My Photo

Insight Scoop

Catholic World News Top Headlines (CWNews.com)

The Curt Jester

JIMMY AKIN.ORG

Poor Box

Render Unto Us

Tip Jar
Blog powered by Typepad

« Mormon Doctrine Explained | Main | The Mahony Code? »

Wednesday, May 16, 2007

Comments

James


We should work toward, and pray and hope for, the conversion of all, including Jews.

To be afraid to say that is to be afraid to stand with Christ.

James

A Simple Sinner

When I see "Posted by Ruth Gledhill" I generally know to dismiss whatever I read as half-truths, speculation and confused.

She seems to think that it comes down to "liberals" and "conservatives" within the Catholic Church. That B16 is holding unto "Conservative" views by not allowing birth control, non-marital sex, same sex unions, and the like.

Plainly put, she seems to paint a picture of orthodox parties and heterodox parties in the same boat. It just isn't so.

B16 can do NOTHING but uphold what is true. He can no more change the teachings then he can turn a taco into a Honda Civic. He safeguards, he doesn't create.

Perhaps amidst the Anglican quagmire she could be seen as unduly influenced by the CoE's "morality by majority" ethos. But if she wants to be worth her salt, she needs to understand that isn't how we roll.

Rich G.

Why did Jesus fold the linen burial cloth after His resurrection?


The Gospel of John (20: 7) tells us that the napkin, which was placed
over the face of Jesus, was not just thrown aside like the grave clothes.
The Bible takes an entire verse to tell us that the napkin was neatly
folded, and was placed at the head of that stony coffin. Is that
important? You'd better believe it! Is that significant? Absolutely!
Is it really significant? Yes!

In order to understand the significance of the folded napkin, you have
to understand a little bit about Hebrew tradition of that day. The
folded napkin had to do w/ the Master and Servant, and every Jewish boy knew this tradition. When the servant set the dinner table for the master, he made sure that it was exactly the way the master wanted it.

The table was furnished perfectly, and then the servant would wait, just out of sight, until the master had finished eating, and the servant would not dare touch that table, until the master was finished.

Now if the master was done eating, he would rise from the table, wipe
his fingers, his mouth, and clean his beard, and would wad up that napkin
and toss it onto the table. The servant would then know to clear the
table. For in those days, the wadded napkin meant, "I'm done". But if the
master got up from the table, and folded his napkin, and laid it beside his
plate, the servant would not dare touch the table, because the servant
knew that the folded napkin meant, "I'm not finished yet." The folded napkin meant, "I'm coming back!"

He is Coming Back!

John

Simple Sinner posted:

"B16 can do NOTHING but uphold what is true. He can no more change the teachings then he can turn a taco into a Honda Civic. He safeguards, he doesn't create"


This is in clear contrast to the Pope who not longer than a month ago, in clear defiance of Vatican I (maybe he has never read it), said:

“It is not a case of the transmission of faith being entrusted to men who are more or less capable, but it is the Spirit of God who guarantees the truth of faith”. At the same time this also guarantees a “freshness” of the Church. In short “a precious deposit, held within a valuable vase, which renews itself continuously also renewing the vase which contains it”.

The Pope actually thinks that the deposit of faith, held in a "valuable vase" (what the heck does that mean) can actually be renewed. In other words, the church now after Vatican II will change what ever does not fit into their agenda

Simple Sinner, you are so confused it seems. I will pray for you

A Simple Sinner

Keep the prayers coming.

But it isn't I who is confused.

Can you extrapolate a bit on what the renewel is to which he can be referring? Does renewed understanding = innovation?

Our beloved Pope St. Pius X renewed Eucharistic life in Holy Mother Church by urging frequent reception and lowering the age of first receipt.

Lord only knows, if there had been an internet, what choice words you would have had for him.

The idea that Pope Benedict maybe never read the documents of Vatican I is so very sarcastic that it certainly speaks to your level of maturity.

You seem rather miserable, trolling about the blogosphere and casting aspersions on the Church - finding her to be false, conspiracies at every turn.

John, you are so confused it seems. I will pray for you.

Some Day

John likes to mouth off to at JA.Org's blog.

I don't know why he does it. He is neither entirely right nor diplomatic in teaching the right parts either.

Br. Dominic-Michael

Hey there.
As a layman in the Traditional Anglican Communion, I find the pictures of "Latin Masses" amusing. It looks the same as every Traditional Anglican Mass to me... What's the fuss?

Thomistic

The difference is that our Mass is valid.

Pax,

Thomistic

Thomistic

The difference is that our Mass is valid.

Pax,

Thomistic

Dominic Glisinski

fair enough ;)

spaxx

Well said Thomistic, and if i might add,
it is the continuous enactment and true sacrifice of our Saviour on calvary, that is,

i - the sacrifice of praise rendered to the Most Holy Trinity

ii - acceptable to God in making satisfaction for sin

Br. Dominic-Michael, "The Latin" mass is the sacrificial action of the Redeemer Himself, truly present under the species of bread and wine, offering Himself as a victim to His Father. It is different from the Sacrifice of the Cross only in that Calvary was a bloody sacrifice, and the Mass is an unbloodied sacrifice performed on our Alters. Through this mystery the effects of Christ's Redemption are applied to the souls of both the faithful on Earth and the souls in Purgatory.

In contrast, the Traditional Anglican Mass is neither of the above. It is simply a memorial; an act of communal praise and thanksgiving in memory of "The Lord’s Supper". It is most certainly far from the expiatory sacrifice which recreates the Sacrifice of Calvary and applies its merits. It is therefore a fruitless act. That is what you get when you follow the principles of Luther or King Henry VIII the founders of protestantism.

Joey

Do you really think that Jesus who is priest, altar and sacrifice, offers himself to the Father in "Latin?" Do you really, really, really, think that? Do you? As we prepare to celebrate the gift and descent of the Holy Spirit - are not the Apostles heard in every language of man without prejudice? To prefere one language over another is a sin against the Holy Spirit and a stifling of the mission of the third person of the Holy Trinity!

Thomistic

Do you really think your straw man arguments are logical? Do you really, really, really, think that? Do you?

It's easy to defeat the positions of those we oppose by oversimplifying and/or misstating them, and it's even easier when you make them up out of whole cloth.

You've managed to do all of those things.

Your last sentence is almost majestic in terms of its mixture of error and moral superiority:

"To prefer one language over another is a sin against the Holy Spirit and a stifling of the mission of the third person of the Holy Trinity!"

Do you really, really, really, think that? Do you?

Do you make a habit of accusing others of sinning against the Holy Spirit for their liturgical preferences?

If so, and if you really, really, really think it's okay to do that, then you give permission for others to think the same of you for trying to oppress others and force them to conform to the endless liturgical innovations foisted upon the faithful by liberal goofballs who know nothing of Church history or sound Theology (or know both and reject them) in "the spirit of Vatican II".

Here's what I really, really, really think:

The Traditional Latin Mass was the Mass that nourished the faith of almost any saint you can think of naming. Any Liturgy that produces such an incredible array of Christlike individuals can't be displeasing to God, and certainly can't be "stifling of the mission of the third person of the Holy Trinity".

If it were "stifling of the mission of the third person of the Holy Trinity" to require that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass should be offered in Latin, then the Holy Catholic Church would be guilty of having done so for more than 1,500 years!

Are you accusing the Holy Catholic Church, of which Our Lord said "the gates of Hell will not prevail against it" and who promised to preserve it in truth until the consummation of the world of "stifling the mission of the third person of the Holy Trinity"?

St. Paul says that Christ died for the Church.

Do you really, really think Our Lord founded and died for a Church that would spend more than 1,500 year of human history "stifling the mission of the third person of the Holy Trinity"?

Do you really, really, really, think that? Do you?

Pax,

Thomistic

spaxx

Seems like "Latin" and not "Latin Mass" is becoming the real fuss here.

Joey

Fair enough, back to the Tridentine Rite: as I read history, when Paul VI approved the Mass of the Latin Rite in 1963 there were those who refused to celebrate it (i.e., Lefebvre and the Soceity of St. Pius X)effectively creating a schism in the Church. However Paul VI refused to grant permission to celebrate the Tridentine Rite for Mass. Enter John Paul II and his political agenda (end of communism) and pastoral agenda (re-Christianize Europe, re-Evangelize Christian nations). Pope John Paul II gave lots of power to such spiritual/political movements as the Opus Dei, Missionaries of Christ and the Neo-Catechumenal Way/Movement with his pastoral plan in mind. He also tried to make peace with the Lefebvrites by permitting, with the local bishop's permission, the celebration of the Tridentine Rite Mass in certain chapels or churches. He also tried sending then Cardinal Ratzinger to offer Lefebvre a way out before his death. Ultimately the offer was refused and Lefebvre died a schismatic. By granting permission for the celebration of Mass according to the sacramentary of Pius X John Paul II unfortunately split the Roman Rite. By continuing to strengthen this division, Pope Benedict XVI will only embolden the schismatics. I think that he believes that this pastoral move will re-Christianize Europe and fill the Catholic churches again with the faithfull. We'll see. Happy Pentecost Sunday!

Susanna

If Pope Benedict's motu proprio includes an "opt out clause," allowing bishops to prohibit the Tridentine Rite Mass at the local level, I can't see what the point would be of his issuing a motu proprio in the first place.

The so-called "opt out clause" would be little more than an unspoken/implied green light for local bishops who are hostile to the Tridentine Rite Mass to continue doing business as usual.

What is needed is a Tridentine Rite like the Eastern (Byzantine) and Maronite Rites with its own priests and bishops who answer only to the Pope.

spaxx

Joey, you say that,

"when Paul VI approved the Mass of the Latin Rite in 1963...

But Pope St Pius V's Constitution and four centuries of universal custom grant and protect the right by every priest in perpetuity, power to offer freely the Latin Rite (Mass of St Pius V). It is therefore erroneous to say that Paul VI approved the Latin Rite. He could not approve what was already approved and canonized by a previous pope.

"...there were those who refused to celebrate it (i.e. Lefebvre and the Soceity of St. Pius X)...

How could Archbishop Lefebvre decline the very Mass he was fighting to preserve from destruction by the Liberals and Freemasons that had taken control of Vatican II? Joey, am sorry but you clearly exhibit an embarrassing confusion that makes George W Bush look like an intellectual.

"...However Paul VI refused to grant permission to celebrate the Tridentine Rite for Mass."

Now your statements have gotten so comical as to be dismissed with contempt. Nobody can forbid or destroy what a previous pope has canonized. It is impossible and cannot happen. A successor of St Pius V might create a new rite (as pope Paul VI did) and encourage it to be used but he could never exclude the traditional right.

"...By granting permission for the celebration of Mass according to the sacramentary of Pius X..."

Sacramentary of Pius X??? What on earth is this? There is no such sacrament or sacramentary. Joey, frankly speaking you are so embarrassing, quit your circus act or get tha hell outta here.

"...Pope Benedict XVI will only embolden the schismatics...."

You should be more concerned about ecumenism by Pope John Paul II (who kissed the Quran) and indulgence towards all the enemies of the Church continued by Pope Benedict XVI (who has just reversed a decision to downgrade the Vatican department dealing with Islam).

Finall, to put matters in a clear persepctive, archbishop Lefebvre did not found his Society against the New Mass but for the preservation of the Priesthood. However this concern for the Priesthood brought him to reject the new Ordo Missae. His decision to reject the new ordo missae was not personal but based on doctrine and dogmas defined at the Council of Trent. He clearly based the doctrinal and pastoral rejection of the New Mass on Canon Law.

Pope St Pius V maintained the Roman Missal as codified by Pope Gregory the Great from AD 590 - AD 604. He did not create this Mass but must have certainly received it from Tradition. So Pius V confirmed and canonized a tradition that was at least ten centuries old. In canonizing the this Missal, St Pius V noted the rite's antiquity, continual use, power, doctrinal soundness, holiness, and fruits. Therefore, his act was definitive and infallible; a doctrinal act which committed all his successors to upholding it.

The Second Vatican Council controlled by Liberals and Freemasons, and overseen by protestant ministers, not only failed to uphold this doctrinal act but appear to have known in advance what they wanted. The results of this council can be clearly seen everywhere today.

Joey

If what you say is correct, Thomistic, Spaxx, and whatever other name you write under, then why would Holy Mother Church and the Vicar of Christ on Earth declare:

1 . From the Motu Proprio "Ecclesia dei" of 2nd July 1988 and from the Decree "Dominus Marcellus Lefebvre" of the Congregation for Bishops, of 1st July 1988, it appears above all that the schism of Monsignor Lefebvre was declared in immediate reaction to the episcopal ordinations conferred on 30th June 1988 without pontifical mandate (cf CIC, Can. 1382). All the same it also appears clear from the aforementioned documents that such a most grave act of disobedience formed the consummation of a progressive global situation of a schismatic character.


2. In effect no. 4. of the Motu Proprio explains the nature of the "doctrinal root of this schismatic act," and no. 5. c) warns that a "formal adherence to the schism" (by which one must understand "the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre") would bring with it the excommunication established by the universal law of the Church (CIC, can. 1364 para.1). Also the decree of the Congregation for Bishops makes explicit reference to the "schismatic nature" of the aforesaid episcopal ordinations and mentions the most grave penalty of excommunication which adherence "to the schism of Monsignor Lefebvre" would bring with it.

And the most traditionalist bishop in the United States, Bishop Bruskewitz of Lincoln, Nebraska excommunicate the Society of St. Pius X with the blessings of Rome? And place them alongside such evils as Freemasons, Planned Parenthood, Called to Action and Catholics for a Free Choice? Your argument Thomistic, Spaxx, etc., is specious!

ROMA LOCUTUS EST.

spaxx

I already posted something about this issue in another thread titled "SSPX Bishop Fellay On The Moto Proprio And The State Of The Church"

At any rate, there are many brilliant theological minds on the Internet that have dissected, discussed, and argued out the case of Archbishop Lefebvre and SSPX. Google it up, do some reading, and make up your mind. I made up mine and am thoroughly happy with my decision.

Thomistic

Joey,

I am not spaxx, and Thomistic is the only name I use when I post here.

Here are a few more things I can share:

I attend the same Mass most Catholics do each Sunday.

I am not affiliated with the Society of St. Pius X in any way, and I do not endorse creating an alternate hierarchy and claiming that fear and evil times are a legitimate excuse for what has been explicitly forbidden by the Holy See, namely, the ordination of bishops who have not been approved by the Holy Father.

That being said, I do agree with some things the Society of St. Pius X says about the state of the Church, the intrinsic goodness and beauty of the Tridentine Rite, and even about some of the reforms of the Second Vatican Council and the language used in the documents of the council.

I believe that truth is truth, no matter who says it, and I frequently see people who I know to be in theological error speaking the truth while mainstream Catholics appear indifferent or even ambivalent. This is especially true in terms of the abortion issue, where many Evangelical Christians have done far more to promote the cause of life than the Catholic bishops and many, if not most rank and file Catholics.

The same can be said of some of the positions held by the SSPX when it comes to defending the traditional teachings of the Church with respect to matters of faith, morals, and liturgy.

Pax,

Thomistic

spaxx

Joey,

consider the following facts that occurred earlier than the events of 1988.

In November 1970 Archbishop Lefebvre obtained the authorization of the Bishop of Fribourg to form a fraternity, the SSPX, in his diocese and to open seminaries according to a statute which was subsequently approved by Cardinal Wright, Prefect for the Congregation for the Clergy. It is difficult to understand how after five years suddenly there was the wish to suppress the seminary yet there was absolutely nothing to deserve the suppression.

The suppression in 1975 was carried out without any regular interrogation. Such an arbitrary decision could not be accepted because behind it was clearly "a hand that was not of the Church, an attitude and a lack of respect for Canon Law which was not that of the Church."

These compels any rational person to believe that an enemy penetrated the Church and that it is he who ordered the suppression of the seminaries and destruction of SSPX. We know that this enemy is Freemasonry.

Furthermore, the constant onslaught of heresies and apostasies obliges one to think of Masonic influence in the Curia; worse still, of a Masonic Lodge inside the Vatican. Cardinals and Secretaries hold the offices of their predecessors who were virtuous, often saintly men, but they do not teach anymore the faith of their predecessors, preferring to support and spread ideas contrary to Catholic doctrine and to preach ecumenism.

Ecumenical liturgy, ecumenical Bibles, ecumenical catechisms, these are indeed a device of the Devil because they cover error with a certain amount of truth.

Silence on the anathemata of the Council of Trent and of Pius VI against the Council of Pistoia; silence on the documents of the Church's social teaching, the Syllabus of Pius IX, Libertas and Immor-talis Dei of Leo XIII, Pascendi Dominici Gregis and the condemnation of the Sillon made by Saint Pius X, Quas Primas and Divini Redemptoris of Pius XI, to quote a few of the documents. This silence increases the suspicion that the Church was occupied by a "counter-Church" of protestant origin and committed to spreading all the errors which Popes have condemned for more than four centuries.

Archbishop Lefebvre was obviously an obstacle to those who wished and still wish to destroy the Mass and the Catholic priesthood. Therefore, accusation of separation and of schism made against him because he refused to participate in the protestantization of the Church is ridiculous. If SSPX members were excommunicated because of remaining faithful then they were excommunicated by Freemasonry. They are consoled by the fact that they remain in the company of God and of all the martyrs who have given their lives to keep the Faith.

Therefore do not lose sleep over the events of July 1988.

Joey

To those who have died as schismatics and outside of the Church: Luther, Henry VIII, Lefebvre; and, to those who fear not the power of the keys and the Vicar of Christ on Earth and persist in error; I fear what awaits you. No cleaver words or interpretations; no prayers can help you. What is bound on earth will be bound in heaven.

Thomistic

Joey,

I think you're being more than a little judgmental and you posts are starting to sound like this subject upsets you in such a way that your interior peace is disturbed and you are incapable of discussing the subject without making condemnatory statements that sound like they were written 100 years ago.

Look, while it is true that all people should be faithful to the Magisterium, it is false to say (or imply) that all who are not are certainly damned. None of us knows the secrets of hearts and what mitigating factors (like ignorance, fear, violence, habit, temperament (which can also be called "hereditary taint") and nervous mental disorders). Sometimes people can be rendered psychologically incapable of accepting the truth because they've been brainwashed from an early age into believing that the things the Catholic Church teaches are evil, dangerous, or wrong. Yes, they are in error, but they've been effectively rendered something very close to invincible ignorance, because they do not know the truth and cannot come to know the truth because of their inherent distrust of the Church.

In order to reach such people, prayer and patience is required. Lofty condemnations hastily written in the comments section of a blog that authoritatively dismiss other perspectives without showing any understanding of those perspectives, giving any reasons for supporting your own perspective beyond arguments from authority, and without demonstrating any sense of compassion or attempt to meet the person with whom you are talking (especially if they clearly do want to be connected with the Church) is not likely to be an effective way to evangelize.

If a person is mentally unbalanced or clearly hostile to the truth, it's probably better not to argue with them.

If you are worried that others may think their statements make sense, it's good to respond, but using facts and appealing to common philosophical and/or doctrinal ground, in addition to Church authority in general, while being careful not to sound self-righteous or incendiary will generally be a better approach.

If the post is obnoxious and you can't resist the urge to tweak the person a bit, at least try to sound like you aren't coming unhinged while you're typing your response.

One more thing, if you're a nut whose already been banned under another identity, use common sense and courtesy and stop posting under new identities and with a different IP address to get around having been blocked when you've already been banned because you can't be appropriate. It looks pathetic to keep trying to post when you're obviously not wanted or welcome because of clearly and deliberately being obnoxious in the past and giving every indication of being a troll no matter what identities you've chosen to hide under.

But that's only if you've been banned even once here and are using another identity and IP address to get around that.

Otherwise, keep posting, but be appropriate and try to sound rational.

Pax,

Thomistic

spaxx

Joey,

until recently, I also believed that Archbishop Lefebvre was anathema. But I was ignorant of the facts behind his case. Since learning the truth, I have been thankful to God for giving us Bishops like Archbishop Lefebvre.

Schism implies grave disobedience and we try to obey more and more every day the Church founded by Jesus Christ, Son of God. But must we obey Masonry with its promotion of liturgical reform resulting in the "naturalization of the Incarnation." The effects of the liturgical reforms are obvious to all. Ecumenical Mass leads to apostasy. Yet one cannot serve two masters. One cannot nourish oneself indifferently with truth and error because error with its evil tendencies will always triumph over the more austere and demanding truth. The goal of Freemasonry is the destruction of the Catholic Church.

To see this, one need only look the destruction of Catholic States over the past few decades. This has been done with the active collaboration of the Vatican. The Mass no longer represents the source of political unity based on the unity of the Catholic Faith. Catholic States thus become an ecumenical and pluralistic State, then gradually neutral, and ultimately atheistic in accordance with the Conciliar document on Religious Freedom.

The First Law of the Church is to save souls and it is for this reason that Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated bishops, without the expressed permission of the Vatican for the perpetuation of valid Orders, valid Masses, and valid Sacraments.

In doing so did he break Church law? Certainly not because Canon law, now and always, permits automatic exemption from any Church law if there is present a serious reason.

I am convinced thus far that SSPX priests whose spiritual life is modeled on that of Our Lord Jesus Christ are serving the Church and acting for the glory of God. The SSPX priests are at the disposal of the Pope and of the Church to collaborate in the work of bringing back Christ to the center of family and social life, of education and every juridical order.

Besides, those insisting that SSPX have distanced themselves from the Church are reminded that each of the faithful has the duty of not obeying orders CONTRARY to the Faith. Obedience to ecclesiastical superiors finds a limit, when something HARMFUL or CLEARLY DAMAGING is proposed or ordered in the name of obedience. He who remains faithful to the Catholic dispositions and institutions tested by centuries (tradition) renders himself supremely worthy of the Church.

Joey

Thomistic, I have simply expressed what the Church has said and taught us through recent history by quoting her words and decisions. I have never called you a nut or a troll or insulted you using such language as "Joey, frankly speaking you are so embarrassing, quit your circus act or get tha hell outta here."

The comments to this entry are closed.

Pope Benedict XVI Homilies & Statements

Codex of Catholic Blogs

Orthodox Blogs

Blogs From People We Wish Were Catholic