The following comes from a May 24 story by Valerie Schmalz in Catholic San Francisco.
Saying that “it is a very critical stage in a priest’s journey,” Archbishop Salvatore J. Cordileone has instituted a new position focused on mentoring priests for the first five years after ordination.
Archbishop Cordileone appointed longtime Immaculate Heart of Mary pastor and former Junipero Serra High School president Father Stephen H. Howell as part-time director of Ongoing Formation for Newly Ordained Priests, effective July 1. Father Howell was also appointed to a new post as pastor of St. Philip the Apostle in Noe Valley.
“I just thought we needed to do more about bringing them together, praying together, sharing concerns, reflecting together,” Archbishop Cordileone said in a conversation with Catholic San Francisco. It is also a way to formalize his relationship with the new priests, whom he spent a great deal of time with during their formation in the seminary.
The archdiocese already has a director of ongoing priestly formation for all priests, Father William McCain, and each new priest also picks a mentor as recommended by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops document on the formation of priests. This position complements those existing supports.
“Studies and experience show that how those first few years are lived out will have a major impact on a priest’s life,” Archbishop Cordileone said.
Not only is the new priest adjusting to life in the parish, with its demands, and its relationships with parishioners, pastor and staff, but “on a deeper level there is a transition into a priestly identity. This is a whole another part of the journey. Our theology teaches that with priestly ordination, there is an ontological change, one’s being is changed. But that carries with it a psychological adjustment that has to go along with it,” Archbishop Cordileone said. The new priest is also now part of the presbyterate, the body of local clergy….
What? There are new priests in San Francisco? Praise be to God! I thought the post Vatican II Church was not producing priests anymore!
Bless your heart Archbishop!!!
I’m wondering why these post Vatican II priests aren’t given more formation time in the seminary. Before the changes men spent 8 years in seminary. FSSP still has that regimen, and those priests are truly amazing.
There is no such thing as a Vatican II-priest, Life Lady. Even your beloved FSSP priest should be in agreement with ALL the documents of Vatican II to have the faculties to administer the sacraments.
And also, the number of years an FSSP seminarian is in seminary is roughly about the same amount of time a diocesan seminarian is. (4 years of Theology, and two years of philosophy if the candidate has not had philosophy). The only addition is one year of learning “spiritual” acclimation.
Exactly what was infallible defined at Vatican II, O Jon, that the FSSP, or anyone for that matter, must hold? Mass facing the people? Not. Ask Card
Sarah. Mass on a table? No, nowhere mentioned in V2. “Aggiornamiento?” No, also neither mentioned in V2. So you hang your hat on a mass rite, which Louis Bouyer, one of the Concilium members, says in his Memoirs, was entirely an invention of Annibale Bugnini?
O Justin K, where did you read in my comment anything about offering Mass versus populum? And yes, Mass ought to have the use of an altar TABLE, as opposed to a, say, chair. Your comment is so out-of-tune.
And yes, the Church insists that FSSP priests and all priests should uphold ALL documents of Vatican II if they want to serve the Church licity. ALL DOCUMENTS. OK? If they can’t uphold Vatican II, then they join the ranks of SSPX. I hope that’s very clear to you.
And in case you’ve not been told, O Justin, to denigrate any of the sacraments of the Church, is heresy condemned by the Lateran Council. I hope that’s very clear to you.
So, as we all expected, Jon can’t actually cite any specific infallibly-defined doctrine(s) stated by Vatican II—“but we must uphold it”—whatever “it” is, he opines.
Again, either Jon must state a specific uniquely defined doctrine of Vatican II, or admit there is no new content that would obligate one vaguely “upholding ALL DOCUMENTS of Vatican II” (=Jon’s original hysteric capitalizations).
Oh: Jon obliges us to “uphold Vatican II”—but none of the docs mention a “TABLE” (sic, Jon) for the Mass. So, Jon is opposed to Vatican II himself and not upholding the documents he so reveres.
O Jon: there is no way to “compel” adherence to Vat II —whether on the FSSP, SSPX or anyone else—as infallible when Paul VI stated it with summary authority:
“In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogmata carrying the mark of infallibility.”–Pope Paul VI, General Audience of January 12, 1966
So much for your litmus-test against others to uphold the “sacred” DOCUMENTS (your caps) of Vat II. And by the way, you show ignorance of Louis Bouyer’s autobio that Justin K. cited: Bouyer called Bugnini’s “mass” an invention, Bugnini “a liar”, and states Bugnini duped Paul VI into thinking the Consilium committee had drafted what became our Novus Ordo rite…
Just because something sits within the ordinary magisterium and is not infallibly declared does not mean that consent is not required bythe faithful. I don’t know where people get the idea that only infallible doctrines are the ones we must believe.
Fine, what specifically is/are the doctrine(s)of Vatican II, as Justin K. points out, that we must believe? Is it that the norm of the Mass is to be in Latin, that the rite should be the TLM (after all, that was the Mass the council fathers voted upon—they never voted to abolish it at Vatican II), the music should be Gregorian chant, and the organ the instrument? That is actually what the DOCUMENT on the Liturgy actually says. Is that what hsppens at your parish? No? Are you against Vatican II?
Campion, it will do you good to actually read what you just quoted from Paul VI. The Pope merely said that what the Council articulated in its documents are not infallible. He did not say that they do not have to be adhered to by Catholics! Not all the pronouncements of the Magisterium are infallible. However, because Catholics cannot just ignore what the popes and the bishops teach, these pronouncements have to be believed and upheld nonetheless, whether or not they are infallible.
O Justin and O Campion I must have hit the nail on the head precisely because it got you both riled up and bothered. Yes, the truth always haunts those who do not want to face facts.
The fact is that FSSP has a legal status in the Church because they adhere to ALL the documents of Vatican II. OK? And SSPX does not have legal status because it does NOT adhere to ALL (yes, all) document of V2. It bothers you that your beloved FSSP priests actually believe in V2. Face the truth and quit dissenting.
So, once again, Jon cant define the “what” of Vatican II: but “we must believe it”, whatever it is. But Jon believes we must use a table: but only an altar is mentioned in Sacro. Concilium (“On the Liturgy”)—never a “table”: so he rejects the DOCUMENTS he claims to uphold.
So also, we were told for 5 decades the priest had to face the people —“because of Vatican II”. Another lie, as Cardinal Sarah has exposed.
So, as we all expected, Jon can’t actually cite any specific infallibly-defined doctrine(s) stated by Vatican II—“but we must uphold it”—whatever “it” is, because he says so.
O Justin: there’s a very simple response to your stubborn needless questioning as to “what” in Vat2 must be accepted. Here’s your homework: ask one of your beloved SSPX priests like Fellay to tell you why his SSPX has no legal standing. Ok? It is for them, not for folks like me, to tell YOU what is “problematic” for them about Vat2. OK? Adios!
And dear Justin: the rest of your assertion is laughable. So now you want me to debate you on the use of a table at Mass? Semantics, semantics.
As usual, when pushed to use reason, ‘jon’ hysterically calls opponents “SSPX”—wrong, by the way, I am sure “jon” supports the FSSP at their Elmhurst PA address with generous contributions, as do I–and jon changes the subject.
So, the point, which he slithers away from, is that there is no unique infallibly-defined doctrine at Vatican II incumbent upon the FSSP, SSPX, or any other Catholic. ‘Jon’ also tries to make the “DOCUMENTS” (his original emotional capitalizations) defined dogma, but he cant cite “what” it is in them.
Typical irrationalist Vatican II argumentation.
Lastly Justin K., only a cafeteria Catholic will ask the question you’re asking: which are the documents we have to adhere to. Well, O Justin, Catholics adhere to ALL of them; we don’t pick and choose what to believe. We’re a Church called to communion and unity, not a political party. If you insist on asking your question on which documents, then you’re no better than a liberal cafeteria Catholic who merely picks and chooses what to believe. Ok?
Jon, YES there is such thing as a “Vatican II priest!” You simply cannot compare the two, before and after the Council! Two different Churches, and two different kinds of priests! It was a terrible shock to me, and to most people, the “new priest,” of Vatican II!! Throw out the old, mature, excellent, manly, dignified priesthood, and holy Latin Mass– — and replace it with shallow, liberal psycho-babble, hippie-liberal pop-culture garbage, and a silly “ecumenized,” “politically-correct in Rome” New Mass, with a silly, liberal, unmanly, worldly, secularized, “New Priest!” Big LAUGH!!
Jon– by the way, to be a good practicing Catholic, you do not have to accept the silly contradictions of Pope Francis, nor some of the outlandish “1960’s liberal” BALONEY of the 16 Vatican II documents! They are a MESS!! For example– BIG HORSE LAUGH, the Council Fathers’ IRRESPONSIBLE statements on so-called “religious freedoms” and “freedom of conscience!” NO WAY!! Instead– to be a good practicing Catholic, means to HONESTLY believe in and uphold our religious faith and morals! No moral and religious “relativism!”
Almost all of the priests who first introduced the Ordinary Form Mass of Blessed Paul VI, were ordained before Vatican II and so were actually Vatican I priests. I guess they suddenly became hippie-liberal shallow psycho-babblers overnight? Overnight those priests became suddenly immature, undignified, and feminine? Oh, and by the way, do you realize that you just called the Sacred Mass: garbage. ?
YFC– Yes, many middle-aged, respectable priests suddenly embraced a bunch of “hippie-liberal” pop-culture garbage, complete with “psycho-babble” and “hippie slang,” starting in the late 1960’s– to include middle-aged Catholic college and seminary professors! They also demanded to be called by their first names– thus, “Fr. John,” etc. They looked just RIDICULOUS! I recall, when attending a retreat in 1969, a priest telling someone to “cool it,” during a talk– and I asked what that “hippie slang” meant. Very UNPROFESSIONAL PRIESTS, all of a sudden! Made me SICK!!
….and Judas walked with Christ, YFC.
But no, you’re right, this wasn’t any “overnight” occurrence. Modernism and the illicit tinkering with the rite of the mass was happening long before VII.
Oh, and by the way, do you realize that the Sacred Mass made banal by way of gutting ritual and symbolism is like doctrine being gutted of meaning by pretending the word “Sacred” is what makes something holy.
YFC– You ought to know better, that I did NOT call the Sacred Mass “garbage!” Instead– everyone knows, that the New Mass has had a tremendous struggle, in its short history– with dealing with a lot of SECULAR “pop culture garbage,” that does NOT belong in a sacred liturgy! For example– did you ever have the terrible pain of seeing dancing girls on the altar, at Mass– in skimpy, revealing outfits, doing pagan, sexual-type body moves, to secular pop songs??? UNHOLY!! EMBARRASSING!! I won’t describe the rest of the evils that we all have had to painfully put up with!
Linda Maria, there is really nothing to say to you who has proven yourself verging on heresy, as condemned by the Lateran Council by your denigration of the sacraments of the Church and her clergy. I mean, you’ve shot your whole argument on the foot by your plain disobedience. Me, fooling myself? I’d rather be a “fool for Christ” as St. Paul had said about himself than to follow in your supposed “sophistication” which is nothing else but blatant disobedience. May you repent.
Linda, yes you did call the Mass garbage. That may not have been your intent, but please read your posts more carefully before you post such things. You also denigrate lots and lots of perfectly fine people regularly in your posts, you throw out the baby with the bathwater almost every single day on this site, to such an extent that I think you are incredibly unfair, disrespectful, and, frankly, sinful.
YFC– No, I did NOT call the Mass “garbage!” I don’t think you did, either! You and Jon waste your time, senselessly attacking good Catholics! I think ALL OF US have put up with a great deal of unnecessarily rubbish, in the liturgy of the Novus Ordo! Instead of senselessly attacking me and others– why don’t you put your mind to writing an excellent post, informing us of YOUR ideas and beliefs— for example, tell us what YOU think of the New Mass– and all the spiritual good it has done for you! I, and others, might enjoy reading it! You are entitled to attend the Mass of your choice!
“Oh, and by the way, do you realize that the Sacred Mass made banal by way of gutting ritual and symbolism is like doctrine being gutted of meaning by pretending the word “Sacred” is what makes something holy.”
Ann Malley, Some very well educated elderly priests just told us the exact same thing. They have completely changed their minds about what was done to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. They also can now see the terrible results of removing the focus off of the sacrificial nature of the Mass. The celebration has been turned into a celebration of self.
God bless or has blessed those priests, Catherine, for we are called by Christ to judge by the fruits. Many of those who accuse Tridentine mass proponents as being attached to mere nostalgia are themselves attached their own preference.
Linda Maria, by your own statements above you have just possibly incurred sanctions against yourself latae sententiae. You have denigrated the Conciliar Father (by calling their work ‘baloney’), you have denigrated the Sacrament of the Church, and indeed you have insulted the ordained priests of the Church. I will not be surprised if you were to admit here that you principally attend an SSPX chapel. God help you.
Jon– don’t be too naïve, about an ancient institution, that is basically good and correct, with Christ’s true teachings– but mankind has done much politics and evil, historically, and has “sold their souls to the devil” many times over– in the name of religion! God help your naivete, Jon! Don’t be fooled! See the truth, and don’t let the “modern Churchmen” with their “updated Catholicism” fool you! There is nothing new under the sun! Jon, how many of the Council Fathers “obeyed Caesar,” as forced “yes men,” whether they wanted to, or not, only to keep their positions??
Linda Maria, No one is being naive. Rather what has just happened here is that you’ve proven your shameful disobedience that now borders of the heretical. May you indeed repent.
Jon– Do not confuse “blind obedience” to modern, flimsy ideas of EXTREMELY WAYWARD PRELATES— with TRUE obedience, to Christ! Are you a frightened “YES MAN,” Jon, to their latest, modern political “gimmicks?” Are these prelates TRULY GOOD PRACTICING CATHOLICS?? What if the Pope and his prelates suddenly decided to do something TRULY WRONG (for worldly, political purposes) — such as, to implement same-sex “marriage,” based on this or that modern, “scientific” “fact?” Would you BLINDLY OBEY??
Jon, our Church, and her Mass, most certainly did not begin, at the close of the Second Vatican Council! Our Church is very ancient, and has existed for over two millennia! It would be good for you to read up on the ancient teaching, beliefs, traditions, liturgy, and customs, of our Church, and to APPRECIATE it all, as a Catholic! Our True Church is TIMELESS, ETERNAL– and she stands for Christ, for the Kingdom of Heaven! NOT for the transient “baloney,” of the hopelessly fallen, sinful, secular world! Of course, you are free to attend the Mass of your choice. But EDUCATE YOURSELF!!
Linda Maria, you have not only shown yourself disobedient, but also you made statements here now showing your lack of faith in the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It is the Catholic faith that the Holy Spirit guides the Church and keeps her from error on matters of faith and morals: that is dogma. I believe it. Folks like you don’t; and many of those folks belong to SSPX. Also, our Lord said the gates of hell will not prevail against it. I believe Him. You don’t. Linda Maria, ask God to increase your faith, because you are consistently demonstrating here that you have lost faith in God to protect the Church. Repent!
Your confused, Jon. Our Lord’s promise to send the Holy Ghost to uphold the Church is given precisely because men – to include Church leadership – have and will make poor decisions. To include messing around with the rite of mass.
Our Lord wasn’t lacking faith when he refused to jump off the cliff at Satan’s behest. Why? Because one doesn’t put God to the test just because He promises His undying support.
Repent of presumption….. and convenient ignorance.
No Ann Malley, the Church is preserved by the Holy Spirit from errors on faith and morals. Plus, the Magisterium HAS THE COMPETENCE over the rites of the Church. The Magisterium is entrusted with the rites.
Ann Malley- Thanks for your excellent post! The poster, Jon, needs to educate himself better, and grow up! Such mindless, unnecessary attacks on good Catholic posters, are a waste of time!
Linda Maria, me “attacking good Catholic posters.” Is a Catholic good if she attacks the ordained ministers of the Church? The successors to the Apostles namely the bishops and the Holy Father? NO. That is not being a good Catholic poster!
For your information, Jon– more than 200,00 priests and prelates resigned, right after Vatican II– they felt they could not say the New Mass– it is strangely “ecumenized,” not truly Catholic, does not reflect the True Sacrifice of Christ, is more of a “Protestant-style” “memorial meal,” etc. etc.– and many, many ,many more problems! These are just some plain facts, not my personal opinions! It is good to educate yourself, and not attack others, Jon! Of course, you are free to attend the Mass of your choice– that is a very personal thing!
Jon, the over 200,000 priests and prelates who resigned, right after Vatican II– had nothing to do with the SSPX. It was a HUGE number of priests and prelates, worldwide!! Right then, after the loss of the over two hundred thousand priests of our Church– it was sadly predicted, that we would have a severe priest shortage, that would not improve, in years to come, only get WORSE!! What a tragedy!!
The magisterium cannot oppose itself, Jon. And the Holy Ghost protects the Church – I would say – in instilling a right sense in the faithful to reject the ambiguity that leads to outright error.
Watch your inner clericalism, Jon.
You can write COMPETENCE in caps all you’d like, but even Our Lord bid us to know them by their fruits. And, unlike you seem to believe, we are called as Christians to imitate Christ. That includes upholding the faith when authority is misused.
If one does not see the sin, one is excused. But if one sees all and remains in that which is against the truth or true justice, the sin remains. No blaming it on Father Fill-in-the-Blank.
Don’t forget, Jon, that Christ was crucified for speaking the truth to the “authorities” who would have him lie or obscure the truth. So when you admonish others to keep mum and trust the “high priest”, you err. But then it would seem you fear the judgments of man over those of God who sees all, including what resides in your heart.
Rock on, Linda Maria!
Linda Maria, the fact remains that you’re not being a good responsible Catholic blogger by attacking the Church’s spiritual shepherds publicly on a blog. You hide behind your anonymity. Why don’t you write to your bishop with your signature on it, and to the Holy Father. Creating scandal is not being responsible. Shameful.
“…the fact remains that you’re not being a good responsible Catholic blogger by attacking the Church’s spiritual shepherds publicly on a blog.”
Hogwash, Jon. Tweet the Vatican regarding scandals that are irresponsibly created on an increasingly regular basis. Shameful is the word and that is precisely why Catholic bloggers are taking to the net to refute the garbage.
Silence implies consent, Jon. Not to holy obedience. But then you know that.
So let’s get this straight, when Linda Maria says “Don’t forget, Jon, that Christ was crucified for speaking the truth to the “authorities” who would have him lie or obscure the truth….Rock on Linda Maria!” She is equating Linda Maria to Christ.
And Linda Maria herself doubles down on calling the Mass garbage when, in her very denial, says, “ALL OF US have put up with a great deal of unnecessarily rubbish, in the liturgy of the Novus Ordo! ”
Rubbish is a synonym for garbage, and Novus Ordo is a synonym for the Mass.
Indeed, let’s get it straight, YFC. Your contortions of what constitutes truth are a synonym for Pharisaical. That is twerking the letter so as to achieve the complete circumventing of the Spirit.
FSSP priests are all post-Vatican II as well.
Eight years of formation is still standard for secular priests: four years of college, usually with a major in philosophy to earn a B.A. followed by three years of the theologate during which time the seminarian earns an M.Div., followed by a pastoral year of service in a parish during which time the seminarian would be ordained a transitional deacon, followed by ordination to the priesthood. That’s eight years.
The quality of the philosophical and theological education and pastoral and homiletical guidance during those eight years of formation is an important consideration. I have listened to dull, ignorant priests preach as well as keen, capable and informed priests.
New priests are often made pastors after 3 or 4 years. They don’t learn anything about parish management in the seminary. I’ve been blessed to help one “shake-and-bake” pastor learn how to run things. More courses in adminstration and counseling would be nice but we need the new fathers out in the parishes as soon as we can get them there. Pray for vocations!
C&H, you have hit on a major issue facing our young Priests. They do not learn how to be Pastors in the Seminary. Most companies spend lots of money training their managers so that they are effective leading people. Being a Priest doesn’t make a person qualified to be a Pastor, although that is the basic assumption often made by
Bishops as they appoint Pastors. They need courses in people management, finance and budgeting, small group facilitation, strategic planning and other management skills. Those programs don’t make them better Priests, just better Pastors.
is it possbible that the vatican ii liturgy as carried out in the average parish, perhaps noiser and less prayerful that what was experienced in seminary masses, makes it harder for the new priest to pray as deeply? have pope benedict xvi’s insightful commments on the over-bureaucratization of parishes had any effect on bishops as they consider the american parish? do the newly minted priests, fresh from an outpouring of the holy spirit’s graces, find that their gifts are being ‘fitted in’ to a parish that sees lay ministry as the culmination and focus? if parishes are blunting the cutting edge of God;s army, do some other areas of parish life…
i just think it would have been interesting to hear a few more details about the ‘critical stage’. the bishops are in possession of facts and statistics concerning drop-out rates of priests and it would help to know more specifically what the issues are that new priests are facing.
Seems like good news to me. I think few lay people (myself included) have any idea what the life of a parish priest is like, especially a new one. He is making enormous sacrifices, has very little opportunity for peer support, and yet, even at an often very young age, he is expected to have answers to life’s deepest and most profound questions and complexities, to always say the perfect thing to heal a wounded soul, and have no needs of his own. Rewarding work, sure. Underappreciated and undersupported, you bet. Congrats to the Archbishop for instituting this program.
Since Jon wishes to quote (actually paraphrase, without source) P. Benedict on the New Mass, perhaps we should also note PBXVI’s following statement:
” What happened after the Council was something else entirely: in the place of the Liturgy as development came fabricated liturgy.” He adds that “We replaced it …with a banal, fabricated, on-the-spot product.” (Forward to Vatican II liturgy expert/peritus Monsgr. K. Gamber’s book, “The Reform of the Roman Liturgy”, 1982).
Oops, Jon: now what do you do? The house of cards is crumbling, Jon.
I think O Justin K. that the flaw in your whole thinking about this is your lack of ability to distinguish/separate between the actual documents of Vatican II (all 16 of them which Catholics have to adhere to including your beloved FSSP) and the way the liturgy has been celebrated and indeed some of the extraneous regulations and instructions that came from it (like GIRM). You are conflating the two and it’s confusing you. Be not confused. Educate yourself.
Also Justin, you say I wish to quote Benedict. Where have a quoted him in this thread?
Mentoring priests arose after recent studies (late 90s, early 2000s) indicated that a fair number of recently-ordained priests were leaving the ministry in the first five years. A program was developed called Mantle of Elijah to address that need. What we find are that some dioceses do this and others don’t. Good on Archbishop Cordileone for instituting priests mentorships in the Archdiocese!
The era of post-Vatican II is not stable. Priests ordained after the Council have a very different Church and society to serve, and things are often very confusing, and in deep disorder, overall! The liturgical changes, church “wreckovations,” destruction of traditional Catholic customs, and lax moral and theological discipline, have wrought more destruction, than anyone will admit to! A priest can no longer wake up each morning, to a dependable, stable Church, and fulfill his role! And he cannot fix a great number of things, that are wrong! Plus, his role has been so deeply downgraded in the post-Vatican II era, he has very little authority, decision-making, and leadership! I will continue…
The role of the Vatican II priest has been falsely equalized with the layman’s role– and the layman is not seminary-trained! This cripples the priest’s leadership, and demands that lay people assume leadership, in place of the clergy– to appease angry laymen hurt in the pre-Vatican II era, by abusive clergy! Plus, very devout, talented, orthodox Catholic priests are often unwanted, and are shamed publicly and despised, even by Church leaders! What these new priests actually need– is a real Church, that is HONEST about the practice of the Catholic religion— and seeks to practice it well!!
OK you have done more ranting on this thread than should be allowed. You are wrong in that laity are not sometimes trained in the seminary. May lay people have MA’s from seminaries, and some even MDivs.
Anonymous, it is certainly not “ranting,” to give facts, or to express opinions, about subjects of deep concern! For example, many concerned Catholics, worldwide, have expressed their deep concerns– over the Pope’s “Amoris Laetitia!” Anonymous, this is definitely not “ranting,” like mindless, violent, juvenile political activists — this is valid, intelligent, mature concern, over a very serious issue– Marriage! And these people should speak up! Also– to have a degree, is not enough, for religious leadership– how about religious training for a life of holiness, like our priests and nuns, or even member of lay orders??
The priests who belong to traditional religious orders, and groups that are dedicated to the old Latin Mass– have the same post-Conciliar problems and challenges as priests in the regular Novus Ordo rite. However– they have something very special– a beautiful, holy, stable, traditional, ancient Mass and religious devotions, faithful adherence to our Catholic religious doctrine, morality, beliefs, traditions, and customs— and stability of daily life and vocation! They have a far better pathway, overall, for their daily life and lifelong goals, in their vocations as Catholic priests! Even the vocation of the SSPX priesthood is much better, though it is not yet in communion with Rome! An HONEST vocation!
Whether a priest says the Novus Ordo Mass (in any language), or the Tridentine Latin Mass– or another approved Mass– I think it is very necessary, to have a good, dependable, honest Church, that is 100% fully supportive, not undermining the priest all the time! I feel sorry for priests trying to deal with the recent scandals of “Amoris Laetitia,” and questions of marriage, morality, and reception of Communion! When will our scandalous “Catholic Zoo,” ever end??
Yep, Just as I suspected: an SSPX adherent in Linda Maria. Well, Linda, all I can tell you is that SSPX services are not licit in the eyes of the Church. Your beloved SSPX priest may hear confessions this Year of Mercy (and you have to thank the present Supreme Pontiff for that, whom you had belittled in a previous statement), but that’s about it. You may be imperiling your soul by continuing on this disobedience of yours. Repent!
Oh my: Linda Maria, be careful, says “jon”, for “emperiling your soul” (as if he cared: he just hates other viewpoints). Now he is imposing his own canonical judgments, oh my!
Definition of canonical penalty latae sententiae secundum Pontifex Maximus Jon, titular prelate of Atlantis, the Outer Castro, and Seal Rock (bow and kneel all): “Anathema on they who dare disagree with me!”
LOVED your post, Campion! So FUNNY!! And so TRUE!! I think poor Jon needs to see the truth of the WOLVES in the Church, and all the EVIL they do– poor Jon is too naïve, unfortunately!
If you don’t think, Campion, that disobedience is a sin which imperils the soul, then you are misleading Linda and perhaps other readers here. Now, it may indeed be the case that Linda doesn’t go to SSPX chapels, in which case all this is moot. But if she were, you have just shown yourself to be a “blind man leading the blind” by encouraging poor Linda to regard with mockery my sincere caution for her to avoid the sin of disobedience. And going to the SSPX, under the current law, is indeed such.
Jon: Do issue a judgment of canonical penalty ad sum, ad infinitum, ad nauseam ad multos annos, then, Jon the Pious, Pontifex of Cal-Catholic and titular prelate of Seal Rock, Alcatraz, Atlantis, Cannabis, et al., against those who dare disagree with you and laugh at your pontifications. You are a trip. And you, you look down your pontifical nose at Linda? Now, do tell! If you were the learning-type, you could learn a lot from Linda. The Rosary, the Mass, the sanctoral cycle, yes those obscure things.
Jon, don’t be fooled! Many priests who love the Tridentine Latin Mass, feel forced to give “lip service” to the Vatican! It is quite POLITICAL!! The Vatican is NOT VERY HOLY!! The Vatican is VERY POLITICAL!! Don’t be fooled by an ancient institution, that has done much evil, Jon, in the name of Christ— and has BETRAYED OUR LORD, many times over, for centuries! Holy Catholics, (such as Bl. Mother Teresa) close to Sainthood, must “thumb their nose” at the Church’s POLITICS and SIN– and go it alone, basically, with God!!
Linda, go ahead and persist in your denigration of the institutions of the Church. Let me tell you about this mystery: The Church which you are denigrating is loved by the Lord. It is his Bride. The Church, which includes the Holy See, which you are castigating here as “political” is holy is God’s eyes. Guess what on the Last Day, when Our Lord appears, you will see the Bride whom you have denigrated, wedded to Our Lord. Yes, the very Bride you are mocking will be his Bride. And where, O Linda, O where O Campion, will you find yourselves when the Great Wedding Feast happens?
The fact is, in spite of the sins of her individual members, the Church remains loved by Our Lord as His Bride, and is indeed holy in His sight…
Jon, let’s be realistic! Don’t be so NAIVE!! Our Church, the Bride of Christ for whom Christ died– is sadly full of messy deceptions and “politics,” and plenty of SIN!! I feel so sorry for all the Catholics the Pope has personally phoned, worldwide, telling them misinformation on the Sacrament of Marriage, and reception of Communion! What a BIG MESS!! Best to EDUCATE YOURSELF, try to practice your Faith well — and pray for our wayward prelates, such as Cardinal Kasper, Pope Francis, and many others!
Yes, Linda, I pray for them all the time, and I may pray for you because of your demonstrated lack of faith and disobedience. Also Linda, if I may, your statements also reveal that you are just as much influenced by a secular way of thinking than by faith. You think as man does, not as God does.
….one is not required to obey that which is sinful, jon. It is precisely faith in God and His promise to uphold the Church that gives the faithful the strength to resist error … and ambiguity.
You think as a facilitator does, an enabler, as men do, not as God does who expects us to speak the truth even if those in authority seek to crucify us for it. But then you know that already.
Go get ’em, Linda Maria.
Bless you, Ann Malley, for your excellent posts!
No Ann Malley what I am really after is cowardice. Yes, cowardice. Yours and Linda Maria’s and folks like you who hide behind the anonymity of the blogosphere in order to castigate the spiritual shepherds of the Church, public figures who deserve to be corrected privately, discreetly, without this scandalous bombastic ranting. Have you ever heard an evangelical Christian publicly mocking his pastor? Or a muslim publicly belittling his imam? Or a Buddhist castigating the Dalai Lama? Of course not. However, people who purport to be “Catholics” like yourself and Linda do so without compunction and without a sense of scandal, doing so all in the name of “true tradtional faith.” Don’t you know you cause scandal? And what does…
…what does Our Lord say about people like that? “It is better that a millstone be tied around their neck and thrown into the sea…..”
What I am after is your assumption that those who post here do not exercise activity elsewhere.
Error is error and must be called out. If the Dali Lama were on a reality show snorking down meat, carousing with women, and promoting gang violence, it would be the duty of every Buddhist to castigate him – publicly. (Gross public scandal calls for public refutation, friend. The sheep deserve a break…and the truth. So that they’re not misled by false advertisement.)
Time for you to put on your scriptural decoder ring and understand that the “little ones” are those being misled by folks in a position of authority who misuse, mis-reprsent, and/or divide the flock. Kind of like those inside the Church who are misled into…
… thinking the magisterium can now oppose itself and sin is no more.
So take your millstone castigation and set it directly against those prelates in the Church who scandalized myriad faithful – much like a drunken and sexually abusive father would his own children. Take your zeal to the door of the shepherds and leave the sheep to gather and heal and seek out green grass. Not the synthetic alternative that fills the belly, but slowly rots the body for its chemical content that, in truth, is intended to kill.
Well done, Jon. You have single-handedly taken on the vociferous trolls who do nothing but attack the Magisterium, bewail how rotten the Church has become, how we have to kow-tow to their brand of Catholicism which is entails being closed from the world (“shunning it”, “kicking it out”). Notice how they quickly changed their tune after you called them out on it. And yes, cowardice. Very good point. They throw these stones at our bishops and priests and the Pope, and then hide behind their anonymity. Well done Jon.
Not so well done, Rose. Changing your name doesn’t hide your merry tune in seeking to shame those who rightfully call out the reality that the magisterium cannot turn on itself. How rotten the so called “faithful” have become when they relegate God’s Holy Church to a game of Simon-says-Now to facilitate the 180 that would pretend that sin is no more and if you nay-say the farce you’re disobedient.
Rail on coward for your supposed heroism – like that of “Jon” – is nothing more than the anonymous trolling you lay at the feet of scandalized sheep. Get the gone and tweet the Vatican with your phony zeal. Zeal for novelty and pomp and little else.
The stone being thrown here is the one discarded by the builders – that is truth…
…no wonder you recoil with such vigor.
Utterly predictable and sopping with cowardice, “Rose”.
Bless you, Ann Malley! Thanks for your wonderful posts! I don’t think the poster, Jon, aka “Rose,” understands what the Magisterium is– all good Catholics believe in it! Some wayward Catholic prelates, however, do not want to uphold it– such as the ones who want to change the teachings of the Church on the Sacrament of Marriage. Jon/”Rose” also sadly fail to understand that to be a good follower of Christ– you only follow Him, not the world! “A man cannot serve two masters…” as He said! Make your choice! This poster needs to educate himself on his religion!
Oh? I don’t understand the Magisterium? So, go ahead Linda, define it. Define what the Magisterium is. I throw down the challenge.
Secondly, you say that to be a good follower of Christ you only follow Him? True, but incomplete. You have to follow Christ along with the Church. Christ and His CHurch are inseparable!
It is possible, Linda Maria, that not all dioceses in the U.S. follow the same practices. In our diocese, however, lay people with the title of Pastoral Associates have masters degrees in theology or ministry and most are certified catechists. We have to face the fact that we are very short of Priests, and the majority of those we have are over the age of 60 and ready to retire. Why we have a shortage is for another discussion, we have to deal with the reality in our midst. That means, in short, that we are going to have lay people very active in the day-to-day operations of the parish. The Priest will have to concentrate on the Pastoral and Sacramental and leave the rest to lay people to administer.
Bob One and God both know that the reality in our midst is being deliberately orchestrated by dissenting wolves. After all, Bob One told the blogosphere that he worked on advisory boards with bishops. If all bishop’s TRULY cared about souls the way that Christ intended for them to care, then they would allow the Fraternity priests, and eventually even the many SSPX priests who are all readily available, to help with work in parishes and schools in the diocese. Our bishops would *all* be jumping on board to have religious sisters in full habits teaching children in Catholic schools. Many are derelict in their duty to instill and uphold the Catholic Faith. They pick and they choose and then just like Our Lady of Akita said, “They…
When shepherds become lax in their primary duty and then comfortable, making publicly seen donations, to pro-abort politicians, then you know that they have nothing to fear from their local bishop. Many do not even seem to fear Almighty God. Bob One, you will also be held accountable for running interference in support of those who have undermined the faith. Empty pride is only a false puffed up earthy reward…..especially when touting “the reality that you’ve been appointed to work on several advisory boards”. You also orchestrate and perpetuate the undermining of our faith. Wake up Bob! Earthy rewards are only temporary!
Bob One– don’t be fooled! Laymen can only help run the Church to a certain point. Overall, our modern-day, crazy “leftist-liberal” Church is not being run correctly– starting from the Pope, on down! Our modern, post-Conciliar Church is actually DISINTEGRATING, SELF-DESTRUCTING!! HUGE problem– I think only God can fix it!
Good, well-trained, manly, mature priests, do not need “mentors!” Nor extra college degrees, in “pastoral care,” either! Laymen who act in their place, often do not have even a year of Catholic school, with the Catechism! BIG HORSE LAUGH! What is needed, is a GOOD CHURCH!! In the old days, before the 1960’s, priests had a six-year seminary program, and got ordained at age 24. Many were very good, and some became Saints! (Of course, a few were bad, too!) Lots of college courses and so-called “degrees,” are just a bunch of JUNK!! We need a good, HONEST, well-run Church– be it with the Tridentine Mass or the Novus Ordo, or both! KICK OUT the secular world!
A manly priest is strong, self-assured, mature, a self-starter, who stands up for what he believes in, and is not self-absorbed, overly-emotional, self-centered, and narcissistic, like the overly-feminized, leftist-liberal 1960’s socialist “Me Generationers!” A manly man serves God and society, has good character, strong moral virtue, and cares for the needs of others in a fatherly way. He is CONSERVATIVE– and does NOT follow babyish, liberal-leftist, socialist fads and fashions, at all! We need a good society, backed-up strongly by good religion, to raise boys to be good, manly men, to someday become good fathers, or good Catholic priests!
You really have a one track mind Linda. For crying out loud.
Linda, what you are suggesting is that the church should be run by uneducated people? Really? Of course Priests need to be well educated. They also need mentors to help them learn how to be good Priests and later Pastors. Everyone needs mentors, in church, in business, in teaching, whatever. That is how we learn, how we gain experience, how we don’t repeat mistakes of the past and of others. Good, strong Priest should be neither conservative or liberal, just orthodox. I think too, that it is important to recognize that the world has changed since the 60s. People are better educated, work is different, the influence of the Church is different. That all requires new skills older Priest didn’t need, the same as at work, new skills…
Bob One, I said that it is a terrible thing, to falsely equate– and confuse!- the role of the priest with the role of the laity! It is a modern, “ecumenical-Protestant-type” POLITICAL maneuver of the Vatican, to employ this concept, in reparation for centuries of abuse to laymen, by “elitist” priests and prelates! Laymen also are usually not trained for many of these roles, and are not trained to lead the holy life of the priest, either! Ridiculous! Also, it is true, that in every professional field, mentoring is a natural and necessary part of helping a newcomer to succeed. I will continue—
It used to happen, that traditional roles and professions were a thing of great value, handed down carefully, and with great pride, from father to son, mother to daughter, and from a master of a profession or trade, to their students. But the rebellious, anti-family, anti-Christian, anti-society, liberal-leftist, subversive hippies and social activists– destroyed all of this! So SAD!! In the case of a priest– young Catholic boys were watched, in parishes, as they served as altar boys, attended parish schools, and might be noted for moral and spiritual excellence, as well as academic excellence. I will continue—
I will continue! Young Catholic boys who excelled, might also be given special recommendations, for special schooling and training, according to their talents– for example, to be sent to the North American College, in Rome. Or, to be set to obtain a degree in Canon Law. Etc. When a young priest was ordained, he already had many local priests, seminary professors, and the local bishop, to naturally guide him to success, in his vocation! It was all “built-in,” and natural, and NORMAL!!! The new priest was ready for the job! The ancient pathway– was very clear, and deeply respected!
Linda – that is called nepotism and clericalism.
It really would be nice if you said something nice every once in a while. Your mouth is always so full of venom for everyone that it really boggles the mind. Your heart is so full of sadness and bitterness, it really shows.
There is a time for sadness, Anonymous. And when those such as yourself demonstrate such zealous ignorance that is such a time. When in doubt reference the “educated” rantings of the one who defames Brown University by his sophomoric facebook trolling.
Ann, there definitely is a right time for sadness. But if a person allows themselves to so wallow in sadness that they cannot or will not make distinctions between those good things in life and those bad things in life, and instead see them all with the same light, it speaks to the internal turmoil that the speaker is going through. I urge Linda to get help for that inner turmoil, since it is clearly eating her up. You should also encourage her to seek help, not change the subject to some facebook trolling, which I don’t even know what you are talking about.
What I should do is what I am doing, Anonymous. Your presumption of knowing the whole of Linda Maria’s life or that of any other because of what they post here is rather a sign of your own imbalance.
Whatever would lead you to believe that a person is the total of what they post on CCD? Is that the limit of your social interaction?
If so, perhaps you should seek a sound therapist. Often those who are eaten up project their own issues onto others because they cannot bear to face the reality of their own problems.
Sorry, Anonymous– I have no inner turmoil! What I DO have, is a GOOD MORAL CONSCIENCDE– and am NOT AFRAID TO SAY WHAT I THINK! After that– it is all FORGOTTEN!! You, too, have the right to SAY WHAT YOU THIHNK, INTELLIGENTLY– WITHOUT HURTING OTHER NICE POSTERS!
Linda, Methinks you are the one who is naive. Kick out the secular world? How can you kick out the world in which the Church subsists? You don’t kick out the secular world Linda Maria. You convert the world. Baptize it! You don’t runaway from it. You have a lot to learn.
Anonymous, NO— the traditions of our Church in nurturing future priests, as I described— have NOTHING TO DO with clericalism and nepotism at all! Best to re-read what I said! Also, it appears you have no life experience, with what I described! We once had a very stable, normal Church and society— but it all was torn to pieces, in the 1960’s. Nothing normal and stable, today! That is why people get so upset– and that is also why some new priests may leave their vocations, as the article described!
Jon, YES– the Church used to be CLOSED to the fallen, sinful secular world– NEVER embracing it! Christ told His Apostles, at the Last Supper, that they must live in the world, but never be OF THE WORLD!! At Baptism, we leave the sinful secular world behind, for Christ! Also, when a young man goes away to join the seminary, or a monastery or religious order— and when a young girl goes away to join the convent— YOU LEAVE THE WORLD BEHIND FOR CHRIST!! You ought to EDUCATE YOURSELF WELL about your Church, Jon! And stop with your criticisms of good people, who may be many, many years older than you, and know a great deal! Your posts criticizing other good Catholics— are USELESS until you get some EDUCATION and LIFE…
Linda Maria, good to hear that you are correcting your language here . No doubt thanks to my gentle and merciful encouragement and wisdom. You see, you cannot simply say “Shun the world,” without really thinking through how you’re saying what you want to say.
Jon– Yes, all Christians must SHUN THE WORLD!! Just like good Catholics today, shun Planed Parenthood, or the Democratic “Death Party,” for their sinful ways! Shun the world, and follow Christ, not the sinful world! To “shun the world,” means to REFUSE TO FOLLOW IT (it does NOT mean, of course, to be mean to people living in the world!) And Jon, it is definitely un-Christian, to egotistically state that you “influenced” me! Of course not! I simply try to make a DECENT REPLY to you! I do NOT believe it is “Christian,” to senselessly ATTACK people, as you do!
We are called to be in the world, Jon, but not of the world. That which is to be found in the world or among the worldly is not to be found among those who follow Christ. The reason being they are called to shun it.
Ann Malley, Christ did not shun the world. He called the disciples to baptize it. Vatican II calls us to engage the world so as to bring it into the image of Christ. You’re not to shun the world.
Jon, one of St. Therese of Lisieux’s favorite books, was Thomas a Kempis’ famous “Imitation of Christ.” Before Vatican II, we used to hear sermons all the time, with material such as is found in this famous book, and many others, just like it! The goal of the Christian is Heaven, not this passing world! The Christian is on a daily pilgrimage, to Heaven, and he must leave the world– for Christ! Maybe if you read some of the works of the great Saints, you would understand things better!
Jon, Christ shunned vice and sin. Read scripture. Read the admonishment to be “in” the world but not “of” the world. You seem to pack a zealous punch, but you need a sound trainer, Jon. Otherwise you’ll do little more than box the wind and exhaust yourself with zero fruit save perhaps your own exhaustion.
That said, there was Catholic life prior to Vatican II. That’s exactly why we have canonized Catholic missionaries long before Vatican II. Try reading beyond your favorite bookshelf. The unnatural limiting does you no good whatsoever.
You’re an intelligent fellow. But again, one only knows what he has heard. So get out more. This pretense that evangelization wasn’t called for until VII is ludicrous in the extreme.
Linda Maria, the whole of my first post is to say that there is NO SUCH thing as a Vatican II-priest. All priests, even FSSP, have to adhere to Vatican II, as do all lay Catholics. Those priests who cannot accept all of it like SSPX have NO LEGAL MINISTRY in the Church, except for the Sacrament of Reconciliation during this Year of Mercy. And who do you thank for that? Pope Francis whom you have denigrated here. Ponder on that and repent Linda Maria. Repent.
jon, The reason you are so enraged over Linda Maria’s posts have nothing to do with a desire to maintain the fullness of truth. You ARE threatened by anything that impedes your progressive agenda. Ponder the fact that if everything was so peachy keen, then Pope Benedict XVI would not have had to write the book, ‘The Spirit of the Liturgy’. There would have be no need to implement of Summorum Pontificum. Ponder Pope John Paul II’s lamenting the fact that he did not discipline more. jon, Your death row inmate zeal is a *hallmark sign* of misplaced priorities. Please repent of your death knell zeal against the Truth.
You’re wrong Catherine: I am neither enraged NOR feeling threatened. What I am is saddened by cowardice displayed by Linda, Ann Mally, and you: hiding behind anonymity in order to callously throw stone at our spiritual shepherds. No matter how valid one’s arguments and points may be, it can never justify disobedience, scandal, and transgression against Our Lord who said of His Apostles who have been succeeded by our bishops: “Whoever rejects you rejects me, and whoever rejects me rejects the One Who sent me.”
Then why not cease being a coward when it comes to understanding that accepting VII is to accept the demonstrable reality that it deviates or at the very best obfuscates the clear doctrine that came before. Much like AL does with regard to marriage.
So absolutely accept VII. But accept what it is in reality not what it is in spin to cover up the sick fruits of confusion that have resulted.
To ignore the signs of the times and to reject reality of scandalized sheep is to be a coward, Jon. Whoever rejects you, rejects me. This is true. But therein lies your confusion. You equate calling out the sins and obfuscations as a rejection of Church leadership when, in reality, calling upon leaders to be faithful is to be their dearest…
Pretending a crippled child isn’t crippled is to reject the child, jon. To accept the reality of infirmity and strive to correct it is to LOVE and ACCEPT the child. Stop living a fantasy, jon.
The truth will set you free, too.
“Our theology teaches that with priestly ordination, there is an ontological change, one’s being is changed. But that carries with it a psychological adjustment that has to go along with it,” What is this ontological change? What is this psychological adjustment?
Anonymous, at Holy Orders, you know, a priest bears the indelible mark of the Sacred Priesthood, forever! Holy Orders fundamentally changes the man into a priest– forever! He becomes our “Alter Christus!” Perhaps that is what you are thinking, in your post, above? It is a psychological adjustment, to become a holy priest, an “Alter Christus,” but seminarians are well-prepared for it, I am sure! A very extremely important role, to carry on Christ’s holy earthly mission!
Of course– I will ignore the pitiful FILTH of so-called “Vicente Roberto,” as he is obviously under the influence of Satan. Most certainly, he would not dare to call a nice lady such FILTH in public– he would have to be HAULED OFF TO JAIL, and his MOUTH WASHED OUT WTH SOAP!! Grow up, and REJECT SATAN, young man!
Jon, you must stop taking other posters seriously, and simply state your opinions and beliefs! For example, you can say, “Well, I hate the old Latin Mass, for such- and-such reasons– but I love the New Mass, for such-and-such reasons.” And SO WHAT? Give your opinions.– you are entitled to them! But DON’T BE A BIG BABY AND LAUNCH ENDLESS, PERSONAL, VICIOUS ATTACKS ON OTHERS!! No one wants to hurt you, kiddo! No one! And there are really NO ANSWERS to the emotional dilemmas you bring up, no resolutions! The modern Church is NOT STABLE!! You will get ten different opinions, from ten different Cardinals, and two VERY DIFERENT living Popes (one emeritis, as we know!)
Jon, you should know, that many priests, prelates, and popes, who are VERY FAITHFUL, PERSONALLY, TO THE CHURCH– have their own, private ideas, beliefs, and feelings on things!. For example– Pope St. John Paul II, Pope (emeritis) Benedict, and Pope Francis– are three VERY DIFFERENT POPES!! If they all sat down together, to discuss something– they will have to POLITELY RESPECT EACH OTHERS’ VIEWS! Now, just wait until Pope Francis announces decisions regarding women deacons! Ten different cardinals will all give ten different VERY STRONG OPINIONS!! DON’T PERSONALLY ATTACK one of them!! JUST GIVE YOUR OWN (STRONG!) OPINION, JON!!
Jon, if you ask ten different diocesan priests, or ten different Jesuit priests, or ten different FSSP priests (etc.) their personal beliefs on the 16 documents of Vatican II– they each will give their own personal view, and no two will be alike! Some priests have NEVER EVEN READ THE DOCUMENTS!! (Many don’t have time!) A good priest who is faithful to the Church and her Magisterium, and who loves Christ, and want to serve Christ’s people– has the mind of a MATURE MAN. And all FSSP priests basically want, is the the beautiful old Latin Mass and Sacraments! (Me, too!)
Linda Maria, let me tell you my main points in the thread, because you seem to have lost it.
First, that all Catholics must adhere to Vatican II, which already includes your beloved FSSP, but not your beloved SSPX priests. OK? That simple enough? Now, my point number two is that people like you should not trash our bishops, our Holy Father, the Mass (whether OF or EF), or inject conspiratorial theories which you cannot even prove in a comment thread. You just create scandal, plus it doesn’t make your anonymous name look good. Ok? so just two main points I have really, if you follow my comments.
Again and again, to pass Jon the Pious’ orthodoxy test, he says one must “adhere to the DOCUMENTS of V2”.
Fine. So: What is/are the new infallible teaching(s) defined by V2? They may be ordinary magisterial teachings: fine. Please specify any, either ordinary or extraordinary, but if you can’t, and you have shown you are unable to do so, there is no such obligation.
Justin K. There is indeed an obligation to agree to what Vatican II teaches. It is not a matter of what is infallible or not. The documents all refer to doctrines and dogmas. V2 did not define any new dogmas/doctrines, but it certainly contains them to which all Catholics must assent. If you insist with your questioning, then as Jon had said earlier, you are no better from a cafeteria left-leaning Catholic who wants to pick and choose what to believe. Good work, Jon.
O Justin K., like I said in an earlier comment, you select what to believe from Vatican II which makes you a plain lukewarm, cafeteria Catholic, nibbling away at a buffet, selecting what to eat, like any liberal Catholic does.
Go forth and attempt to shame people by way of the Cafeteria Catholic smear, jon. But Christ doesn’t require His sheep to down rotted fruits that have been brought into the cafeteria just because the cafeteria ladies got lax on checking the quality of the meat they allowed inside.
Obedience in all but sin, jon. And forcing one’s children to imbibe that which contains mystery meat that doesn’t meet the Church’s own criteria for mandated consumption is not obedience. It’s sinful and you know it.
And while others can discern as much by way of the sniff test, that is no reason for you to demand others pinch their nose as you dictate and swallow what is not required.
Jon, you do not have the information required to vet what you erroneously label conspiratorial theories. That is why your condemnation of Linda Maria’s views sounds so hollow. You lack the continuity of “He who hears you hears me.” But only seem to perceive it in a limited version. As if the Church began and ended with modern times.
Your assertion that Linda Maria creates scandal is testimony to your own laziness in being unwilling to put her comments in their proper context. And while you may assert that following orders, whatever they may be, is pleasing to God – you’re actually missed the point. Obedience is required in all but sin. And if you don’t see the sin of things, well, then that is a point. But others “do” see…
… the sin and are subsequently scandalized away from the true Church for the contradictions she presents by way of a discombobulated hierarchy.
Place the blame where it lies, jon. Don’t slay the messenger.
And yet the Jews of old slew their prophets, too. And Jesus Himself was crucified for speaking the truth. Can’t have the scandal created that the Pharisees aren’t what they should be.
Ann Malley, I think it really bothers you that Jon and I are actually more traditional that you or Linda. It is traditional Catholicism not to denigrate our bishops, priests, and popes in public. We pray for them with all our heart, but we never criticize them with gusto and zeal as you do. That is not traditional, that is disobedience and scandal-mongering.
Additional Ann Malley. I think it has perhaps shocked you that someone who actually reads Cal Cath Daily would call you and Linda Maria out on your scandalous disobedience. Perhaps you’ve been accustomed to just doing so here without realizing what you’re doing. Now that people like Jon and I point out how wrong you are, you are all surprised how truly wrong your way of criticizing the hierarchy is. Your way is untraditional, unCatholic, and plainly sinful.
Ann Malley: Just to inform you. I have heard long ago these claims you make about Vatican II. But the fact remains that Pope Benedict, Pope John Paul II, Pope Francis, Cardinal Sarah, Cardinal Mueller, Cardinal Burke, Archbishop Schneider and other orthodox prelates of the Church SUPPORT the Council. Name one high-ranking cleric with legal standing in the Church who does not support the Council. You can’t. You might name Fellay and Williamson, but that’s just it: their ministry is illicit. I think it is you who should open your eyes to your disobedience.
How funny Ann Malley. It is not up to me to vet your conspiracies. The burden of proof is on those who make the claim. It is you and Linda and folks like you who should prove to us here your conspiracies. Don’t pass the buck on me; you are making the claim here against Vat2, and so YOU PROVE IT! VET IT!
BTW Jon, Unless you are speaking of another Schneider, he is not an Archbishop, he is an AXILLIARY bishop, and in a rather small diocese at that:
But on the rest of your points, I agree!
Jon, just to inform you, I have a memory and recall your playing spoiler on CCD before. Your previous claim to cultural Catholicism and subsequent endorsement of all things new and modern or retooled in the imposition of mandated ambiguity is nothing new.
That’s why this latest spurt of gold wrapped obedience to the magisterium is no gift, but a Trojan horse intended to keep those who know better to act as if they know nothing. You fool nobody.
You can continue to site the names that you do with regard to accepting Vatican II, but true acceptance of something is to take it at face value – warts and all. Vatican II has some damaging, potentially cancerous warts, jon. AL is the manifestation. Just like the not-so-recent word from…
Haha to Ann Malley: You got the wrong “Jon”. Figures.
Your Rose smells pretty bad, Jon. But then when you’re dancing ’round the maypole with YFC, Vincente Roberto, the curiously absent (K)aritas et all you’re bound to effuse some interesting contrails. Or are those pastel ribbons? (…auxiliary ribbons from an exceptionally small floral shop of course ;^)
Again, you fool nobody. Shock nobody. And your understanding of tradition “Rose”, Catholic or otherwise, negates the traditional understanding of the useful tool. That would be y’all.
But no matter. Yours is the effect of poor role models. And a lack of cohesion for despite wanting to claim the prize, yours is not the first venture into crying cafeteria Catholicism. YFC rode that pony a couple years back and fell off. But…
…no matter. Yours is the effect of poor role models. And a lack of cohesion for despite wanting to claim the prize, yours is not the first venture into crying cafeteria Catholicism. YFC rode that pony a couple years back and fell off. But good on ya for trying again.
Nobody can doubt your vigor. Just the tired material.
Keep it coming, Linda Maria. You know you’re hitting gold when the squirming starts, that and calling in for untold pseudonyms.
Such orthodoxy. Following the leader right into Hell and staying there like a good wittle soldier!
No one wants to listen to someone who says that Vatican II was cancerous.
….the Pharisees didn’t want to hear Christ either, YFC. Could be you’ve got itchy ear syndrome, the disease warned of in Romans wherein the flock would only accept those pastors who told them what they wanted to hear.
Thanks again for your stellar illustration of the true problem.
Again, Jon, great job here. These folks are great at “accusations.” The Devil himself is an “accuser.” They accuse the priests, bishops, the Holy Father. They have an agenda. The agenda is to swell the people who go to these illicit chapels of the SSPX or whatever sedevacantist group out there. Those who would listen to their woe-the-Church-has-been-lost tirade and nonsense should be reminded that going to these chapels can be detrimental to the soul because it is a form of disobedience. It is not at all the traditional way. The great saints like St. Teresa of Avila or Catherine of Siena would never disobey.
“…The great saints like St. Teresa of Avila or Catherine of Siena would never disobey.”
Do you even read, “Rose?”
Thank you Rose, for the compliments. Yes, some of these folks forget the virtue of obedience, obedience to superiors. Wasn’t it St. Teresa of Avila who said close to her death that “I die a daughter of the Church.” Inspite of the hardships she encountered she never caused scandal by castigating publicly her superiors. Admirable. Someone that a few folks here should emulate. Thank you Rose.
Jon, you are free to express your own personal views. That is fine. I know it must be upsetting, for you to see that our Church is not perfect! And since Vatican II, there have been many troubling things in our Church, and hideous scandals! So that is the reason that many in the Church — to include great men like Cardinal Sarah, Cardinal Burke, and etc.– feel they must speak up! I have the same views they do! I know it must upset you! However, no one is trying to hurt you, or anyone else! Best to read more, and to educate yourself, so you can see what others think, and why! Read some of the books by Burke and Sarah.
The great Cardinals of our Church, Jon, which you mentioned— do NOT 100% support every little thing, in Vatican II– and NEVER DID!! There is a great deal of confusion and controversy! Vatican II is still an “unfinished work!” Take for example, the SCANDALOUS concepts of “religious freedom,” and that maybe “all religions are (ecumenism) equal,” in those documents– rather than the traditional Catholic teaching, that a good Catholic ACCEPTS THE YOKE OF CHRIST, and CHRIST DIED FOR OUR SALVATION!! HE ALONE IS OUR SAVIIOR!! MY GOD!!
Vatican II never said all religions are equal.
Anonymous, yes, Vatican II never said that all religions are equal. However, the Fathers of Vatican II did not say either, that the Catholic Church is Christ’s True Church— and they did encourage many interdenominational ecumenical activities, in many wrongful ways, negating the Truth and Sacraments of our Church! And this problem is still going on, even among leading prelates and Popes of our Church! Also, at major churches, shrines, and cathedrals, clerics from even non-Christian faiths, have been invited to offer their own services– such as at Fatima! A BIG SHOCK!
Oh Linda? The great living Cardinals and prelates I mentioned do not support Vat? Really? You dare speak for Bishop Schneider (thanks YFC) and Cardinal Mueller? Really? You know their soul?
… the Vatican on not evangelizing our Jewish brothers-the same that takes its authority from VII documents despite biblical mandate and the charism of the Church to spread the Faith.
I don’t need to cite +Fellay or anyone else, but merely look to the documents themselves. But you may want to do some fresh study on Bishop Schneider. Again, accepting VII is accepting that it is demonstrably flawed.
I think it is you who should open your eyes to the reality that the imposition of false obedience to cover your own willful facilitation of that which is faulty is the real problem. But it is easier to just bob along, jon. And shame others so you feel comfortable.
Bishop Athanasius Schneider: We Are In The Fourth Great Crisis Of The Church!
Progressives, Collaborating With A “New Paganism” Are Driving The Church Towards A Split.
Thank you, Ann Malley and Linda Maria. A few days ago we spoke with several priests who are all in good standing within their diocese. It was a gift to hear these faithful priests say that they have changed their minds. They used to sound like jon, so there is hope for poor jon’s soul. They see the ongoing destruction of the faith and they attribute it to the changing of the Mass and the sacrificial nature of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Faithful priests must pay attention to the heretical erosion that allowed a homosexual couple to bring up the gifts with their toddler at the closing REC Mass. These priests do tie in the deliberate suppression of the TLM Mass right along with the deliberate suppression of certain Church Teaching…
I think what is really bothering you Ann Malley is the thought that we have to adhere to Vatican II, and that your beloved “traditional” priests like FSSP actually do uphold it, otherwise they wouldn’t be a legal entity in the Church. You see Ann Malley, belonging to the Church is not like belonging to a social club. THe Church is called to be united within itself (among its members) and then united to God. Adherence to the teachings of the Church, of which Vat2 is one, is mandated.
Finally, I maintain that the orthodox cardinals and prelates of today like Burke uphold the Council. However, they know that the manner in which the Council was enacted (such as in the liturgy) may have gone the wrong way. It is not that the…
It is not that the Council itself was wrong, but that the manner with which it was enforced and enacted in some parts of the Church was hijacked by some figures (which is the very word Pope Benedict used before he resigned to describe what happened after the Council). So Linda, Ann, Catherine, put some nuance and critical thinking in your thoughts, then perhaps people here will take you three more seriously.
Jon, in everyday life, good priests and prelates do not go around being malicious, legalistic, and checking to see who agrees with this or that, in Vatican II!! Most have no time, and some have never read the documents!! Good priests and prelates make generalized nice comments, about the Pope, or Vatican II. But privately, they may reveal to those close to them, their true views and concerns. They will say, that the most important thing, is to be a good practicing Catholic, and that Vatican II is very vague, confusing, problematic– and don’t worry about it! How about “Vatican III?”
…understand that thanks to higher literacy rates and access to information, snowing even the clergy about the proposed hijack of VII implementation isn’t going to cut it. Back to the drawing board and shaming station, friend.
As for serious, you take what I say very seriously or else you’d be off enjoying your springtime fullness. Maybe you could pick up a book on St. Joan of Arc and read for understanding. A daughter of the Church. Um, yeah.
Wrong Linda: Name me one high-ranking cleric who said what you just said, that V2 is “vague, confusing, problematic.” I think it is demonstrably evident that you don’t argue on point as some of your detractors here have said.
Cardinal Kasper stated quite clearly that Vatican II is injected with compromise formulas, jon. That is areas in which things can be interpreted one way or another. That’s called vague, confusing, and problematic. Especially when juxtaposed to that clear doctrine that has been passed down.
Bishop Athanasius Schneider said, “Great Saints have rejected Popularity In favor of Truth. He added: Popularity is false. Great Saints of the Church such as Thomas More and John Fisher, rejected popularity. Those today who are worried about popularity of the mass media and public opinion…will be remembered as “cowards” and not as heroes of the faith.”
Use this site as you would any other. As you would use your experiences in life at home, work, school, etc. You’ll encounter all kinds.
What you’ll also encounter is that in life we are all met with challenges and the realization, at some point, that authority figures are flawed. And while we do need to uphold authority part of doing that is to ensure that we support those in said positions by exacting that which is true and for the good from them.
One would not support a bad decision by a drunken father. One would act on his behalf to cover his blunder and work in future to support him in his doing his job properly. Not facilitating drunkenness and subsequently carrying out bad policy when that policy has…
….shown itself to damage the children.
That is what you’ll learn here. It’s a fine art of discernment. One we are all called to master. With the aid of grace. Best to you!
Pray for grace, for guidance, for adhesion to the fullness of truth even if it’s difficult. Standing up to authority when authority is misused is often the most difficult. But it can and must, at times, be done despite the vile spewing of Vincente Roberto who seems to fancy himself holy while engaging in the most rank grotesqueness.
Bless you, Ann Malley– and bless Mary Carter, too! This vile character, “Vicente,” who says he is a college boy, from Brown University — sounds to me like he is either headed for a very destructive life as a juvenile delinquent, or even a criminal– or else the life of a sociopath/psychopath, an ISIS-type “juvenile terrorist,” with no moral conscience! Or maybe he is taking dope, and has lost all contact with reality, and needs to be placed in a mental institution! Worse yet– is he under a demonic attack, possessed by the Devil?? Maybe he needs an exorcism!! Who knows?? I don’t think this website should publish posts by such deranged people. Best to ignore them.
“The holy apostle returned to Siena and, after a short stay, she was sent again by the pope to promote his cause in Lucca. From Lucca, she wrote a long letter to Pope Gregory, giving him a serious warning that if he did not shoulder his great responsibilities like a man, the terrible evils from which the Church of Christ was suffering would worsen. She, as was her way, begins her letter in the name of Jesus Christ and gentle Mary. She addresses the pope as her dearest father in Christ, and identifies herself as “God’s servant’s servant and bondwoman.” The saint then goes right to the point and informs her spiritual father that it was he who is responsible for the abuses that are draining the life of the Church.”
“Catherine sent strong letters to the rebellious cardinals rebuking them sharply for having become traitors to their great responsibility as high dignitaries of the Church — because of love for temporal things. Reprimanding them for their *cowardice* in calling invalid an election — in which they had participated — only after the Pope had corrected them in their failings, the seraphic virgin exhorts them with eloquence to return to the fold. Finally she ends one long letter in her typical style of complete respect for authority: “Do not believe that I wish you any evil when I hurt you with my words; care for your salvation is what makes me write .”
LOVE all your posts, Catherine! Thanks!
Exactly Catherine, the saint wrote directly to the prelate and corrected him, privately, discreetly. She didn’t post those critiques on the church door for everyone to see and then disappear: that would be like your writing your bombastic rant against your favorite bishop on CalCath anonymously.
Where error is it must be refuted, jon. You post error here regularly and sadly our prelates engage in transmitting vagaries in a very public manner. It is the nature of their public scandal that demands public refutation.
So get with the program and understand that writing letters was the way of things in days gone by. Now viral error is spread via one on the fly plane interview.
And Linda Maria is not disappearing. Anyone who asks her a question is answered.
If you’re going to charge others, get it right, jon. It’s not rocket science to tease out your self serving accusations of what constitutes scandal, disobedience, or non compliance to the “magisterium”.
Authority is there to accomplish the good. When it does…
…the opposite it demands correction.
Again, you may not “see”, but those who do are compelled to speak in what capacity they can. To do any less is to abet the crime committed.
Oh? So where is the error I wrote? Prove it. Secondly, you have no credibility to castigate the Holy Father and bishops because YOU ARE NOT IN THEIR POSITION! You don’t see what they can see from their office. You don’t receive reports they receive. You don’t hear confessions. DO you visit parishes? NO! Do you meet people from various walks of life and various background who give you their input on the state of a diocese? NO. Did you go to seminary? Do you do spiritual direction? Have you met the Pope? NO. The PLAIN FACT is that you have NO credibility to castigate the spiritual shepherds of the Church because you can only see things from YOUR OWN VANTAGE POINT, as limited as it is. The only One Who can truly judge…
the shepherds of the Church is God Almighty: not you, not Linda Maria.
jon, Christ Himself says that His sheep know Him as He knows His sheep. That’s why there are solid Catholics who are calling out the hireling shepherds who would pretend to use their crook for good, but are instead beating the sheep with it.
I’m afraid many sincere Protestants would even be greatly surprised, with reading the Catholic Church’s famous “Declaration on Religious Freedom,” or “Dignitatis Humanae,” of Vatican II. This reads like a very humanistic document on secular human rights and freedoms– not the goal of the RELIGIOUS Catholic believer, who has given his or her life freely to Christ, hoping for Salvation, and Heaven! The goal of the Catholic believer, is to love and serve God, and to hope someday to live forever with God, in Heaven! Even a sincere Protestant would be SHOCKED to read this document! Also, to read the entire history and background of the Council– is a surprise for many people!
No they wouldn’t be shocked, LM. The entire point of DH is to come to grips with the antidisestablishmentarianism that swept Europe from the 18th Century forward, and to set the stage for evangelization in the 20th and 21st Centuries. It’s point is to say that faith isn’t faith if the government coerces you into it, and that all human beings have a right to their faith and not the faith that government coerces you into.,Used to be the Church, thought the ROLE of government was to coerce its citizens into Christianity. DH says government coercion into any faith is an affront to human dignity.
Yes, YFC– this is true, what you wrote. However, RELIGIOUS PEOPLE are interested in something RELATED TO THE CHURCH, AND CHRIST’S MISSION TO SAVE SOULS! The Church must go beyond mankind’s basic EARTHLY human rights and freedoms! How about the RELIGIOUS PART, in which the Catechism tells us, mankind was created to “know, love, and serve God?” Our days on earth are short, many calamities may befall us, our final destination is Heaven, and our job on earth, is to GLORIFY GOD, to lead a good, holy life, no matter what– and SEEK HEAVEN, not only SEEKING EARTHLY HUMAN RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS!!
To YFC– If God is our True King, and Christ reigns in His Kingdom, above all earthly things, and if we know we are VERY LIMITED in what we can do, politically, to end oppression by human governments– and if we are to daily PUT UP WTH OUR CROSSES, while seeking to end human oppression as best we can– and if our main task, overall– is SALVATION, saving our souls- then, we would have a very different way to construct the document, “Dignitatis Humanae!” Also, we have a RELIGIOUS DUTY TO SERVE CHRIST, NOT the whims of our poor, often-misguided, individual human consciences!
Some Christians, in history, who “followed their consciences,” were tempted, and joined plots to kill a bloody dictator. Would Christ and his cousin, St. John the Baptist, have joined a plot to kill the evil King Herod, in their day? That is an extreme, which some well-meaning Christians have gone to, in history, rejecting the Church’s teaching in favor of their own “moral conscience!” I do not like the results of Vatican II’s “Religious Freedom” document! In particular– the results have created an excuse for an unmanageable moral sewer, in our Church! Especially in our Catholic colleges!
” I die the king’s faithful servant, but God’s first.” – St. Thomas More
I sometimes think that the major difference between Catholics and Protestants, at least those of a certain age boils down to the issue of going to heaven. Almost every Protestant I meet knows deep in their heart that they will one day go to heaven to be with Christ, because he died to justify them. Catholics often believe that they are going to hell unless they do certain things to plead their case. It makes for a very different approach to Church, religion, and salvation, as well as their way of life lI you assume you are going to heaven unless you are stained by mortal sin, which few people are, then you approach your faith in a different way any you approach your life in a different way. Just an observation, not a dogmatic…
St. Paul says we are to work out our salvation in fear and trembling, Bob One. Your assertion that few are stained with mortal sin is a huge reach, friend, perhaps one borne out of manufactured invincible ignorance wherein the seriousness of serious sin is downplayed. Just an observation. But one could easily attempt to convince themselves that they are assured of going to heaven while in the middle of an adulterous second marriage.
That mental hoodwinking doesn’t discount the objective reality.
The idea is not to do certain things per se, but to beg the grace of God to have the requisite strength to persevere in the good lest we lose the crown. These warnings of St. Paul, much like being wary of an Angel of Light preaching a…
…different gospel, are there for good reason. And too often that Angel of LIght is our own bright idea to just continue in what we know is wrong and presume on God’s mercy.
God bless all those on this thread who are seeking to transmit the truth, not the agreed upon error intended to appease two masters.
I especially love that doublespeak of having to obey the ambiguous in lieu of the clear because of a council that is not infallible. Reminds me of kindergarten gobble-de-gook intended to justify raiding the desert cart after being caught hitting someone on the playground and passing out pamphlets for others to do the same. But if the authorities decide for public relations reasons to give all an A for deportment who are the…
… beaten to object? Disobedient! The source of scandal! Not the bullies. Oh, no. They must be appeased or else they may crucify someone on the playground next. (Kind of like ISIS or the Mob)
Thank God that He sees all ;^)
Winston Churchill once said, and I paraphrase with great liberty, something to the effect that if you wanted him to give a two hour speech, he was ready at a moments notice. But, if you wanted him to speak extemporaneously for ten minutes he would need a week or two to prepare. :) As I plead guilty to going on too long in my posts, perhaps we could/should all try to condense our comments into one post rather than three to four or more. I’m going to work on it and I know Ann Malley and Catherine will join me. How about the rest of us?
Let me interrupt the magical mutual admiration society of “jon” & “Rose” for a moment, and note that it appears some progress has been made:
1st, “Rose” admits “V2 did not define any new dogmas/doctrines, but it certainly contains them to which all Catholics must assent.” (6/8 915AM).
2nd, “jon” now states an admission also: “It is not that the Council itself was wrong, but that the manner with which it was enforced and enacted in some parts of the Church was hijacked…” 6/8 936PM
So, we agree as in Lumen Gentium n.1) at V2, “…[what the Church] intends to do, following faithfully the teaching of previous councils.”]: but there is no new magic doctrine in the “DOCUMENTS” of V2 (per jon), as tho’ they were some new Holy Writ. Yet…
… Yet V2 is invoked as some new 5th [Gnostic] Gospel. How is that so?
However, one clear error: “Rose” states “It (presumably V2) is not a matter of what is infallible or not. ” Oh no: if itmay be fallible, it must be rejected, if that is so (fallibilis, Latin, “to deceive”, “to fall into error”). Look at how at present there is a rejection of Gaudium et Spes n.47-52 on those marriage and family by many in Catholic “officialdom”.
Whether ordinary or extraordinary, the matter we are discussing here, as jon now freely admits, is that doctrine was “hijacked” in “the way the Council was enforced and enacted”. Isnt that what we are talking about here? Or is it some desire to cudgel others to grovel as tainted…
Wrong Justin K. The documents of Vat2 contain no error and must be adhered to. ALL documents therein must be adhered to.
Fine: as Campion observes then, what exactly are the new doctrines, “jon”, presumably ordinary magisterial, that we must believe, that are unique to V2? Be specific.
Let me help you out: We are never bound to give assent to “documents”, per se, but to specific doctrines.
Or, let yourself off the hook, and admit as all the popes have said, V2 only re-stated previously existing teaching. Rose acknowledges this.
Or: Are the DOCUMENTS of V2 a new Holy Writ? Are these vague, generalized writings of man, now divine revelations, like the Book of Mormon, worthy of unquestioned assent? If so, to what specifically?
Sorry Justin K. But your wrong-headed questioning reveals your own personal problems with the Council. It’s very plain what I am saying. All the documents of the Council have to be adhered to. All of them. What’s difficult to understand about the word “ALL”? Every jot and tittle of the Council is to be adhered to. That is as plain as I can articulate it. And your point about not giving assent to “documents” is pedantic. The Conciliar documents contain dogmas and doctrines (which you try to now refer to as “teaching”), all of which have to be adhered to. ALL.
Maybe Justin K. you will help your cause by identifying here plainly what you find disagreeable about the documents of the Council. It will certainly help you make more sense. So go ahead, tell us what you don’t like about the “teachings” or the dogmas and doctrines articulated in the Council. Go ahead. Agreeing with Rose that the Council restates and refers to eternal doctrines, dogmas, and “teachings” of the Church, I challenge you to state what you find are problems in it.
Justin, please flip through the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and pay particular attention to the footnotes. It is largely BASED on Vatican II.
No Church document, from whatever era, can propose “new doctrines”. The very idea that any Council could propose “new doctrines” is actually heresy. The Church merely safeguards the doctrines that has been passed onto it from Christ himself, expressing them ever more clearly in the language of contemporary men and women, in words that are vibrant for each generation, or is applied to new situations. No doctrine can ever be new. It’s just said a little clearer for the ears that hear it.
“…No doctrine can ever be new. It’s just said a little clearer for the ears that hear it.”
That’s why VII is pastoral and not binding in the confusion it presents or rather the potential for compromise. That is why basing the Catechism on documents fraught with the could-be promotes confusion.
One cannot base a mandatory language on an optional alphabet and expect clarity to result. The very IDEA is illogical and will result in verbal heresy if not heterodoxy.
Thanks again for illustrating the problem so clearly, YFC.
YFC– The Catechism is very old, not at all based on Vatican II!! And Vatican II did NOT change Church Doctrine! Instead, the new Catechism is written in a style to show readers the way in which our Church’s teachings are viewed, and practiced, in the post-Conciliar era. For example– look at the subject of Church annulments! There are some changes, with annulments– but the Church still will NEVER believe in DISSOLVING a VALID MARRIAGE!! Our Church’s ancient teachings are timeless!! We can rely on that!
YFC, I re-read your post, and I see that we both basically said the same thing! However— for myself I do not like modern language, and “contemporary” ways, at all! I just LOVE older religious books, written in beautiful, crystal-clear language, with a great deal of time and careful, prayerful thought put into them! Modern religious books are often quite shallow, not written as well, often contain language that is too casual, too presumptuous, and too bold, rushing to overly-simplify great, complex concepts, some of which are deep mysteries of God, which require our Faith and trust.
By the way, the Baltimore Catechism, and all other Church-approved Catechisms, are all perfectly acceptable, and many parishes still use the Baltimore Catechism! One does not need to just use the newest one, of the post-Conciliar era, published in the 1990’s! The newer editions of the Baltimore Catechism contain updated Church information, on things such as the requirements for the Eucharistic Fast, Friday abstinence as now being voluntary etc.
Abp. Fulton J. Sheen had an excellent method of teaching the Catechism, that was very popular! He also recorded his lectures, and this may also still be available, as well as a print version of the material. Sheen was a very reliable and very excellent, beloved teacher! He never changed his material, after the Council. He had many, many converts, even famous ones!
YFC– we both said the same thing! Sorry I didn’t read your post more clearly! YES— our new Catechism, of the 1990’s, is most definitely written as a product of the Second Vatican Council! Yes!! But I prefer to get out an older Catechism, and read things of interest to me. That is perfectly acceptable! Our Church is timeless, and our religious doctrine never changed.
YFC– The Roman Catechism (of the Council of Trent) and the current post-Vatican II Catechism are very similar!
And one last thing, YFC– yes, the 1990’s CCC is well-written, for today’s reader, and is very clear– any reader can easily pick it up, and read it! But I still prefer older religious books of all types, and love the old Latin Tridentine Mass, too! There is a publication of the Roman Catechism, that even then-Cardinal Ratzinger praised, some time ago! So, there is a little something, for all sincere, practicing Catholics, of all types!
In the first place, it was you Justin K. who brought up the issue of fallability/infallability in Vatican II. It was your wrong-headed question, not mine, not jon’s. And so I reiterate my point, this is not a question of the fallability or infallability of the Council. Its documents are not erroneous. This is about obedience.
My position is so easy to understand, which is obey all of the Conciliar documents. It is you who are making this difficult for you, no doubt because of your lack of faith in the Magisterium.
Thank you Rose. This is indeed about obedience as you state here and as I had previously wrote.
It is so very transparent when progressives (all of the sudden) handily pull out their selective memory obedience card, especially when they, themselves, have been undermining Church Teaching for many years. This is when progressives give themselves away as being duplicitous wolves/wolverines, within.
This is about being clear about what precisely is to be obeyed, jon.
Your position is so clear which is to obey whatever regardless of whether it is true, false, clear, a contradiction, whatever. Last orders first. Very military. That is your decision. But it is the duty of those who see the contradiction, ambiguity, rotten fruit, danger to stick to clear teaching and protect those within their sphere of responsibility.
That includes countering error when one has the capacity to do so. Simple. Easy to understand. No need to adhere to that which is not required to maintain Catholic Faith.
Your wrongheadedness comes into play when you, without any understanding, seek to bind the sheep to that which is…
Your position Ann Malley contradicts the doctrine of the Church. When the Church teaches, as she did in Vatican 2, it’s to be adhered to by all the faithful. No exceptions. Sorry. The issue of new doctrine in it, etc, is all moot to my message. Which is, we adhere to all that is in it! Why? The Church is guarded by the SPirit from errors of faith and morals. To say that V2 contains errors is to negate that the Spirit guards the Church from error. Well, guess what, the Holy Spirit working in and through the Church is not in error. But you, Linda Maria, Justin K. are!
Jon, your position contravenes logic wherein you claim that one must adhere to that which is demonstrably ambiguous with regard to that which was previously clearly stated doctrine.
So obedience is required in all but sin, jon. No exceptions. Sorry. Not even for pastoral speak when it can and has proved debilitating for the transmission of the Faith that saves. For is not obedience that saves, jon, but obedience to the truth. In other words, obedience for obedience sake produces nothing.
To say that a non binding pastoral council contains ambiguities is to adhere to the wisdom of the Church fathers who knew that such gray space could not pass the test of doctrine. That is the protection of the Holy Ghost, jon. Not the pretext…
…that everything is good because the Holy Ghost operates outside nature and makes that which is muddled somehow good.
So a non-binding council is precisely that. A protection of the Holy Ghost to discern between that which is attempted as a remedy for a certain time and place and that which is binding to all Catholics.
Look to scripture, jon. Look to the warning against those preaching a different gospel – even those who come as an Angel of Light. Look to the warning about the sheep with itching ears who will only tolerate those shepherds who will tell them what they “want” to hear.
Read the signs of the times, jon.
“My position is easy to understand…” Well, “Rose,” that is YOUR “position,” YOUR view, but not how others may see it! Just say, “this is what I think,” and then, learn to respect the views of others, like a true gentleman! I have been told by several prelates, that we need a “Vatican III,’ to clear up the confusion caused by Vatican II! To be a good Catholic, means to basically follow the Bible, Catechism, and Magisterium—and obey Jesus. That’s all! And DON’T go to Confession, to tell the priest, “uh, oh, I failed to be obedient to Vatican II,” on this or that point! He will give you the HORSE LAUGH!!
I am a lady, not a gentleman.
To be a Catholic Linda, we don’t publicly trash the Pope, our bishops, our priests. You may not be asked by Our Lord on the Day of Judgment if you followed Vatican II. But you may very well be condemned for causing scandal and for your disobedience, yes, disobedience.
The documents of V2 were written with confusing words. In newer editions, some words have been changed, added or eliminated. Pope John XXIII was warned not to hold a Council, but he did it anyway. Are we better off now than we were in 1958? Is the Church growing in leaps and bounds, or is it self destructing? Are priests bringing the faithful closer to God, or are they driving them out of the Church? It is quite obvious that the Church is rapidly waning. Ave Maria Purrissima !
Yes, the Church is growing and yes we are better off than in 1958. I know you might not like to count Asians and Africans as Christians, but they are, and that is where the Church is growing.
….even as it is being choked out here in the States due to false preaching and cowardice.
Even Pope Francis is not very faithful to either Catholic doctrine, nor Vatican II!! He is most faithful– to himself, and his own views! So do not be afraid– even the Pope will not force you to be “obedient” to your ideas of Vatican II! Not to those vague documents! Cut out your dumb “obedience” bully campaign! jon, you are a bully! The Pope is not a bully! Especially in the Year of Mercy! The FSSP, SSPX, and all other similar societies and religious orders, never launch bully campaigns, nor force anyone to “believe this, or that!” That is BAD MANNERS! Learn to discuss matters of religion, like a true gentleman, jon— not like a “teen-age Islamic-jihadist extremist bully!”
The Church has the expectation and indeed the right to expect its priests, be they FSSP or whatever, to uphold the teachings of the Church.
Rose/jon— even the Pope would not like your “Spanish Jesuit Inquisition!” Especially, in the Year of Mercy! And YES– priests and prelates all say “Yes, that’s fine” to whatever they must, from Rome, and then, on your own– you privately have your own views. Even the Pope has his own views, which he always tells, publicly — and it makes many people mad!! That’s life, jon/Rose! During the Renaissance– Martin Luther had strong anti-Catholic feelings, and left the Church– while poor St. Thomas More died for the Church! But most of us, are truly “in-between!”
You disparage the Roman Pontiff without even giving a single actual reason! you call people who write their opinions as “dumb”, as though obedience to the Roman Pontiff, or to an ecumenical council, can ever be “dumb”. and you talk about BAD MANNERS!
Anonymous, let’s be realistic! Pope Francis believes in Pope Francis’ version of the Catholic Faith, and that’s about all! He drives many others in the Church BANANAS!! Funny, but it also makes some people so mad— especially, “Laudato Si” makes many people FURIOUS– as well as “Amoris Laetitia!” And the latest thing, is the commission to study women permanent deaconesses! Oh, boy! Funny! We can still love him, and pray for him– but he has his own personality, and his own mind!
Fine, Rose. We are bound to hold specific clearly-defined doctrines—not vague and diffuse “documents”, as you and “jon” claim.
We are bound to hold specific doctrines, like the indisolubility of marriage, defined prior to V2, but also cf. Gaudium et Spes #47ff. But unless you choose to be blind, many high episcopacy-types today decline that doctrine now, so are they upholding Vat.2? Do they come in for your excoriation and correction? Or is it only your own comfortable hostility with perceived traditional-types like Linda M, Anne M, etc. who ask questions, which you actually agree with, that no new teaching was taught at Vatican 2.
So, it is an invalid claim to require “assent” to a vague notion of “documents”…
About 180 comments ago, we began this discussion when “jon” asserted that all Catholics, but particularly, every “priest should be in agreement with ALL the documents of Vatican II to have the faculties to administer the sacraments.” I pointed out there is no basis for that claim. Here’s why:
Next, a simple question was posed: “What unique infallibly defined doctrine was proposed by V2?” “jon” couldn’t answer any—but at length he did admit that V2’s documents had been “hijacked”. Good, this is progress: this might be why there is a problem forcing one to “adhere” to V2. Rose at length acknowledged there was/were no new doctrine/dogmas at V2. Good. At least 4 popes have said so,too. More progress.
…what it is worth, I have asked 2 former and one present bishop in San Francisco and its environs the same Q: Each answered the same: “There was no new doctrine propounded at Vatican II: It was a ‘pastoral council’ based on prior Catholic doctrine.” (verbatim).
So,, there you have your answer.
Justin K., you went through all of that just to prove that I am right. Indeed, the documents of the Second Vatican Council are to be adhered to. All 16 of them. The issue you are trying to push (unconvincingly) about what is “new” in the Council is MOOT!
I think poor jon needs to join a “Spanish Jesuit Inquisition,” to question everyone in the Church– especially Pope Francis!– if they each adhere to all of Vatican II!! I bet most of them yawn, and say “so? I don’t have time to read all that! I have a lot of hard, daily work, caring for Christ’s flocks!” Or else, “Well, I personally agree with this, but don’t care much for that…” And some will say, “whatever, you know, we priests/prelates all have to abide by whatever Rome tells us!” (yawn!) Or else– you may find just one or two VERY ZEALOUS VATICAN II LOVERS, who are just WILDLY IN LOVE with those documents, and will join “Inquisitor jon’s” big JIHAD!! One or two– that’s about all!
And all along I thought this was a post about the Archbishop appointing a veteran Priest to mentor young Priests, to help them through the transition from lay life to Priest and then onto Pastor. Wow, was I ever delusional. I get the impression that some people may be trying to impress us with their lack of higher education in Church law and theology, but I might be wrong. Enough, already!!!
I recently talked to a young lady, who was strolling her new baby in the neighborhood. She said that her “partner” was busy, at home. Then she added, “oh, I don’t mean, a “gay partner” I mean, he’s my boyfriend, and we’ve lived together six years, and then I got pregnant, and had my first baby! We’re both actually good, practicing Catholics, but it really isn’t necessary any more, to get married! You can do what you want!” I replied, “well, your baby is cute! Congratulations! Why not go talk with a good priest, about possible marriage, since you’re Catholic?” She agreed. Then I smiled and left. I was pretty shocked! This is why I get so “crabby,” regarding the modern Church!
Ahem. Linda, that sotry hasn’t got anything to do with any of the 16 documents of the Council you have to adhere to.
Jon let’s be realistic! Have you ever had a job in which certain things were told to the employees, and you had to sign your name (maybe prior to employment) regardless of whether you truly agree, or not?? Maybe you agree with a few things, or maybe, with a lot of things! Or, maybe you don’t care, it’s basically “good enough,” and just fine, with you! But it really is rare— to find people who agree with EVERY LITTLE THING!! I think most folks are “in-between.” And in our Church– some Church leaders are (the “Silent Apostasy!”) HYPOCRITES!! But they never quit– and Rome doesn’t care– especially the Pope!
In South America, hundreds of Catholics each year become Protestants. In Africa, the Moslems are killing Catholics, and the same is true in India. Because of V2 and false ecumenism, many Catholics in India are more Hindu than Christian. Here in America, St. Charles Seminary in Philadelphia is being sold. There is NO springtime of V2. What was the Church is now a devastated vineyard. Ave Maria Purrissima !
Many good people, including leading world figures– make intelligent criticisms of our Pope and prelates, all the time, out of worry and concern, that they may be leading the Church in the wrong direction! For example, Cardinal Sarah, and Cardinal Burke, speak out frequently, on important issues! It is also a big part of their jobs, and their Christian duty, to do so! T
Well, one good has come out of this discussion sequence: Cal-Catholic finally decided to delete the vile and obscene insults of “Vicente Roberto”, posted on Facebook. Ave, atque, vale!