‘Long Beach roots’

Posted Tuesday, January 03, 2012 3:45 AM By Gabe
It’s a good thing that their retirement condo is 2 bedroom 2 bath and only $203,000. What a bargain! If it was $2,203,000 and 1 bedroom 1 bath, with a beachfront location, then we would have cause for concern.

Posted Tuesday, January 03, 2012 6:26 AM By St. Christopher
What a pair! It is interesting that many bishops, particularly those of the liberal persuasion, wish to eliminate, or modify, the forced 75-year old requirement to submit a letter of retirement to the Pope. It turns out that this has been one of the best ways to cleanse abusive ordinaries from the Office of Bishop. In fact, the better argument is to require that all bishops of 70 submit resignation letters. It is unfortunate that the Vatican feels bound to the absurdity of “collegiality” in the first place. All bishops serve each and every day at the pleasure of the Pope. One area of post-Vatican II implementation attacked by the SSPX is the creation of this shared power arrangement which gives individual bishops the wrong notion that they are separately powered to provide “faith and morals” interpretation and direction. In fact, bishops are important, and must be respected, but do not share in the Pope’s special authorities. No wonder many bishops wish to stay in their jobs with the belief that they are somehow “co-popes.” Both C. Levada and B. Niederauer need to retire. The Pope needs to bring in a true bishop for SF that will show the strength that is achieved from devotion to Catholic Tradition, including practice of the “extraordinary form” sacraments. But, the Pope is now acting very old, and the last bastions of liberalism seem firmly in control of the Curia (otherwise how can one explain the many contradictory statements from the Vatican, including the simply inane statement on “work economics” recently posted). The policy on terming out bishops is very important and must be strengthened, not reduced.

Posted Tuesday, January 03, 2012 10:55 AM By Elizabeth
St, Christopher – Both Cardinal Levada and AB Niederauer have already put in their retirement papers with the Holy Father this past June. I personally have great hope with the wonderful Cardinal Oeulette (spelling?) that is charge of making the final recommendation to the Holy Father for new Bishops, that we will have a new appoinment that is orthodox….. Just look at the placing of AB Gomez and Bishop Vasa to name a few…..Please also continue everyone keep praying to the Holy Spirit for the Archdiocese of San Francisco!

Posted Tuesday, January 03, 2012 11:41 AM By Bud
Just watch!! It will have to be a cast of thousands to rectify the error in opinions (not dogma) for collegiality of the bishops do not repeat do not constitute infallibility. Our brethren in the Easter Orthodox Churches rely on their Councils with the Patriarch of Constantinople being the first among equals. I’m sure the unwillingness of consent to rejoin with Rome must have to do with the primacy of Peter and the resulting claims of the Papacy. Pray that it comes soon!

Posted Tuesday, January 03, 2012 12:03 PM By MacDonald
Christopher, your statements about the bishops (6:26 a.m.) are in direct contradiction to the teaching of the Church as found in the CATECHISM: 895 “The power which they (bishops) exercise personally in the name of Christ, is proper, ordinary, and immediate, although its exercise is ultimately controlled by the supreme authority of the Church.” But the bishops should not be thought of as vicars of the Pope. His ordinary and immediate authority over the whole Church does not annul, but on the contrary confirms and defends that of the bishops. Their authority must be exercised in communion with the whole Church under the guidance of the Pope.” As the CATECHISM teaches, our bishops are not ‘vicars of the Pope,’ but ‘vicars of Christ’ in their own dioceses.

Posted Tuesday, January 03, 2012 3:24 PM By Kenneth M. Fisher
Elizabeth. 10:55 AM Very sad to say, but Archbishop Gomez has changed hardly anything. Don’t want to believe me, just take a look at the list of speakers for his SECOND Religious Education Congress! God bless, yours in Their Hearts, Kenneth M. Fisher

Posted Tuesday, January 03, 2012 5:16 PM By Tracy
I have noticed that posters of this site who are readily hypercritical like “St. Christopher” tend to be associated with the SSPX. I admit that I only have a limited knowledge of the SSPX, but from what I gather from reading their post, it would seem that the schismatic group could benefit from the virtue of Supernatural Charity. Incidentally, I was baptized by Cardinal Levada when he was a young priest so I remember him in my prayers for the priests who have served an important role in my life.

Posted Tuesday, January 03, 2012 6:32 PM By JLS
Tracy, can you prove your claim that the SSPX is schismatic? Also, how do you connect schism with lack of the virtue of charity? The answer to both of your assertions is that you cannot demonstrate either one.

Posted Tuesday, January 03, 2012 8:32 PM By Catherine
Tracy, That’s not fair. Are you implying that CCD is also associated with the SSPX for writing – “purchased a retirement condo together in 2001”? Is that nice juicy tidbit of information an innuendo intended to have the faithful just read between the lines? If it is Tracy, then consider yourself blessed for having been given Supernatural Charity by the editors. How dare these two lead shepherds scandalize the faithful and the public with being roomies in a gay area of town. I don’t care when they purchased their shared home either. No excuses or enabling! This is flat out wrong no matter who wants to pretend it is fine and dandy. We are battling a huge problem with homosexuality in the priesthood and in society and these two lead shepherds carry on as if no one will be offended that this looks bad. Shame on all Catholics who have lost their good Catholic sense of what gives scandal or the appearance of scandal. Stop blaming the SSPX or anyone else for problems that lead shepherds have created for themselves.

Posted Tuesday, January 03, 2012 9:08 PM By Janek
To clarify AGAIN the S.S.P.X. is not in schism, please get it right.

Posted Tuesday, January 03, 2012 10:22 PM By St. Christopher
To All: (1) the SSPX is not “schismatic” as was stated years ago by C. Castrillon Hoyos and many others; (2) the Vatican II notion of “collegiality” is no where found in the earlier Church and the structure of bishops conferences do nothing but stand against the authority of the Papacy and the Magisterium (and many things in the “revised” Catechism, written to support such doctrines, should be revised back to its original edition); (3) to urge the Church to stand for its own principles, teachings, dogmas, and the like, does not make anyone a member of any group and is not a proper basis of condemnation (see, e.g., Sts. Paul, Athanasius, St. Catherine of Siena, and many, many others who demanded fidelity of Church leaders); and (4) very good to know that C. Levada and B. Niederauer have turned in their retirement papers; hopefully, Benedict XVI will quickly accept them and act on proper replacements.

Posted Tuesday, January 03, 2012 11:17 PM By Abeca Christian
I wish we would abstain from attacking anyone from the SSPX or any traditional background. How can we make such a judgement over these articles on such persons, we know not each other personally. Agree to disagree, better choice I would hope. Now about this article, NO COMMENT.

Posted Wednesday, January 04, 2012 12:04 PM By Elizabeth
Kenneth Fischer – Thank you for the information….Went on the website as you suggested! You are so RIGHT ON !!!!! They certainly are NOT a group from EWTN to say the least. How can that be with the AB being Opis Dei? Bless your heart for the information!

Posted Wednesday, January 04, 2012 4:09 PM By Abeca Christian
To all who commented in defense of the SSPX, thank you and God bless you. I am not associated with SSPX but I am tired of comments like the ones that carry the tone of Tracy’s comments. Tracy sorry no pun intended.

Posted Wednesday, January 04, 2012 5:35 PM By Larry
If the SSPX is not in schism, then let them prove it by promptly agreeing to the doctrinal preamble offered them by Pope Benedict. Unless and until that happens, they are self-evidently in schism. And by the way–according to quotes I’ve read from various SSPX prelates, there is virtually no chance of agreement being reached.

Posted Friday, January 06, 2012 6:37 PM By Mark from PA
Why is there virtually no chance of agreement being reached? I think Rome will allow the SSPX to have their Latin Mass and liturgy but Rome makes policy for the whole Church.

Posted Saturday, January 07, 2012 8:04 AM By Larry
To Mark from PA: As a matter of fact, several news reports, including one by noted Vatican journalist Andrea Tornielli, indicate that the SSPX as of December 10, 2011 tendered an ambiguously-worded reply to the Holy See’s doctrinal preamble given them some months earlier as a condition for obtaining regular status within the Church. It seems that the reply can best be characterized as a non-acceptance of the preamble–future implications unknown. The head of SSPX, Bishop Bernard Fellay has already publicly said the Society cannot accept the preamble (heretofore secret) as written. Among other things, the Society apparently cannot bring itself to regard Vatican II as an authoritative exercise of the magisterium, which is a demand of the Holy See. They are also deeply offended by the ongoing canonization process for Pope John Paul II. That being said, there seems to be a dangerous misunderstanding being put forward by some who post here, to the effect that there has been some official finding by the Church that the Society is not schismatic and that participation in its liturgy by laymen is harmless. In fact the opposite is true. In his original order excommunicating the four illicitly-consecrated bishops, Pope John Paul II stated explicitly that it was a schismatic act. When Benedict XVI recently lifted the excommunications, he stated that his order had no effect on the status of the organization. They were and remain in schism. However, since SSPX has no lay members, there has been a question as to what would constitute “adherence to schism” by a layman. The Holy See in 1993 reversed the excommunications of six individuals who had sought an SSPX bishop to confirm their children, on the grounds that their action did not constitute “adherence” under canon law. But the Holy See also advised that they had committed wrongdoing and could be sanctioned with interdict or other measures at the discretion of the bishop of Honolulu.

Posted Saturday, January 07, 2012 8:10 AM By Larry
(cont’d from above) In 1996, Lincoln, Nebraska Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz published a formal canonical warning that anyone in his diocece who became a member of SSPX (along with any of 11 other organizations) and persisted in such membership would be subject to interdiction and excommunication. In 15 years, he has not been directed by the Holy See to rescind or modify the order. It remains in effect. In subsequent correspondence with an official of SSPX, Bruskewitz referred to SSPX as a “non Catholic religion” and a “non Catholic cult.” To anyone reading this who might be wondering where the truth lies–do not let any well-meaning partisans lead you down the garden path to hell. The SSPX is definitely a schismatic group, their priests are excercising illicit ministry (practicing without a license, in other words) and it would be very wrong–possibly even a mortal sin–to seek out the sacraments from SSPX priests/bishops as a matter of choice (i.e., lacking an emergency such as imminent danger of death.) That is the truth. To this day, SSPX remains without status within the Church because it still refuses reconciliation with the Holy Father.

Posted Saturday, January 07, 2012 6:18 PM By jp
The SSPX is not in full communion with Rome. Anyone disputing this fact disputes reality itself.

Posted Sunday, January 08, 2012 4:16 AM By OSCAR
Rather than going to SSPX Masses (since as of this date they still have not reconciled with the Holy Father), for the EF Mass, attend FSSP Masses if possible. FSSP is the Priestly Fraternity of St,. Peter. FSSP was founded in 1988 under Pope John Paul II, for the sanctification of priests in the traditional liturgy (extra-ordinary form) of the Roman rite, and secondly, the pastoral deployment of priests in the service of the Church. FSSP has a web site for further info. FSSP trains other Priests to say the EF (Latin) Mass as well.

Posted Sunday, January 08, 2012 9:22 AM By JLS
Since the bishops are called by the Pope to make the EF easily available, and some don’t, then this may constitute a kind of situation of the absense of Mass in an area, and thus be acceptable grounds to attend an SSPX Mass.

Posted Sunday, January 08, 2012 9:54 AM By JLS
jp, “communion” has to do with the Sacrament of Holy Communion … which is real, ie valid, in the SSPX Mass. Perhaps you should find a better word to describe what you mean.

Posted Sunday, January 08, 2012 12:21 PM By Larry
I find it hard to believe that there are areas where there is no indult mass, no Novus Ordo mass, no Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter mass, no Uniate Church–and yet an SSPX chapel IS nearby, with conveniently-scheduled masses. In most areas, you’d have to make a special effort to find an SSPX mass. It isn’t like they’re everywhere. At any rate, I believe a good conscience would demand that you attend ANY approved rite, be it Novus Ordo, indult, St. Peter’s, or Uniate–celebrated by ANY priest with proper faculties and in union with Rome, before you would even CONSIDER patronizing a schismatic outfit. And I’ll go even further. I think a good conscience would demand that you NEVER patronize an illicit mass barring a special situation such as a funeral or wedding (bear in mind that marriages officiated by SSPX priests are automatically invalid!) If I CANNOT get to a mass celebrated by a priest who is in union with his own bishop and Rome–then I would consider myself justifiably excused from the Sunday obligation. I don’t believe the Sunday obligation demands that you attend an illegally-celebrated mass under any circumstances at all. A priest who celebrates without faculties is in revolt against the very Church which has prescribed the Sunday mass obligation in the first place, and I think going to his mass knowing that he is operating outside the Church is neither demanded nor justified by the Sunday mass obligation. Indeed, it would at best be morally questionable–possibly even a mortal sin–while you would be innocent of wrongdoing if you stayed home because you could not get to a legitimate mass.

Posted Sunday, January 08, 2012 2:29 PM By jon
I agree with jp. Because SSPX is not in union with the Holy Father, Masses celebrated by a “priest” from SSPX are illicit canonically. The Celebration of the Eucharist, among other things, expresses our union with God and with the Church, including the local Church (diocese). Therefore, to attend a Mass presided by someone from a community not in union with the Pope is a sign of dissent and disobedience.

Posted Sunday, January 08, 2012 5:08 PM By JLS
The Holy Eucharist unites one with God, which is substantially more significant than “expresses our union with God”. jon, your theology is way off. Union comes only through the Eucharist. You are also wrong in saying that attending an SSPX Mass is “a sign of dissent and disobedience”, because the Sacrament is valid and serves to bring the soul into further union with God. It is not a sin to receive Holy Communion at an SSPX Mass.

Posted Sunday, January 08, 2012 6:19 PM By Larry
JLS, your statement is false. Full communion with the Holy Father and the Church worldwide does NOT mean only that you can validly confect the Eucharist. Priests who have been laicized because they wanted to get married or because they molested children can validly confect the Eucharist. It means that you can do so validly AND licitly, which SSPX and the priests I mentioned cannot do. It means that you operate within and with full blessing of the Church. It means that you are fully submissive to the leadership of the pope and the bishops in union with him. Both the Holy Father and the Bishop of Lincoln are on record in writing that SSPX is operating entirely outside of and against the will of the Church. Their priests are under suspension, yet are confecting the Sacraments. That is canonically illegal and immoral. Bishop Bruskewitz has even referred to them as a “non Catholic” group. Anyone reading these posts who is considering attending their masses or supporting them financially or maybe even sending a son to an SSPX seminary (especially from Lincoln) had better think about that. You can’t go wrong attending a Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter’s mass or a parish indult mass–or the properly celebrated Novus Ordo under the new missal–or even a Uniate mass. They all have the blessing of the pope. But if you’re going to opt for SSPX, you’re betting your eternal soul that you are right and popes John Paul and Benedict, Bishop Bruskewitz, myself, jon, Oscar and jp are wrong. You darned well had BETTER be right! You go at your own risk, and the risk is enormous–the risk is eternity itself, and if you find out at your final judgement that you placed your bet on the wrong horse, JLS, St. Christopher, Janek and other pro-SSPX posters can’t save you from your eternal fate. Think about that now and choose the morally safe course.

Posted Sunday, January 08, 2012 9:11 PM By JLS
Larry, only one Sacrament divinizes the human soul, and that is Holy Communion. Holy Communion taken in a state of mortal sin damns the soul, and when taken in a state of grace divinizes the soul.

Posted Monday, January 09, 2012 12:41 AM By jon
Contrary to JLS, it is his understanding of theology that is off. Complete union with God can only be achieved at the Beatific Vision, in the life to come, of which the Eucharist is a sign. If I may remind you of what the Catechism says: “The Church knows that the Lord comes even now in his Eucharist and that he is there in our midst. HOWEVER, his presence is veiled. Therefore we celebrate the Eucharist ‘awaiting the blessed hope and the coming of our Savior, Jesus Christ,’ asking ‘to share in your glory when every tear will be wiped away. On that day we shall see you, our God, as you are [Beatific Vision]. We shall become like you and praise you for ever through Christ our Lord” (1404). The Eucharist is very much a sign, a sacrament, an expression of unity, the fullness of which can only be experienced in the life to come.

Posted Monday, January 09, 2012 12:41 AM By jon
Contrary to JLS, it is his understanding of theology that is off. Complete union with God can only be achieved at the Beatific Vision, in the life to come, of which the Eucharist is a sign. If I may remind you of what the Catechism says: “The Church knows that the Lord comes even now in his Eucharist and that he is there in our midst. HOWEVER, his presence is veiled. Therefore we celebrate the Eucharist ‘awaiting the blessed hope and the coming of our Savior, Jesus Christ,’ asking ‘to share in your glory when every tear will be wiped away. On that day we shall see you, our God, as you are [Beatific Vision]. We shall become like you and praise you for ever through Christ our Lord” (1404). The Eucharist is very much a sign, a sacrament, an expression of unity, the fullness of which can only be experienced in the life to come.

Posted Monday, January 09, 2012 1:01 AM By jon
Moreover, JLS’ position is inherently self-contradictory. He needs to answer the question—if he seeks to unite with God through a Eucharistic celebration (which indeed the Eucharist achieves in this life), then why attend one that is presided by a member of a community that is NOT in union with God’s Church, that is NOT in union with Christ’s Body on earth? To do so is self-contradictory, expresses a flawed logic, a flawed theology, and wrong ecclesiology. Therefore I agree with the sentiment expressed above which says, “why even risk one’s salvation by going to a liturgy deemed illicit by the Church? Didn’t Christ say to the apostles ‘What you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; what you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven?'”

Posted Monday, January 09, 2012 4:18 AM By Abeca Christian
folks what I don’t get is some here think that it is wrong to receive communion at a SSPX but why is it not wrong to take communion at an Orthodox church, they are not in union with the church either. I respect the traditional element of SSPX, God bless them for that and for making a stand to keep to Tradition but they have gone to long being lead by pride with not uniting with our Pope and so has the Orthodox church. I think that JLS is more in line with the truth but I do agree with jon, on something, I also refuse to attend a SSPX or Orthodox church since they refuse to unite with Christ’s church but if I had no choice, and there where no other Church that is in union with Rome and they were the only ones near, then of course I will receive because I am permitted under such extreme cases. Also my Latin Rite priest told me that we weren’t allowed to go to confession to an SSPX priest. He explained well why but I am not good at explaining it as well as he has.

Posted Monday, January 09, 2012 4:19 AM By Abeca Christian
Good comments Posted Sunday, January 08, 2012 4:16 AM By OSCAR!

Posted Monday, January 09, 2012 7:10 AM By JLS
jon, I never said “complete”. What I said is simple: It is the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ that unites a soul with God. Prayer circles, good intentions, knowledge … none of these unite man and God. The Beatific Vision is the state of total union of God and a soul, but it is not what brings the union about.

Posted Monday, January 09, 2012 9:02 AM By Larry
“Also my Latin Rite priest told me that we weren’t allowed to go to confession to an SSPX priest. He explained well why but I am not good at explaining it as well as he has.” It’s very simple, Abeca. I’m sure you’ve heard of “driving while suspended (in license.)” The SSPX priests are absolving (and doing everything else) while suspended.

Posted Monday, January 09, 2012 10:08 AM By JLS
A driver license is a tool of the govt, and does not determine how well a driver drives. For some unknown reason, some Catholics view faith as a set of laws … can’t figure out why they do this. Reading the Gospels one sees that Jesus excoriates the priests, lawyers and politicians for turning His religion into a legal operation. I wonder if the CCC2ndEd covers this reality.

Posted Monday, January 09, 2012 10:23 AM By jon
If one doesn’t understand why “some Catholics view faith as a set of laws,” then that person doesn’t comprehend much the way God has made the world. The whole of the universe is governed by laws–laws of physics, laws of science, laws of nature—all of which God has created. Why shouldn’t religion and faith have is own doctrines, dogmas, canon laws? God’s Word is the law, and as Jesus said: “Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place (Matt. 5:18). If one thinks laws in faith are “constraining” and “limiting” then such a person has little understanding of the true freedom that a genuine Catholic understanding of the faith affords.

Posted Monday, January 09, 2012 10:27 AM By Abeca Christian
Larry thank you but it goes back to my other question. Why then are Catholics told it is OK to attend and receive at an Orthodox church. Some people feel friendlier towards the Orthodox church but less on the SSPX. Didn’t they both refuse to unite with Rome? Well I’m not disputing your explanations I just don’t get those things very well but in my opinion and as best as I can discern, why attend their Mass when they refuse to join with our Holy Father the Pope. Since they refuse then I refuse to receive from them. But I respect what all are saying here.

Posted Monday, January 09, 2012 10:36 AM By k
JLS, I think they view obedience to the laws as an act of faith.

Posted Monday, January 09, 2012 10:55 AM By Paul
JLS, you have again misinterpreted the Bible and the words of Jesus. CCC: “85 The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.” This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.” CCC: “1951 Law is a rule of conduct enacted by competent authority for the sake of the common good. The moral law presupposes the rational order, established among creatures for their good and to serve their final end, by the power, wisdom, and goodness of the Creator. All law finds its first and ultimate truth in the eternal law. Law is declared and established by reason as a participation in the providence of the living God, Creator and Redeemer of all. Such an ordinance of reason is what one calls law. Alone among all animate beings, man can boast of having been counted worthy to receive a law from God: as an animal endowed with reason, capable of understanding and discernment, he is to govern his conduct by using his freedom and reason, in obedience to the One who has entrusted everything to him.” God’s commandments are laws, not suggestions. We must obey HIS LAWS to get to Heaven. Jesus also gave the Magisterium the power to loose and bind on earth and in Heaven through Apostolic succession.

Posted Monday, January 09, 2012 1:44 PM By Larry
“Larry thank you but it goes back to my other question. Why then are Catholics told it is OK to attend and receive at an Orthodox church.” Abeca, all I can say is that I never told anyone to go ahead and receive at an Orthodox Church–and I don’t recall anyone ever telling ME that. What I remember from my earliest years is being taught that we could receive the Sacrament of Confession from an Orthodox priest only upon danger of death–period. It’s been said in this thread that one could go to an Orthodox mass if no Catholic mass were available. I don’t know about that. Again, that was not what I was taught, and I would not recommend it. Still, what might be motivating others is the fact that invincible ignorance may excuse the Orthdox priests and bishops, since those who initiated the schism with Rome lived and died a thousand years ago and today’s Orthodox clergy were brought up within their Church. But that cannot excuse the SSPX people, because they are the ones actively initiating and continuing the schism. For my part I do not propose that Catholics attend Orthodox liturgy for any other than a special reason such as wedding, funeral, etc.

Posted Monday, January 09, 2012 3:38 PM By Abeca Christian
Thanks Larry I understand that, I was only asking because that is what is being told to many Catholics but I do agree with you, I wouldn’t either, they refuse Rome then since my loyalty is with Christ’s and His church, then I see no reason to receive from SSPX and Orthodox except for the reasons you mentioned, which are logical to me. Blessings : )

Posted Monday, January 09, 2012 3:43 PM By Abeca Christian
JLS I think I get what you mean, didn’t Jesus teach something of that nature, especially when he said that not everything is written because there is more to the faith than what is written. Well something like that. I think that people are misunderstanding your logic. I also recall when there were certain laws during passover, Jesus did the opposite and he was criticized harshly for not honoring certain Jewish laws.

Posted Monday, January 09, 2012 4:06 PM By Abeca Christian
From Summa Theologica Of Saint Thomas Aquinas: Article 1. Whether the proper matter of studiousness is knowledge? Look it up, it is a great teaching on reason and mind. Even Archbishop Fulton Sheen has discussed this on his topic called How to improve your mind. It is a fascinating teaching from Thomas Aquinas, today’s education is not at all in line with these teachings. The gay agenda and the liberal agenda has garbaged true studiousness.

Posted Monday, January 09, 2012 4:49 PM By Kenneth M. Fisher
As I understand it, the big problem with the document presented to the SSPX was the Vatican’s insistence on acceptance of all the VII’s documents including the one on Ecumenism. Many of us don’t agree with what has been done with that document, and it does need clarification that is in union with the Tradition of the Church. God bless, yours in Their Hearts, Kenneth M. Fisher

Posted Monday, January 09, 2012 11:35 PM By Abeca Christian
Mr Fisher now that you mention that, yes I have heard that too. So maybe we are too hard on the SSPX order, I can’t blame them because Ecumenism has gone wrong in many parts of the USA, to much compromise and too much confusion!

Posted Tuesday, January 10, 2012 6:55 AM By Larry
Kenneth, I’d say that if the Vatican did indeed insist upon acceptance of the document on Ecumenism, then that very fact should constitute “clarification” that it “is in union with the Tradition of the Church”–that is, if it’s approval by the bishops and the pope at the original Council did not already constitute “clarification” enough (it should have!) The alternative would be to get in line behind those who don’t “agree” with the Church’s teaching on unisex marriage, or contraception, or extramarital sex, etc.

Posted Tuesday, January 10, 2012 8:17 AM By JLS
Thankyou, Abeca. You get what I’m talking about. “The law kills, the Spirit gives life”. Some people think that faith is a set of laws, but the two things are different. If a man generates his understanding of faith by basing it on what he does for his daily bread, ie work, then he will see faith as a set of laws. But Jesus tells us that He is the foundation. Recently a Vatican Cardinal told the bishops to stop basing themselves on administration … because administering is working off a set of laws. Bishoping is working on the foundation of Jesus Christ. If the difference were that easy to explain, there would be no difference: Now, let the perplexed figure this problem out. It does have a solution that is real and which Jesus spent three years instructing the pharisees and everyone else about. He even told Pilate the difference, and Pilate actually grasped it … So as Easter time rolls around in a few months and the Mass readings move in that direction, then it will give souls the stimulus package helpful in trying once more to get it about faith. And, yes, I know that what I am posting here is not so expositorily constructed as to benefit the legalist minds who are inclined to give up rather than dig in.

Posted Tuesday, January 10, 2012 9:28 AM By Larry
Abeca, Kenneth & others: Do you or do you NOT believe that Our Lord and the Holy Spirit infallibly guide the pope and the bishops in union with Him so that we are Divinely guaranteed never to be led into doctrinal or dogmatic error, regardless of whether the magisterium is proposing new truths for our belief or simply expounding and extrapolating upon previous material? Do you believe this or don’t you? You’d better–it’s dogma. Vatican II was an ecumenical council, opened 50 years ago and presided over by two popes. Through five popes and half a century, the Rock of Peter has held firm and given in not one millimeter to demands to rescind, redact or otherwise deprecate the authority of the Council Acta. The price of that absolute Papal intransigeance has been the rebellion, continued even now, by SSPX. And yet the Papacy will not budge. If that does not convince you that God Himself is well-pleased with the Council, then I don’t know what WILL. I cannot but believe that God has done everything possible to make it clear to you and me that there will be NO RETREAT from the Council–not now–not ever–and if you cannot accept that, well then, there’s the door–don’t let it hit you in the back on the way out. And please, don’t anybody try to confuse the issue by writing back, “oh, so you think God is okay with the Rockettes performing at mass, clowns, women priests…” No I don’t and you know very well I don’t. You know very well there’s nothing about dancing girls, etc in the Council Acta–that fact has repeatedly been pointed out on this web site, anyone can read the documents and see what the Council Fathers wanted and didn’t want, and the abuses are just not there–period. So the pope’s demands are too hard on the SSPX? Too bad! What was that old saying: “Roma locuta, causa finita”?

Posted Tuesday, January 10, 2012 10:32 AM By MacDonald
I don’t know much about the SSPX issue, but I do get real peeved when people, and groups, call themselves “Catholic” but refuse to obey the Holy Father. Just this week someone told me about an “Independent Catholic Church” here in California that is actually NOT in communion with Rome: it sees itself as BETTER (that is, more liberal) and WISER than Rome. For me, such ‘churches’ are just as annoying as the ‘conservative’ groups that disobey Rome. Whether one is on the right or the left, if you separate yourself from the Vicar of Christ, this is bad news, and very divisive. We have a Pope for a reason.

Posted Tuesday, January 10, 2012 11:24 AM By Abeca Christian
Larry I often appreciate your tone of loyalty to the faith, thank you my friend. Now that I said that I have to say that your examples that you used on the last post are not comparing apples to apples. SSPX is very rich in Tradition and honors the early church fathers and doctors of the church traditions, of course we must charitably understand why they dislike the new form of Ecumenism, I have seen many abuses, I recall having to attend a Mormon church because our Catholic church was participating in the Ecumenism efforts, I was young and naive, I didn’t know better, now that I know my faith better, I know that there was so much compromise. I also saw disrespect during Mass and not teaching others visiting on the Eucharist, all in the name of Ecumenicism. I’m not trying to condone SSPX denial to unite but I am trying to be charitable now and understand what their rite is all about. Larry I still refuse to attend or receive from them because I am loyal to my faith and wish with our denial of them they will be encouraged to unite but for now, I can be sensitive to their ordeal and continue to pray that our church will work out those differences and hurts that they feel are not helping them unite with us. I pray for our Pope to help us unite them!

Posted Tuesday, January 10, 2012 12:40 PM By Catherine
I too get real peeved when people and groups call themselves Catholic while they support and protect Obama. O MacDonald had a farm E I E I O. And on that farm he has some clones E I E I O. With a selective quack here and a selective quack there. The Pope never gave permission to Catholics to vote for Obama either.

Posted Tuesday, January 10, 2012 1:35 PM By The Rose
This is what is up. When it suits their agenda some folks will wax poetic about obeying the laws of the Church, about how “natural law” is being disregarded by some people today, how the laws of Church from tradition are to be observed. They play the “keeping the law” card very well if it suits “their” agenda. However, if a particular teaching from the living Magisterium doesn’t suit their personal “agenda,” they come up with these specious and contrived arguments about how “the law kills, whereas the Spirit gives life.” Folks, these individuals are inconsistent, they are only driven by their own personal views, not the teachings of the Church. They wish to discredit the Living Magisterium and excuse their own brand of dissent. Never listen to those who would detract you from the voice of the Pope and the bishops of the Church who have been charged to defend the laws and the teachings of the Church.

Posted Tuesday, January 10, 2012 1:58 PM By RR
When people say that the SSPX are disobedient to the Church, that is not true. They are being obedient to what the Church was for almost 2000 yrs. before Vatican II. When it is said that they are being disobedient, then the Church must have been wrong for 2000 yrs? I don’t think so. They may be saying Mass illicitly, meaning without Bishop approval, but the Mass and Sacraments ARE valid. Also, Vatican II was ONLY a pastoral council, NOT dogmatic.

Posted Tuesday, January 10, 2012 2:03 PM By Larry
Abeca, I appreciate your earnest effort to be charitable to SSPX, but with all due respect I don’t think you fully understand their mindset. When the previous attempted concord between the Holy See and SSPX fell through at the last minute, Archbishop Lefebvre (and this was not very long before his death, I believe) said words to the effect that “the time might not yet be right for Rome to rejoin Tradition.” Then from time to time I see SSPX’ers refer to the Catholic Church as “the Conciliar Church,” while their own group is simply the Traditional Church. From this it seems apparent to me that they see themselves as THE one true, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church while the Church of Rome, led now by Pope Benedict, is in effect the schismatic group. I’m not denying that there are some in SSPX of more moderate bent who would wish for reconciliation under the pope’s leadership, but I don’t think they’re in the ascendancy there. Judging from their output, it would seem that radicals are calling the tune, who believe that reconciliation cannot take place on any terms short of a complete, groveling surrender by Rome, an admission by the pope that “you’re right and we’re dead wrong,” and an outcome leaving SSPX more or less dominant or pre-eminent in the Church. Sometimes I’ll read of one or another SSPX cleric saying they don’t want to become like the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, which has allegedly been “silenced” by Rome. Of course what they mean is that reunion on terms acceptable to Rome would require that SSPX promise never to say that the Council Acta ought to be shredded, burned and the ashes flushed down the toilet. I don’t think they can stomach that. I’m sure there will be defections from SSPX to the Church, but I would expect that not only will the mainline organization never reunite with Rome, but eventually they might even consider electing their own pope and trying to pass him off as the successor to St. Peter.

Posted Tuesday, January 10, 2012 2:23 PM By Kenneth M. Fisher
Larry, You seem to want to ignore the FACT that Vatican Council II was merely a Pastoral Council and thus had no authority to change any Dogma. None other than the Holy Father himself has said that. God bless, yours in Their Hearts, Kenneth M. Fisher

Posted Tuesday, January 10, 2012 2:30 PM By JLS
BTW, Larry, in my 34th year of Catholicsim so far I have attended only one service at an SSPX church, and it was a vespers and not a Mass. I’ve been to only one Jewish service, which was long before I was Catholic and it was a double Bar Mitzvah for one of the neighborhood pals. I found my way to the Catholic Church not by somebody beating me over the head, but by seeking through faith. I’d still like to see you post your definition of faith … go ahead surprise me and post something that is not a set of laws. No hurry; you’ve got the rest of your life to come up with it. While I’m waiting, I’ll let you know right away if the Pope contacts me and tells me what to do.

Posted Tuesday, January 10, 2012 2:43 PM By Kenneth M. Fisher
MacDonald, 10:32 AM Judging from your comments, you would have condemned St. Athanasius the Great, Doctor of the Church becasue he opposed Pope Liberius, a Pope that was subsequently publicly and canonically rebuked by his successor St. Damasus I. Think and PRAY about it! God bless, yours in Their Hearts, Kenneth M. Fisher

Posted Tuesday, January 10, 2012 2:59 PM By Larry
Ken, the phrase “pastoral council” is a meaningless term–there are no such distinctions in Catholic teaching as between a “pastoral” and “dogmatic” council. It is true that Vatican II defined no new dogma. It is NOT true that Vatican II did, or even could have, proclaimed error within its exposition of previously-known dogma. As such, whatever the Council Acta say that you MUST do or MUST believe, you therefore must do and believe. Whatever the Council proposes for optional consideration only, you may consider and come to your own conclusion upon. It is an ecumenical council with papal approval–therefore it is a legitimate excercise of the Ordinary Magisterium and as such it is doctrinally infallible. In each document, in each section, you must take it at its word. A definition of faith, JLS? Look it up for yourself in CCC. My definition is the Church’s definition, and if it were not, why should it interest anyone here? Who am I that I should have my own peculiar definition?

Posted Tuesday, January 10, 2012 3:10 PM By Abeca Christian
MacDonald it’s best to remain neutral since you do not understand SSPX and the situation, I have been trying to do that lovingly and charitably, not only out of respect for our church but also in charity for SSPX. Larry you are right, I don’t understand the mindset of SSPX. I just hope for their unity. Maybe it is our mindset that has pushed them away, who knows. People are more harsh towards the SSPX than with any protestant sect. I will try to remain more neutral because I do not want to condemn something that I have no knowledge of. I just pray for them and with joy I welcome them and pray for our Pope to resolve this. Our Pope is precious and His heart is big, I trust that he will persevere and be patient with these, our brothers and sisters from the SSPX. They are still our brothers and sisters in Christ.

Posted Tuesday, January 10, 2012 3:15 PM By Abeca Christian
in reply to Tuesday, January 10, 2012 8:17 AM By JLS, yes I originally started to reflect on what you were posting because I wanted to get what you were saying and that is when those wonderful teachings from our Lord came to mind. JLS you do have a neat way of seeing things, I can tell that you are not “childish” in your spiritual growth. When you comment on something, I end up getting it but don’t have the gift as you have to explain or convey it well. So with my last reply to you, I tried to make those points, hoping that someone will understand. God bless you JLS.

Posted Tuesday, January 10, 2012 4:12 PM By Catherine
Thanks Abeca for being like the parable of the persistent woman (widow) knocking at the door seeking justice. Abeca I would like to add something to your post. I remember a few years ago some Catholics overheard clergy in the chancery joking about how they would NEVER reach out to those who had left the umbrella of the Diocese while swooning over welcoming the female priests being ordained in Protestant Churches and also inviting these Protestant women priests and Rabbi’s and other denominations to Interfaith “sharing” left and right. Well, God also sees these injustices and God writes straight with crooked lines. Abeca do you see how through your journey you have remained loyal and continually knocking, well sadly it can also be said that many who left just gave up the persistent knocking battle for truth and justice under the umbrella of their diocese. They have not given up the persistence in prayer for unity and I think that this is what you are saying. I understand what Larry is saying and I know you do too. Would God have preferred if everyone would have stayed and been completely united in knocking at the door of our bishops to remind them to be faithful shepherds in actions and words? Of course God would because Jesus founded “One” Church. Error, anger, injustice, frustration and pride caused division. Frank Duff the founder of the Legion of Mary said it would essentially take (12 widows or good men) continually praying and knocking at the door to renew the face of the each Diocese. Our brothers and sisters in Christ who left for independent churches or SSPX did not want the loss of the Traditional Mass, the watering down of teachings and the hijacking of the faith. Many felt that they would be disloyal to God if they embraced the error and injustice. Those who remain in their knocking are trusting that God will work everything to the good. There is a reason Pope Benedict said. “The Church will be a smaller Church but a holier Church.”

Posted Tuesday, January 10, 2012 5:12 PM By jon
Rose, quite an astute observation from you there on January 10, 2012 at 1:35 PM.

Posted Tuesday, January 10, 2012 5:22 PM By Abeca Christian
Catherine yes and yes! I agree. Thank you also for your kind and encouraging words.

Posted Tuesday, January 10, 2012 5:58 PM By MacDonald
Friends, I realize that history has given us some very crooked Popes in history, but I do not believe that is the case TODAY. This is why I choose to follow the Successor to Saint Peter, Pope Benedict XVI, rather than some guy or group that thinks it knows better. Some want to turn the clock BACK, others want us to do all kinds of nutty LIBERAL things for the sake of “progress.” As Catholics, we have an official Magisterium (i.e., the Holy Father and the Bishops in communion with him) to guide us. If we turn away from the Magisterium, we might as well invent our own ‘churches,’ like that man in the U.S.A. who claims to be the real pope, or those weirdos who formed “The American Catholic Church” and are not even real Catholics.

Posted Tuesday, January 10, 2012 7:18 PM By RR
Catherine: What an AWESOME post you gave @ 4:12 P.M.!! It is a gem!! I also want to say that those who left because they felt they would be disloyal to God if they embraced the error and injustice also want God to work everything for the good. It’s not just the those who remain in their knocking that trust that God will work everything to the good. I wait for the day when the words of Our Mother Mary come true, ” In the end, my Immaculate Heart will Triumph!” In all this confusion, we just have to do what we feel in our hearts and GOD will judge us on what was in all of our hearts. It’s easy for all of us to point the finger and tell someone they are wrong. I really try to live by the old saying that you should never point because if you look at your hand when you are pointing, there are three fingers pointing back at you. At times I fail to live by that saying and I have to remember that God is in control and He will make things right IN HIS TIME, not ours! I love your compassion for all people! You are a very special woman, Catherine!

Posted Tuesday, January 10, 2012 8:11 PM By JLS
Maybe one day, when the Church has become smaller and holier, and the corruption reduced substantially, then maybe there will be some accord between Rome and SSPX. SSPX seems to have been serving as a motivator to the Vatican to encourage more and more traditional Masses. The Pope has not condemned the SSPX bishops or priests to Hell; so one would think they’d be at least bound for Purgatory and eternal joy.

Posted Wednesday, January 11, 2012 12:55 PM By jon
The issue of where the members of the SSPX end up (heaven or hell) is a red herring and a useless point of discussion, for who can know this by only God. However, the false point at issue here is condoning the attendance of Masses presided by its members.

Posted Thursday, January 12, 2012 10:32 PM By Abeca Christian
I do want to make one thing clear. I may try to be compassionate with those who refuse to unite with Rome but that does not mean I condone what they are doing. That is why I refuse to attend their Mass. For example like the Orthodox, I find them prideful and they keep preaching that they are the real Christian faith and that we are the ones who separated. I find that disgusting of false information and because I love our Pope and all his attempts to try to unite these other rites but they keep refusing for whatever reasons, it’s no different from a disobedient child. Forgive me if I come across harsh, that is not my intention and I did try to remain neutral but for some odd reason I had envisioned the hurt one feels when a child rebels against it’s parents and refuses to honor their parents. I love how our Pope has lovingly tried to dialogue and keep inviting them to unite. Our Pope is humble, He has not displayed any cruel attitude towards them. He is trying to restore the church, has even encouraged our church to offer the Latin mass etc. That is why it is important that we continue to pray for our Pope in His success to bring them back for the sake of their salvation! That is my opinion but whatever God will’s wills. We pray for His holy will be done! AMEN

Posted Friday, January 13, 2012 4:38 AM By Abeca Christian
JLS I wanted to add to help others understand what you tried to convey on those set of laws we were discussing on this thread. One example: This past Sunday our pastor was explaining the beauty of wearing a veil at Mass, he worded it well and encouraged us with his loving explanation as to why we should wear a veil but he ended with reminding others to not be the veil police if someone may not have worn theirs. As I heard his homily, I thought yes it is not a law but a symbol as he described. I was wearing my veil and due to his loving explanation encouraged me to wear it but felt relieved when he reminded others to not be the veil police. I was once judged harshly when I had forgotten to my bring my veil and I actually felt uncomfortable because I knew other woman would look down upon me for not wearing my veil without them taken into account that I may have forgotten it due to rushing out to make it on time to Mass. People try so hard to live on a set of rules and compromising the real reasons that need to come from the heart first before we attempt to genuinely embrace the real reason of the beauty within. We can’t force others but we can be of great witness by our silence and great example first done in love not on rigidity and false charity.

Posted Friday, January 13, 2012 9:39 AM By Larry
It’s not quite a “red herring,” Jon. The issue is very relevant because we are supposed to be concerned about each other’s salvation. Remember the doctrine of “extra ecclesiam nulla salus”? Remember how those brought up outside the Church may be saved through their invincible ignorance of the true Church? There’s a flip side to that doctrine. Anyone of sound mind who voluntarily LEAVES the Catholic Church is NOT eligible for the benefit of invincible ignorance. In other words, there is NO SALVATION FOR DESERTERS. That’s part of the “extra ecclesiam” teaching. For those already Catholic who choose to leave–there is no salvation. Better think about that!

Posted Friday, January 13, 2012 10:24 AM By jon
Larry, I maintain that this is a red herring for a couple of reasons. (1) Arguing where this community will end up is NOT a valid point of debate: as if you’re debating how God is going to judge them. It’s a useless debate because you’re abrogating to yourself a privilege that only belongs to God who alone is our judge. Besides, the debate here is whether one should go to a SSPX Mass which is illicit, not whether its members go to heaven or hell. (2) St. John himself warned the early Christians concerning those who dissent and defect: “There is such a thing as deadly sin, about which I do not say that you should pray” (1 John 5:14-21). He is telling the community that at a certain point, why continue praying for those who persist in a “deadly sin” which in the case of the time of the writing of St. John’s letter is defection from the Church. Leave them to God, is what the Johannine Letter is saying. Going to a SSPX Mass is a self-contradictory act for those who wish to unite with God and His Community, the Church.

Posted Friday, January 13, 2012 3:20 PM By JLS
Instinct causes people to protect themselves from perceived threats. This kind of makes it difficult for Catholics who are commissioned by Jesus Christ to go into all the world and teach the Gospel and disciple the nations. But Jesus gives us the Holy Spirit to help.

Posted Friday, January 13, 2012 3:34 PM By Abeca Christian
Larry I agree with what you said that we should be concerned about each others salvation. God bless you.

Posted Friday, January 13, 2012 6:12 PM By JLS
BTW, the “living” Magisterium is none other than the Magisterium. The Magisterium is alive in the sense that God lives in His shepherds. Since God is always the same and never changes, then this is also true of the Magisterium. Total life never changes, and God, being total life, never changes; thus, the Magisterium never changes. The only thing that changes is that which is temporal. Thus, these people who use the term, “living magisterium”, are trying to trump reality with a smoke and mirror show.

Posted Saturday, January 14, 2012 7:57 AM By Larry
Jon, I cannot object too strongly to your interpretation of St. John’s letter. You’re not only wrong, you’re dangerously wrong. The section you quote is not a command to “leave them to God,” who commit apostacy. In fact St. John exhorts us to pray for those in sin and, except in the case of those in contumacious dissent, have confidence that God will restore them to life. The reason for the exception is that their lack of humility will, in all but rare cases, block sinners from seeing their true state and repenting. John is NOT forbidding anyone to pray for them–on the contrary, we are to pray and hope for everyone’s salvation, for that is God’s will–that none be lost, but all be brought to heaven. The difference is that in the case of prideful disobedience, we cannot have the same confidence that our prayers will bear fruit as with other sinners, because humility is a prerequisite for repentence, and the prideful man or woman by definition has none. And they will almost certainly disregard admonition, but admonish them we MUST anyway–at least once! “…You’re abrogating to yourself a privilege that only belongs to God who alone is our judge. Besides, the debate here is whether one should go to a SSPX Mass which is illicit, not whether its members go to heaven or hell.” If you’ll pardon the pun, like hell it is! That’s like saying “the debate here is whether one should commit adultery, not whether adulterers go to hell.” You should not commit adultery because without repentence, you WILL go to hell. Likewise, you should not patronize SSPX because if you become sunk in schism, without repentence you WILL go to hell. It’s all about heaven vs. hell. Everything everybody writes here is about heaven vs. hell. Take that away, and there’s no point to this website.

Posted Saturday, January 14, 2012 10:11 AM By jon
Larry, St. John was indeed speaking about contumacious dissenters in his letter, about whom he does not ask the community to pray for. This interpretation of St. John’s letter is vetted by the Church and by Biblical scholars. However, if you wish to speculate if the members of SSPX go to heaven or hell, go right ahead. You will not find me joining you in that impossible exercise. If you wish to speculate if those who go to their Masses will end up in heaven or earth, go right ahead. Again, you will not find me a participant in that activity. I will just leave them to God.

Posted Saturday, January 14, 2012 10:50 AM By jon
Contrary to JLS, the phrase “living Magisterium” is used in the Catechism (889) and in the Vatican II document Dei Verbum (10).

Posted Saturday, January 14, 2012 2:59 PM By Abeca Christian
Larry I liked your post of Saturday, January 14, 2012 7:57 AM. After reading your comments I realized that you have a good heart and are really concerned with the salvation of others. God bless you.

Posted Saturday, January 14, 2012 3:20 PM By Abeca Christian
Speaking of salvation, I am concerned for the salvation of many homosexuals especially with the ones who bare the name and activism of the gay agenda. The ones who are not suicidal anymore (which praise God we can help them before they reach to that point) which some are the ones who have embraced the “Pride” methodology are the ones who are heavy in their activism, they have found ways to endure their disorder by spreading and changing the way society views homosexuals, not in a positive manner because it is not about getting them help towards real healing, it is about gaining acceptance and false compassion. They are lacking sufficient graces that help lead towards a more virtuous lifestyle which ultimately in hopes to help guide them towards sanctifying grace. WE ARE FACED with an unending cycle of failure to rehabilitate homosexuals because of the new secular values that are in place with condoning homosexual lifestyles and false compassion in acceptance. Psychotherapist are no longer practicing to help heal them of that disorder, it not about fixing what is really the real issue but it is about fixing all others who do not embrace or accept homosexual lifestyles.

Posted Sunday, January 15, 2012 11:27 AM By JLS
jon, you are claiming that A. the “living magisterium” and the “Magisterium” are different; B. that God is not involved in either; C. that God is the “absent clockmaker” … because you remove Him from union with his faithful.

Posted Sunday, January 15, 2012 11:29 AM By JLS
The root of the problem is father/son bonding, family bonding, social bonding. It is being swapped out for false relationships.

Posted Sunday, January 15, 2012 12:05 PM By Larry
There is a difference, Jon, between saying “I can’t tell you to do it,” and “I tell you not to do it.” They are not the same. St. John is saying the former, not the latter. In your remarks on “speculation,” you’ve just summed up, better than I have, what is wrong with the Church in America today. We are afraid to warn sinners about hell. Consequently, more and more people within the Church are drifting into mortally sinful behavior and staying there–even while going to mass every Sunday and receiving Communion. What does God tell the Prophet Ezekiel? He orders Ezekiel to warn the people to repent–and says that Ezekiel will share in their ugly fate if he does not. Have you ever read through all the Gospels and noted down the exact number of times that Jesus warns his listeners of eternal punishment? It’s in the hundreds–probably his favorite theme. And do you notice how he portrays the damned as being astounded to learn that they of all people are going to hell, when they thought they were good, even holy people? When we speak of those already deceased, we acknowledge that we do not know their ultimate fate because we do not know whether they may have repented at the last millisecond before their spirit escaped the body. But repentence is the normal route to escape hell. Of those who never repent, probably VERY few will be excused by God due to mental defect or diminished responsibility. That is why we warn the living when they risk hell–to increase the chance that they WILL repent, even at the last second. You don’t give the LIVING the same benefit of the doubt as the dead, because you want to do what YOU can to save them from hell. After they die, it’s too late. All you can do is hope that they took the life preserver, and then pray for their release from Purgatory.

Posted Sunday, January 15, 2012 4:42 PM By jon
Contrary to JLS, go ahead, prove where I claimed A,B, and C. Cite that date and time.

Posted Sunday, January 15, 2012 10:35 PM By Abeca Christian
Its called interpretation jon, just like what you do with scripture and the CCC.

Posted Monday, January 16, 2012 10:39 AM By Bob One
The Protestants have it easier than we do. Where as we get into arguments about what will send us to hell and keep us out of heaven, they live with the sure and certain knowledge that they will go to heaven because Christ died for their sins. And, so long as they believe in Him they will not perish. Why do we make it so complicated? I mean really, if I’m a teanager trying to decide on which church to join do I want the one that says I really have to screw up to not go to heaven or the one that says it all depends if you screw up veniallly or mortally and oh by the way there are three hundred other mways you can screw up and we can talk about each one for a month or two?

Posted Monday, January 16, 2012 10:45 AM By The Rose
Abeca, JLS is being asked to prove an allegation. This does not have anything to do at all with “interpretation.” I find the allegations preposterous and groundless.

Posted Monday, January 16, 2012 11:27 AM By Larry
Bob One: Protestant doctrine is in error. There is no such thing as “once saved, always saved,” and God makes this clear in both the Old and New Testaments. Paul says we must work out our salvation in “fear and trembling.” I believe also it was the Prophet Ezekiel to whom God said that just as a sinful man will be saved if he repents before death, a righteous man will be lost if he changes HIS tune before death. Jesus speaks often of eternal perdition, and He usually portrays the damned as being stunned to learn that they are going to hell, because they had thought themselves good and holy people. Yes, Protestant doctrine is comforting. It is also dead wrong, and I wouldn’t want to have to find that out at my moment of judgment before the Lord.

Posted Monday, January 16, 2012 6:59 PM By MIKE
Hi Abeca, your questions are good. Since it would take too much space to answer fully, please read: ” Catholicism for Dummies” (of the Dummies series) pgs 18, 19, 84, 85 by Fathers Trigilio and Brighenti (who share a program on EWTN as well). The book has a nihil obstat and imprimatur. Whether one is Roman Catholic or Eastern Catholic, we’re under one Supreme Pontiff – the Pope. It is not OK to attend Eastern Orthodox services since they are not Catholic and do not follow the Pope. Since they are in Union with the Pope since the 17th century, it is ok to attend Mass at Byzantine (Eastern rite Catholic Churches) – Ruthenian; Ukrainian; Greek Catholic, Melkite, Romanian, and Italo-Albanian Byzantine Churches. In addition to Byzantine, Eastern Catholics also include: Maronite, Coptic, or Chaldean Catholic Churches which are in union with Rome as well. Being in union with Rome is key. This is a requirement for Apostolic succession, and required Unity. (Also, plz see CCC – 553, 815, 881, 882)

Posted Monday, January 16, 2012 10:59 PM By Abeca Christian
Precisely MIKE that is why I don’t understand why people attack SSPX yet they are OK with the Orthodox, since neither are in union with our Pope, our loyalty should be with our Pope. I have an understanding of what you just mentioned MIKE, that is not the issue, I may not get the SSPX situation and rules but I am faithful to our church and stay clear but in charity wish well for the SSPX to unite, for I am concerned for their salvation as Larry has tried to convey lovingly. MIKE you may find it interesting, I actually use to attend Ukrainian parish, loved the priest, he was awesome but then they moved him to another state, and now I attend the Latin Rite Parish and Maronite Parish (and sometimes other NO parishes) . I am very aware of those precious rites you mention. Thanks.

Posted Tuesday, January 17, 2012 6:31 AM By JLS
It is Holy Communion (commUNION) which makes people in union with the pope, not legal declarations. It is always a wonder how some people announce their opinion and because they cannot explain it, then they tack on some credible reference.

Posted Tuesday, January 17, 2012 6:12 PM By Abeca Christian
The Rose you find the allegations preposterous and groundless? How so? At least when you ask JLS he gives facts and good answers, more so than others, many just babble on ruthless angry words but can not explain nor defend what they have a beef on. The Rose jon has a many times did what I said about “interpretation”. He does it all the time.

Posted Wednesday, January 18, 2012 6:57 AM By JLS
Thankyou, Abeca. I give facts as long as they are not ignored, but when they are, which is typical of Rose, jon and their cabal, then I find no further point in providing facts of the issue, but proceed to treat the characters at issue. After all, character and faith are not exactly separate, and locating a serious character flaw can often answer the puzzle as to why someone holds to error.

Posted Wednesday, January 18, 2012 7:37 AM By Brian S
JLS, you seem to be saying that anyone who takes communion, regardless of their right to present themselves for it, are in union with the Pope. Such might be the claim of the rainbow-sashers and many others, but it simply isn’t true. But Catholicism has long been criticized for its “legal declarations” and insistence on (as Bob One points out) “mak(ing) it so complicated”. Other christian doctines, including those of your youth, are easier.

Posted Thursday, January 19, 2012 9:48 PM By Abeca Christian
JLS yes I agree and you are correct to discern to not always have to prove to them anything because they are missing the point and even direct facts you show. You discern well.