The following comes from a November 16 LifeSiteNews article by Pete Baklinski:
Cardinal-designate Kevin J. Farrell, one of Pope Francis’ most outspoken American supporters, has slammed a fellow U.S. bishop’s guidelines for implementing Amoris Laetitia as causing “division.”
Philadelphia Archbishop Charles Chaput’s guidelines issued in July unequivocally state that divorced and civilly remarried Catholics may not receive Holy Communion unless they “refrain from sexual intimacy.” Chaput, who currently heads the U.S. bishops’ ad hoc committee for implementing the pope’s controversial Apostolic Exhortation, has stated that the document must be interpreted “within the tradition of the Church’s teaching and life.”
But Farrell, who was recently appointed by the pope to head the new Vatican Dicastery for Laity, the Family and Life, stated that he disagreed with Chaput’s position.
“I don’t share the view of what Archbishop Chaput did, no,” the cardinal-designate told Catholic News Service on Tuesday. “I think there are all kinds of different circumstances and situations that we have to look at — each case as it is presented to us,” he said.
“I think that it would have been wiser to wait for the gathering of the conference of bishops where all the bishops of the United States or all the bishops of a country would sit down and discuss these things,” he said, adding that a conference-wide discussion would ensure “an approach that would not cause as much division among bishops and dioceses, and misunderstandings.”
In September, the Pope ended the ambiguity his document had caused when he wrote to the bishops of Argentina that there was “no other interpretation” of Amoris Laetitia other than one admitting divorced and remarried Catholics to Holy Communion. While the letter made the pope’s position clear, it caused a firestorm among faithful Catholics who questioned the pope’s statement.
Earlier this week, four Cardinals went public with their unanswered letter to Pope Francis that asked him to clarify “uncertainty, confusion, and disorientation among many of the faithful” stemming from the exhortation. One of the four cardinals, Raymond Burke, stated Tuesday that should the pope fail to address their concerns the cardinals are contemplating a “formal correction,” something quite rare within the Church.
Farrell said that despite there being many “difficulties” that surround civilly divorced and remarried Catholics “we have to try to find ways to bring them into full communion.”
SO CCD is continuing to bring discord here. The pope says X. Some people say, well, the Pope should have said X+Y. This article is about a high level prelate saying, no the Pope says X, and he didn’t say X+Y.
This is not a cardinal creating more discord. This is a Cardinal saying, the Pope was right in the first place!
There is no new discord here, there is only more evidence that those Pope Francis don’t have support in the wider curia.
You may (or may not) want to read a fuller explanation of the formal complaint that may be lodged by 4 cardinals against the “migration” of Catholic doctrine that is occurring under this pontiff:
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/11/cardinal-burke-if-pope-persists-in.html
Rather, YFC, the Pope said X, which can be interpreted to mean or entail both Y and -Y (not Y): contradictory positions. The cardinals asked for clarification whether X should be construed to mean Y or -Y, for the sake of unity in teaching and pastoral practice in the Church and to avoid the scandal of contradictory understandings and applications of the teaching.
The Pope has refused to clarify what X means, according to reports. That leaves the Church in a state of confusion about the teaching of the pontiff.
The one(s) sowing discord in the Church are quite a bit higher in authority than the editors of CCD.
He’s already said what X means. Why does he keep have to say it?
Pope Francis has not said what X means in an official teaching capacity of the Holy See. The dubia submitted by the cardinals asks for the pope to make an official judgment about the meaning of X, and that is what Pope Francis refuses to do because ambiguity and unofficial remarks are his preferred methods.
The Pope needs to say officially and clearly “yes” or “no” to each of the cardinals’ five precise questions.
YFC/LGTB or whatever you go by (G). All this is from you is more open closet door talk.
Sure, Joe or whatever you go by, whatever you say. Make stuff up and pretend it’s important. Go for it.
The first part of Amoris Laetitia is beautifully written, but by Chapter Eight, there are sentences that seem to undercut what was written previously or go against Church teaching. One such sentence is in the eighth chapter of Amoris Laetitia, # 297: “No one can be condemned for ever, because that is not the logic of the Gospel.”
Nowhere in that paragraph does the Holy Father, or whoever wrote it, explain what that means. It gives one the impression that the idea of hell being everlasting (everlasting separation from God) is being denied. According to even a Polish bishop, who is not one of the four cardinals, the eighth chapter was not well written and probably written too hurriedly.
The Pope said X. Which, by the way, is not any kind of new teaching. She has always said X.
Why are these Cardinals confused? Let me answer my own question. It is because they do not want to believe what the Church has always taught, and they refuse to accept that the Church has always taught X. They never liked X in the first place, and they surely don’t like it now that it has been restated.
I will grant you that Amoris Laetitia does contain some of what the Church has always taught, for it teaches that homosexual unions can in no way be considered similar nor even remotely analogous to marriage. That truth was certainly not a new teaching, and all fellow Catholics ought to accept it and adhere to it. What say you to that? I’ll answer my own question: you don’t accept it because you never liked it in the first place.
Sawyer, maybe you should ask that question to Gratias, who in a post just after midnight this morning says that Pope Francis says “Married Gays can sodomize and communicate.”
Sorry, YFC, but one Cardinal saying, “The Pope was ‘right’ in the first place” is no sign of all’s well. In truth, that is the sign of just supporting the party line of one’s boss, a boss who seems ill prepared to answer for his own confusing management style, if one can call it that.
“You don’t realize that it’s better for you that one man should die(TRUTH) for the people than for the whole nation to be destroyed,” is happening in our time.
So shouting, “Crucify Him, Crucify Him,” despite how far on high the order comes, is not okay when one knows the Truth.
Cardinal Farrell sounds just like the German bishops who are near-heretical, such as Cardinal Kasper, and others! Very poor leadership, for our Church! Millions of Catholics, worldwide, are counting on the leadership of the Pope and his bishops and cardinals, for guidance for their lives– especially in important areas, such as Catholic marriage and family life! Too bad we have such poor Church leadership!
The discord rampant in the Catholic Church now reflects the desire of the present pontiff to move further away from its received tradition. It was specifically referenced by P Francis in his recent comments against traditional Catholics, esp. young traditional Catholics.
A very effective description of the discontinuity of the Catholic tradition is recited by a mother and Lutheran convert to Catholicism (“The Motherlands” blog):
https://themotherlands.blogspot.com/2016/11/falling-in-love-with-historical-church.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2FuvdzI+%28The+Motherlands%29
What “Motherlands” came to the Church for was…
“…Gothic cathedrals with spires pointed heavenward, incense wafting from one of those things on a chain (they’re called thuribles), and magnificent stained glass windows. Churches would be overflowing with large families praying the rosary, lighting candles, and genuflecting. All this tangible devotion would be reinforced by vestments, choirs, and organ music. We would all do the exact same things because that’s just what Catholics did.”
What she instead got was horrible music, guitars, and a banal liturgy, notwithstanding the well-attended service. Not right.
Justin, how I remember the church you describe. You are right on the mark. What you describe is exactly why Pope John XXIII called for VII. We were a church of ritual and people were leaving in droves. It isn’t VII that drove people away, the diaspora had already started.
…and changing the time honored and fruitful rituals that speak to the truth of the Faith was a mistake. The disaster of diaspora on steroids and rotten fruit being dubbed good – despite the rigorous rejection of it by those with eyes to see and ears to hear – is mounting. Mounting to the degree wherein clear teaching is now dubbed divisive as is the spreading of the gospel.
If you can’t beat ’em, join ’em is not the recipe for transmitting the Faith, Bob One, but of a sad attempt to grasp at relevancy in a world that will always outdo you in terms of flash and fun.
The Mass is not “rotten fruit”, Ann Malley. Do we really have to keep reminding you of this?
A tree is judged by its fruits, YFC, not you… or your imagined assembly of “we”.
I could keep reminding you of that, but then you are already aware, being a savvy individual.
Apparently, Ann Malley, you feel it necessary to continually trash talk the Mass and the Church which offers it. I’m not quite sure why your heresy is permissible on this site, given it’s supposed mission. By the way, the “assembly of ‘we'” is not imagined, it was the assembly instituted by Christ. I’m sorry you continue to deny that reality.
YFC, you overstep your bounds yet again.
Make observations if you will, but your presuming to speak on behalf of Holy Mother Church in a definitive manner is out of line. Most especially when the Holy Father, the very one who should, prefers ambiguity.
Considering your endorsement of changing realities, you may be better served in your mission to just smile and bob along. It could be your rigidity in this area bespeaks deeper issues.
Bob One, do you understand that the Lutheran lady who converted to the Catholic Church, “Motherlands.blogspot”, converted because she wanted identifiably Catholic worship (“incense wafting, thuribles, stained glass, Gothic cathedrals, devotions, lighting candles, the Rosary”)?
Bob One, do you also understand the mass defections of Catholics did not just occur in 1962-1965 at the time of the Council, but have actually accelerated in the last ten years, that for example, at least 3 million US Catholics have left the Church in the 5 years from 2007 to 2012 alone?
https://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/americas-changing-religious-landscape/
Never mind, Bob One. You will make excuses.
And there is also this: at least 4 million “Latinos” have left the Church between the period 2010 and 2014:
https://latino.foxnews.com/latino/lifestyle/2014/05/07/catholic-church-lost-millions-us-latino-followers-since-2010/
And so now, one of the new excuses is a “distractor-argument”, namely, “Well, we are only 6% of the world Catholic population.” So it doesn’t matter, the number of souls who leave? Just as well they did? Really?
The exodus from the Church isn’t because of Vatican II. Bob One’s point was that it had already started happenning in Europe before VII, and the acceleration in the last ten years is because of the hierarchy to deal with the priest pedophilia scandal, yet its continued interference in the personal lives of its adherants – a la Terry Schiavo, the alienation of same sex people, and birth control. People have finally said they’ve had ENOUGH. Not enough of the liturgy – enough of prelates who are often moral failures in their own right.
“…People have finally said they’ve had ENOUGH. Not enough of the liturgy – enough of prelates who are often moral failures in their own right..”
They have said enough because “liturgy” without Faith and the understanding thereof is mere theater, YFC, and zero discernment of the realities of which they partake.
But many prefer the theater. That and feeling themselves sufficiently spiritual without any undue change of life or bothersome interference from clerics, Christ, or any other person for that matter.
You ALIENATE Truth in His own Church.
Once again, Ann Malley, at 6:59 PM tonight, you talk blasphemy, when you put the Mass in scare quotes “liturgy” without Faith, and called it “mere theater”.
The Mass is not “mere theater”. People who attend the Mass demonstrate at least the faith of a mustard seed.
How is it that a person is allowed to spew such blasphemy on a Catholic website?
No, the mass is not mere theater. But it is only that to those who do not have the Faith and, as you put it, have had enough of the Faith and what it requires interfering with their daily lives.
Perhaps you should reread your derogation of priests who do their duty before God by preaching to the people – despite their own shortcomings.
Specifically your charge that the clergies, “… continued interference in the personal lives of its adherants – a la Terry Schiavo, the alienation of same sex people, and birth control,” is out of place.
Shame on you, YFC.
Ann Malley, I’m glad that you finally agree with me that the mass is not mere theater. It would be nice of you to also admit that you were wrong when you called the Mass and thus the sacrifice of the Cross,”rotten fruit”. Shame on YOU, Ann Malley.
Besides, what I said about clergy is simply a restatement of what people told Pew pollsters about why they left the Catholic Church. Agree or disagree with their point of view, there is no shame in trying to understand the point of view of Christ’s flock.
Ann Malley, I’m glad that you finally agree with me that the mass is not mere theater. It would be nice of you to also admit that you were wrong when you called the Mass and thus the sacrifice of the Cross,”rotten fruit”. Shame on YOU, Ann Malley.
Besides, what I said about clergy is simply a restatement of what people told Pew pollsters about why they left the Catholic Church. Agree or disagree with their point of view, there is no shame in trying to understand the point of view of Christ’s flock.
YFC, keep reading into others statements what you will to foment your own change. I did not say the mass itself was rotten fruit. But there is rotten fruit that has been born from the ill advised tinkering with the mass. So the NO rite is the vehicle that has given us rotten fruit.
As to the POV of Christ’s flock, there is a problem when the POV is don’t bother us by letting us know what we like and will do anyway is sinful and offensive to God. Just give us “liturgy”.
It is that sort of mentality that renders mass, that is what should be viewed as the greatest prayer of the Church, nothing more than an entertainment to be consumed but not effective in influencing one’s life. (Give us liturgy, but get out of our lives. Message…
… received.)
That’s wanting your cake and eat it too, YFC. Shameful for a grown man who calls himself Catholic. But reality doesn’t seem to bother you so long as one can indulge the wah-wah of those who prefer their sins.
Ann Malley, you continue your heretical rant, when first you claim to be able to mind read those who responded to a Pew survey – and hence to judge their mentality. Is mind-reading from afar a gift of the Holy Spirit?. Secondly you write heretically, “It is that sort of mentality that renders mass…NOTHING MORE than an entertainment to be consumed but not effective in influencing our lives.” So, Ann Malley, are you saying the Body and Blood of Christ is not present at Mass, that the entertainment value is greater than that presence, or that Christ’s body and blood is not effective? Heresies ALL.
..is a hijacking of the mass and a subverting of its purpose.
So the cry, get out of “our” lives, but give us LITURGY is tantamount to give us your money Dad, but get the hell out of our affairs. And by the way, you’d better be here when we want more of whatever “we” want. Be it approval, feeling good about ourselves, or whatever else “we” decide “we” want. Nothing of what we need. Speak words like that and we’ll tell Pew Research how awful you are.
Promote that if you will, YFC. Others cannot despite your smear machine that runs amok whenever the particulars of underlying cause and actually fruits are discussed. Especially the rotting ones.
Ann Malley, I try not to give unrequested advice, but I will break my own rule here, when I tell you that if you find yourself stuck in a hole, stop digging. You just keep defending your own heresies about the mass, and defending them, and digging your own hole deeper. I’ll just leave it there, but if you REALLY want me to explain how your latest post this morning at 6″51 AM continues your effort to dig a hole deeper and deeper.
“the diaspora had already started.”
Any sociological citation for that assertion?
Pew Survey (Aug 2016) has also analyzed “why” Catholics have left. The famous litany by progressives (“the priest pedophilia scandal, ycontinued interference in the personal lives of its adherents – a la Terry Schiavo, the alienation of same sex people, and birth control.”) is for the most part untrue:
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/08/24/why-americas-nones-left-religion-behind/
Although 18% mention the abuse scandal as their reason, the by-far largest group (49%) give a general “lack of belief” in God.
That reason much more corresponds to an absence of the Divine, esp. in liturgy and prayer life, than to any other (esp. social-political) reason.
Not likely “FrMichael.” Any revolution has to invent the “need” for its own existence. The NewChurch must find that (1) Catholics were leaving anyway, so we had to do something, (2) and, it had to be “modern” instead of trying to fight any loss, if it existed, by further devotions, and (3) even with this new stuff, it is somehow also “more ancient” than the TLM and Traditional sacraments. Bunk. Do not be misled by these sons of Satan, Father.
and while some of you were leaving all that behind, others came into the Church for those things some of you hated. O, the irony of it all. As I told one traditionalist one time, when Gregorian chant went out the backdoor of the Church, Buddhist and Hindu chant came in the front. Yes, it has happened in some places.
I misplaced my last post. It was in reply to Bob One’s post Nov.18 at 8:33 a.m.
Excellent points, “Justin K.” Francis clearly sees Catholic Tradition as foreign, and as something to contain. His notion of Catholicism is also evidently formed in the Latin American image, with its emphasis on individual conscience, its acceptance of all forms of sexual expression (“because that is what people do”), and its unwillingness to bend the knee to a higher power (and Francis rarely kneels at Mass, which is also a common Jesuit insult to Christ). This is why, among other reasons, that Francis is so comfortable with the Germans, and with other faiths (where there is no emphasis on obedience to set beliefs and rules, to seeking holiness, and to controlling basic, human urges and emotions). Francis is a test to the Catholic…
St. C, just to be fair, the Pope suffers from an acute case of Sciatica. I can tell you form experience that when you have that, you don’t kneel or genuflect. On your other issue, it is good to keep in mind that the Church in the U.S. is a very small part (about 6%) of the Catholic population. We are a Southern Hemisphere church, so we should expect Southern approaches from our leadership. At least, that explains some of the approaches to tradition.
We are the Universal Church, Bob One. Not a “Southern Hemisphere” Church.
Well, “We” are not a universal Church, if you are SSPX. You have willingly removed yourself from the Universal Church.
You are misinformed, Anonymous, as those Catholics who attend Society chapels are indeed part of the Universal Church. They merely attend Society Chapels.
You may, of course, wax ridiculous attempting to lay charges against the Society itself (that is the priests therein), but the truth of the matter will speak for itself in time. In the interim, to declare such as you have is beyond your ken.
Sorry, but your beloved SSPX has no legal ministry in the Church, try as they might. Unless they accept the doctrine/dogmas of the Second Vatican Council, which are not new, but a re-articulation of the perennial teachings of the Church, they remain outside the visible boundaries of the Church. You see AMalley, the Church has its own problem with illegals. The Holy See has been trying to figure out how to give them amnesty. It’s hilarious.
Ann, you are correct, we are a universal church. Catholic means universal. So, that means that the practices of the southern and northern, east and west tend to be amalgamated. While the Mass may be the same over the world, the small “t” traditions are very different, often. Attend an African-American Sunday service, and you will see different gestures, hear different music, spend longer in prayer, etc. Attend Mass in the mountains of Mexico, Central America etc. and it will be different. Go to Africa and see the differences between north, central and south.
Dear jon. Illegals? Amnesty? Sorry, but it is rather the case that the Church–thanks to Churchmen–is faced with how to explain castigating those who uphold her teachings without the pastoral blanket of pretending they no longer apply.
Thank you for your response, Bob One. But universal did not previously mean amalgamated local customs. The Universal Church is the term used to indicate the world wide assembly.
You have to admit the fact AMalley, that contrary to your statement, objectively, in the judgement of the Holy Fathers John Paul II, Benedict, Francis, and all of the bishops of the Church, your beloved SSPX does not in fact uphold the teachings of the Church. Sounds shocking, but there it is. Because they refuse to recognize Vatican II, which did not articulate any new doctrine, but merely RESTATED the ancient teachings of the Church, your beloved SSPX is outside the visible boundaries of the Church. The Magisterium does insist the teachings of the Church apply, but the SSPX disobey. Plain and simple.
Objectively speaking, jon, there is no institution called “Your Beloved SSPX”. You’re letting your animosity show like a dirty slip. That said “in the judgement of” is what you seem to not understand. Perhaps that is why you overstep yourself.
Vatican II presents novelties of a pastoral bent. It is the novelties that are treated as such and, as prudence requires, avoided in lieu of clear, Catholic teaching. That which is part of tradition. (Guess that’s why it was dubbed a pastoral council;^)
So, much like with this situation of the dubia being ignored, we can discern the truth from the deafening silence. AL, just like V2, floats that which is intended to be interpreted however. Not clearly. Plain and simple.
Vatican II presents no “novelties of a pastoral bent” or anything. This is a myth advanced by your beloved SSPX. It is not part of tradition to disobey and dissent from the Magisterium: just that fact alone renders the moral position of the SSPX as “traditionalists” wobbly and weak! If we are to believe the SSPX’s point that the objection to Vatican II is from the Declaration on Religious Freedom when it said that Muslims worship the “one true God” then the SSPX has no moral integrity because the Declaration SAYS NOTHING OF THE SORT! Let’s be honest folks, one only has to follow the $$ to know what is fueling their dissent. Why be under the financial umbrella and oversight of the Holy See, when they can continue as they are…
amassing all this contribution from people they have duped? Aren’t they building a big new seminary the US after all? I pity the poor Catholics who think they are getting the real deal by attaching themselves to this group. And I am glad that Pope Benedict freed the Traditional Mass, the Extraordinary Form, from the clutches of the SSPX, and making it allowable for diocesan and other clergy to offer it These SSPX dissenters should have no monopoly on what is traditional, for they betray the essential meaning of the word by their dissent. Straight up.
Again with the “beloved” hyperbole.
Yes, there is a new seminary. Thank God for there is great need of it to respond to the increase in priestly vocations.
I’m also glad for BXVI’s summorum pontificum. That document was needed for priests and faithful to overcome the facade that the TLM was abrogated. It wasn’t.
Perhaps you should give thanks for the SSPX for being the vehicle God chose to bring about the revelation of that truth. It was always there.
Straight up. You need help. I hope you get some.
jon are you a follower of Christ? Or a follower of your own insane ideas? The Pope has travelled to different lands, greeting Orthodox churches not in communion with Rome. He always extends Christian LOVE and hospitality, to all! Like me, he can attend their Eucharistic liturgies- but refrain from Communion! That is what I do, jon– including, with the SSPX!! (Except, now, we can participate with the SSPX, in the Sacrament of Confession!) Can’t YOU try to be POLITE, and EXTEND CHRIST’S LOVE to fellow Christians, like the Pope?? Try to imitate him!
I also have been to traditional, old-fashioned Anglican churches, for special occasions— and enjoyed their lovely old Eucharistic liturgy, and nice people– without participating in Communion! Also, I have been invited by enthusiastic Eastern Catholics, in communion with Rome– to try their Sacrament of Confession– very different than ours!– and some Roman Catholics like it a lot! So far though, I have only attended their Divine Liturgy, and was allowed to take Communion, as they are in full communion with Rome. Try making friends with other Christians, jon! And BE CHRIST-LIKE to them!
It is an act of service to my fellow Catholics by letting them know that a service offered by your beloved SSPX is illicit and illegal. The truth always hurts, LM and AM. The Truth always hurts: it is not always “nice-sounding” and “sugary” because the truth is a two-edged sword.
jon, everyone in the world knows the situation of the SSPX and the Vatican. Most understand it from a far more mature point of view! You should stop pretending to be a self-appointed fake Catholic lay leader!
LM, most Catholics haven’t even heard of your beloved SSPX, so how can you say that “everyone in the world knows the situation of the SSPX and the Vatican”? The mature understanding of the situation is that this outfit disobeys the Magsterium. Plain and simple.
(Part Deux) “. . . faithful. Time to stand up and declare your allegiance.
Today Nov. 18 is the Feast of the Dedications of the Basilicas of SS Peter and Paul. Now an almost entirely overlooked feast, Dom Gaspar Lefebvre OSB (d. 1966) wrote of the importance of these feasts in linking the tradition of the two major apostles with the Christ’s apostolic commission.
Due essentially to highly influential rationalist skeptics like Raymond Brown, SS (in scripture) and Annibale Bugnini, CM (in liturgy), many Catholics today believe the present liturgy and tradition was “created” long after Christ’s death (it isn’t clear Raymond Brown even believed in an actual resurrection: read “The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection” (1972). Oh: he also expresses doubt about a real virginal conception of the BV…
By contrast with this mistaken viewpoint (of Raymond Brown and A. Bugnini), the unbroken tradition of the Latin Rite is shown in these feasts: each church was built over the now-archaeologically confirmed tombs and burial sites of the two martyred apostles; each saint was martyred during the Neronian persecution (ca. AD 64-68); each authored epistles during their last days in Rome, esp. confirmed by Luke in Acts (esp. Ch. 20-28, which covers these 30 or so years from Christ’s Ascension and from Pentecost, to the point in their martyrdom.
Others have noted on this site previously that powerfully persuasive early tradition confirms that S. Peter was first in Rome ca. 48-50 AD, prior to S. Paul, and was celebrating the essential traditional rite that later developed into what we know as the Traditional Latin Mass.
This Mass was celebrated at the House of Pudens, the Roman senator and father of SS. Pudentiana and Praessede. Santa Pudentiana is considered to be the earliest continuous church and church-site in Rome.
That edifice (now replaced by a “later” church from about the 4th century, so early is this site) was actually the residence of the popes until the Constantinian era, confirming the first pontiff’s presence linked to this site.
Why this matters on Nov 18th, is that our nearly-lost tradition of continuity, which has been battered by a pervasive skepticism of the last recent decades, continues to throttle Catholics’ faith and thinking.
They (like Notre Dame University’s theology department) believe a “Syro-Greek original Mass” preceded the Latin Mass somehow, even though absolutely no primary evidence survives—a text, or a primary witness, or even a Missal—and yet these same arguments are used against the TLM, that has abundant evidence (S. Ambrose), and at least a sacramentary (such as the Gelasian or Leonine sacramentaries ca 500-600 AD)
Nov. 18th, Dedication of SS Peter and Paul is a reminder of this unbroken tradition.
Justin K. this is one reason why I think both the Traditional Latin Mass (Extraordinary Mass) and the newer one (Ordinary Mass) are needed — one to honor the older saints and history, and one that includes the newer more modern ones. Also, there is more of the Holy Bible covered in the newer mass from what I was told by a priest who serves both masses. When the sermons are good, the newer mass helps convert interested non Catholics and some cradle Catholics who really do not understand Holy Scriptures as it was first written,
If the TLM were actually the “original” Mass, don’t you think our most ancient documents would have more of it included? The Didache, for example, has a Eucharistic prayer that is not at all like the TLM. Church Fathers like St Ignatius, were beginning to formulate what we now know of as a theology of the Eucharist, yet there are few fragments there either.
In the modern Catholic Church, things keep getting curioser and curioser.
I am very worried about the four brave cardinals! Could the Pope do something very painfully harmful to them, I wonder?? He is very, very strong, in his liberal beliefs! He seems to be seeking to re-make the Church, according to his own personal, liberal beliefs, contrary to Church teaching! It is a big worry!
I am also very worried about Archbishop Chaput! What will be his fate? He is a very good prelate! I feel so badly for what is currently happening, with the Pope and his liberal Vatican prelates, in regards to the Sacrament of Marriage, and “Amoris Laetitia!” A big worry! A CATASTROPHE!!
Don’t worry; be happy!
roberto vicente— there is a lot that mature Catholics worry about today! At Mass today, you would no doubt have been EXTREMELY DISTURBED at the excellent sermon of the priest, as he gave his concerns in a very dynamic, honest, mature, and heartfelt manner! He was EXCELLENT!! You should learn to sit down and LISTEN to others, and learn to ACCEPT them, with GOOD MANNERS!! Including other Catholic posters, and including your priests, at the church! It is CHRIST-LIKE and MATURE– to ACCEPT OTHERS with GOOD MANNERS!
Linda Maria—- Don’t worry!! Be happy!! [and please explain to me how these words fail to demonstrate good manners!!]
Another worthless reply from roberto vicente.
“Another worthless reply”?? I guess one good deed deserves another. Don’t worry. Be happy.
Papal documents must take into account the dogmatic and practical tradition that has gone before if they are to be at a level requiring obedience. AL gives some commentary on various issues might be opinion, and in it’s footnotes leave ambiguity which will allow for multiple interpretations among clerics and lay people. In their service to the church some cardinals express their doubts in the classic form of ad dubia which the Holy Father can clear up so that his teaching will conform to the truth of the ages for all Catholics and the world she hopes to convert.
But he refuses to do it.
Why do you suppose that the SSPX is growing? Could it be that there is a hunger for true worship and the certainty of the ancient Church? Sadly, so many have no knowledge of the sheer majesty of the TLM. Now we have discord and confusion at the highest levels and lack of steadfast Catholic teaching from our Bishops. The SSPX and others fill a deep need and rather than being a museum piece, are continuing a vibrant Catholic Tradition, a Catholic island in a troubled sea. Viva SSPX!
The Pew study is a good study. Although it deals with religious faith in its entierety, and the numbers quoted above are not specific to the catholic exodus, the study itself (not the press release/news item which is what the link) actually does break out catholic numbers, and yes that “litany” that I quoted is well documented there.
Not true at all. The link given above shows the original Pew Study charts and breakdown.
Your reasons, (excepting 18% citing “clergy abuse”) no where appear. I read Justin’s link and also checked the original study at the Pew site.
Yes, hosemonkey “viva SSPX!” It is rumored that the Pope may accept the SSPX into full communion, on Monday, Nov. 22nd, at the end of the Holy Year of Mercy! Hope this will truly come to pass, and hope all will be well!
Well, today the Pope continued the faculties of the SSPX priests to hear confessions, beyond the closing of the Holy Year. Very good! Since the Pope approves them for this most holy Sacrament, and the Vatican is working together with them for full communion– I will go to them, for Confession, and also leave a nice donation for their new seminary! Next, I suppose the Pope will grant them faculties to say the Tridentine Latin Mass, conduct Catholic weddings and funerals, give Extreme Unction (or, the Sacrament of the Sick), etc. Lots of Sacraments need to be accepted by Rome, so that these priests may fully serve Catholics– not just Confession!
I bet very few Catholics raised by their parents in SSPX chapels, commit sexual sins, nor have abortions!
A Catholic can attend Eucharistic liturgies of churches not in communion with Rome– (just as the Pope does!)– such as the Orthodox churches, the SSPX, and others– and yet, refrain from Communion! Also, I have enjoyed, in the past, attending old-fashioned Anglican Eucharistic liturgies, for special occasions– while refraining from aking Communion. (I am referring to the old-fashioned Anglicans, with their lovely Book of Common Prayer, male-only ministers/priests, Traditional Christian Marriages only, etc.). Very nice! And lots of lovely friendships, too!
Sorry for the typo, in my above post, on the sixth line– it should read, “…refraining from taking Communion.” Anyway, it is a good educational experience, to share with other Christians in this way, and for them to come to our Roman Catholic Masses, too! It does not matter, if we each refrain from taking Communion, at each other’s Mass, or liturgy! And how nice– the Pope now allows the SSPX priests, for all of us, for the Sacrament of Confession! I plan to follow up on that, as I think the SSPX priests are good! Actually, I like all of the Orthodox, and similar churches to ours! All are good!
Our Lady of Akita, Japan, warned us that cardinals would be against cardinals and bishops against bishops. Pope Francis has promoted the Novena of Our Lady Undoer of knots. Our Lady never instructed the children at Fatima to confusingly change or Undo Christ’s clear teachings. Our Lady never publicly insulted the heartfelt gifts of sacrifice, penance, and offering of many rosaries for the salvation of poor souls. In fact, Mary requested that the children pray many rosaries, so how could this ever be mocked and viewed as empty numbered acts or gestures? The altar boy in the video below was not being “rigid.” He was being reverent!
Pope Francis and the Altar Boy https://youtu.be/2QgP0YaOLT4
continued…..
Matthew 19-13-14 Then were little children presented to him, that he should impose hands upon them and pray. And the disciples rebuked them. [14]But Jesus said to them: Suffer the little children, and forbid them not to come to me: for the kingdom of heaven is for such. [15] And when he had imposed hands upon them, he departed from thence. -Douay-Rheims
Pray the rosary and ask Our Lady, Undoer of knots, to please intercede on her children’s behalf to stop those powers, that are rushing in all the faster, to fill in for Hillary’s failed mission in breaking down “rigid” structures, or religious ideals that people ” cling to. Tearing down, clear, Church Teaching, with walls of confusion.
To the idiots who doubt, it looks like the SSPX “reconciliation” may happen very soon, if not tomorrow (MON). Francis — as any creature — may be called to be an instrument of God’s will and it looks like he will be doing something right and valuable for all believing Catholics. No, “jon,” it does not matter at all if the SSPX agrees with all the VII stuff (a significant amount of which is newly formed, by the way, not in keeping with Catholic Tradition).
The sole future problem is whether Francis and his minions will attempt to strong arm the Society into accepting Zombie-Liberal liturgy, newly translated sacraments and prayers, or other things (such as stealing property, or seeking to infiltrate the SSPX organization with…
(Part Deux) ” . . . Francis-Provocateurs who would then “demand” that SSPX resources be used to also advance VII liturgies and redefined sacraments and prayers. Just think of the Franciscans of the Immaculate.
Good news likely coming. But Traditionalists need to be ever vigilant for the loss of what seemed to be gained. Recall Ben Franklin who, when asked what kind of government America now had, answered, “a Republic, if you can keep it.” Of course, we have the Holy Ghost to help.
Ironic but isn’t this pope RIGID about his views/opinions/lamentations? And he has openly & unfairly attacked the TLM folks more then once. But he doesn’t seem to like it (gets livid) when anyone disagrees with him. That’s a dictator!
Some folks say he means well but something gets lost in the translation. But why then does confusion, explanations and discord follow many of his thoughts, words & actions for years now?
What did Pope Francis say?
Remarrieds can receive communion.
Cohabiting couples can go at it and recive.
Married Gays can sodomize and communicate.
He did not say those things, Gratias. You didn’t even read the document, did you?
Your Fellow Catholic– where have you been? Why your silly posts? Don’t you know that the last few years, many churches, in America and worldwide– have held Rosaries, Holy Hours, and other religious devotions, to ask God’s help, for this Pope and his prelates, due to the evils of the Synod on the Family, and subsequent “Amoris Laetitia??” Don’t you know this, “Fellow Catholic??” Well??
Linda Maria,
This is a Catholic site. Nobody wants to know where YF(ake)C has been.
Linda Maria— Christ promised that He would be with His Church until the end of time. Do you DISBELIEVE His promise?? If you do believe Him, what’s with all this hysterical chatter you post? Have faith. DON’T WORRY; BE HAPPY !!!
Linda Maria, I have been reading the document. Which is the silliest – not reading it and then telling lies about what it says, reading it and letting others know when lies are being told about it, or telling people who read it that they are making silly posts. Who is being silly?
Okay, some of you wanted an example of what concerns many people. Amoris Laetitia starts out beautifully, but by Chapter Eight there are writings that seem to uncut what was said in the previous chapters or Church teaching. Here is one in #297, pg. 189, Our Sunday Visitor Press: “No one can be condemned forever, because that is not the logic of the Gospel! Here I am not speaking only of the divorced and remarried but of everyone, in whatever situation they find themselves. Naturally, if someone flaunts an object sin as if it were part (to be continued)
(Cont.) part of the Christian ideal, or wants to impose something other than what the Church teaches, he or she can in no way presume to teach or preach to others; this is a case of something which separates from the community.” And the paragraph goes on.
Not in that whole paragraph does Pope Francis explain what he means by “No one can be condemned forever.” It gives the impression that he could be denying the existence of hell. It needs to be explained. Perhaps it is a poor translation, but it needs to be explained or corrected.