley is lying about the SSPX and is misleading the faithful on their illicit illegal sacraments. She is promoting moral relativism and excusing schism.
Anonymous, God bless you for your efforts. But again, I will refer you to what I find curious. You may not want to visit the website, but if you do you will understand the issues I have. And as I have proposed to you in the past, think of visiting the proposed website as an ecumenical adventure.
God bless
https://sspx.org/en/faq-page/what-should-catholics-think-vatican-ii-1988
Ann Malley, I am sorry but that is simply not correct.
And you know it.
“It is morally illicit (unlawful) for the Faithful to participate in Masses of the Society of St. Pius X unless they are legitimately impeded from participating in a Mass celebrated by a Catholic priest in good standing in the Church (cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 844.2),” Bishop Foys wrote. “Participation in such Masses and in the administration of the sacraments at the chapels of the Society of St. Pius X can, over a period of time, lead to a schismatic habit of thought and heart as one slowly imbibes a mentality which separates itself from the Magisterium of the Holy Roman Catholic Church.”
Ann Malley, so which is it? Is it Vatican II’s “imprecise language” that you find confusing, or is it “the current climate” that you find confusing? Please make up your mind. YFC asked you what language in VII you find confusing, and you refuse to answer him, and change it around to say that he is confused about things, but then you change it AGAIN and say it is the “current climate” that you find confusing. If you had previously meant to say that the “current climate” is confusing, leading you to doubt VII, or the Bishops in communion with Rome, then we have to ask, 1) what in the current climate is confusing? 2) since when does “climate” define doctrine? and 3) since when does disagreement with “climate” give you justification for leaving communion with Rome? I have to say the only things that are confusing are your statements about what is confusing. flipflopflipflop
A Catholic High S chool Teacher should not teach that and should be corrected and the principal should be notified. You say the bishop was also notified. That is all well and good.
You say the teacher did not “get in trouble.” The teacher should be corrected of this false belief. The young people at the high school probably knew it was bunk when they heard it, but they should be affirmed in the fact that Jesus was not gay. This is a good teaching opportunity that Jesus did not lust or have greed or inordinate anger or sloth or any of the sins which plague man. I am sorry if that was not done. It is interesting though that you are disappointed that the teacher did not “get in trouble.” Do you have a need to punish people? Are you a vengeful person?
It is interesting that you are so outraged at this error (which is outrageous) and so patronizing of the errors of the SSPX. Do you realize that some of these men will die before they come back to the Church? What will be their fate? Do you realize that they are training young people in their errors? Hell is just as hot for schismatics as it is for everybody else.
…the Society is not in schism, Anonymous, as you erroneously assert.
Why does one person making a mistake or even a bunch of people making mistakes have to lead other people to make mistakes?
Why would you let something you know is a mistake harm or mislead you?
What happened was wrong. You do not have to react in an impulsive or impatient way that deprives you of God’s grace. Why react to that mistake with self-harm or endorsing others to self-harm?
If that person was not innocent and intended to mislead others, why would you react by misleading yourself or others out of the only Church that Jesus Himself established?
Of course there will be things whether by human fault or demonic that are going to tempt you to remove yourself from the Source of Grace. That is how this sinful world works. Pray to your Guardian Angel.
So what are they if not in schism? Protestant?
…Catholic, Anonymous, Catholic.
And while Abeca purports others to be ‘lying’ she needs to look to the lies she spreads. For even Anonymous states:
“It is morally illicit (unlawful) for the Faithful to participate in Masses of the Society of St. Pius X unless they are legitimately impeded from participating in a Mass celebrated by a Catholic priest in good standing in the Church (cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 844.2),” Bishop Foys wrote. “Participation in such Masses and in the administration of the sacraments at the chapels of the Society of St. Pius X can, over a period of time, lead to a schismatic habit of thought and heart as one slowly imbibes a mentality which separates itself from the Magisterium of the Holy Roman Catholic Church.”
Precision of language would indicate that, yes, one’s mass obligation ‘can’ be fulfilled at a Society Chapel and while one ‘may’ develop something, that does not translate to they WILL or they DO. Fear mongering is not charity.
Read for understanding, people. And thank you for the advice to pray to my Guardian Angel. I do. That is why I am where I am. That and the Rosary. Not just for 100 days.
Anonymous writes: ” It is interesting though that you are disappointed that the teacher did not “get in trouble.” Do you have a need to punish people? ”
Faithful Catholics ARE more than disappointed to watch their shepherds ignore Canon 915 for baby killers while whipping those reminders right out for Catholics who uphold “all” of the Sacred Traditions of the Catholic Church. You used the word punish. The ones who have a need to punish people are those in authority who actually lean in agreement with the teacher about those “qualities and gifts.” The high school teacher should have signed an oath of agreement to teach what the Church teaches and when he didn’t live up to that oath he should be terminated period. Let your no mean no. Even without the oath If he does not know what the Church teaches then he should not be the religion teacher in a Catholic school. Nowadays if you express or teach exactly what the Catholic Church teaches in many cases you will be silenced or terminated or as you call it “punished.” One of the dangerous aspects of the objective disorder of homosexuality in the priesthood seems to include a very recognizable overreaction and “coddling” of the intrinsic disorder before staunchly defending the truth in charity with no ambiguous sounding monkey business in between.
continued………..
I looked on the SSPX website and they say that they are part of the Catholic Church. So that is probably where your confusion is coming in .
They are not part of the Catholic Church.
If they were part of the Catholic Church they would not be working independently of the Catholic Church. There would be no need for talks with the Vatican to bring them into communion with the Catholic Church. In the Catholic Church, a priestly society cannot enter a diocese without the bishop’s permission. They cannot hear confessions without faculties from the bishop.
So, in other words, they are just plain lying. Not the first time.
That is why they left the Diocese of Lincoln. Bishop Bruskewitz gave those attending their Masses a month or so to stop or they would be excommunicated. The reason was that the SSPX was presenting itself as part of the Catholic Church when it is not.
continued from January 24, 2015 at 3:47 pm
This is why Pope Benedict XVI said that homosexuality is incompatible with the priesthood. Anonymous you and you’re cohorts have been coddling homosexual activists on this website long before Ann Malley ever posted. You consistently coddled those gifts and qualities before defending the “Source of Grace.” Please start staunchly defending the “Source of Grace” before coddling and defending the reported “source of the trouble” in the John Jay Study. In reality we know that the real source of the trouble is the father of lies. This is why Bishop Athanasius Schneider and a growing number of clergy (which included Pope Benedict XVI) admitted that we need clarification in many areas that have been absolutely hijacked by the “coddlers of those gifts,” The devil is an equal opportunity destroyers and he will use whatever means to attack “The Source of Grace.” Stop helping him “anony.”
According to this, they never were part of the Catholic Church.
https://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2013/08/01/are-sspx-sacraments-valid-part-i/
Here is another article that shows how they distort the things from the Vatican.
This article shows how the Vatican declared that they are excommunicated and in schism, even before the consecrations of the bishops.
https://www.culturewars.com/CultureWars/Archives/Fidelity_archives/SSPX9.htm
Also from the Vatican:
“The canonical excommunication for the illicit ordinations has been lifted from the bishops, but the sacramental de facto excommunication for schism remains; they have departed from communion with the Church.”
If the SSPX was Catholic they wouldn’t have their own bishops. The Catholic Church does not work that way.
Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.
This should be obeyed.
[T]he Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question, cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practise homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called “gay culture”.
This should be obeyed.
The catechist—in his formation—enters into communion with that aspiration of the Church which, like a spouse, “keeps pure and intact the faith of the Spouse”
This should be obeyed.
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
This should be obeyed.
Ann Malley, what would have to happen in the Catholic Church or in your local parish for you to consider returning to the Church?
Catherine, one should NEVER tolerate mortal sin.
I see that we are all avoiding (or perhaps we are blind to it) the “elephant in the room”… What is it? It is the “prince of the power of the air”, yes the devil. Why are we Catholics so afraid of talking about this person (he is a person)? Aquinas says that if you are a Catholic you must accept the whole of Catholic teaching, otherwise your not, you’re either in or you’re out. The Church teaches that there is a personified evil which is called the Devil or Satan, do you accept this teaching? This is not a myth or a play on words, as so many priests and bishops would want us to believe. So at the heart of this “unwillingness” to reveal abortion for what it is, we must ask the question… who stands to gain the most by deception regarding this issue? St. John tells us that “the whole world is in the power of the Evil One”. When we begin to wrap our minds around this we can start to see what (who) motivates the powers that be, including those in power positions in our own Church. What a foothold he has(Satan). it’s up to the laity to recognize him and apply Jesus’ victory over him to this issue of abortion…but because of the nature of this issue, being a Corporate Stronghold” we must battle it as such.
Peace.
Gene very good comments. I recall St Padre Pio story about someone not believing in hell and St. Padre Pio responded with “you will when you get there”
When 40 Days had their prayer campaign in front of a Tucson Planned Parenthood facility where my wife and I had been going on a regular basis to pray and protest, they would not let me display my graphic abortion sign which I had been using.
When the purpose of the conjugal act, the procreation and education of children, as so beautifully articulated in Humnae Vitae, has been totally rejected, why would the foregoing mish mash, the babel of the understanding as to what abortion is, not be taking place? May God have mercy on us who have failed to explain this truth as ordained by the Creator, defined by Natural Law. Mea culpa and the Catholic Church leaders in CA.
Perhaps Mr. O’Malley should read St. John Paul II wrote about the death penalty: he strongly CONDEMMED the use of it in no uncertain terms. He also was unequivocally PRO-LIFE!
Church doctrine permits capital punishment, regardless of the personal preferences of a pope. Again, the key point is the innocence of the victim. Capital punishment in this country is invariably imposed upon murderers, who have killed the innocent. Accordingly, a position which opposes the death penalty is not pro-life, because that position only protects guilty life, and most certainly does nothing to regard the innocent life of the victim. Opposition to capital punishment gives murderers a pass, just like the pro-choice position gives abortionists (who are murderers) a pass. (Pro-choicers naturally oppose the death penalty because they want to absolve murder in all its forms.) The consistent pro-life position is to advocate for the death penalty for all murderers, abortionists included.
Pro-choicers are very consistent by opposed to capital punishment and also in favor of abortion. As capital punishment is only imposed upon murderers, and abortionists are also murderers, opposition to the death penalty is a very convenient and useful position for prochoicers – they absolve murderers in either case. A pristine revolutionary position – to support no one except the murderers!
Sorry Bob – here is the real teaching of the Church in the Catechism of the Catholic Church that was signed into the Apostolic Constitution of the Catholic Church by Pope John Paul II on Aug 15,1997, as the deposit of Faith.
https://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm
CCC: ” 2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty,
if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm – without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself – the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically non-existent. ”
Our post-Vatican II Church is shamefully IMMATURE!!
Luke 9:50
Sarah,
Remember there is culpable and inculpable ignorance!
God bless, yours in Their Hearts!
May God have mercy on an amoral Amerika and His Church!
Viva Cristo Rey!
Kenneth M. Fisher, Founding Director
Concerned Roman Catholics of America, Inc.
Linda: the pre- Vatican II Church was no different with regards to immaturity and unfaithfulness. I state so based on my own personal experiences.
“Bob”: Easy to throw stones at the Church as it existed for centuries, isn’t it, “Bob”? Too bad that your unspecified “experiences” do not mean anything, certainly not a conclusion as sweeping as you make (“… no different with regards to immaturity and unfaithfulness.”)
In fact, the record of the virtual destruction of most of the institutional Catholic Church give a much different story. Soon the Catholic Church will be a mere shadow of its former glory. And why is that? Many commenters focus on (1) tolerance of sexual immorality; (2) the infusion of homosexual clergy and ideas; (3) loss of Faith in the sacraments and other Church doctrine (which can be shown in study after study where the majority of Catholics do not know of, or reject, the “Real Presence” and other teachings and beliefs); and (4) rejection of the notions of sin, the need for repentance, and the centrality of the Catholic Church is for the salvation of Mankind.
Curious how you arrive at “unfaithfulness” particularly when the Catholic Church, up to Vatican II times, was a solid, muscular institution of vibrant churches, seminaries, religious orders, schools, charities, everything. No real call for lesbian or homosexual priests, either, or in winking at abortion. To be sure, individual priests may have been sinful, but, essentially, the Church was the closest thing to God on Earth (until Vatican II). Too bad you had a poor experience, or two.
Vatican II happened because it was voted on by Cardinals who by definition were in positions of authority PRIOR to Vatican II. Corruption and unfaithfulness did not suddenly materialize at or after Vat II. Rather the council just took the corruption and unfaithfulness to the mainstream and brought down a whole lot of people in the process. All of the crazy theologians like de Chardin, to name only one, had been laying the groundwork for decades. Just like any revolution, Vat II was an uprising and the establishment failed to stop it.
Sad to say, M.Ronson, but you are so right: you have encapsulized what other older generation Catholics and priests have said: the corruption and unfaithfulness was already within the CC at the time of V2.
Bishops. All the Bishops of the Universal Church attended and voted on the documents of Vatican II. ALL the Bishops. Most had a handful of no votes, but VII was not some rogue group of prelates. It was the entire universal Church, which is why it has binding authority on the whole Church.
“We are cherishing a shallow religion, a hollow religion, which will not profit us in the day of trouble. The age loves an exclusively cheerful religion. It is determined to make religion bright and sunny and joyous, whatever the form of it which it adopts. And it will handle the Catholic doctrine in the same spirit…we take what is beautiful and attractive, shrink from what is stern and painful.” Saint John Cardinal Henry Newman
Pretty much hits the nail on the head.
Abortion exerts a kind of gravity like a massive black hole or giant star and no human on this planet is immune from it. When our leaders approach the subject carefully, could they be taking care not to snuff a smoldering wick or a bruised reed? So many people we are talking to now have been victimized by this unprecedented violence. Forty percent of adult women have had abortions. Everyone has lost someone. Many have lost many members of their family. This is an incredibly deep loss and most are in complete denial about it. The pain of this loss is commensurate with its gravity. My prayer is that no one will lose his soul on account of it.
The Roe v Wade decision didn’t come out of nothing. It arose in a particular context at a particular time in history. Abortion restrictions were already being loosened in states around the country. It seems fitting that abortion, being the violent and lawless act that it is, would be imposed in this sweeping way by the Supreme Court.
I believe that the lawlessness of the 20th century contributed to a mindset of despair and a grasping for power and dominance which gave rise to many destructive ideas not least is that expressed by many mothers committing abortion: that an unwanted child is better off dead.
Things keep getting curiouser and curiouser in the modern Catholic Church. Now the pro-life message is getting diluted with a lot of trivia. I’ve stood on busy street corners along with others holding signs that say; “Abortion Kills Children!” I’ve had food, beverages and so forth thrown at me. I’ve been cursed, threatened and so on and just stood there with my sign. Now, the Modernists are making another attempt to create mush out the pro-life cause. What sins will they try to water down next?
Unfortunately, on Dec 6, 1983 at FORDHAM UNIVERSITY, US Cardinal Joseph Bernardin wrote his Seamless Garment theory – where life and death is equal to social issues of (ILLEGAL) undocumented workers, employment, taxation, etc.
This gave Catholics the ability to mix issues and vote for (Democratic) politicians who support and promote intrinsic evils. And the USA has never been the same since.
Cardinal Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict) clearly refuted Bernardin’s
public position in his letter: “Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion, General Principles”
https://www.priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/04-07ratzingerommunion.htm
” 3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia.
For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion.
While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment.
There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia. ”
(Let us remember that Bernardin was not a holy man. Diocese and Court Documents prove that he aided and abetted Priest child abusers by moving them from Parish to Parish.)
Bill K good comments!
“I don’t see how you can subscribe to the consistent ethic and then vote for someone who feels that abortion is a ‘basic right’ of the individual. I know that some people on the left, if I may use that label, have used the consistent ethic to give the impression that the abortion issue is not all that important anymore, that you should be against abortion in a general way but that there are more important issues, so don’t hold anybody’s feet to the fire just on abortion. That’s a misuse of the consistent ethic, and I deplore it.”
Cardinal Bernardin 1988
Obviously the only one speaking the truth is Paul O’Malley. He is focused and articulate. Scott and the Archbishop speak around the truth. The obvious sign that satan has entered the Church is double talk, and that is what we have here. Confusion at the highest levels, not only in the Church, but constantly put forth by supposedly Catholic politicians. These people are everywhere. Is this not a true sign that we are in the last “times”?
https://www.angelusnews.com/voices/archbishop-gomez/onelife-la-and-9-days-for-life-7192/#.VLbYCSvF_ws
One of the hallmarks of the New Church is “dialogue”, unless as Ms. Buckley-Domingo (Diocesan “Director of Life, Justice, & Peace”) puts it, one says something that is not welcome (‘There is not to be protest or political rallying’). Quiet down, children, we adults are doing the talking here. Kevin Kast (her assistant) says participants, “are not to hand out literature or to educate.”
S. Catherine of Siena (“We’ve had enough of exhortations to be silent! Cry out with a hundred thousand tongues. I see that the world is rotten because of silence.”,) would have been highly unwelcome and (today’s curse word) “divisive.”
Who appoints these people? The bishops, in this case, Abp Gomez. Who pays for them? Us, with our collections and diocesan appeal funds. Why is this? Because this is a false church and we allow it. So who is to blame?
Scotus, Ms. Buckley-Domingo (Diocesan “Director of Life, Justice, & Peace”) is a proud graduate of the Jesuit University of San Francisco.
Yes, as usual, the usual suspects: USF. SCU. Notre Dame. Catholic U. All paid for by us.
From now on I expect the Bishops and the Church to mention abortion each time they address “immigration,” and/or any of the other “holistic” topics they are adding onto the yearly commemoration of Roe at OneLifeLA.
I have read this many times and it is still unclear to me:
What was the purpose of the email?
Did he want the pro-life rally canceled?
Did he want it to be changed?
His subject line is: Roe v. Wade and Catholic Disordered Political Thinking
What does the guy want?
What does he want the Bishops to do?
The purpose of the email is to force the issue to prove to anyone and everyone concerned (1) what the truth is, (2) to give the organizers a chance to correct themselves (and cancel the “prolife” event if changing it were not possible), and (3) when (expectably) they don’t correct themselves, to remove any benefit of any doubt that these are not true shepherds. Accordingly, anyone with ears to listen will have a better chance to personally avoid sinking to the depths in this quicksand of deceit being promoted by the Archdiocese.
M. Ronson, thank you for your reply.
What truth was he trying to prove?
What is the deceit?
Does he dsagree with the dignity of human life? Or the sanctity of human life?
Or did he just want a sole focus on abortion for the pro-life rally?
The truth is that the Bernadin Seamless Garment is not pro-life, but a Trojan horse for the death culture, and that the L.A. Archdiocese subscribes to the Bernadin Seamless Garment. The deceit is the attempt to pass off the Archdiocese’s event as pro-life when it is truly not for all the reasons that O’Malley explains. “Dignity” is code speak for all sorts of sinful things like euthanasia and homosexual activity, so any knowledgeable pro-life Catholic would not use that term. The pro-life cause in this country does have an anti-abortion focus, so it’s really a no brainer that to confuse it with “dignity” causes, which are really attempts to rationalize sin, undermines the legitimate pro-life message. I suspect that you oppose the pro-life cause, as indicated by your taunting questions about things you probably already know about, but want to rebel against. All we’re asked to do, as Mother Theresa pointed out, is to be faithful. It’s not that hard, really, all one has to do is say “I accept.” Anyway, no more questions please, you don’t come off as particularly genuine.
I am pro-life.
Why do you assume otherwise?
Also you seem to be confusing the Catholic Church’s infallible teaching on the dignity of the human person with things like DignityUSA which is a group condemned by the Church for its’ opposition to Church teaching on the sanctity of marriage and the dignity of persons.
As you know, Cardinal Bernardin was a staunch advocate against abortion, even saying that Catholics should not vote for politicians who support abortion. He opposed the idea that social issues were equal to abortion in seriousness.
If what you describe is the reason behind the email, then I think the writer was confused and operating under some false assumptions.
I think the general problem the writer is working toward is that the event trivializes the issue of abortion. The Archdiocese looks at events like the Marches for Life and sees that the “happy clappy” approach makes the church seem less extreme and more palatable to the mass–but also shows that the Church is not really ALL that serious about the issue of abortion. It’s presented as simply one problem among many others.
Events like this and the March for Life should be cancelled until such point in time as the Church can be clear on the issue and not simply use the deaths of babies as a springboard for a fundraiser/political rally/social gathering.
Dave N. thank you for your ideas on this email.
The March for Life is not “Catholic”. People of all religious beliefs including athiests participate.
Watering down the most basic right to LIVE with social issues is not in accord with Church teaching.
CCC: ” 2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense.
The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. “A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,” “by the very commission of the offense,” and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.
The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society. ”
Cardinal Joseph Bernardin at FORDHAM University in Dec 1983 gave a heretical speech nicknamed the “Seamless Garment” to give cover to his Democratic pro-abortion politician friends so they would be elected and re-elected.
His “seamless garment” equated ABORTION to the undocumented worker (ILLEGAL immigrant), tax policy and employment generation, etc.
Let us not forget that the Diocese of Chicago released the Diocese/Court Documents that Bernardin was also proved guilty of aiding and abetting Priests who sexually abused children by moving them from Parish to Parish.
Bernardin did much damage to the Catholic Faith, from which we have not fully recovered.
Save this site as a reference. Site is updated as needed.
ABORTION in OBAMACARE
https://www.obamacareabortion.com/
Abp Gomez and his fellow Diocese Bishops (CCCB Catholic Conference of California Bishops) must do something about Catholic politicians who are heretics in the State of CA.
Canon 915, Scandal, etc.
We must DEMAND adherence to the Faith regarding the Intrinsic Evils of:
Abortion, Euthanasia, Homosexual Marriage, Human Cloning, Embryonic Stem Cell Research, and Contraception.
Bishops must do (or start doing) their jobs, instead of involving themselves in politics that is the prudential judgment of the Laity.
Amen to that ED. I completely agree and we must follow MIKE,s suggestions.
Arbp. Gomez’ people evidence the confusion of the “new Catholic teaching”.
“We have a new understanding of what it is to be Catholic.”
In a previous attack on Ann Malley, an “Anonymous” points a question at her like a gun: “When did the Catholic Church ever teach that it is desirable for [SSPX, traditional ] priests to hold to a previous centuries’ understanding of the Will of God and divorce itself from the current understanding?” (Anonymous, post, Jan. 10th, 2015, “Faith Demands a Layman to Express His Thoughts.”)
I found this statement by the Anonymous poster (“previous understanding” vs. “current understanding”) particularly interesting: Anonymous admits that the “understanding” of Catholic dogmas have now changed. But we have always been taught that Catholic dogma, which cannot be distinguished from a subjective “understanding”, never changes. It is objectively true and knowable by all. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever (Heb. 13:8).
Compare the Anonymous view with Pius X’s critique of Modernism (Pascendi, 1907, n. 13): Pius X denounces the concept of the “evolution of dogma” in these words:
“Thus the way is open to the intrinsic evolution of dogma…Dogma is not only able, but ought to evolve and to be changed. This is strongly affirmed by the Modernists, and as clearly flows from their principles.” Our previous understanding we have now “about-faced” to a new understanding.
Again, Pius X’s Lamentabilii (1907), #63: One of the specifically condemned errors: That “…the Church [mistakenly] clings to immutable doctrines which cannot be reconciled with modern progress..”
Anonymous-crowd and proud Pope-Francis-istas, you have a problem: you have broken with tradition, dogma, and—can you imagine—Vatican II.
Pius X prophetically speaks—this is 1907— about our present age:
“It is well to note at once that, given this doctrine of experience united with the other doctrine of symbolism, every religion, even that of paganism, must be held to be true. What is to prevent such experiences from being met within every religion? … And with what right will Modernists deny the truth of an experience affirmed by a follower of Islam? With what right can they claim true experiences for Catholics alone? Indeed Modernists do not deny but actually admit, some confusedly, others in the most open manner, that all religions are true.” (Pascendi, par. 14)
Words of a true prophetic voice, warning us a century ago, of where we would now be.
. Paul Malley’s writes the Abp: “It appears that mundane and cosmopolitan ideas compete as a ‘moral foundation’ and have supplanted the Church’s actual teaching on moral and civic duty..” (= our “new understanding” of moral teachijng).
Lamentabili (1907): Of the 65 condemned propositions, here are 3 that are particularly pertinent today:
53. ”The organic constitution of the Church is not immutable. Like human society, Christian society is subject to a perpetual evolution. “
59. “Christ did not teach a determined body of doctrine applicable to all times and all men, but rather inaugurated a religious movement adapted or to be adapted to different times and places.”
62. “The chief articles of the Apostles’ Creed did not have the same sense for the Christians of the first ages as they have for the Christians of our time.”
So: One of the main critiques of the Anonymous-crowd is that the SSPX doesn’t bend to the “current understanding” of the Faith. Indeed. And what will that understanding be in 10 years, 20 years? The doctrinal decline is accelerating.
Already Catholic sacramental marriage and morality stand before the guillotine, put there by the present pontificate and its stooges, Kasper, Maradiaga, and others. The Bergoglio faction in fact is at war with the Vatican Council II’s own pronouncements on traditional marriage (see Gaudium et Spes, #47-52): marriage is only between a man and a woman. Imagine that.
The coming Synod at the end of tihs year will highlight this break with Vatican II (GS 47-52): and then it will have completed the break with tradition, dogma, and—can you imagine—Vatican II.
These are excellent posts, “Steve Phoenix”, thank you for them. It is interesting to note that what is being played out in the Church is not much different than what is being played out in any political revolution.
Once the originally held ideals, beliefs, and traditions were rejected and held up to ridicule, then new ones must be crafted to serve that purpose (or else people will believe themselves to be slaves). But what usually happens? The immediate next generation comes in and, instead of believing itself bound by prior beliefs (i.e., the Catholic “Depost of Faith”), they must again “reinvent” or “reinterpret” the leadership principles.
Of course Francis and his minions want to change Vatican II, because many, many of its documents were wonderful — and truly Traditional. People lose that fact, but recall that the Council Fathers went to the TLM every morning, not some “Novus Ordo”. The implementation of Vatican II has been The Disaster of the Church. The upcoming Synod will be yet another wave in the institutional revolultion that occured, but is not yet finished. In 10 years, or less, we may well have more despicable practices than are now imaginable. Time to fight!
Yes, you are right, S. Christopher, the TLM was the Mass celebrated throughout the Council: Of all people, disgraced Abp. Rembert Weakland in his auto-bio (“A Pilgrim [Heretic] in a Pilgrim Church”), writes how he and Bugnini designed the liturgy–Weakland, a quite good organist, performed the music for the frist 3 “performances” of the Bugnini N.O. liturgy for Paul VI in the Sistine Chapel during 3 evenings in January, 1967); this was 1 year and 1 month after the closing of the Council (7 Dec. 1965)., the fevered fruits of the “Consilium”.
I believe the point you are making is that one of the great deceptions of Vatican II was that the N.O. Mass existed and was approved by the Council Fathers during the Council period (1962-1965): V2 peritus Klaus Gamber debunks this (“The Reform of the LIturgy”), noting that the Council Fathers ordered tens of thousands of TLM Roman Missals with the Tridentine Mass virtually intact, proving once and for all that it was never their intent to “create” a “new mass.”
Have you ever read the Constitution on the Liturgy. That proves once and for all that the Council intended major reforms of the Latin Rite Mass, regardless of whatever books an office manager might have ordered.
1) The Council Fathers themselves—not an “office manager”—according to eyewitness Gamber, whom you have not read—decreed the publication of the Roman Missal of 1965 with the TLM virtually intact; and 2)Gamber, a peritus himself witnessed that Sacrosanctum Concilium (SC, “On the Liturgy”) never in the wildest ideas of the Fathers ever envisioned a “new” liturgy, which actually is clear from the text of SC itself. And why do you doubt Gamber, Ratzinger, and Card. Alfons Stickler, all who were present, who say this same thing? Why don’t you note that SC never calls for the abrogation of the TLM, but in fact recommends Gregorian chant, the organ, and Latin usage? Have YOU read SC?
Anonymous admits that the “understanding” of Catholic dogmas have now changed.
Thank you, Steve Phoenix, for extracting this admission of what is at play. Especially for those in full communion who admit that the current hierarchy is confusing and advises that we should, “Stick to the teachings of Christ and His Church.” For you are right, Steven Phoenix, in wondering if the ‘understanding’ keeps shifting then where will we be in another 10-20 years? Likely not ‘confused’ but bearing witness to the internal destruction of our own under the guise of faithfulness.
You are confused about the role of the Roman Pontiff. You can’t blame Vatican II for that.
Anonymous, I look too often as if the Pope might be confused as to the role of the papacy. You may want to look to him for clarity and consistency, but good luck with that. This, friend, is just an ongoing symptom of what ails the Church…. much like the vociferous tirades of the ‘dear lady’ who cannot see her own issues.
You are not qualified to diagnose what “ails the Church.”
Your posts have been filled with error.
When others post error you support them.
No that is not what Anonymous said. Go back and re-read it and while you are at it, go back and re-read the Vatican Ii documents that you have misinterpreted too.
Although I don’t see how a person whose knowledge of the Faith is so poor that they think the Catholic Church has always taught that a “Hindu in Tibet” can be in a state of grace without baptism, has the background to understand what they read.
….read a basic catechism, mous. And go ask your priest about a ‘Hindu in Tibet’. Unless, of course, your priest is a Feeneyite.
I have looked in every catechism, in the decree on justification by Pope Paul III, in the Summa theologica. I do not find it.
Please cite your source.
…are you a Feenyite, Anonymous?
No.
To those who are falsely accusing:
It specifically says Will of God, not dogma.
The understanding of the Will of God changed when Pius X lowered the age when one could receive Holy Communion. The Dogma on the Eucharist did not change.
The understanding of the Will of God changed when st. Paul convinced St. Peter that the gentiles did not need to be circumcised.
The understanding of the Will of God changed when people who renounced the Faith under the persecution of the Romans were permitted to repent.
What are you taking about (“Will of God” vs. Dogma)? What source are you citing? Neither Pascendi nor Lamentabili nor Gaudium et Spes make any such distinction. The issue is clearly defined: “current understanding” vs. traditional Catholic belief. “Evolution of dogma,” which is specifically condemned, vs. trad. defined understanding of dogma.
You are making up interpretations, Anonymous-clan.
Steve Phoenix, you took the sentence I wrote and you added the words SSPX/ traditionalist and you changed Will of God to dogma.
I did not cite any source. I asked for one.
So answer the question that I wrote instead of twisting it to mean what you want it to mean. You are being very dishonest.
Steve Phoenix, no where did Anonymous say that dogma has changed. The issue is not about that. You are completely misunderstanding this.
The argument is not that the SSPX does not bend to the current understanding of the Faith. The anonymous poster is saying that the SSPX does not conform to the Catholic Faith prior to Vatican II, that they do not teach or obey all of Catholic Tradition.
Lumen Gentium does confuse whether or not it is necessary to receive the Gospel. See no. 16: “Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God (cf. no 18: “People of God” are part of the Church).” It goes on to specify that Muslims, Jews, and non-believers “…Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel.”
I remind the Anonymous-clan that we see daily the deconstruction of Catholic belief (dogma, not “Will of God”, a phrase that never appears anywhere in Lumen Gentium nor Gaudium et Spes—check it out), that we must abandon our “previous understanding” (such as what trad priests and trad gorups hold) and facilitate a new “current understanding.” This is Modernism pure and simple: we cannot adapt Christ’s doctrine (read: marriage; read: morality; read: opposition to abortion) to “different times and places”:
59. “Christ did not teach a determined body of doctrine applicable to all times and all men, but rather inaugurated a religious movement adapted or to be adapted to different times and places.” (Lamentabili, 1907)
Lumen Gentium and Guadium et Spes are documents of Vatican II.
The whole discussion is about the Church prior to Vatican II.
Steve Phoenix, do you agree with Ann Malley that the Catholic Church has always taught that
“a Hindu in Tibet who has no knowledge of the Catholic Church… lives according to his conscience and to the laws which God has put into his heart. He can be in the state of grace, and if he dies in this state of grace, he will go to heaven.” (Bishop Fellay)
Quack, quack, quack!
Is that a yes or a no?
Men can find the way of salvation and obtain eternal salvation in the cult of it matters not what religion (proposition 16). Condemned by Pope Pius IX (Syllabus of Errors)
Steve Phoenix “Quack, quack, quack!” is that the best you’ve got?
Abeca, the triple quack is all that is needed because those doing the quacking are advertising precisely what they are – nothing but a gaggle of waddling birds….
Ann Malley, you were going to tell us your source for believing that the Catholic Church has always taught that a Hindu can be in a state of grace by following his conscience.
No, Anonymous, I wasn’t. I told you to look into how the Church addresses the matter of invincible ignorance. That said your playing ‘ignorant’ only makes you appear like you are a Feenyite – or perhaps one who only enjoys playing Devil’s Advocate, collecting an entourage of those who believe themselves faithful, but who publicly decry the Pope.
So quack away, friend, quack away.
…okay, Anonymous, I give. This isn’t ‘my’ source or quotation, but perhaps one that ‘you’ will believe:
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/what-no-salvation-outside-the-church-means
They discuss the specific implications of ‘No Salvation Outside the Church’ as pertains to those who are invincibly ignorant as per CCC #847.
…and here’s another one:
https://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/articles/invincible.htm
I hope you appreciate me doing this, Anonymous. For one who prides himself/herself for knowing what’s what as per being a faithful Catholic, I’m surprised at your seeming lack of fortitude in seeking truth.
Not Surprised Ann Malley that you find his quacking charitable…its part of your style….you go girl!
Ann Malley, I appreciate you trying to find a source for the false teaching. I have read your sources and none of them back up the false belief. Invincible ignorance does not work for this.
These articles are talking about being judged after death. They do not even address the issue of whether a person (and in this case a person who worships false gods, does not even believe in salvation, nor in the need for it, and is polytheistic) can be in a state of grace without baptism.
You may continue to look for a source if you wish, but you will not find it. The Catholic Church does not teach this and it never did.
And as for the disrespect of quack, it just shows where you are at.
As for calling someone a Feeneyite, you are proving that you do not understand what the discussion is even about. So please read those catechisms that you told me to read. Because I read them.
This false teaching is not in the CCC or the Catechism of Pope St. Pius V or the Baltimore Catechism or the Catechism of Pope Pius X or the Summa Theologica or the papal document on justification by Pope Paul III. It is not in the sources that you gave me above.
Your smearing Pope Francis wasn’t charitable – girl – and yet you did it and won’t apologize for it either. So please, try to be consistent in your exercise of charity if you want to evangelize, otherwise you teach nothing but hypocrisy.
Like I said before, thank you yet again for the free advertisement, dear lady..
Abeca Christian, I remember this whole vendetta against you started because you called Ann Malley “prideful.”
I cam across some information that I wish I could give you privately, but I can’t.
So here goes, food for thought.
A proud person will interpret criticism as persecution and will take it as confirmation that they are superior.
How many times has she been corrected on matters of Faith and responded with “You are just proving me right.”
This also helps explain why she baits people and why she keeps the arguments going way past the point of being embarrassing. She may not be just a troll amusing herself by winding up faithful Catholics but she could have a sick need to feed her pride in this way. She needs lots of prayer and there are probably no words that anyone can say that will help her at this point.
Abeca Christian,
Ann Malley is bringing up a very important point. You cannot escape this particular flip flopping and lately there have been many inconsistencies in your posts. You, yourself just posted that Pope Francis was causing scandal and you also compared Pope Francis to Archbishop Marcel Lefevbre. You wrote that Archbishop Lefebvre and Pope Francis were similar in the scandals that they cause. You tell everyone that you are “smelling roses first” while you then proceed to smear Pope Francis with the most uncharitable comments. You posted that you were surprised to read Gratias’s question about hand signs without reflecting on how uncharitable you sounded when you actually smeared the Pope and now you will not apologize for doing so.
Abeca, Type in the words “flip flop” to the following hand sign language resource and you will be able to also sign language the words “flip flop.”
Signing Savvy, Your Sign Language Resource
Your interpretation of what you call me smearing Pope Francis is faulty especially since it comes from your own ill interpretation. So stop with the faulty stuff. Its not cutting it. NO free advertising. Just correcting you for defending the Quack comments from Steve. I thought it unkind of him, not good dialogue yet you defended it and now you go on a rampant arguing about other stuff that I have no clue of. There is no hypocrisy, just your pride and your ego that is hurt here.
I don’t know who this anonymous person is this time, but he or she sounds like they are able to rebuttal your arguments thus far.
If your smearing the Pope is just ‘ill interpreting’ then look to yourself for you seem to have malice glasses on whenever you happen upon my posts, dear lady.
Again, you may want to reconsider your current mode of operation as you are correct in that there is much, “other stuff that I (that is you, dear lady) have no clue of.”
This is a Catholic website where adults discuss issues, dear lady, not a Miss Manners column wherein doctrine and geopolitics are determined by who sends you the nicest ego stroke. But much like the mess in the aftermath of VII, the focus is off the Faith for many who desire to consider themselves in full communion and entirely Faithful.
Catherine is now lying. Show the exact time and dates on where there was such comparison., I only posted a comparison of Archbishop Marcel Lefevbre and Martin Luther…..
Abeca Christian says: Faith Demands a layman to express his thoughts
January 4, 2015 at 4:51 pm
From: https://sspx.agenda.tripod.com/id9.html
“Sliding around the facts of schism and excommunication are typical for defenders of a group in schism. The same arguments were heard in the Schism of Utrecht, in the establishment of the Old Catholics, and during the creation of Protestant churches in the 16th century. Always a higher law is appealed to so that a specific law can be circumvented:
According to Martin Luther, “These [church laws] hold good only so long as they are not injurious to Christianity and the laws of God. Therefore, if the Pope deserves punishment, these laws cease to bind us, since Christendom would suffer.”
According to Marcel Lefebvre, “In the Church there is no law or jurisdiction which can impose on a Christian a diminution of his faith. All the faithful can and should resist whatever interferes with their faith…. If they are forced with an order putting their faith in danger of corruption, there is an overriding duty to disobey.”
Lucy, I mean, Abeca, you got some ‘splainin’ to do! Below are your own words. So let’s hear you explain so there is no more bad interpretation….
Abeca Christian says:
January 2, 2015 at 7:53 am
“and Abeca this and Abeca that…….the false teachers never stop.”
“Lets continue when Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in His decision to break away from Apostolic succession, to appoint his own bishops without approval, he did much great harm and created this “bad will type of church militant” style that Catherine and Ann Malley display. When people judge Pope Francis often and magnify his flaws, which yes I also find concerning *but let us remember that Lefebvre is not much different than Pope Francis. They both cause different types of scandals that it leaves to the conclusion that we are not to put our trust in men but only in Christ and His church, we are to remain faithful** Read your CCC, holy scriptures and what the doctors of the church write to help you stay faithful, do not lean on man’s understanding. Catherine and Ann Malley are humans too just like our priests and bishops, they too pick and choose like the Cafeteria Catholics issues we have in our church. As Catherine once stated “sin complicates things” That is when she conveyed common decency and respect and made sense. God have mercy on us all and save us. Lets pray for one another even in times if diversity and division.”
•
Ann Malley,
Thank you for showing who is not telling the truth. Remember the website ‘Abeca Christian meet Your Fellow Catholic’ Ann, I find it informative that Abeca, YFC and Abeca’s “anony” are all close friends.
Once again thank you for asking Abeca to stop denying what she did write and to explain why she smeared Pope Francis.
Lol you ladies are just throwing stuff without any real legitimacy. “Which i find concerning” does not interpret as you say. You are looking bad. Concerning as any lay faithful who love the faith, would discern. So that is followed with researching the truth. The media, heretical and schismstics spread rumors much faster and cause much confusion. God bless our Pope. He is human and its not a sin to be concerned with His style but it still does not deny that he is the Vicar of Christ and he can not change dogma. These ladies play dirty by trying to pin people on false notions. Just like they do when they want to slander Christ church and lay faithful. Same ole same ole. Anonymous is right about how you bicker so much that its making you look embarrassing. Nothing new under the sun.
You’re welcome, Catherine. And yes, I recall that lovely website set up by YFC to feature Abeca Christian as the prime example of ‘homophobia’ within the Church. I was the one who told her about it after she began her first lambasting free-for-all. But for all the ‘faithfulness’ the best she can come up with for basically tagging the Pope as a schismatic heretic in her own post is, ‘It is not a sin’. Good grief, how far have we fallen?
Ann Malley,
It looks like you have to pluck out one almost truthful feather at a time. First it was a stonewall ignoring in hopes that her smearing post would automatically disappear. Then when repeatedly asked to explain it was a complete denial and then even calling me a liar after denying that she wrote it. Now it is a “Oh I must have forgotten that I wrote it and it wasn’t that bad!”……. Even though Abeca posted that The Vicar of Christ’s scandal “style” is not much different than Archbishop Lefevbre. Flip flop. Abeca is placing her finger up in the wind to see which way the wind is blowing. No consistency.
Abeca, Anonymous also thought that Father Guarnizo looked embarrassing when Father Guarnizo did not give Holy Communion to an activist lesbian. Anonymous undermined and silenced Father Guarnizo and Father Rodriguez too. While our freedom of speech and freedom of religion is steadily being removed you are busy surrounding yourself with the internal enemies of the Church who undermine faithful priests and all while you “full beak ablazing” foment uncharitable false fears. You’re motives are being shown by the cling on company (YFC and “anony”) friends who support and praise your efforts to silence those who are speaking up.
Galations 5:19-26 Now the works of the flesh are plain: fornication, impurity, licentiousness idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, party spirit, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such there is no law.
And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit.
26 Let us have no self-conceit, no provoking of one another, no envy of one another.
[I do not answer questions, at least not directly, unable to take them seriously, from the Anonymous-clan; finding as M.Ronson says above, they are usually taunting efforts or childish entrapment attempts.
I have come to the conclusion that the Anonymous-clan does not really even believe in the Novus Ordo Church, because “his”/their only Johnny-One-Note thought is to attack trad Catholics, esp. the dreaded SSPX.
Hence, Anon’s taunting Q’s — to me, so much quackings, so little seriousness..
Once again, as we have pointed out many times, there is no “Novus Ordo Church”, there is only one holy catholic church. To say otherwise is heresy.
And to promote HOMOSEXUAL ACTS and HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE is heresy.
Helping to send others to Hell by such promotion also includes the Mortal Sin of Scandal.
I like the AND that was added from Bill K! Both true. God bless you.
Bill K., homosexuality wasn’t the topic being discussed. Please try to keep up.
YFC, every time you post you have the motives of a heretic and schismatic – one who admits to supporting Sodomy and Sodomy Marriage.
You can call no one a heretic or schismatic until you get the LOG out of your own eye, so you can take the splinter out of your brother’s eye. – This is a teaching of Jesus. Those who do not He called hypocrites.
Would you like me to provide you with the Bible verses ?
Bill is like for you to treat me with the respect and dignity that the catechism insists upon. And you might take up Pope Francis challenge to leave behind your obsession with homosexuality and sensed marriage.
…. we are called to respect your dignity as a human being made in the image and likeness of Christ, YFC, not to respect your Fascist tactics in attempting to shove a homosexual sexual agenda off on Catholics.
YFC = Pope Francis compares pushing gay agenda to ‘Hitler Youth’ indoctrination.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pope-francis-compares-pushing-gay-agenda-to-hitler-youth-indoctrination
So you won’t answer me because I post anonymously but you will commit sin and speak falsely of me.
True Wisdom comes from above. .
Sometimes the veil is pulled back and one can see the mistaken premises: so when one of the Anonymous-clan levels an indictment against the SSPX and trad Catholics:
“When did the Catholic Church ever teach that it is desirable for [SSPX, traditional ] priests to hold to a previous centuries’ understanding of the Will of God and divorce itself from the current understanding?…” (Anonymous, exact quote of post, Jan. 10th, 2015, “Faith Demands a Layman to Express His Thoughts.”)
…One then sees the error: “Prior understanding” vs “current understanding” So our understandings of doctrine, dogma, change–Thomas Cranmer, in establishing a new “Godly Order” of liturgy made the same assertion. So did Luther.
If our new “understandings” are constantly evolving, they are changing. (ex. condemned by Lamentabili and Pascendi: “Evolution of dogma”). In fact, according to the Bergoglio pontificate and his cohort (Kasper, et al.) the Vatican II concept of marriage (Gaudium et Spes #47-52), will change: marriage is no longer between a man and a woman, nor is it permanent under the usual conditions.
We will have completed the process, and the proud Vatican II types will have abandoned Vatican II.
Steve Phoenix, it is not an exact quote. You inserted SSPX and traditiional.
The statement is about priests before Vatican II.
The SSPX did not exist until after Vatican II.
This is a response to Ann Malley saying that the SSPX teach what the Church has always taught. (She also insists that the Church has always taught that a person can be in a state of grace without baptism if they obey their conscience and live the law that God puts in their heart-even an idolator and polytheist, which I dispute)
This is all about the Church from its inception to the point when the SSPX formed.
Ann Malley, when did the Church ever teach that the priests She ordains can start their own chapels independent of the local Church?
When did the Church ever teach that priests that have done something to incur the canonical penalty of suspension can say a public Mass?
When did the Catholic Church ever teach that it is desirable for priests to hold to a previous centuries understanding of the Will of God and divorce itself from the current understanding?
When did the Catholic Church ever teach that Mass was evil?
When did the Catholic Church ever teach that individuals in the Church can declare a pope a heretic?
When did the Catholic Church ever teach that priests can disobey a Pope?
The answer to the questions is: Never. The Catholic Church never taught those things.
And the Catholic Church never taught that an idolater and polytheist can attain a state of grace by following his conscience.
The state of grace begins at BAPTISM.
“Anonymous” and “Your Fellow Catholic”: You are all so anxious to embrace the New Catholic Church, you know, the one that has destroyed (or attempts to) centuries of sacred liturgy, chant, architecture, teachings, art, music, all of that — in the space of a few decades. The craziness of the present Vatican continues at an accelerating pace, just like in the 1960’s. But change for the sake of change means nothing.
Yes, new revolutionary governments need to kill the old and cover it up, say it never existed, or otherwise explain it away. The Church leaders since Vatican II, with few exceptions (notably Benedict XVI), have treated their own Mother Church in an unspeakably rude and demeaning manner. And, now, they threaten to do even worse, to change her inner meaning.
It is time to rise up and get back to the way that things were in the Church. If not, the changes being demanded here, there, and everywhere (from people like you two), will literally destroy the institutional Church. To paraphrase the Pope, “Well, you know that when someone insults your Mother, you are going to punch him, right?” Yes, you are correct, Holy Father; time to punch back.
Well aint this a kick in the head?
The much derided anonymous poster stands up for the traditional teaching of the Church.
The posters who deride the Catholic Church for changing dogma stand up for the post-Vatican II error.
The only Catholic Church is the one that I am a member of. It was started in 33 A.D. by Jesus Christ in Jerusalem.
Mister Christopher, I agree with you when you say “But change for the sake of change means nothing.” However, when Vatican II changed things, it didn’t change them for the sake of change, it changed them to rediscover the beauty and dignity of lost rites, much as you seek to rediscover the lost rites of the era after Trent. In the case of Vatican II, they were not content to go back to the sixteenth century, they sought to go back to the earliest texts, the practices of the earliest fathers, to the era in which Ignaitus first called the Church Catholic. Change for change sake is silly, we are agreed. But to revert to what the earliest fathers did – with very good reason and with sound judgement – should not be scorned.
Steve Phoenix, is it OK to let a trad Catholic believe a false teaching?
Your perception of an indictment of the SSPX or trad Catholics is wrong.
I am sure you don’t need me to instruct you on the spiritual works of mercy.
The quote from Bishop Fellay was from a trad Catholic site.
You will find refutation of the CCC on this site too.
And Ann Malley is the one who is saying that the writing you find problematic in the Vatican II document has always been the teaching of the Church.
So why am I the bad guy? Because I point out an error that was taught by a trad priest. If you know anything about traditionalist priests, you know that they critique each other for errors all the time.
My point was not that a trad priest made an error. They do. It can also be that the trad priest was misquoted. My issue was with Ann Malley who falsely asserted that this error was Catholic teaching. This person claims that she can’t attend the Catholic Church because she will be led into error. She is already in error. I can’t teach her the Catholic Faith in it’s entirely with a few posts on this website.. She needs to take up and read. Anything you read from the Church in any century that is taken out of context can be seen as ambiguous or in need of clarification. I encourage everyone, not just Ann Malley, to learn the faith and keep learning it. You can learn something new everyday. This is infinite knowledge that you will never exhaust.
the Anonymous post from
January 20, 2015 at 12:44 am :
Excellent thoughts and well conveyed! Keep it up! This anonymous makes good sense. God bless you!
Yes, Anonymous, LEARN:
…okay, Anonymous, I give. This isn’t ‘my’ source or quotation, but perhaps one that ‘you’ will believe:
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/what-no-salvation-outside-the-church-means
They discuss the specific implications of ‘No Salvation Outside the Church’ as pertains to those who are invincibly ignorant as per CCC #847.
…and here’s another one:
https://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/articles/invincible.htm
I hope you appreciate me doing this, Anonymous. For one who prides himself/herself for knowing what’s what as per being a faithful Catholic, I’m surprised at your seeming lack of fortitude in seeking truth.
*************
There was no error by the ‘Trad’ priest as you term it. Get on the ball, mous, and read for understanding. Not arrow throwing. I made no ‘false assertion’. Rather, you do not understand the teaching of the Church. So ‘take up and READ’ but get some help to comprehend..
You are the ‘bad guy’ because you admonish those to read and understand when it is aching apparent that you do neither.
I have spent hours reading the Catechisms, articles like the ones you posted, historical articles, articles from the SSPX, other traditional sites, (It was on another traditional site where the refutation of what Bishop Fellay is alleged to have said-it was called heresy, there-that I found the quote.)
Do you even understand that this error undermines the entire Catholic Faith? I repeat-The ENTIRE CATHOLIC FAITH!!!!!!
Ask Kenneth Fisher if his chapel teaches that. I am sure you will not find that error at his chapel.
I think what you got caught up in is excessive or prejudiced loyalty or support for one’s own cause, group, or gender.
An error is an error. If a priest, layperson, even a bishop speaks in error you have a duty to correct them.
I have a feeling that if you asked Bishop Fellay he would probably correct himself. People make mistakes. They misspeak.
But you keep insisting it is not an error. OK. People decide the Catholic Church is wrong all the time. The issue that we started with does not require it to be an error. It just requires you to find it in a Catechism or Church document. Because you said it is a Catholic teaching. I can’t find it anywhere. So if you can find it let me know. Please.
Ann Malley, instead of finding it in a church document or catechism (which you won’t) could you just please tell us where you learned it?
Ann Malley, so you believe a person of any religion can be in a state of grace?
No, Anonymous, I do not. And no, there would be no correction from the clergy regarding this matter. Please, if you want to discuss, name the ‘website’ you believe to be Catholic. From what you post, it would appear that you are involved in a fringe group of some sort.
For it is not that position that was posted which is incorrect, but rather the misapplication of the principle which would give the impression that no one needs to evangelize because everyone is fine where they are. That last part, everyone being fine where they are, is the main issue with the post VII mentality in the Church.
God bless.
So is it only Hindus? Hindus in Tibet? What is the parameter for someone to be in a state of grace from following their conscience and obeying the Law of God in his Heart?
Does this mean that all Jewish people who obey their conscience are in a state of grace? Muslim?
Please state the Church teaching. If you can’t find it (which I know you won’t be able to) just paraphrase what you believe. Please.
And I agree this belief (which I think quite many people would agree with you on) would undermine efforts at evangelization (and the entire sacramental life of the Catholic Church.)
So it only the sinners who need to be evangelized? ?The “good people” are already in a state of grace?
Holy Job wasn’t Catholic or a Jew and yet I’m thinking he’s in Heaven, Anonymous. Again, talk to a trustworthy priest, Anonymous, and avoid Feenyite websites.
God bless.
Whether Job is in Heaven does not even address the issue we are discussing. In no post that you have written have you given the impression that you even understand the subject, or even know the subject.
So let me ask you this.
According to the Catholic Church, would Job have been in a state of grace?
Ann Malley, no amount of answers is sufficient for the Anonymous Novus Oregon Ducks to gain surcease of their quacking interrogations: you are noble for trying to do so, but they/”he” isnt interested in the truth (as I think you well know, and as M. Ronson observed above: only in multiplying their taunting questions and childish entrapment attempts). This is a very evidence of his/their own confusion.
I am certain that neither the Nervous Ordo Anonymous Quackers nor their cheerleaders have ever person-to-person talked with a traditional priest (whether FSSP, traditional Norbertines, or heavens, the hated SSPX, Our Lady of Guadalupe Benedictines of New Mexico, or the CMRI’s): it would blow their mind to find out the truth, and that cannot be so. The must believe the trad/SSPX/what-have-you priests and orders believe something DIFFERENT from what Pius XII, for example, taught: prima facie nonsense.
Indeed, this gaggle of Nervous Ordeal Ducks believe that the N.O. liturgy [that Ratzinger himself called “fabricated” in his positive review of Klaus Gamber’s book “The Reform of the Liturgy” in the 1980’s] was a creation of the 16th century (Anon Quacker posting Jan. 18, ’15 10:14 pm) and that Abp. Bugnini discovered “Lost Rites” in creating the Nervous Ordo New Mass. Is this like Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Rites? Quack, quack, quack.
“…Is this like Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Rites? Quack, quack, quack.”
Gosh, but I do enjoy having you back on CCD, Steve Phoenix! Have a great weekend :)
The subject is: what is the Catholic Church’s teaching on how a person attains the condition of being in a state of grace?
I did find this in Pope Pius XII Allocution to Italian Midwives:
“An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism; ”
I believe he is speaking of the moment of death because he is talking about how infants cannot do that so the midwife has the duty to baptize a baby in danger of death.
I will keep reading and searching. Again it is quite different than saying that a [person] can gain sanctifying grace from following his conscience and obeying the law that God places on his heart.
For those who want accurate information about VATICAN II, rather than the personal opinions of posters some of which contain error, here is the link to all 16 Documents on the Vatican web site.
https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/index.htm
Read for yourself.
Many things attributed to Vatican II that are not true.
Some of the things people complain about can be traced to various National Bishop’s Conferences who obtained Special INDULTS for their own Country from the Vatican.
Heretical Cardinal Joseph Bernardin was active in promoting and obtaining many of the things that American Catholics do not want or like.
Bernardin was very active in the ‘National Conference of Catholic Bishops’ now known as the USCCB.
(Bernardin also aided and abetted in the Priestly abuse of children by moving abusive Priests from Parish to Parish per Diocese and Court Documents.)
In all the pages of all 16 Documents, there are only about 5 sentences that could use clarification from the Vatican.
Thanks Bill K for being reasonable and using logic. Yes I agree with you on the “gossip” that is often misleading the many posters. Its best to look to the Vatican for the truth not what the enemy is posting. God bless you for your common sense. Yes accuracy and truth is best.
California Catholic Conference of Bishops is promoting a PRO-ABORTION politician on its web site without stating he his PRO- ABORTION and PRO HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE.
They include a link to the Governor’s web site.
Those who are responsible for the web site content – may NOT RECIEVE HOLY COMMUNION.
“WORTHINESS to RECIEVE HOLY COMMUNION, General Principles.
https://www.priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/04-07ratzingerommunion.htm
and
https://www.politicalresponsibility.com/voterguide.htm
With approx. 1 MILLION innocent human beings being murdered each year in the USA via abortion, there is nothing proportionate in this Country.
” The largest, politically-active religious organization in California is officially declaring that abortion is not to be presented as a political issue.” –
then they may not receive HOLY COMMUNION.
VOTING is key in stopping bad laws, and not electing evil politicians.
The goal of “OneLife LA” is to detract and hijack the anti-abortion cause
for other political issues.
This dilutes the important issue of the ‘Right to Life’.
And the torture of innocent unborn human beings.
Douay-Rheims Bible 1 Peter 5:8
Be sober and watch: because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, goeth about seeking whom he may devour.
Sandy, Excellent post. You are absolutely correct. You have hit the nail right on the head! The well intended pro-life workers who are involved are trusting. They are not fully aware of how they are being so cleverly used to give legitimacy to certain causes that run completely contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church. I will liken this kind of infiltration to the parish where the pastor is not vigilant about who is invited in to spiritually taint and politically influence his flock. There is also the circumstance where a very good and faithful priest will be invited to speak at another parish besides his own and when he goes there to speak with good intentions he is often utterly clueless about the other political happenings at that parish and now his being there lends credibility to those politically based happenings. This confuses the flock even more because now they think that these political causes are far more important than the salvation of each and every soul, including their own.
Jeremiah 5:21 “Hear, O foolish people, and without understanding: who have eyes, and see not: and ears, and hear not.” – Douay-Rheims
I am certain that neither the Nervous Ordo Anonymous Quackers nor their cheerleaders have ever person-to-person talked with a traditional priest: it would blow their mind to find out the truth, and that cannot be so. The must believe that trad/SSPX/what-have-you trad priests and orders believe something DIFFERENT from what Pius XII, for example, taught: utter, prima-facie nonsense.
Indeed, this gaggle of Nervous Ordeal Ducks believe that the N.O. liturgy [that Ratzinger himself called “fabricated” in his positive review of Klaus Gamber’s book “The Reform of the Liturgy” in the 1980’s] was a creation of the 16th century (Anon Quacker posting Jan. 18, ’15 10:14 pm) and that Abp. Bugnini discovered “Lost Rites” in creating the Nervous Ordo New Mass. Is this like Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Rites? Quack, quack, quack.
But even the most recent edition of GIRM by the USCCB corrects the false notion that the Trad Latin Mass was “created” “in the 16th century” at Trent saying: “In fact, the MIssal of 1570 differs very little from the very first printed edition of 1474, which in turn faithfully takes up again the Missal used in the time of Pope Innocent III.” (#7, USCCB Gen Instr. Roman Missal) Pope Innocent III died in 1216: and in fact written forms of the Roman Canon are recorded in the Gelasian Sacramentary (8th C., Vatican Library), confirming that Pope Gregory the Great (d. 604) had essentially the same Roman Canon as the TLM in his time. So much for a “16th c. creation”.
Even the most recent edition of GIRM by the USCCB corrects the false notion that the Trad Latin Mass was “created” “in the 16th century” at Trent saying: “In fact, the MIssal of 1570 differs very little from the very first printed edition of 1474, which in turn faithfully takes up again the Missal used in the time of Pope Innocent III.” (#7, USCCB Gen Instr. Roman Missal) Pope Innocent III died in 1216: and in fact written forms of the Roman Canon are recorded in the Gelasian Sacramentary (8th C., Vatican Library), confirming that Pope Gregory the Great (d. 604) had essentially the same Roman Canon as the TLM in his time. So much for a “16th c. creation”.
Who is Abp Gomez and his Staff kidding in “OneLife LA” ? ? ? ? ?
“We differentiate ourselves by not focusing on the political side of pro-life issues,” declares Kevin Kast, coordinator of the event. To keep a tight lid on the new message, participants, “are not to hand out literature or to educate. ”
A public march is meant to be political and to educate.
Only the Abp and his staff want their OWN POLITICAL issues in the forefront.
If they did not want to be political or to educate, they could merely pray about their issues within Church buildings.
Bringing anything to the forefront of the public square is intended to educate..
They should be ashamed of themselves for their double-talk, and
for detracting from the torture and murder of about 1 million innocent human beings in the USA each year.
In addition they have much work to do (if they care at all) about the CA Democrats trying to pass a CA law in favor of euthanasia.
“All moral issues are not equal.” – Pope Benedict.
Abp Gomez and his Staffers can not get enough support for his ILLEGAL immigration, so they have to link it to other more important issues.
He is not fooling anyone.
ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION violates the teaching of the Church.
CCC: 2241.