The following story was first published on Catholic World News on July 2.
Pope Benedict XVI has named Bishop Gerhard Ludwig Müller of Regensburg, Germany to become prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), the Vatican’s key doctrinal office.
Bishop Müller—who will assume the title of archbishop as he assumes his new responsibilities—replaces Cardinal William Levada, who is retiring at the age of 76. The appointment had been widely
expected.
Originally ordained to the priesthood in the Mainz diocese, the 64-year-old Bishop Müller was named Bishop of Regensburg in 2002. A longtime acquaintance of Pope Benedict, he has been acting as editor for the multi-volume series that will eventually include the complete works of Joseph Ratzinger as theologian prior to his election to the papacy. He played host to Pope Benedict in 2006 when the Pontiff delivered his memorable and controversial “Regensburg lecture” at the university there.
Although he clearly enjoys the confidence of Pope Benedict, Archbishop-designate Müller has critics on both ends of the Catholic intellectual spectrum. Since his name began circulating months ago as a likely prefect for the CDF, he has come under critical scrutiny from traditionalist Catholics, who have paid special notice to his close friendship with Father Gustavo Gutierrez, a leading proponent of liberation theology. On the other hand, the radical theologian Hans Küng described his appointment as a “catastrophe.”
In becoming prefect of the CDF, the German prelate will also assume the added titles that come with that office, becoming president of the International Theological Commission, the Pontifical Biblical Commission, and the Ecclesia Dei commission. He will undoubtedly be elevated to the College of Cardinals at the next consistory.
Cardinal Levada will remain a member of several important Vatican dicasteries until he reaches the age of 80. But he has indicated that he hopes to retire to his native California. He was appointed in May 2005 to assume the role that Pope Benedict XVI himself had long filled.
At the time, the Pope was said to have wanted an American head of the CDF, to help cope with the enormous number of disciplinary cases involving American priests accused of sexual abuse. With the torrent of cases from the US abating, and the rise in cases involving European priests, there was no longer any special need for an American prefect.
To read original story, click here.
I post this in the hope that someone can prove what I write to not be correct, but I have read that this man takes non-orthodox stands on “The Virgin Birth” and on the “True Presence”. He teaches that Jesus’s birth did not happen as the Church has always taught, that Mary did not conceive in pain because She had no Original Sin, but that Her birthing of Our Lord was completely natural. He also teaches exactly what the current teacher of Diaconate Candidates in the Diocese of Orange teaches; and that is that to believe that the Eucharist contains the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Our Lord in paramount to canabalism!
When the new Head of the Propagation of the Faith may very well be teaching heresy, what are the faithful Catholics to believe?
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
KENNETH, your worries about this bihsop being a heretic don’t carry a lot of weight. you choose a non-catholic parish that suits your fancy, and then claim to know more about this bisho’ps orthodoxy than the holy father himself — who does JUST FINE with reading german documents. (p.s. you wrote “the Church has always taught, that Mary did not conceive in pain” – what in the wolrd are you talking about? church teaching is that she gave BIRTH without pain; conception is when the ovum becomes fertizlied, which causes no woman pain…)
Here is exactly what I have already referred to regarding this Bishop:
• Bishop Mueller denies in his book Die Messe: Quelle christlichen Lebens [The Mass: Source of Christian Life] the real transformation of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. Bread and wine remain, according to him, what they are; however, they become tools for integrating the faithful into the living community with the Father and the Son. This resembles the Calvinistic teaching, according to which bread and wine do not transform, but become tools of grace.[1]
• Contrary to Catholic doctrine, according to which the transformation of the gifts occurs with the pronunciation of the words of institution, “This is my body… This is the chalice of my blood”[2], Bishop Mueller asserts that the question of the moment of transformation “doesn’t make sense”.[3]
• Bishop Mueller denies in his Dogmatik [currently a standard work in Germany about Dogmatics] the dogma of the Virginity of Mary while giving birth[4], and, therefore, the teaching that Mary gave birth to her son without violating her physical integrity.[5]
• In a eulogy for the Protestant bishop Dr. Johannes Friedrich, Bishop Mueller said on October 11, 2011: “Also the Christians that are not in full community with the Catholic Church regarding teaching, means of salvation and the apostolic episcopacy, are justified by faith and baptism and they are fully(!) incorporated/integrated into Church of God, being the Body of Christ.” This contradicts the integral Catholic tradition and especially the teaching of Pius XII in Mystici Corporis.
• Against the Catholic doctrine of the necessity of a conversion to the Catholic Church, as is still proclaimed in the teaching of Vatican II[6], Bishop Mueller characterizes in the same speech the so-called “ecumenism of return” as being “erroneous”.
Kenneth:
The new format is a great improvement to CCD. While your citation numbers printed, the references themselves didn’t. Did you have page numbers to go with your citations? If you have page numbers, it would help to note whether you refer to a translation or the original. Also, much of his writing is posted on his personal web page at http://www.bischofgerhardludwigmueller.de. Thanks!
According to #4 above (assuming the quote is correct and not taken out of context) it would seem that the Bishop is in complete agreement with JLS’ position (which he has stated numerous times on these threads) that all baptized Christians are Catholics. On the other hand, Vatican II states that baptized non-Catholics enjoy a certain imperfect or incomplete communion with the Catholic Church, which although sufficient for salvation in cases of invincible ignorance, nonetheless does not substitute for full communion with the Catholic Church. On the other hand, I am skeptical that Mr. Fisher would know things that Benedict XVI would not know about this man–so I will reserve judgment until I hear more.
good! more germans running the church! maybe things we get done on time…
Max, it was St. Boniface, a Brit and a patron saint of Germany and the great organizer of the Church of the Middle Ages, whot taught the Germans how to organize from what I have read.
“tools of grace” “integrating the faithful into the living community with the Father and the Son” means the same thing as “transforming” or “uniting” a person with God. There is nothing Calvinistic about it. Calvinism sees Holy Communion as a symbolic memorial that perhaps “bonds” one into a community; however “bonding” and “uniting” are two different orders of thing. Calvinism does not hold with “divinization” whereas Catholic doctrine holds that the faithful are united through the Holy Eucharist with God through Jesus Christ. It is not a joining or a bonding but a unity. “Higher than the angels” points to a closer relationship with God than His purest creation, the angels … the faithful are His purest and are “One with the Father, even as Jesus Christ is one with the Father … because He gives Himself to us Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. Or do we imagine that these are little adornments that we display on the wall? We “can do all things in Christ Jesus”, says St Paul … It is doctrine such as this that alienates so many from St Paul and from God.
Abp Mueller says the Protestants are integrated into the Body of Christ, but he does not say here that they are also integrated or united with the Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. Big difference, and this form of rhetoric is found among saints way back there in time. The Church teaches that Protestants have a share in Christ but that it is not full as the additional sacraments can effect. The comparison might be to catechumens … who in the old days were not allowed to stay for the Eucharistic part of Mass. They had a share in Christ but it was not full yet.
It is difficult for many people to see what all the language exercise is about. Begin conversing with people from diverse backgrounds and see how they use words in English. I’ve tried to point this out numerous times but no one has demonstrated any understanding of it … as far as this site goes. But many people understand this. If you cannot meet your target for evangelization with language that they understand, then whose fault is that? St Paul went to considerable effort to teach how to do this … no doubt I’m again drawing a blank from readers. Your only option is to read St Paul until you understand every iota he has taught … every single thing. Readers who pass over stuff lose. You have to become fascile with language because that is what is required. It makes no sense to simply dismiss what someone says simply because they do not use the exact phrase you use … too bad but language is difficult. So get to work and learn it. Refer to St Paul who instructs how.
You cannot pour new wine into old wineskins …Jesus. Use new wineskins. Package your words so that others can understand. The Holy Spirit is always “new wine”; so let Him indwell in a new wineskin so the old one does not fall apart.
Larry, you must have been truant that week in high school English class when the lesson explained how words often have various meanings and that context serves as the key to interpretation … most of the time. The nature of language is such that its use requires understanding what is being conveyed … the best grammar and choice of words is not inarguable as is mathematics. There is a reason that the “language” of God is Jesus and not some codex somewhere in a library vault or in cyber space. There is a reason that the Pope has called the bishops to become holy … a catechism is not sufficient for the Church. Holiness has to lead in person, and the person has to be the bishop. Without holiness, a bishop is worse than worthless, like salt that has lost its flavor (to quote Jesus).
For your information, JLS, I studied Spanish 5th grade through senior year high school, when I was in an Advanced Placement class. At the end of that year, we took a test administered by an outside agency. The grading curve consisted of the numbers one through five–the higher the number, the better the grade. I was rated at #4, meaning “highly competent.” In more recent years I’ve studied Latin on my own, and although I’m not nearly as good there as in Spanish, I can get the general idea of the text. I suggest you stop taking refuge in the knee-jerk assumption that others don’t get you because they’re not as smart as you.
JLS, Thanks for the gibberish. Your example is, nicely put, totally irrelevant. I wish I could translate the language of Gibberish into English but I cannot. The quote of liberal theology speaks for itself and of the man. I honestly don’t believe some worse than average English speaking German student did the translation above. I too was a high school student that took German class that I enjoyed and was very fond of. Translating from German to English is really not that difficult to do considering the historical relationship between the two languages. My understanding is the pope speaks fluently in a few languages and English is one of them. If that is truly the case, he or one of his staff could easily have confirmed that what the English translation states is accurate or not. JLS, you are correct the author of the book Die Sacramentale Begrundung is none other than Cardinal Ratzinger. He has a few other books out as well that have some seriously flawed religious errors. For example, as a leading modernist theologian at V II, he was the chief architect of a new theology of the Church which posits a “People of God” and a “Church of Christ” not identical with the Roman Catholic Church – a Super-Church or Frankenchurch created from “elements” of the true Church that are possessed either fully (by Catholics) or partially (by heretics and schismatics). The bond holding this ecumenical beast together is his notion of the Church as “communion.” As a cardinal and JP II’s chief doctrinal advisor, he developed this idea in the 1992 CDF Letter of Communion, the 2000 Declaration Dominus Jesus, the 1983 code of Canon Law, and the 1997 Catechism.. Don’t rely on me though, investigate it all for yourself. Truth can’t change; however the liberals did change/compromise the truth in union with Protestantism. Check out for yourself the protestant ministers and Jewish clerics that were consulted during V II. Meanwhile seek refuge in a Traditional Latin Mass parish.
Kenneth Fisher, Having met the exceptionally fine candidate in Diocese of Orange County that was dismissed for defending belief in the True Presence, I can certainly understand the questions and concerns that you are bringing up. I am positive that this fine candidate of the Diaconate has for years charitably offered up that cruel injustice given to Our Lord by offering up many prayers in reparation for the good of the Church. As for the new appointment to the CDF, the Holy Spirit is truly guiding Pope Benedict. Jesus surely recognized the grace-filled potential for Saul of Tarsus to *become holy* when he blinded him on the road to Damascus. Jesus also recognized the grace-filled potential for St. Peter, who personally witnessed Christ’s many miracles, yet still, even Peter denied that he had been a follower of Jesus, while also being in the True Living Presence of Jesus. Yes, our first Pope denied that he had been in the Living Presence of Jesus *three times*. Could it not be said that as Christians living upon this earth, that we are always on a continuous road to becoming holy? I came across an old article on the internet which made me reflect on this new appointment. The article is titled, ‘Cardinal Ratzinger The Chief Inquisitor – a man not quite what he seems: Putting the smackdown on heresy part II by Dr. Clive Gillis. Here is a portion of the article: Ratzinger changes sides. “So what triggered the change in Ratzinger? How could the corrupting effect of ambition and power at the centre of Rome harden him over the decades into the “tough” enforcer and the scourge of liberal thinking that he has become today? It is generally agreed that even at the time, he was already harboring doubts about the liberals. Ratzinger was profoundly affected by the Marxist inspired student uprisings in Universities across Europe and the States in 1968, the very year of the Neymeyer Statement, both Roman Catholic and Protestant theological faculties were equally swept up in the hysteria. Tubingen was a hotspot. Marxism was was posed to depose Christianity amongst Ratzinger’s students who were chanting, “accursed be Jesus.” Although Ratzinger says in Milestones, “I’ve never had difficulty with students,” the Allen biography makes it clear that Ratzinger became the butt of their protests against the “petty bourgeois.” He faced unpopularity, sit-ins, his microphone snatched from him, and much else glossed over in Milestones but still extant in the German press archives. Interestingly, to *rescue his career*, Kenneth I will add, ( It was not career rescuing, he was becoming holy) he joined forces with two Protestant colleagues who were facing the same difficulty in Tubingem. But when this failed, “not able to bear it” any longer, he *fled* ( Kenneth, I will add that he did not flee to re-invent anything, he became wise to become holy) to reinvent as a defender of the old order. Ratzinger wrote, “All of this should not be made to look harmless…It becomes clear to me the abuse of faith had to be resisted.” Kenneth I know you trust in the Holy Spirit who without a doubt has and is inspiring the Holy Father to request that all of our bishops to also *become holy.* St. Paul and St Peter despite their human weaknesses, they not only responded to Jesus’s call, they faithfully answered that calling and they *became holy.* I know that you are a man of great charity and great fatih Kenneth Fisher. Here is a beautiful quote from St. Robert Bellarmine. “Let prayer delight thee more than disputations, and the charity which buildeth up more than knowledge which puffeth up.” Let us continue to pray for unity. Kenneth, I have witnessed on this site those who have all of the knowledge yet even with all of this knowledge they still lack the true charity that St Robert Bellarmine speaks of and thus they are still blinded. Thank you Kenneth Fisher for defending our Catholic belief in the True Presence.
Catherine,
Let us all pray that what I posted is not now this Bishop’s positions; however at this time we have no evidence of that, and Popes do make mistakes. How do we justify a Casaroli, a Bugnini, a Mahony, or a Neiderauer if that is not true?
Pray for the Holy Father.
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
Catherine, that was such a help. As Paul said to the Corinthians,” If I have all the eloquence of men or of angels, but speak without love, I am simply a gong booming or a cymbal clashing…” and that is the most difficult of all the virtues to live. Sometimes I find I hate some faults so much that I find it impossible to separate them from the perpetrators, forgetting, until I am graciously and lovingly reminded, that I have shared them myself (how easy to forget!) . It’s a constant struggle and impossible to wage on one’s own…only by letting go of our own pride and self-efforts and letting God takeover can the battle be won and though I KNOW this, I am constantly back to square one. Psalm 51 is one of my greatest treasures for gaining understanding of ‘unwitting’ sins and how God is our constant source of help. May God richly bless you Catherine and may your words be as a balm to the errant heart. We forget what a blessing it is to have a sense of error and sin. The gravest sins are committed because we fail to see the sin, and for the vast majority that sin is pride. Perhaps a litmus test would be if we find we’re becoming our own pope, perhaps we should pray and seek reconciliation?
God bless you Dana! Thank you Dana for your very sweet words!
Mr. Fisher, you write that the Bishop’s teaching is that “Her birthing of Our Lord was completely natural.” Isn’t this what the Church teaches? You state that Mary gave birth to Jesus without violating her physical integrity. Well, when most married women give birth they don’t usually violate their physical integrity. I am thinking that you think that if a woman suffers physical injury, or possibly has a C-section that you consider this a violation of her physical integrity. I hope that you don’t think that the act of childbirth renders a woman unclean (as taught in the Old Testament). The Church does not teach this.
Mark from PA, you know darn well what I mean, and it is that Our Blessed Mother, free from original sin, DID NOT suffer the pangs of birth. By the way I do believe that the Council of Nicea proclaimed that infallibly.
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
Because there is so much confusion in the modern day Church as to what is right and what is wrong, I will follow Tradition. By the way, that is exactly what Our Lady of Akita in Her approved apparitions there stated: “stick with Tradition”.
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
If you intend to “stick with Tradition,” then leave your schismatic “independent parish” and go back to a parish within the hierarchical structure of her Son’s Church.
okay, KENNETH, let me get this straight: you listen to our lady of akita because the apparition is “church approved,” but you detest the mass in english which is also “church approved?” you eat in a very interesting cafeteria…
R. Jeffery Grace,
You write of that of which you know not!
I attend both the Novus Ordo and Tridentine Mass. Yes I hate it when individual priests or bishops in disobedience make up their own Rubrics and violate the Novus Ordo Rubrics. Yes I very much prefer the Tridentine Mass for many reasons including the “Prayers at the Foot of the Altar”, “the Lavabo”, “The Last Gospel of St. John, and last but not least the prayers that, in my opinion were written by Pope St. Pius V expressly for these times of trouble in the Church, “the Prayers after all Low Masses”
Are you aware of the FACT, not inuendo, that St. Padre Pio only said the Novus Ordo once, he then returned to the Sacristy pale and troubled and immediate sought and got permission from the Pope to only celebrate the Tridentine Mass?
Are you aware that one of the Saints predicted there will come a time of great turmoil in the Church and it will when the Last Gospel of St. John will not be read in the Masses?
Next time you want to open your mouth, learn your facts first!
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
“Tradition” includes both adherence to the rites and form handed down to us, and obedience to the Church hierarchy. So what should one do when it seems that the hierarchy itself changes the rites and forms, or seems to bend dogma? I see at least three options: (1) Stick to the rites and forms, go to a TLM parish despite risk of schism, (2) obey whatever the hierarchy says, (3) re-examine assumptions, accept that we have no idea where that will lead us, and have faith that the Holy Spirit leads us to deeper meaning.
My tendencies are different from Kenneth’s, Larry’s, Mark’s or Max’s, but I respect that each of them is doing the best he can with tradition and obedience.
BRUCE is now showing us what the REAL issue is for some: they belive the church herself is a heretic, including tyhe pope, and that’s that. this explains the splintering into so-called traditionalist groups, each claiming to be spiffier and shinier than all the rest. martin luther must be thrilled with this turn of events…divide and conquer!
It seems to me that the Catholic phrase for expressing the mystical miracle of transubstantiation is “Real Presence,” not “True Presence” as some have been posting above. If you GOOGLE “Real Presence,” you get the Catholic Church and its authentic teaching; if you GOOGLE “Real Presence” you get some internet company and technology. Perhaps this is why the EWTN website says: “The Church uses the term Real Presence to uniquely distinguish His Presence in the Blessed Sacrament from His presence in other contexts. Catholics should therefore use the expression canonized by ecclesiastical usage and which alone adequately expresses the truth about the unique manner of Christ’s Presence in the Blessed Sacrament.” (The article there goes on to explain that Christ is TRULY present in the Word proclaimed, the congregation, etc., but the phrase “Real Presence” puts the focus on Eucharist.)
This reminds me of labels on sparkling wine: If the label says “Fermented in this bottle” it is the original method used in Champagne (district in France), but if the label says “Fermented in the bottle” it is the transfer method (similar but cheaper).
MacDonald,
To most, “True Presence” and “Real Presence” mean the same thing. Now you are getting involved in mere technicalities. What is “Real” is also “True”
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
Kenneth, you are mistaken. As the sensible article from EWTN points out, “In recent years one hears more and more frequently the expression the True Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist. The use of the term raises questions, no doubt unintentionally, about the nature of Christ’s presence in the Blessed Sacrament.
As the doctrinal texts below show, the Church is very careful in her use of language with respect to the mystery of the Most Holy Eucharist. Words can say something true, but still be an inadequate expression of the whole truth. That is the case here. True Presence says something accurate, but it is an inadequate term because it doesn’t distinguish the manner in which Christ is present. Christ has a true presence in the Holy Eucharist, but also in His mystical Body, in His Scriptures, in his minister the priest, in the person in the state of grace. However, only in the Blessed Sacrament does His presence pertain to the ontological or metaphysical order, the order of real being.
“This is why the Church uses the term Real Presence to uniquely distinguish His Presence in the Blessed Sacrament from His presence in other contexts. Catholics should therefore use the expression canonized by ecclesiastical usage and which alone adequately expresses the truth about the unique manner of Christ’s Presence in the Blessed Sacrament.
“Finally, the Church does speak of Christ’s true body and true blood (e.g. Council of Trent, Decree on the Most Holy Eucharist). In such cases, however, the use of the term body as the reality modified by true makes it clearly a metaphysical reference. True Presence lacks such clarity.”
I read some of Bishop Müller’s homilies and speeches this evening, and there’s much for me to like, though I’ll gladly accept that many who post here, especially those inclined to neoconservate economics, will be less happy.
From a section of the bishop’s seminar “Meine Erfahrung mit der Befreiungstheologie” [My Experience of Liberation Theology ], a section “Die Schande unserer Zeit: Der neoliberale Kapitalismus” [The Scandal of our time: Neo-Liberal Capitalism] he writes:
When the Soviet empire collapsed, and with it Marxist liberation movements, many expected this would be the end of liberation theology as well. In reality, liberation theology, correctly understood, most effectively disproves Marx’s critique of religion. The higher perspective sees God as creator, redeemer and savior of all people, exposing the dualistic trap intended to ensnare Christianity: For there is no contradiction between well-being in this world and salvation in the next, nor between grace and action, nor spiritual commitment and worldly awareness or action. Submission to God and action in the world, as Love of God and love of neighbor, are two sides of the same coin. Christians cannot be surpassed [by Marxists] in their defense of human rights and human dignity, whether threatened by the structural sin of an unjust political system or the irresponsibility of individuals.
Like!
Not impressive, Bruce. You failed to understand the issue, and then went on with cliche after cliche. You evidently have no ability to analyze but only repeat mantra. What I posted focused on understanding language, not translation of languages. You failed to grasp that, the key to understanding the post. As for Larry, Spanish grammar is not difficult; whereas, German grammar is difficult. Larry, you do not want to know how I did in both English and German grammar … The hard part for me in language is the emotional aspect; the logic of language presents me with no stumbling stone. Religion includes both aspects and more yet. I used to subscribe to Communio, and enjoyed greatly the challenge of understanding those contributors, one of whom occasionally posts on this site. Pope BXVI is a founder of that review. I understand what the Pope writes; I understand what Cd Mueller writes; I understand how many readers confuse what they write … because for the very simple reason that they do not analyze the writing; rather they reject it based on cliches that they have memorized and adopted. New wine requires new wineskins … Those of you who cannot comprehend this Gospel statement of Jesus’ need to put more effort into your attempts. LIke I said regarding St Paul’s work on language … learn every iota … same with what Jesus is recorded as saying … learn it. It is not like a political mantra, but gives the soul access to religion. Get away from your emotional attachments and try to understand … btw, “detachment” is a Catholic tradition. Learn how and then apply it when you study.
Talk about controversy across the spectrum. We aren’t all one (i.e., catholic). Max, you are likely correct, Martin Luther won in V 2, (Ever compare a Lutheran service to a Novus Ordo service? Try it!) and Luther is thrilled having divided and conquered (i.e., the splintering); but not just between modernists and traditionalists but also between modernists and more progressive/liberal imposter churches labeling themselves catholic with women clergy and etc. You are wrong that some believe the Roman Catholic Church is a heretic and that traditionalists think they are spiffier and shinier. They only believe in the preservation of the Roman Catholic faith handed down from Christ. No man-made changes can improve upon God’s works! So that begs the question where is the Roman Catholic Church? She exists in the traditional parishes and is backed by God for all time so His unchanging bride cannot be a heretic. The modern V 2 Church wrapped in evolving changes is more protestant than Catholic! Case in point: Look collectively at all the previous comments. The Orange Diocese allegedly follows the alleged heresies of Bishop Muller picked to be the next prefect CDF, promoted by the 3rd bishop with similar written errors in ‘Die Sacramentale Begrundung’ and ‘1992 CDF Letter of Communion’ all contrary to previous Church teachings! (See Bruce’s 6 July comments in the archived format). Come, are we morons to blind to see the connections why 2/3rds of Catholics don’t believe in transubstantiation and millions have left the Catholic faith? Why should they hold fast when the highest of clergy are in error? Kenneth, you’re correct about the great upheaval caused V 2 modernism. Its led to today’s scandals which tarnishes the holy image of the Roman Catholic Church. Under modernists philosophy, how can traditionalists not be in communion with the V 2 Church when protestants and schismatics can be? Yes popes can make mistakes, but not in morals and the faith per papal infallibility! Casarali, Bugnini, Mahonoey and Neideraur weren’t popes thankfully. Catherine, St. Robert Bellarmine also said: “A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases to automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church.” – De Romano Ponifice. II.30. St Alphonus Liguori said: “If ever a pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he would at once fall from the pontificate.” – Oeuvres Completes. 9:232. Pope Paul IV said: ‘Further, if ever it should ever appear that any bishop, or a cardinal, or a legate, or even Pontiff, has beforehand deviated from the Catholic faith or fallen into any heresy, such promotion or election in and of itself, even with the agreement and unanimous consent of all the cardinals, shall be null, legally invalid and void.’ – Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio. 16 Feb. 1559. Finally, God provided His Son with a divine birth unlike natural child-birth. God is omnipotent and can do that easily! Our chaste Lady was spared of personal embarrassment, unlike all other human mothers. (Is that so hard to believe?) Note that the Church does venerate the humility and obedience of Mary. Though not subject to the Law of Moses (Lev. XII), which required purification and presentation of our Lord in the temple, She subjected herself to it willingly. To show the V 2 confusion, the Church’s old calendar used to venerate Her with a Feast Day of the Purification of BVM on the 2 Feb (40 days after Christmas). Today with the reformed V 2 calendar, the name of the Feast Day has been changed to the Presentation of our Lord. To avoid all this confusion, and knowing that tradition existed stably for centuries without contradictions and scandals as in the last 50 years is the reason we traditionalists (with fewer headaches) hold fast to the traditional Roman Catholic way of life, worship, and the Sacraments. We know they are well rooted, founded by Christ, Truth, secure, and unchanging until the end of time.
James, tradition existed stably for centures without contradictions and scandals? No, it did not. The challenges to the Faith have been non-stop, since the beginning. I know that you only like pre-Vatican II sources and there are some good histories that are still available from those years. The devil always fights against the Church, but he will not win. Jesus Christ remains with Her always. We have never had a Pope who was a manifest heretic. I know that your sedevacantist bishop believes that the problems in the Church must be from having a heretic Pope, but he is not correct. He is a priest who has never said a licit Mass. Schism is a mortal sin.
James,
If only you knew how I wish I was wrong and could be intelligently shown I am wrong!
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
The prayers AFTER low Mass were instituted by Leo XIII; although the 3 Hail Marys and Hail Holy Queen were placed AFTER the Mass by Pius IX. They are, as they say, after the Mass; they are not part of the Mass. They were suppressed in 1964. They are often called the Leonine prayers.
James doew well in mixing politics and religion, heavier on the politics and lighter, much lighter, on the religion.
k, the Orthodox Churches are in formal schism. Are you claiming that they are all going to Hell because they’re in the “sin of schism”?
JLS, do you know the Church’s teaching on mortal sin? There are three conditions: full knowledge, full consent of the will and grave matter. We can only know the third. God knows the others.
k, I did not say tradition existed stabily without contradictions and scandals. Note my condition of “for centuries” that doesn’t infer all centuries, just multiple centuries. Of course the Roman Catholic Church has been challenged and tempted by the devil from its very beginnings, I’ve said that in earlier articles on this website. I’ve also reported after investigating that there were on the order of 40 anti-popes in the history of the Church and I gave you and others their names. Realize of course there is a play with words here because a manifest heretic cannot be a pope, rather an anti-pope which fits with the saints declarations above! Might I suggest you try to find one of those good old history books before V 2 and do a little reading for a few evenings. You might want to withdraw your premature comment that there were no manifest heretics that were pope, at least claiming the Chair of St Peter. OBTW, when St. Peter claimed he did not know our Lord three times, he was in great fear of his personal safety. Before persecuting or judging others, try to come to know them first. As before, I suggest you listen to my Bishop’s sermons on his website, his holy TLMs, his reverence toward the Eucharist, and how he charitably treats others. He is not the person you depict. Kenneth, I know how you feel, I struggled for months before I was enlightened through many rosaries, and God’s grace and common sense prevailed. The rosary is powerful, and through it God reveals His truths overtime. It saddens me when I think about what has happened, that which was prophecized centuries ago about this great Apostasy. JLS, You lost me on your new and old wine skins comment, perhaps you better go read St. Matthew Chapter 9:16 again from an accurate Holy Bible, like the Douay-Rheims Holy Bibler. Religion and politics are not like water and oil. Although God permits earthly societies and their governments, plus rendering to Cesar what is Cesar’s and rendering to God what is God’s; if we all lived our lives as good Catholics, including politicians, many of our problems in society, which government tries to solve, would disappear! Dig up some old Roman Catholic books and learn about our true faith, you’ll be surprised how much V 2 has tried to change it, but the modern changes will smolder into ashes as you see the bad fruit continues to decompose and implode. Even Benedict XVIth has said he envisions a smaller church in the future!
James, an anti-pope is someone who claims to be the Pope when they were not duly elected. It has nothing to do with heresy. They could be 100% in line with Catholic faith and morals and still be an anti-Pope. A Pope who committed a sin does not become an anti-pope. Likewise, a Catholic who separates themselves from the Church is a schismatic. It does not matter if they say everything in accordance with the faith and with Catholic morals. Your bishop knows this. That is why he calls his church the Roman Catholic Church. That is why sedevacantists falsely claim that there is no Pope. I do not want to judge or persecute him. I just want to give you a wake up call. It is like when people claim that Marin Luther is a saint because he caused Pope Pius V to reform the Church and/or promoted the reading of Scripture. No-it does not work that way. He was a heretic. Any good that comes from his sin does not get attributed to him.
Pope Benedict is the duly elected Pope; however that does not mean he is right in everything he says and does. For instance can any of you defend his declaration before the heretic leaders of the Lutheran church in Germany on the heretic priest Martin Luther as being “always Cristo Centric”? Does that mean he is not the Pope, certainly not, but it does mean he was not correct in what he told those Lutheran leaders, either that or the many books I have read written by priests and protestants on Martin Luther are all lying. They certainly did not picture him as “always Cristo Centric”!
Was Pope John Paul II right in kissing a book that blasphemes the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and states that Our Lord did not die on the cross? I sure don’t think so. There are many other examples, examples that they certainly must answer for before the Judgement Seat of God.
Was Pope Liberius right in excommunicating St. Athanasius the Great, Doctor of the Church?
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
Oh, for heaven’s sake, here we go with Pope Liberius again. Kenneth, you mention this person so often, I feel like he’s posting on this very blog. Let the poor man rest in peace – he’s probably looking up at us right now, wondering why keeps getting dragged into conversations so many years after his death.
MacDonald,
In case you really care, I bring up Pope Liberius to prove that not all excommunications by a Pope are actually valid. If they were all valid, St. Athanasius would not be St. Athanasius the Great, Doctor of the Church!
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
That’s different. You are saying that a person can be excommunicated and if they feel it is not valid, they can still receive communion? This can happen. Witness Barbara Johnson in Washington DC where she was denied communion by Father Guarnizo and simple went to another communion line and received. And the parish council of St. Stanislaus in St. Louis that were put under interdict by then Archbishop Raymond Burke. I wouldn’t take a chance.
Mr. Fisher, there is no evidence that Pope Liberius excommunicated St. Athanasius. It could be a Protestant invention. The source where this originated is a forgery. But your point is that the Pope is not always correct. Pope John Paul II went to confession every week. So he would agree with you. I am sure that Pope Benedict XVI would, also. However they are protected by God from error when defining a doctrine on faith and morals. Thank you for your input. I hope James knows that you are also a traditionalist that attends an independent parish with the Mass of Pius V. ( I am only bringing it up so that he can realize that you are not brainwashed by the “new order sect” that he thinks the Church is.) I hope he will think about what you said.
I beg to differ with you. Bishop of Alexandria, Bishop Athanasius, now St. Athanasius the Great, was indeed excommunicated at one time by Pope Liberius. Fortunately, before he died, Pope Liberius retracted that excommunication. His successor whose name currently escapes me, had some very harsh words regarding Pope Liberius. Why do you want to attribute this to the Protestants? Get your facts straight or at least be prepared to document your statements.
You are correct that the Pope is covered by infallibility when he speaks ex-Cathedra, that is from the Seat of St. Peter.
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
Mr. Fisher, the information about the excommunication of St. Athanasius by Pope Liberius is in the Catholic Encyclopedia on New Advent website. It is in a letter that St. Hilary declared to be a forgery. It was supposed to have been written by Liberius and said the he excommunicated Athanasius for refusing to come when the Pope summoned him to Rome. The article points out that Liberius was a defender of St. Athanasius and was sent to exile for refusing to condemn him. I do not find it is Butler’s lives of the Saints. There are Catholic histories such as Warren Carroll’s which support your statement, but I find more that say it is not proved.
Mr. fisher, there is a book online about St. Athanasius by F. A. Forbes, a Catholic nun of the 19th century. The only mention of Pope Liberius is that he refused the emperors bribe to condemn Liberius. You may be correct that it was not the Protestants who started the story. One source said that since Liberius was released fom exile it was assumed that he had done as the emperor wished.
James, do you accept Pope Benedict XVI as the head of the Church?
i think pope benedict xvi accepts JESUS CHRIST as the head of the church, but maybe that’s just me…on the other hand, i also believe that JESUS accepts the pope as his vicar on earth, as we cathlics have proclaimed for ages. naturally, there are some so-called ‘caltholics’ who discard the pope when they think they know better…
Mark from PA,
Do you accept what Pope Benedict teaches on the “intrinsic evil of homosexual activity?
May God have mercy on your compromised soul,
Kenneth M. Fisher
k, Wish you and other defenders of the V2 clergy that spread errors and having reformed the church perhaps moreso than Martin Luther ever did would face (not turn your cheeks and look the other way) and explain why it is permissible to ignore the widely publicized facts and justify their errors, (like breaking the first Commandment at Assisi in 1986 and kissing the Quran), and explain how the resulting bad fruits (loss of millions of faithful and 2/3rds disbelief in transubstantiation to name just a few) could come from a healthy tree or vine (reference St. Matthew 7:18), rather than criticizing persons who don’t agree with your unjustified view point! If we Roman Catholics practicing tradition and avoiding modernism are so wrong from your perspective, then please pray for us that we see God’s Light and Truth, which may not be your very own point of view! God will show us His Light and Truth and cause us to either remain on track and convinced moreso of practicing Roman Catholic tradition like the SSPX has recently decided, or lead us to the V 2 Church as it erodes away with fewer priests, nuns, parishes, and EFMs over time. Until we are convinced otherwise, we must remain faithful to reverent Roman Catholic traditional sacraments, worship (TLM), rites, and daily practices. God is our judge and knows what is in our hearts, i.e., to know, love, and serve Him in the manner He prescribed, not that prescribed by liberal clergy, who thought they could improve upon God’s works. OBTW, claiming that Saint Pope Pius the Vth reformed the Church is perhaps not the best choice of a word, especially when comparing it to the Protestant Reformation and V 2. Saint Pope Pius the Vth did codify the TLM and 7 Holy Sacrament rituals so they would strictly follow a set of rubrics, and he approved the Council of Trent Catechism so that Roman Catholics were all one i.e., Catholic. [Note that in the last 500 years only he and Saint Pope Pius the Xth were declared Saints, due to their staunch preservation of Roman Catholic doctrine and the Sacraments! That in itself speaks against V 2 change!) Mark, I believe in the papacy and all the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church; however as some have come to realize, as a sedevecantist, I do believe the seat of St. Peter is currently vacant, just like it has been many times in early Roman Catholic Church history, and just like when it has been temporarily vacant throughout all the centuries when a Pope dies. This vacancy and lack of grace from invalid sacraments and priests explains why the V 2 Church is in the chaos which it is today (widespread pedophile and homosexual priests, loss of the faith of millions, widespread liturgical abuses, kissing of the Quran, worshipping with pagans with their idols on the altar at Assisi in 1986 etc., etc., etc.), can be the only explanation! So how do you court some people’s beliefs of limited number of popes, that the next Bishop of Rome is the last? I personally don’t let it bother me. Let God’s will be done! My overall message is simply this, be Roman Catholic 24/7 in thought, word, and deed. Find and join a traditional Roman Catholic parish.
James, I fully support you in practicing tradition and avoiding modernism. I just want you to understand that you are in schism, not in the Roman Catholic Church. You can practice tradition and avoid modernism in the Catholic Church. You do not have to leave the church. I want you to understand the the traditional Roman Catholic parish that you attend is not the Catholic Church. You can choose to worship where you wish-you have free will. I just don’t want you to be misled into thinking that you are in the Catholic Church. Also, you are making a false assumption about the history of the Church before VII and you are making a logical error on the causes of the problems in the Church since then. They are not caused by the seat of Peter being vacant. They are caused by Satan, just as all the threats to the Faith before VII were. He can only do what God allows. I do not defend the clergy in any errant beliefs. I am a traditional Catholic but I will not be fooled into disembarking from the barque of Peter. The things that bother you bother me. So I stay and pray and make reparation. Google the dream of St. John Bosco. Pray the long form of the Prayer to St. Michael. Know its history. Keep praying the Rosary. I will continue to pray for you and your fellow parishioners and your bishop.
James, you do not even know what the pre Vatican II Church is all about. Your rhetoric is fixated on an idea, but the Church is a community of individual people, not ideas. Always was and ever shall be.
Thank you k for your kind words. I know that you are concerned about the souls of all of us traditionalists whom you believe are in schism, just as we traditionalists pray for you and all the V2 members souls. Together our prayers, humbly begging God to shine His light upon us will reveal His Truth. The dots do connect between the causes and the results, it is just a matter of grace to see it as so. There is no other logical explanation you see! Recall Paul VIth’s comments on the “Smoke of Satan” has entered the (V2) Church/Sanctuary. Can you explain away that one? There are just perhaps hundreds of thousands of non-isolated errors (world-wide) that have occured since the Council in its aftermath, and not by coincidence! Thank you for your prayers as we all certainly need them, especially the wayward modern clergy. No doubt many modernists dispute, disdain, and wish to discredit my Bishop and other holy traditional valid Bishops like he, but their goodness and charity, God-centered sermons, and reverence at the TLM and before the Holy Eucharist, and holding fast to Catholic Doctrine refute the modernists. It reminds me of St. Mark Chapter 6: [1] And going out from thence, he went into his own country; and his disciples followed him. [2] And when the sabbath was come, he began to teach in the synagogue: and many hearing him were in admiration at his doctrine, saying: How came this man by all these things? and what wisdom is this that is given to him, and such mighty works as are wrought by his hands? [3] Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joseph, and Jude, and Simon? are not also his sisters here with us? And they were scandalized in regard of him. [4] And Jesus said to them: A prophet is not without honor, but in his own country, and in his own house, and among his own kindred. My Bishop is a holy man, a good and loyal servant of Jesus Christ, but not out to start a new Church, just preserve the Roman Catholic Church, its 7 Holy Sacraments, TLM of all ages, Truths, and Doctrines for all time. JLS, you are simply wrong, and as any “good liberal” who is unable and unwilling to argue the facts; you instead attack the persons and his/her character. Pray for Holy Mother the Church that She will be restored. This is what the traditionalist Roman Catholics in SSPX were trying to do, to bring the Vatican back toward tradition when on the other side, the Vatican was trying to do the opposite, to accept all of the V2 changes. In a generation or two, God’s Truth will certainly be revealed through the fruits. It will be evident based on the health or even sheer existence of one of the two sides i.e., traditional Roman Catholicism or modernism. I pray all will have available to them (the many) whom wish so, the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, the Sacrament of Penance, and the Sacrament of Extreme Unction.
JAMES, you are priceless, calling JLS a “liberal.” he’s probably in the e.r. right now, recovering from that incredible insight!!!
James, I did not know how to respond except to keep repeating that Bishop Daniel Dolan’s St. Gertrude the Great Roman Catholic Church is not the Church founded by Christ. It is a sedevacantist sect. He is a schismatic from schismatics from near-schismatics. His holiness and goodness is not the issue. It is whether he is doing the will of God. However, it jumped out at me that you used the Bible quote that you did-“A prophet is not without honor, but in his own country” and I was going to ask you if you consider him a prophet. Then I decided to address your question concerning the Smoke of Satan homily of Pope Paul VI. (This is the Pope that Bishop Daniel Dolan believes lost the papacy by heresy, although I have never heard what heresy he supposedly committed.) We do not have the text of the homily but a “rendering” of it. It reads: Referring to the situation of the Church today, the Holy Father affirms that he has a sense that “from some fissure the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God.” There is doubt, incertitude, problematic, disquiet, dissatisfaction, confrontation. There is no longer trust of the Church; they trust the first profane prophet who speaks in some journal or some social movement, and they run after him and ask him if he has the formula of true life. And we are not alert to the fact that we are already the owners and masters of the formula of true life… This state of uncertainty even holds sway in the Church. There was the belief that after the Council there would be a day of sunshine for the history of the Church. Instead, it is the arrival of a day of clouds, of tempest, of darkness, of research, of uncertainty. We preach ecumenism but constantly separate ourselves from others. We seek to dig abysses instead of filling them in. How has this come about? The Pope entrusts one of his thoughts to those who are present: that there has been an intervention of an adverse pwoer. Its name is the devil, this mysterious being that the Letter of St. Peter also alludes to…”We believe in something that is preternatural that has come into the world precisely to disturb, to suffocate the fruits of the Ecumenical Council and to impede the Chruch from breaking into the hymn of joy at having renewed in fullness its awareness of itself. Precisely for this reason, we should wish to be able, in this moment more than ever, to exercise the function God assigned to Peter, to strengthen the Faith of the brothers. We should wish to communicate to you this charism of certitude that the Lord gives to him who represents him though unworthily on this earth.” I have no desire to explain this away. It is truth. I read of a seeker, a woman who was searching for the true church established by Christ. She became Catholic convinced that the constant attacks on it were a sign that Satan was fighting against it and that it must be the true church. No, your church doesn’t have the problems that ours does. It never will. Modernists don’t preach against traditionalists. They don’t even know that you exist. They go after those of us in our Catholic parishes who want to pray the Rosary or do Eucharistic adoration or ask for the TLM. Or kneel to receive communion on the tongue. Those of us who stayed to fight for God’s will and God’s way in the Church will welcome you back. ( And our perseverence has paid off. The war is not won, but there are more warriors and much less resistance that before. A new interest by young people and young priests in the traditional devotions of the Church is apparent. Praise God.)
I believe that when Pope Paul VI made that statement about the smoke of Satan was the time when Fr. Malachi Martin stated that there had been a Satanic Mass somewhere in the Vatican.
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
James, if you believe that the see of St Peter is currently vacant and that Pope Benedict is not a licit Pope than you belong to a different religion than I do. The Popes are human beings and are not impeccable but they are considered the visible head of the Church by Catholics. You may have issues with some things that Pope John Paul II did, I do also, but he was the Pope and he has been declared blessed by the Church. Yes, Max, Jesus Christ is the head of the Church.
k, Ecumenism when it comes to worshipping or compromising with pagan religions like at Assisi by JP II in 1986 reminds me of: John 14:6 “Jesus saith to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me”. Jesus did not make any exceptions. As God he knew full well about the pagan Hindu idols, future Allah and Mohammed, and other pagan gods too! But Jesus made no exceptions and stood by His Father’s 1st Commandment! Ecumenism when it comes to other christian religions means compromise and inturn watering down the faith to avoid offending someone elses heresies. This is the reason Catholics before V 2 were forbidden from worshipping with protestants and pagans on account that lay people could come to question and lose their faith, the very Roman Catholic faith necessary for them to be with Jesus and God the Father for the salvation of their souls. I do recognize the devil is behind all the dischord in the world and out to destroy the Roman Catholic faith. He has made some great in-roads at the individual level as millions have lost their faith, or not taught it by parents who lost their faith. Lets face it, the devil is out to snare and send people’s souls to hell at the society and individual levels. Do you think that our final judgment before the Lord will be at the society level? I think not, our Lord will judge us all individually! Like you we traditionalists welcome you into our parishes with the traditional 7 holy Sacraments of the old rite spoken in Latin, with no conditions attached, just reverence and respect for the blessed Sacrament, and you are free to leave anytime if you don’t see the graces. Modernists do know about us, and scoff at us. They ridicule us to scorn, but we just have to humbly accept and carry our crosses just like anyone else. Only in the last decade have traditionalist essentially come out of hiding, out of the modern-day catacombs and building Roman Catholic parishes, churches, seminaries, convents, and schools. You know when the SSPX clergy were meeting with the Vatican to bridge the gap, many of us prayed that God’s will be done, not that modernists will (a compromise) be done. I think we received God’s answer, that compromise of His Roman Catholic teachings, doctrine, and traditional sacraments is unacceptable. Finally, Bishop Dolan is no prophet, he is truly a good charitable man who loves God above all else. He is simply a holy Roman Catholic bishop holding fast to tradition Roman Catholic doctrine, teaching, Sacraments, and practices all before the changes of V 2. What had been correct for nearly two millenium, how could it be so wrong from the late 1960’s until now? Mark, you are correct, you and I do not belong to the same religion, and Jesus is the head of the Roman Catholic Church. My religion never changed, but yours is the fruit of a major reformation. Max, Do you really think so? I think he’s pondering to come up with some not-so-brilliant, very protestant knee-jerking remark. Please pray the rosary for the restoration of the Roman Catholic Church as everyday more and more souls are lost by its delay.
James, thank you for your reply. I am glad the Bishop Fellay did not agree to something that he did not agree with. The SSPX are not in schism. They still are hanging on. You are correct on all you say about ecumenism, but I think at the time of the Ecumenical Council (which means a council of the whole church) it had a different meaning than now. I think you are correct that we will be judged as individuals. That is the church’s teaching. I am glad to hear that you are free to leave your parish. It is good that it is not cult-like. I appreciate your patience with me. I leave you in the mantle of Mary. I have been very impressed with the desire of Jesus for you to return but you are still wary of it. He loves you a lot. You are probably the most faithful person at your Church. May the Good Shepherd carry us to the Father’s house on whatever path He chooses for us. May we be docile to His guidence. Jesus and Mary bless you and your family forever.
The SSPX are definitely in schism, or there would be no need to negotiate to bring them back (from what, if not schism?) Lincoln, Nebraska Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz has also identified them as a “Protestant church.”
k, Ecumenism when it comes to worshipping or compromising with pagan religions like at Assisi by JP II in 1986 reminds me of: John 14:6 “Jesus saith to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me”. Jesus did not make any exceptions. As God he knew full well about the pagan Hindu idols, future Allah and Mohammed, and other pagan gods too! But Jesus made no exceptions and stood by His Father’s 1st Commandment! Ecumenism when it comes to other christian religions means compromise and inturn watering down the faith to avoid offending someone elses heresies. This is the reason Catholics before V 2 were forbidden from worshipping with protestants and pagans on account that lay people could come to question and lose their faith, the very Roman Catholic faith necessary for them to be with Jesus and God the Father for the salvation of their souls. I do recognize the devil is behind all the dischord in the world and out to destroy the Roman Catholic faith. He has made some great in-roads at the individual level as millions have lost their faith, or not taught it by parents who lost their faith. Let’s face it, the devil is out to snare and send people’s souls to hell at the society and individual levels. Do you think that our final judgment before the Lord will be at the society level? I think not, our Lord will judge us all individually! Like you we traditionalists welcome you into our parishes with the traditional 7 holy Sacraments of the old rite spoken in Latin, with no conditions attached, just reverence and respect for the blessed Sacrament, and you are free to leave anytime if you don’t see the graces. Modernists do know about us, and scoff at us. They ridicule us to scorn, but we just have to humbly accept and carry our crosses just like anyone else. Only in the last decade have traditionalist essentially come out of hiding, out of the modern-day catacombs and building Roman Catholic parishes, churches, seminaries, convents, and schools. You know when the SSPX clergy were meeting with the Vatican to bridge the gap, many of us prayed that God’s will be done, not that modernists will (a compromise) be done. I think we received God’s answer, that compromise of His Roman Catholic teachings, doctrine, and traditional sacraments is unacceptable. Finally, Bishop Dolan is no prophet, he is truly a good charitable man who loves God above all else. He is simply a holy Roman Catholic bishop holding fast to tradition Roman Catholic doctrine, teaching, Sacraments, and practices all before the changes of V 2. The gospel quote came to mind not that I thought the Bishop was a prophet, but rather, his words of tradition are not accepted by modern clergy. What had been correct for nearly two millennium, how could it be so wrong from the late 1960′s until now? Mark, you are correct, you and I do not belong to the same religion, and Jesus is the head of the Roman Catholic Church. My religion never changed, but yours is the fruit of a major reformation. Max, Do you really think so? I think he’s pondering to come up with some not-so-brilliant, very protestant knee-jerking remark. Please pray the rosary for the restoration of the Roman Catholic Church as everyday more and more souls are lost by its delay.
What James does is a classic rhetorical trick. Notice his post subtlely draws a line between his seven sacraments and the seven sacraments of the Pope and bishops in full communion with him. The reader should be able to see that James is leading to a conclusion that the sacraments of his church are real and that those of the Pope’s church are not or do not add up to seven. Those of us Catholics who had some experience with Protestant fundamentalism see through James’ hype very easily.
James is creating an “all or nothing” type of fundamentalist mentality. In comparison, observe how the position of Kenneth is not like this at all. Even the SSPX position recognizes the Pope. My position is that my only problem with the novus ordo is that it is too “elbow to elbow” for me today. At one time this was a critical benefit to me in my development. max and MacD prefer the novus order “horizontal” way of worship, and at one time in my life, let me repeat, that was critical for me. The way I view it is as a matter of access to spiritual resources. I see the novus ordo “realm” as more focused on our emotional needs … not an insignificant need, and a basic requirement for all things human. In using a “formula” found in St Paul maybe, the novus ordo is more like the “milk of the word”, whereas the TLM is more like the “meat of the word”.
JLS, they are the same rite. There are differences of course. There is no greater access to spiritual resources at the TLM than at the other rite. One receives Jesus Christ who is All. A horizontal way of worship? What does that mean? I wonder what your parish is like. Is it one of the happy-clappy silly season parishes? Whether it is milk or meat depends on what the Holy Spirit gives to you at either form of the Roman Rite. Are you talking about the homily or the music? i know you don’t like it when people quote the CCC but do you understand that the Mass is the source and summit of the Christian life? I am glad that you are receiving the fruits of the Mass at a TLM but those who attend the Ordinary Form also receive the same graces. You are trivializing something holy.
Oops. I erred too. There is not greater access to spirtual resources at the TLM than at the ordinary form of the rite.
There is definitely greater inspiration to spirituality in the Mass of St. Pius V than in the Novus Ordo, and I have already outlined some of the reasons.
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
k,
The Prayers at the Foot of the Altar which just might have mitigated the many sexual scandals we have gone through, are omitted.
The Confiteor is different more horizontal.
The words the priest says when he gives Communion are very different. “Body of Christ” vs. “May the Body of Our Lord Jesus Christ keep your soul unto life everlasting. Amen.
The Last Gospel, which Blessed Anna Katherine Emmerich prophesied would bring about great turmoil in the Church when omitted, is omitted.
The prayers after the Mass that St. Pius V instituted are omitted.
It wasn’t to just hear himself talk that Cardinal Ottaviani then I believe the Head of the Roman Curia wrote his “Ottaviani Interventions”! In those interventions he stated that the whole Theology of the Mass had been upended!
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
Oh yes, I forgot one very important thing. In the Tridentine Mass the people face the Tabernacle as does the priest because they are offering the Sacrifice to the Divine King in the Tabernacle. In the Novus Ordo (unless the priest has decided to follow the example of Pope Benedict) the priest faces the people like an entertainer!
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
I like the prayers of the Extraordinary Form better than those of the Ordinary Form, too. But the work of God has not changed. It is still the sacred banquet in which Christ is received, our minds are filled with grace and a pledge of future glory is given. It is the sacrifice of Calvary renewed. It is union with Christ and with those in Heaven. It is Christ interceding for us and with us, offering himself and us to the Father. It is the work of the Holy Spirit. (And the prayers after low Mass were instituted by Pope Leo XIII.)
KENNETH, the eucharistic sacrifice is not offered to JESUS, but to the FATHER.
JESUS is the eucharistic sacrifice we off to his FATHER. look at the canon of the mass.
by the way, for ages the priest and people faced east not because of the tabernacle (which is sometimes in a side chapel, as in st. peters basilica), but because east was a symbol of goodness, and so facing east was a sign that we were oriented toward GOD THE FATHER, together.
when we leave church after mass, we head west, which is a sign of evil, menaing we take our fight back into the world, strengthened by the eucharistic sacrifice (i.e., JESUS CHRIST) we have offered to the FATHER.
Larry please quote us verse and page where Bishop Bruskewitz said that the Society of St. Pius X were “Protestants”! I personally do not believe you can.
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
You may be right, Ken–I thought he had, but I’ve been going back through the record, and cannot find where he may have used the word “Protestant” in connection to SSPX. HOWEVER–in his July 19, 1996 letter to SSPX District Superior Reverend Peter R. Scott, Bruskewitz referred to SSPX as “your non Catholic cult,” saying further, “your sect had previously operated here under the fraudulent and dishonest advertisement of being ‘in full union with Rome’. Fortunately, almost no Catholics were deceived by this dishonest tactic.” He goes on to say that he wants to deter Catholics from associating themselves with “your non Catholic religion.” Bruskewitz says that Rev. Scott is “not even a member of the Catholic Church…” and that SSPX is “not a Catholic organization…” Do you find this nicer than or even substantially different from calling them Protestants? This letter is on the web. You or anyone can google it. If you doubt Bruskewitz’s attitude, why don’t you give him a call and ask him? Or call any of your SSPX friends and ask their attitude of him and his action?
k, if spiritual resources include lots of distraction at Mass and a less than stellar liturgical text in the novus ordo, then too bad for you. There is more to be found in the TLM than the pedestrian emotional hash served up in even the best novus ordo liturgies. Why would I know and how? Been there, done that.
JLS, I’m sorry that you had such a bad experience of Holy Mass. I’ve been to some, also, where it was hard to concentrate. But of course, those things are not spiritual resources, they are trials. You do your best to keep focused on God.
Mr. Fisher, your list of some of the differences between the NO and the TLM are correct. But, you imply that those changes matter! They don’t. Why is it so hard for some people to understand that both the NO and the TLM are the ordinary and the extra-ordinary forms of Catholic worship. One is not better than the other, jus different. There are so many more important things to worry about: children going to bed hungry, unemployment that keeps a family from achieving sustainable living conditions, elder abuse, children who live on the streets because their families have abandoned them, poor education, the list goes on and on. As Catholics we need to be doing something about the human condition, not arguing about one gesture being better than another.
Bob One,
Perhaps if we as a Catholic people were more pleasing to God, these other conditions would be taken care of. You sound like the many RINOS I debated in the Republican Party who sounded exactly like you. I debated them by stating that if we were truer to our religious principles, we would also experience a greater God given economy!
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
KENNETH, john calvin seems to have had a similar notion – “if you are prospersous and doing well in life, it’s a sign you are among the predestined for heaven.” naturally, the calvinists tried to be most tidy, and successfull, so others would see them as living according to GOD’S will and being marked out at the chosen.
max,
There is absolutely NO comparison between the Calivinist and the Traditional Catholics! Get serious!
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
July 19, 1996 – LETTER FROM BISHOP BRUSKEWITZ TO PETER SCOTT, DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVE OF THE SSPX:
“As you perhaps know, there is an aphorism in Catholic theology which says that all innovation begins under the pretext of the reaction.
Your cult is an excellent example of this progression. In the name of what you call “tradition”, you have evidently appointed yourself
to determine that there is something called a “state of emergency” in the Catholic Church. This self-appointed designation then, entitles
you to defy whichever laws of the Catholic Church it suits you to defy. In order to rationalize and justify this new doctrine of “state
of emergency” it is necessary for you to spend a great deal of time pointing out errors and aberrations (both real and imagined) in the
Catholic Church.”
July 19, 1996 – LETTER FROM BISHOP BRUSKEWITZ TO PETER SCOTT, DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVE OF THE SSPX:
“This is a reply to your communication to me of May 15, 1996. Might I say how very happy I am to have learned that your non
Catholic cult has ceased its operations in the Diocese of Lincoln. It is my prayer, of course, that this cessation will be permanent. This is
particularly important because your sect had previously operated here under the fraudulent and dishonest advertisement of being “in full
union with Rome”. Fortunately, almost no Catholics were deceived by this dishonest tactic.”
July 19, 1996 – LETTER FROM BISHOP BRUSKEWITZ TO PETER SCOTT, DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVE OF THE SSPX:
“Since you are not a Catholic nor a Catholic organization, it is obvious that I cannot prevent you from coming into the territory of
the Diocese of Lincoln to preach what you mistakenly call the “truth”, since there are a large variety of non Catholic denominations, sects,
and cults like yours that are going about preaching various things in this Diocese. I am quite satisfied that the Catholics of this Diocese,
including those you call “traditional Catholics” not only obey me, but have no regard for your sect and your cult, and pay no attention to
it. It may be interesting for you to know, however, that my “ecumenical activity” has extended itself to some members of your non Catholic
cult, and I have actually prayed with them, but I do not believe I was very contaminated by these prayers with the followers of your sect.”
I guess this explains Angelo’s observation that the Catholic bishops leave the independents alone. Where is Angelo? I hope he is not sick again. We better pray for him.
Max,
Isn’t once enough for you? I can understand twice because I often do so by mistake, but THREE times is a bit much.
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
umm…KENNETH…sorry to break this to you…but each posting i placed by the bishop was a DIFFERENT passage…
Then why didn’t you properly label them as 1, 2, 3?
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
well, because each post was written in ENGLISH, so i naively assumed people would be able to distinguish that each post was different. silly me.
next time i’ll write them in aramaic or sanskrit, so things will be easier.
okay, guys – bishop bruskewitz of the diocese of lincoln, nebraska, is one of the staunchest conservatives we have among the american episcopacy, and even HE can’t stand the SSPX nonsense. this speaks volumes…
Bishop Bruskewitz is a friend, but he is not infallible!
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
max, it is not conservatism that moves Bp B, but the getting rid of would be competitors. Bishops have the authority to prevent other solid Catholic groups from establishing themselves in his diocese. Btw, has there been any canonical challenge to his edicts? Any action that moved up to some Vatican level?
One of the groups he excommunicated was Call to Action. They challenged it and the Vatican found in favor of the bishop.
“In 1996 Bruskewitz issued a list of 12 groups local Catholics are forbidden to join, calling them “perilous to the Catholic Faith.” They include several Masonic groups, Planned Parenthood, Catholics for a Free Choice, Society of St. Pius X, Hemlock Society and Call to Action.”
a bishopo like this hsould pleasle those in here who are disappointed by bishiops who don’t take strong action…
I have never understood Bp. Bruskewitz. By lumping the SSPX in with a laundry-list of organizatins, which in their stated purpose or mode of being are clearly hostle, antagonistic or antithetical to the Catholic Faith, he is patronizing if not contemptuous of the intelligence of Catholics, both clergy and lay, in his own diocese.”Perilous to the Catholic faith indeed!” In that case, Bp. Bruskewitz must regard the entire Catholic Church as it existed for 1960 yrs., prior to the Modernist takeover, as perilous to the Catholic faith!
The sad thing about a lot of these groups is that they not only don’t get along with the Roman Catholic Church, many of them don’t get along with other traditionalist groups and some groups have infighting which has caused some of the groups to split in two. We even end up with a self-appointed Pope like Pope Michael.
k, 9:43 AM
From the highly respected Butler’s Book of Saints:
About this time Liberius began to sink under the hardships of his exile, and his resolution was shaken by the continual solicitations of Demophilus, the Arian Bishop of Beroea, and of Fortunatian, the temporizing Bishop of Aquileia. He was so far softened, by listening to flatteries and suggestions to which he ought to have stopped his ears with horror, that he yielded to the snare laid for him, to the great scandal of the Church. He subscribed to the condemnation of St. Athanasius and a confession or creed which had been framed by the Arians at Sirmium, though their heresy was not expressed in it; and he wrote to the Arian bishops of the East that he had received the true Catholic faith which many bishops had approved at Sirmium. The fall of so great a prelate and so illustrious a confessor is a terrifying example of human weakness, which no one can call to mind without trembling for himself. St. Peter fell by a presumptuous confidence in his own strength and resolution, that we may learn that everyone stands only by humility.11
According to A Catholic Dictionary of Theology (1971), “This unjust excommunication [of St. Athanasius] was a moral and not a doctrinal fault.”
I don’t even know who F.A. Forbes was, but I do know about Butler’s Lives of the Saints!
I have read books on the life of St. Athanasius the Great, and that’s is where I learned he was excommunicated by Pope Liberius.
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
Mr. Fisher, Thank you for the quotes. If you do an internet search you will find refutations of it. There is a blog called HolyPopeLiberius which you may find interesting. In the case that St. Athanasius was wrongly excommunicated (most sources say condemned, not excommunicated, like the quote from Butler’s and most sources say. like Butler’s that what Liberius signed was not heresy,but an ambiguous statement), it would be an error of discipline (or personal morals, if Liberius knew he was innocent). People who are excommunicated today should not take it upon themselves to decide that they were wrongly excommunicated and continue to receive communion.
k,
Read what I quoted from Butler’s Lives of the Saints again. It definitely stated “excommunication”!
I agree with you that Catholics should not take a decree of excommunication lightly, and I know of know one that does; however we have been given a brain by God, and if the person honestly knows that they are following Tradition and that the Pope is going against Tradition (It has happened more than once you know), then they must do what they know is right. Do you honestly believe that Martin Luther was always “Cristocentric” in everything he did? Pope Benedict apparently believes so because he said it in Germany recently.
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
No, it says “condemnation.” “Excommunication” was in the other quote from A Catholic Dictionary of Theology (1971-oh oh, after VII). On your point that a person who honestly knows that they are following Tradition and that the Pope is going against Tradition then they must do what they know is right. It is then right for them to appeal their excommunication or as in the SSPX bishops request for it to be lifted. The judgement that a Pope is going against Tradition would be a very serious thing and if you were wrong you would be guilty of sacrilege, scandal and rash judgement. You could very easily (with the devil’s help) fool yourself on that. If you are excommunicated, you should not receive communion. Don’t take a chance. The Eucharist taken unworthily leads to judgement and death. Pope Benedict said that Martin Luther was Christocentric in his spirituality. He praised him for being concerned with salvation because, these days, people are not even concerned with that. Martin Luther was a heretic and Pope Benedict knows that. You are taking his remarks out of context. Mr. Fisher, you may not like him but he is the Pope and he does not teach against faith or morals. It is not contrary to the Catholic faith to say something positive about Martin Luther when comparing him to the current state of faithlessness in the world. Every heretic has some things in common with the faith or they would be apostates.
Mr. Fisher, upon reading the documents from Vatican I, I find that no one should receive communion even though they believe it was an unjust excommunication. The Pope has the power to discipline and all the faithful are duty bound to obey.
k,
I quoted you directly from Butler’s Lives of the Saints, if you do not want to accept that, that is your problem.
Please explain how what the Pope said about Martin Luther to a gathering of Lutheran dignitaries is not giving scandal. Prior Popes condemned even meeting with those heretics. Were they wrong? By the way those Popes are now Canonized Saints.
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
So that quote from 1971 was in Butler’s Lives of the Saints? I didn’t understand that. Butler died a long time before that. Re: Pope: Were the Popes wrong? No. Is this Pope wrong? No. Does it give scandal? How? To whom? Who has been led astray by it? Who has been led to sin by it? St. Dominic met with Albigensians. Who was the Pope who met with Attila the Hun? The Pope’s are in the chair of Peter. Peter and Paul and all the apostles met with unbelievers. It’s his job. Do you think he might have some light from the Holy Spirit to go there and talk with them? How can you accuse the Pope of giving scandal by working for Christian unity. We know it is God’s will from the Gospel account of the prayer of Jesus. You know a lot of priests and bishops. Do they think it was scandal?
k,
It is doubtful that you even understand what scandal is. Well I do, because I have spoken to many who have been scandalized to the point that it is near impossible to get them back into the Faith.
Kissing the Koran=Scandal
Allowing a Hindi priestess to bless you= Scandal
Taking part in a Mass somewhere in Africa with the woman reading the Gospel topless=Scandal
Allowing non Christians to place a Buddha statue on top of the Tabernacle=Scandal
Praising a heretic who was one of the major founders of the Reformation=Scandal
This will have to suffice for now, I have to go to bed.
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
What is the disposition regarding the SSPX in Bp B’s diocese today?
The example of Pope Liberius is alive and well today, and is known by the name of “unity”. The catch word for what the unholy bishops are doing is unity. They want to create unity without the Holy Eucharist, which is impossible in the ultimate sense of the word. Only the Holy Eucharist can bring union with God. Spiritual carousing is powerless to do it, and this includes vain imaginings.
UNITY and the HOLY FATHER…
Vatican City, Jan 25, 2012 / 02:15 pm (CNA/EWTN News). Jesus’ “priestly prayer” at the Last Supper for Christian unity should inspire Catholics to pray and work for it, Pope Benedict XVI said on Jan. 25.
“His priestly prayer can thus be seen as instituting the Church, the community of the disciples who, through faith in him, are made one and share in his saving mission,” the Pope said at his weekly general audience.
He also urged Catholics to pray “for the gift of the visible unity of all Christ’s followers, so that the world may believe in the Son and in the Father who sent him.”
so, JLS…(sigh)…are you saying that POPE BENEDICT is one of the “unholy bishops” on your hit list…?
All the notable heresies, from Arianism and Manichaeism to Americanism and Modernism, seem as reasonable as orthodoxy; that’s why they are pernicious.
“By lumping the SSPX in with a laundry-list of organizations…” the bishop opens the door to humility for people of Call to Action, seeing themselves alongside the obvious schismatics of SSPX, and opens the door to humility for SSPX-ers, seeing themselves alongside the obvious dissenters of Catholics for Choice. Humble pie always tastes patronizing if not contemptuous!
I am grateful that my bishop isn’t so aggressively disciplinarian, but I think he did well to make sure everyone skating along the many margins of Catholicism sees someone he detests alongside himself on the list.
WHY THE SSPX IS AGAINST THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL’S DECREE ON RELIGIOUS LIBERTY:
“The Conciliar principle of religious liberty declares that the State has no right to coerce men in matters of religion. Prior to the Council, the Catholic Church always said that the State may abstain from coercing men in matters of religion, but it always has the right to use its power prudently to protect the Catholic religion and to suppress the public exercise of false religions. The difference between these two positions may seem small, but it is in fact enormous, like the difference between God being God and man being God. Which in turn needs proving.
“If God is the Lord of all creation, then He is God also of the State, which is not outside of creation. If God is Lord of the State, then it too must, as State, worship and obey Him, in other words the State authorities must, as State authorities, protect and prudently promote His worship by His one true religion, as part of the duty of all creatures to render to their Creator what is His due. Therefore every State on earth is, as such, bound to use all prudent means, including the force at its disposal, to favor the Catholic religion. God is God, and Catholicism is, since Jesus Christ died on the Cross, His one and only true worship.”
okay…………..so this SSPX bishiop wants to use FORCE to favor th3e cathlic relgiion,.
just like JESUS commanded…oops, JESUS never said that!
this is what muslims are doing in saudi arabia and other fun places!!! do we REALLY want to imitate THAT kind of bnehavior?
max, You ask, “Do we really want to imitate that behavior?” max do you mean the obvious behavior of you showing your consistent lack of support to fellow Catholics and to Pope Benedict who is still working to reunite fellow brothers and sisters in Christ who are member of the SSPX? Is this consistent disdain that you show for the SSPX due to the fact that SSPX clergy will consistently clarify Church teaching on homosexual issues? Then the answer is clear max. You should imitate by example and that example should always be to clarify Church teaching on homosexual issues. Instead of talking about what the muslims and saudi arabians and the SSPX are doing, here is the answer to your question. “Take the enormous beam out of your own eye max before you point out the (splinter, not to make a pun) in the SSPX. That is the behavior THAT YOU SHOULD REALLY IMITATE BUT CONSISTENTLY AVOID IMITATING. IN OTHER WORDS DEFEND ALL TEACHINGS, NOT JUST THE ONES YOU LIKE.
Good grief, Catherine.
MarkfromPA, “Good grief Catherine.” = Ouch! The Truth Hurts!
CATHERINE, where in the world did you get this homosexual stuff from?
i’m talking about some loony group that thinks it knows better than the roman catholic church, and you go off into sexual exploits again.
ick.
i’m not interested in homosexulatiy, thank you very much. if you are, go to some lesbian chat room and type to your heart’s content.
max says, “I’m not interested in homosexuality, thank you very much.” I just want to tell JLS that he is a strict confessor and use the words hanky panky in my conversations with him – ick!
k, you still do not get it with the language precision. Language is not mathematics, and does not hold with precision very well. You have to interpret using context, and this is a major project requiring … gasp … analysis among other actions.
JLS, my analysis of your analysis that I do not interpret your analysis of interpretation is false. No one could read this website and not realize the problems with interpretation and analysis.
Schism is not a condemned state; whereas, heresy is a condemned state. People in a state of grace are normally with extremely rare exception in a state of schism with respect to perfect union with God. This includes popes. However, no one in a culpable state of heresy has any union with God.
Baltimore Catechism 4: A schismatic is one who believes everything that the church teaches, but will not submit to the authority of its head-the Holy Father. Such persons do not long remain only schismatics; for once they rise up against the authority of the Church , they soon reject some of its doctrines and thus become heritics; and indeed, since Vatican Council I all schismatics are heretics.
max, your bubble of naiivitee of the Gospel is astonishing; it looks more and more as though you never read it. A. God is on record for using force to make His point (don’t tell me, max, that you believe Jesus descented when the rest of the Godhead smote Sodom); B. Jesus used force plenty of times. For example, He sent demons into a herd of pigs which then ran into the lake and drowned. He also whipped people, and to round out the paper, rock, scissors game, Jesus commanded an olive tree to die because it had failed to produce olives.
uh, i think that was a fig tree. but thanks for the wonderful images of the DEITY WHO DESTROYS.
you could make a great film with mel gibson…
correction: “dissent” not “descent”, and animal, mineral, vegetable game instead of paper, scissors, rock game. mea culpa.
The quote of Bp B by max, indicates that Bp B has in this letter flown apart from the Pope on this matter. The quote, however, does not look authentic for the following reason: It does not address any specific thing, but rather throws innuendos and makes unsubstantiated accusations. When he calls the SSPX people not Catholics, he is defying Church doctrine. After all, non Catholics A. cannot be excommunicated, and B. cannot have an excommunication lifted. This letter purported by max to be authentic is probably a phony thing promulgated by a liar.
This is called “being in denial.”
JLS, sorry to burst yet another of your fun & exciting conspiracy theories, but the letter i quoted actually comes from the SSPX website, in which it shows signed letters between Reverend Peter R. Scott, District Superior, Society of Saint Pius X, and the Bishop of Lincolcn.
scott, in his reply to the bishop, replies, “In standing up against modernist errors and ecumenism, what dogma of Faith have we refused? Clearly we are doing so to maintain all of them. In insisting on our right to stand up against the aberrations and errors that you admit are real, but which the Pope is too weak to see or to act upon…” blah, blah, blah
scott, in top diplomatic form, describes the holy father as “too weak” to do what the SSPX is doing. charming.
JLS, I verified that the letter is authentic. It is on the SSPX website. Bp Bruskewitz had written a gentler letter including an offer to help any in the SSPX organization who would like to come into communion with the Church. Apparently, the reponse of the SSPX is what prompted the stronger letter from Bishop Bruskewitz. Also, this letter is from the time when the bishops of SSPX were excommunicated and were declared to be in schism (1988-2009) John Paul II said in Ecclesia Dei that all who formally adhere to the schism face excommunication. This is why he asked for the bishops to reinstate the TLM so that those who were attached to it would have a place to worship that was valid and licit.
It is very doubtful that Bishop Bruskewitz feels the same way today than when he issued that Pastoral Letter.
In any case, he may have included the SSPX because he knew that the other groups would have criticized him for not doing so. I am not saying that he was right, I am only giving a possible reason.
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
Kenneth, I believe you are quite correct in assuming that Bishop Bruskewitz no longer feels the same way about the members of the Society of St. Pius X that he did way back in 1996.
He’s a pretty crusty bishop, and takes no nonsense from anyone; in fact, he is (if memory serves) the only bishop in the entire country who refused to accept the “zero tolerance” policy adopted in 2002, and decided to handle matters in his own way. He also seems to have numerous young men applying to the seminary, from what I have heard, because he fosters loyalty to the Magisterium of the Church, which many young people feel inspired by in this day and age of “everything goes.”
He is also very traditional, which is why his fight with the SSPX is so interesting — one can only assume that he strongly objected to them voicing criticism of the Holy Father, or some such thing that got his feathers ruffled. (Not to suggest, of course, that the Successors to the Apostles actually have feathers.)
He objected that they were advertising themselves as “In full communion with the Catholic Church’ when they had been declared in schism by Pope John Paul II.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe Bishop Vasa also did not implement the “zero tolerance policy” and for the same reasons.
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
Members of the LIncoln diocese who continued to affliate with SSPX would be put under interdict and if they still continued, would be ecxommunicated. The SSPX is not a Catholic organization. It has no canonical status. Those who were excommunicated by John Paul II(those who received episcopal orders from Lefebrvre) had their excommunications lifted by Pope Benedict XVI. They are still suspended and are not supposed to be saying Mass. It was not they who Bishop Bruskewitz was going to excommunicate but the members of his own diocese. You are correct in saying that non Catholics cannot be excommunicated. Like the Masons-Catholics could be excommunicated but not non-Catholics.
Ken, In your brief comparison of the TLM and NO service you left out the most important difference in words during the Consecration, many humble God-centered prayers of adoration, e.g., the second confiteor, absolution, and remission of venial sins before receiving holy communion were deleted! Great catch on the difference in the words of the priest distributing Holy Communion, “The Body of Christ” (NO) versus, “May the Body of Our Lord Jesus Christ keep your soul unto life everlasting. Amen”. What a profound difference in meaning if one only thinks about it! After doing some V2 research this weekend, the Body of Christ can have two meanings: 1) the church and its members, and 2) the actual Body of our Lord Jesus Christ. When it came to the NO change, which was the intention of the men who authored it? (2/3rds of modern catholics believe the eucharist is but a symbol only). In the TLM, there is no doubt no question, the Holy Eucharist is the Body of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Max, your rendition of east and west, doesn’t accurately protray why in the TLM the priest faced the tabernacle. He did so out of reverence and respect for our Lord in the tabernacle, he the priest is the leader standing before Almighty God ahead of his sheep, not because it just simply lined up that way! What is your source of information? Very likely half-truth V 2 trivia? Bob One, There is a difference between the TLM and the EFM, they aren’t the same! Get an old TLM missale and compare it to an EFM missalette/missal! Go ahead take the time, be courageous. Many traditionalists have done so and found the important differences! Sadly, you put worldly matters ahead of heavenly matters, against Our Lord’s teachings. From a Prayer by Pope Clement the IXth: ‘Let my conscience be ever upright and pure, my exterior modest, and my conversation edifying. DISCOVER TO ME, O MY GOD, THE NOTHINGNESS OF THIS WORLD, THE GREATNESS OF HEAVEN, THE SHORTNESS OF TIME, AND THE LENGTH OF ETERNITY. Grant that I may prepare for death; that I may fear Thy judgments, escape hell, and in the end obtain heaven; through Jesus Christ, my Lord. Amen’. k, Are you sure the Baltimore Catechishm 4 said: Such persons do not long remain only schismatics; for once they rise up against the authority of the Church , they soon reject some of its doctrines and thus become heritics; and indeed, since Vatican Council I all schismatics are heretics? What year was the 4th edition written, post V 2? If so, figures. Finally, for the fence straddling JLS, and anyone else for that matter, here is a hypothetical question: There were 3 organizations, A, B, and C. Organization B had been Organization A, but Organization B took it upon itself to make some very fundamental changes in its traditions, beliefs, teachings, and practices. Organization B claimed it still was Organization A but only did so in its robes. Organization C consisted of some members who never left Organization A (they didn’t accept Organization B), and some members once blindly and temporarily joined Organization B, but later recanted Organization B’s traditions, beliefs, teachings, and practices, and subsequently joined Organization C. Now Organization B now believes Organization C is in schism since they don’t agree with Organization B’s leader and leadership. Organization B ridicules Organization C that it thinks it is better than Organization B. Organization C ignores the false charges. Which Organization B or C whose memberships were all once members of Organization A are truly in schism? Organization B whom disagrees with the traditions, beliefs, teachings, and practices of Organization A, or Organization C who agrees with the traditions, beliefs, teachings, and practices of Organization A, but not in those changes made by Organization B? Think about it and pray the rosary for our Blessed Virgin Mary in intercede for us and help us to see God’s Holy Truth!
Ken, In your brief comparison of the TLM and NO service you left out the most important difference in words during the Consecration, many humble God-centered prayers of adoration, e.g., the second Confiteor, absolution, and remission of venial sins before receiving holy communion were deleted! Great catch on the difference in the words of the priest distributing Holy Communion, “The Body of Christ” (NO) versus, “May the Body of Our Lord Jesus Christ keep your soul unto life everlasting. Amen”(TLM). What a profound difference in meaning if one only thinks about it! After doing some V2 research this weekend, the Body of Christ can have two meanings: 1) the church and its members, and 2) the actual Body of our Lord Jesus Christ. When it came to the NO change, which was the intention of the men who authored it? (2/3rds of modern Catholics like believe the Eucharist is but a symbol only). In the TLM, there is no doubt no question, the Holy Eucharist is the Body of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Max, your rendition of east and west, doesn’t accurately portray why in the TLM the priest faced the tabernacle. He did so out of reverence and respect for our Lord in the tabernacle, he the priest is the leader standing before Almighty God ahead of his sheep, not because it just simply lined up that way! What is your source of information? Very likely half-truth V 2 trivia? Bob One, There is a difference between the TLM and the EFM, they aren’t the same! Get an old TLM missale and compare it to an EFM missalette/missal! Go ahead take the time, be courageous. Many traditionalists have done so and found the important differences! Sadly, you put worldly matters ahead of heavenly matters, against Our Lord’s teachings. From a Prayer by Pope Clement the IXth: ‘Let my conscience be ever upright and pure, my exterior modest, and my conversation edifying. DISCOVER TO ME, O MY GOD, THE NOTHINGNESS OF THIS WORLD, THE GREATNESS OF HEAVEN, THE SHORTNESS OF TIME, AND THE LENGTH OF ETERNITY. Grant that I may prepare for death; that I may fear Thy judgments, escape hell, and in the end obtain heaven; through Jesus Christ, my Lord. Amen’. k, Are you sure the Baltimore Catechism 4 said: Such persons do not long remain only schismatics; for once they rise up against the authority of the Church , they soon reject some of its doctrines and thus become heretics; and indeed, since Vatican Council I all schismatics are heretics? What year was the 4th edition written, post V 2? If so, figures. Finally, for the fence straddling JLS, and anyone else for that matter, here is a hypothetical question: There were 3 organizations, A, B, and C. Organization B had been Organization A, but Organization B took it upon itself to make some very fundamental changes in its traditions, beliefs, teachings, and practices. Organization B claimed it still was Organization A but only did so in its robes. Organization C consisted of some members who never left Organization A (they didn’t accept Organization B), and some members who once blindly and temporarily joined Organization B, but later recanted Organization B’s changes in beliefs, teachings, and practices, and subsequently joined Organization C. Organization B now believes Organization C is in schism since they don’t agree with Organization B’s leader and leadership. Organization B ridicules Organization C that it thinks it is better than Organization B. Organization C ignores the false charges. Which Organization B or C whose memberships were all once members of Organization A are truly in schism? Organization B whom disagrees with the traditions, beliefs, teachings, and practices of Organization A, or Organization C who agrees with the traditions, beliefs, teachings, and practices of Organization A, but not in those changes made by Organization B? Think about it and pray the rosary for our Blessed Virgin Mary to intercede for us and help us to see God’s Holy Truth!
Whoa! Could you give me that again, please? Everything after “There were 3 organizations…” ?
The Baltimore Catechism 4 (not 4th edition) online that I used is copywrited 2005. So I know that you will not accept it. The Baltimore Catechism of 1891 in Q. 1170 lists the different classes of unbelievers, which includes “schismatics, who have been baptized and believe all the articles of faith, but do not submit to the authority of the Pope.” I will post again with the Vatican I teachings that the 2005 edition is referring to.
James,
Thanks, at 73, I can’t think of everything!
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
James: “Nunc hoc in marmore non est incisum…”
(Now this isn’t carved in stone…)
…but I think you are wasting valuable typing time.
No one in here, I would guess, agrees with you that the Roman Catholic Church is in error, nor will all your lengthy arguments convince anyone here that we belong to some deluded cult.
We are members of the Roman Catholic Church, established by Jesus Christ (not by Martin Luther, nor by the Angel Moroni [sorry, Mr. Romney], nor by John Calvin, nor by Henry VIII).
Throughout history, our Triune God has guided and protected his beloved Church, and this continues in 2012. Even with Visigoth invasions, attacks by heretics, and threatened Turkish takeovers, we have survived and thrived, and will continue to do so until the Lord Jesus returns in glory.
I am proud to be a Roman Catholic and thank God for this privilege each day.
If you want to write volumes about “Organization A versus Organization B,” enjoy yourself. As for me, I’ll keep thanking God for allowing me to be a member of his Catholic Church, and may even try to learn the music to “Long Live the Pope,” which I have read, but never yet heard sung.
“Beleaguered by
By the foes of earth,
Beset by hosts of hell,
He guards the loyal flock of Christ,
A watchful sentinel!”
It’s “nice” that the editors allow posts longer than 1500 characters. But please, folks, could we have posts with distinct thoughts one to a paragraph?
My goodness Larry, what is so hard about it? Just stop, think, and carefully read it. Even a 5th grader can understand the question.
OK let me make one slight change just to clarify the question:
There were 3 organizations, A, B, and C. Organization B had been Organization A, but Organization B took it upon itself to make some very fundamental changes in Organization A’s traditions, beliefs, teachings, and practices. Organization B claimed it still was Organization A but only did so in its ward robe. Organization C consisted of some members who remained loyal and never left Organization A traditions, beliefs, teachings, and practices (they didn’t accept Organization B), and some members who once blindly and temporarily joined Organization B, but later recanted Organization B’s changes and subsequently joined Organization C returning to tradition, beliefs, teachings, and practices. Organization B now believes Organization C is in schism since Organization C doesn’t agree with Organization B’s leader and leadership about the changes. Organization B ridicules Organization C and claims Organization C thinks ithat t is better than Organization B. Organization C ignores or denies the false charges. Now the question, which Organization B or C (whose memberships were once members of Organization A) is truly in schism? Organization B whom disagrees with the traditions, beliefs, teachings, and practices of Organization A, or Organization C who agrees with the traditions, beliefs, teachings, and practices of Organization A and not in those changes made by Organization B! Think about it and pray the rosary for our Blessed Virgin Mary to intercede for us and help us to see God’s Holy Truth!
The answer: C is in schism, because having once been members of the now-defunct A, as had been the current members of B, the members of C had ostensibly accepted the fact that A was a hierarchical group with authoritative leadership. They now reject the leaders’ authority, and in so doing call into question whether they had ever truly accepted the authority of the leadership in the first place.
2…The Holy and most Blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the savior and redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and forever he lives and presides and exercises judgement in his successors the bishops of the Holy Roman See, which he founded and consecrated with his blood. 3. Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole Church. So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted and does not abandon that guidance of the Church which he once received….5. Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the Lord himself (that is to say by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church, or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema…Chapter 3 No. 2…Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world…4. This is the teaching of the Catholic truth and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation.
Yet there are other Saint who preach somewhat differently. I believe St. Augustine, and St. Francis De Sales were amongst them.
You haven’t answered my question about Pope Benedict’s statement regarding the apostate priest and heretic Martin Luther, why not?
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
I did answer it. Did they not post it? This new format makes it a little hard to find things. Your question is do I believe Martin Luther was Christocentric in all things like Pope Benedict said. So my anwer was that what the Pope said was that Luther’s spirituality was christocentric. And that you were taking it out of context. I did not answer your question, I realize now. Which is-do I believe that Martin Luther was Christocentric in all things? First of all I have never read any of the writings of Martin Luther. I’m Catholic-all I know about Martin Luther is that some people say he invented the Christmas Tree (Did you know that Christmas Trees were condemned by some Catholic priests?-Now they light one at the Vatican. Things change.) I think he was supposed to have written one of the big Christmas Carol hits. (Silent night?) He believed in the Blessed Sacrament and he nailed 95 theses on a door. He married and had kids. Some people say he was a Catholic priest but I’ve also heard he was a monk. He burned his excommunication paper (which really frustrates historians.) He got mad at the Archbishop of Mainz and some other guy the Pope sent for “selling indulgences” (which was not accurate) to build St. Peters. I think he was excommunicated for burning a copy of Canon Law. He also was supposed to be so afraid of losing salvation that it almost drove him crazy. So I don’t know if he was Christocentric. Eccentric is more what I’ve heard.
K: Martin Luther in the 19th Century had been falsely credited with the lyrics of “Away in a Manger,” but it has since been exposed as a misconception. Officially, the composer is unknown. Unofficially, there are various claims.
Larry, thank you for that info.
It was composed by a parish priest in Germany, whoever he was, when the organ broke down, and it was composed at first for a guitar since that was the only instrument available for the Mass,,. I believe it was for a Midnight Mass.
Anne T. is referring to “Silent Night,” first performed at a parish Church in Austria Christmas Eve, 1818–lyrics by Father Joseph Mohr and music by organist Franz Gruber. Some reports say the priest and organist composed the song because the Church’s organ was broken and they needed to compose something for guitar accompaniment. Although it is always sung as a lullaby today, it was reportedly first performed in 6/8 time.
James’ “After doing some V2 research this weekend, the Body of Christ can have two meanings: 1) the church and its members, and 2) the actual Body of our Lord Jesus Christ”, runs afoul of Catholic Doctrine. These are one and the same; however, James appears to be saying otherwise. James, what exactly do you believe is happening between God and a faithful soul in the Holy Eucharist?
Larry, Many traditionalists disagree with you. Organization B and its 5 successive reigns, did not follow or obey the 260 legitimate popes before them to vowed, preserved, and protected the Roman Catholic traditions, beliefs, teachings, and practices. Especially the Papal Bull of Pope St. Pius the Vth “Quo Primum” papal bull decreed on July 14, 1570, which set in stone for all time the exactness of the holy sacrifice of the Mass to be said in the mother tongue of the Church. To quote his instruction: “[I]t shall be unlawful henceforth and forever throughout the Christian world to sing or to read Masses according to any formula other than that of this Missal published by Us; …” Another: “… which shall have the force of law in perpetuity …. The 4th commandment obliges us to obey the legitimate orders of our lawful superiors, and we know we must obey the true pope. The promulgators of V 2, as experts in deceit, banked on Catholics’ obedience to the Church, especially to the papacy. However, at the onset of the heretical changes of V 2 (e.g.: ecumenism and religious indifferentism) many Catholics failed to remember that they are not to obey any sinful or heretical directive, regardless from whence it derives. As St. Paul wrote, “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel to you other than that which we preached to you, let him be anathema!” (Galatians’ 1:8) Therefore we cannot obey anyone who commands us to sin, even if the man be called “pope”. Tragically, most Catholics after V2 blindly followed the directives of the 5 postconciliar popes and bishops, even when they attacked Christ’s teachings and the 10 Commandments. So accustomed were they to obey and not question orders that many failed to realize that their first obligation is to obey God. In the final analysis, we should remember the words of St. Peter: “We ought to obey God rather than men”.(Acts of the Apostles 5:29) Since Catholics were accustomed to accepting the directives of the pope, the bishops and their parish priests without question, the architects of V 2 exploited this characteristic to create the postconciliar Church. New doctrines, a new mass, and new sacraments were created to replace the old. Laity were told that the Church needed to get with the times. The few who questioned the authority of the new reformers who dismantled what Christ had created were subjected to ridicule or ostracized for their non-compliance. As a result centuries of tradition, faith, and belief were universally discarded by the majority. Ecumenism and religious indifferentism previous condemned by the Catholic Church were promulgated by the postconciliar popes. They even gave official recognition to non-Christian religions (many of which are polytheistic) and actively promote interfaith worship of idols like at Assisi in October of 1986. The NO mass formulated after V2 is not a propitiatory sacrifice offered n atonement for sin, but is merely a protestant/Lutheran memorial of the Last Supper. The words of Christ used in the sacramental form of the Holy Eucharist, since the time of the Apostles, have been substantially altered in the NO mass. These essential changes invalidate the mass according to the teachings of Pope St. Pius the Vth (De Defectibus). The substantial changes to the sacraments place serious doubts as to their validity, the most frightening perhaps in those changes to the Sacrament of Holy Orders. A true pope cannot promulgate invalid, sacrilegious ceremonies, rites or disciplines for the Church. It is impossible for a true pope to promulgate error by means of the ordinary universal Magisterium. One who has placed himself outside the Catholic Church by the profession of public heresy cannot be a valid pope. Canon 2200 states ” . . when an external violation of the law occurs, in the external forum the existence of malice is presumed until the contrary is proved because in the ordinary case man acts knowingly and freely”. Ultimately one cannot help bet question who is right, the past 260 popes for nearly 2,000 years or the 5 popes since 1958? Which teachings are correct? Those of the Catholic Church for nearly 2,000 years or the teachings of V2 and the popes for nearly the past 50 years! The Blessed Trinity will prevail in preserving the Roman Catholic Church. Common sense and the Roman Catholic faith will prevail in the hearts and souls of those filled with grace from the Holy Ghost. Pray the rosary to receive graces and guidance from the Holy Ghost.
But James, none of what is say is even true. You have been totally misled out of the church by people who lie and tell you that they are the real church. (and I don’t mean your wife.) Stop reading the BS of the enemy of the Church. The faith and beliefs of the Holy Catholic Church have not changed. Don’t let anyone tell you it has. The sacrifice of Jesus on Calvary is re-presented not represented in every Mass. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass said in the Holy Catholic Church is not invalid. Jeus Christ is present in the Holy Eucharist. The Mass of Pius V has been changed numerous times. All validly. Pope Pius V himself changed the Missal to include the Feast of Our Lady of Victory. You have been educated by rebels, by schismatics. Please get the Catechism of Trent or the Baltimore Catechism of 1891. Read and learn the true faith. Especialy the Marks of the Church and its attributes. Have you ever read the Bible? You are permitted to because the Old Testament was opened in the 1950’s before Vatican II, right? Have you read the Fathers of the Church? Those who have made you afraid of God’s Holy Church and have led you astray will have a serious punishment. In fact, they are already punished. The worst punishment God can give is to leave one in their sins. Mary, help of Christians, bring back all who have been led astray.
“[I]t shall be unlawful henceforth and forever throughout the Christian world to sing or to read Masses according to any formula other than that of this Missal published by Us…” Yeah, James. “Us” means the pope, whoever he be–not just Pius V. “This Missal” means the Roman Missal in general, not just the 1570 edition, as if there could never be any future editions. Until his time, the formula of the liturgy was a local or regional matter. In 1570 he ruled that henceforth the pope would control the liturgy, and no one would ever be allowed to change any liturgy approved by the pope. He did NOT say that neither he himself nor any future pope could ever change “this missal”–and if he HAD said that, he would have been exceeding his authority because no pope can ever bind all future popes in changeable matters of discipline. Those issues are up to each pope at each given moment. (Infallible dogma is, of course, another matter.) The fact that “this Missal” has been changed numerous times and continues to be changed is proof that subsequent popes understood what Pius V meant and what he didn’t mean. Pope Pius V must be seething over the way you sedevacantists have been distorting “Quo Primum’s” meaning over the past forty-some years. And your insinuations that the Eucharistic Sacrifice is invalid in today’s Novus Ordo is plain balderdash. The words of institution are “This Is My Body” and “This Is My Blood.” As for the other sacraments being invalid–bunk! And you can pass that along to Doug, Bruce, Charles and Jerry while you’re at it.
James, would you say that Pope Alexander VI was a more valid Pope than Pope John Paul II. Many of the Popes in the Middle Ages did not live exemplary lives. Do you consider them to be more valid as Popes than the last 5 Popes? What makes Pope Pius V so special that he can make changes to the Mass but that Popes in the last 50 or 100 years cannot.? Larry makes valid points here.
Mark from PA,
There is one very big difference, many of the other Popes including St. Pius V and St. Pius X are canonized Saints not just Blessed!
Of course you will not admit that I have made a valid point!
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
Mark from PA,
Didn’t those nuns you say taught you so well teach you about what “Ex Cathedra” or Infallibly means? That is the difference in what Pope Pius V declared and what the post VII Popes have allegedly declared!
May God grant you better discernment,
Kenneth M. Fisher
Yes, I do know what they mean, Kenneth. I attend Masses in the Novo Ordo. Do you think that I am as much of a Catholic as those that belong to the Pius V and Pius X groups? Just because these groups are named after Saints does that make them more Catholic in your eyes?
Not knowing the particulars about where you attend Novus Ordo Masses, I prefer not to answer that question.
May God grant you the wisdom to see the errors of the ways you often are promoting.
Kenneth M. Fisher
To answer another part of your question, there are groups that are named after Saints that are not really holy at all!
Kenneth Fisher
James uses a lot of words attempting to attain truth, or claiming it all to be truth; but do the inevitable errors in his pitches mean he is not faithful to Jesus Christ? Compare the level of error inevitable in James’ posts to that same thing in the actions and words of many bishops … and then explain who is on the line regarding error in theology?
James, you have not proven that the novus order (OF) of the Mass is not a true sacrificial Mass. You state your belief and then without proving it, you base your argument on it, that there is no pope on the Throne of St Peter. Are you capable of distinguishing your sentiment from your reason? This question is the equivalent spiritual question to the well known psychiatric question of being able to distinguish reality from non-reality. Can you do it, James?
k and essentially Larry too, Your comments: “The Mass of Pius V has been changed numerous times. All validly. Oh really! I think I understand where you are coming from by your comment “Pope Pius V himself changed the Missal to include the Feast of Our Lady of Victory”. OK, apparently there is a misunderstanding here that needs to be corrected amongst the modernists as traditionalists already know this information I am about to pass on. The easiest way I can clarify this misunderstanding is by referring to a Tridentine Latin Mass (TLM) say Marian, St Andrews, St Josephs all having editions before any changes began in 1962. (OBTW modern V 2 missalettes confuse the issue in that they mesh the different sections together, so don’t refer to the modern missalettes.) It is not your own fault that you aren’t aware of this public knowledge as it wasn’t passed down to you after V2, like so many Roman Catholic teachings. This knowledge I am about to share was basic for Catholics before V 2. I encourage you to acquire and look at one of these old TLM missales and you will find there are many sections; however I will only touch on the 3 sections that clears up your misunderstanding. Generally all of the TLM missales covered all of the Sundays and the feast days of the one (not 3 as in the V2) year liturgical calendar. However, there were some editions that were for slimmer, easier to handle and covered the Lord’s Day (Sunday) TLMs only. The three general sections are: 1) Sundays plus the 40 days of Lent and Advent, 2) The Ordinary of the TLM beginning with the Asperges Dei (if a High Mass) all the way to St. John’s Gospel at the end of the TLM with St Leo XIIIths prayers. In short, using the major subtitles in-between of course are the Prayers at the foot of the Altar (Confiteor), one Epistle and one Gospel readings, Offertory, Canon, and Holy Communion in that order; and 3) the one year calendar of typically saintly feast days (some feast days are not celebrated for saints but special events like the Transfiguration). Do I make myself clear so far? What Pope St. Pius the Vth Papal Bull referred to as unchangeable after codifying the TLM was Section 2 in particular; however, my readings have indicated to me his papal bull may have only applied to the TLM in section 2 regarding the Canon and Holy Communion. (I need to do more research). Note that Pope Leo the XIIIths prayers were added where the TLM is finished, and do not constitute a change in the TLM. Since the Council of Trent essentially established/set the one-year liturgical calendar, the Sundays were pretty much set in concrete; so if there were any changes they were very slight if anything at all, but once again they aren’t the readings and prayers in the preserved and protected ordinary of the TLM. Section 3 covering the set feast days and votive masses (e.g. honoring our BVM)has obviously grown overtime with the number of saints canonized and honored over the centuries. In this 3rd section like the 1st section the introit and common prayers, epistles and gospels (one each per TLM), offertory and secret prayers, preface, communion and post communion prayers were all specially chosen for the specific feast day at hand with no straying away from what was defined by the Holy Fathers. But let it be repeated, the 2nd section I described in the TLM did not change, except the slightest for Holy Souls day and funerals. So don’t draw the erroneous conclusion that the TLM changed just because saintly feast days and votive TLM prayers and readings were added, the Ordinary of the TLM had not, through the reign of Pope Pius the XIIth under fear of committing a mortal sin. It was all meant that way to honor our Lord, protect the integrity of His teachings, His words, and His intentions and because Latin is a dead language, that is why Latin was chosen as opposed to the many vernacular languages whose words change in definition over history/time. In a caring manner, do you understand this now, that there were no changes for 500 years of true Popes? They only added feast days; but did not change the prayers in the Ordinary of the TLM itself prescribed by Pope St. Pius the Vth? So yes, our Lady of Victory, a feast day and its prescribed prayers were added, but didn’t change the Ordinary of the TLM! So k, you continue to say “You have been educated by rebels, by schismatics. Please get the Catechism of Trent or the Baltimore Catechism of 1891. Read and learn the true faith”. Yes I have been educated on true history that I have been blessed with by research and talking to very holy traditional Roman Catholic clergy who are not bad, mean, or evil rebels or schismatics that you may be referring too. The trouble is modern Catholics have not been taught the complete history of the Roman Catholic Church, they know only of what V 2 has led them to believe, and it is sad. I was a V 2 member for 32 years of my life, and denied the truth until I was blessed with grace from the Holy Ghost to see it. Like St Paul, many of us traditionalists were converted from the V 2 modern church after we were struck by the lightning and saw God’s holy light. I do have my 1941 copywrite Roman Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible that I read. My 1958 Marian Missale epistle and gospel readings are from the Douay-Rheims Bible. I do have copies of the Catechisms of the Council of Trent (translated into English by Fr. J Donovan before 1958) and 1891 Baltimore Catechism, and a few other old Roman Catholic relics (historical books) at my finger tips that I do read. My fear besides losing my soul is our Lord’s holy words, “Many are called but few are chosen”. Many whom prematurely believe they will be saved but know not of the sins they commit because the knowledge has not been handed down to them. We are all sinners some of us just know that fact better than others and it is nothing to be proud about! Larry, Spoken like a truly deceived liberal! Your the one who is submitting your interpretation of V2 liberal teachings to justify your means directly opposing what is documented in writing in old Roman Catholic Church teachings! Your comment “The words of institution are “This Is My Body” and “This Is My Blood.” Well Larry I don’t know where you received your modern theology degree, but they only taught you have the truth, obviously to cover up the changes that were made. Please do a little research and read a TLM missale like I described above. You will find you are wrong. You might reply, but it says in the Bible “This is my Blood”, well like the protestants who don’t believe in Roman Catholic tradition, part of tradition is what Jesus handed down teaching to the 12 Apostles and they inturn future generations of clergy strictly preserving the prayers and rituals; but those prayers and rituals weren’t recorded in the Holy Bible. The 7 Holy Sacramental rites and TLM were handed down by Jesus Christ Himself. Please read Fr. James Meagher’s book “How Christ said the 1st Mass”. You will be surprised what you never knew! Many traditionalists have it and it can be bought from amazon books. I’d bet it is one of those books not on your official list of required college-level books to read on your theology curriculum was it? Wonder why? Also, stick to Roman Catholic Holy Bibles, as the many different interpretations from protestant bibles and their “catholic editions” is mind boggling. Only original Roman Catholic Holy Bibles like the Douay-Rheims, St. Joseph and etc. can be trusted for accurate translations. An accurate Roman Catholic Holy Bible should have the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur endorsements (preferably before 1958) up front. Finally to JLS, I have distinguished sentiment from reason. Remove the scales from our eyes and read our Lord’s words in the Douay-Rheims Holy Bible: St. Matthew (7:16-20 ) “[16] By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? [17] Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit. [18] A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit. [19] Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be cut down, and shall be cast into the fire. [20] Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them. By our Lord’s own words, we can see and know right from wrong. The bad fruits of V 2 and its aftermath we have all seen, unfortunately many only turn their cheeks and look the other way. Pray the rosary for God to reveal His truth and lead us to His loving care for eternity. These are hard times!
James, be sure to pray to your Guardian Angel, and the prayer to St. Michael. Are you consecrated to the Immaculate Heart? Have you completed you First Friday devotion? Do you ask for the guidance of the Holy Spirit before reading your Bible and Catechism? I will continue to pray for you. And I give you this advice: Know the faith! Read everything that is on the internet about the people you follow. Listen carefully, very carefully and be a innocent as a dove and as wily as a fox. I have shown you many things which you disregard. Who started your church? Yes, of course, Jesus-every church says that. Who started your parish? Did the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church give permission for your parish to be established? Find in Canon Law, Scripture or the Catechism or any Church document where it is prescribed on how to proceed in the event that the Church established by Christ fails, which is what you are claiming. If this was to happen, God would have left a plan to be followed. Let me know if you find it.
k and essentially Larry too, Your comments: “The Mass of Pius V has been changed numerous times. All validly. Oh really! I think I understand where you are coming from by your comment “Pope Pius V himself changed the Missal to include the Feast of Our Lady of Victory”. OK, apparently there is a misunderstanding here that needs to be corrected amongst the modernists as traditionalists already know this information I am about to pass on. The easiest way I can clarify this misunderstanding is by referring to a Tridentine Latin Mass (TLM) say Marian, St Andrews, St Josephs all having editions before any changes began in 1962. (OBTW modern V 2 missalettes confuse the issue in that they mesh the different sections together, so don’t refer to the modern missalettes.) It is not your own fault that you aren’t aware of this public knowledge as it wasn’t passed down to you after V2, like so many Roman Catholic teachings. This knowledge I am about to share was basic for Catholics before V 2. I encourage you to acquire and look at one of these old TLM missales and you will find there are many sections; however I will only touch on the 3 sections that clears up your misunderstanding. Generally all of the TLM missales covered all of the Sundays and the feast days of the one (not 3 as in the V2) year liturgical calendar. However, there were some editions that were for slimmer, easier to handle and covered the Lord’s Day (Sunday) TLMs only. The three general sections are: 1) Sundays plus the 40 days of Lent and Advent, 2) The Ordinary of the TLM beginning with the Asperges Dei (if a High Mass) all the way to St. John’s Gospel at the end of the TLM with St Leo XIIIths prayers. In short, using the major subtitles in-between of course are the Prayers at the foot of the Altar (Confiteor), one Epistle and one Gospel readings, Offertory, Canon, and Holy Communion in that order; and 3) the one year calendar of typically saintly feast days (some feast days are not celebrated for saints but special events like the Transfiguration). Do I make myself clear so far? What Pope St. Pius the Vth Papal Bull referred to as unchangeable after codifying the TLM was Section 2 in particular; however, my readings have indicated to me his papal bull may have only applied to the TLM in section 2 regarding the Canon and Holy Communion. (I need to do more research). Note that Pope Leo the XIIIths prayers were added where the TLM is finished, and do not constitute a change in the TLM. Since the Council of Trent essentially established/set the one-year liturgical calendar, the Sundays were pretty much set in concrete; so if there were any changes they were very slight if anything at all, but once again they aren’t the readings and prayers in the preserved and protected ordinary of the TLM. Section 3 covering the set feast days and votive masses (e.g. honoring our BVM)has obviously grown overtime with the number of saints canonized and honored over the centuries. In this 3rd section like the 1st section the introit and common prayers, epistles and gospels (one each per TLM), offertory and secret prayers, preface, communion and post communion prayers were all specially chosen for the specific feast day at hand with no straying away from what was defined by the Holy Fathers. But let it be repeated, the 2nd section I described in the TLM did not change, except the slightest for Holy Souls day and funerals. So don’t draw the erroneous conclusion that the TLM changed just because saintly feast days and votive TLM prayers and readings were added, the Ordinary of the TLM had not, through the reign of Pope Pius the XIIth under fear of committing a mortal sin. It was all meant that way to honor our Lord, protect the integrity of His teachings, His words, and His intentions and because Latin is a dead language, that is why Latin was chosen as opposed to the many vernacular languages whose words change in definition over history/time. In a caring manner, do you understand this now, that there were no changes for 500 years of true Popes? They only added feast days; but did not change the prayers in the Ordinary of the TLM itself prescribed by Pope St. Pius the Vth? So yes, our Lady of Victory, a feast day and its prescribed prayers were added, but didn’t change the Ordinary of the TLM! So k, you continue to say “You have been educated by rebels, by schismatics. Please get the Catechism of Trent or the Baltimore Catechism of 1891. Read and learn the true faith”. Yes I have been educated on true history that I have been blessed with by research and talking to very holy traditional Roman Catholic clergy who are not bad, mean, or evil rebels or schismatics that you may be referring too. The trouble is modern Catholics have not been taught the complete history of the Roman Catholic Church, they know only of what V 2 has led them to believe, and it is sad. I was a V 2 member for 22 years of my life, and denied the truth until I was blessed with grace from the Holy Ghost to see it. Like St Paul, many of us traditionalists were converted from the V 2 modern church after we were struck by the lightning and saw God’s holy light. I do have my 1941 copywrite Roman Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible that I read. My 1958 Marian Missale epistle and gospel readings are from the Douay-Rheims Bible. I do have copies of the Catechisms of the Council of Trent (translated into English by Fr. J Donovan before 1958) and 1891 Baltimore Catechism, and a few other old Roman Catholic relics (historical books) at my finger tips that I do read. My fear besides losing my soul is our Lord’s holy words, “Many are called but few are chosen”. Many whom prematurely believe they will be saved but know not of the sins they commit because the knowledge has not been handed down to them. We are all sinners some of us just know that fact better than others and it is nothing to be proud about! Larry, Spoken like a truly deceived liberal! You’re the one who is submitting your interpretation of V2 liberal teachings to justify your means directly opposing what is documented in writing in old Roman Catholic Church teachings! Your comment “The words of institution are “This Is My Body” and “This Is My Blood.” Well Larry I don’t know where you received your modern theology degree, but they only taught you half the truth, obviously to cover up the changes that were made. Please do a little research and read a TLM missale like I described above. You will find you are wrong. You might reply, but it says in the Bible “This is my Blood”, well like the protestants who don’t believe in Roman Catholic tradition, part of tradition is what Jesus handed down teaching to the 12 Apostles and they inturn future generations of clergy strictly preserving the prayers and rituals; but those prayers and rituals weren’t recorded in the Holy Bible. {So how do you explain BXVIth’s return to the original words of consecration unlike yours?) The 7 Holy Sacramental rites and TLM were handed down by Jesus Christ Himself. Please read Fr. James Meagher’s book “How Christ said the 1st Mass”. You will be surprised what you never knew! Many traditionalists have it and it can be bought from amazon books. I’d bet it is one of those books not on your official list of required college-level books to read on your theology degree curriculum was it? Wonder why? Also, stick to Roman Catholic Holy Bibles, as the many different interpretations from protestant bibles and their “catholic editions” is mind boggling. Only original Roman Catholic Holy Bibles like the Douay-Rheims, St. Joseph and etc. can be trusted for accurate translations. An accurate Roman Catholic Holy Bible should have the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur endorsements (preferably before 1958) up front. Finally to JLS, I have distinguished sentiment from reason. Remove the scales from our eyes and read our Lord’s words in the Douay-Rheims Holy Bible: St. Matthew (7:16-20 ) “[16] By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? [17] Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit. [18] A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit. [19] Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be cut down, and shall be cast into the fire. [20] Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them. By our Lord’s own words, we can see and know right from wrong. The bad fruits of V 2 and its aftermath we have all seen, unfortunately many only turn their cheeks and look the other way. Pray the rosary for God to reveal His truth and lead us to His loving care for eternity. These are hard times!
Another thing to contemplate, the Novus Ordo Requiem Mass no longer had the “Dies Iriae”. I intend to have it printed out in Englsh so everyone at my funeral Mass will be able to read what we have been denied in the Novus Ordo.
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
“Do I make myself clear so far?” Yes. You’ve made it clear that you have no answer for my argument. Your post doesn’t just beat around the bush. It beats a thousand miles around the bush. I am no liberal and you are no traditionalist. You are what I call a “nostalgist,” and you make the same mistake as the liberals, only in reverse. In other words, you commit the mirror-opposite vice to them. The Church is composed of two elements–the human and the Divine. The liberals seek to humanize what is Divine about the Church. They want to make the eternal, unchanging God as fickle and inconstant as we humans–to the extent that He approves of things he formerly had rejected, such as unisex marriage, fornication–even abortion. The nostalgists, on the other hand, want to divinize what is human about the Church. They speak of the “Mass of St. Pius V” as though Pius V had invented the Mass–as though it had never existed before him, and he retains the copyright eternally after his death. They speak of the “Mass of St. Pius V” as though it were not the Mass of Jesus Christ. (Then they have the inconsistency to use a 20-Century version of the Tridentine instead of the 1570 text syllable-for-syllable, feast-for feast.) They have made an idol out of one particular format of the Mass. Instead of worshiping God in and through the Mass, they worship the pages on which the Mass is written (but only certain pages–not others.) They have made an idol out of the Latin language. They cry “the Introit is gone! The Last Gospel is gone!” But Jesus Christ remains, Sacrifice and Sacrament! If it’s antiquity you want, why not insist on going back to some of the beautiful, pre-Tridentine rites Pius V did away with–such as the Gallican Rite? Why not go back further to the Greek Masses of Justin Martyr’s time? Perhaps we should reject the changes of the Council of Jerusalem (from Acts of the Apostles), and re-adopt Mosaic Law with its circumcision, sin offerings and all the rest? Perhaps we should return to a Saturday Sabbath. Would that not be going back to the roots? To the really good ‘ole days?
Larry,
In case you don’t know it, there still is a Greek Catholic Mass, there still is a Hungarian Mass etc. etc. But they have not changed very much if at all.
The points many on here, including myself are trying to make are: why were those previously defined as heretics, six to be exact, invited to help formulate the Novus Ordo? Why were parts of the Mass that were helpful to the faithful eliminated in the Novus Ordo? Why were the Leonine Prayers removed from the Novus Ordo (I knew an Eastern Rite and Roman Rite Archbishop who told me that they never could figure out who removed the St. Michael Prayers, and why, and he was there at the Council.
I could go on and on, but I won’t. There are many unanswered questions about the Novus Ordo that should be answered.
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
And my question to you is: what gives you the right to substitute your own judgment of what the Mass ought to contain for the official judgment of the Holy Father?
The Leonine prayers were suppressed by Pope Paul VI.
k,
Please state the time and date of such an alleged suppression!
Even if that were true, Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI effectively removed that alleged suppression!
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
Inter Oecumenici March 7, 1965
If you mean by allowing the use of the 1962 Missal, yes you would be correct. Also, I believe if you want to pray them privately, it is OK. I do, anyway
1. Larry, Its time to get a grip, may God help you overcome your false accusations and your liberal points of view and protestant theology. I wonder if Luther, Calvin, Huss, Knox, Wycliff, Zwingli, or King Henry VIII had like ideas against the TLM? You are clearly wrong and undoubtedly have never read Fr. James Meagher’s book on “How Jesus said the 1st Mass” otherwise you wouldn’t be attacking the TLM and Pope St. Pius the Vth. Christ defined by specific example to His 12 Apostles at the Last Supper, (His 1st Mass foretelling His sacrifice on Calvary) how to honor the Blessed Trinity and it is preserved in the TLM. To follow the TLM to the “T” honors the Blessed Trinity, and pleases them. Face it and be humble, we mortals are but dust and can never repay God to what He has given us; however out of His condescending love and knowing our frail weaknesses, He has given us the TLM to please and honor Him and it’s means through the Eucharist of giving us His spiritual food to get through and overcome life’s hardships and the devils temptations on earth. To think man can improve upon Christ’s TLM with major radical modernist changes yielding the NO service is an insult and a sign of man-centered arrogance to our Blessed Trinity signifying man can do better than God, which is bunk. In Fr. Meagher’s 400+ page descriptive and detailed book available on the internet, you would find your accusations are completely false. Modern theology training has duped many. Why don’t you answer the real historical examples/facts of bad fruits presented nor address explaining and justifying why we should accept the errors/bad fruit of the modern V 2 church? Those many and severely horrible bad fruits are what lead us Roman Catholics to tightly hold onto tradition! Like so many liberals why do you ignore our Lord’s comments on the good and bad fruit and only seem to accept those that you agree with modernisms “anything goes? Like other liberals why cannot you discuss the facts as they are overwhelming, (shucks for a while I tried to justify them too but could not accept it, when the truth and reality stared at me in my face)? Instead you seem to attack your counter-parts character traits (like myself and others who hold true to Roman Catholic traditions as though it is a terrible thing). Based on your modern liberal theology, did you ever see a Galacian Rite, or Greek Masses? You seem to know little knowledge about the TLM and apparently have real trouble accepting (to the point of perhaps despising) a Saint!, Pope Saint Pius the Vth. Ever wonder why in the last 500 years only he and Pope Saint Pius the Xth were the only two popes declared Saints? There is an obvious answer for these two saints, a common denominator that you are apparently unable or unwilling to see. If modernists cannot accept, hold true to and trust the foundation of the Roman Catholic Church then where is the foundation? Without holding to tradition, the foundation, the V 2 will crumble and cave in. Hey isn’t that what it is doing now? Look up Georgetown University’s (Jesuit University) CARA website to see the facts collected by the modern V 2 Church, not by traditionalists! You’ll see loads of statistics over time that show the withering away of the V 2 Church in North America. In 20 years all will know whether V 2 was a success or not based on what the V 2 Church will look like then (if it still exists). My guess is the withering trend will continue based on the lack of graces. Millions more V 2 members will lose what little faith they’ve been handed down, the resultant will mean less of a need for priests and fewer vocations, fewer parishes (so there will be consolidations like what is happening today), fewer schools, hospitals, and convents. However, the trend for Roman Catholic parishes following tradition is growing, with seminaries and convents growing in numbers and vocations. Please don’t contrive, deceive, and confuse this growth as something sponsored by the evil devil as one poster indicated in an earlier blog. Our Lord and the Roman Catholic Church will prevail until the end of time! My bottom-line friends is this, seek and you shall find a TLM parish, knock and it shall be opened for you. Look at the reverence of the male clergy, female nuns, and parish members toward the Blessed Sacrament and you will know whether you have found the Lord!
“…did you ever see a Galacian Rite, or Greek Masses?” No, but they happened–and there are historical records of them–such as the York Rite, or “Use of York,” as it was formally known, celebrated in the north of England before the time of Henry VIII. (In the York Use, the Advent liturgical color was black!) There’s a videotape on the web of a re-enacted York Use liturgy. An English translation of its missal is also on the web. The words are quite beautiful–and very poetic. Did you ever see the Lord and His Apostles? No? Do you believe that they existed and do exist? “You seem to know little knowledge about the TLM…” That would be strange, since I’m a cradle Catholic, and the post-Vatican II changes didn’t even start until I was about nine years old. I remember going to many, many of the old Masses. “…and apparently have real trouble accepting (to the point of perhaps despising) a Saint!” If you mean Pius V, far from despising him, I think I’m saying what he would want said. As for the rest of your post, it’s nothing but vacuous sloganeering which there is no point in answering.
k, Thank you for your concerns and kindness. As a working man, it has been hard for me to keep up every month on my First Friday and First Saturday Devotions. I pray the Lord will give me the opportunity to complete them before I die as the promises from them are very powerful. Unlike many, I do recognize my guardian angel but as an imperfect mortal, I don’t always listen when I should, and have many a times regretted not doing so. With age and maturity, I’m getting better at it because my guardian angel is completely trustworthy and loves me. I do pray to my guardian angel and St. Michael daily as well as St Louis DeMonfort’s recommended way to say the rosary. I am consecrated to Blessed Mother’s Immaculate Heart. I do ask for the guidance of the Holy Spirit before reading my accurate Roman Catholic Douay-Rheims Holy Bible, Baltimore and Council of Trent Catechisms I will continue to pray for you too. Thank you for your advice, I know you mean well. However, one bit of advice is don’t read everything that is on the internet, as it is filled with many things that aren’t completely true. Modern historians/self-dubbed experts are trying to rewrite history of the past and the present. The only history one can really trust these days is that which was written many years ago, especially about the topics of the Roman Catholic faith and Christianity. Our Lord has many, many enemies out to destroy His one true Roman Catholic Church with deceit. Islam is the fast growing religion in the world. And yes, be open-minded, for our Lord told us in Matthew 18:3 “Amen I say to you, unless you be converted, and become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven”. (Douay-Rheims Holy Roman Catholic Bible). The Roman Catholic Church which I follow was founded by Jesus Christ Himself and no other! I hope that I answered all of your questions, and unfortunately you don’t answer any of mine in kind. Read and try to believe all things in the Bible especially about the Great Apostasy and Our Lady of Fatima’s related message to the 3 children for the world. I close repeating this once again about the bad fruits of V 2 Church, so ponder it deeply: St. Matthew (7:16-20 ) “[16] By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? [17] Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit. [18] A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit. [19] Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be cut down, and shall be cast into the fire. [20] Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them. By our Lord’s own words, we can see and know right from wrong. The bad fruits of V 2 and its aftermath we have all seen, unfortunately many only turn their cheeks and look the other way. Pray the rosary for God to reveal His truth and lead us to His loving care for eternity. Take courage and find a Roman Catholic TLM parish, to save your soul, save the Roman Catholic Church, and pray for the corrupt world.
James, oh sorry. There is another poster who says that I do that not answering questions thing to her too. I’ll go back and see. I may just have thought they were rhetorical. Thank you for answering my questions. I see that you truly try to live the Catholic Faith. Here is another question for you: Did you journey through other Traditonal churches or were you always with this bishop? Is it a matter of location? Would you attend a SSPX Mass if it were available?
One question I still have not gotten an answer to is what heresy did the Popes commit?
James, also, in looking at St. John Bosco’s Dream I see that the ships who kept away from the fight, once they saw the enemies ships had sank returned and rode safely beside the flagship. Maybe there is a plan that we don’t understand.
k, No, I have not always been with my holy Bishop; however I have attended TLMs celebrated by SSPX in NM, VA, AZ; and CA, SSPV in MN; CMRI in OH, NE, CA, MN, WA, CO, and AZ; and independent mostly pre-1960’s validly ordained retired priests in CA and NV who only say the TLM. Do you know what I found k? They all prayed and performed the TLM exactly the same, facing the tabernacle in the middle of the altar with the parish behind them on their knees, standing, and sitting quietly as the altar boys chanted their latin responses with the priests and the choir loft singing beautiful old latin hymns! Just like it was for centuries. I’ve been in their old style confessionals receiving the Sacrament of Penance (not todays Reconciliation) where they absolved me of my many sins with the old Latin prayers used in place for centuries. They are all holy priests very loving and reverent to our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament. Their Roman Catholic faith based on tradition is unshakeable by the grace of the Holy Ghost and they recognize and detest the bad fruit of V 2. So that also ought to answer your question, yes I will attend an SSPX TLM, as the priests are validly ordained, maybe not licit from a modernists point of view; but just the same valid by their receiving the centuries old Sacrament of Holy Orders received by succession from the throne of St. Peter.
Thank you for your answer. I would assume that the Masses would be the same. I can’t find the questions that I didn’t answer. Everything seems to hinge on whether one bishop, alone has the power to declare the Pope a heretic, to declare the Catholic Church as not the Church established by Christ. I can’t find anything that would give a bishop that power. I think you and your people will be OK but remember what I said-listen very carefully and know the Faith better than they do. You have no one to protect you from the wolves.
James, I had an experience in prayer once; it could have been while praying the Rosary, but I do not remember. I was contemplating the Pope and the allegience that Catholics owe to him. I was suddenly overtaken with a fear that by setting up the church like this, God had left us very vulnerable. What if that one person was wrong and led the whole world astray? Just as suddenly, I felt a pervasive sense of calm and a thought impressed itself on my mind “God will not permit this.” I am 100% sure that you have been misled. “Lead, kindly light”
k,
Listening to “inner voices” can be very dangerous without the guidance of a true Spiritual Advisor.
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
You are very correct on that. The last person to be able to discern them is the person who has them.
Wow, James, you sure cover some ground. Reminds me of the late Hank Snow’s “I’ve Been Everywhere”.
Yes, indeed, the sacraments of the SSPX are the sacraments of the one holy catholic and apostolic church. Doesn’t it really gall some people who can’t stand it?
Larry is pitting a legalist approach to discernment against James’ theological approach. Both express an ardent faith in Christ. The difference comes in whom they decide to believe: Larry believes what he is told to believe, even though he does not know who is telling him. And James believes his own discernment stemming from the liturgy as practiced from day one of the Church. I entered the word “discernment” in the search engine of the DRBO online Bible … The Apostles put a lot of thought and instruction into this matter … addressing all the faithful, and not only the hierarchy. Nowhere does Jesus or any of His saints tell any soul to believe what he is told simply on the basis that the one telling him has some standing of one sort or another. Your salvation depends on your discernment; choose to follow a lie and you spend eternity in lies, but choose to follow Jesus and you spend it with God. Reduce Catholicism to a set of books and you’re toast; or, reduce Catholicism to what some bishop or pope says or what you think he says, and again, you may in fact be pressing the “toast” button on the great toaster in the sky.
“Larry believes what he is told to believe, even though he does not know who is telling him.” I have never done that! I know exactly who I am believing, and who I am NOT believing. I AM believing God through His magisterium. I am NOT believing YOU! I know who God is. I know what and who His magisterium is. On the other hand, I don’t know you from Adam–and I’m supposed to take your word over theirs?
SSPX Masses are valid but illicit. Anyone can baptize. You must have faculties from a Catholic bishop to be able to absolve sins in confession and to bless Catholic marriages. I think in a state of emergency, they could do last rites. I don’t know about holy orders or confirmation. I have never seen that question addressed. Bishop Lefebrvre truly abused his power and died excommunicated. Pope Benedict XVI lifted the excommunications of the 4 priests that they incurred when they accepted episcopal ordination from Archbishop Lefebvre in direct disobedience to the Pope. They asked him to lift them and he did so in the hope that they would return to full communion with the Church. They have rejected the attempts by the Pope and his committee to bring them into the Church by setting up a personal prelature.
Mr. Fisher, I attend Mass at a parish that is part of the Diocese of Scranton. I have never been to a Mass from the Pius X group or a Mass from the Pius V group.
Mark from PA,
For your information, the Pius V Group is Sedevecantist!
May God guide you back to the fullness of the truth in the Sixth Commandment!
Kenneth M. Fisher
What does adultery have to do with this discussion, Kenneth? Pope Benedict XVI is not a heretic, James. He is not perfect but as Pope he is deserving of our respect.
k, Most of my questions to you were in asking for explanations for the modern heretical actions, heresy, and errors cited in above blogs and justifying why those heretical acts, heresy, and errors are acceptable, or at least acceptable by modernists to ignore them. Not one of those questions was recognized or answered by anyone. Only the messenger pointing out the heretical actions, heresy, and errors was criticized in return. No one wishes to address the widely publicized (in their time but seldom mentioned or hidden now) facts. Let me share a few very credible Roman Catholic Church Fathers writings, do not necessarily mention that a formal declaration by a holy Bishop is even necessary i.e., “ipso facto”: St. Robert Bellarmine (1610) quote whom I believe is a Doctor of the Church: “A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction.” De Romano Pontifice. II.30. St. Alphonsus Ligouri (1787) quote: “If ever a pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he would at once fall from the pontificate.” Oeuvres Completes. 9:232. “The pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cese to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.” Catholic Encyclopedia, New Yorek: Encyclopedia Press 1913, 7:261 St. Antoninus (1459) “A pope who would be separated from the Church by heresy, therefore, would by that very fact itself cease to be head of the Church. he could not be a heretic and remain pope, because, since he is outside of the Church, he cannot possess the keys of the Church.” Summa Theologica, cited in Actes de Vatican I. Please pray for the Roman Catholic Church, that she will be restored. Before I forget k, to you wear a scapular? I pray you and all others do as well. The scapular is one of those sacramentals largely unheard of in the V 2 Church today. Many modernists (clergy and lay people) scoffed at it as superstition and recommended wearers put it aside. Many pre-concilliar Roman Catholics wore them in fear of taking them off (like I and most Roman Catholics following tradition) do now. If anyone hasn’t one, I would recommend doing so, getting it blessed, and wearing it. There is a great promise from Blessed Mother that goes along with it: “Whosoever wears this scapular shall not suffer eternal fire.” What a promise that is taken so light-hearted or even buffed with scorn today. To think such a simple act, showing our faith in God and Her, can help us get to heaven. This doesn’t mean that an agnostic or aetheist murderer can put it on just before death an hope to be saved without sincere and remorse confession and absolution of their sins; however, it relies on the good Roman Catholic character of those sinners who honestly try to live out their Roman Catholic Faith, will rest assured (although purgatory likely looms), find heaven to be their eternal reward!
JLS, Yes I have been around having a career where I had to move. I liked Hank Snows singing. Again to everyone my bottom-line is: Don’t lose the Roman Catholic Faith, search for and study it. The Roman Catholic Church will live on as Christ promised to the end of time. Pray the rosary for God to reveal His truth and lead us to His loving care for eternity. Seek and you shall find, knock and it will be open to you. Take courage and pray to find a Roman Catholic TLM parish, to save your soul, save the Roman Catholic Church, and pray for the corrupt world.
The above quotes are not infallible magisterial declarations.
Larry, I appreciate your post.
OK James. I think those were the questions that I thought were just a provocation. I know I answere the one about why there is so much wrong in the church. I accept what you say in your quotes from the saints, but you have said what heresy any of the popes have committed. And if there was no Pope or he was a heretic then he would not be Pope, right. He would cease to be the Pope. Which means that no one would be Pope and there is a Pope. God would know and not confer the Papacy on a heretic. God would prevent a Pope from falling into heresy. Should there be such a situaltion, then each head of each Church (the Bishops) would be the ultimate authority in each diocese. There would not be an alternative Magisterium where the bishops have no jurisdiction like in your church..
k,
Although you have convinced me that nothing I can write or say will convince you. Why do you think that Pope Liberius is not listed amongst the early Popes as a Saint? His successor, St. Damasus is said to have stated that Liberius was a heretic! Indeed, Pope Liberius was actually, probably by force, an Arian! While that decision is in God’s hands, why do you think that Pope St. Damasus stated that?
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
oh, KENNETH, there you go again with your bud LIBERIUS.
just FYI, the year is now 2012, and the pope’s BENEDECT XVI, and he’s no heretic.
and if he says you can celebrate mass in german, why is this LESS valid than a previous pope like PIUS V saying you can only celebrate mass in latin?
do you think the magisterium of the church stopped in time some years back, like a broken clock?
mac,
Apparently can’t carry on a meaningful discussion without using demeaning statements like “your bud”. However, had I lived during his time, I would like to believe that I would have been his “bud”!
You also don’t seem to know the definition of “infallible”!
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
Mr. Fisher, the two best sources I have found is a blog called Holy Pope Liberius which is by some traditionalist monks who have started to return to Rome. Also, the New Advent website with the Catholic Encyclopedia from 1917. The reason these are the best is that they cite the sources of information. I have seen his name written as Pope St. Liberius, but in most sources he is not. It is said that he was a saint and that his feast day was September 23rd and that he was removed from the martyrology in the 1500s, likely due to the Protestants raising issues about the writings that have been determined to be forgeries. I have not found anything that says that Pope Damasus said he was a heretic. What is your source for that information? I am not pro-Liberius. Historians have to determine things by the written record. I really only want you to know the information that is out there and to realize that some information gets used by people who are excommunicated (or who were for 20 years) to justify not obeying the order of excommunication. I don’t have a dog in this fight. Really. I am just telling you what I find.
Mr. fisher, I have looked at 6 Catholic History books. Only one has the information that Pope Liberius excommunicated St. Athanasius. It is A HIstory of Popes from Peter to the Present by John O’Malley S.J. (Yes, the one from Georgetown). One said that Pope Liberius sign a vague formula.
Apparently you can get differing information about Pope Liberius from different sources. My sources say differently. If I can find again the article that states that Pope Damasus called Pope Liberius a heretic, I will quote it.
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
Mr. Fisher, thank you I would appreciate it.
James, I will go back again and try to answer all the questions but I have to do some of my duties first. But see here you say, how to justify modern heretical actions and heresy and errors. OK- i don’t justify heresy and I don’t know what heresy you think is being taught. I thought I addressed them. I will go back as I can and we can go over them. I will have to do it in a series of shorter posts because of things I have to do-but I will make it a priority.
James, I only see one question which is on the Smoke of Satan. You did say that you would like us to explain how we can ignore Pope John Paul II kissing the Koran. That upset a lot of people. Me, too. He never explained why he did that so I will not guess. But it is not heresy. Is it a sin against the first commandment? Well, it is not listed as such in the catechisms. I wouldn’t do it. I wouldn’t kiss a copy of the Da Vinci Code either. I didn’t like it. What am I supposed to do about it? I can’t leave the Church because of it. That would be a mortal sin. You mention heresy and error. Maybe we should make sure we are talking about the same things. In the Catechism of Trent, Pope St Pius V states “for a peron is not to be called a heretic as soon as he shall have offended in matter of faith, but he is a heretic who, having disregarded the authority of the Church, maintains impious opinions with pertinacity.” According to the 1891 Baltimore Catechism, heretics are those “who have been baptized Christians, but do not believe all the articles of faith.” (Q. 1170) “An article of faith is a revealed truth so important and so certain that no one can deny or doubt it without rejecting the testimony of God. The Church very clearly points out what truths are articles of faith that we may distinguish them from pious beliefs and traditions, so that no one can be guilty of the sin of heresy without knowing it.” The Articles of Faith, as in the Catechism of Trent, are the 12 Articles of the Apostle’s Creed. Pope St. Pius V stongly urges that pastors impress upon the faithful the Article of “I believe in the Holy Catholic Church”, which I have urged you to read. So I ask you again, what heresy do you believe any of the last 5 popes were guilty of?
Thanks for the reminder on the scapular. Mine broke and I need to get a new one. I have never been invested though.
k,
You need to be invested by a priest who has obtained the faculties to do so. Most orthodox priests have that faculty.
Father Aloysius Elacuria, CMF, recommended the Brown Scapular even over the Claretian White Scapular. I know because he told me so. So did Fr. Thomas Matin, CMF. I know he wore it, because in the Holy Land, I went to his room, and he was in his undershirt and I saw it over his holy priestly neck.
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
Thank you, Mr. Fisher.
Something wiped my computer and my name was not posted. Anyway thanks.
JAMES, many here are concerned for your soul, but i am also worried about you getting carpal tunnel syndrome.
this new format on CCD allows one to write extremely long posts, and yours are becoming…endless.
James at 11:39: 3677 characters, one paragraph. At 12:09, 3863 characters, one paragraph. Max at 12:09, 206 characters, two linked thoughts and two paragraphs. Anyone want to guess which comment was read and understood by more people?
It occurs to me that James imitates the original form of scripture in Greek. There are no paragraphs nor much punctuation, nor has it actually been read by very many people.
max, Jesus clearly says He will spit out the lukewarm because He can work only with the hot and the cold. James is anything but lukewarm. And even though I see some of his analysis of his observations to be faulty, yet I think he sees the corruption and is seeking answers. Lukewarm souls do not see corruption and could care less about seeking the truth. As for James’ questioning the validity of any given pope, that is part of discernment, and each of us is given the responsibility to discern the truth; those who refuse then fall into the clutches of Calvinism under a variety of names such as fatalism or predestinationism (which is the same word found in Catholic theology but with a different meaning). Larry simply wants people to shut up and be happy with some sort of legalist pogrom. max only wants to have a happy party regardless of the weather outside, and so he makes an arbitrary decision to view his shepherd as protecting him. max, you ought to do some Scripture reading about how false leaders rise up and sweep the gullible along with them.
oh, JLS, you are such a grouchy-pants.
no matter WHAT a person posts, you write a contradiction, just to keep your spirits up. you love a good fight.
that’s fine.
no go throw some tennis balls for your dogs and work off that nervous energy.
JLS, Very well said. I might also like to add a couple more excellent sources of accurate Roman Catholic Biblical interpretations to help people learn about their Roman Catholic Faith: 1) Fr. Spirago’s The Catechism Explained 1862; and Haydocks Catholic Bible Commentary, 1859 edition, compiled by the late Rev. Fr. George Leo Haydock, following the Douay-Rheims Bible. Both can be found on the internet for free in .pdf format so you can read them completely or search for topics of interest most easily. JLS I appreciate you and everyone else on this form concerned about mine and all the other Roman Catholic souls holding tightly to tradition. We do appreciate all of your prayers. Please duly understand we care about everyone’s souls, Catholics, Protestants, agnostics, aetheists, and pagans. Rich or poor, healthy or ill. We all need the Blessed Trinity and the graces they can give us through the sacraments to get us to heaven. Prayer and stay praying, and living out our Lord’s example of charity to others are very important.
k, You are correct that none of the heresy’s and errors I said were to provoke anyone of the readers on this site. They are just simple facts that have happened and are documented in the media one form or another, and they due need to be thought through, not ignored and carry on as though nothing happened. Millions of would be catholics have lost their faith in the last 40 + years. Never in the history of the world has the exodus been of such great magnitue. There has to be an explanation. The Roman Catholic Church cannot let this exodus continue, for our Lord told the Apostles to go forth and preach the gospel to all people for the honor and glory of God and the salvation of peoples souls.
I am one of them. I left at age 16, retuned a decade later. It had nothing to do with the Pope. It had to do with tragedy and a seeming unsypathetic God or a God who would not stop bad things from happening.
Also, lots of people left the Church before Vatican II, also. People stop going to church for various reasons-laziness, got out of the habit, teachings on abortion, gay marriage, women priests; lack of assurance of salvation; not getting their emotional needs met, someone at church hurts their feelings, a priest yelled at them, a nun rapped them with a ruler, Catholics are rude. People leave the Church because they do not feel loved at Church. One thing that has changed is that people do not fear hell anymore. One of the things that Our Lady showed the children at Fatima was that hell exists and Purgatory exists. Maybe people believe in hell for terrorists but not for themselves because they are good people; they don’t hurt anybody. People believe in the devil but not in hell for people. This is an influence of some of the other Church’s who believe Scripture when it says that all who believe in Jesus will be saved. A strong trend in the Church was not to threaten people; people should serve God out of love. The emphasis has been on invitation and opportunity, not on punishment and commands. It is changing more back the other way with more Catholics speaking about the demands of discipleship and seeking God’s will. The societal expectation has changed as well, with states abandoning laws that protected churches with the competition of shopping and dining on Sundays. We are truly a land with out a Sunday and that is the real root of all of our problems. When people don’t worship God in community they become selfish and it is easy to just drift away. None of this came from the Pope. It was the laity and maybe priests who would not speak about punishment for sin.
One reason, k, that it is, as you phrase it, “changing back the other way” (from carrot to stick) is because many people are tired of putting of with distractions at Mass, where they go to worship God and not party with their pew neighbors.
Yes before Vatican II some left the Church, mostly for divorce reasons, but the rate of departure was nothing like it has been since Vatican II. In fact it was practically nill!
I saw a graph that showed the rate of conversions to Catholicism before Vatican II and it gradient was very steep. I also saw a graph of the rate of defections from the Faith after Vatican II, and its gradient of losses was even steeper!
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
k, a priest can administer the sacraments without having faculties. Again, you’re confusing the concepts of valid and lawful. Your persistent inability to distinguish these two things indicates that you really do not understand what the sacraments are all about.
JLS, you say you are glad that you never read the Baltimore Catechism. You cut down the people who post with CCC quotes-which I think you said you had never read, but you have read the things it is based on. You also said that you prefer to reason things out for yourself. I write a post clarifying your post and you think it proves that I don’t understand what the sacraments are really about? Canon 966 states that holy orders alone does not give a priest the power to validly absolve sins; he must have faculties from the local ordinary. In case of emergency, like a person dying, that would not be necessary.
k, Jesus told St Peter to “feed” His sheep and lambs; the verse does not say to “lead” them. We have the Holy Spirit, which Jesus explained to us, and as St Paul instructed us about. The good news here is the bishops feed us the Sacraments, and the bad news is they do not have to be holy to do this. So, k, why do you need to be led somewhere? Do you see the Church as leading you somewhere, to Heaven perhaps? How would a bishop who is not holy, yet who feeds the sheep of Jesus, lead you anywhere good? Well, they couldn’t. So, who leads you, k? the CCC2ndEd? The Bible? Code of Canon Law? The Holy Ghost? Blessed Mary Ever Virgin? Jesus?
“Jesus told St Peter to ‘feed’ His sheep and lambs; the verse does not say to ‘lead’ them.” Really? So you don’t believe that the Lord appointed any such person as we now call “pope”? (How do you explain “whatever you bind on earth…[etc]”?) Well, now at last we begin to see some logical explanation for your somewhat eccentric so-called theology. You don’t agree that any leader was appointed for the Church by the Lord! So Benedict XVI is a pretender for a nonexistent office. He has no more authority to teach than do you! Or I. I hate to break this to you, but this is heresy. (On the other hand, you may not recognize any such thing as “heresy” because there really is no one to define heresy vs. orthodoxy. As a matter of fact, orthodoxy is really pure “legalism,” right JLS?)
Earlier this morning, JLS, I was out walking when I prayed that the Holy Spirit would give me some enlightenment as to where your theology comes from–because I knew it wasn’t Catholic. Lo and behold, I didn’t have to wait but two or three hours before seeing your above post, where you assert that Christ did NOT appoint Peter to lead the Church. Then it hit me that I was right all along when I said that your conversion to Catholicism from Protestantism was never complete. You became a Catholic because you became convinced that the Catholic Church held the valid Sacraments–but despite joining us, you NEVER became convinced that the Catholic Church was given the exclusive, accept-no-substitutes mandate by the Lord to teach the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth of faith and morals. You’ve never believed–and you do not now believe that the Catholic Church possesses the fullness of truth and that the keys to its teaching authority reside in the grip of the Holy Father by direct assignment from Our Lord Jesus Christ. So all this time, you’ve been trying to meld a new brand of religion that combines the Catholic Sacraments with conservative Protestant theology. All your strange and vehement attacks on “legalism,” along with your odd rejection of catechisms and veneration of the Blessed Mother are just your efforts to subtly Protestantize the rest of us. “Legalism” to you means more than just “Catholic teaching.” More to the point, it means “Catholic teaching authority” from the Primacy of Peter right on down through canon law and the catechism. Kudos to the Holy Spirit! Now we know.
I see what you are getting at, Larry. I think those of us who were raised Catholic and went to Catholic school don’t quite follow some of JLS’s theology as he didn’t have a Catholic upbringing and he has his own spin on things, some things it appears he brought into the Catholic Church with him.
Sorry, my reply was short and not too sweet, but I was being honest. I have been wondering for a while whether you are an evangelical who has not really converted, but you say you go to the TLM. But anyway I did that “not answering questions thing” that James and Catherine complain about. So here is the answer-I can say that the Good Shepherd, the Holy Spirit which includes His guidance to the Church, which includes the catechism and the Scriptures and Canon Law, the Blessed Mother, the angels (especially my guardian angel), the saints, holy people and good people giving good example all lead me. They are leading me to the Father I can also say that sometime I followed people who were not good examples and sometimes I followed inspirations that I later felt were not godly, also impulses which have not been good (too much junk food.)
James, you asked us how we could ignore Assisi-I assume you mean the gathering of the religious leaders there. You claim that John Paul II broke the First Commanment there. I read that he only prayed with Christians. Did he break the First Commandment? The First Commandment from the Scripture is “I am the Lord they God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt not have strange gods before me. Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing: not the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, not of those things that are in the waters under the earth. Thou shalt not adore them, nor serve them. I am the Lord they God, mighty, jealous , visiting iniquity of the fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me. (Douay-Rheims Catholic bible Ex 20:1-5 I remember when it happened being fairly disturbed by the thought that prayers to pagan Gods might happen in a Church. Again, what am I going to do about it? Throw away my salvation and leave the Church? I remember reading that John Paul II went to confession every week. His sins have been forgiven by God. If he sinned by bringing members of other religions together to pray for peace for the world, I assume he was forgiven. Again, this is not heresy.
k,
If the Pope had anything to do with allowing the Buddhist to place their statue of a PAGAN god on top of a Tabernacle that contains the REAL God, that constituted public scandal!
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
I had not heard about this but I see the pictures look like a statue of Buddha on a shelf above and behind the tabernacle. I agree it is scandalous and should not have been permitted. I know for being techincal but Buddha is not a god. Buddha is not the god of Buddhism. I think this was the Dalai Lama who, I think, is supposed to be something like a God. But most Buddhists don’t really worship a god, I think. The Tibetan branch, I think, has many gods, but Buddha isn’t one of them. I really don’t know that much about it. We all should learn some more about it because it is permeating our culture without people knowing where the ideas are coming from (especially in the life coach, transformation, even organization fields) just like some kinds of Hindu beliefs seeped in during the 60’s.
oh, for goodness’ sake, praying with other people of other religions is not some darned, big, fat old sin.
JESUS reached out to all kinds of people, and look how his influence changed them.
saint paul went out to the gentiles, even praising the “piety” of the people of athens for having an altar to every imaginable god, in order to teach them the gospel.
we don’t live in some catholic-ghetto-bubble-thingie.
The first half is ok, max; it’s the second half that is found wanting, namely teaching the Gospel. St Paul taught the Gospel and got stoned and beaten; many of today’s Catholics get stoned and teach how to beat the Gospel.
max,
I think you practice restrictive reading. I do believe that St. Paul actually smashed some Pagan altars! I know some of the great Saints did!
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
k, **Can. 976 Any priest, even though he lacks the faculty to hear confessions, can validly and lawfully absolve any penitents who are in danger of death, from any censures and sins, even if an approved priest is present**: So, obviously if this sacrament functions in one situation, then it functions in all situations. If you read the canons on validity, you can notice the continuous conditions, and may be able to realize that there are always exceptions. The only reasonable conclusion is that “faculties” imply a specific type of validity, and do not deny the ultimate function of the sacrament. Whatever Peter binds and whatever Peter looses: Notice again the nature of the binding by faculty, and that it always is open to mercy and charity. Thus, faculty is not absolute, whereas mercy and charity are absolute. Faculty is a contract, whereas charity and mercy are eternal.
i would not presume that and seek absolution from a priest that had not been granted faculties. That would be taking a big chance.
JLS, to see YOU quoting canon law is the biggest surprise of my liturgical year!
i must lead a very boring life…ho, hum.
What’s to presume, k? Canon law explains it.
max, you do not use tennis balls to train gundogs, because it can damage their jaws and also it teaches them to chew up the birds they retrieve. Some trainers, in order to break their dog’s “hard mouth”, fill a sock with carpet tacks and use that for a few tosses. The dog then learns not to chew up the bird. I’m however reluctant to employ that technique, preferring the harder course called influence training, which does not use punishment but reward for work well done. It works with animals, which are incapable of sin; however, since people are capable of sin, there has to be punishment or call it chastisement.
Kissing the Koran was Bl John Paul II’s “kiss of peace”. Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall inherit the Kingdom of Heaven. I’m not quite there yet, as my version of the peacemaker is made by Colt.
Max, Had JP II the purpose of trying to convert the protestants and pagans at Assisi in Oct 1986 to Roman Catholicism, that would be one thing; however that is not what he did and he showed us his ideas in his encyclical on ecumenism, that essentially all religions are equal and the members of the other religions to be respected with dignity. That essentially encourages modernists to put man before God and to disobey the 1st Commandment. JP II’s publically kissing a pagan religious book (the Koran) at the Vatican on May 14, 1999 acknowledging their pagan religion before Ayatollah’s/Imam’s is sacriligeous to Christianity. It is an insult to God and clearly disobeys His 1st Commandment: ‘I am the Lord thy God and though shalt not put strange gods before me’. Allah is a strange god (actually no god at all except to the muslim people and duped christians).
James, where did you get this information. The Pope did not say that all religions are equal. Of course, you treat people with respect. That’s only Christian. He never encouraged people to put man before God or to disobey the first commandment or any other commandment. Muslims worship the God of Abraham. They hold Jesus as a prophet. Many Muslims make pilgrimages to Fatima. Muslims revere the Virgin Mary but do not hold her to be the Mother of God. Archbishop Sheen predictied that the conversion of the Muslims will come through the intercession of Our Lady of Fatima. Perhaps John Paul II was not actively trying to convert at Assisi. Conversion is a process. You must have contact. How do we know God;s plan?
JAMES, you are way off base.
BLESSED JOHN PAUL II was no heretic in his encyclicals, including “Ut Unum Sint” (on ecumenism), but rather repeated the teaching of the romanch catholic church, which some people are ignorant about.
for example, catholic priests can give the eucharist to protestants in very special cases, and even administrer the sacrametns of penance and anointing, but many cahtolics never knew this – and still don’t.
as for your comment about the use of the word “ALLAH,” this is the word (“GOD”) that arab christians have been using since the time of JESUS, long before islam was even invented. in their catholic bibles, divine liturgies, etc.
your attacks against BLESSED JOHN PAUL II remind of the annoying pharisees in today’s mass – “why are you doing what is not allowed on the sabbath?” (matthew 12:1-8)
what church do you even BELONG to? all this stuff does not sound very catholic to me.
In the first place, why are you “anonymous”? What are you afraid of? “Be Not Afraid”!
If you can, and I doubt it, please quote title and verse where it says that non-Catholics can be given the Body and Blood of Christ!
Are you that so called “Apologist” who also writes for another apologetics organization run by an Attorney, that I have likewise challenged on their site?
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
The Muslim tradition of God stretches back to the story of the two sons of Abraham, one by his wife and one by his concubine. Isaac was given a promise by God, and so was Ishmael. There has always been a rivalry between these peoples. The promises are really one promise in two parts: both sayng that each man would generate countless souls. So, Allah, is the word used by many peoples for God, not only by the Muslims but by many Christians. This is what Bl John Paul II was referring to. He was not worshiping a false God. Yet, it is also true that the religion created by the Muslims disputes in many ways the religion given by Jesus Christ, the second Person of the Holy Trinity, ie Catholicism. All men have an instinctual drive towards God … this is what the Church is saying. St Paul said it well at Corinth. It is the Church who needs to point man to the greater glory of God, and away from his vain attempts to describe God.
k, Get away from biased media reports covering up the facts and go to trusted sources yeilding the facts. (Fortunately the press was less biased back in the 1980s). USA Today published an article on Oct 28 1986 about JP II holding a Day of World Prayer for Peace at Assisi which was attended by 160 representatives from 12 different religions on Oct. 27 1986. Yes at first, each faith held a separate prayer meetings in the various Catholic churches. Buddhists even placed a statue of the Buddha on the tabernacle of the church of San Pietro. Attendees: “Dalai Lama, self-exiled Buddhist leader of Tibet, and John Pretty-on-Top, Crow medicine man from Montana. Buddhist monks waved incense; African snake worshippers paraded through cobblestone streets. Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Zoroastrians, Sikhs, Jains, Bahais, Protestants and other Christians also took part. Even Libya sent a Moslem representative”. “All the delegates then returned to the basilica of St. Francis for a final outdoor peace service where JP II was seated next to Dalai Lama (the Buddhist god-king) whom the Buddhists consider an incarnate god.” Similarily on January 24, 2002, JP 2 organized a meeting at Assisi, Italy with 250 representatives of: African Animists (adherents of Voodoo), Anglicans, Baptists, Buddhists, Confucians, Hindus, Jains, Jews, Luthrans, Mennonites, Methodists, Moravians, Muslims, Orthodox Churches, Pentecostals, Quakers, Reformed Chruches, Shintos, Sikhs, the Salvation Army, followers of Tenrikyo, Zoroastrians, and the World Council of Churches. At first the different religions went into different rooms in the convent of the Franciscan Friars to pray at the same time, but not together. The Franciscans had removed the crucifixes from the vaulted rooms where the differnt leaders went to pray and provided prayer carpets for the Muslims. The Buddhists, however had to contend with a large nativity scene in their room, as it was affixed to the room and could not be moved”. During his closing speech, JP 2 prayed: “In the name of God may every religion bring upon the earth justice, peace, forgiveness and life, love!”. all per the National Catholic Register, Feb 3, 2002. Praying for peace is very beneficial but such ecumenical prayer is forbiddent by Divine Law. Many of the religious leaders that were present do not believe in a personal God; many deny the Blessed Trinity; some of them worship idols and others openly worship the devil. Therefore, which god were they invoking? Is the 1st Commandment now obsolete? Do some more research. May the one true God bless you k in all of your undertakings! Again thank you for your concerns and prayers.
Do we get a prize for going over 200 comments?
When one reads and compares and contrasts Holy Scripture with various canons. one is comparing/contrasting two different orders of thing, religion and law. Only in Jesus are both these reconciled perfectly. This is one reason that the Church does not exclude any soul from the possibility of salvation due to their religious circumstances. Jesus spoke parables around this point … because it rests exclusively in God’s hands and not in man’s. Grass grows in a field, a shepherd feeds his sheep by guiding them to that grass. The shepherd does not create the grass out of thin air; no priest materialized bread and wine from thin air either. Thus, the mystery of the priesthood is greater than the priesthood, and beyond defining by the priest. Abraham recognized the three angels of God approaching his camp. Sarah did not, and Abraham was not able to define them for her. Definitions do not work in the face of ultimate reality. It is the simple recognition and interaction, not the recounting that is the reality.
k, you simply never learned the demands of argument. Rather you and a lot of Catholics misread an argument as some sort of dogmatic statement. You should read more of the saints and doctors of the Church to see how they present ideas … but then you’d call them evangelicals. You seldom respond to an argument with reason but simply ignore it or label it. That is a very elementary level of discussing religion and it tells me that your level is Baltimore Catechism, a work that prepares children for catechism, and not a work that prepares adults to reason out the dogmas of Catholicism. You’re stuck very much in the same boat as a fundamentalist. Whereas they quote Scripture, you quote various other sources … I’ve even heard Catholics quote St Thomas but not have any idea of what his genius really consists of … namely argument. As for evangelicals, there is not a single evangelical alive or in history who can sustain an argument with me on Catholicism. Those who have moved into the realm of it typically become Catholic, because that is where argument leads. That is why Aristotle is tauted as being as Catholic as a pagan in pre-Christian times could be. His use of argument aka reason. In your case what you do, your pattern, is to gloss over a lot of stuff without really understanding what it is, and then you present some of it in blogs, sort of like fitting square pegs in square holes and round ones in round holes. But not many people really move beyond this stage of reasoning. They do not have to, because most people will not stray from the mentality they use to put bread on the table or sweep dust out the door. The Baltimore Catechism works wonders for that stage. In today’s world, however, a vast portion of the public does not respond to that, and has been well prepared by their particular leaders to fight Catholicism to the death. This is where you have to develop reasoning powers, to show them the logical progression of whatever point is being disputed or argued or explored. One reason the Catholic Great Books program is being talked up so much is exactly this, that it prepares its students to present the faith to all comers. Modernism uses a fragmented Cartesian spawned array of micro argumentation systems and this is why it fails in the arena of Catholicism. One of the geniuses of St Paul is when he dismissed all the particular gods of the pagans and pointed to the one true God. This is what Aristotle had attempted, to find the one over arching principle. First Job and then St Thomas took all the fragments and put them into an order subject to God. This is what Catholic argument does. This in fact is what the Pope’s recent encyclical does. It is what Bl JPII did, only by orchestrating actual people instead of symbolic representations of ideas (writing).
JLS, I can’t find a response to that in the Baltimore Catechism. You have figured some things out but, why would I waste my time posting my own reasoning. It is irrelevant. Yes, I am sure it looks fundamentalist. Fundamentalists use the Bible to show that their beliefs are based on the word of God. That does not mean that they do not have their own thoughts. They do. It does not mean that they cannot reason-it just means that their reason is God’s word.
I should have used “their” instead of “there”!
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
JLS, maybe I misunderstood you post. Are you asking for the Church’s reasoning? I could only speculate as to why. My speculation is that absolution of sins belongs only to bishops and those who they give the faculty to. Why? Because Jesus gave it to the Apostles-the Bishops. I do not know why they can share it with priests. My speculation is that it is for the salvation of souls. I welcome correction from anyone who knows better than I.
k, ordination gives the priest the authority to forgive sins. Ordination is the sacrament, not episcopal consecration.
JLS, how do you read Canon 966?
JLS, ok here it is from the CCC:1462 Since ancient times, the bishop, the visible head of a particular Church, has thus rightfully been considered to be the one who principally has the power and ministry of reconciliation; he is the moderator of the penitential discipline. Priests, his collaborators, exercise it to the extent that they have received the commission either from their bishop (or religious superior) or the Pope, according to the law of the Church. From the Catechism of Pope St. Pius V: “That the minister of the Sacrament of Penance must be a priest possessing ordinary or delegated jurisdiction the laws of the Church sufficiently declare. Whoever discharges this sacred function must be invested not only with the power of orders, but also with that of jurisdiction. Of this ministry we have an illustrious proof in the words of our Lord, recorded by St. John: Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain they are retained, words addressed not to all, but to the Apostles only, to whom, in this function of the ministry, priests succeed….The scrupulous care which in the primitive ages of the Church guarded the right of the ordinary priest is easily seen from the ancient decrees of the Fathers, which provided that no Bishop or priest, except in case of great necessity, presume to exercise any function in the parish of another without the authority of him who governed there. This law derives its sanction from the Apostles when he commanded Titus to ordain priests in every city, to administer to the faithful the heavenly food of doctrine and of the Sacraments. “
But what is one to do when it becomes blatantly clear that the bishop who is supposed to grant faculties is clearly by his actions and inactions not in union with the Magisterium?
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
And who determines that, Ken? You? Who elected you? As long as the bishop serves at the pleasure of the Holy Father, he has God’s authority to grant or withhold faculties.
Larry,
Are you blind? Do you know anything about bishops who have protected homosexual, and pedophile priests while persecuting priests who bring these things to the light of day?
These are very trying times, and blind obedience makes them even worse.
As St. Paul stated: ” I work out my salvation in trembling and fear”.
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
No, Ken. I’ve read and heard quite a bit about them, as you have. That is all very tragic–and all very irrelevant to the point at hand. I’m asking YOU–just who do YOU think YOU are? Where does it say that in an emergency, any Catholic may appoint himself pope and exercise the papal office, which includes the authority to hire and fire bishops? You’ve forgotten your place–and you want us to forget our place. We are laymen. We have no God-given authority to overthrow bishops, no matter how rotten they are. Your hubris is astounding!
Only a Pope has the authority to proclaim a Papal Bull that makes a man a Bishop; however God gives us always in prayer individual intelligence and discernment to tell when a bishop is not in keeping with His Church. You would have followed Cranmer into possible Hell because you would not use the brain God gave you to discern that duly consecrated Cranmer was a scourge on the Church in England and indeed the world!
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
All right, these bishops are a bunch of dirty, lousy so-and-so’s–well, and good–but at least I know who and what they are–they are duly ordained and consecrated bishops of Our Lord’s Church, who owe their authority to Him and will give an account someday. They also answer to the pope, who in turn will answer to God for his employment of them. If the pope doesn’t fire them, we at least know that anytime the Lord tires of them he can end their tenure in the blink of an eye with a heart attack or stroke. But just who and what are YOU–this person who would have us follow him into schism? I don’t know you from Adam. Are YOU as pure as the newfallen winter snow, Ken? Any skeletons in your closet? And what’s your angle? You’ve mentioned that you used to be in politics. You wouldn’t happen to be looking for personal fame and influence in connection with this “independent parish” movement (maybe you could call it “Schismatics for God and Faith”), would you? Looking for a different pond where you can be a bigger fish? Maybe you’d like to be like Michael Davies with Archbishop Lefebvre and his movement? You’ve been hammering at this theme of how we don’t have to obey bishops who aren’t holy. Well, how holy are YOU, and how pure are YOUR motives? It’s easy to point the finger at others and denounce their sins all day long.
Larry,
I am a life long Roman Catholic and that is all I want to tell YOU at this time. Learn to write more civily.
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
You’re the one who’s been repeatedly saying, “don’t follow those bishops. They’re nothing but bums. Follow me to Garden Grove instead.” You’ve indicated you’ve been in politics before. Politicians by their nature seek the limelight. And you’re one of two posters I can think of who regularly uses his full name on the post. I think it’s legitimate to ask, “well, what’s in it for Kenneth M. Fisher? And just who is HE? Why should I listen to him over the bishops of the Catholic Church?” So you don’t have an answer for that question, eh? Good enough. As far as I’m concerned, that’s an answer in itself.
Larry,
I have absolutely nothing to hide. At one time I was even allowed to state the organization I head up, and I did.
I have never outright urged anyone to go to my parish on this site, I have urged them to go to a Traditional Mass, Indulted or not. You seem to have a real ax to grind, and I am not the only one who has stated so.
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
“I have never outright urged anyone to go to my parish on this site, I have urged them to go to a Traditional Mass, Indulted or not.” You have placed loyalty to the “Traditional Mass” above loyalty to Christ’s Church–and you have been repeatedly urging defiance towards the Church Herself if necessary to experience the TM–as you make clear with your reference to “Indulted or not.” It’s the “OR NOT” that shows where you are really coming from–and it’s not from a good place. You have made sure we know about Our Lady Help of Christians in Garden Grove, which is one of the “or not” places, along with other so-called “independent” parishes. You’ve also made it clear that in pursuit of the Traditional Mass, we should use priests who either do or do NOT have permission to minister. Again, it’s the “do not” that I have a problem with. You have taken a well-known principle–that we must disobey sinful ORDERS even from a legitimate superior–and have twisted that into the notion that we may–indeed we must–disobey sinful MEN even in the LEGITIMATE exercise of their authority. THAT IS FALSE! What’s more, it is dangerously false. There is no principle in secular or religious law, much less Catholic teaching, that says we have no duty ever to obey sinful MEN. Our Lord Himself has made it clear that even sinful superiors are still legitimate superiors, providing that they ACT within their authority. You have NO RIGHT to urge people to regard unholy bishops–or even bishops whom you deem insufficiently friendly to our cause–as having forfeited all right to exercise authority even though they still hold their papal commission. What’s more, any soul who accepts your advice is placing his eternity in mortal danger. So a bishop whom you don’t like has pulled the license of a priest whom you DO like, and you’re upset about it. Too bad! That is within a bishop’s authority–his GOD-GIVEN authority. (It’s even possible that the bishop knows the priest better than you do–but even if he doesn’t, that doesn’t excuse your actions.) You should be ashamed of yourself, but you are too proud!
He still has the power to give or remove faculties. The Pope and the Bishops are the Magisterium. Even if he was teaching something against the faith, his episcopal powers remain until he is removed by the Pope.
What do you say about bishops who have used that power to destroy good priests who were preaching the Truth about homosexual sins, abortion, sloth etc. etc.?
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
I say “Don’t leave the Church because of them.” It is sad when good priests suffer at the hands of their bishops. According to Pope St. Piux V. in the Catechism of Trent under the 4th Commandment: “Christ the Lord commands obedience even to wicked pastors: Upon the Chair of Moses have sitten the scribes and Pharisees; all things, therefore, whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do; but according to their works, do ye not, for they say and do not.” God will bring them out from the place of exile. They should turn all things over to Jesus the head of the Church and Mary, the Queen of the Clergy.
None of them that I know have left the Church, but they did decide that in order to teach the fullness of the Gospel they had to remove themselves from their evil bishop. Some were forcefully removed by their evil bishop. One I know, a convert who was disowned by his own family for converting, was driven into the hospital by his bishop.
The quote you gave does not say that priests must be obedient to errant bishops, at least not as I read it.
Where oh where does the Council of Trent state that a priest must be obedient to his bishop even when his bishop is not obedient to the Magisterium? Fr. Aloysius Elacuria, C.M.F. once told me that we only had to obey bishops who are in union with the Holy See!
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
k,
What does “Whatsoever they say to you, observe and do; but according to their works DO YE NOT, for they say and do not” mean to you? Apparently we read that statement in a much different light! Catechism of Trent, pg. 415, 3rd paragraph.
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
Mr. Fisher, you have kept company iwith Archbishops and many priests. You’ve been introduced to the Pope. You certainly must know what it means.
JLS, I hope the saints were evangelical. We are all supposed to be. An in evangelists. I have told you before that I do not come here to argue. I am sorry if that annoys you. I consider my knowledge of the faith to be rudimentary; I would not presume that I could reason as well as the saints or doctors of the Church or the Popes. They have already worked these things out for us. We don’t have to reinvent the wheel. Evangelical Christians read and quote the Bible. They have no authority that they can turn to with confidence to help them interpret it. They have preachers and Bible Studies and they do very well with it. But they do not understand the Church. They believe in an invisible church. They are afraid of the one Church established by Christ. The Holy Spirit is the sole interpreter of Scripture. The Holy Spirit is the infallible guide of the Church. When you post things that are not in keeping with Catholic teaching or Catholic thought, we correct you-not with an argument, but with documented Church resources. It is not because we can’t reason. We reason, “Why would JLS care about our opinion? Here is something defininitve from an authoritative source.” If you don’t accept it and want to keep to your own thoughts, why argue?
k, you continue to voice your pharisaical idea that man is forbidden to use his reasoning powers. Where in the CCC do you find this tabu?
JLS, You certainly have not understood what I posted.
We need to understand where JLS is coming from. He is a former Protestant, part of whose heart is still with his old religion. A Protestant considers himself a free agent who discerns the will of God in faith and morals “sola Scriptura,” that is, “by Scripture alone.” When he became a Catholic, he modified that somewhat to “solum Scriptura et Patribus et Doctoribus.” In other words, he reads Scripture along with the ancient fathers and doctors of the Church, then formulates his own version of Catholic teaching and theology based on that. He rejects middlemen such as bishops’ councils, papal encyclicals, catechisms and codes of canon law. We believe that the Sacramental function of a bishop is to “teach, sanctify and govern,” always in union with the pope. JLS accepts “sanctify,” because he believes in the Sacraments, but he rejects “teach” and he is vehemently opposed to “govern.” He considers himself a great intellect, a bold and original thinker–a man far ahead of his time, beset by intellectual pygmies and cowards (the rest of us) who are always whining, “but the catechism says this,” or “but the bishop has forbidden it,” (etc.) For example, he might tell us, “go to any priest validly ordained…go to any church with valid Sacraments,” because he has reasoned that that is all that matters–the grace of the Sacrament. But our bishops say to us, “no–you cannot go to certain places or to certain priests.” When we point out the latter, we merely exasperate him. He thinks he’s reasoned everything far more deeply then the rest of us. In reality he has fallen for Satan’s oldest trick–appealing to a person’s vanity.
The catch is that he has not reasoned everything deeply enough, because the above philosophy contains the seeds of its own collapse. It is only by the authority of the Church to teach and govern that we even HAVE the canon of the Scripture–both Old and New Testaments. It is by the authority of the Church to teach and govern that we even know who the fathers and doctors (along with the rest of the saints) were in the first place. On top of that, the New Testament shows an example of a bishop exercising governance, when St. Paul orders the Corinthians, against their objections, to expel a notorious sinner from the congregation. He gave the order. They had to obey. The Gospels also clearly show Christ giving the power of absolution to the first bishops. Consequently, the men whom we call “priests” are by the nature of Holy Orders (not by “contract,” as if it were a mere human regulation) the bishops’ deputies. Just as a deputy sheriff cannot function if the sheriff pulls his badge, so too a priest cannot minister if the appropriate bishop decides he no longer needs this man’s assistance. And the bishop, in turn, in order to minister with God’s approval, must serve within the command structure of the Supreme Bishop–the successor to St. Peter, whom we call “pope.” The bishop must hold a post to which he was appointed, and from which he can be removed, by the pope. If a bishop cannot determine which priest can minister within his diocese–and cannot give or withhold permission to form a parish–then he has no God-given power of governance at all. And if the bishops (in union with the Supreme Bishop) cannot govern, then the authority not only of Scripture but the fathers and doctors also collapses into a heap of rubble. If they cannot teach and govern, then ultimately we have nothing. Ultimately there is no faith.
The heretical enemy of the Church, Archbishop Cranmer, had such faculties. The Vatican, in the misguided belief that making him and archbishop would pacify those in England (sounds familiar) duly consecrated him as Archbishop. Bishop Fisher opposed him, lost his head, and gained the Crown of Martyrdom. Which one was right?
Do you agree with Bishop Muller on the Virgin Birth and the Real Presence in the Most Blessed Sacrament? If you don’t, why are you arguing with me?
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
Mr. Fisher, I believe in the Virgin Birth and the ever-Virgin Mary. I believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament. St. Thomas Fisher is a saint and martyr. He died for standing up for the Church and the Pope. Of course he was right. If you have read Bishop Muller’s books and found a problem with them, you should speak up. You should tell your bishop or the papal nuncio your concerns. I have not read his books. I know nothing about him.
I have read quotes attributed to him that are very controversial on those matters as well as others.
Now we find that the very University in Peru that the Vatican has finally denied the title of “Catholic” is one that Muller goes to every year for classes.
We must pray that he, in spite of his past, turns out to be orthodox, but the signs are not very good!
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
False, Larry. I was never a Protestant, in that I never made a decision to protest the Catholic Church. I have never protested the Catholic Church. So, how do you figure I was a Protestant?
I believe I recall you saying that you were a Christian before becoming a Catholic. The term “Protestant” generally refers to all non-Catholic Christians except the Orthodox and perhaps Mormons (whose Christianity is somewhat confusing.) So it’s not necessary for you to have been a card-carrying Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist or whatever for the term “Protestant” to apply. And your philosophy/theology is beyond any reasonable doubt Protestant.
JLS, I disagree with you about k’s level of discussion being the Baltimore Catechism level. That would actually be a great compliment! If k had *grasped* the Baltimore Catechism level, there would be no need for this discussion. The Baltimore Catechism is often maligned as childish or “rote”.
One of the most beautifully simplistic yet profound questions in the Baltimore Catechism is: Why did God make you? Answer: God made me to know him, to love him and to serve him in this world, and to be happy with Him forever in the next.” If k, had grasped this meaning, k would not be asking Mark from PA to know, love and serve her (k’s) opinions on homosexual issues. If k, grasped the very basic teachings of the Baltimore Catechism she would always lead MarkfromPA and other others to obediently follow the teachings of Christ’s Church and she would not run interference or make coddling excuses that infer that homosexuals are exempt from being capable of becoming like children and placing their full trust in God. k, Is actually pulling Mark and others away from God by saying, k understands homosexuality more and k can have more compassion for the dignity of homosexuals, than God. k’s posts are saying, “Don’t become like little children and place your complete trust and obedience in God, for k the serial enabler will make eternal excuses for your weaknesses.”
The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches about our God made desire for Him: “The desire for God is written in the human heart, because man is created by God and for God; and God never ceases to draw man to Himself. ONLY in God will he find the trust and the happiness he never stops searching for: The dignity of man rests above all on the fact that he is called to communion with God. This invitation to converse with God is addressed to man as soon as he comes into being. For if man exists, it is because God has created him through love, and through love continues to hold him in existence. He cannot live fully according to the truth unless he freely acknowledges that love and entrusts himself to the Creator.” CCC #27
JLS, k is telling PA and others that they should completely entrust themselves to her and to their weaker fallen nature of emotions. She is telling others that they are eternal victims and that their happiness depends on people like her because she will paint their crosses to be insurmountable and without compassionate, (excuse making) people like her, they are lost. k, is not telling homosexuals to *know* God first by loving Him as little children love and trust their parents.. k is not drawing MarkfromPA and others to be closer to *love* Christ when she makes excuses for Mark whenever he is distorting Church teaching. k, is not telling Mark to *serve* God through obedience.
Yes, JLS, the Baltimore Catechism might have been written for little children, but from k’s posting examples on homosexual issues, she runs consistent adult, (= culpable) interference for others so that they do not see the childlike necessity of trust that brings the healing grace of the Divine Physician. Instead of pointing the child to obey the Father, k points to herself as a false savior of excuses. k would not be doing what she is doing if she grasped the Baltimore Catechism level.
Three cheers for the childlike level of the Baltimore Catechism!!! Three cheers for the fact that you don’t have to be an intellectual scholar to attain eternal life. We have many great examples of saintly scholars as well as saintly children and saintly door-keepers in heaven. Their common denominator was childlike trust and holy obedience. Praise be to God for the Holy Scripture that reinforces that childlike need to trust in God….”Amen I say to you, unless you be converted and become as little children, you SHALL NOT enter into the kingdom of heaven.’ – Matthew 18:13 Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible
Catherine, Satan is the father of lies.
Catherine, I forgive you and God bless you.
JLS I agree with Catherine! She has it down right!
Same here, Abeca. Catherine has it right.
oh, i see a group hug coming on, with all this agreeing!
halleluya! (gals: watch out for JLS and his six-guns, when you all have that group hug…he’s always packing heat)
May God bless both of you.
Read Bishop Bruskewitz’ talk on homosexuality on the Diocese of Lincol’s website. He’s give it to ya’ straight. (no pun intended.)
Why do some feel the need to sin against another? The argument is not over doctrine. It is over how we should treat those who disagree with the the Church. There are those in the “If you do not warn your brother, I will hold you responsible for his sins” camp. There are those who genuinely believe that the person will go to hell and truly care about their soul. These people do not sin. Good people never use an evil means to achieve a godly end.
k,
So True!
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
k,
You write in regards to the Funamentalist; “There reason is God’s word”, No there reason is a bastardized version of God’s word that is intentionally missing SEVEN books of God’s Word!
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
Well, yes, but what they do use is God’s Word, Holy Scripture. It is infallible. They do not have all the books, that is true. Many like the King James Version which may have some translation issues.
JLS,
I think what you are attempting to say is that the Baltimore Catechism is for children (I don’t completely agree with that) and “Apologetics” is for adult Catholics!
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
k, if you are being honest, then why would you have to tell us that you are being honest?
James, I found where you said that ecumenism and religious indifferentism were heresies of Vatican II. Religious indifferentism (if you mean that it does not matter what religion a person is) is not and has never been a tenet of the faith. Ecumenism-where the church was to reach out to other religions (obviously with the intention of salvation) is. The days of “to hell with you” are over. Catholics have always made great efforts to convert sinners. The attitude has changed from condemnation of the differences to affirming what is right and then discussing the differences. Progress has been slow; but there is progress. One of the good things is that those churches do not teach against the Catholic Church like they used to. (There are still many churches that do.) The point is to pave the way for them to accept the fullness of the revealed truth. It is not to water down Catholic doctrine or replace Catholic doctrines with Protestant. There are dangers. I have seen some priests and nuns who went to dialog with Buddhists who became confused.
k, says, “One of the good things is that those churches do not teach against the Catholic Church like they used to.” k left out the bad news that now we have the dissenters and their enablers within the Church and they are teaching against what they Church teaches. Then k says, “I have seen *some priests and nuns* who went to dialog with Buddhists who became confused. k has the nerve to say, SOME priests and nuns became confused? How about many priests and nuns including CCD teachers confusing Catholics and children in their classes. How about people named k who defend their nonsense? Yes we have been trying to get k to stop defending dissenters like MarkfromPA for quite some time but progress has been very slow. k wants us to focus on the Buddhists for confusing priests and nuns. The days of “to hell with you” are certainly not over k if you defend dissenters from within the Church.
I have defended him from wrongful attacks but I have not defended any errors. I also have defended you when I thought he said something about you that was not true.
OK Catherine, I leave it to you to defend the Faith. You are hereby appointed as the doctrine police.
Catherine, And it was actually Mr. fisher who brought up the Buddhists.
No I was wrong. He brought it up after we were talking about Assisi.
James, the weeds and the wheat grow together until harvest. Pray very much. I love you.
k, you’re supposed to prune the weeds down as much as possible … That’s what Jesus does in the vineyard. A weed will never become crop. When you mess up this theme, then you defeat what is known as wisdom.
JLS, I thought you said you had read the Bible. In multiple languages.
oh, JLS, there you go again. open the bible and read the passage k is referring to.
you mix up your bible passages so much, it’s like you are high on something — what ARE they putting in your thurible???
Mr. Fisher, thank you for that information.
The sedevacantist position has the advantage of logical consistency (for example, it makes sense for a sedevacantist to sever communion with Rome).
Alas, the logic ends up denying the Faith, in its most profound and essential Truth: the Catholic Church is, by a direct promise of Christ and the direct action of the Holy Spirit, preserved forever from binding the faithful to error in matters of Faith and morals.
I could give a hoot how excellent one thinks one’s argument are. If you have used your arguments to progress to the conclusion that the Church has done what Christ Himself promised She would never do, then you are wrong.
One can profitably examine where one went wrong, although CCD is not a forum conducive to this.
Too many Popes here.
“And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.”….John 6:68 Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible.
Rick,
Not the Church, but many, far too many, in the Church in the highest levels have done and are doing things that are in complete contradiction to Sacred Tradition. Many of the Church’s great Saint Prophets have spoken about these current times, and how to stay faithful.
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
What did the Saint Prophets say to do? I am very disturbed how some Catholics will violate the article of faith “I believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.” and not even realize they are doing so. I really can’t believe any Saint Prophet told people to follow suspended clergy. Evne if they did, someone who did so would be putting a private revelation (which no one is bound to believe) ahead of an article of faith which one is required to believe.
k,
Read the prophecies of Our Lady of La Sallette! St. Francis De Sales had a quite a bit to say about bad priests as well.
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
k,
Also read what Our Lady of Akita had to say about cardinal against cardinal, bishop against bishop, and priests against priests!
She also had quite a bit to say about “sticking with Tradition”!
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
Larry, your theology does not exist. What you have is a legalist system which you call Catholic. You criticize my arguments but you never engage them with fact or reason. St Thoma Aquinas engaged arguments with fact and reason … he, btw, Larry, was Catholic.
Is this the best you can do? I’ve been pointing out for months and months where your preachings have far more in common with Protestant than Catholic theology. And I’m also pointing out how when you say “legalism,” you actually mean “submission to the teaching and governing authority of the bishops in union with the pope” as opposed to formulating your own private interpretation of Scripture, the fathers and doctors, coupled with your open spirit of insubordination towards bishops acting within their authority. It seems we have an insurmountable divide here. I believe that the authority of bishops in union with the pope to teach AND GOVERN is God-given, and that to defy it is to defy and displease God Himself. And the saints have also believed this with me, by the way. You, on the other hand, believe it is beneath the dignity of a person as holy and intelligent as yourself to let some idiot of a bishop boss you around, especially if he doesn’t love God as much as you judge that you do. I don’t see how you can be persuaded to change your mind. But I do want others to not be led astray by you.
today, every dingbat with a computer thinks s/he is the ONE TRUE MAGISTERIUM of the roman catholic church, with the right and duty to make things up as they go along.
if the pope or a bishop does something they approve of, they salute and sing praise!
if the bishop of rome (or of kalamazoo) does something they don’t like, they call him senile, evil, heretical, etc.
such behavior reminds me very much of the behavior toward JESUS in the gospels, where people would praise him one moment and want to throw his off the cliff the n3ext moment, especially if he challenged their assumnpt8ions…
Mr. fisher, what do you think of Mueller so far? And have you seen some of the eyebrow-raisers said by the youngest Cardinal?
k,
He has been appointed; therefore will have to wait and see what Mueller actually does. His past statements on the Virgin Birth and the Eucharist are not very encouraging!
Who is the youngest Cardinal? What has he said or done?
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
Berlin Cardinal Ranier Maria Woelke, at a Catholic conference made the statement,” I think it is conceivable that, where people take responsicbility for each other, where they live in a stable homosexual relationship, that is to be regarded in a similar manner to heterosexual relationships.” Questioned by the German paper Zeit about it he said “You must be careful not to mark down someone in an unfair way (literal translation of German CCC- English translation says Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided) says the Catechism about people who have homosexual tendencies. If I take that seriously, I do not view in homosexual relationships “a violation of natural law’ view, as expressed in the Catechism. I try to also perceive that as people they always assume responsibility for one another, loyalty to each other and have promised to provide, even though I cannot share such a life plan. The life plan for which we stand as the Catholic Church is a sacramental marriage between a man and a woman who is open to the transmission of life.” Zeit reporter asks “Why is the Church so hard about this?” Cardinal Woelki answers, “Maybe it’s a problem that today in the church everything must be almost over-correct. It must also be possible to be Catholic without every last detail being always checked.”
k, Thank you for bringing this up. This will certainly help to clarify things. I have two questions for you? #1. What do you think of the young Cardinal’s statements? #2. Will you still be running interference for the terrible mistreatment of Father Guarnizo?
Catherine, I disagree with the Cardinal and was shocked by what he said. Q. 2, What does that mean?
Catherine, thank you for that question. I googled him. It got wierd. Like, really weird.
k, Question 2 means Father Guarnizo was disciplined for upholding Church teaching. He was enforcing Canon 915. A lesbian publicly announced her lifestyle with her lesbian partner to this priest right before Mass. This was a deliberate set up and this woman achieved her temporary goal. She wanted to make sure that priests get the message that it is all systems go.
Now that you have read this young Cardinals statements are you still that naive to think that faithful priests will not be persecuted by those in power who silently or publicly disagree with Church teaching? I don’t think so k. Why would you be shocked? k, You are either with Him or Against Him. Father Guarnizo was with Him and this young Cardinal is showing that he is against Him. Your previous posts made various lame excuses for why Father Guarnizo was disciplined.
k, Are you trying to be purposefully melodramatic? What do you mean by “it got weird, like really weird.” k, Did you deliberately expose the topic of this young Cardinal just for shock value to let readers know that the march is on? How could you be that shocked? Does this make you think any differently about the mistreatment of Father Guarnizo or is this another set up?
k,
If what you quoted is correct, and there is no reason to believe it is not, I would have to say that La Sallette is being fulfilled. I would also have to say that Pope Benedict has a blind spot when it comes to the German Hierarchy.
Pray for the Church.
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
Yeah!
Mr. Fisher That was an agreement with you, not a cheer. Maybe I should have said Ya.
Catherine, I answered your questions (all of them! really!) but CCD did not post it. I’ll try again. Q 1. No. Q.2. I was shocked because I’ve never heard something like this from a cardinal in the Catholic Church. Q. 3. No. 4. I think my answer to this question is why CCD didn’t print it. I’ll just say Google him yourself. Q5. No. Q6. It is shocking. Gee, It made the news. Q7. No and no. My last post was better but I understand if they had concerns about my answer to no. 4.
k,
Now that you are getting educated, read what Our Blessed Mother said at La Sallette.
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
Mr. Fisher, the apparition of Our Lady of La Salette was declared worthy of belief and her messages to the two children concerning the offenses against the taking of the name of the Lord in vain and not keeping holy and the chastisements for this. In addition there is a conterfeit “secret” that was condemned by the Church in 1916. Are you referring to the apparition or the “secret” which contains the sensational quote from Martin Luther Make sure you get your information from approved sources because some ot it comes from old books that were placed on the List of Forbidden Books.
k,
I only read materials involving the Faith from Catholic sources! However I sometimes read anti-Catholic materials so that I can know how to answer their false claims.
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
k,
I do believe that after Vatican II, the list of forbidden books was wrongly abandoned!
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
I meant that some of the information currently on the Internet about La Sallette is taken from sources that were from the list of Forbidden Books. Those are the ones that contain the quote about Rome and the anit-Christ (which is actually supposed to be something said by Martin Luther but I have not been able to verify that Luther said that.) La Sallette should be better known. It shows how great the offense that our “Land without a Sunday” is committing. Also, profanity.