Cardinal Blase Cupich has issued a new policy for the Archdiocese of Chicago that curtails the celebration of the Traditional Latin Mass and other sacraments in Latin using liturgical books that pre-Vatican II.
Under the policy, which takes effect Jan. 25, priests, deacons, and ordained ministers who wish to use the “old rite” must submit their requests to Cupich in writing and agree to abide by the new norms.
Those rules specify that the Traditional Latin Masses must incorporate scripture readings in the vernacular, using the official translation of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
In addition, such Masses cannot take place in a parish church unless both the archbishop and the Vatican agree to grant an exemption.
The new policy also prohibits the celebration of Traditional Latin Masses on the first Sunday of every month, Christmas, the Triduum, Easter Sunday, and Pentecost Sunday.
Set in motion by Pope Francis’ Traditionis custodes, the Chicago Archdiocese’s policy was issued Dec. 27 and first reported by Vatican News. Traditionis custodes is a July 16 motu proprio in which the pope placed sweeping restrictions on the celebration of Mass using the 1962 Roman Missal, known variously as the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite, the Tridentine Mass, and the Traditional Latin Mass. (You can read a further explanation of the document here.)
Chicago’s new rules mirror those spelled out in an explanatory document regarding Pope Francis’ edict published Dec. 18 by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, the Vatican office responsible for matters related to the sacred liturgy.
“My intention in sharing this policy is to encourage you to reflect on the duty we each must assist our people in this moment of Eucharistic revival by rediscovering the value of the liturgical reform in the rites given to us by the Second Vatican Council,” Cupich wrote in an accompanying letter to priests, Vatican News reported.
The Vatican’s explanatory document states that the intent of Traditionis custodes is “to re-establish in the whole Church of the Roman Rite a single and identical prayer expressing its unity, according to the liturgical books promulgated by the Popes Saint Paul VI and Saint John Paul II, in conformity with the decrees of the Second Vatican Council and in line with the tradition of the Church.”
The explanatory document notes that Traditionis custodes stipulates that sacraments cannot be celebrated using the liturgical books Rituale Romanum and the Pontificale Romanum promulgated prior to the Vatican II reforms.
The Pontificale Romanum contains the rites and ceremonies usually performed by bishops and the Rituale Romanum is one of the official ritual books used by a priest or deacon for rites not found in the Roman Missal, which is used for Mass.
The Vatican congregation clarified that a diocesan bishop can authorize the use of the 1952 edition of the Rituale Romanum, but not the Pontificale Romanum, “only to those canonically erected personal parishes which, according to the provisions of the Motu Proprio Traditionis custodes, celebrate using the Missale Romanum [Roman Missal] of 1962.”
The Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, one of the largest traditional societies of apostolic life, has said that the explanatory document “does not directly address the former Ecclesia Dei communities such as the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter who possess their own proper law.”
The above comes from a Dec. 27 story on the site of the Catholic News Agency.
Tightens noose?
That wasn’t the original title.
It’s the job of editors to create the headlines used (and they usually don’t use the phrasing of any institution putting out a document). Is it inaccurate? Would you say he is loosening or removing the noose? Doesn’t it seem he wants it to die (thus the noose analogy)?
There is no noose. It is not accurate. It is an analogy. So it is not real. The original title:
Cardinal Cupich issues new restrictions on Traditional Latin Masses
is accurate.
Analogies are not meant to be taken literally. Might you answer, doesn’t it seem he wants it to die (thus the noose analogy)?
The analogy seems accurate. Think of it the next time you cast your vote. Are you fly fishing, throwing a net or what?
We all know what those common analogies mean and I think we know what Cardinal Cupich thinks of the TLM. It’s simply a fair and honest description. If you agree with Cardinal, own it.
People, just reminding you all gently here, that this is all your doing. When you were being warned by people like me over the years concerning your divisive, disrespectful (to the bishops and popes), and dissentful comments and attitudes, many of you didn’t take notice, but rather mocked and jeered. Well, here we all are. And what is now remarkable is that instead of heeding Christ’s Vicar on Earth, instead of considering yourselves justly reprimanded, and instead of being contrite and sorry, you all unjustly castigate the Pope and people like Cupich for wanting to preserve the unity and health of the Body of Christ. Disgraceful.
People, another warning here: if you folks and the leaders of the former “Ecclesia Dei” communities follow the drumbeat of these belligerent pseudo-intellectuals like Peter Kwasniewski and Taylor Marshall, you may very well find yourselves following the sorry path of Lefebvre and the rest of the beloved SSPX, with their Masses all illicit and unlawful, with their salvation therefore being at risk. Be warned.
jon, “People, just reminding you all gently here, that this is all your doing. When you were being warned by people like me over the years…” It seems you’re pretty quick to place blame (some of the time). Are your comments, like “you folks,” respectful and not divisive? And, your name calling (“belligerent pseudo-intellectuals”)? Can’t you make your points more civilly and respectfully? Disrespectful, angry people are in most groups in the Church (such is clearly not limited to traditional groups). When you point your finger at others, three fingers are pointing back at you. With your “warnings” over the years and your two or three here, consider yourself absolved from future warnings. Either readers are heeding your warnings or not.
So your saying being vindictive is Catholic ? What was good from around the year 600 doesn’t work anymore ? These so called prelates of the Church are destroying it from within and it needs to be challenge at any means. It states in scripture when Jesus was a little upset to the point of tossing tables, the way the Temple was being used. It’s this sort of go with the flow attitude that’s brought forth this very serious situation. I suggest you get off your backside, stop twirling your thumbs and stand up against these Cowards. I say Cowards because they lack the interest to defend the truth but some like the Bishop of Rome wont even answer a Dubia from almost 2000 days ago. Things that make you go hmmmmmm.
“People, just reminding you all gently here, that this is all your doing….” Jon, your supercilious attitude renders what you say distasteful at least and highly doubtful at worst. And I say this with no dog in the fight as I have never been to a TLM. Rather, all the reading I have done leads me to the conclusion that this mess is solely on Pope Francis and no one else. Whether his course of action is correct or not is another matter not to be considered at this time.
So folks, this is fascinating. On the one hand Dan here has called what he falsely perceives to be my attitude as “supercilious,” yet on the other he has just unjustly put blame on “this mess” on the Supreme Pontiff. Fascinating. If Dan were Catholic this would be a case of irreverence and the height of “superciliousness.” The only people to blame here Dan, are those who have been using this beautiful Mass as a way of registering their contempt for Vatican II, for the Pope, and for the Ordinary Form.
“… yet on the other he has just unjustly put blame on “this mess” on the Supreme Pontiff…” Well Jon, he told the youth to “make a mess.” He also made words about being the pontiff that would split the church, if memory serves. And if it does serve, then I rest my case. And if Dan is Catholic, I rest my case on the “supercilious.”
Dan, you do not understand the Catholic Church. it is the Mystical Body of Christ.
https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_29061943_mystici-corporis-christi.html
“Dan, you do not understand the Catholic Church. it is the Mystical Body of Christ.” me, could you please indicate to me what I have written that indicates to you that I do not believe the Catholic Church is the Mystical Body of Christ? If the matter is my take on Pope Francis’ motu proprio, how is that a denial of the doctrine? Are you saying Pope Francis cannot make mistakes? If so show me where this is guaranteed in the doctrine of the Mystical Body of Christ, and I will repent in dust and ashes.
Your post that I replied to. You sound as if you think the Pope is a CEO.
“Your post that I replied to. You sound as if you think the Pope is a CEO..” Again me, can you tell me what in my post gave you that impression? I surely did not intend this.
Being Catholic among other things means obedience to the Pope and one’s bishops, even to the point of suffering, just as Our Lord suffered obeying the Father. Using the sacrament of the Church, such as the beautiful Mass of John XXIII in order to divide the Church, is not the behavior of a faithful Catholic.
We hold you in same contempt as those in the corrupt hierarchy whose crimes you ignore and cover for. I would be far more worried for the Bishops who have been covering up financial and sexual crimes.
“bohemond” we are not talking about whatever cover-up you’re bringing up. We’re talking about the sacrilegious abuse of this beautiful Mass by many exclusive TLM-goers in order to divide the Church, an act that is gravely sinful and diabolical.
The Church is already divided, and has been for decades. We have these bogus calls for unity, while the Vatican attacks traditional Catholics at the same time the hierarchy will allow sacrilege (pachamama for example) to go on an on. Most of the Church in Germany is for all intents and purposes in schism.
If the Church is “already divided” then you should pray that the Pope’s “Traditionis custodes” will heal the divide. That’s the traditional Catholic attitude in this instance.
Division is not inherently bad, it purifies . Jon attacks trads but says nothing about Pacahamama.
“bohemond” again is wrong and doesn’t really get it. I am attacking division in the Church which is being wrought by those who are using the TLM to foment division. Our Lord Himself condemns division among His believers. The notion that division purifies is the Devil’s lie. People like “bohemond’ have believed in that lie.
How to you spell D.I.C.T.A.T.O.R.? I hope Cupich likes eternal warmth…
So Peggy has arrogated to herself to judge the soul of Cardinal Cupich
Peggy would do well to specify the acts of C. Cupich which put his soul in jeopardy. She might have mentioned his shameful treatment of Fr. Paul Kalchik, his denial that homosexuality is the primary cause of the sex abuse scandal, and other matters already noted. Whether these would send him to the infernal regions is not ours to say, but he ( as all of us) will have to answer for all injustices at the Great White Throne baring a good confession.
No, Anonymous. Peggy said the truth.
Peggy, I gave you a thumbs down accidentally. Sorry!
More like: “Cupich acts like a responsible archbishop and moves the Chicago Archdiocese closer to full implementation of Vatican II’s liturgical reforms.”
No, Anonymous. The Fathers of Vatican II originally had completely different ideas than what actually was implemented. And Cupich is merely implementing his own ideas– not truly what was intended at Vatican II.
Could you please be more specific.
ct– where have you been, since the 1960s, after the Vatican II Council ended?? Didn’t you see the big, strange, highly-experimental, chaotic “mess” that started, all of a sudden? And clerics had no definite plans for anything, to carry out what the Council Fathers originally had in mind! It was just “chaos,” and “anything goes!” Plus, the New Mass (Novus Ordo) of 1969 did not at all reflect what the Council Fathers had in mind, with their document, “Sacrosanctum Concilium.” Maybe you need more exposure to all of this, if you have no knowledge…
You were asked to give specific examples of how Cardinal Cupich is implementing his own ideas-not truly what was intended at Vatican II.
The notion that the council fathers wouldn’t have recognized the mass of Paul VI is ludicrous. There were Proposed liturgies in circulation for years based on the most recent historical work, mostly put together and promoted by the Benedictines who were among the participants at Vatican II. The council fathers most certainly knew what they were proposing.
Everyone agrees that the implementation of the changes was too abrupt back in the early 1970s.
That is really not the issue today.
It kind of does not matter what is in the Vatican document.
The Missal is promulgated by the Pope.
Don’t like it? Oh well.
If Cardinal Cupich is instructing his priests to say or do something contrary to the Missal, which I have never heard that he has, then there is a legitimate complaint.
To criticize him for not conforming to the Vatican II document, that is not his job.
Your assertions are wrong
The irony of the picture of a Latin Mass priest without a visible head.
“The irony of the picture of a Latin Mass priest without a visible head.” A clever comment, bgs. But is it irony? Would it not be said that the picture is rather symbolic, that is, symbolic of what is actually the case? Irony occurs when what on the surface appears to be the case or to be expected differs radically from what is actually the case. I am a (retired) math teacher, not an English teacher, so admittedly I am a little out of my comfort zone on this one,
Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano has been warning us about this papacy and the diabolical arms it has, Vigano is still in hiding because of the arms of Bergoglio want to silence him once and for all. We all knew this was coming down to crushing the Traditional Latin Mass because having been revived and growing posed a threat to the Novus Ordo, so I say it now RESIST. To you Novus Ordonarians here please keep your man made service of giant puppets, altar girls, clowns, lay lectors, lay people handing out communion with their unclean hands, dancing girls in leotards, drums, guitars, bongos, rock, mariachi, folk music, felt banners, communion in the hand while standing, kiss of peace, hand holding, effeminate priests, people wearing tank tops, shorts, sandals, clapping, talking, we just wish to be left alone, but alas Bergoglio fears and loathes us and will not stop until he destroys us but Christ promised us the gates of hell shall not prevail. RESIST
RA’s comment proves that folks like him have brought all of this upon themselves. His/her attitude of “the Pope hates us,” the wrong attitude that mocks those who go to the Ordinary Form proves that the Pope is correct all along: folks like RA mean to divide the Church.
Archbishop Vigano is our modern day prophet. Cupich et al preach tyranny, not Christ’s teachings.
St. Michael the Archangel, by the power of God, rebuke these demons who prowl amongst us, seeking the ruin of souls.
Peggy is mistaken about Vigano. He’s no prophet because no prophet has been in hiding this long out of cowardice, fear, or for whatever reason, with the exception of Jonah. And Jonah was finally vomited out by the whale.
So essentially Peggy: the whole world is waiting for the time when the poor Viganò will be vomited out from whatever lair he’s hiding in..
Peggy, I fully agree! Abp. Vigano is outstanding! Many excellent Church prelates agree with him.
division will purify the Church from heretical modernist nonsense.
We know who the father of lies is. Repent of your sins.
Great…now someone is going to make a fool of themselves thinking they are supposed to wear beach clothes to Church and is going to be really disappointed when there are no dancing girls and puppets. I hope they don’t try to kiss anybody or hold their hands due to your bad influence.
To you, O blessed Joseph,
do we come in our tribulation,
and having implored the help of your most holy Spouse,
we confidently invoke your patronage also.
Through that charity which bound you
to the Immaculate Virgin Mother of God
and through the paternal love
with which you embraced the Child Jesus,
we humbly beg you graciously to regard the inheritance
which Jesus Christ has purchased by his Blood,
and with your power and strength to aid us in our necessities.
O most watchful guardian of the Holy Family,
defend the chosen children of Jesus Christ;
O most loving father, ward off from us
every contagion of error and corrupting influence;
O our most mighty protector, be kind to us
and from heaven assist us in our struggle
with the power of darkness.
As once you rescued the Child Jesus from deadly peril,
so now protect God’s Holy Church
from the snares of the enemy and from all adversity;
shield, too, each one of us by your constant protection,
so that, supported by your example and your aid,
we may be able to live piously, to die in holiness,
and to obtain eternal happiness in heaven.
Amen.
St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in the battle.
Romulus Augustus,
I think Abp. Vigano is outstanding, as do many other fine Catholic prelates.
Cdl. Cupich is an extreme liberal-leftist coward who believes in giving Holy Communion to pro-abortion politicians, and has even said it is “good.” He has, in the past, not allowed priests to participate in 40 Days For Life campaigns, and similar pro-life activities. At the Synod on the Family, he sought to join in an obviously fraudulent pursuit of a way for “married” gay couples and divorced and remarried couples (without Church annulments) to receive Holy Communion, according to their so-called “individual consciences.” He is an extremely divisive force in our USCCB, along with other extremely liberal Catholic prelates. This cardinal has been called by many Catholic leaders, including some top Vatican clerics– to be one of the “most dangerous to the Catholic Faith” in the United States. Obviously, Cupich, a huge foe of Catholic orthodoxy– is likewise a huge foe of the old Latin Tridentine Mass. So sorry for the poor devout, sincere Catholic priests and laymen, of the Archdiocese of Chicago! Born in 1949, Cupich will retire in 2024, at age 75.
Dan,
I invite you and any other anti-traditional Mass Catholics to watch this Documentary and comment why you dislike the Latin Mass so much.
https://youtu.be/xdbwNMYKhw0
Thank you for this link.
I’m sitting here just horrified that it took the Latin Mass for people like Father Illo and Bishop Strickland to understand the profundity of the Mass.
I am glad that they get it now.
It should not take the Latin Mass for a priest to understand the consecration.
And the other priest who said that he was competitive with other priests…that is his fault not the fault of the Mass.
Praise Jesus for correcting these priests.
i know a priest who was edified by the lay people’s faith in the Eucharist to heal.
I bet they don’t have this in the priests in Africa where Mass takes 3 hours or in the Amazon where people get Mass once a year
The fault is not in the Mass.
It is hard to explain to those who do not understand it, nor feel the way we do, but the Traditional Latin Mass’s wording is so much more conducive to realizing just how awesome it is that the Lord of the Universe humbled himself to come down from his throne on high to enter a Little Host to save us from our sins. At the the Consecration I am taken up and out of myself in reverential contemplation that I find harder to receive in most newer masses with all the noise. The kneeling to receive on the tongue by priestly consecrated hand, the paten held under the chin to catch every crumb of the Lord that might be dropped I find so much more special, (Cont.)
(Cont.) We are all different and from different backgrounds and something that God might use to make one person holier, might not work on another. I cannot fully understand you, nor you. I am not going to argue anyone more about this on this article’s website, it does no good. I am not worried about the future of the Traditional Latin Mass as 2000 years of Church history is not going to go anywhere. It will always be with us to the end of time.
(Cont.) so much more reverential, with the chant straight from the Psalms and prayers of the Saints. I feel more of a connection to the saints of the past, including the ones who refused to put a pinch of incenses on the altar of Zeus (Jupiter). Yes, I received one time what a Catholic priest told me was infused grace at one the Post Vatican II Masses. It was a sense of overwhelming peace that would not go away for at least week — nothing could disturb me. it was preparing me for something higher, and as in the Traditional Mass. (Cont.)
The Ordinary Form reverently offered can be as much peaceful and grace-filled and even more so than the TLM. I know so. I’ve been to both, and there is a simple elegance in the Ordinary Form that you do not get in the Extraordinary Form. So says the Ordinary Form can’t be as reverential. The challenge here is to get congregations and priests to start offering the Mass of Paul VI in light of tradition. One way to get there is as soon as the beloved FSSP and Institute of Christ the King, and the other former Ecclesia Dei communities start showing the rest of the Church how to offer the Ordinary Form.
Information not criticism
https://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/spiritual-growth-vs-spiritual-consolation/
But Pope, or Pope Emeritus, Benedict XVI named the Traditional Latin Mass well. It IS the extraordinary one.
I’m sorry Peggy, I never said I was anti-traditional Mass, and I can’t imagine what I said that would lead you to that conclusion. I have played my cards close to the vest on this one, but if I may show them: I am rather impressed by the TLM given what those who attend have to say about it. Further, I think Francis’ motu Proprio is bad medicine for a specious disease. It was promulgated on arguably deceitful grounds and shows contempt for the legacy of Benedict et al. and the hermeneutic of continuity. The Jesuits and National Catholic Reporter are clapping; I am not.
Dan there is just something off about the way you view the Church and the Pope.
Have you ever read the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church?
Most certainly I have, cton. I also do not look the other way when there is evidence of shameful doing at the highest levels. Item: Francis’ shameful treatment of the Chinese Catholics; item: Francis destruction of the St. John Paul II institute and the legacy of Benedct XVI; Item: his hammering of trads in the name of unity when he himself in a very small circle, is said to have self-critically explained himself in December 2016 as follows: “It is not to be excluded that I will enter history as the one who split the Catholic Church;” Item: his failure to answer the dubia cardinals; Item: the rationale given for the issuing of Traditionis Custodes speaks of prevarication on his part. I think the real corruption is in the Jesuit order, and that at the highest levels. See Jesuit at Large, p. 14 (essays be the late Paul Manskowski, S.J.). And as I see it, Francis is a Jesuit first and Pope second. This way of seeing Francis may be off, as you say, and I am open to correction. Is Francis too open to correction for his own sins as Pontiff, or is he too rigid for that?
If I may put my two cents here based on my own reading: “Dan’s” way of viewing the Church and the Holy Father, based on his own litany of “complaints” and previous posts, is mainly a regurgitation of the biased anti-Francis news-coverage and analysis coming from certain biased blogs and news-outlets. Sorry to say but a steady diet of such news and opinion results in a way of looking at the Church and the Magisterium that “Dan” here evinces.
Dan, I was quite shocked by the quote you claim the Pope said and when I googled it, it is reputed to have been said by a German magazine and is reported in English by the websites OnePeterFive and ChurchMilitant.
I avoid those websites.
Pope Francis is a good Pope. The Internet gossip is evil.
The devil is very tricky. Stick to only those things that the Pope says officially.
You are exposing yourself to very negative influences. You are endangering your soul.
Forget the man Pope Francis. He is the head of the Catholic Church. If you do not like something he says or does, it is your duty to obey docilely. You don’t run the Church. He does. Obedience allows you to be closer to Christ.
Most people like the Pope. He really is not divisive. It is only the people who are so far to the right or to the left that they are barely hanging on to the barque anyway who are mad at him.
Those are the people who are “more Catholic than the Pope” or those who think “the Church is an antiquated institution trying to cling to the middle ages.”
Those far right people will leave the Church because they don’t get the form of Mass they want. Those far left people leave the Church because of women’s and gay “rights.”
Something is more important to them than the Church.
jon, I agree that going to websites like that is like drinking from a poisoned well.
I shall try in the future to be more positive about Pope Francis, despite my misgivings about this pontificate. Whatever wrong he has done I will no longer comment about in these pages. His actions speak for themselves anyway, and do not need my commentary. I am content to leave it at that, and as always, to pray for him.
Thank you for praying for the Pope. If you get away from his critics and really just deal with his words and works as Pontiff and do not judge but trust God and ask Mary to let you see him through Her eyes, you will be healed.
Remember, Jesus Christ was extremely divisive. Because He told the Truth. And sinful men hated Him for it, and plotted to kill Him– and they did. Thousands of devout Christians have been martyred, all through the ages, even to this day, for standing up for the Truth, exactly as Jesus Christ taught. Always stand up for Christ, exactly as He said. He died for our sins. Read St. Matthew 10:34-36.
Jesus Christ was not divisive of His Own Body. Sin did that.
It he can still vote in the new Conclave until he is 80!!
And he can vote in Chicago’s elections for forty years after he dies!
Yes, isn’t that too bad! Well, Cupuch will turn 80 in 2029.
Jon, don’t tell me or warn me about the Tradio Latin Mass .You’re not my confessor and certainly not my savior, like I always have said on this website keep your giant puppets, clown masses, altar girls, Ley lectors, Eucharistic minister‘s especially women who don’t belong on the altar, handholding, kiss of peace, rock, mariachi, folk music, felt banners, effeminate priests, women in leotards prancing around the altar with streamers, women at the lectern waving their hands trying to make the people sing stupid songs, yeah you can have all that Jon we won’t want any part of it it’s a fraud. Remember buddy Mass attendance was 75% before the second Vatican Council now it stands at 5 to 8% you tell me who is correct. I will take. Archbishop Lefebvre and Dr. Taylor Marshall you can keep your Cupich’s Mahoney, Gregory,
Go to SSPX, then. The Catholic Church is going to unify behind Vatican II and the Novus Ordo, and the TLM will be decommissioned.
You choose: the TLM idol or union with the one, true, Church of Christ under his vicar, the pope. You choose. Choose wisely.
“You choose: the TLM idol or union with the one, true, Church of Christ under his vicar, the pope.”
Would that be the same Pope who allowed idol-worship in the Vatican, and promoted the Inca demon Pachama?
No thanks, I’ll take my chances with the first 2000 years of continuous Catholic dogma instead.
#notthesamereligion
Heresy.
Indeed to claim that the Church today and the Novus Ordo are not the same religion as the Church before the Council and the TLM is heresy.
These TLMers are schismatics. Pope Francis is right to curtail the TLM as medicine to bring them back into the true fold of Christ’s Church, unified in liturgy.
On the contrary, Pope Francis’s own motu proprio admits as much when he says that the Traditional Latin Mass is incompatible with the new theology of the Vatican II Catholic Church.
For once, I completely and wholeheartedly agree: the two Masses are wholly incompatible theologically.
I just re-read the moto proprio. It does not say what you claim.
It has been noted all through the ages, that the Catholic Church is very coldly “legalistic” in its approach, as it originally was an arm of the Roman Government, as a State religion. By contrast, it has been observed that the Eastern Orthodox churches, traditionally, have never been so legalistic in character. Legalism can appear coldly superficial, hypocritical, and not very spiritual. It also may greatly hinder, or even destroy spirituality. The Jewish religion has also suffered from legalism, all through the centuries. Traditionally, Jews have had 613 laws to daily follow. The early Christians decided to not require adherence to the Jewish laws, of new converts. Following Church laws that are very small, less important, petty legalistic demands of religious leaders– may or may not help people get to Heaven, depending on the situation. Man-made laws, said to be “inspired by God,” help govern groups, and leaders can use them in either good or bad ways. We must be careful to carefully discern the truth, not blindly just follow legalistic demands, because it is convenient and easy.
And don’t forget McElroy…
What does San Diego have to do with Chicago?
Anonymous, both Cupich and McElroy are extremely deviant, liberal leftist prelates, opposed to Catholic teaching, destroying the Church. Regardless of the form of Mass– these bad Catholic prelates promote gay sex unions, giving Communion to bad Catholic political leaders, fail to support pro-life endeavors for the 2,363 helpless unborn American children killed daily in abortion.
.
How funny a mere 50 years ago the TLM was the norm now it’s a man made production show of paganism and childish non-sense. Man have we slipped a degree or two.
The beautiful Tridentine Latin Mass is ancient, timeless, and theologically exact. It has historical roots deeply connected to the original Mass of the Apostles, and to the codified Mass of Pope St. Gregory the Great, of the late 6th century A.D. The modernist-promoting current Pope now wants to “discard” the 1500+- years-old Latin Tridentine Mass, and “modernize,” and “unify” his Church around his “modernistic” beliefs. But modernization is not a good point to unify our Church around– instead, I think the Pope, as our spiritual leader— should seek to unify the Church by requiring unity around Christ and His teachings, and specifically, to require that all “bad Catholic” politicians, clerics, nuns, religious orders, and heretical, immoral Catholic schools, seminaries, universities, charities, hospitals— and all Catholic institutions– all must obey Chirst’s teachings. That is the most important thing a “modern” Pope can do, especially in the post-Vatican II Church.
I can tell who the schismatics are by their posts.
And we can tell the Heretics by theirs
Just a couple of observations here, people, because I know you’re all suffering/hurting right now I know, and I want to give you people some hopeful consolation. Firstly, you’re all suffering because you have believed the lies over the years about the Magisterium, about the popes, about Pope Francis (such as the ridiculous notion that the Pope actually “worshipped” the Pachamama which is a big lie), lies about the Ordinary Form, about Vatican II. Perhaps the Pope’s remedy (ie, “Traditionis custodes”) may be the best antidote for the brainwashing you all have undergone for decades now.
Secondly, perhaps cooler heads will prevail. Consider the communiqué in September from the superiors-general of the former “Ecclesia Dei” communities (that’s folks like the beloved FSSP and the beloved Institute of Christ the King) addressed to the bishops of France. The communiqué is appropriately deferential, respectful, and (almost) contrite. “We are ready, as every Christian is, to ask forgiveness if some excess of language or mistrust of authority may have crept into any of our members. We are ready to convert if party spirit or pride has polluted our hearts,” they wrote. If they had just removed the word “if” there, they would have hit a home-run in my book, but they balked. However, if they continue in this vein, and allow themselves down-the-line to obey by offering the Ordinary Form and by stating unreservedly that they adhere to the Pope and to Vatican II, they may survive all of this; and you people may be spared from having to go to illicit/unlawful Masses which otherwise would have been detrimental to your salvation. There may yet be hope for you lot. Just some consoling words here.
Pope Francis could have stopped that pagan ritual in the Vatican Gardens any time, instead he chose to take dirt, throw it on the ground and get involved in the planting ritual. There is a picture of him online before he became pope where he not only allowed an elderly couple to do a tango in the sanctuary at a Mass, he introduced them. Such secular dancing with a woman wearing an off the shoulder blouse in a sacred space, forcing worshippers endure it, is wrong. This pope seems to have a problem with respecting Catholic sacred space.
If you doubt what I wrote, just put in “Cardinal Bergoglio promotes a Tango at Mass” in your search engine, or “Angel Zavaleta bailando tango en el altar de la Iglesia, ante el futuro Papa Francisco” in your search engine. This pope has been encouraging this sacrilege all along. In the one video, he does not introduce the couple, but he was the chief celebrant since he was the cardinal there and allowed this whole sacrilege, and a sacrilege it was with a man and woman dancing a seductive dance right in front of the altar. Reminds me of the dance of Solome.
As seemingly informative as Anne TE’s comment here is, there has been no incontrovertible proof that the Holy Father ever worshipped, nor is currently worshipping, a deity other than the One True God who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. None.
Anne TE, I am afraid for you soul.
This reminds me of things that were done on the Internet to St. John Paul II and also St. Paul VI. It was done by sedevacantists.and others who are enemies of the Papacy.
You must ask yourself who is telling me these things and why.
I am sorry that these things eroded your faith.
Are you praying the Rosary? Are you consecrated to the Immaculate Heart?
Are you reading your Bible?
You can do online Eucharistic Adoration on Youtube.
Please stick to traditional sources for your Catholic spirituality.
I am doing those things, and listening to good bishops — Archbishop Cordileone, Bishop Schneider, Cardinal Burke and others. That video is not fake any more than the video of the sacrilege that was done at the Chicago Mass this week.
I don’t condone everything on any website, but a tango in front of a Catholic altar is a sacrilege as far as I am concerned. I refused to be involved in a Hindu prayer before a Catholic altar by a Hindu priest in the past. I went to a reverent post Vatican II Mass instead.
I also listen to and read books and sermons by Cardinal Sarah and many good Asian Catholics priests who would never perform their Masses in such a way. I cannot blame some of the Traditional Latin priests who do not want to concelebrate as they might get stuck in situations such as this. It is easy for me as a lay women to say, “No, I am not going to be involved in such a thing, but not so easy for a poor orthodox priest with an unorthodox bishop over him.
I watched the video. It is highly edited. the music is added. I do not speak Spanish so I cannot tell what he is saying. There is only one shot of the priests at the Mass and it is too blurry to tell if it is him.
There is no explanation. Why was it being filmed?
Lots of questions.
I do not believe in Argentina that tango is necessarily a seductive dance because it was originally danced with two males.
Maybe we should not judge. Like Jesus said
You certainly were not watching the same video I have as there were several priests in the video I watched on you tube, and the woman had on a blouse that did not cover one side of her arms nor one part of her back. That type of clothing in a dance hall is still slightly seductive, but in a church it is totally inappropriate. It is one thing if pope Francis let that happen years ago, but totally another if he is not correcting such abuses now. He has done some good things, but in other ways he is just too lax.
Anne TE, now I see that there is a 30 minute video also. I will watch that one, too. It may explain some of the edits in the shorter video.
I will post back when I can today.
You are correct. I was not watching the same video. I watched an edited version of the 30 minute video. Thanks for alerting me to that. The woman’s blouse did not show anything immodest although it slipped down her back as she danced. The dance itself was not dirty. The only shot of the pope during the dance shows him with his head bowed so maybe he was making reparation.
I cannot understand what the introduction to the dance says. Maybe someone can watch it and tell us.
I do not think it is appropriate.
The dance was not during the Mass.
I notice that on the 30 minute video the comments are mostly positive while on the highly edited version, the comments are very negative.
I am not going to give timestamps on the short video since we now have the video that is only slightly edited.
jon, re your 29 Dec ‘epistle’ above
As to your offer to be my spiritual guide, mentor and consoler—i’ll pass. I’ve read too many of your pontificating and condescending posts.
He’s a public nooseance.
Thumbs up for the pun, not for what it asserts.
Hymie, thumbs up for you funny comment– all true!
Why do some who dislike the TLM get their panties in such a bunch every time it comes up?
If it’s really just a few old dinosaurs who attend a historic relic that will soon be consigned to the dustbin of history, why bother? Relax. It’ll soon be gone.
Or, will it?
Maybe some, including some bishops, are threatened by it. If so, what’s the threat?
The issue here “Quid” is not those “who dislike the TLM.” The real issue are those who dislike the Ordinary Form and Vatican II. They are the ones who have caused division in the Church. The Pope is working to preserve the Church’s unity, over and above the petulant complaints of these so-called “traditional Catholics.” BTW, it is not “traditional” to be lambasting the Pope, any pope, nor any of his bishops. That’s a novel, modernist attitude people.
Your use of that misogynist expression offends me.
Your use, what misogynist expression are you referring to? I certainly did not intend one.
Are you referring to the Russian Bolshevik Leon Trotsky’s referring to the Mensheviks: “Go where you belong from now on – into the dustbin of history!”? Or the dinosaurs? Or are you referring to panties in a bunch defined as:
1. When a person overreacts to a trifling insult or barb, or to a joke.
2. When someone acts in an anal-retentive manner, and makes a big fuss out of a relatively minor problem.
In this case, I’m using the phrase according to the secondary definition.
No offense intended, so I’ll add trousers in a twist and knickers in a knot to be more inclusive. And, do you agree that we should all just relax and let the TLM die a natural death?
For the ones out there who keep saying none of the Liturgical abuses occur please watch Dr. Taylor Marshall from yesterday showing the wonderful Novus Ordo Christmas service at the notorious St. Sabina’s in Chicago home to the lavender priest Father Flager who adopted young boys and of course nothing happened to him. So Traditional Latin Mass bad, St. Sabina’s totally made up screaming and yelling service with yes dancing men and women all good according to Cupich. St. John Cantius in Chicago run by the Canons Regular which offers the TLM and the Novus Ordo in Latin is is real trouble with the Cupich decree, so you have a parish that was run down and very little parishioners revived with TLM and the interior restored to its former glory founded by Polish immigrants and yet Cupich targets it! This man is a disgrace and a nasty vindictive man at that, again I state in a sane world you would think Cupich would be ecstatic about the revival of St. John’s but noooooo that pesky TLM is attracting young families and packed to the rafters and must be punished. This is truly an upside down world.
You don’t really get it do you, RA? As bad as the liturgies in St. Sabina are, the folks there are not working to destroy the Church’s unity and therefore the Church’s health and survival. They are not using what is holy (the Mass) as a tool to divide, which is a gravely sinful act. They are not undermining the Second Vatican Council in principle, nor are they lambasting the Pope. The attack on the Church by the exclusive-TLM goers are upon the very structure of the Church itself. Whereas the folks at St. Sabina are merely guilty of bad liturgical sensibilities.
John is wrong this time. By not adhering to the GIRM, not adhering to the prayers in the Missal, not adhering to liturgical norms, Fr. Fleger is destroying the Church’s unity. He’s not celebrating Mass as the Church intends. He’s celebrating a service of his own creation that bears some resemblance to the Catholic Mass. Fr. Fleger’s pride is on display. They are guilty of bad liturgical sensibilities, but they know better than to do what they are doing, so their guilt extends to deliberate disobedience to Holy Mother Church. Cardinal Cupich is likewise guilty for not stopping the numerous and grave liturgical abuses.
Wrong is Anonymous. Compared to Fr. Pflager, the damage being done to the unity of the Church by those who are using the TLM to register their dissent from Vatican II and from the Pope is far, far more serious and urgent because the damage they are doing to the Church is global and wider. Be under no illusion folks, the beloved FSSP, the beloved Institute of Christ the King, and the other “Ecclesia Dei” communities (all of whom refuse to offer the Ordinary Form as a rule) have apostolates and pseudo-parishes world-wide; their influence and the threat they pose against the unity of the Church is therefore more far-reaching, by virtue of the fact that they refuse to offer the Ordinary Form. Whereas there is only one Fr. Pflager, and he has only one parish down in the south-side of Chicago. As bad as his parish liturgies are, at least good Catholics like me can console ourselves by thinking that the damage he’s doing is localized. Serious yes, but localized.
Additionally, Anonymous, in any moral question, a person’s intention has a big part. One can reasonably argue that neither Fr. Pflager nor the people who attend Mass at St. Sabina in the south-side of Chicago intend to divide the Church nor do they intend to denigrate the Ordinary Form and Vatican II. However, many exclusive-TLM goers do intend to register their dissent from Vatican II by attending the TLM. I know: I go to the TLM myself and I’ve listened to their discussions over coffee after Mass. That is what is gravely evil about the abuse of this beautiful sacrament.
So if some priest does the same thing at a Latin Mass, what say you?
Why would you blame the form of the Mass for what a man decides to do?
Are the 10 Commandments deficient because people commit adultery?
Is the Bible wrong because Christians don’t love each other?
Do you think that the Latin Mass can not be sullied?
Read up on some of the Eucharistic Miracles that occurred when there was only the Latin Mass.
If a priest did such a thing at a Traditional Latin Mass there would be an uproar, and people would either leave or quietly take him out. I know I would not sit through such sacrilege as that even if I had to go to a hall or outside. If you do not do something about it, you are part of the problem. Silence can mean approval.
But you would not blame the form of the Mass or the Council of Trent?
There are some bishops who say Vatican II documents were too ambiguous and left some things open to abuse. I agree. Bishop Athanasius Schneider mentions it in one of his books. One can be too rigid, but one can be too lax also.
I do not understand Pope Francis saying one can live with and have intimacy with someone who is not one’s spouse without getting an annulment as is implied in “Amoris Laetitia”. That is detrimental to families, especially children. Makes divorce and remarriage too easy.
What did you find ambiguous in the Vatican II documents?
Your sentence contradicts itself when you say that Pope Francis said something that is implied.
I am wondering if you even read Amoris Laetitia.
Read Bishop Schneider’s books and you will find out. He explains it far better than I do.
https://www.ncregister.com/cna/uproar-over-chicago-mass-did-theatrical-christmas-eve-liturgy-go-too-far
I have not watched the whole video but it looks like a Christmas program then the liturgy and yes, liturgical abuse appears to have occured.
One priest’s or one parish’s bad decisions does not invalidate the Ordinary Form of the Mass.
It is the same rite as the Extraordinary Form.
It is the same rite.
Cdl. George had trouble with that awful church and its Pastor, too.
I agree completely with Romulus Augustus’ comment on Dec. 30th, at 8:18am. And Cardinal George was much better!
No noose is good news.
how about this?
Let’s everybody pray that God’s Will be done.
How about I’ve been doing that for over a decade and things just get worse in the church and in my life and in the country and in the world. How about I’m almost ready to give up and walk away from the church because it all seems like a bunch of Harry Potter fictional made-up hooey and those who don’t give one whit about religion are doing just fine in their lives and prospering while the church implodes and bickers. Seriously… it’s a fair conclusion based on the deterioration of the world and the church and the fecklessness of the Catholic clergy and the indifference of the Catholic laity and the prosperity of the wicked that so-called sanctifying grace has no discernable effect if it has any effect at all, if it has any reality at all. The near-total collapse of the Christian religion and culture seems nigh to me. What will replace it? Not darkness. Probably some form of secularist social democratic managed society. The Church is seeming more and more irrelevant and impotent each year.
The Catholic Church as an institution is heavily damaged by sinful men. The souls of the devout Catholic faithful, clergy and laity, who truly belong to Christ, are the real Church. Many monks and nuns, close to Christ, have separated themselves from the sinful world, and from the rest of the Church, all through the ages, to lead a quiet, prayerful life with Christ, doing prayer and penance. Others are separated from all but Christ, in their minds and hearts, while living in the sinful wreckage of this world. Top prelates and popes who love Christ, have suffered greatly, all through the ages. They say that Pope St. Pius X died of a broken heart, on Aug. 20, 1914, when WWI started, which he had worked tirelessly to prevent. Many saintly clerics were martyred during WWII. Pope St. John Paul II and his fellow Poles suffered greatly, under the Nazis, in WWII, and next, under Communism. Poor Mother Angelica suffered terribly, due to the sins of Cdl. Mahony and others. Good, faithful prelates today, like Cdl. Sarah, Cdl. Burke, Abp. Vigano, Abp. Cordileone, Bp. Strickland, and many others, plus countless devout, faithful priests– all suffer greatly due to the heavy damages of sin everywhere, and work vigorously for Christ. Our lives are really about the struggles of the Cross, purification, and us pilgrims on earth, preparing for Heaven– just like countless holy Saints and martyrs before us.
Many great saints of our Church, suffered at the hands of corrupt Churchmen, in their eras. Two of them were St. Teresa of Avila and St. John of the Cross. The clergy were so corrupt in the era of St. Francis of Assisi, that he refused to become a.priest. In our recent era, poor Mother Angelica was mistreated by evil Cdl. Mahony, and the Vatican, which supported Mahony. I bet the poor, devout Chinese Catholics, are extremely hurt, shocked, and highly distressed, at the perplexing betrayal of the Vatican. The classical way to find Christ and develop a successful spiritual life, for the good of our souls– is to retire as best you can, from the sinful, stressful world, associate with fellow believers of fine character, as a good influence– and set up a simple, “do-able,” daily spiritual routine of some kind. Mass, prayer, Scripture reading, Rosary, whatever. Just something simple, with God, that you do each day, that can be successfully incorporated into your daily life. Not a great big thing that a saint in a religious order would do– just what a layman can do. A good priest can help, as well as family members, who need the same thing– the Domestic Church. And God will provide, for those who get lonesome, with friendships of a few like-minded, dedicated Catholics. “And let the rest of the world go by,” as the words of a popular song say, of many long years ago.
Jesus, I trust in You.
I hereby endorse the Novus Ordo as a legitimate expression of the liturgy of the Catholic Church and do affirm and declare my fidelity and obedience to the Roman See as led by the Pontiff Francis and his successors.
Just to correct RA here: The Ordinary Form (that’s the “Novus Ordo” for you rad-trads out there) is “the unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite.” It is not, as RA stated, “a legitimate expression of the liturgy.” Rather, it is “the unique” (ie. sole, distinctive, singular) expression, “the unique” law of prayer of the Latin Church.
Now that Kevin T.’s maudlin lamentations are out of the way, 2022 will prove to be pivotal especially for the beloved former “Ecclesia Dei” communities (that’s people like the beloved FSSP and the beloved Institute of Christ the King, for you in the “new Church” out there, as some divisive people might say). It all pivots on their humility, contriteness, and obedience to the Magisterium. Will they be humble enough to offer the Ordinary Form on a regular basis in their apostolates and seminaries? If they adhere to Vatican II and to the Pope as they say they do, though they may have gotten dispensations from offering the Ordinary Form in the past, they should–for the sake of the unity of the Church and for their own integrity–begin offering the Mass of Pope St. Paul VI. There is no reason why they shouldn’t. If they value their salvation and the salvation of those Catholics who go to their apostolates, if they value the unity of the Church, these beloved communities should swallow their pride and be humble enough to obey the bishops and the Pope and begin offering this Mass.
The defender of the corrupt hierarchy has spoken. He honestly believes a group of men who have covered up financial and sexual crimes for decades has any moral authority left. TLM will live on.
I think he just might be one of them. Not the hierarchy but trying to get there.
“bohemond” should be reminded that in terms of temporal governance the bishops and lay administrators are not flawless. But the Magisterium is free of error in matters of faith and morals, and this touches upon the liturgy of the Church. When it comes to the disciples of the Church, especially concerning liturgy, guess what “bohemond”, the Magisterium has every authority.
The magisterium is not free of error in matters of faith and morals. It is however promised that nothing it teaches in the way of faith and morals stands in the way of salvation. Case in point: the supposed immorality of monetary loans charging interest – among many other examples.
“Your Fellow Catholic’s” points need to be corrected. In “Donum veritatis” the Church is very clear that it is infallible concerning faith and morals stating that “Jesus Christ promised the assistance of the Holy Spirit to the Church’s Pastors so that they could fulfill their assigned task of teaching the Gospel and authentically interpreting Revelation. In particular, He bestowed on them the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals” (15). Infallibility in matters of faith and morals, people.
Concerning usury, the Church still condemns unjust usury, but the Church does not teach that that any charge above the principle is always wrong. As in many moral issues, change in circumstances (one of the fonts of morality, people), deepens the Church’s understanding of certain teachings and doctrines. For example the various uses of money in ancient times, even as late as the medieval times, was very limited for ordinary people. People back then just did not have the ability to invest money, to play the stock market, and many other financial strategies we now take for granted. Usury was condemned. However in recent history, the widespread ability of people to invest their money and to earn interest on it, has made the “just” charging of an amount above the principle of the loan morally permissible. But that’s the important word—“just.” As mentioned earlier, the Church still teaches that “Those whose usurious and avaricious dealings lead to the hunger and death of their brethren in the human family indirectly commit homicide, which is imputable to them” (Catechism, 2269).
In that case, Jon, you believe in creeping infallibilism. The magisterium is capable of teaching infallibly, but not everything the Church teaches, even regarding faith and morals, is taught infallibly or bears the cloak of infallibility. If I am wrong, why did the Holy Council seek to define papal infallibly so specifically? Perhaps you confuse infallibility with indefatiguability.
WRT usery, the early Church forbade as a matter of moral teaching the charging of ANY interest for a loan. Obviously, it was either wrong then, or the Church has gotten it wrong since.
Charging interest above the principle of a loan was not (and is not) an intrinsic evil, people. The Church didn’t teach that it is. That may be the flaw in “YFC’s” thinking. Plus, the Church is very clear that whenever she teaches on matters of faith and morals the Holy Spirit guards her from error. There is no such thing as “creeping infallibility”. All teachings of the Church concerning faith and morals, as she considers the circumstances of the times in which the teaching is promulgated, is protected by the Holy Spirit from error. This is Catholic dogma, people. It’s in Church documents like “Donum veritatis.” However, circumstances are important here: the Church wasn’t wrong when she taught in the past that usury was impermissible given the circumstances then; just as the Church isn’t wrong today when she teaches that due to the change in circumstances (eg, the widespread ability to earn interest on investments) charging above the principle of a loan is morally permissible; plus the Church isn’t wrong today when she teaches that usurious actions such as unjustly charging of interest to the point of harming the borrower are wrong. Honestly people, “YFC” is using almost the same line of reasoning that opponents of the Church’s teaching against the death penalty often use. In both cases, the change in circumstances is ignored. Again, justly charging interest above the loan principle has never been an intrinsic evil; and the death penalty is never an intrinsic good.
Me thinks Jon wants to make the history of interest bearing loans way too simple. It was clearly and often explicitly prohibited to clerics. There is no serious doubt that the prohibition against laity taking any interest on capital existed until the 15th century in both the West and the East. It’s not a matter of logic or reasoning. It is a matter of fact.
Interest bearing loans is but one of the moral prohibitions that has changed over the years, hence not every single teaching on morality can be infallible.
Sorry I forgot the link https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15235c.htm
“Jesus Christ promised the assistance of the Holy Spirit to the Church’s Pastors so that they could fulfill their assigned task of teaching the Gospel and authentically interpreting Revelation. In particular, He bestowed on them the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. This charism is manifested when the Pastors propose a doctrine as contained in Revelation and can be exercised in various ways. Thus it is exercised particularly when the bishops in union with their visible head proclaim a doctrine by a collegial act, as is the case in an ecumenical council, or when the Roman Pontiff, fulfilling his mission as supreme Pastor and Teacher of all Christians, proclaims a doctrine “ex cathedra”. (13)”
This above from Donum Veritas– so either by Ecumenical Council or the Pope speaking ex cathedra– infallibility in faith and morals is guaranteed. On matters of faith, the Magisterium faithfully expounds the deposit of divine Revelation, that is, the truth of Christian doctrine and the preaching of the true Word. But not all pronouncements of the Magisterium carry with it the badge of infallibility. Donum Veritas goes on to say: “magisterial decisions in matters of discipline, even if they are not guaranteed by the charism of infallibility, are not without divine assistance and call for the adherence of the faithful.”
So we can conclude that their are limitations on infallibility, which is guaranteed only in special circumstances.
But you have to accept and obey those things which are not considered infallible as well. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is not infallible but it is a sure norm. There are some things in it which are infallible.
The point of my earlier post was simply to counter Jon’s blanket assertion January 2, 2022 at 11:57 am.
Sorry to say but neither “Your Fellow Catholic” nor “Dan” has proven his point; in fact they’ve proven mine—that the Church is infallible (free of error) whenever she teaches in matters of faith and morals. On the one hand we have “YFC” whose rehashing of “facts” does not show that the Church erred when she taught in previous eras that usury was wrong. She did not err then (given the circumstances then) and she does not err now when she teaches that charging interest is permissible. Just because there was a change in the understanding of a particular teaching (such as usury) does not necessarily mean that the Church had erred. People, for every era and epoch the Church guided by the Holy Spirit teaches according to the facts and circumstances of the present times, so that the faithful can be assured of the solidity and truthfulness her teachings on faith and morals as they lead their lives. The Church does not propose teachings on faith and morals according to future circumstances.
And on the other hand we have “Dan” here who basically quoted the same passage I did which does not support his claim that there are “limitations on infallibility.” In fact nowhere in “Donum veritatis” will you find that phrase. But Dan quotes an additional passage concerning “disciplines” which is tangential to my point of the Church’s guaranteed infallibility on issues of “faith and morals”. Those disciplines, which includes liturgical disciplines, may not have the guarantee of infallibility, yet the Church urges the faithful to “adhere” to them. But that particular second passage which “Dan” quotes is a great reminder that the liturgical disciplines outlined in “Traditionis custodes” must be “adhered” to by the folks from the beloved FSSP, the beloved Institute of Christ the King, and the other former “Ecclesia Dei” communities. So, we must all thank “Dan” for proving my main point: obedience and adherence to all of the Church’s teachings, even those that may not have the guarantee of infallibility.
Just to put a finer point on my words: “Nowhere in ‘Donum veritatis’ will you find the phrase “limitations on infallibility” with respect to teachings on matters of faith and morals.”
The moral authority is Christ’s.
The criminal McCarrick would have said the same thing.
He would be correct.
Catholic Faith is not wrong because a sinner believes it.
I am a sinner. You are a sinner. McCarrick is a sinner. Jesus Christ has died so that sins can be forgiven.
Nobody believed the Apostles based on their behavior.
The Holy Spirit convicts one of the Truth.
No McCarrick is more than a sinner he is criminal that was protected for decades by the hierarchy
Jon, “magisterial decisions in matters of discipline, even if they are not guaranteed by the charism of infallibility, are not without divine assistance and call for the adherence of the faithful” only says what the words plainly mean: that not all Magisterial decisions are infallible. That is why I included that part of Donum Veritas. And please, it is so childish to put my name in quotation marks.
“Dan’s” point does not disprove the one and only argument that I am making with “YFC”, namely that in matters of faith and morals (not discipline) the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit and therefore is preserved from error.
Do you know what infallible means in the Catholic Church?