First of six-part series begins today at Mission Viejo parish

The first in a six-part series entitled “The Documents of Vatican II — A Retrospective” was scheduled to begin this morning at St. Kilian Parish in Mission Viejo.

“Take the path back to the church of 1962, revisit the events, personalities and teaching that shaped and renewed a ‘people of God,’” says a flyer announcing the series. “We will visit yesterday to understand and recognize today’s mission… to be a disciple of Jesus Christ.” 

Today’s session was scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. and end at noon, with additional sessions — all on Thursdays and with the same starting and ending times — planned for Jan. 26, Feb. 2, Feb. 9, Feb. 16 and Feb. 23.

The cost to attend the sessions is $10 per week or $40 for the entire series.

The Vatican II retrospective is co-sponsored by St. Kilian’s Office of Adult Faith Formation and the Institute of Pastoral Ministry of the Diocese of Orange.

“This series is being offered for whole community catechesis and adult faith formation,” according to the promotional flyer.

The instructor for the series is Dr. Kathy Schinhofen, associate director of Faith Formation for the Diocese of Orange.

Other than to note her position with the diocese, neither the diocesan website announcement nor the flyer promoting the event provides any additional biographical information about Schinhofen.



Posted Thursday, January 19, 2012 5:36 AM By Canisius
Gee maybe these geniuses can finally figure out the entire thing has been a complete failure

Posted Thursday, January 19, 2012 6:37 AM By St. Christopher
Very dangerous — this could be little more than a rubber stamping of theological mis-application of Vatican II. So many clergy, particularly in CA it seems, understand Vatican II as a complete rupture, the beginnings of a “New Church”. This introductory language sounds much like it will go in that direction. Not surprisingly, such conferences often are followed by more calls for yet more “renewal” including (1) recognition of homosexual relationships and marriage, (2) married clergy, (3) women priests, (4) divorced and not annulled receiving Communion, and all the rest of the general foolishness attributed to the “Spirit of Vatican II”. The liberals remain in battle-mode wanting to continue its destruction of what remains of the true Church. So curious, as well, that such a “retrospective” comes from the Diocese of Orange, hardly a bastion of much that is Catholic, in any orthodox sense. And, finally, such “retrospective” will have a decidedly feminine touch, as so much of the post-Vatican II Church now does. Great series by Michael Voris on the topic of rediscovering and recapturing the masculine in the Church, which more and more has been taken over by a feminized clergy, a feminine liturgy, and a full retreat from religious confrontation, which was a hallmark of the Catholic Church throughout the ages. Where are the Crusaders now? This topic will surely not be among those discussed by Dr. Kathy Schinhofen.

Posted Thursday, January 19, 2012 8:47 AM By goodcause
It’s wonderful to see Vatican II so prominently focused to the faithful. We must all pray that the Holy Spirit will engage the laity to become the people of God we ought to be.

Posted Thursday, January 19, 2012 9:07 AM By MIKE
Knowing what Vatican II really taught, rather than what people have been incorrectly “told” and therefore incorrectly “believe” is very important to fix the rupture. Many things have been done over the last 40+ years that had nothing to do with Vatican II. The USCCB asked for indults (permission to make changes) which were not part of Vatican II. No one at the Vatican gave permission to remove altar rails and kneelers, etc. For all those interested in the truth, read: VATICAN II DOCUMENTS, Vol 1 & 2. Also read Cardinal Ratzinger’s (Pope Benedict) statements in the “RATZINGER REPORT” – “..the interpretations of those documents which have led to many abuses in the post-conciliar period” and “we must remain faithful to the today of the Church, not the yesterday or tomorrow. And this today of the Church is the documents of Vatican II, without reservations that amputate them and without arbitrariness that distorts them.”

Posted Thursday, January 19, 2012 9:52 AM By rosaryfixer
Not much hope for this series if this Sister is leading it. MIKE is correct-Vatican II was hijacked. There was a joke circulating on the web years ago about Bl. John XXIII who died and went to heaven. St. Peter could not find his name in the “Book of Life” and neither could others as he was passed up to the next in line (St. Michael, etc.) Finally he go to the Holy Spirit, who checked when the Pope told him that he had called Vatican Council II for all the world’s bishops to meet. The Holy Spirit said, “Oh, now I remember, I was supposed to show up at that!” Well, He was present obviously, but human intervention derailed much of what was intended. I believe the 3rd edition of the Roman Missal is a giant step in the right direction, back to reverence in the Holy Mass, which enables us to focus on praising and worshiping the Trinity, using either Latin or English Chant instead of “feel good about myself” songs that have dominated the liturgy for 4 decades.

Posted Thursday, January 19, 2012 10:03 AM By MJ
With all due respect St. Christopher I find your statement that “So curious, as well, that such a “retrospective” comes from the Diocese of Orange, hardly a bastion of much that is Catholic, in any orthodox sense” generally offensive to charity and especially offensive to your fellow Catholics. As someone who is in Faith Formation in the Diocese I can tell you that 1) the Diocese is very ‘Catholic’ with an active lay community and secular/religious priests and 2) the Diocese understands an empowered laity means neither heterodoxy nor liturgical abuse. Amen goodcause, in this modern age the future of the Church must be shepherded by a well-catechized and intelligent laity that work in sync with the clergy and religious. We have only to look at the de-Christianization of Europe to see what happens when the laity is marginalized. And no, I don’t believe the answer is to join Sedevacantist movements ‘in the woods’ or to abandon society for compound-esque communities along the lines of ‘the Church will be smaller, but holier’, according to whose definition? A handful of self-appointed defenders of Catholicism who would rather enforce their own paradigm than build up the Kingdom of God.

Posted Thursday, January 19, 2012 10:18 AM By Canisius
@goodcause can you with all honesty say that the results of Vatican II has been a good thing for the Church. @ Mike you are right, however its way too late, its time to start over admit the failure that it is, scap it and finally drive a stake through the heart of “spirit of Vatican 2”

Posted Thursday, January 19, 2012 10:37 AM By Peggy
Interesting that I can find NO information on Dr. Kathy Shinhofen.

Posted Thursday, January 19, 2012 11:33 AM By pete
Overall the documents of Vat II are a good contribution to the ordinary magisterium of the Church; but there ARE SPECIFIC passages in certain documents that are AMBIGUOUS, ie, that can be taken in Catholic sense or in another non-Catholic meaning; even as to FACTS. Eg. in a passage yesterday for the Office of Readings, there is the statement: “God’s plan of salvation embraces tose who ackonwledge the Creator. Among these are especially the Mohammedans; [that is a very correct term] they profess thier faith as the faith of Abraham, and with us they worship the one, merciful God who will ljudge men on the last day.” This can be understood erroneously that they have the SAME UNDERSTANDING as Abraham [patenly FALSE] or that they THINK they have the same faith as Abraham [patently TRUE]. This type of ambiguity is the source IN THE DOCUMENT and is a contributing cause for the confusion of the post Vat II interpretations and an alien, anti-Catholic spirit — Paul VI’s private statement, I believe. It is false because the Mohammedans [followers of Mohommad] think of the Creator as MASTER AND DEFINITELY NOT AS FATHER TO HIS PEOPLE, WHICH THEY FIND BLASPHEMOUS.

Posted Thursday, January 19, 2012 11:47 AM By Clinton
I totally agree with MIKE. Vatican II did not call for the overwhelming amount of changes that has taken place since the end of the council. What has happened is that liberals within the Church have used it as an excuse to do away with Catholic tradition in such a fervor not seen since the Protestant Reformation. The result is a Church Militant that would be unrecognizable to the faithful of 75-100 years ago. I pray the Holy Father is able to restore the true Catholic Faith. +JMJ+

Posted Thursday, January 19, 2012 12:27 PM By Paul
How nice to see that Catholic dissent is alive and well. Did you ever notice how we Catholics can discuss among ourselves disagree about many things and still remain faithful to our Catholic Faith. If nothing else, Vatican II has taught us that our Unity in Christ through His Church is our salvation.

Posted Thursday, January 19, 2012 12:34 PM By Catherine
St. Killian’s Church has held other functions that were very very confusing to Catholics. A Catholic priest celebrated Mass and then right after Mass this same priest went outside into the St. Killian’s courtyard and became the best man for a man who was then married by a Justice of the Peace. The man was getting married for the second time and the same Catholic priest who took off his vestments to come out into the courtyard to be the best man, was the same priest who officiated the man’s first marriage in the Catholic Church. Bishop Brown was notified of this and the priest wrote a letter of apology. Why did St. Killian’s allow this? This is certainly not Vatican II but now many Catholics who attended certainly think so.

Posted Thursday, January 19, 2012 1:28 PM By k
Peggy, all the information I could find is that her doctorate is a doctor of ministry. She speaks or leads educational events like this. There was one reference to her being a wonderful speaker. She may just be a person who does her job quietly and well.

Posted Thursday, January 19, 2012 2:32 PM By Traditional Angelo
Since the Council there has been nothing but useless talk. Its time to talk about the real Vatican ll. Like for example, where the Council clearly states that kneeling for Communion is THE NORM and standing is a mere limited exception. Also the call for Religious to REFORM by returning to the Spirit of their Founders. Because instead, Religious completely abolished the Spirit of their Founders (disastorous error if there ever was one). Stop all the hidious false opinions that are presented as facts ( and are heretical) of Vatican Council ll.

Posted Thursday, January 19, 2012 2:58 PM By St. Christopher
“MJ”: Your post suggests much that is indeed wrong with the Catholic Church, particularly in O.C. To begin, your sense of an “empowered laity’ is one of the foundations of the theft of true Catholicism. Catholics have always been “empowered” to call “Abba” and to pray to our Holy Mother for aid and comfort. The faithful have always had the true Mass of All Time, the same Mass said by virtually all of the saints, with elements that transcend history to the virtual time of the apostles. An “empowered laity,” in the sense that you use it, only means one thing — seeking to take power away from the priest and somehow bestow it on those that have no power beyond what the generous Christ originally granted to all Catholic Christians. And, tell us all, what are “secular/religious priests”? Again, the answer must be a priesthood that is pushed to the back of the sacristy (by your “empowered laity”), forced to say a garbled, feminized liturgy (that is only now, in some ways only, beginning to show its true patrimony with the important language changes to the N.O. Mass), and that is somehow, now, expected by the bishop of Orange, to be a “secular” man, as well as a priest. Current literature is full of examples of this very error in priestly formation: a priest is called to holiness, to lead all toward salvation; a secular priest is a pagan, a true contradiction to his essential nature. Unfortunately, many, many Catholics have been “catechized” to believe that the version of laity and clergy that you suggest is the new norm. Someone might fervently pray to the god of a tree, or a river, but this does not make such a god real. True Catholics demand that their priests be holy, and be apart from all, so that they assume the heavy burden that Christ has given to them. It is not time for communitarian Catholicism.

Posted Thursday, January 19, 2012 4:10 PM By Sue in soCal
“Kathleen Schinhofen, DMin has enjoyed a long history of ministry. She has worked nationally and ecumenically as an educator, consultant, counselor and facilitator. For many years she has provided pastoral counseling training for Deacon Candidates of the Diocese of Orange and has supported the work of the Spiritual Direction Program at Mt. St. Mary’s College in Los Angeles, and the Spiritual Direction formation program at the Center for Spiritual Development in Orange. She holds a B.A. in History, Master of Ministry and a Doctor of Ministry in Pastoral Counseling. Currently, Kathy is the Associate Director of Faith Formation for the Diocese of Orange. She continues to offer pastoral counseling and spiritual direction as time allows.” From LMU Center for Spiritual Development site.

Posted Thursday, January 19, 2012 5:57 PM By MJ
St. Christopher. Friend, first of all, in saying ‘secular/religious priests’ I meant secular priests (i.e. Diocesan priests) and religious priests (those with Holy Orders belonging to religious orders, specifically in Orange County the Franciscans and the Norbertines or Premonstratensians—a very traditional order I suspect, you would respect immensely). In Orange County we are blessed to have both orders, and both are awesome orders indeed, each with their own charism. Myself, God willing, I shall be applying in the Diocese to the Diocesan or ‘Secular’ Priesthood, and have found Bishop Brown to be, very sadly, much maligned by people who do not know him. Second, an ‘empowered’ laity by no means equates a disempowered priesthood. In fact the two should both be fully empowered to do those tasks to which they are called by Our Lord and should not do duties outside their vocations. However, I think it is a wonderful development, and a development brought about largely due to the Second Vatican Council, that women are able to participate in the Mass as lectors and communion ministers etc. And no, I don’t support the so-called ‘womenpriest’ movement AT ALL. Lastly, my friend, I don’t know how you call a secular a.k.a. Diocesan priest a ‘pagan’, I suspect here we are fighting over semantics. At least, I hope we are. I will close by saying just as I , God willing, will always be able to refute heresy from the ‘left’, so to speak, by the ‘womenpriests’ and pro same sex marriage crowd, so to will I always be able to refute heresy from the ‘right’, by the Sedevacantists (SSPV and before long SSPX I suspect). God bless you sir, and I ask for your prayers for our bishop, our priests, and our Holy Father…and, if you have time, for me.

Posted Thursday, January 19, 2012 6:38 PM By MacDonald
Well…reading all these postings, it seems pretty clear everyone is really looking forward to this with happy and open hearts! [Or perhaps not…]

Posted Thursday, January 19, 2012 7:44 PM By vpmary
Oh no, as I read the last post (4;10) of Sue in soCal, the phrase “Center for Spiritual Development in Orange” jumps out at me. This folks is a bastion of liberal catholicism in the Diocese I happen to live in. Take a minute to look at the retreats, seminars they offer. This is not a good sign and does not bode well for authentic Catholic teaching to be demonstrated at this “Vatican II” series.

Posted Friday, January 20, 2012 6:20 AM By JLS
Cheaper than going to the mall and being talked into buying lots of stuff, and possibly as thrilling.

Posted Friday, January 20, 2012 8:52 AM By Fr. Richard Perozich
Pope Benedict XVI stated a few years ago that Catholics need to understand the letter of Vatican II and drop the idea of the spirit which is merely a personal interpretation of the document. Revisiting the actual words and suppressing one’s own personal interpretation of the event out of context would help Catholics in their faith.

Posted Friday, January 20, 2012 10:04 AM By MIKE
I wish you all could read the words of Cardinal Ratzinger in the “RATZINGER REPORT” to get everything accurately in proper perspective. It is very important so that we do not participate in heresy or schism (CCC 2089). Here are a couple of quotes: “…all Catholics who wish to remain such, is certainly not to turn back but, rather, to return to the authentic tests of the original Vatican II”. “…to defend the true tradition of the Church today means to defend the Council. It is also our fault if we have at times provided a pretext (to the ‘right’ and ‘left” alike) to view Vatican II as a ‘break’ and an abandonment of the tradition.” He goes on to explain: “This SCHISMATISM of a before and after in the history of the Church, wholly unjustifed by the documents of Vatican II, which do nothing but reaffirm the continuity of Catholicism , must be decidely opposed. There is no ‘pre’ or ‘post-‘ conciliar Church: there is but one, unique Church that walks the path toward the Lord….”.

Posted Friday, January 20, 2012 10:25 AM By MIKE
Please read the quotes from the Ratzinger Report in both of my posts above. Let us remember not to criticize our Pope (Cardinal Ratzinger). Here is another quote – “…it must be stated that Vatican II is upheld by the same authority as Vatican I and the Coucnil of Trent, namely the Pope and the College of Bishops in communion with him, and that also with regard to its contents Vatican II is in the strictest continuity with both previous councils and incorporates their texts word for word in decisive points.” “Whoever denies Vatican II denies the authority that upholds the other two councils and thereby detaches them from their foundation. And this applies to the so-called ‘traditionalism’ also in its extreme forms.” “Every partisan choice destroys the whole (the very history of the Church) which can exist only as an indivisible unity.” IMPORTANT – my posts are not supporting any particular persons or group – except our Dear Pope Benedict and his direction to all Catholics regarding Vatican II itself.

Posted Friday, January 20, 2012 6:46 PM By JLS
MIKE, the same authority upholding Vatican II does not mean that Vatican II holds the same authority as Trent or Vatican One; all the Pope said here was that Vatican II is real. In other words this statement by the Pope does not classify the nature of VII other than that it is a true council.

Posted Friday, January 20, 2012 9:13 PM By Abeca Christian
JLS I am glad that you get that important part of the equation, many keep missing it. It gives me hope that there are many others who get the whole!

Posted Saturday, January 21, 2012 1:51 AM By MIKE
JLS, you are wrong. I don’t have the authority to say that – but Cardinal Ratzinger does in the RATZINGER REPORT. Everything in quotes are his words not mine. In addition, I can not quote the entire book in this space. I encourage everyone to read it. Please do not mince words trying to change his meaning, by your trying to imply that Vatican II does not hold the same authority as the other Councils. However, he does state that there were abuses which had nothing to do with Vatican II. All the Councils hold the same authority, and it is schismatic to say otherwise.

Posted Saturday, January 21, 2012 2:11 AM By MIKE
QUOTE – “We must remain faithful to the today of the Church, not the yesterday or tomorrow. And this today of the Church is the doucments of Vatican II, without reservations that amputate them and without arbitrariness that distorts them”. – Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict) pg 31 – “Ratzinger Report.

Posted Saturday, January 21, 2012 7:15 AM By Larry
JLS–Vatican II holds exactly the same authority as Trent or Vatican I–namely, the authority of the magisterium–the pope and the bishops in union with him. Where does this strange notion come from that there are different degrees of authority contained in different degrees of councils? It’s not in the CCC. It’s not in the Catechism of Trent. There is no official distinction between the “pastoral” and the “doctrinal” council. Those are simply adjectives which describe something about the nature of the council’s work. They have nothing at all to do with its authority. Let’s tell it like it is here: this strange notion is a construct of SSPX and like-minded people who want to justify their rebellion against the Church without having to admit to themselves that they are slipping into schism. But they indeed are!

Posted Saturday, January 21, 2012 10:13 AM By JLS
Let me try to make my point more clear, Larry. The councils are all authoritative, yet each council includes different issues. Vatican II documents are categorically problematic, whereas those of previous councils seem to be clear. It is the problem of interpretation of V2 documents. This problem seems to take the power of interpretation out of the printed word and placed into the hands of bishops and popes: This is Catholic tradition, and the arguments over it, as you say, have to do with authority. I do not follow the SSPX closely and do not have much of a view as to whether it is “slipping away into schism”. At some point perhaps a pope will make it all very clear; however, presently, this does not seem to be the case. I think one thing the SSPX points out in the continuing argument is the question of how to recognize true authority. V2 documents pretty much have shaken up the confidence of countless Catholics in being able to recognize true authority: According to the Book of the Apocalypse, this difficulty will get immeasurably worse … so what we are involved in now could be called a trial run, a practice session for the bigger battle to come.

Posted Saturday, January 21, 2012 11:10 AM By Traditional Angelo
JLS, Recently the SSPX annouced it is rejecting the Doctrinal Preamble offered by Rome. Rome gave a response to the SSPX through L’Osservatore Romano, the Church’s official newspaper. Something really worth noting is what was said about Vatican ll, it is a Council that was a Pastoral Council, no dogmas were defined but the dogmas of the Church were the foundation of the Council. There are things from the Council that can be changed, what is dogmatic cannot be changed, as it comes from Tradition. JLS what you are saying is exactly what I read in Rome’s response to the SSPX. Many of us want what is true and correct. The Council has become a very complex matter. One reason is that there are too many interpretations of it, most of them, misinterpretations. A few years ago Pope Benedict XVl called for the reinterpretation of Vatican ll in light of the Tradition of the Church. Through all the confusion of the past 40 years, we have had and still have too many conflicting voices concerning V2. Some years ago the Holy Father expressed his hope for the theologians of the SSPX to assist in the correct interpretation of the Council, but it seems sadly there are many divisions within the SSPX itself.

Posted Saturday, January 21, 2012 11:27 AM By Traditional Angelo
Mike, What you quoted from the Holy Father shows the great wisdom of this Pope. “without reservations that amputate them and without arbitrariness that distorts them”. Vatican Council ll should be a light in the darkness. Instead it has been amputated with arbitrariness that has distorted what the Council really meant by what was said. I am enthusiastic about what has been suggested by Rome concerning Vatican Council ll. A sort of list detailing what the Council said and meant. And a list clearly pointing out the grave erroneous misinterpretations of V2. I pray God, this is done very soon.

Posted Saturday, January 21, 2012 11:48 AM By Traditional Angelo
Larry, According to Rome, Vatican ll was a Pastoral Council that did not define any dogmas but used the already defined dogmas of the Church as the foundation of the Council. According to Bl. John XXlll the reason for the Council was for Pastoral reasons. It was meant as a wake up call to all Catholics to start or continue living their Catholic faith in Spirit and in Truth. The Church does in fact make a distinction to “pastoral and doctrinal”. Doctrinal as to the defined dogmas of the faith, Pastoral the Church’s call for us to live by the dogmas of the Church. As for Schism, there are 2 kinds, Formal and Material. Since V2 we have all fallen into a material schism many into formal schism both to the left and to the right, you state, “lets tell it like it is here” You and I my friend have in fact fallen into material schism, just like everone else.

Posted Saturday, January 21, 2012 1:56 PM By BETH
TA speak for yourself. We are not all in schism, only those who refuse to follow the Pope and the Magisterium (because their pride tells them they are smarter and know better). Stick to the Bible and the CCC and you will not be in schism as many have been trying to tell others. Jesus gave our Pope the power to loose and bind on earth and in heaven Mt 16:18-19.

Posted Saturday, January 21, 2012 2:01 PM By Larry
Angelo–again, those are adjectives describing the scope of the council’s work. They are not categories which determine whether a certain gathering is a “Class-B” council (meaning if it floats your boat, great, but if not then it’s garbage) or a “Class-A” council (meaning that we must all genuflect and kiss the pages upon which are printed its acta, even while we scorn the Class-B council.) It is in fact an ecumenical council of the world’s bishops, ratified by the pope, which means it is an example of the Infallible Magisterium, and therefore its Acta cannot contain doctrinal or dogmatic error. Whether or not it contains new dogmatic teaching is beside the point. There is nothing optional about Vatican II. It is part of the Church’s infallible teaching authority. And by the way–I understand that technically the First Vatican Council was never formally adjourned, but rather suspended by the political upheavals going on outside the Vatican in 1870. So it may well be that there really is no Vatican I or II–just one continuous Vatican Council which resumed in 1962 after a recess of 92 years. And schism? I don’t believe that either you or I have fallen into schism. Sin, yes, certainly. I went to confession today myself to unload more sins. We all sin. But schism? That is a conscious spirit of insubordination to the pope and/or refusal of communion with those who do submit to him. “Everyone else?” No, I don’t think “everyone else” here is manifestly in schism–or even most people here. I think a few are or are dangerously close, and I’ve been open about it. Everyone? No. What orders of the pope have you declared you will not obey? I don’t recall seeing any. And I?

Posted Saturday, January 21, 2012 2:04 PM By k
Traditional Angelo, why are we in material schism?

Posted Saturday, January 21, 2012 2:07 PM By Dottie
TA, if you do not adhere to the CCC from the Magisterium, you are correct that you have fallen into schism. But don’t try to put us all into your pot. And don’t try to cover up the schismatics that Larry has exposed.

Posted Saturday, January 21, 2012 5:01 PM By Abeca Christian
Thank you Traditional Angelo for saying that Vatican II was a pastoral Council that did not redefine any dogmas. Praise God for those truthful words! That is what JLS is trying to convey as well. I hate it when people assume that the Vatican II documents ignore the wholeness of the church and makes them all void! Vatican II, as I understand it, I grew up in it and still am part of it so I do not know better but praise God he showed me the richness of our faith, was meant to add and to evangelize, but I heard that some protestants where permitted to give them input and that many abuses took place and that the Amchurch was the one who took advantage of self interpretation and they have abused the real purpose of Vatican II. Each council of our church’s time, were created to address certain issues! People that is what Vatican II was trying to do but something not entirely, but a small part went wrong! The people’s wicked ways turned something good into something that our Pope did not intend!

Posted Saturday, January 21, 2012 7:02 PM By JLS
The V2 documents are authoritative in what they say. But what they say is the big mystery. Since it is so unclear as to what they say, then this is why some people question the validity of it … because the documents can be twisted and tweeked without violating their internal coherence: The authority in Vatican II documents depends on the the bishop who interprets them in any given case. Like I’ve said lots of times, Vatican II is exactly what Pope Paul VI said … airing out the Church. The corruption had become so deep that it required some fancy footwork by God to set up the transparency needed to expose the corruption. The process is underway. The Pope said the Church will get smaller and holier … This is what is happening. Canon laws will not fix the Church and they are not designed to fix the Church. The only fix is holiness. Bishops have been ordered to make themselves holy, by the Pope. Canon 915 probably is not going to work, and so God is exposing the corrupt leaders … ie, putting the spotlights on the wolves. As many false leaders have gone their own ways with many souls, so now the false bishops will be going their own ways … but this time they fool many many souls who believe them … too bad because it’s bishopolatry and this is a violation of the first three Commandments regarding idol worship.

Posted Saturday, January 21, 2012 8:36 PM By Kenneth M. Fisher
The last time I was in Rome with Archbishop Khai, I was supposed to meet with then Cardinal Ratzinger, but at the last minute he was called away and sent his personal American Secretary instead, and he told me that there is absolutely nothing in common with the “Spirit of Vatican II” and the real Vatican II. If you read the documents honestly, you will come to that conclusion as well. God bless, yours in Their Hearts, Kenneth M. Fisher

Posted Saturday, January 21, 2012 9:53 PM By JLS
When Moses raised his staff from the top of the hill during the battle, God’s people moved forward; but when Moses got tired and lowered his arm, then the enemy began to triumph. Eventually Moses’ assistants held his arm up and they prevailed. The Church leaders today are tired and the enemy is winning and no one is holding up their arms but rather supplying them with sofas, beer, pretzels and TV.

Posted Saturday, January 21, 2012 9:58 PM By JLS
What Kenneth is recounting is really a critical point to understand. The “spirit of Vatican II” is pushed as the Holy Spirit … This really boils down to blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Guess what happens when a large number of people are led into blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Well, it looks to me like we’re seeing what happens, right? I continue to envision the “airing out of the Church” to be the “spirit of Vatican II” as a wind picking up the corrupt and carrying them out the windows of the Church … a house cleaning.

Posted Saturday, January 21, 2012 11:39 PM By Traditional Angelo
Abeca Christian, JLS, Kenneth M. Fisher, You are the fresh air that Bl. John XXlll opened the windows of the Church for. Deo Gratias!

Posted Sunday, January 22, 2012 12:54 AM By Traditional Angelo
K, There are some who have the mistaken notion that the CCC 2nd Edition nullified all previous Cathecisms. Bl. John Paul ll when approving the New Cathechism made it clear that previous Cathecisms were indispensable. He specificly cited the Cathecism of the Council of Trent. He noted that new developments had arisen that did not exist at the time of the Trenten Catechism ( legalized abortion, bio-ethical ect…). He also noted that the new Cathecism followed the outline of that of Trent. When I wrote of material schism it was from the Baltimore Cathecism according to the Cathecism of Trent. The Cathecism teaches, There is Formal & Material Heresy and Schism. Formal Heresy is when one knows the truth taught by the Church, but rejects it knowingly. Material heresy is when one unknowingly rejects a teaching of the Church and holds to something that is false, material heresy is either a venial sin or no sin at all. Formal & Material Schism is similar. When one rejects union with the Holy Father knowingly, it is called Formal Schism. When one unknowingly is not in union with the Holy Father then it is called Material Schism, which could be a venial sin or no sin at all. The Baltimore Cathecism notes that we have ALL fallen into Material Heresy or Material Schism at one time or another. In other words, we are FALLIBLE, unlike the Holy Father who is INFALLABLE when he teaches on matters of Faith and Morals. We must look to the Pope for the Truth. Formal heresy & schism is always a mortal sin, one incurs excommunication “Latae Sententiae” or also called automatic self excommunication.

Posted Sunday, January 22, 2012 8:19 AM By Larry
“But what they say is the big mystery.” How so?

Posted Sunday, January 22, 2012 12:12 PM By k
Traditional Angelo, I cannot find formal or material in the Baltimore Catechism or the Catechism of Trent or in any other Catholic source. I have found a refernce to formal and material schism in an anglican source. Could you provide a citation? The Baltimore Catechism says (169e) that a person is in schism when he openly refuses submission to church authority, especially the Pope.

Posted Sunday, January 22, 2012 2:06 PM By Larry
Angelo: I’m still not getting your assertion that we all fall into schism from time to time. As far as I can determine from the sources I’ve been checking, schism is the REFUSAL to submit to the Holy Father’s authority–and it’s usually described as an openly defiant act–that is, a public act. A material schismatic would be a Christian such as a Baptist or Lutheran who was brought up in that church and is, therefore, invincibly ignorant of the fact that he OUGHT to obey the Holy Father. A formal schismatic would be someone who should know better. Nonetheless, the one thing all schismatics would have in common, material or formal, is that they all KNOW that they are disobeying the Holy Father–it’s just that they may not all know that God wants them to obey the Holy Father. If you are honestly ignorant of some command of the Holy Father, some command which you WOULD obey if you only knew about it–that is not schism at all–it’s just an honest mistake. I haven’t been able to find any reference that says failure to obey the pope out of non-culpable ignorance constitutes schism. Clearly you can NOT say that we are all schismatics from time to time. We are all sinners. But by no means are we all–or even most of us–schismatics. If you’ve found something that says otherwise, you need to cite chapter and verse and preferably give the quote.

Posted Sunday, January 22, 2012 11:06 PM By Abeca Christian
I remember a few years ago or so more, I was speaking with a very holy and devout priest about how I felt about girls being boy alters. He reassured me that I was not sinning nor was I committing the sin of schism if I didn’t agree with the practice. He said that it was OK for me to look for more traditional parishes where only boys served as alter boys. I felt relieved and this priest took a huge load off my back. He was not the first priest to reassure me. Praise God for His mercy! Sweet sweet mercy!

Posted Sunday, January 22, 2012 11:11 PM By Abeca Christian
God bless you Trad Angelo : )

Posted Monday, January 23, 2012 3:52 AM By OSCAR
Abecca, altar girls has nothing to do with Vatican II or with the teachings of the Church, nor is it in the CCC. The USCCB asked for a special exception (indult), and recieved it. Cardinal Arinze who was one who approved it, also agrees that it was a mistake. I agree with both of you. But it is not a teaching of the Church one way or the other.

Posted Monday, January 23, 2012 3:58 AM By MIKE
TA, here are a few QUOTES (not my or anyone else’s words or interpretations) regarding the “CATECHISM of the CATHOLIC CHURCH, Second Edition” from our Popes. 1). – “ The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved … and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church’s faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the Church’s Magisterium. I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion. “ – Pope John Paul II (pg 5). 2). – “This catechism will thus contain both the new and the old (cf. Mt 13:52), because the faith is always the same yet the source of ever new light.” – Pope John Paul II (pg 4).

Posted Monday, January 23, 2012 4:01 AM By MIKE
More QUOTES from Popes on “CCC 2nd Ed”. 3) – “….the Catechism has raised throughout the world, even among non-Christians, and confirms its purpose of being presented as a full, complete exposition of Catholic doctrine, enabling everyone to know what the Church professes, celebrates, lives, and prays in her daily life.” – Pope John Paul II (pg xiv). 4) – “Through the harmonious and complementary efforts of all the ranks of the People of God, may this Catechism be known and shared by everyone, so that the unity in faith whose supreme model and origin is found in the Unity of the Trinity may be strengthened and extended to the ends of the earth.” – Pope John Paul II (pg xv).

Posted Monday, January 23, 2012 4:06 AM By MIKE
More Quotes: 5) – “The Catechism of the Catholic Church, lastly is offered to every individual who asks us to give an account of the hope that is in us (cf. 1 Pet 3:15) and who wants to know what the Catholic Church believes”. – Pope John Paul II (pg 6). 6) – “In its very structure, the Catechism of the Catholic Church follows the development of the faith right up to the great themes of daily life. On page after page, we find that what is presented here is no theory, but an encounter with a Person who lives within the Church.” “It is in this sense that that the Year of Faith will have to see a concerted effort to rediscover and study the fundamental content of the faith that receives its systematic and organic synthesis in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.” – Pope Benedict XVI (Porta Fidei, Moto Proprio Data 2011, can be found on Vatican web site )

Posted Monday, January 23, 2012 4:17 AM By MIKE
TA, to avoid all SCHISM we must adhere to the “CCC 2nd Ed” in its entirety. Since the CCC is so widely available in the USA there are no excuses for schism or ignorance except in the rare case of someone not knowing of its existance. And there is no excuse for lay people to assume they know better than the teaching office of the Church (Magisterium). 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.”

Posted Monday, January 23, 2012 5:19 AM By Betty
TA – for those with internet access (Vatican web site), and those who know about the existance of the “Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition”, there is almost zero excuse for any kind of SCHISM or ignorance in the USA today. Communication/knowledge is much different today than when the Council of Trent Catechism (yr 1566) was written, and there was some legitimate expectation for a lack of knowledge at that time. CCC: “1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin. In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.” It is schism for non-Magisterium persons to try and use older documents to try to disprove newer documents. The circumstances under which changable documents were written also changes. Some things can be changed, others can not. It is not the decision of any of us to determine this. With rare exception, it is the full responsibility of the indivdual to read the “CCC 2nd Ed”; we will all be held responsible by God if we do not. And it is our responsibility to promote it. If we read the “CCC 2nd Ed” and adhere to it to the best our ability we will not commit schism as you have suggested. So please speak only for yourself in regard to schism.

Posted Monday, January 23, 2012 6:14 AM By St. Christopher
“MJ–#2”: I will certainly pray for you as you seek to enter the seminary. The Church needs all the good priests that it can get. But, you will soon need to make an important choice: what kind of priest will I be? I would urge that you admittance to a seminary that will teach you, at the very least: (1) the extraordinary sacraments and Mass — the Church did not begin at Vatican II; (2) Latin (and possibly Greek), consistent with Bl. John XXIII’s Veterum Sapientia (1962), which is ignored by the Church; and (3) the true role of a priest. You statements about women and the laity are confused: all of the involvement that you mention are the results of indults, and represent nothing more than special permissions for certain things. These “permissions” are widely abused and many are asking for their revocation or modification. A priest is someone apart, not a cheerleader, and not a member of the laity. Lead those in your future charge toward salvation, not as a social director but some acting In Persona Christi.

Posted Monday, January 23, 2012 7:36 AM By Traditional Angelo
k, The teaching of the Church on Formal and Material heresy and schism seems like one of those Catholic teachings erroneously done away with by the “Spirit of Vatican ll” bunch. When I was 19 years of age a very good priest put up some of his books for sale. I bought one titled, “This We Believe, By This We Live” It was if not mistaken Baltimore Catechism #4. The priest explained the higher number Baltimore Cathecisms were more advanced, they taught the same as the others but the more advanced ones, went deeper into the teachings of the Church. It was in this book that I read about Formal and Material heresy and schism. I must look for that Cathecism. One thing I found is that it makes perfect sense.

Posted Monday, January 23, 2012 8:18 AM By Traditional Angelo
Larry, I would like to give 2 examples about Material heresy and Schism. Material heresy; My wife is a concrete believer in the indossubility of marriage. She for a long time completly rejected the idea of marriages declared null and void, she rejected that the Church could favoribly in God’s eyes grant annulments. She outright rejected the practice. She now admits she was wrong in rejecting a doctrinal practice of the Church. And she understands that by this she fell into material heresy by unknowingly rejecting a teaching of the Church. And she knows she did not sin, it was love of God and the Sacrament of Matrimony that led her to her rejection of the practice of annulments. On material schism; I myself knew that Pope Paul Vl and Bl. John Paul ll sternly warned against combining the Old Mass with the New. At the Novus Ordo I inserted many parts of the Old Mass and combined it with the NO. I justified myself by believing that these were mere private devotions of my own, and so I did nothing wrong according to my reasoning. I then realized if Paul Vl and Bl. John Paul ll ordered this not to be done, and they warned of it in a most stern manner. Then my practices were an act of disunity with Christs Vicar, which is called Schism. It was Material Schism as it was done out of ignorance. Their was no sin. But I now realize I must obey the Holy Father and be in union with him. My actions were out love for God, but I was wrong in breaking union with Christs Vicar. Thus Material Schism.

Posted Monday, January 23, 2012 8:51 AM By Traditional Angelo
Abeca Christian, I too had a similar experience when it came to Altar Girls. In the 80’s many of us did battle and defended the Church on its prohibition of the use of girls to serve at the Altar. Then suddenly they were allowed. I went to confession and confessed my bitter attitude, Why defend the Church today if she is only going to change her teachings tommorrow? The priest told me that I was not alone, many felt the same way as I. He said, “We must trust in the great wisdom of our Holy Father”. It was about a month later that I began to see what the priest meant. The Pope dropped the bomb, “Ordinatio Sacerdotalis” declaring infallibly that it is God’s divine law that prohibits woman from being ordained to the priesthood. Then reading that in allowing Altar girls the Holy Father left the decision to each individual Bishop for their own respective Dioceses. Then the clarification from Rome that if a priest does not will girls to serve their Masses, they had the right to reject it, and not even his Bishop could overule the priests decision. The liberals argued it was a mandate from the Pope. Traditional minded Catholics shredded their arguments. Thank God, in all the options after V2 we have the option not to accept the use of Altar girls. God Bless you too Abeca!

Posted Monday, January 23, 2012 9:24 AM By Traditional Angelo
Abeca Christian, JLS, Kenneth M. Fisher, and I intended to mention k but forgot to. Sorry about that k. I stated you are the fresh air of the Church for which Bl. John XXlll opened the windows of the Church. The reason I said this was because I have read much of the true reason why Bl. John XXlll opened the Council. And what he meant by, “Opening the windows of the Church to let the fresh air in.” The Holy Father was talking about all out reform! And he was not talking about the removal of the communion rails, nor any other misinterpreted notions about the Reform. His intention was that Catholics revive their already established Catholic Faith. To seek to better understand it and live by it. Of course there were already many Catholics doing what the Holy Father called for. They were sadly the ones most devastated by the misenterpretaions of the Council. You my friends please continue as you are doing, your service to God and the way you are carrying it out, was the very reason V2 was called for. We must revive the real intentions of Vatican Council ll. And dispel all the errors. Benedicamus Domino!

Posted Monday, January 23, 2012 10:01 AM By Traditional Angelo
I have a problem with those who constantly bring up the CCC 2nd Edition as the only Cathecism that is valid.. Of course the New Cathecism is an indespensible tool, a great part of the Magisterium. The problem is with the error that all other Cathecisms are of no value, as if the Church abolished all previous Cathecisms. This sounds so “Spirit of Vatican ll” Catholicism and also so Traditionalism Extremism. I would like to be shown where the Church has abolished every previous Cathecism. Sorry! But this ideology that the CCC 2nd Edition is the only Cathecism that can be used, sounds like Formal Heresy! I will stick to Bl. John Paul ll on this one.

Posted Monday, January 23, 2012 10:43 AM By Larry
Angelo: I’m not sure whether the incidents which you cite in your own life would constitute schism per se. The definition, given both in CCC and in canon #751, does allow some grey area–but the impression I get is that schism involves a public attack upon the pope’s authority which goes further than just private disobedience on one or another point, or grudging/resentful compliance (which would not be schism under any definition.) As far as your disobedience of the rubrics of the Novus Ordo, I think if you had printed up your own mass response sheet incorporating your vision of what the mass ought to be like, and if you had handed out those sheets to other Catholics and acted as a ringleader, urging them to recite your custom-made responses with you at mass instead of the ones prescribed in the missalette–and if you had rejected attempts by your pastor and bishop to correct you and had defied direct orders for you to cease and desist–then I would tend to agree that you might have been guilty of schism. I don’t think what you actually did goes quite far enough to be schism–though you did act improperly. As far as your wife’s attitudes, I think she may have been guilty more of incredulity than heresy, materially at least–but here you’d really need to consult a good priest and take his word, not mine. At any rate, what’s important is that you’ve repented and it’s all in the past. I’m just trying to say that I think you may be a bit harder on yourself than is warranted by the facts.

Posted Monday, January 23, 2012 10:47 AM By JLS
MJ, why don’t you seek out a religious group which is of outstanding and excellent character, faith and practice? Yes, it is difficult and time consuming … so you have to decide the quick path or the right path. God will overcome all obstacles if you persist. And it is this persistence in the Way, the Truth and the Life that the Church needs. You are an individual person and the Church is composed of individual persons. Learn this and you will learn why Bl John Paul II is called The Great, and why in my view he has set the stage for Church / world relations for generations to come, centuries probably. Bl JPII is himself the “small quiet voice of the Lord in the night”.

Posted Monday, January 23, 2012 11:50 AM By Annie
TA, all the important parts of the Catechism of the Council of Trent (of 1566) are incorporated into the “Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition” as well as from all the Councils. Some things can change due to the times for which they were written, other things can not change. Only the Magisterium makes that decision. They were given the power to loose and bind from Jesus. Please think about this.

Posted Monday, January 23, 2012 11:53 AM By Bill Kells
CCC: ” 2089 INCREDULITY is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. HERESY is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same. APOSTACY is the total repudiation of the Christian faith. SCHSIM is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.” Please re-read the quotes from our Pope’s above.

Posted Monday, January 23, 2012 1:40 PM By k
Traditional Angelo, I had no idea there was a Baltimore Catechism 4. I am thrilled to find it online. I do not see the formal/material schism yet. I found where it says a scismatic is someone who believes all that the Church believes but refuses submission to the Roman Pontiff. I can find Catholic references to formal and material heresy, but not formal and material schism, although it is an interesting concept. Thank you for your compliment also, but I do not know that it is deserved. I feel the springtime of Christianity in these dark days of secularism (which Pope John Paul II called the most common form of atheism. Sacred Heart of Jesus, I place all my trust in Thee.

Posted Monday, January 23, 2012 5:51 PM By Traditional Angelo
Larry, What you say about, should I had done this or that then it would have been schism. You are correct, that would have been an act of formal schism on my part. What I wished to point out was an example of material schism. An act of rejecting union with the Holy Father, unkowingly. That is what is meant by the Church by material schism. The example of my wife, was to point out that hers was not an act of formal heresy, but one of material heresy. As she unknowingly rejected a teaching of the Church. To reject a teaching of the Church is heresy, but many times it is not a deliberate act, which is termed material heresy. I believe we both agree on this basic truth. Its just that many no longer know that the Church has official terms for these truths. When reading what k posted one will see she has found a reference to formal and material heresy. So I did’nt make this up.

Posted Monday, January 23, 2012 6:16 PM By Traditional Angelo
Annie, I totaly agree with you. One of the things which Bl. John Paul ll said concerning the need for a new compendium of the Church’s teaching, was that there are new problems the Church faces today that did not exist before. Such as legalized abortion, bio-ethical questions ect…Since the release of the CCC, even graver problems have arisen. Like embryonic stem cell research, cloning, legalized same sex marriage, pedophilia ect… The sole point I was making was that the idea of some that no other Cathecism is valid except the CCC 2nd Edition was and is an erroneous opinion.

Posted Monday, January 23, 2012 9:20 PM By JLS
k, material is the basis for the formal pronouncement. Man robs a bank … material; but not formal until a judge says so.

Posted Monday, January 23, 2012 11:40 PM By Traditional Angelo
JLS, EXCELLANT! I now have a better understanding of why the Church uses Formal vs Material. In my Material schism, if after knowing the absolute truth, I would have refused to give up my error, then by judgment my error would have been Formal. Thanks! God Bless!

Posted Tuesday, January 24, 2012 6:57 PM By JLS
A sin has two dimensions: objective and subjective. A man may commit a sin under conditions that do not impute guilt to him, yet incur injury of some sort to another. Then there is the other dimension where he incurs the guilt. It is better explained in the CCC. My hard copy was not the 2nded but I suppose it is there also. Don’t know where, as I checked it out a while back.

Posted Wednesday, January 25, 2012 2:55 AM By Annie
TA, you misuncdrstood me. Sorry that I did not make myself clear. This is a quote from the Compendium Catechism from the Introduction. “The Compendium is not a work that stands alone, nor is it intended in any way to replace the Catechism of the Catholic Church instead, it refers constantly to the Catechism by means of reference numbers printed in the margins, as well as by constant reliance on its structure, development and contents. In fact, the Compendium is meant to reawaken interest in and enthusiam for the Catechism, which, in the wisdom of its presentation and the depth of its spirituality, always remains the basic text for catechesis in the Church today”.The Compendium is only 204 pages and has nothing new. Smaller catechisms are meant only for those with less understanding, less literacy ability, and age appropriateness. The “CCC 2nd Ed” is “THEE” Catechism and was first published in the USA in March 2000. There is nothing different in the Compendium only less.

Posted Wednesday, January 25, 2012 3:17 AM By D.A.N.
According to the Merrium Webster dictionary – ” NORM: a principle of right action BINDING upon the members of a group and serving to guide, control, or regulate proper and acceptable behavior .” Pope JPII said the CCC is the “NORM” which is binding per definition as well as by Magisterium. Since JESUS gave HIS Church the power to loose and bind on earth and in heaven, the CCC is the book that we all must use regarding Faith and Morals. For those who are literate the ‘CCC 2nd Ed’ is all that we need other than the Bible. When trying to use old Chruch documents to DISPROVE anything in the CCC – that is schismatic – and goes against our Pope and the Magisterium. Remember that when people use old documents that were written for that time in history, historical conditions must be taken into consideration. And remember that when old documents are quoted, accidentally or intentionally they can be interpreted incorrectly. As others have said, all we need is the ‘CCC 2nd Ed’ and a Catholic Bible for the OFFICIAL and ACCURATE requirements of our Faith and Morals in being a good and faithful Catholic.

Posted Wednesday, January 25, 2012 4:43 PM By Christine
Thank you all for your quotes from the CCC and our Popes. Let us follow our Popes and the Magisterium! This is an educational and valuable thread starting with MIKE, Annie and D.A.N. Follow the CCC 2nd Ed and there will be no SCHISM or HERESY.

Posted Thursday, January 26, 2012 5:44 AM By Traditional Angelo
Annie, “The “CCC 2nd ED” is “THEE” Catechism” This is the same kind of talk that comes from the “Spirit of Vatican ll” Catholics and the Sedevantists. Nothing is valid to them except that which they personaly proclaim to be valid. This has led many to confusion and has caused many to go astray. Here are some words of Bl. John Paul ll about the New Cathecism, lets take it for what its worth, “The New Catechism serves the purpose for the creation of Newer Catechisms.” (Thus the Bishops argument that it was not to be used by individuals nor for classroom purposes. Remember that?) “This Catechism does not invalidate other catechisms. The Catechism of the Council of Trent remains an indespensible tool.”. I have lived through a period of the Church that went nutty. I’ve come to recognize dangerous errors when I see them. If the CCC 2nd ED is THEE Catechism, that would mean all the Saints of the Church were deficient in their understanding of God. After all they did not have the CCC 2nd ED. Its like the Spirit of Vatican ll Catholics who held and hold that all Catholics before V2 did not have the Holy Spirit because they did not have V2. The CCC is a great developement. But when error arises, if it is not corrected will only lead to more error. All Catechisms approved by Rome are valid. Regardless!

Posted Thursday, January 26, 2012 9:13 AM By Bruce
Mike your post on Saturday, January 21, 2012 2:11 AM: QUOTE – “We must remain faithful to the today of the Church, not the yesterday or tomorrow. And this today of the Church is the doucments of Vatican II, without reservations that amputate them and without arbitrariness that distorts them”. – Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict) pg 31 – “Ratzinger Report. I find as a Catholic is unbelievable, not mind you, but the man who is looked upon by the world as the Vicar of Christ. I am astonished he could essentially say: We must not remain faithful to the Church of yesterday! That is like pulling the rug, the foundation out from under the Church. That is like starting a totally new Church, which it truly is, a Church founded by men, just like all the protestant denominations, not the Church founded by Jesus Christ. Thank you so very much for bringing this matter via direct quotes before our eyes, especially those who have hopefully no scales or beams in their eyes.

Posted Thursday, January 26, 2012 9:15 AM By Bruce
Mike your post on Saturday, January 21, 2012 2:11 AM: QUOTE – “We must remain faithful to the today of the Church, not the yesterday or tomorrow. And this today of the Church is the doucments of Vatican II, without reservations that amputate them and without arbitrariness that distorts them”. – Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict) pg 31 – “Ratzinger Report. I find as a Catholic is unbelievable, not mind you, but the man who is looked upon by the world as the Vicar of Christ. I am astonished he could essentially say: We must not remain faithful to the Church of yesterday! That is like pulling the rug, the foundation out from under the Church. That is like starting a totally new Church, which it truly is, a Church founded by men, just like all the protestant denominations, not the Church founded by Jesus Christ. Thank you so very much for bringing this matter via direct quotes before our eyes, especially those who have hopefully no scales or beams in their eyes.

Posted Thursday, January 26, 2012 12:01 PM By Doug
Call it what you will, but there is no denying it, Vatican II opened the doors and laid the foundation of change, change that was beyond that dreamt by the once admonished, condemned, and excommunicated rogue liberal minister Martin Luther who could not accept Divine Truth. Go to a Lutheran worship service and see from the eyes of many modern Catholics the surprisingly way the Lutheran’s have out of ecumenical sharing become more Catholic! But go to a Lutheran worship service and see from the eyes of many traditional Catholics the surprisingly way the modern Catholics have out of ecumenical sharing become more Lutheran. The only way to add to the proof to help those who stubbornly refuse is look back into the archives of the Church before Vatican II. A great video is available on Utube:, and it only covers the Holy Mass and the Eucharist, not the other six Holy Sacraments which were also radically changed in prayers and form. Take courage, face truth, watch it and see for yourself how drastically just one out of the seven Holy Sacraments were changed. See the lack of resemblance and reverence? In fact after Vatican II everything essentially changed, including Catholics daily prayer-life, practices, faith, and philosophy. Graces are lost, subsequently iniquities have spread, cases in point: rampant pedophile priests, loss of faith in millions, and liturgical abuses. All features of traditional Catholicism took a nose dive out of the Church. Sadly, most modern Catholics still defend Vatican II despite its cataclysmic results and their lack of God’s Divinity. They see things from man-centered perspectives, not Divine perspectives. If our Catholic ancestors generations ago were here today and walked into a modern catholic church, it wouldn’t look catholic to them, but protestant, perhaps closest to the Lutheran Church. Most practicing Catholics today are perhaps less than 50 years old, despite the millions of innocents killed since Roe vs. Wade permitted abortion, abortion even to once Catholics! They are clueless to the radical changes opened up by the Vatican II Council, with an agenda that Pope SAINT. Pius the Xth would never ha

Posted Thursday, January 26, 2012 12:06 PM By Charles
Annie, The power to lose and bind only applies to the priest in forgiving sorrow-filled sinners of their confessed iniquities, and not anything else. Yours, not due to necessarily any fault of your own is just another example how modern thought and teaching distorts the true Catholic faith. Check it out for yourself in the notes of the most accurate Roman Catholic Douay-Rheims Holy Bible, St Matthew’s Chapter 16 verse 19! Study the footnotes and you will find the insightful definition tied to this 19th verse: “Loose upon earth: The losing the bands of temporal punishments due to sins, is called an indulgence; the power of which is here granted”. In other words, Jesus’ direction to Simon Bar-Jona (AKA St. Peter) is in relation to the forgiveness of sin and easing punishment/atonement for sin, NOT in the Vatican having the authority in changing the Truth of God over time! Oh God please help us all to see your Holy unwavering Truth, so many have lost the True Faith of God. So many have been misled by mis-interpretations! Is anyone able to see the cataclysmic calamity of the mis-interpretations that even Benedict and the modern Magesterium speak of/point out? Our Father who art in Heaven Hallowed be Thine Name, Thine Kingdom come, Thine Will be done on earth as it is in Heaven. Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us, and lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil. Amen. August Queen of Heaven, pray for us that we may know the wonders of Christ.

Posted Thursday, January 26, 2012 5:46 PM By Jerry
Bruce, ISadly I don’t think Mike’s comment was a misquote of the pope, because it explains the fullfillment of Vatican II and the resulting state of the modern church today. Imagine the full meaning of implying that a future pope or magesterium can change without challenge anything that is modern catholic today i.e., change worship and sacramental ceremonies, prayers, catechism, and teachings, unconditionally! With that being the case the modern church in the 22nd or 23rd centuries could have little if no resemblence of the modern church today. What would become of our childrens children and their children? The salvation of their souls could be in jeopardy. Sure we’ll be dead, likely doing atonement for our sins in purgatory, but our great-great grandchildren may be lost forever. I am so happy not to be mixed in with all this fray. Thankfully there is a Roman Catholic parish in my neighborhood that follows Church Doctrine, Morals, Teaching, and dispenses the old Seven Holy Sacraments of Baptism, Penance, Holy Communion, Confirmation, Marriage, Holy Orders, and Extreme Unction in the ancient Latin Rite. I am so thankful dear God for having my family, friends, and I blessed to escape all this modernism fray and confusion above, and instead focus our love, attention, time, preparation for heaven, and sufferings on You and eternity.

Posted Thursday, January 26, 2012 8:26 PM By JLS
Good one, Charles; I had to go back to see what Annie posted. That would evidence one of the glaring snares of modernism … the inspecific language that would mean different things to different people … implying a kind of papacy of the laity.

Posted Thursday, January 26, 2012 10:04 PM By JLS
Doug, most Catholics have always been less than fifty years old.

Posted Friday, January 27, 2012 4:09 AM By MIKE
Some are misinterpreting Cardinal Ratzinger’s (Pope Benedict’s) statements from the “RATZINGER REPORT”. Since it can not be printed in this space in entirety, please read it before jumping to conclusions about our Pope. There have never been any changes to most of the things you are writing about. Church Doctrine, 7 Sacraments, 10 Commandments, etc. Some of you have no idea what the Church teaches and are living on assumptions.

Posted Friday, January 27, 2012 4:39 AM By Annie
Charles, where in the Bible did Jesus say that the power to ‘loose and bind’ only had to do with the Sacrament of Confession? Please quote the Bible passage. I have read the Bible many times and never saw any such thing. Basically you are denying all Church Doctrine which includes Sacred Scripture, Apostolic Tradition, and the Church’s Magisterium. Jesus said the word “WHATEVER”, not just the sins you forgive. (Mt 16:18-19).

Posted Friday, January 27, 2012 6:25 AM By JLS
Annie, go over your post once again. It gives license for believing anything you choose … this is a result of modernism. The reference to the commentary in the only “official” English language Bible is a key to understanding how the Magisterium views this passage in question. Such commentary may or may not be exhaustive and comprehensive, but they are not in error. When a private intepretation conflicts with such a commentary, then it is the private interpretation that has to be revised or eliminated. This passage being one of the main ones used by protestants to protest the papacy and the sacraments, then it is necessary to study what Church doctors and saints have said about it. It will not do to propose a one liner type argument to defend a private interpretation on these critical passages.

Posted Friday, January 27, 2012 6:28 AM By Bob One
I think it would be interesting if each of us who comments on Vatican II, on any side of the issues, would state if they were active Catholics at the time of the Council. I was only out of college a couple of years at the time. That was a long time ago. Long enough so that 80+ percent of Catholics hardly know what it was or what it was about. Most Catholics today, and that includes most Priests have never been to a pre-VII Mass. Most can’t read or write Latin any more. Most people underforty years old have never heard of a Latin Mass. If they ever experience a fancy mass, it is from the Vatican where the Pope celebrates the NO. For those of you who were not around at the time, people were leaving the church in droves. They were sick and tired of the Bishops living like princes and intruding in every facet of their lives. The nation and the world was in turmoil at the time, or at least starting to be. Everything was changing and the Church had to change too. The Pope threw open the windows of the Church and cleansed it of what it did not need to be. The Council did not, however, change any of the essentials. The Sacraments are the same, the tenents are the same. A major change, obviously was making the Mass simpler and more relevant to the people in the pew. The use of the venacular is resonsible for stemming the tide away from the Church. It was like a new day dawning. My suggestion is that you not pine for the old ways if you did not live them. It’s like the wishing for the “good old days.” They were not all that good unless you were of white northern European decent, or not Irish.

Posted Friday, January 27, 2012 8:19 AM By Canisius
@BOB ONE, well the windows were opened and every deadly poison has seeped in the Church. I do “pine” for the good old days when the Church was forced to be taken seriously, before it was brought low. Furthermore ALL the Sacraments were changed: Confirmation, Baptism and, of course, the Mass. Tell me Bob is the Church stronger because we have a crisis in vocations, except for the tradional orders?…because Mass attendance is below 25 percent?…because we have priests who refuse to preach on the morals and Truth of Church teachings?…or because we basically have dissent in the Church against its teaching, which is out of control? This is what Vatican 2 has done to Church, but liberals think all we have to do is feed the poor, sing songs of peace and justice, and all will be well. It is this attitude that has driven men away from the Church. A question for you Bob: Why is it that the only orders filled with new vocations are the tradional/orthodox ones? Perhaps the traditions of the Church before V2 have a lot more to offer than the last 50 years of confusion, mayhem and outright dissent. How do you defend 50 years of failure?

Posted Friday, January 27, 2012 8:49 AM By Larry
“…The man who is looked upon by the world as the Vicar of Christ…” What do you mean by that, Bruce? The man who is “looked upon by the world” as the pope? How do YOU “look upon” him? Do I hear hints of sedevacantism here? And Jerry, that “Roman Catholic parish in my neighborhood that follows Church Doctrine…in the ancient Latin Rite”–how does that parish “look upon” (in Bruce’s words) Benedict XVI? As the Vicar of Christ, or perhaps an imposter? I don’t see the initials “SSPX” in these posts, but all this smells a lot like their talking points–or maybe those of some of their more radical breakaway groups. You say your parish follows the “ancient Latin Rite.” How “ancient?” Take the Society of St. Pius V, for example. They broke away from SSPX because they thought the latter too liberal! SSPV, unlike its parent group, insists on using a 1954 printing of the Roman Missal, not the 1962 Missal which SSPX and the indult use. Apparently they reject, not only John XXIII’s changes, but those of Pius XII, to the rubrics and calendar, in 1955 and later. Who gave them permission to revoke Pius XII’s changes? Where does it end–all this pining for some kind of ideal “restore-point” in the past, to which we must return the Church? That is what Benedict XVI means by being loyal to the Church of today.

Posted Friday, January 27, 2012 9:59 AM By Catherine
Bob One, What do you mean? “They were sick and tired of the Bishops living like princes and intruding in every facet of their lives?” Are you talking about justifying methods of artificial birth control? People are only going to want to leave Catholicism in droves if they have become more attached to sin than to Jesus. They are justifying artificial contraception, divorce, adultery, fornication, homosexual acts and many other types of betrayals to Jesus. There is nothing new under the sun of Vatican II even though many claim that they received permission slips to follow their own consciences instead of following Christ. Bob do you remember the gospel where Mary took a pound of spikenard, an oil of great price and anointed the feet of Jesus? Jesus was treated like a prince and the anointing of his feet symbolized Jesus being glorified in His death. It was Judas Iscariot who complained and asked why the expensive ointment was being wasted and not given to the poor. Judas did not complain because he cared about the poor. Judas also begrudged Jesus being treated like a prince. Judas compained because he was a thief. Bob, why do you begrudge an alter Christus being treated like a prince? This has nothing to do with Vatican II or being active. What is does demonstrate is a clear lack of understanding of the meaning of the holy priesthood. Bob, Should people also stop pining for the good ol days when abortion was illegal? Catholics who pine for the reverence due in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass are not just wishing for the good ol days. They are praying that every alter Christus and every Catholic will repeat that scene in Bethany of love, honor and obedience in adhering to the teachings of the CCC, second edition. Bob if the Mass has been made more relevant to the person in the pew, explain why Mass attendance is at an all time low? Explain why many Vatican II Catholics in the pew believe that Christ is only symbolically present in the Tabernacle?

Posted Friday, January 27, 2012 10:54 AM By RR
Right on, Canisius!!!

Posted Friday, January 27, 2012 11:37 AM By Larry
Look, if you’re angry because your pastor has everyone do the Hokey-Pokey during the Handshake of Peace–or the altar servers dance the Charleston through the Opening Procession, and your bishop has ignored your complaints–I can sympathize with you, and so can everyone on this web site. We’ve all had our dander raised with that kind of trash! Keep complaining! Complain to the Holy See if you haven’t gotten anywhere with the bishop! But I withdraw my sympathy if you want to use that as an excuse to void the legitimate product of an ecumenical council–or if you want to go further still and try to resurrect some long-dead pope and bring him back to rule over us instead of Benedict XVI. The legitimate changes are not voided by the illegitimate ones–nor is the solution to demand that the Church lay frozen in some past time which you consider to have been ideal–whether it’s 1962, or 1954 or 1884 or even 1570. In fact as I understand it, the liturgies in use in Rome and across Western Europe at the time Trent and Pius V first standardized the liturgy in 1570 tended to be longer, more elaborate, more florid than the one he finally approved. So the first Tridentine Mass was, in effect, a kind of pared-down, simplified version–and revisions in fact continued until 1962. Now do you suppose there were more than a few people in Europe post-1570 who might have griped “I like the way we used to do it better–before Trent and the pope meddled in things”? I’d be surprised if there were not. We can’t just let everybody pick whatever time period they want to live in, liturgically speaking, because that would re-create the very thing that Trent and Pius V sought to eradicate–massive liturgical confusion and disunity. If you want to make Pius V (or fill in a different number) smile down from heaven on you, then listen to and follow the guidance of Benedict XVI, and his successor when they each in turn come to office.

Posted Friday, January 27, 2012 11:54 AM By Larry
(cont’d from above) The fact is that tension between legitimate change, approved by the Magisterium, and nostalgism for the Good ‘Ole Days has been a fact of life since the very earliest moments of the Church. It first crops up right in the Acts of the Apostles. Peter and the Council of Jerusalem are called upon to settle a point of fierce contention: do Gentile coverts need to be inducted first into observant Judaisim before graduating to Christianity? The answer they came up with was revolutionary: “NO! They do NOT!” The first pope and bishops ruled that the Liturgy of Moses was now obsolete and entirely replaced by Christianity–and that even the hundreds of dietary and other precepts–still observed today by Orthodox Jews in a neighborhood near you–were to be thrown out. Do you think everyone just sat back, sighed and said, “well, thank you Peter, Paul and others for clearing that up!”? From what I can see in the text of Paul’s letters is that he still had to battle with those who clung to the old ceremonies, replying to them: “you are not saved by works, but by faith,” that is, by faith in Christ and His Church and by discarding the imperfect to embrace the perfect. I imagine that for the rest of their lives, many Jewish converts kept believing that it had been a disastrous mistake to repudiate the Judaism of old. Then in later centuries–how about the “filioque” dispute in the Creed, etc? What Pope Benedict is really saying is basically this: if you have no faith that TODAY’s pope–TODAY’s Magisterium is ever faithful to what cannot be changed, and has God’s approval for what it has changed–then you have no faith at all–you never have. Your claim to be a believer in good old fashioned tradition rings hollow. To follow only yesterday’s popes is to follow no pope at all. That is no part of “tradition.” It is, rather, a repudiation of it. If Benedict XVI cannot approve the liturgies of his choice, then neither could Pius V. In fact, neither could Peter.

Posted Saturday, January 28, 2012 9:25 AM By Traditional Angelo
Canisius, The truth is Bl. John Xlll called for the “Opening of the windows of the Church to let the fresh air in.” He was taliking about the fresh air of heaven, but like you said, “every deadly poison has seeped in the Church.” In my teens I heard much talk from faithful Catholics about the church as it once was. I became Nastolgic for the Old Church. But now it is not a matter of being Nastolgic. It is a matter that the so called “old Church” was never done away with. I have my Catholic faith back, I desire that it rightfuly be returned to the faithful, as it was never done away with. It was not V2 that let the smoke of satan into the very house of God. It was satan and those who did his bidding. When Bl. John XXlll called for the Second Vatican Council it was because of a grave Pastoral reason. A vast number of Catholics no longer took God seriously, this was bemoaned by Ven. Pius Xll. The intention of the Council was REFORM, but that reform was the reform of our lukewarmness, and not for the reform called for by those who misinterpreted it. It is now known that after the first session of V2 ended, Bl. John XXlll called his closest Cardinal collaboraters together and asked them to think of a way to gracefuly end the Council, as he seen trouble ahead. But sadly he died before fufilling this desire. The Servant of God Pope Paul Vl tried feverishly to stop all the madness which he termned the “Great Upheaval in the Church” But he was ruthlessly opposed. Then Bl. John Paul ll when raised to the throne of St. Peter, Chose as his first task the restoration of the Tridentine Mass. This is a case of learning the story behind the story.

Posted Saturday, January 28, 2012 11:05 AM By k
Canisius, trust God. It is better to pray, suffer, endure and make reparation than to try to interpret events. The Church has been through a rough time; we all have been shocked and saddened at things that have gone on. But if you look under sheep dung, there is still plenty of good grass in the pasture.

Posted Sunday, January 29, 2012 5:21 AM By Traditional Angelo
k, I admire your positive outlook at a horrible nightmare. Here’s another gem, “If you kick the ashes, you will find hot coals still burning.” Despite all the sadness there are still many Catholics of Good Will. Deo Gratias!

Posted Sunday, January 29, 2012 7:27 AM By MacDonald
From Catholic News Service: “Pope Benedict XVI has rejected what he calls the ‘hermeneutics of discontinuity and rupture’ in the present-day understanding of the council and has called instead for interpreting Vatican II as an instance of ‘renewal in continuity’ with the church’s 2,000 years of tradition. Exploring and promoting that idea will be a major goal of the Year of Faith that begins this Oct. 11, exactly half a century to the day since Vatican II opened…In early December, L’Osservatore Romano, the Vatican newspaper, published an article by Msgr. Fernando Ocariz, the second-highest official of Opus Dei and a participant in talks with the Society of St. Pius X. In the article, Msgr. Ocariz insisted that all the teachings of Vatican II require nothing less than ‘religious submission of intellect and will,’ and that even the council’s apparent innovations in doctrine are properly understood as in continuity with tradition.”

Posted Sunday, January 29, 2012 7:28 AM By Larry
It’s time for a stern reality check on this utter nonsense of “things were wonderful until the Council ruined everything!” The bishops, priests, theologians and laymen who were most active either in sponsoring or tolerating the post-Conciliar madness were ALL products of the pre-Conciliar time. Presidential candidate John F. Kennedy made his famous speech setting the theme of how Catholic politicians should keep their faith out of politics in 1960–two years before the Council opened, when not a single attendee or spectator had even reserved a hotel room yet. Did the U.S. bishops call him to account? Not on your life! Boston’s Cardinal Richard Cushing, crony and accomodator of the Kennedys, who told the Massachusetts legislature in 1965 that the Church wouldn’t mind if they legalized the sale of contraceptives, had been Archbishop of Boston since 1944. The Kennedy family, products of this mythical Great Golden Age of Catholic Holiness, cheerfully made a mockery of their “faith” all their lives, with the exception of Rose and Eunice, who actually seemed to achieve true holiness. In America, you could hardly find a more Catholic city than Chicago, from the neighborhoods right up through City Hall. Was Chicago a great, holy, shining city on a hill in the 1950’s? It was anything but! Devout Catholic Mayor Richard J. Daley ran the corrupt and overbearing local political machine. It was astoundingly open practice to generously tip the beat cop (most of whom were probably Catholic) to get out of parking/traffic tickets, to operate businesses without harassment, etc. Did the local Archbishop protest the corruption? I never heard if he did. If an African-American wandered into a white (and probably Catholic) neighborhood, his life would be in danger. Did the local Church protest the virulent racism? Not in pre-Conciliar times, as far as I know. The fact is, the pre-Conciliar Church was a place of great sanctimony, not sanctity–and there’s a major difference.

Posted Sunday, January 29, 2012 7:44 AM By Larry
(cont’d from above) I remember the pre-Conciliar Church. I was there. I saw it–felt it–experienced it. I have my own bad memories. I’m not making anything up–I was there! The fact is that the pre-Conciliar Church was a gloomy, stuffy, grim place. It was a ballerina who dances with great technical precision but no heartfelt passion, no real belief–almost as if she never even wanted to be a ballerina in the first place, but her parents forced her into it. Catechetical instruction was technically precise, and thank God for that! But it was also loveless–unmotivating. The nuns had all the warmth and caring of state driver’s license examiners. My own mother, conservative Catholic down to the marrow, told me they seemed unhappy in their vocations. And the priests? More than a few were surly in the confessional, treating the penitents like dirt. The most inoffensive were businesslike–bureaucrats for God. I remember them mumbling and muttering their way at breakneck speed, in a dull monotone, through the Latin Missal at Mass as though it were gibberish, which is what it sounded like. Now what do you expect to happen when a child, raised in an overly strict and joyless home, is finally set free in the world? He turns into the wildest of hedonists. He breaches all boundaries–spends himself in furious, wretched excess. If you try to tell him that after all, there were some good things about his upbringing which he should not discard–you can’t get through to him. Sometimes the very exhaustion of that excess will bring him back, as with the Prodigal Son–sometimes not.

Posted Sunday, January 29, 2012 7:46 AM By JLS
False, k; what you are now doing is claiming that because you have difficulty interpreting events, then nobody should be allowed to do so. In fact, Jesus says through one of his prophets (Joel, I recall), “My people suffer for lack of knowledge”. Wisdom demands a good interpretation of events. Why would you trash wisdom, k? Is there an emotional motivation overwhelming your use of reason? Are you now an advocate of “Pray, pay and obey”? k, the way to gain grace and understanding does not flow through envy or jealousy or vanity or arrogance, which you display by throwing human virtue, which God created in us, out the window with the bathwater.

Posted Sunday, January 29, 2012 7:52 AM By JLS
k, to expand on your sheep dung in the pasture image, if you really have spent any time in a pasture you would know that even more than good grass sprouting beneath its food supply that carnivorous animals also will gobble up the sheep dung, cattle dung, and other predator dung because it contains nutrients for them as well as for the grass. Predators will roll in it to camoflage their scent and thus make it easier for them to sneak closer to their prey. People often use that dung after it dries for fuel to cook their meals with and heat their homes. And of course it gets tilled into the soil by farmers to feed the seed they plant which later blossoms into delicious food and sometimes attractive flowers. Ashes to ashes and dust to dust … get used to it, k.

Posted Sunday, January 29, 2012 7:57 AM By Larry
(cont’d #3) Pope John XXIII called the Council because he and the bishops in the world saw all that empty externalism and saw where it was heading–to an inevitable crash, brought on by the increasing temptations of modern life. They also saw that the collapse was already well underway in France, where Mass attendance had been dropping alarmingly since the days of the Nazi occupation in the early 1940’s. You know what I really blame for the chaos of the late 20th Century? Two factors: 1) the tenuous state of the pre-Conciliar Church, described above, and 2) lack of leadership from Pope Paul VI in the days following the Council. I’m not God and I don’t dare try to judge his soul. But the fact is that between the Council and Pope John Paul II’s advent in 1978, the Vatican was a complete non-factor in the anarchy taking place in the United States and western Europe. Yes, Paul issued the landmark Humanae Vitae. But he did little or nothing to stem the rebellion against it. I don’t know whose fault it was. He just wasn’t there. As a result, with neither leadership nor reinforcements from Rome, faithful Catholics could only conduct a fighting retreat in order to slow the advance of the rebels, because it was obvious that they would continue to advance until we finally got a firm hand in the Papacy. With nearly 30 years of JPII and now almost seven of Benedict XVI behind us, we can finally hope that the REAL Vatican II will take effect. Because when it does, we’re all going to see it as probably the greatest ecumenical Council ever convened. And a hundred years from now, all the cynics who now smoke their pipes and smirk about how misguided Vatican II was, will be unmasked for the pompous fools that they are.

Posted Sunday, January 29, 2012 10:56 AM By Canisius
K, I am only interpreting what I have seen as the very clear evidence of a failed council despite its intentions or poor iterpretations. Facts are facts….

Posted Sunday, January 29, 2012 1:07 PM By RR
Larry: Your lengthy posts are nothing but your oppinion. (The Church according to Larry) My parents, and I’m sure countless others, tell a completely different story. They were there, they felt it, and they saw it. My parents say that this generation has no idea what we had taken away from us since Vatican II. I wouldn’t be so sure of myself and my oppinion if I were you. Some day you may see that you were the pompous fool and it will be here in writing. BTW- I see what was taken away from us, especially at Mass. I may not have been there, lived it, or seen it, but I surely see that the Church is not better because of it.

Posted Sunday, January 29, 2012 1:18 PM By Traditional Angelo
Larry, The pre-conciliar Church was in perfect order. The problem was Catholics who only went through the motions. Bl. John XXlll has been described as being more of a Traditionalist than his predesseors Pius Xl and Ven. Pius Xll. Bl. John XXlll was a Historian with a great love for the Church and her holy traditions. Evident through his Diary. Ven. Pius Xll said, “The greatest sin of today is the loss of the sense of sin.” Bl. John Paul ll ordered that Bl. John XXlll have his camaura placed on his head, as he was very fond of this piece of Papal clothing. Why go on??? I am asking myself at this moment!!! Larry, you and I see Vatican Council ll in two completely different lights. The one you paint is a mixture of liberalism and ultra-traditionalism. I have never seen this happen before. This is a first. I have to say I disagree with you on 2 different fronts combined together, your views seem like oil mixed with water. I usually disagree with one extreme or another. This is the first time I disagree with both extremes mixed together. This will be interesting. Let us continue in Christs Charity.

Posted Sunday, January 29, 2012 2:11 PM By Catherine
Larry, Did you ever click the Servant of God link on the side of CCD? I viewed one of the videos and the priest said that in 1968 Pope Paul VI published, ‘Credo of the People of God’ to synthesize what Catholics *SHOULD* believe against the background of heresy and apostasy being taught in catechisms, such as the Dutch catechism. Pope Paul the VI then asked Father John Hardon, SJ to write an English catechism to stem the tide of error and apostasy. This was published in 1973 and was the normative catechism until the official catechism was published. Father Hardon also wrote a pocketbook catechism to assist in stemming the tide of apostasy and error. Maybe that complete non-factor that you mentioned regarding the United States and western Europe was due to lead shepherds rejecting and completely ignoring Pope Paul VI and ignoring Father John Hardon’s catechism. Father Hardon’s catechism was theologically precise and excellent. Even Pope John Paul II asked Mother Teresa of Calcutta to meet with Father Hardon to start her contemplative order. Pope John Paul II also asked Father Hardon to teach a much greater catechetical formation to Mother Teresa in caring for the dying. Doesn’t that sound like Pope Paul VI was very instrumental in trying to stop error? If the father of the household teaches his children the truth but the children disobey and rebel, who is at fault? The million dollar question that I still do not understand, is why are disciplinary canon laws written in the first place if they are also going to be ignored. Now, is it the father to blame or the disobedient children to blame? Now that collegiality rules, it will take the heroic courage of not just a good bishop but the heroic courage of exceptional bishops to stem the steadily flowing dark avalanche of evil that has descended upon us through disobedience to God. With religious freedoms being greatly assaulted, may Our Lady of Fatima inspire all of our bishops to unite with exceptional courage.

Posted Sunday, January 29, 2012 2:59 PM By Larry
What I’ve described is no opinion. It’s what I witnessed firsthand, and I’ll stand behind it till the day I die and afterwards at my judgment. But it’s one thing to criticize me for what I’ve said. It’s quite another to criticize the Council for what IT said. Folks, we are talking about an ecumenical council, ratified by the pope. That doesn’t just happen every day. It’s a rare event in Church history, and when it happens it’s a Magisterial Moment. The ecumenical councils in union with the popes are, just like infallible dogmatic pronouncements by popes, rare and major interventions by the Holy Spirit in the life of the Church. When you lash out at 1) the fact that it happened, 2) the time in which it happened, and 3) what the Council said in it’s official Latin Acta, you’re really telling the Holy Spirit how you think He could have done it better. Isn’t that a bit highhanded? Have you no shame, no hesitancy about giving a bad review to Divine intervention? I never hear anyone on this site say, for example, “you know, Vatican I’s definition of Papal Infallibility was a really dumb idea–it led to the ‘Old Catholic’ schism.” Or “I think Trent was really badly done,” or “I don’t really believe that Pius IX’s Immaculate Conception declaration meets the requirements of an infallible pronouncement,” or “do we really need four Gospels in the New Testament, three of which only repeat each other quite often? Seems kind of dumb to me. Let’s take out two of them and leave two. And I think we ought to get rid of all those wordy, windy, self-important letters by Paul, with their ambiguous passages that can be interpreted all different ways…” But you have no trepidation about saying the Holy Spirit really did a lousy job with Vatican II? Are you serious? Think about what you’re saying and thinking!

Posted Sunday, January 29, 2012 3:29 PM By k
Canisius, no one can argue with your assessment that the Church fell to ruin after Vatican II. The Year of Faith which Pope Benedict has declared begins later this year. It is the 25th anniversary of Vatican II. You have heard of the ‘smoke of satan” homily, right? The smoke of satan was the doubt that entered into Catholics minds due to the changes in the liturgy and some doctrines. People lost confidence in the Church. They would say “They changed eating meat on Fridays, someday they will change not divorcing.” And they did whatever they wanted. I have to agree with you that the vineyard was devastated. I know very few Catholics who adhere to the faith in its totality. I do because I want to. If I didn’t want to, I could find plenty of support for whatever I wanted to do. You are not incorrect that the council had the effect, but what Pope Benedict wants us to do is reclaim the Church in the truth. There were people at my Church who said that Vatican II did away with Marian devotions. When I read the actual documents they said “Marian devotions should be fostered.” I took a class on Vatican II at my Church-they told me nothing. I decided that if I wanted to know what Vatican II said, I would have to read it myself and I bought copies of the documents. You would not believe how many lies have been told about what is in those documents. That all ended with the publication of the CCC. Thank God.

Posted Sunday, January 29, 2012 3:31 PM By Larry
Canisius: These failures are not the fruits of the Council. They are the fruits of the weaknesses of the pre-Conciliar Church–the weaknesses which the Council was called to address. We haven’t yet seen the REAL fruits of the Council. When we finally do, they will be glorious. Angelo: John XXIII indeed was everything you say he was. I’ve read his biography and much of his diary. The pre-Conciliar Church could NOT have been “in perfect order” if so many of its children were only going through the motions. Obviously, something was fundamentally wrong. RR: they made fun of Joe Namath when he said “I guarantee” a New York Jets victory in the 1969 Super Bowl. So go ahead and make fun of me when I tell you that I guarantee that Vatican II, when its full effects will have finally played out, will stand as the Church’s finest hour. But be warned: they weren’t laughing at Namath very long.

Posted Sunday, January 29, 2012 5:39 PM By Abeca Christian
RR you speak from a place of genuine honesty. If my dad was alive today, he would most likely agree with your comments. He told of things as you have described.

Posted Sunday, January 29, 2012 7:26 PM By Canisius
Larry you optimism is something either to be admired or laughed at I dont know which. I dont really know if the Church will survive the next 50 years in its current forms. Something tells me will be attending Mass in private homes and underground Parishes…Martyrdom both white and red is coming

Posted Sunday, January 29, 2012 10:39 PM By OSCAR
It’s the fault of US Cardinals and Bishops who supported Cardinal Bernardin’s seamless garment theory – so that pro-abortion, socialist Democrats could get into office under social justice premises. Marxist Saul Alinksy taught: “True revolutionaries do not flaunt their radicalism. They cut their hair, put on suits and infiltrate the system from within. Alinsky viewed revolution as a slow, patient process. The trick was to penetrate existing institutions such as churches, unions and political parties….”

Posted Monday, January 30, 2012 4:34 AM By RR
Larry: I was NOT making fun of you. This is not a funny subject. If you think I was making fun of you, then you made fun of all the people that disagree with you. All I did was put the shoe on the other foot. You called anyone who disagreed with your post, “pompous fools.” We are NOT “pompous fools.” We are FAITHFUL Catholics who LOVE GOD AND HIS CHURCH.

Posted Monday, January 30, 2012 8:18 AM By Larry
“You called anyone who disagreed with your post, ‘pompous fools.'” No, I didn’t. Say whatever you want about me. I called anyone who denigrated the Council “pompous fools,” and if the shoe fits, wear it. If you cannot accept the official product of an ecumenical council which has papal approval–and accept it wholeheartedly and without reservation as the will of God, then you are not a Catholic at all, either traditional, liberal or otherwise–you are a Protestant. It’s that simple. Would you rather hear it from me now or from Christ at your judgement, when you’ll find out just how much of a fool you really are if you reject the Council? And Catherine: I have a copy of Father John Hardon’s catechism. I’ve had it for maybe thirty years or so. I’m very glad that it was written, but Pope Paul had a duty to do more than that. He should have done exactly what he did in fact do with Archbishop Lefebvre and his group–issue clear directives, demand obedience, and then when it was refused, take action and make a public example of him. No such actions ever appeared in the case of the anarchist assault on the chanceries, the seminaries, the Catholic schools and the pulpits. Complaint after complaint to the Vatican went unresolved, and both the offenders and the aggrieved finally came to understand that complaining to the Vatican was a waste of time, that the partyhouse atmosphere was going to roar right on and on at least for the foreseable future. RR, since you admit you did not live through that time period, let me assure you, my friend, that if you think you are frustrated to distraction right now–you don’t know what real, pulling-your-hair-out frustration is–you haven’t the slightest idea what it feels like. I do. You’ve got it easy. The tide has long since turned. Rome is with us today. The wind is at our backs, even if it’s only a gentle breeze. You should try sometime walking east into a hurricane west wind. Then you might know real frustration.

Posted Monday, January 30, 2012 10:09 AM By Catherine
Larry, Yes, I do agree with you that much, much, more should have been done to discipline disobedient shepherds and that still needs to be done today. Also, obstinate pro-abortion politicians and gay rights activists who publicly support evil are still being coddled. Catholics in the pew are watching them receive Holy Communion and it sends the wrong message that others can do whatever they want and receive Holy Communion too. Larry, You are the second poster who has ignored the lesson of a cardinal rule of life. I do believe you when you say that you have had “pull your hair out” trials of frustration. Larry, You have always made excellent points but now you are wandering into a realm that diffuses your usual ability to convey good points. Why would you ever project the assumption that the suffering in your life outweighs or out matches anyone else’s trials or sufferings? Larry, In the same fashion that you are trying to explain that you would rather people hear the truth now before they face Almighty God, you also need to hear the truth. It is never wise to project that you own the king of the hill of suffering and that no one has suffered like you. I remember writing to you once that I thought you had the gifts to teach the faith to seminarians but it seems that an angry bitterness has convinced you that you can win arguments by claiming the cross of suffering the most. Similar to facing God unprepared and caught off guard, you would never want to face God with telling RR or anyone for that matter, how little they have suffered in comparison to you or others. No one knows what anyone has suffered but God. We are not God. We cannot know what another has suffered via internet posts. Larry, you wouldn’t want God to call you a “pompous fool” when it was revealed to you that you were absolutely wrong in judging the sufferings of others to be less than yours would you? This is not meant as a mean criticism, it is meant to bring the ol’ wise and sweet Larry back.

Posted Monday, January 30, 2012 11:10 AM By RR
Don’t worry about my salvation. It is in God’s hands, not yours. God knows what is truly in my heart, not you. I can say, without a doubt, that God would NOT refer to me at my judgement as a “pompous fool.” I think God would see me as a humble person who has cried an ocean of tears because of my sins and how I have hurt Him and nailed Him to the cross. I can probably say, with much certainty, that I am a worse sinner than probably many of the people on CalCath. I am neither pompous nor sinless. Also, nowhere in my posts did I say I rejected Vatican II. What I did say was that it’s obvious that many abuses came out of it. Obviously, there were abuses that came out of Vatican II. The Pope is trying to fix them today. If I’m “pompous” according to you, then so is the Pope. He knows abuses and mistakes were made at Vatican II. These are the things that I reject. I reject the abuses that came from Vatican II, NOT Vatican II. If you can’t see that, then I really have no more to say about it. That is why I stick with Sacred Tradition and the Mass of Pius V. Also, Catherine is right. We have ALL had sufferings in our lives. I may not have suffered the same things as you in life, but I have had my share of sufferings. Have you had two babies lost through miscarriage? Have you had to endure daily, relentless teasing from 1st grade all the way through high school? Have you had to deal with anxiety and depression on a daily basis for the last 10 years? I could go on forever, but it’s NOT about me and my sufferings. It’s about the suffering that Christ endured. You and me are called to suffer in this life because Christ suffered so much for us. Why should He suffer and not us? We deserve the sufferings we get from God and we need to bear our crosses believing that some day our sufferings will get us into heaven.

Posted Tuesday, January 31, 2012 7:23 AM By Traditional Angelo
K, Your post of January 29, 2012 3:29 PM. Was excellant. I learned something of utmost importance from it. You spoke of the “smoke of satan”. I always took that as a powerful statement from Pope Paul Vl. Believing, but until now not really understanding what was meant by it. You state, “The smoke of satan was the doubt that entered into Catholics minds…” I always seen this doubt that had entered into the minds of Catholics of all ranks, what I did’nt know was that this is what Pope Paul Vl meant by what he termed the “smoke of satan”. Thank you very much for this weapon, which I will use in defense of the Church of Our Lord.

Posted Tuesday, January 31, 2012 7:43 AM By Sandra
TA, glad you support Pope Paul VI, since he called Vatican II and fully supported it. None of us support the abuse of it. If we stick to the teachings of Magisterium (power given to them by Christ), we should ignore the rest so that it not interfere with our personal relationship with Our Lord, Jesus Christ.

Posted Tuesday, January 31, 2012 7:47 AM By Larry
RR and Catherine: Wait a minute! RR says “nowhere in my posts did I say I rejected Vatican II.” Well in that case, RR, then I obviously wasn’t addressing you as a “pompous fool.”I don’t know how much clearer I could have been — I stated explicitly several times that I was castigating those WHO REJECT THE COUNCIL. If you’re not among them, then clearly the shoe doesn’t fit. As for the “frustration” comment, you and Catherine are taking it way out of context. I was referring to the frustration of enduring and vainly protesting liturgical excesses — not to frustration in the broader context of life experiences. How could I have offered an opinion upon that of which I know nothing? I was simply showing you my “street cred” in reference to abuses, i.e.– since you did not live through the time period and I did, then I’ve been enduring and fighting them (actually my late mother fought them much more than I ever did) not only for a longer period, but ever since you couldn’t even get the Vatican’s ear. It was harder then. It’s easier now. That’s all I meant. “Have you had two babies lost through miscarriage?” No, and I’m very sorry to hear that. That’s very tragic. I’ve been sick and disabled so long I’ve never had the chance to marry and have children. I have no idea what it’s like, and I’m 57. “Have you had to endure daily, relentless teasing from 1st grade all the way through high school?” Yes, although there were a few intervals of peace. The worst of the hostility and coldness came from classmates, nuns and staff in Catholic grade school during that Great Golden Age of Catholic Holiness Before the Council. My parents had to transfer me to public school. “Have you had to deal with anxiety and depression on a daily basis for the last 10 years?” No, RR–not for the last ten years. For the last TWENTY-FIVE years. I hope that answers your questions. And I’ll pray for your health and peace of mind.

Posted Tuesday, January 31, 2012 7:54 AM By Traditional Angelo
Larry, In the latter part of the 70’s I heard many Catholics speak of the “Old days”, “The way the Church used to be”, “What we have lost” ect… They were all there! Those who attacked the Church during all the ill-founded changes, were those whom obviously did not practice their faith before the Council and then were taking that moment to attack what they never understood to begin with. These were the Catholics Bl. John XXlll had in mind when he “Opened the windows of the Church to let the fresh air in.” You stated somewhere that Pope Paul Vl did not do much to stop the tempest. Since my teens I read statements by Pope Paul Vl that say otherwise, “I detect the smoke of satan has entered into the very house of God.”, “My crown of thorns has been the way priests are acting today.”, “There are those who claim the Holy Spirit speaks to them, if this spirit says anything contrary to the teachings of the Church, then I declare it is not the Holy Spirit.”, The great upheavel in the Church.” ect… When Paul Vl died, commentators on televised news said, “Pope Paul Vl dead at age 80. He will always be known as the Pope who was never listened to.” That was being said in 1978, it is something that should be revisited. Pope Benedict XVl said, “We should not pray for Pope Paul Vl. We should pray to Pope Paul Vl.” Perhaps its time for all this Holy Pope stated and warned about to come newly back to light.

Posted Tuesday, January 31, 2012 7:59 AM By Larry
Now Catherine, RR and others: we have here a hugely teachable moment. I’ve just had to respond to people who jumped all over me because of what they thought I’d said–what they thought I’d meant, instead of what I actually DID say and mean. And this is exactly what has been done to the Council for the last 40 years. It’s been turned into a straw man by pulpeteers of every stripe. The anarchists who love it and the nostalgists who despise and reject it have turned it into everything it never was and never will be, so that they can either hoist that straw man up onto a pedestal or drag it through the streets and burn it, depending on their persuasion. It’s long past time that we finally got to know the real Council, not the straw men who’ve been masquerading as it for all these decades. Thank you folks for illustrating the problem better than I ever have or could have.

Posted Tuesday, January 31, 2012 10:10 AM By Abeca Christian
man are complicated creatures. We complicate our lives more, God forgive us for our choosing to continue to sin, we pray for God’s mercy, graces and to convert our hearts in Him. Always AMEN.

Posted Tuesday, January 31, 2012 10:13 AM By Larry
Angelo: The memories of those who’ve spoken to you are valid and true, although perhaps somewhat selective–that’s the thing with looking back on the good old days–our memories might be a bit sweeter than things actually were–although depending on where they lived, the situation might have actually been better. I grew up, and live today in the Archdiocese of Chicago. I would guess that there are few other places then or now with more concentrated Catholicism-on-display–perhaps Boston, New Orleans, or maybe today’s Los Angeles might come to mind. I mentioned above some of my personal negative experiences with the pre-Conciliar time. The fact is that the nuns and lay staff of the school were so unprepared and utterly dumbfounded by a special-needs child that I wound up being treated as an annoyance–to the degree that I had to be moved to public school. So when I talk about what the nuns and priests were really like, I’m giving you a firsthand report. What else did I witness? Well I remember one day in second grade (1962-63) when our teacher-nun gave us a talk about a new girl who had recently enrolled, although she was not in MY classroom. It seems the girl was Hispanic. Everyone else was of white European heritage–Irish, Polish, Italian. She was getting a bit of a hard time from the other kids, because they saw her dark skin and thought she was a Negro–African-American. Our nun assured us that the child was NOT black–she was merely Mexican–so she was okay–chill out and lay off her–there’s nothing to get upset about. In other words, she’s not guilty of being black in a white school, okay? The nun never attacked the broader question of whether it was really a crime to be black in a white environment. That assumption was just allowed to stand–and in assuring us that the little girl was most certainly NOT black, the nun may have tacitly reinforced the sin of racism.

Posted Tuesday, January 31, 2012 10:36 AM By Larry
(cont’d #2 to Angelo)–Now let’s zoom out for a wider shot than just the parish. Being a major immigrant mecca of the 19th Century, Chicago evolved into not only one of the largest Catholic communities within the worldwide Church, but within secular society as well. It’s been a diocese since 1833, an archdiocese since 1880 and a cardinalatial see since 1924 when Archbishop George Mundelein received his red hat. If you were white and lived in Chicago in the 1950’s anyplace other than the elite Gold Coast, you were probably Catholic; if you were a civil servant, almost certainly. Irish Catholics virtually controlled City Hall, the Cook County Democratic Organization, the Police Department and other areas. The Chicago Police Department in the 1950’s was the most corrupt in the nation. I was too young to remember, but my mom and dad have told me about their experiences. We lived in an apartment across Addison Street from Wrigley Field. On Cubs game days, my dad worked as a valet parker in a lot next door. He remembers being invited to the CPD precinct house for a talk with the station sergeant, who explained his fee schedule for making sure that the valet parker operation didn’t run into petty trouble over ordinance violations, etc. In addition to paying the sergeant, my dad was expected to hand out “lunch money” like Halloween candy to motorcycle patrollmen who would roll around and panhandle over trivial technicalities. From an upstairs window of our apartment house, my mother disgustedly witnessed the dead-drop-style passing of cash to beat cops by motorists. You’d park your car illegally, lower one of the windows, then leave some cash on the front seat. Later, the beat cop came around, reached in and collected it like a waiter doing tables, and did NOT write a ticket.

Posted Tuesday, January 31, 2012 10:47 AM By Larry
(cont’d to Angelo, #3)–There was this one traffic cop who was legendary. He’d stop a speeder, then tell the driver, “I sell pencils. They go for a dollar, five dollars or ten dollars apiece. I think you need a ten-dollar pencil.” Given the ethnic makeup of the city and the force, they were almost certainly Catholics involved in this graft. In charge of it all was the very Irish and very Catholic Mayor Richard J. Daley, a daily communicant and weekly penitent. Did he know about this? Of course! You couldn’t NOT know about it. Everyone did. Chicago was legendary across the nation. Devout Catholic Daley and his heavily Catholic machine stole votes on Election Day in 1960 to help elect devout Catholic John F. Kennedy as president. Daley was finally forced to clean up the CPD mess only after a scandal broke in which cops were involved in burglaries. All these people who helped themselves to all that graft and power jammed the Churches to standing-room-only every Sunday. At least in Chicago, and probably elsewhere, that was your “pre-Conciliar Church.” How many Catholics were “going through the motions” as opposed to the sincere ones? I submit to you that we know exactly how many. All the ones who left in the years after the Council. That’s how many we never really had in the first place. And the above were all major factors in the calling of the Council.

Posted Tuesday, January 31, 2012 7:34 PM By Traditional Angelo
Larry, My last post was because of what you stated about Pope Paul Vl, “lack of leadership from Pope Paul Vl in the days following the Council.” Paul Vl lacked no leadership, what was lacking was obedience to his leadership. The picture you paint of unfaithful Catholics in the pre-conciliar Church, is exactly why the Council was called for. Only you write as if there were no faithful and devout Catholics in the pre-conciliar Church, there were many. The ones you do point out, is the reason why Bl. John XXlll called for a Pastoral Council. Many Priests no longer had faith, many Religious started going wayward, many Catholics were either lukewarm or cold. The Church was perfect in her teachings and traditions, it was her members that had fallen to a low point. Its a phenomenon. The Church calls for a Pastoral Council to call to reform the lukewarm and cold Catholics. The lukewarm and cold Catholics take over the Church and cause unbelievable destruction. This is Strange!!

Posted Tuesday, January 31, 2012 8:43 PM By k
How error spreads. I knew a woman who in the “60s had 5 kids under 10 and had tried to get to Mass when they were traveling and had not been able to. She confessed it. The priest told her she had not sinned. The woman taught all her kids that there was a “traveling exemption” and they did not need to go to Mass if they were traveling. I know a man who wants his wife to use birth control. She won’t do it. She wants to go ask a priest. He says to her that all priests have to say you can’t use birth control whether they believe it or not. Another couple tells their kids that they were given permission from a priest to use birth contol because another pregnancy might cause physical harm to the woman so If they ever have a good reason it’s OK to use birth control. A priest told a young lady that she should not do needlework on Sunday because it was servile work. Her father told her “do you know how many Sunday’s I had to do servile work at the Church?” The young lady now does anything she wants on Sunday because she says priests are hypocrites. A old woman dies on All Saint’s Day and everybody assumes that it means that she went straight to heaven. The priest in his sermon at the funeral told those in attendance not to neglect to pray for this woman because she died on All Saint’s Day but they decided he didn’t know what he was talking about. These are examples from the era immediately following Vatican II.

Posted Tuesday, January 31, 2012 10:26 PM By JLS
k, your examples are also from all eras. Humans find it difficult to follow Christ, always have and always will. Those who follow Christ will be rewarded and those who don’t won’t … Jesus made it very simple. The liberals of course don’t believe in God and so they make up all sorts of false religions, often calling them Catholicism where all souls go to Heaven. Well it is not in their power to send all souls to Heaven, and so this liberalism is really only another effort at setting up a golden calf.

Posted Tuesday, January 31, 2012 11:13 PM By Abeca Christian
JLS I like what you posted to K. The old testament shows us more of human mistakes, but we must stay focused on Christ.

Posted Tuesday, January 31, 2012 11:50 PM By k
JLS, yes, we can blame the bishops and the Vatican Council, but really it is just people wanting an easier way and a way the suits their selfish desires.

Posted Wednesday, February 01, 2012 5:16 AM By Canisius
JLS I could not have said that better, well done my man.

Posted Wednesday, February 01, 2012 5:27 AM By Abeca Christian
JLS has great words of wisdom, awesome!

Posted Wednesday, February 01, 2012 5:55 AM By Larry
“Only you write as if there were no faithful and devout Catholics in the pre-conciliar Church, there were many.” There were, and they’ve stayed faithful to the Church through hell and high water. I was simply trying to counter the impression some might get that it was a time of unprecedented fervor, and that therefore the Council was a very bad idea.

Posted Wednesday, February 01, 2012 7:48 AM By Traditional Angelo
Larry, I see we both agree. Deo Gratias!

Posted Wednesday, February 01, 2012 8:09 AM By Traditional Angelo
Larry, I see we both agree. Deo Gratias!

Posted Wednesday, February 01, 2012 10:48 PM By Charles
Mike, Angelo,Larry, and other staunch defenders of Mike’s post on Friday, January 27, 2012 4:09 AM: “Some are misinterpreting Cardinal Ratzinger’s (Pope Benedict’s) statements from the “RATZINGER REPORT”. Since it can not be . . . . There have never been any changes to most of the things you are writing about. Church Doctrine, 7 Sacraments, 10 Commandments, etc. Some of you have no idea what the Church teaches and are living on assumptions”. Never been any changes — YOU ARE LIVING YOUR DREAM, meanwhile denying or being blind to the TRUTH of the disastor of the changes here on earth that God sees from Heaven! There has been a major rupture in what the modern church teaches from the past as we have eye witness history and discarded Holy Roman Catholic documents of the ancients to prove it. It is time to awaken from your dreams and return to reality. This is why I too am happily a member of a Roman Catholic Parish receiving the old holy 7 Latin Sacraments of yesteryear and holding and believing in the ancient Roman Catholic Truths/Teachings. My soul is at peace following with Holy Mother the Roman Catholic Church of our ancient fathers. Pray that God will open all of our eyes to see His Truth and to follow His Way.

Posted Thursday, February 02, 2012 12:47 PM By Larry
I take it that by, “Holy Mother the Roman Catholic Church of our ancient fathers,” you mean some kind of schismatic sect such as SSPX, SSPV or the like, Charles? It would have to be, since your charge of “a major rupture…from the past,” presumably by Vatican II, has been specifically denounced and refuted by Benedict XVI as a distortion of the Council’s teachings. So whatever this “Holy Mother the Roman Catholic Church of our ancient fathers” is, we see that it is NOT in union with the current Vicar of Christ. Which means it follows the old traditions of Martin Luther, not the ones of Jesus, St. Peter and the Apostles.

Posted Thursday, February 02, 2012 7:26 PM By Traditional Angelo
Charles, You state, “YOU ARE LIVING YOUR DREAM”, “denying or being blind to the Truth of the disaster…” We are not as blind as you imagine concerning the disasters in the Church. The main disaster was and is the misinterpretations of the Council by both liberals and ultra-traditionalists. Liberals re-creating the Church with errors, ultra-traditionalists interpreting the Council, not by its Documents but by the disaster caused by liberals, which constitutes another major disaster. Before the Council, the Church was perfectly pure in all her teachings and practices. But Catholics of all ranks were not perfect. It was those Catholics that were constructing the disaster we have today. Which is why Bl. John XXlll called for a Pastoral Council with its foundation being the truths of our Catholic Faith. The renowned Dr. Alice Von Hilderbrand the widow of the famous Dietrich von Hilderbrand. Has made it clear that the problems in the Church started during the rein of Ven. Pius Xll in the 40’s, things got worse in the 50’s. So I see there was a real need for a Pastoral Council that would call all Catholics to the authentic practice of the faith, a new springtime for the Church. What went wrong was not Vatican ll, but by the misinterpretors which again I say were by the liberals and ultra-traditionalists. I do pray much for us to open our eyes to the truth in perfect obedience to Christs Vicars Bl. John XXlll, The Servant of God Paul Vl, Bl. John Paul ll and Pope Benedict XVl. Christ as always will triumph! Through the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Posted Friday, February 03, 2012 10:44 PM By Doug
Angelo, We haven’t a clue who the ultra-traditionalists you claim to call are; however they aren’t responsible for the Vatican II Council actions, i.e., major disruption in Holy Mother the Roman Catholic Church and the cataclysmic fruit that it has beared. We need to pull our heads out of the sand, and face Our Lord’s holy words: “You will know them by their fruits” Now seek and you shall find Holy Mother the Church in the traditional Latin Mass Roman Catholic parishes around the world. Take courage and put your faith and trust in God. He will show all of us His Way if we only ask Him.

Posted Saturday, February 04, 2012 9:44 AM By Traditional Angelo
The ultra-traditionalists of which I make reference to are those who think they are more Catholic than the Pope. They have made themselves the judgers of all the Holy Father’s words and actions, of course always negatively. These people reject V2 without even reading the Documents. The fruits of V2 that they speak out against are not the fruits of V2 at all. They carefuly look at all the damage caused by the misinterpretations by liberals and erroneously call these the fruits of Vatican ll. Such Catholics need to get their priorities in line with the Church.

Posted Saturday, February 04, 2012 11:45 AM By Betty
Post of Feb 04, 2012 9:44 AM by Traditional Angelo is correct. Those who are causing scandal (extreme liberals or extreme traditionalists) by speaking against any of the Church Councils need to read the “Ratzinger Report”. They are heretics or schismatics. Ignorance is no excuse, since the Documents are available in English. For those Traditionalists who have any concerns, read the index of Citations from page 689 through 752 in the “CCC 2nd Ed”. It doesn’t get any more historical than that. Some Ecumenical Councils quoted include: Nicaea I – 325AD, Constantinople I 381 AD, Ephesis 431 AD, Chalcedon 451 AD, Constantinople II 553 AD, Constantinople III 680 AD, Nicaea II 787 AD, Constantinople IV 869 AD, Lateran IV 1215, Lyons II 1274 AD, Vienne 1311, Constance 1414, Florence 1439, Lateran V 1512, Trent 1545, Vatican I 1869, Vatican II 1962. This does not include Synods. Also in the CCC you will see all the great Saints being quoted in the CCC which are too many to list here. Those who think that Vatican II taught abuses – do not know their faith.

Posted Saturday, February 04, 2012 11:47 AM By JLS
The Church is guaranteed even when a pope is not very Catholic.

Posted Saturday, February 04, 2012 11:55 AM By k
Traditional Angelo, “the fruits of V2 are not the fruits of V2 at all.” Very well said. Now I was pondering on the Old Testament story of Rebecca. “Two nations are in your womb, two peoples born of you will be divided. One will be stronger than the other and the older shall serve the younger.” Jesus told St. Faustina “Write this. Everything that exists is enclosed in the bowels of My mercy, more deeply than an infant in it’s mother’s womb. How painfully distrust of My goodness wounds Me! Sins of distrust wound Me most painfully.”

Posted Saturday, February 04, 2012 4:24 PM By Bob One
Doug, and others of the same belief, the traditional Latin Mass is no better, or worse, than the Novus Ordo Mass. They are just different versions that are available to the people. When I go to a parish that has a Spanish Mass, I ask myself why? When I walk into a Mass in another language I ask myself why? I prefer to attend a Mass in Engligh. That way, I don’t have to have my nose in missal trying to follow along with the Latin. VII was several generations ago. Get over it!

Posted Saturday, February 04, 2012 4:56 PM By Traditional Angelo
Bob One, “Get over it!”? Never! Both Masses are one and the same Sacrifice of Christ on Calvary. At the Tridentine Mass there is little room for annoying Liturgical abuses. At the New Mass annoying Liturgical abuses are rampant, from beggining to end. Why not tell Rome to get over it? Its was Bl. John Paul ll who called for the reform of the reforms. Pope Benedict XVl is going full force in instituting this much needed reform. I myself prefer Mass in the official language of the Catholic Church, which is Latin. V2 solemnly declared Latin the official language. You may wish to re-visit V2, though 50 years have passed it seems no one knows what it was all about yet. And you say “Get over it”. It should be more like get with it. Did you know that when one attends the Latin Mass one begins to learn the language. We were not born knowing Latin, we must learn it, that is what Benedict XVl called on us to do, even telling us which Latin prayers all Catholics should learn and memorize.

Posted Saturday, February 04, 2012 5:38 PM By JLS
Betty, one does not violate Vatican Counsel II by attending the Traditional Latin Mass exclusively. In fact the people I know who attend the TLM follow all the Counsels including Vatican II far better than those who only attend the novus ordo Masses. Have you even read the V2 documents?

Posted Saturday, February 04, 2012 10:29 PM By JLS
The Traditional Latin Mass, aka the Extraordinary Form (EF) differs considerably in structure and dynamics, and even in theology, from the novus ordo Mass … the language difference is not the most significant issue.

Posted Sunday, February 05, 2012 12:28 AM By Traditional Angelo
k, thanks for that quote from Our Lord to St. Sister Faustina. That is something I would like to add to my Lenten meditations. This Sunday is Septuagesima Sunday. The begining of our preparation for Lent according to the Old Calender. In the Old Calender this Sunday the Church ceases to say the Gloria of the Mass. The Epistle taken from 1 Corinthians; Brethren: Don’t you know that while all the runners of the stadium take part in the race, only one wins the prize? Run to win! Every athlete denies himself many things. And they do this for a perishable crown, but we an imperishable one. And from the Gradual; they trust in You who cherish You…Rise, O Lord, let not man prevail. From the Tract; And by reason of your law I have waited for You, O Lord. Thanks k.

Posted Sunday, February 05, 2012 7:32 AM By Bob One
Actually, this is the fifth Sunday in Ordinary Time.

Posted Sunday, February 05, 2012 9:57 AM By jon
I beg to differ that the theology between the ordinary and extra-ordinary form is different. JLS will have to prove his point if he is to be believed.

Posted Sunday, February 05, 2012 10:34 AM By JLS
jon, what you choose to believe is your problem, not mine. “for all” vs “for many” is one case in point, and after decades it has been corrected. Another is the placement of “mystery of faith” aka mysterium fidei, which placement due to syntax alters the theology … not that it necessarity creates an error, but alters it. The tailing to the Our Father in the novus ordo seems to be a problem also. Vatican two did not call for pop melodies or extremely sentimental chanting either, but the novus ordo tends to be heavy laden with this stuff … which can change theology by imbalancing the words, a fact which anyone ought to be able to understand.

Posted Sunday, February 05, 2012 10:33 PM By Traditional Angelo
Bob One, This is the fifth Sunday in ordinary time in the Novus Ordo but in the Missal of St. Pius V it is Septuagesima Sunday. This is when one begins to prepare for the lenten season. By order of the Holy Father the Old Calender is still in use and is binding to those attached to “The Ancient Latin Discipline”. This is a good example of what JLS says about the different theoligies of the NO and the Old Latin Mass. Put in the words of Msgr. Patrick Flood of the Fresno Diocese when he began saying the Old Mass for us, “When I started saying the Old Mass again, I realized how much we have lost.” Here is something else, which was said by Bl. John Paul ll about the Old Mass, “We cannot lose the great treasury of prayers of the Old Missal.” You and jon need to take the Old Missal and the New Missal and compare them, and you will see what JLS means. The New Missal is bereft of much of the Churches theology. Pope Benedict XVl said concerning this, “That is what happened because the New Missal was made too hastly.” Also what JLS points out about Catholics who attend the TLM are more obedient to V2 than other Catholics, I agree with 100%, through experience.

Posted Monday, February 06, 2012 9:38 PM By Bruce
Larry, Your very harsh criticism of the Roman Catholic Church before Vatican II in your awful, inaccurate and prepostorous 28 to 29 January string of blogs was greatly exaggerated and you will be held accountable for all your calumines to the tens of thousands of readers you mislead here! Here from your first person account: “I remember the pre-Conciliar Church. I was there. I saw it–felt it–experienced it. I have my own bad memories. I’m not making anything up–I was there! The fact is that the pre-Conciliar Church was a gloomy, stuffy, grim place. It was a ballerina who dances with great technical precision but no heartfelt passion, no real belief . . .”. Sounds like real bitterness in your blogs that seemed to originate from your mother! Later on a 31 Jan blog you claim: “I have no idea what it’s like, and I’m 57”. Well buddy you are the same age a I am. Old enough to remember the beautiful Roman Catholic Church for about maybe at best 9 memorable immature and easy to be misled kid years until the Council’s effects took full force. I for one couldn’t have personally understood and witnessed first-hand all those many personal abusive intolerable claims you personally experienced at our age then. It is hard for me to believe that you experienced them all yourself. Stop deceiving those under our age that hadn’t the pleasure and joy to experience being a devout Roman Catholic before Vatican II. My personal experience was the opposite of your harsh and horrible claims. Just remember this, our Lord was tempted by Satan as written in the gospels, and the devils temptations to God-fearing men haven’t stopped since then. Many men have fallen from grace, like the bishops, mayor, congressmen, and other politicians you name and criticize to make the ancient Roman Catholic Church look bad. Although they considered themselves catholic, that doesn’t mean they were and that doesn’t mean the Roman Catholic Church was bad then. Beware of judging others lest you be

Posted Monday, February 06, 2012 10:02 PM By James
Jon, Get a hold of a St Anthony’s, Marian, St Joseph’s, or other old Roman Catholic Missal before the V2 Council changed the Church so drastically. You can find them on the internet via your search engine. Then get a copy of the current missalette in the back of your pew or vestibule. Sit down some evening and compare the two, paragraph by paragraph. You will find many paragraphs (prayers) of the Roman Catholic Tridentine Latin Mass completely deleted! You will find many words (prayers) in remaining paragraphs deleted or greatly altered, down to the very words of Christ during the consecration of His blood! Bottomline is words define intentions, and meaning. By deleting paragraphs, sentences, or words, and altering them, that changes the original intentions, meaning, and efficacy of the sacred old Roman Catholic Tridentine Latin Mass. Sadly all 7 sacraments have been changed. Bear in mind, these changes were not done by a bunch of laity, but knowingly by the clergy from the highest levels in the Vatican. Note that we laity are not without sin either, especially when we’ve accepted and pressed for liturgical abuses like liturgical dance, altar girls, liturgical committees telling the priests what to do and eucharistic ministers. We haven’t kept our Catholic Faith but instead have adopted protestant heresies for our own. We vote for politicians pro-choice/death, believe in politically correctness to the point its better to offend God than mankind, believe we don’t sin, are blind to the devil’s temptations, and blame all others for our very own errors. You bet we are at fault too! May God forgive us and help us. We all need to pray the rosary daily, devoutly and humbly in reparation for our sins.

Posted Monday, February 06, 2012 11:18 PM By Doug
Bob One, I am sorry to say you just don’t get it. The only way any of us can ever understand our Lord’s divine Way, Truth, and Light is by being blessed with His sanctifying graces first. Without God’s sanctifying graces, we are blind to His Way, Truth, and Light; and we are left wandering throughout the desert rambling along not knowing where we are going nor what we are saying. Pray to God to reveal to each of us His holy Way, Truth, and Light.

Posted Tuesday, February 07, 2012 2:33 PM By Larry
“Your very harsh criticism of the Roman Catholic Church before Vatican II in your awful, inaccurate and prepostorous 28 to 29 January string of blogs was greatly exaggerated and you will be held accountable for all your calumines to the tens of thousands of readers you mislead here!” Bruce, I’m making nothing up. I’m telling it like it was, and have no qualms of conscience for doing so. I am also not the only one who has said some of these same things. Father Benedict Groeschel of the New York Archdiocese has said that he has bad memories of his seminary days because the teachers were, in his words, “grouches.” He also said that he himself was part of a liturgical reform movement in the 1950’s because, in his words again, “We didn’t have mass in Latin. We had mass in gibberish,” meaning that the priests raced through it with no feeling in their delivery. He made these statements during his weekend live shows on EWTN. As for my mother, Bruce, she was NOT a bitter woman, but the nuns at my Catholic school most certainly were, and it was evident in their demeanor and their treatment of the children and the parents. I mislead no one. I tell the truth. It serves no good interests to paint a romanticized and idealized portrait of the pre-Conciliar Church in America–and as a matter of fact, that is usually done as part of an effort to slam the Second Vatican Council as not only unnecessary, but positively treasonous as well. As for my quote “I have no idea what it’s like”–you are taking it completely out of context. The “it” to which I referred was marriage and fatherhood.

Posted Tuesday, February 07, 2012 4:11 PM By Traditional Angelo
What Doug writes is something I found out years ago and am glad I did. “Sanctifying Grace” is something we have’nt heard much about for years. I learned of it through pre-V2 Catechisms. Sanctifying Grace comes from the Lord the giver of life who is God the Holy Ghost. So much talk about the Holy Spirit while the teachings of the true way of His working in the Church and souls have been done away with. The Holy Ghost has not stopped working, many just took him out of the hearts of Catholics by way of modernism. We need to rediscover the power of the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity and I don’t mean by way of the Charismatic Renewal that has a confused idea of who the Holy Ghost is. The so called pre-V2 catechisms hold the fullness of Truth about our faith in a clear and concise manner. Before V2 many Catholics lived these truths and were nourished by them. Doug thanks for the reminder of these sacred truths. Its a wake up call for all of us, a wake up from the modernist destruction caused not by V2 but by those who misinterpreted the Council at the cost of souls.

Posted Tuesday, February 07, 2012 4:47 PM By Traditional Angelo
Larry, I agree that many Catholics were lukewarm or cold in their practice of the faith before the Council. I understand that because of this Bl. John XXlll called for the Pastoral Council. But to paint the Church and Catholics before V2 as sort of a graveyard of the walking dead is taking it way too far. There were many good Catholics before V2 and Bl. John XXlll called for the Council so that all Catholics could be like them. The ugly picture of Catholics who are like a graveyard of the walking dead, are Catholics today of the past 45 years. That is how they were made by those who caused great damage to the Church by their misinterpretations of V2. Catholics today are extremely lukewarm if not ice cold. The cause is easely pinpointed. The misinterpretations of the Council by “Gente Non Sancta”. The Conciliar reforms just plain fell into the wrong hands. If we compare Catholics before and after the Council, it would only be fair to say that Catholics after the Council are worse off. There are good Catholics today but the bad ones outnumber them. It is fair to say many (not all) pre-conciliar Catholics were not Christlike. But to paint that period as a sort of dark ages is a grave error.

Posted Tuesday, February 07, 2012 7:42 PM By JLS
Doug, you’re creating a hypothetical condition of mankind that does not exist. It is a fantasy world, and of course in such a world of your making, you are a god.

Posted Tuesday, February 07, 2012 10:24 PM By k
Traditional Angelo, thanks for your post on Septuagesima. I have seen it mentioned in old books but did not really know when it was.

Posted Tuesday, February 07, 2012 11:57 PM By Doug
Angelo, Thanks for reinforcing pre-Vatican II Catholic teaching. I do however disagree with you and others who blame in your words ‘modernist destruction caused not by V2 Council but by those who misinterpreted the Council at the cost of souls’. Those like you who hold this position are only kidding yourselves. Pope St. Pius the Xth warned of modernism/liberalism and its destructive effects on the Roman Catholic (RC) Faith. He was heard by those who heeded to listen; and by those who wished over several decades to pursue changing the Church whilst their kind grew in numbers and power to achieve that end. Pope St Pius the Xth saw the liberals/modernists numbers on the inside at the turn of the 20th century! The modern V2 popes and bishops could see and had full authority and ability to stop what you might call the ‘results of the V2 Council misinterpretation’ (what our Lord might call the bad fruits); however, they did not. Just like the bishops many bloggers criticize today for not stopping or hampering liberalism/modernism. Larry, You missed my point regarding your “It” in quotations, my point was our age and short-life in the RC Church during our childhood before V2. You and I were but young children during the time you claim to have witnessed all the terrible abuses you claim! It truly is amazing when we grow up as adults and think back how things look so differently from the eyes as a child, and how impressionable children are so easily influenced by adults good and bad action. I for one can happily exclaim that the 3 holy RC priests and 4 holy RC nuns in my hometown parish over those years were all like angels, and we were all blessed with their presence. Speaking of your claims of priestly gibberish in the latin mass, one cannot say it never happened, and it wouldn’t happen by a priest who is well trained, especially to love and revere our Lord’s sacrifice on the cross. But one cannot also claim it doesn’t happen today in the novus ordo. Pray

Posted Wednesday, February 08, 2012 12:16 AM By Bruce
Larry I’d like to suggest you read the book “Spritual Diary — Selected Sayings and Examples of Saints”. Focus on the chapter about patience. Patience as it applies mainly to trials and infirmities. St Bernard said: “If ever there should be a monastery without a troublesome and bad-tempered religious, it would be necesssary to find one and pay him his weight in gold because of the great profit that results from this trial, when good use is made of it”. St Vincent de Paul said: “God sends us trials and infirmities to give the means of paying the enormous debts we owe Him. Hence, the wise receive them with joy, thinking more of the good they derive from them than of the sufferings they are undergoing”. Finally, St Francis de Sales said: “When we are made to suffer some pains, troubles or ill-treatment, let us turn our thoughts to the sufferings of our Savior. Immediately our own trials will become light and bearable, for no matter how bitter they may be, they will seem flowers in comparison to Christ’s thorns”. These saints were all suffering but very happy pre-V2 Roman Catholics.

Posted Wednesday, February 08, 2012 8:23 AM By Larry
Wait a minute, Doug! Is your name “Doug” or “Bruce”? The poster who cited my earlier “I have no idea what it’s like…” comment called himself “Bruce.” Now I turn on my computer this morning and see that someone calling himself “Doug” responds by saying, “you missed my point regarding your ‘it’ quotations.” Well, I sure am missing something! I see right after the mysteriously Dougified Bruce’s posting of Feb 7 11:57 p.m., Bruce himself returns under his own name with another post. Or maybe it’s another Bruce. Are you having a severe identity crisis, sir? Is this a case of Multiple Personality Disorder–or is Cal-Catholic’s software mixing up the names? Or is my computer on the blink? I’m not going to dialogue with someone who can’t make up his mind what name to use from post to post. And you accuse me of making things up in the stories I tell of my youth?

Posted Wednesday, February 08, 2012 10:41 AM By Abeca Christian
Larry I cant blame you, Bruce or Doug, if the same person, who want to play those silly games. It’s exactly what you called it on your last post. You discern well if both be the same person. God bless you.

Posted Wednesday, February 08, 2012 12:46 PM By Doug
Larry, Sorry about my confusion. Bruce is my brother and rather than taking more time posting on his own due to his running short of time, he just wanted and I let him add to my post. Go ahead and talk to either of us. He speaks for himself.

Posted Wednesday, February 08, 2012 1:22 PM By Traditional Angelo
k, I’m glad you found it interesting. The 3 sundays preceeding Ash Wednesday, Septuagesima Sunday, Sexagesima Sunday and Quinquagesima Sunday are preparations for making a good Lent. I find the Old Calender very useful in following God in union with the Church. Living our daily lives in union with the Church is very rewarding, it even makes life fun. I find it very sad that the New Calender is very much lacking in that form of guidance. But I’m sure it can be fixed.

Posted Wednesday, February 08, 2012 1:58 PM By Traditional Angelo
Doug, But much was said and done to try to stop the damaging misinterpretations of Vatican Council ll. At the helm was the Servant of God Pope Paul Vl. Whose powerful terms like the “Great upheaval in the Church, the smoke of satan, priests being his crown of thorns” His endless condemnations of the prevailing errors. The response of many was that Paul Vl should retire to allow a progressive Pope to take over. Just to mention a few of those who spoke out forcefuly, Cardinal Ottavianni, John Paul l, Bl. John Paul ll, Cardinal Ratzinger now Benedict XVl, Dr. Alice Von Hilderbrand, Mother Angelica, Bl. Mother Teresa of Calcuta, Michael Davies and a myriad number of others, famous and not so famous. The Church has survived because Jesus used these Men and Woman to take part in the great spiritual battle fortold in Scripture and Prophesized by Saints. I was there, I lived through it as a defender of our faith, I witnessed it. So my friend you are wrong in saying we are only kidding ourselves. We cannot deny reality. We must wake up and do spiritual battle.

Posted Wednesday, February 08, 2012 2:30 PM By Larry
Wel, Abeca and anyone else–it’s right out there to see. Start with the post by “Bruce” on Feb. 6 at 9:38 p.m., line #9 from the top, where he comments on a statement I’d made on a previous post. Then I respond on Feb 7 at 2:33 p.m., 3rd line from the bottom, “as for my quote…(etc).” Then all of a sudden you have “Doug” posting on Feb 7 at 11:57 p.m.–in line #12 down from the top, he takes ownership of “Bruce’s” Feb 6 comment, saying “you missed my point.” (“MY” point. It was Bruce’s point!) Then to top it off, 19 minutes after the last “Doug” post, comes another by “Bruce,” recommending spiritual reading for me. Obviously you have one poster changing identities back and forth over the course of a single thread, trying to create the false impression of a groundswell. But he committed a disastrous blunder. How many other names has he been using? We need to remember that some folks–not all, but some from these “more-traditional-than-the-pope” schismatic groups use subterfuges like this to mislead the otherwise-faithful, drawing them into their groups.

Posted Wednesday, February 08, 2012 3:16 PM By Larry
“Bruce is my brother…” Yeah, sure Doug. You each sit there co-writing every blog and alternating bylines, so naturally you can’t keep straight which of you said what. In fact, you’re probably Siamese twins, right? You’ve had an entire day to come up with that story, and I’m not buying it. I’m not wasting any more time defending myself against your accusations that I’m lying about my childhood experiences. Pass that message along to Bruce, too. I’m sure he’s sitting right next to you.

Posted Wednesday, February 08, 2012 4:40 PM By Larry
So, Doug, or Bruce–or whatever your name is–let me see if I understand you correctly. Bruce and Doug are brothers. One of you was writing a blog, and the writer included some of his brother’s comments in his blog. That’s all well and good–except the writer published his brother’s comments AS HIS OWN, in his own voice, as though they were his own thoughts–never mentioning that he was quoting someone else? Or maybe the first brother gets up and the second brother sits down at the keyboard and types his thoughts in on the same post as though they are coming from the original writer, never hinting that a second writer has now come on board? And then when I call everyone’s attention to the fact that the same comments are appearing under two different names, you take four hours to post the explanation “oh, it was my brother…(etc)?” I’m going to be frank with you. I don’t believe you.

Posted Wednesday, February 08, 2012 6:45 PM By JLS
On patience: St John says that with the Lord, a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as a day. My conclusion (k, you can check it in the CCC for validity) is that time has no part in patience.

Posted Wednesday, February 08, 2012 6:47 PM By JLS
The priests saying the Masses talk about Septuagisima Sunday; last week may have been the first time, however, that I had my ears opened long enough to hear the explanation of it. Miracles do happen.

Posted Wednesday, February 08, 2012 6:50 PM By JLS
Judging from the Catholic parochial coeds I met in my college days, I’d say about half the Catholic schools were no good and the other half taught holiness.

Posted Wednesday, February 08, 2012 8:30 PM By k
JLS, it was St. Peter who wrote that. (2 Peter3:8) Patience is not defined in the CCC. It is one of the fruits of the Holy Spirit. In Father Hardon’s Modern Catholic Dictionary, patience is defined as “a form of the moral virtue of fortitude. It enables one to endure present evils without sadness or resentment in conformity with the will of God. Patience is mainly concerned with bearing the evils caused by another. The three grades of patience are: to bear difficulties without interior complaint; to use hardships to make progress in virtue; to desire the cross and afflictions out of love for God and accept them with spiritual joy.

Posted Wednesday, February 08, 2012 10:04 PM By jon
I’m sorry, but I don’t think JLS or James know exactly what it means to say that the theology of the Novus Ordo is different from the extraordinary form. They have not convinced me that the theology is altered. What they have merely pointed to are changes, without proving how the theology is altered. There is no substantial proof they are presenting here. The claim that the theology is different is serious, calling for serious proof and argumentation, not what I have just read from them.

Posted Wednesday, February 08, 2012 10:54 PM By Abeca Christian
Larry this is so hilarious. To say the least. LOL Your comments were funny. I do agree with Larry, it’s kinda hard for Bruce or Doug to walk out of this one.

Posted Wednesday, February 08, 2012 11:05 PM By Bruce
Larry, You sure are a bitter guy with a pessimistic outlook, not trusting people. I do apologize to you and to all for piggy-backing on my brother’s blog. I won’t do that again because of the unforgiveness and lack of charity found on this website of bloggers like you and sympathetic to your erroneous unproven and false claims about Holy Mother the Church. I will say one last thing however in regard to yours and others harsh comments on schism. Websters dictionary defines schism as a formal division in or separation from a church or religious body. If a religious organization were to suddenly change, breaking from the past with its ancestors and against its anecestors declarations; however there was a fraction of the religious organization prefered not to change, but held staunchly to those of its ancestors, than who would truly be in schism? The revised religious organization or those who did not want to change?

Posted Wednesday, February 08, 2012 11:57 PM By Abeca Christian
Larry it’s nice to read that you have a good sense of humor, you caught this and ran with it, making a good read. I couldn’t stop laughing. It was hilarious, your comments. LOL. They say a good humor can be good medicine when needed. But there are those possibilities that Bruce may have a brother, but who knows, or maybe we may see a new name appearing and the disappearance of Bruce and or Doug. : ) Also I wouldn’t be so hasty as to say that many from “more-traditional-than-the-pope” churches are all that way. Why generalize all that, it’s not fair to say that. Larry I just want to convey that I enjoyed your humor.

Posted Thursday, February 09, 2012 3:31 AM By Dottie
Any Catholic School that does not use the CCC as a required text for 11th and 12 graders, YOUCAT for younger teens, and the Baltimore Catechism for elementary school students is not worth its “salt”. Parents have a responsibility before God to make certain that these books are read by children in the home. And everyone in the home must read a Catholic Bible, especially the New Testament.

Posted Thursday, February 09, 2012 5:41 AM By Meredith
Bruce, when provided by the Magisterium we use Church definitions on all matters of faith and morals not a secular dictionary. These are the definitions provided by our Magisterium in the “Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition” – – – – ” 2089 INCREDULITY is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. HERESY is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same. APOSTACY is the total repudiation of the Christian faith. SCHISM is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.” (In addition, there is a glossary in the back of the CCC.)

Posted Thursday, February 09, 2012 7:13 AM By Larry
Okay. Doug has explained why a comment of “Bruce” got published under Doug’s name and was submitted at 11:57 p.m. Feb 7. Bruce was in a hurry. He was “running short of time.” He must have had to get somewhere and do something. So Doug, who was in the act of writing a comment, got up from the keyboard and let Bruce finish the comment he was typing, so that Bruce could get on his way. Bruce just forgot to mention the change of authors as he was typing. Baloney, “Bruce” and “Doug!” Look at the thread. Exactly 19 minutes after Doug submitted his comment containing some of Bruce’s thoughts, “Bruce” himself published a comment under his own name at 12:16 a.m. Feb 8. He wasn’t in a hurry to get anywhere. That’s a lie. He had all the time in the world to write under his own name. And as a matter of fact, that 12:16 a.m. comment probably took about 19 minutes to write, proofread and submit. So “Bruce” must have started typing his own comment right after “Doug” submitted his at 11:57 p.m. And these “two” guys think and write more alike than a ventriloquist and his dummy. I’ll tell you what’s going on. This is one man doing this, not two–and he’s no doubt affiliated in some way with SSPX or SSPV. Maybe he’s even a priest in one of their rectories. And he’s either taken it upon himself or been assigned to attack Cal-Catholic’s threads and try to subtly or not-so-subtly draw the readers away from the Church by smearing Vatican II. Maybe he’s not even 57 years old, and really has NO memories of before the Council. Maybe this is one of several sites he posts on–he changes names and just got mixed up here about who he was supposed to be. But now the Holy Spirit has busted him, and if this guy keeps posting here, that Spirit is going to have him for breakfast, lunch and dinner every day. My suggestion: move along, Mr. My-Name-Is-Legion-For-We-Are-Many. I’m having too much fun.

Posted Thursday, February 09, 2012 10:19 AM By Abeca Christian
I think it’s time for Charity…..

Posted Thursday, February 09, 2012 10:53 AM By Traditional Angelo
k, I’m waking up to the greatness of the Old Calender. Here are some other practices that I find interesting. The four Ember Weeks, a spiritual preparation for each of the seasons, Spring, Summer, Fall and Winter. Each week has Wednesday & Saturday as days of fast and partial abstinence with Friday a day of Fast and Abstinence. There are also the Rogation days, April 25 and the 3 days preceeding Ascension Thursday called the days of the Greater Litanies. The Church calls on us to set these days apart for praying for our most personal needs. On these days it is my practice to visit favorite Churches to ask God in the Blessed Sacrament for all my needs, sort of like a child who goes to Santa to ask for all he wants for Christmas. Only the Rogation days are for real, God is going to grant everything according to his will. Then the days of fast before certain Feast days. It seems the pre-Vatican ll Church kept everyone spiritualy busy all year long. I don’t believe for a moment that Bl. John XXlll had the intention of abolishing these spiritual exercises that kept Catholics in spiritual fitness.

Posted Thursday, February 09, 2012 12:48 PM By Larry
Abeca: With all due respect, I think it’s time for truth and for understanding what we’re really up against. “Charity” must not become a synonym for naivete.

Posted Thursday, February 09, 2012 1:18 PM By Doug
Larry, I am so sorry that you are so cynical. My brother Bruce was scrambling working on his post. What is the big deal? Is it the message or is it the messenger that is so important? How many of us bloggers know and criticize others due to their limited identities? Unless we’ve met each other face to face, or corresponded many times, we can be discussing subjects to others anywhere in the world without caring who they are. Its terrible how you insult, exaggerate, and lie about/mis-represent Holy Mother the Church before Vatican II. May God forgive you. Feel free to commit calumny about my brother and I all you like. (Suffering false accusations is actually healing for our souls). You and your clic are in our prayers. Wish you had answered my brother Bruce’s question. For anyone who’s become doubtful of Holy Mother the Church’s beauty and innocence before V2, I suggest you pray the rosary that God will show you His Way, Truth, Light, and grant you Sanctifying Grace to see it all. Without receiving Sanctifying Grace, we are and will continue to be blind to God, be deceived, make gross errors, and fall into sin offending God; it is all that simple. Where do we find and receive Sanctifying Grace? Answer: Mainly in the 7 Holy Sacraments. Pray the rosary and checkout for yourself how Holy Mother the Catholic Church was before V2 by visiting a traditional Roman Catholic (RC) parish in your area. A directory exists on the internet, just type in traditio into your search engine and the directory covers all Latin Mass RC parishes in North America and other parts of the world. At a parish you will see a distinct difference between the past and the present. Again only with Sanctifying Grace will we see God’s Way, Truth, an Light. Angelo, I am glad to see you are waking up, Yes all these pre-V2 practices kept everyone spiritually Catholic year-round, and were essentially abolished by V2. Remember fast and abstinence for all 40 days of Lent (less Sundays)?

Posted Thursday, February 09, 2012 10:50 PM By Abeca Christian
Larry it’s Ok my brother, I know that you mean it with respect, I was hoping to give Bruce and Doug the benefit of the doubt as well and to remind myself also of Charity. I hope you know that although I found your comments hilarious but I was supporting you because I thought you were discerning well about the two identities but I meant the last comment for myself because I laughed so hard, that I thought, that perhaps I was going at it in the wrong way and that I needed to remind myself to be more charitable. Thanks friend. Appreciate your honesty. God bless you. : )

Posted Friday, February 10, 2012 4:49 AM By RR
Bruce and Doug: I do believe you both. I do have to admit it was strange, but I do belive you. I also agree with what you said about before and after Vatican II. Things DID change radically from the Mass, to the sacraments, Church teachings…and it wasn’t for the better. This to me is very obvious. People just have to do some internet surfing about the differences of the old Mass and the changing of the Sacraments since Vatican II, but people can be lazy in their seeking the truth.

Posted Friday, February 10, 2012 8:45 AM By Abeca Christian
RR common sense from a good decent person as well. RR I agree with you too, it was strange. LOL I like your comments because I know that our Pope is trying to return the Mass the way it was little by little from what I have seen with the new changes of before. RR from what I gather now, is that there are certain levels of the NO, there is the ones that are for children who never grow up and still stay at their current spiritual growth. The other levels are the ones who evangelize more the faith and do grow up, like the Scott Hauhns, Tim Staples etc. You have the Charismatic element in the NO as well, you have the Traditional Element for those who have grown more in their faith and want more and to dig deeper in Tradition. I think that the NO was permitted, it is because of we are all sinners, some of us keep growing and some of us stop, the church is for the sick and Jesus is the great physician. Jesus is still there. Since we are human, some just may need the NO to continue to stay in the faith, or else they would just leave and join protestant sects, or not embrace any Christian faith. I no longer fault those who only prefer NO mass, because of their inability to grow or what have you, for whatever reasons. I just pray that they find a parish that is in accordance with the CCC teachings and scripture, with those seeds planted, then one can continue to pray. People embrace their preference of worship in reaching out to the Lord. The church allowed this because of it’s mercy and love for Christ’s sheep, Christ’s ordered Saint Peter to feed His sheep.

Posted Friday, February 10, 2012 1:34 PM By Bruce
Meredith, in keeping then with the CCC definition you provided on Schism: “SCHISM is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.” How would you explain then the V2 Council not submitting to the Papal Bull of SAINT Pope Pius the Vth in “Quo Primum”? Where after this SAINT codified the Tridentine Latin Mass, and this SAINT and PONTIFF declared that it was the Holy Mass for all ages! (Without conditions!) We traditional Roman Catholics simply submit dearly and firmly to Pope SAINT Pius the Vth’s Papal Bul “Quo Promim! It appears as though this SAINT and PONTIFF was ignored as his Papal Bull was thrown out the door between 1967 and 1984 (one couldn’t find a Tridentine Latin Mass nearly anywhere as it was essentially abolished), then it was never really encouraged or looked favorably upon by the magesterium (as a whole) even until the Moto Propio that granted essentially approval for a 3 year experiment nearly 3 years ago. Please explain this 1960’s V2 refusal of submission to Pope SAINT Pius the Vth, which all the pontiffs through Pope Pius the XIIth obeyed! Yes these ancient times pontiffs did make just a couple of additions to some parts of the Tridentine Latin Mass over the centuries, but not to the Canon of this Holy Mass, where they kept Jesus’ Holy Words exact and intact. Read Fr. James Meagher’s book “How Christ said the First Mass”! OBTW, major V2 changes occcured in all the 7 Sacraments, and RCC doctrine too, the latter in some cases countering previous Church teachings. You see the changes to the novus ordo weren’t just in translating latin to the vernacular in the 7 Holy Sacraments, whole prayers were deleted, or changed, So again based on the definition you provided from the CCC, did V2 submit to Pope SAINT Pius the Vth and his subsequent Holy Fathers through Pope Pius the XIIth? We all need to seek God’s Sanctifying Grace to know His Holy Truth and His Way. God bless!

Posted Friday, February 10, 2012 4:13 PM By JLS
Doug, Catholicism does not separate the message from the messenger. Persons, not messages, receive salvation.

Posted Friday, February 10, 2012 4:15 PM By JLS
Doug, you need to understand argument, which is all that Larry is doing. He challenged your argument because it was not clear. Write clearly.

Posted Friday, February 10, 2012 10:59 PM By James
Did you know that in less than seven years after introduction of the novus ordo mass, priests in the world decreased from 413,438 to 243,307 — almost 50%! Source Holy See statistics. Why? Because many good Catholic theologians, canonists, and priests did not accept the novus ordo mass and affirm that they were unable to celebrate it in good conscience. Statistics also show a great decrease in conversions to Catholicism following use of the novus ordo mass. Conversions which were up to 100,000 a year in the U.S., decreased to nearly 10,000 per year. In the words of our Lord “By their fruits you shall know them”. Fruits of the novus ordo mass were a 30% decrease in Sunday attendance in the U.S. (NY Times 5/24/75), 43% decrease in France (per Cardinal Marty), and 50% decrease in Holland (NY Times 1/5/76).

Posted Saturday, February 11, 2012 6:55 AM By Larry
Doug/Bruce: You’re not as clever as you think you are. Here’s Doug’s latest comeback on why Bruce published something as part of a post which his brother Doug was already working on: “My brother Bruce was scrambling working on his post.” One man is using at least two names. Judging from “Bruce’s” 1:34 p.m. Feb 10 lecture on St. Pius V and his “Quo Primum”, I could guess that he’s an SSPV operator. In one careless moment, he got his identities mixed up and gave himself away. And he’s trying to skate through it using a mountain of maudlin pietisms. It’s not working. He’s not as smart as he thinks. And we’re not as stupid as he thinks.

Posted Saturday, February 11, 2012 7:03 AM By OSCAR
James, Both the ORDINARY FORM (OF) and the EXTRAORDINARY FORM (EF) of the Mass are HOLY – the Body and Blood of Our Lord, Jesus Christ. It is heretical to say otherwise. Abuses of both of these forms of Mass by Priests and/or Laity are the true issues. It is up to each of us report abuses to our Diocese Bishop or the US Papal Nuncio and to the Vatican. Use GIRM (General Instruction of the Roman Missal) for the OF Mass, and the 1962 Missal for the EF Mass to discern abuses.

Posted Saturday, February 11, 2012 7:25 AM By JLS
So, Doug and Bruce, what exactly is the “brother” relationship you refer to yourselves as?

Posted Saturday, February 11, 2012 8:57 AM By OSCAR
Bruce, good question. The Tridentine / Latin / EF Mass was never outlawed by Vatican II. You will never find this in any of the legitimate documents. The vernacular language OF Mass was merely instituted since most people in the world do not think in or understand Latin. Remember that all Councils are for the entire World, not just the USA. As I said before, both forms of the Mass are Holy, and must be treated with the utmost respect.

Posted Saturday, February 11, 2012 9:13 AM By ANNE
Thank you OSCAR for setting everyone straight in your post of 7:03am. This infighting over which Mass is better is not only childish but something that can not be changed by their silly bickering.- which is not only heretical, but may chase non-Catholics away from the Catholic Faith entriely. Unfortunately most of this bickering today is started by those who attend the EF/Latin Mass and it only hurts their cause. Who would want to join a Faith where people argue over ‘my Mass is better than your Mass’? When is this sinfulness going to stop? If you see abuses by a Priest, Laity, or Bishop in either form of the Mass report them. Those who do nothing are also to blame.

Posted Saturday, February 11, 2012 10:48 AM By JLS
So, ANNE, you’re calling the laity, clergy and hierarchy of the Church “childish” for discussing and disputing points of the two forms of Mass? If you are happy in the American Church, that is your choice. If novus ordo smiling faces are disturbed by the “bickering”, too bad. Get over it and change to the TLM where you won’t have to worry about theological error.

Posted Saturday, February 11, 2012 1:43 PM By Traditional Angelo
A very good priest Msgr. Patrick Flood who said the TLM for us in the Fresno Diocese repeated in his many sermons, “In saying the Old Mass again, I have come to realize that we have lost much.” One of the things he pointed out was the words used in giving Holy Communion to the faithful. In the NO the priest says, “Body of Christ” and we respond, “Amen”. The Old manner fascinated him, in giving communion the Priest says, “Corpus Domini nostri Iesu Christi custodiat animan tuam in vitam aeternam. Amen.” or “The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ guard your soul unto eternal life. Amen.”. It is my opinion that our questions, observances, confusions ect…are open for debate by the Faithful, always remembering that the Holy Father has the final say and that we give complete submission to his God given authority. The Posts on this subject on calcathdaily is of extreme interest to me. These posts have the questions that I have always pondered but would not ask verbaly for fear of offending God. I don’t think it offends God, this is part of the spiritual battle fortold about this age by many Saints. One observance I have is this. If the pre-V2 Church was so bad, why are millions clamoring for a return to it today?

Posted Saturday, February 11, 2012 2:55 PM By Larry
Angelo: I don’t think anywhere near “millions” are clamoring for a return to the pre-Vatican II Church–but the ones who are I’m sure are fed up with the spirit of laxity and slackertude so common in today’s Church. They want not so much to return to 1962 or 1958 as they want to return to something to believe in, to fight for and even die for–and too many laity and clergy don’t seem to cherish the Church to that degree. Anyone with a conscience is disgusted seeing that kind of casual hypocrisy. And the Pre-Vatican II Church wasn’t “bad” so much as it was incomplete. Even the majority of good people in the Church back then had been conditioned to assume a completely passive role. They had little or no concept of the Apostolate of the Laity, a principle annunciated by Pius XII no less. What was the clergy’s vocation? To save their immortal souls and those of the laity. And the laity’s calling? To be saved by the clergy. That was pretty much it. “Pay, pray and obey” was more than a slogan. It was a way of life. You see this very thread? You see all the laymen posting their opinions–passionately grappling with questions of faith and moral life? That was not only unheard-of before the Council, but such an uppity laity likely would not have been well-tolerated by the clergy of that day. One more thing: what’s the worst thing about the sex-abuse scandal? It’s not the abusers themselves–it’s the fact that bishops and superiors-general covered up for the criminals, enabling them to go on abusing for DECADES! That bureaucratic pass-the-bad-apple attitude came out of the PRE-Vatican II Church–not the later version. Those lazy men in authority were conditioned by and came into office during the pre-Conciliar age. We may think of the abuse itself as primarily a 1970’s problem–but the enablers were definitely old-school, old Church.

Posted Saturday, February 11, 2012 3:50 PM By ANNE
JLS, I belong to the Roman Catholic Church. The two forms of the Mass are not disputed in the Church at all. FYI, I attend the EF Mass, and further last year witnessed the worst abuse – the Priest told us to read the Gospel at home because it was too long ! ! ! ! !

Posted Saturday, February 11, 2012 4:30 PM By JLS
Of course the two forms are disputed. Where have you been for forty years?

Posted Saturday, February 11, 2012 4:46 PM By JLS
ANNE, your second comment is a separate issue from your first one. Obviously the EF does not stop liturgical or even heretical or schismatic problems; to wit, Aryan heresy long before the novus ordo, east/west split a thousand years ago, and the pedophile break out stemming from pre-Vatican II clergy … Note, the reason it was called for was to solve the abuse problem. And it seems to be working, as from my point of view it has facilitated the culling of faithless from faithful. We can see the lines, and eventually the “smaller and holier Church” will become more distinct. As for it being an abuse to leave off with the long sermon, I think I’ve run into that several times. Or maybe what I experienced was the omission of the repeat in English of Gospel and Epistle. This may be an option for an exhausted priest. It only goes to show that the bishops should allow more EF priests so as to provide sufficient clergy for this right rite of the faithful. The perhaps coincidental benefit to requesting those in the pews to read the Gospel at home might be that some of them would find it worth reading more and more of.

Posted Saturday, February 11, 2012 5:21 PM By Doug
We are all blind to the Truth without receiving Sanctifying Grace, it is the key to seeing God’s Truth, and knowing where He wants us to go, and what He wants us to do. This enlightenment comes to us from the Holy Ghost in the form of Sanctifying Grace. There is so much hypocrisy and heresy that exists today all thanks to modernism and liberalism. In the US two-thirds of self-claimed catholics don’t believe in the transubstantiation, and three-fourths don’t attend services on weekends – a severe loss of the faith (per national surveys like Pew). It is worse in Europe, I’ve been there! Modernists and liberals spiritually close their eyes and turn their cheeks from the truth. Hypocrisy is where the blind turn their cheeks and look the other way meanwhile pointing out the errors of those that lead them astray with their liturgical abuses, pedophilia, and unwillingness to stop or correct sin/error like that displayed by modern pedophile priests and pro-abortion politicians. Modernism/liberalism has blinded the eyes of millions of souls. God gives us our liberty to follow Him or follow false prophets. I am a sinner that loves God and will follow Him in His traditional Roman Catholic Way, Truth, and Light which so pleases Him, not in my own way. As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord in the manner He so bequeethed in the traditional Roman Catholic Church. For all that matters is how we are judged and where we are sent by God to remain in eternity and that is Heaven. The short time we spend on earth, putting our eartly lives above all else and self-centered is not worth the risk of losing our souls forever in hell. Trying to evangelize and bring our brethern back, there is nothing we traditional Roman Catholic mortals can say here that will change the minds of those blind to God’s Holy Truth, only Sanctifying Grace given to them from the Holy Ghost. Our rosary’s we will say for the millions who have lost the Roman Catholic faith.

Posted Saturday, February 11, 2012 7:09 PM By JLS
Doug are you a repentant sinner? Also in that you are the recipient of sanctifying grace which as you say allows you to see “God’s truth” (does this mean there are other truths, Doug?), do you see the Beatific Vision. What’s it like, Doug? I had thought it was the multitudes of lapsed bishops who have been showing the faithful what God’s kingdom means, and that they turned away because of the hypocrisy there. Any Scripture that comes to mind where Jesus excoriates the “people” for hypocrisy instead of only the leaders? And lastly, Doug, how exactly does the sanctifying grace get from God to man? You didn’t clarify that part.

Posted Saturday, February 11, 2012 11:22 PM By Traditional Angelo
Larry, The adherents of the SSPX number over 1 million. This is 2012 and we want the Church as it has always been for 2,000 years.The pre-Vatican ll Church was not incomplete. The Church herself was perfect in all her teachings and practices, it was its members that were incomplete. If they were incomplete then, we are even more incomplete now. You say the pre-V2 Church was “Pay, pray and obey”, today its been pay, pay, pay and obey and shut up! We’re worse off don’t you think? The sex abuse scandal happened in the post V2 Church by those ordained in the 80’s, 90’s and 2000’s, how do you explain it broke out almost 2 generations after the Council and mostly by young priests. What’s your anger towards the Church before V2. You obviously have some sort of anger. The reasons for my anger at the post-V2 church is all too obvious. Read what Bl. JP2 had to say and listen to what BXVl is saying about the whole mess. As for the lay Apostolate its been my whole way of life. I learned it from the Traditionalist Catholics in the 70’s who brought it over from the pre-V2 Church, and except only once did a liberal priest encourage me. Liberal priests blasted me for it and attempted to humiliate me in public because of it. Larry, in the post I’m responding to, you first start off like a lamb and end like a wolf. What gives? God Bless!

Posted Sunday, February 12, 2012 1:15 AM By Traditional Angelo
Larry, I must admit I was dumfounded by your post of February 11, 2012 2:55 PM. I would like to respond to a few other points. What was exactly incomplete about the Church before the Council? You state that Catholics were “conditioned to assume a completely passive role”. I learned my Catholic faith from books and materials all written before V2, they all had one thing in common, a call to a life of active holiness. The “Apostolate of the Laity” was given a 100% priority, such that some priests and laity warned me of becoming a Catholic religious fanatic. You state that back then the priests life consisted of saving his own soul and that of others and the laity lived only to have their souls saved by the Clergy (Through the Sacraments I pressume). Then you say, “That was pretty much it.” What for God’s sake do you think life is about!!!??? Thats what it should be all about, SANCTIFICATION, thats why I’m a Traditionalist. You point out the laity posting on this site, and that this was unheard of before. Well there are 2 things that Catholics before the Council did not have, one was the Internet the other was the upheavel, heresy, schism, disobedience, modernism, lack of true Catholic teaching, unity, scandal ect… ect… ect… in a nutshell the mess we have in the Church today. Bl. John XXlll called for the Pastoral Council because of Catholics like us, lukewarm and cold. If a Pastoral Council was needed back then, then a Greater Pastoral Council made up of Traditionalists only is of emergency proportions needed today. In Charity I advise that you seriously read what Bruce and Doug are telling us. Its all about eternal salvation. Life is worthless without our goal being God himself.

Posted Sunday, February 12, 2012 7:14 AM By Larry
Angelo: I’m not talking about the books. I’m talking about the degree which the laity understood or did not understand its own role in the mission of the Church. The concept of the Apostolate of the Laity, although by no means new or novel, was not grasped by the average man, woman, boy and girl in the pew–and I’m not the only one who has noted this. Where did the phrase “pay, pray and obey” come from? Not me. I didn’t coin it. As for the “upheavel, heresy, schism, disobedience, modernism,” where do you think all of that came from? It didn’t drop down from outer space. It was perpetrated by people already in positions of authority well before the Council. It was aided and abetted by bishops who either promoted it or at least looked the other way–bishops who had been wearing the collar since long before the Council. The bad boy-priests of the late 1960’s and 70’s were born in the 1940’s or early 50’s. And last but not least, the majority of the laity went right along with it, because they had been so conditioned to be passively obedient to the clergy that they neither knew or cared differently–when they should have been fighting it tooth and nail. The compliant laity was what made the rebellion possible in the first place–and what sustained it for so many years! How can anyone be blind to that obvious fact? It’s right in front of our eyes. There’s one other thing that’s right in front of our eyes. Some of the finest young Catholics who’ve come along in probably centuries have no memories of anything before John Paul II–the pope who dedicated his career to advancing the teachings of Vatican II. In charity, I advise you to think seriously about that.

Posted Sunday, February 12, 2012 7:17 AM By Bob One
Traditional Angelo, I like millions of other Catholics go to church on Sunday. We listen to the word of God – Old Testament, Psalms, New Testament Epistles, the Gospel. We hear thoughtful homilies about how those readings can help us in our daily lives. We are reminded of our faith when we recite the Creed. We participate in the liturgy of the Eucharist, receive Communion and pray. What is wrong with that? Why do you believe/preach that it is not a true Mass? The members of the parish are active in helping the poor, the hungry, etc. They are active in faith formation at all ages. Why do you consider that wrong? Being a Catholic involves more that attending Mass once a week. It requires an active participation in the life of the parish. Because we were saved by Christ’s death for our sins, we are required to live out the Gospel message. Being a Catholic is much more than going to a church once a week. It requires active participation in the life of teh parish. I grew up pre-VII. Let me tell you that you do not want to go back to those days.

Posted Sunday, February 12, 2012 7:39 AM By Larry
“The sex abuse scandal happened in the post V2 Church by those ordained in the 80’s, 90’s and 2000’s…” That’s not correct, Angelo. As I understand it, the bulk of the abuse was centered in the 1970’s–since then there has been a steady, sharp drop in the number of reports. But it didn’t start after the Council. One of the worst of the serial abusers was Jesuit Father Donald McGuire, who actually became a spiritual sdviser to Mother Theresa. He entered the Jesuit order in 1947, was ordained a priest in 1961, and apparently began his pattern of abusing boys in the early 1960’s. The Jesuit pattern of covering up for him was well underway by 1969, when a diocesan priest (whom I myself met in recent years) wrote a strong letter of complaint to McGuire’s superiors about his conduct with a high school boy. That letter is today part of the civil case record against McGuire, who is in prison.

Posted Sunday, February 12, 2012 8:18 AM By JLS
I first got to know Catholics en masse (not at Mass) at a public university beginning in 1966. Soon I discovered that there were two sorts, the “free sex” sort and the actually virtuous sort … about half and half proportionally. Some parochial schools bred on type and some the other type. How do I know this? The loose type had canned pitches for free sex and the virtuous type did not, but acted modestly and even on occasion displayed some mysterious holiness. The only public advocation of the Gospel came from Mormons and Evangelicals. I’d say that the “pray, pay and obey” mantra was a sign of disengagement from God, a kind of lip service. Reminds me of the three monkeys, one with hands over ears, one with hands over eyes, and one with hands over mouth: Often Prophetic verses bring forth the image of God’s people having closed their ears, their eyes and their hearts. Today we find over half the Catholics closed their ears, eyes and hearts to the silent screams of babies being aborted. The people running the Church come from before Vatican II, but the Catholics voting almost all come from the era of Vatican II … and now they can hardly decide whether sodomite favoring laws are good or bad. We read where the scant few words of Scripture each week at Mass really fill the soul to overflowing with the Gospel of action … well, the result of this “glory” is millions of abortions annually throughout the “Christian” world and Catholic politicians pushing to institutionalize and force sodomy in schools both public and private, and rid Christianity from the military services. So, how is the problem either post or pre V2?

Posted Sunday, February 12, 2012 8:46 AM By Larry
Look, if you’re attracted to the rubrics and forms of the1962 liturgical life of the Church, I say “more power to you!” (provided that you use the 1962 rubrics which were never abolished, and not, say, the 1954 version of the Mass and calendar which WAS replaced by Pius XII, and which SSPV uses today–I would consider that a sin of disobedience.) But if you long for the pre-Council ERA, then I unfortunately have to pop your balloon. Your problem, I think, is that you’re getting your information on those times from people who have remained faithful to the Church to this day. The fact is that huge numbers of people left the Church after the Council. Have you talked to any of them? I’ll tell you what they’re liable to say. Something like this: “Yeah, I remember old Father McGillicuddy–I used to serve his 9 a.m. daily mass. He was always looped by nine in the morning–what an old codger! And all that Latin mumbo-jumbo you had to memorize! And my teachers were the Sisters of Divine Justice. They were always telling me how all my sins were gonna be announced at the Last Judgement Day. They just said that to get you to behave in the classroom, that’s all! Boy, I’m glad I left that stuff.” This is the way they talk. You listen to this, then you realize that your conception of faith and God and Church is completely alien to theirs. You’ve got nothing in common with such a person. This person has no conception of what they were really involved in–in fact never did. Talk to some of the defectors, and you’ll realize pretty quickly the extent of the shallowness of that time. These people didn’t lose their faith after the Council. They had no faith to lose in the first place!

Posted Sunday, February 12, 2012 11:04 AM By JLS
Women make the best teachers up to age ten or eleven. After that, men make the best teachers. The level of maturity of society depends in part on this age specific participation of women and men teaching kids. Conversely men teaching grammar schools should be thrown to the wolves.

Posted Sunday, February 12, 2012 11:06 AM By JLS
There was and is no uniformity among Catholic schools; some are run by faithless and/or confused men and women, yet, thank God, others are run by faithful, intelligent and wise men and / or women.

Posted Sunday, February 12, 2012 11:58 AM By Larry
“Larry, The adherents of the SSPX number over 1 million. This is 2012 and we want the Church as it has always been for 2,000 years.” Angelo: are you saying that you ARE a member of SSPX currently? I had understood you to say in the past that you WERE at one time a member of SSPX, but that you have since recanted that membership. Is that not correct?

Posted Sunday, February 12, 2012 5:46 PM By Traditional Angelo
Larry, Traditionalist groups approved by Rome are far too many to mention. Add to that the millions and millions of Catholics who would like the Old Mass but have been brainwashed by the enemies of the Church. I stopped being an adherent of the SSPX in 1988. I am hoping they accept Rome’s “Doctrinal Preamble” so that I could join them again. Gotcha!

Posted Sunday, February 12, 2012 10:57 PM By Abeca Christian
I wish there wasn’t so much division. I guess sin causes so much of that. I love our beautiful faith. I have been shaken a bit lately on my faith walk,(not in a bad way but in how I have been going about it with raising my kids) I’m broken up in pieces, I have begged Jesus to protect me from falling in error. Folks when we ask Jesus to show us who we really are, we look in the mirror, God loves us and will correct us when we are open to getting closer to Him. I had to pray for God’s protections. I went to a NO mass a few weeks ago, then I went to my Maronite parish and today I once again returned to our Latin Mass parish. I needed to break some ugly pride that was hanging on my shoulders, so to speak. I am realizing that some folks worship in their spiritual comfort and some never grow up spiritually, that is why some do not care for the Latin Rite but there are some who prefer the Latin Rite, as they have grown more traditional and appreciate it the more due to the many modern issues we are facing. It just feels safer for many. With my own children, I am having to be reminded that I need to be open to where my child will grow in their faith and sometimes I need to be fair, they may need the NO mass first before they can choose for themselves the Latin Rite. As long as I teach the kids the right ways taught through the CCC, scripture, tradition etc, they can choose a more traditional NO parish. I must trust in God, that he will show them the way, as he has mercifully shown me. That is where we must trust. God bless you all.

Posted Monday, February 13, 2012 2:03 AM By Traditional Angelo
Bob One, I never said that the NO was not the real Mass. I in fact attend the NO more often than the TLM. I have never questioned the validity of the New Mass. Everything you do at the Novus Ordo I also do at both the TLM and the NO. What I have lamented, in union with Bl. John Paul ll and Pope Benedict XVl are the liturgical abuses in the New Mass. What I consider active participation in parish life is what Pope Paul Vl said about, “Be in the world, but not of the world.” I am not a member of the clergy to have to remain on Church grounds most of my time. My calling is to go out and be an example of the truth of our Lord Jesus Christ, in the very world God has placed me in. In reality according to the firm teaching of JP2 and BXVl there is no pre-vatican Church and their is no post-Vatican ll Church. This is one and the same Church founded by Christ 2000 years ago.

Posted Monday, February 13, 2012 7:39 AM By k
abeca and traditional angelo, two great posts!

Posted Monday, February 13, 2012 3:31 PM By Doug
JLS, Answers to your questions: Q1) Doug are you a repentant sinner? [A1: Yes]. Q2) Also in that you are the recipient of sanctifying grace which as you say allows you to see “God’s truth” (does this mean there are other truths, Doug?) [A2: No there is only one truth, God’s truth that He has revealed to us, that can be found in old RCC texts, many abolished by liberals and out of circulation.] Q3) do you see the Beatific Vision. [A3: Only what God has revealed to us in old RCC texts]. Q4) What’s it like, Doug? [A4: I’m not a prophet, just a reader of RCC texts approved by — “Imprimatur” — holy cardinals or bishops that preserved the RCC faith]. Q5) Any Scripture that comes to mind where Jesus excoriates the “people” for hypocrisy instead of only the leaders? [A5: No; however, our Lord did correct the Pharisees and Sanhedrin (Jewish leaders) on occasion in public! Q6) And lastly, Doug, how exactly does the sanctifying grace get from God to man? [A6: Too little space to answer here. I suggest you download/read the Baltimore Catechism from the It’s loaded with info! To wet your whistle: “Sanctifying grace makes the soul holy and pleasing to God”. ‘It is a supernatural gift of God bestowed on us, through the merits of Jesus Christ, for our salvation. “Some of the Sacraments give sanctifying grace, and others increase it in our souls.” “A Sacrament is an outward sign instituted by Christ to give grace”. ‘Three things are necessary: An outward sign (for baptism, pouring of water), the institution of that sign by Christ, and the giving of grace through the use of that sign, are always necessary for the existence of a Sacrament, and if any of the three are missing there can be no Sacrament’. “As Christ is the giver of the grace, He has the right to determine the manner in which it shall be given, and one who refuses to make use of the Sacraments will not receive God’s grace”. Read it and learn.

Posted Monday, February 13, 2012 4:02 PM By Jeanie P.
Anne, A shameful example in your 3:50 pm 11 Feb post of a priest losing his faith, but don’t put the EF mass abusive priests in the same basket as the traditionalist Roman Catholic priests. That is unfair, and any abuse is on an individual level. Doubt if that priest was a member of the FSSP, was he? You see there is a difference between those modern priests trained and formed in modern seminaries with a crash-course OJT to say the EF and those traditional priests trained and formed in traditional seminaries where they learn to only say the latin mass exclusively. Your experience reminds me of an acquaintence who picked up his family and left a modern novus ordo parish after the priest read the gospel and said ‘I don’t know why we are expected to read from the bible as it is is only full of fairy tales’. They never returned, and ended up attending a latin mass in a southern California monastary. How many modern seminaries teach about the EF and all the ins and outs about it? Few modern bishops and priests know how to say the EF, so them even teaching it to seminarians is highly-unlikely. Again, traditional Roman Catholic priests do learn all about saying it in the traditional seminaries exclusively. Also priestly vocations don’t begin in the seminary, they begin when young boys are properly formed in a holy catholic way of life while growing up by their parents through the grace of God. Priests can also fall from grace if they do not practice their daily Office of Prayers. Priests are the devils most inviting targets because of the widespread scandal and ramifications they can cause by their errors. Priests need our prayers and rosaries to fight off temptation and spiritual sloth.

Posted Monday, February 13, 2012 6:16 PM By JLS
Excellent and well rec’d reply, Doug!!! The strength of your exposition on the Sacraments more than makes up for the slight weakness of your replies 3 and 4. A good refresher for me, and spiritual ammo in my adventures with non-Catholics.

Posted Monday, February 13, 2012 6:23 PM By JLS
” … priestly vocations don’t begin in the seminary, they begin when young boys are properly formed in a holy catholic way … “: Nah. Many priests including the greatest of them were not raised Catholic. In my opinion it is problematic to raise a boy to become a priest. I think that this causes extreme problems in the Church. You end up with boys who never grew up as boys because they never were.

Posted Monday, February 13, 2012 8:16 PM By Charles
Bob One, “Being a Catholic is much more than going to a church once a week. It requires active participation in the life of teh parish. I grew up pre-VII. Let me tell you that you do not want to go back to those days” from your post on Sunday. Wow, you make it sound like the pre-V2 Church wasn’t involved or didn’t care much about the plights of catholics. I wonder how many pre-V2 orphanges, hospitals, elementry schools, middle schools, high schools, seminaries, convalescent homes, and soup kitchens have closed post-V2? Yes there were many more of many of them before than now! One also has to take a look back to those good old days when the family culture was different than today. Families stayed together and took responsibility for the care of each other as opposed to the nearly 55% divorce/broken home rate of today. If families were unable to take care of each other, the parish church was likely next in line to provide support, and last of all the government. The tide has turned now where the government wants to buy votes and gain citizens dependence so it can develop a socialist frame of government and way of life. I long for the old days with the RCC in all her glory! Mass just once/week? JLS I challenge you to prove your claim that in your own words: “Many priests including the greatest of them were not raised Catholic”. I think you have an exaggerated view of the formation of young boys catholic faith keeping them from growing up as boys. Boys will be boys, only those that were formed, were provided a more catholic upbringing, not at the expense of being little boys. Their lives cultivated by their parents was appreciably more God-centered that is all. Learning the basics, prayers, the value of prayers, Baltimore Catechism, reverence before the Blessed Sacrament, and learning about the saints, like Saint Dominic Salvo, treating saints like him as heros as opposed to rock stars and athletes, and video game characters today.

Posted Monday, February 13, 2012 11:44 PM By ANNE
JLS, the problem of not allowing enough EF Priests is a problem in your own Diocese, with your own Bishop. (The same for others experiencing the same problem.) FSSP Priests are more than willing to train other Priests in the EF Mass, if they are willing to learn with permission from their Bishop. As many others have said – the problem is us. We each have a responsibility to act not just complain. When any Bishop is disobedient to the Vatican directives, contact the US Papal Nuncio and the Vatican with documentation. On the other hand you must prove there is enough interest for an EF Mass in your area (Parish) – the best way to prove this is via petition (a significant number of signatures).. My Bishop not only has Latin Masses in various areas of the Diocese, but in addition also has helped the FSSP to have their own Parish. On the internet check out “Christ the King Catholic Church” in Sarasota, FL. Our Bishop is a good shepard for all of his flock.

Posted Tuesday, February 14, 2012 7:17 AM By Larry
Charles: The saint’s name is Dominic Savio.

Posted Tuesday, February 14, 2012 10:47 AM By James
Angelo, How can you say “Add to that the millions and millions of Catholics who would like the Old Mass but have been brainwashed by the enemies of the Church”. Brain-washed by who exactly? The PRC Catholic Church where the chinese communists govern it? So you are “hoping they accept Rome’s “Doctrinal Preamble” so that you can join them again. Funny how you agree with SSPX so much that you want to rejoin them; but refuse to do so and outcast them as though the SSPX are either a bunch of heretics or schismatics! Where do you draw the line on heresy and loyalty in regards to the modern Church? Its been nearly 3 months since the Vatican gave the SSPX the ultimatum on the Preamble. Looking at the SSPX website, one can gather there is still a sharp divide between both sides and very unlikely room to compromise. It is just best to pray that the SSPX does God’s holy will, that way; however the situation turns out, God will have had His hand in it, and you will know better what to do. Pray the rosary.

Posted Wednesday, February 15, 2012 2:28 AM By Angelo
James, You ask how I could say “Add to that millions and….”. As for the brainwashed I was referring to, I take it from Pope Benedict XVl as Cardinal Ratzinger who said that “many do not seek the Traditional Mass because they were programmed that way.” Its not hard to figure out what he meant. Many if not almost all of us were led by liberals into thinking that there was something seriously flawed with the TLM. We were programmed into believing that latin itself was forbidden by the Church, in which it actualy was on the local level. This is still happening now. At the age of 19 I asked a priest if it was a mortal sin to pray the Our Father in latin.That only goes to show how we were programmed. Where does one think I got the impression that praying in Latin was a sin at all. I now know it greatly pleases God. I was an adherent of the SSPX from 1984 until 1988, I broke from the SSPX as they separated themselves from the Church. If they accept the “Doctrinal Preamble” then all obstacles would be removed, beacuse they would have to adhere to it in complete obedience to the Pope, no more doing things their own way apart from Peter. I do pray for the SSPX to accept. I know many who desire to attend approved TLM’s, but they have a fear that they would be doing something wrong. Why? Thus my wording brainwashed or “Programmed” if you prefer.

Posted Wednesday, February 15, 2012 5:53 AM By Bob One
I’m sorry, but all of us have to get over the notion that a Mass in Latin is better than a Mass in an other language and that a Mass in any language is better than a Mass in Latin. We even have to get over the notion that a Mass in one form TLM is better than NO and vs.vs. Both are acceptable in every way. One is the ordinary form the other the extraordinary form. One isn’t better than the other. There is enough hate in the world. We don’t need to dislike/hate people that attend a different Mass than we do. Just go to the one you prefer and stop talking about it. In the grand scheme of things, its not that important. It has nothing to do with the saving of souls.

Posted Wednesday, February 15, 2012 6:22 AM By JLS
Charles, you’ve revised what I actually posted. What I posted is rather that it seems a bad practice to raise boys solely for the purpose of becoming priests. This is a broad brush statement, and thus would not hold up in many individual cases, maybe not even in the majority of cases. But from experience, it looks to me that there is a kind of sub culture that produces boys for the express purpose of becoming priests and in so doing it creates a kind of character that is antithetical to not only the priesthood but to Catholicism. Where for example did all the pedo and sodo priests come from? What portion of them were converts? How many were raised in abnormal families … with the intention of making them priests? All I’m trying to generate here is a look into this practice. Again, I’m not talking at all about raising boys to be Catholic, as your spin kind of implies. I’m questioning the practice of starting a boy from day one to head for the priesthood.

Posted Wednesday, February 15, 2012 6:28 AM By JLS
Bob One, what makes you believe your idea about the relative value of the two forms of Mass is better than the Pope’s, who has stated that he prefers the EF?

Posted Wednesday, February 15, 2012 6:34 AM By JLS
Charles, it can be argued that the greatest priests were converts, eg St Peter and St Paul, not to mention St Luke … hmn, all the Apostles. At least some Church Fathers, such as St Augustine. Are these priests mere legends or do they overwhelm any priests in recent history in terms of greatness, most of whom were/are cradle Catholics?

Posted Wednesday, February 15, 2012 6:39 AM By ANNE
AMEN, Bob One – your 5:53 AM post. ” There is enough hate in the world. We don’t need to dislike/hate people that attend a different Mass than we do. Just go to the one you prefer and stop talking about it. In the grand scheme of things, its not that important. It has nothing to do with the saving of souls. “

Posted Wednesday, February 15, 2012 6:03 PM By Angelo
Wow. I do believe that the attacks are against the Latin mass. Here is a reason for the preference to Latin, and it’s the best one. Vatican ll wrote in stone. “Latin is the official language of the church, and shall remain so.” so those who cannot accept this fact, “just stop talking about it.” get over it. Benedicamus domino!

Posted Wednesday, February 15, 2012 7:28 PM By James
Angelo, Thank you for clarifying your post that it was the modernists/liberals that were brainwashing the pre-concilliar laity that the TLM was flawed. I misinterpreted your comments and thought you were saying the traditional RC clergy who are holding steadfast to the TLM were brainwashing the laity in their traditional RC parishes, which is truly not the case. No one is being held hostage in traditional RC parishes by brain-washing. Millions of modern catholics, especially those under 50 years of age, know only the novus ordo service. The TLM and 7 old Holy Sacraments in latin is naturally foreign to them, and not entertaining to their taste in our man-centered society. It’s only natural that many would reject the RC faith and practices of our great-grandfathers. Your right, just due to the limited availability of the EF around the world by the regulating of local diocesean bishops, it still is in a way forbidden to many catholics that live far away from an EF parish. Personally, I don’t think the SSPX will compromise. You see there are many in the SSPX that do not want to give into the ways of V2, ways (even errors) that many bloggers of this website, both modern and traditional see, admit, are disgusted by, and complain against. Compromise could lead to a great divide in the SSPX and a split. A portion of the SSPX are actually sedevecantists, who are members wishing to receive graces in the valid 7 Holy Sacraments and worship the Blessed Trinity at a valid RC TLM, because they have no other option in their locality.

Posted Wednesday, February 15, 2012 8:08 PM By James
Angelo, We also need to pray that the Vatican does God’s will as well! Only then will the great divide be closed, true catholics concerned about their salvation and the salvation of their children will become one again, and peace will return within the RC Church. Anne and Bob One, it is not a matter of disliking or hating people that attend a different mass than we do, it is a matter of what pleases Almighty God! Pope SAINT Pius the Vth’s Papal Bull Quo Primum on 19 July 1570 codified the TLM that was instituted by the Son of God Himself. It’s not just a matter of Aramaic to Latin, its the beautiful prayers Christ said Himself said before the 12 Apostles, foretelling His sacrifice on the cross on Calvary and setting His example/teaching on how to pray the Holy Mass honoring Him, the Father, and the Holy Ghost. Take courage, check it out, read Fr. James Meagher’s book “How Christ said the First Mass”, a TAN book frequently available on Amazon. It’ll open your eyes to the truth. Look into 1960s newspapers, magazines, and V2 Council documents and you will see the novus ordo mass was collaborated and approved by six protestant ministers: Drs George, Jasper, Shepherd, Kunneth, Smith, and Thurian. The novus ordo mass is man’s work, a deletion of many sacred prayers and alteration of many sacred prayers instituted by Christ’s in His Masterpiece TLM including the words consecrating the wine into His blood. Research the facts, don’t rely on others as a crutch (like so many of us do today), and pray the rosary to see the truth, save souls, and restore the Church.

Posted Thursday, February 16, 2012 8:03 AM By Larry
James and Charles: You wouldn’t happen to be brothers, or perhaps distant cousins, to “Doug” and “Bruce” would you? It’s just that I notice that the writing styles, themes and terms used by the “four” of you are remarkably similar–in fact that’s a weak word–“remarkably alike,” would be more accurate. We see terms like “V2,” “RC” and “RCC”–references to Pius V’s “Quo Primum,” and the like. I could swear that one man is composing posts under all four names. How about it, Doug, Bruce, Charles and James?

Posted Thursday, February 16, 2012 9:27 AM By Maryanne Leonard
Ever noticed how some people within certain subcultures affect a think-alike/lookalike/sound-alike/talk-alike personal mannerisms, just to make sure you know they are real hip, way gay, dedicated dopeheads, or too cool to dig God or anyone who does? They appear to study the specific look, language and mannerisms of the group they wish to join and become past masters at emulation, having buried their own originality at the door. These wannabees appear to live in fear of being discovered to have had an occasional thought – immediately perished – that differs noticeably from the groupthink of their new-found associates. Their silent mantra is: Perish differentiation! These folks are fonies, followers, and phakes, one and all, and therefore easily differentiated from Catholics, who, sometimes to the chagrin of others, were taught to think at the highest levels and to seek truth in all matters. Though it seems hopeless, nevertheless we must pray for these misguided groupies, one and all, and be grateful if they ever discover that the finest group to join is the one following Jesus and the teachings of the Holy Roman Catholic Church.

Posted Thursday, February 16, 2012 2:51 PM By James
Larry, Many traditionalists think the way I think, and talk the way I talk. Many people writing on this website use those same phrases, and are educated in the history of the Catholic Faith unlike many modern/cafeteria/liberal catholics today. This was not to put anyone down, but just state a true fact. Traditionalists as a whole are more into the roots and daily practices of our Roman Catholic faith. There are more traditionalists out in the world than you may give credit and our hearts and minds are all together linked by the Holy Ghost. Cheer up.

Posted Thursday, February 16, 2012 4:04 PM By Larry
What do you consider a “traditionalist”, James? The majority of the folks on this website are strong supporters of Sacred Tradition and Catholic teaching, myself included. I’d consider myself a traditionalist in that regard.

Posted Thursday, February 16, 2012 5:22 PM By ANNE
CCC: ” 1203 The liturgical TRADITIONS or rites presently in use in the Church are the Latin (principally the Roman rite, but also the rites of certain local churches, such as the Ambrosian rite, or those of certain religious orders) and the Byzantine, Alexandrian or Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, Maronite and Chaldean rites. In faithful obedience to tradition, the sacred Council declares that Holy Mother Church holds all lawfully recognized rites to be of equal right and dignity, and that she wishes to preserve them in the future and to foster them in every way.”

Posted Friday, February 17, 2012 5:02 AM By Angelo
James, One of the most astonsihing things about being a Traditionalist is this. Through over 30 years whenever meeting a another Traditionalist, I have found we believe in the exact same Catholic faith, in exactly the same way. We hold the very same principles, use the same manner of speech when it comes to the Church. I have always said this is the true work of the Holy Ghost. How could all traditional Catholics love the Church in their hearts in the exact same manner and express themselves the same?

Posted Wednesday, February 22, 2012 11:41 PM By Abeca Christian
Good answer Larry!