Will Pope Francis’ Inter-Faith Peace Prayers Please God? If So, Which One?
Vatican City, Jun 6, 2014 / 08:56 am (CNA/EWTN News).- The Vatican has released the details for Sunday’s prayer between Pope Francis and the Israeli and Palestinian presidents, stating that although peace will not be immediate, it’s a starting point.
“The intent of this encounter is to open the road to peace,” Fr. Pierbattista Pizzaballa O.F.M., Guardian of the Holy Land, revealed to journalists in a June 6 press conference, telling CNA that “My hope is that this event will help to bring a new atmosphere in the Middle East.”
Speaking to other journalists, he explained that “the goal is not to change dramatically the peace process in the Middle East, but to bring back in the atmosphere among the people in the Middle East the desire, the real desire for peace.”
Detailing the itinerary for the prayer, Vatican spokesman Fr. Federico Lombardi S.J. stated that Presidents Shimon Peres of Israel and Mahmoud Abbas of Palestine will arrive to the Vatican within a few minutes of each other, and will meet Pope Francis and Patriarch Bartolomeo I of Constantinople at the pontiff’s residence in the Saint Martha guesthouse.
Afterward the four will travel together by car to the Vatican Gardens, where a brief explanation of the celebration will be given in English.
The prayer, the spokesman noted, will be divided into three parts following the chronological order of the three faiths: Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
Beginning around 7 p.m., the first part of the prayer will be recited in Hebrew, honoring the Jewish faith. It will include an initial prayer, a brief musical interlude, a prayer of forgiveness, a second musical interlude, a prayer invoking peace, and finally a Jewish musical meditation.
The second part of the prayer, dedicated to Christianity, will follow the same structure, and will be recited in English, Italian and Arabic. 
The third part, honoring the Muslim community, will only be said in Arabic.
Following the three parts of the prayer, Pope Francis will give a discourse invoking peace, and then invite the Israeli and Palestinian leaders to give their own, beginning with Shimon Peres, who will be followed by Mahmoud Abbas.
After giving the speeches, the Pope and the presidents, along with Patriarch Bartolomeo I, will exchange a sign of peace in shaking hands. Pope Francis and the two presidents will then plant an olive tree together as a symbol of peace.
Concluding the celebration, the four will stand side-by-side as the delegations of each come to greet them, and will then travel to the Casina Pio IV nearby for a private discussion, after which the presidents will depart for their own residences, while the Pope and Bartolomeo I go to Saint Martha’s. Source
Comment
The following information is taken from a report of today’s event published in The Times of Israel – information which is notably omitted from the Catholic News Agency report. Am I alone in thinking that what follows are highly revealing – and disturbing – tidbits?
Every detail about Sunday’s meeting has been sensitive — the explanation for the delay in publishing the composition of the delegations taking part.
Friday was excluded since it is a Muslim holy day and Saturday for the same reason for the Jewish community, while Sunday is Pentecost for Catholics — a day of celebration of the Holy Spirit considered appropriate.
The choice of the Vatican Gardens is also significant since it is considered the most neutral territory within the Vatican City, with none of the Christian iconography that might be seen as offensive to the other two faiths. END.
Over to you. I’m speechless.
Comments (212)
We’ve discussed issues such as this on numerous occasions, so I hope that I am not repeating myself in what I’m about to say, but…this is nothing short of Satanic. When will the modernist neo-Catholics get it into their heads that Catholics, Jews and Muslims worship different Gods? Christ was, and is the Incarnate God, the God who Abraham, Isaac, Jacon, Noe and Elijah worshipped, without the Son actually having being revealed in the Old Testament days, however God the Father sent God the Son by causing God the Holy Spirit to descend on the Blessed Virgin. Jesus proved Who He was by performing miracles, by being tested by the Devil and by fulfilling Old Testament prophecy regarding the Messiah. He is the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the World.
Scott Hahn wrote a lovely and informative book about the Eucharist and how it relates to the Apocalypse. He stated how Jesus served as the ultimate Sacrificial Victim. Like Isaac, He carried the wood (Cross) on His shoulders, like the lambs in Jewish ritual not one of His bones were broken and He drank from a hyssop branch. Hyssop was used to sprinkle lamb’s blood on Jewish doorsteps to obtain Divine Protection. Bu the Jews reject this. The Jews up until that time believed in our God as he was revealed prior to Christ, but after Christ came and was crucified, they rejected Him, so therefore they worship the same God as Annas and Caiaphas.
As for Muslims, I we’ve already thrashed this out on the halal discussion. They worship a new and false gospel, supposedly revealed by an angel, or demon called Gabriel (Jibril) , even after Christ said there would be new Gospels as did St Paul the Apostle: ‘But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema’. Indeed, ‘For such false apostles are deceitful workmen, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no wonder: for Satan himself transformeth himself into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers be transformed as the ministers of justice, whose end shall be according to their works’. Maybe Mohammed was an honest man, of good faith, but one who was led astray by the Devil. However, honesty and good faith doesn’t mean we worship the same God.
Likewise, to all those Priests, I say, is this the God you worship and offer the sacrifice of Calvary to every Sunday morning? Such a universalist and relativistic approach to God only sows the seeds to indifferentism and confusion, and documents such as ‘Nostra Aetate’ should be expunged from the historical record.
So, in conclusion, these prayers will not please God because the leaders will not be praying to the One, True God, even when the Christian prayer is said because our God is being lumped into a Masonic super-Deity.
Just imagine if peace did come out of this? How the world will be magnetically drawn to this man who heads up this synthetic replacement of the true faith, cleverly aping the Catholic faith, but worshiping Man not God. I am every day wondering if we are in the days of the Antichrist, I know some will strongly oppose me there, but these are definitely strange days indeed.
plus ca change plus c’est la meme chose …
And behold, Moses and Elijah appeared to them, talking with Him. Peter said to Jesus, “Lord, it is good for us to be here; if You wish, I will make three tabernacles here, one for You, and one for Moses, and one for Elijah.” While he was still speaking, a bright cloud overshadowed them, and behold, a voice out of the cloud said, “This is My beloved Son, with whom I am well-pleased; listen to Him!”
This is yet another scandal caused by Pope Francis. Watching him on the TV news chucking spadesful of earth to plant the olive tree was just pathetic. He has no dignity whatsoever. To watch him take his place alongside other “leaders” and act like some kind of diplomat was really painful. He’s busy saying that this prayer meeting won’t lead to peace, but might be a start etc. when he must know that to consecrate Russia as Our Lady asked would bring peace. What’s wrong with him?
I think far from helping the peace process, Pope Francis has set it back and caused huge scandal in addition.
He even admits that he doesn’t expect this event to make much difference, if any. So, what was the point of it?
I think the point of it, frankly, was to get even more publicity for our humble, simple, pope. If there’s one thing he’s not, it’s camera shy. He’s a complete embarrassment.
Nicky,
You took the words out of my mouth. I’ve just been watching this on the news and it really is embarrassing to see the papacy brought so low, to be planting trees like some teenage prince of the realm at a charity do. Knowing he can bring world peace with a simple prayer of consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary is so frustrating. I can’t understand why God is not intervening. This is surely a scandal too far?
I’m kind of surprised that no-one so far has commented on this shocker from the Times of Israel report:
“[The Vatican Gardens was chosen because there was] none of the Christian iconography that might be seen as offensive to the other two faiths.”
Am I alone in thinking that the very choice of the venue for this scandalous “prayer-fest” is, itself, a manifest denial of Christ?
Still no one is responding to your question Editor,
I guess it is wise not to give to much credence to the secular press. Is the reason given for choosing the Vatican Gardens so as not to offend the other two faiths given by a Vatican source? or is it a journalist’s conjecture?
I myself am rather relieved that Muslim prayers were not invited in the Sistine Chapel for example, so perhaps to give the Vatican some benefit of a doubt it may be on neutral, not sacred, ground so as not to offend Catholics.
As it would be more outrageous if this happened in a church, it is a bit of a damned if you do damned if you don’t situation, going on your question.
If you are certain that the reason “…none of the Christian iconography that might be seen as offensive to the other two faiths” is in fact derived from a Vatican spokesman, and is an official statement, then yes that is a denial of Christ, you are quite right.
Burt,
I don’t think it’s the secular press, that was said in the Jewish paper and they would have their trusted sources, I imagine.
About “damned if you do and damned if you don’t” – well, yes, no pope should be doing this at all. He should not be hosting prayers to false gods whether in a church or garden, surely?
Josephine,
I totally agree with your last point.
Burt
How many Catholics would have been offended if it had been held in the Sistine Chapel?
I would say the same amount of Catholics that are offended by anything this present Pope does, virtually none.
I’m not so sure of that Frankier. I think about the only good thing to say about this pope is that he is making it more and more obvious something ain’t right in the state of Rome.
I think the penny is starting to drop with more and more people…maybe this is why God has permitted this seemingly disastrous papacy, I pray that despite him, and even because of him there will be a stronger and bigger movement of the devout and the bewildered to a restoration. We must pray for hope ..especially when things seem hopeless.
Frankier,
I couldn’t agree more. That is what I am finding all the time. No matter what he does, “that’s fine by me” is the attitude. I can’t get my head round it at all.
I completely agree that “the very choice of venue” is a scandal and a denial of Christ. To not want holy pictures/crucifixes on show is a denial of Christ IMHO.
According to my parish priest this get together was to take place in a triangular shaped Vatican garden, there has been mention recently that the triangle will be the symbol that signifies the presence of the Antichrist. As with Burt this may or may not be a bit of a stretch.
Sunday, June 8, 2014
Peres, Abbas need to convert for salvation according to Pope John XXIII’s Vatican Council II
Israel’s Shimon Peres and Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas according to the Catholic Church’s Vatican Council II are on the path to Hell since they do not have ‘faith and baptism’ needed for salvation.According to the Catholic Church (Notification, CDF, Dupuis 2001) their religions are not paths to salvation. There are good and holy things in their religion ( Nostra Aetate ) but the religions are not paths to salvation and they need to convert ( Dominus Iesus 20).
They will both pray today at the Vatican, which affirms outside the Church there is no salvation, in the text of Vatican Council II (AG 7) and the Catechism of the Catholic Church (846).However publically it is not affirmed.
Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church’s preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself “by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door.-Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II
Even Patriarch Bartholomew, the spiritual head of the Orthodox Church, who will be present does not have Catholic faith ( AG 7) and according to the defined dogma Cantate Domino Council of Florence he is oriented to the fires of Hell unless he converts into the Catholic Church before death.
This was the teaching of Pope John Paul II in Ut Unum Sint.He taught that membership in the Church under the pope was necessary for other Christians.This is also the teaching in the Catechism which says God wants all people to be united in the Catholic Church (CCC 845) .In Ecclesia di Eucarestia Pope John Paul II upheld the ecclesiology of outside the Church no salvation.
According to Pope John XXIII’s Vatican Council II Jews,Muslims and other non Catholics need ‘faith and baptism’ for salvation. In Heaven there are only Catholics, who are there without mortal sin, and with faith and baptism. Pope Paul VI who concluded Vatican Council II said in Evangelii Nuntiandi that even though the members of other religions may have their hands raised to God, the Catholic Church is the only path to salvation.
In 2014 we do not know any person saved with ‘ a ray of the Truth'( NA 2) or ‘seeds of the Word'(AG 11) or ‘imperfect communion with the Church'(UR 3). They are possibilities but the ordinary means of salvation in ‘faith and baptism’ in the Catholic Church.-Lionel Andrades
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1402316.htm
http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/the-vatican/detail/articolo/francesco-francis-francisco-pizzaballa-34582/
Cardinal Jean-Louis Pierre Tauran must accept Vatican Council II and set an example for the Catholic religious communities and SSPXhttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/05/cardinal-jean-louis-pierre-tauran-must.html#links
CARDINAL KOCH MUST BE ASKED TO ACCEPT VATICAN COUNCIL II http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/05/cardinal-koch-must-be-asked-to-accept.html
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/peresabbas-need-to-convert-for.html#links
What is all this nonsense about any need to accept anything from Vatican II which the only one thing that is not ambiguous about it is that it was NOT a dogmatic council!
Burt,
Exactly. Long before I returned to attending the TLM I told everybody and his brother that I did not “accept” Vatican II unless it repeated teachings always held in the Church. And, believe it or not, there are still novus ordo Catholics who do not go along with the errors of Vatican II – at least those in the shape of ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue/activity.
Editor,
I long for a day when that council will be declared “Anathema!”.
In view of the betrayal to Our Lord and His Holy Catholic Church that is without the slightest doubt in my mind how the angels regard the Novus Ordo, I have no intention to attend that (literally graceless) Mass again.
As long as the Lord provides the opportunity to meet Him in the True Mass, I will gratefully make my Sunday obligation and receive my Lord the way I did before the Modernist heresy took full sway in Holy Mother Church.
Burt,
You sound like a man with a plan! Well said!
What is all this nonsense about any need to accept anything from Vatican II which the only one thing that is not ambiguous about it is that it was NOT a dogmatic council!
Lionel:
There can be a Vatican Council II with an inference and one without.
The Vatican Council II without the inference does not contradict the dogmas of the Church, including the teaching on other religions and Christian communities.
Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church’s preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself “by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door. -Ad Gentes 7.
All Muslims, Jews and other non Catholics need ‘faith and baptism’ for salvation and all Protestants,Orthodox Christians and Pentecostals ,need Catholic Faith for salvation. This include the Sacraments and the moral and faith teachings of the Catholic Church.Jesus saved through the Sacraments and through the knowledge of how to avoid mortal sin and preserve Sanctifying Grace.
There is nothing in Vatican Council II which contradicts Ad Gentes 7 unless you use the inference of the dead-saved being VISIBLE EXCEPTIONS to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
So we have a traditional Vatican Council II (without the inference) on the issue of other religions and salvation.
USCCB statements on Vatican Council and Islam omits Ad Gentes 7
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/usccb-statements-on-vatican-council-and.html
Editor,
“[The Vatican Gardens was chosen because there was] none of the Christian iconography that might be seen as offensive to the other two faiths.” I do not doubt in the least, that it was precisely for this reason that the gardens were chosen and I agree this “prayer-fest” is a manifest denial of Christ.
It is utterly absurd and scandalous that the humble pope will have a useless prayer meeting (he says so) but lacks the necessary humility to be obedient to the Mother of God.
I did not see the gardener-pope on the news, I haven’t been able to process the steady stream of examples of his humility and humanity yet, I didn’t think he could get worse, but I was wrong. Whether he intended to change the face of the papacy or not we will never know, but he has done a good job of it. When cafeteria-Catholics laud the actions of the pope and find themselves accommodated in the’ changing’ Church while traditional Catholics are being penalized and punished, something is very wrong.
Jobstears,
It’s difficult to keep up with Papa Francis and his photo-shoots, so I do sympathise!
It is an absolute scandal that Pope Francis, Cardinals and Bishops refuse to act upon Our Lady’s request to Consecrate Russia to her Immaculate Heart. Only when this is done will there be peace and conversion to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
“That the Vatican gardens were chosen where none of the Chrisitian iconography that might be seen as offensive to the other two faiths”, is a denial of Christ, Himself. Well this is diabolic disorientation.
No wonder we need to pray and practice penance.
Theresa Rose,
Yes, prayer and penance is needed all right. And the first person who needs to do both is Pope Francis.
“But he that shall deny me before men, I will also deny him before my Father who is in Heaven.” – Matthew 10:33
I don’t know how many times the word scandal has been used so far on this thread. Truth be told, barely a week goes by in this papacy without the faithful with any sensus Catholicus being scandalised. Granted the respect due to the office of the Vicar of Christ, to remain silent in the face of this scandalfest cannot be the manifestation of a true fidelity to the Church. It never has been.
As Pope Leo XIII, citing his predecessor Felix III, teaches: “An error which is not resisted is approved; a truth which is not defended is suppressed.” (Inimica Vis [1892]).
This nod towards indifferentism and religious relativism, practical atheism, and in the very heart of the Church, where lie Peter and many of his successors, is something that would not even have crossed the mind of any Pope prior to 1958. I doubt any of those Popes would have reacted with anything but incredulity and fury to the suggestion of something resembling yesterday’s assembly taking place.
“If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him: God speed you. For he that saith unto him: God speed you, communicateth with his wicked works” (2 John 10-11).
And yet this event is not some once off bolt from the blue, but rather an offshoot of the toxic spirit of the Assisi Abominations I, II, and III that were enkindled by Vatican II.
John Paul II saw his primary task to further the progressivist agenda of Vatican II. On October 17, 1978, the newly- elected John Paul II said:
“We consider it our primary duty to be that of promoting, with prudent but encouraging action, the most exact fulfillment of the norms and directives of the Council. Above all we must favour the development of Conciliar attitudes. First one must be in harmony with the Council. One must put into effect what was started in its documents; and what was ‘implicit’ should be made explicit in the light of the experiments that followed and in the light of new and emerging circumstances.”
After Assisi Abomination I in 1986, Pope John Paul II was jubilant. Two months after the event, in a Christmas speech to his Cardinals published in the Vatican’s L’Osservatore Romano, John Paul said, “The day of Assisi, showing the Catholic Church holding hands with our brothers of other religions, was a visible express of [the] statements of the Second Vatican Council.” The interfaith event at Assisi was thus described by John Paul II not as a tragic misrepresentation of Vatican II, but as the glorious realization of its teaching.
Pope John Paul II went on to celebrate the inter-religious prayer meeting at Assisi as a new direction for the future, “The event of Assisi” he said, “can thus be considered as a visible illustration, an exegesis of events, a catechesis intelligible to all, of what is presupposed and signified by the commitments to ecumenism and to the inter-religious dialogue which was recommended and promoted by the Second Vatican Council.”
Toward the end of the speech, the Pope urged his Cardinals to continue on the same new path, “Keep always alive the spirit of Assisi as a motive of hope for the future.”
This scandal, as with Assisi cannot be anything but the latest instalment in the programme to “favour the development of Conciliar attitudes” and to make what was “implicit” in Vatican II’s documents “explicit”.
On October 26, 2011, the day before the latest Assisi scandal, Cardinal Roger Etchegaray in L’Osservatore Romano went back to the October 27, 1986 meeting convened by John Paul II: “Assisi made an extraordinary leap in the dialogue among religions, still in its infancy and unceasingly deepening.” Quite so.
The spirit of Assisi which implies that all religions lead to God, that all must live out their faith in some sort of service to world peace, and that false religions are somehow effective in bringing about that temporal peace, a peace different to the peace of God, fruit of the redemption of souls by the Blood of His Son and men’s rejection of sin, is but an insult to the memory of the martyrs of two millennia. This latest scandal in the See of Peter, in the city of martyrs is surely imbued with that spirit.
The Syllabus of Errors, 1864, condemned proposition No. 79: “For it is false that the civil liberty of every cult, and likewise, the full power granted to all of manifesting openly and publicly any kind of opinions and ideas, more easily leads to the corruption of the morals and minds of the people, and to the spread of the evil of indifferentism.”
One can hardly imagine what Pope Pius IX would have said about what was openly and publicly manifested in the very grounds of the Church of Peter’s successors. The true Catholic spirit, which proudly proclaims the truth that all men are called to convert to Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ the true source of peace and salvation, appears to have been banished from the Vatican gardens yesterday.
It’s worth quoting the magnificent words of Father de Cacqueray, Superior of the French District of the Society in his statement in advance of the 2011 Assisi scandal:
“How can a Catholic imbued with the spirit of Assisi still subscribe to the dogma “Outside the Church no salvation”? How can he see in the Catholic Church the one ark of salvation? What’s more, this scandal comes from the highest sacred authority on earth, from the Vicar of Jesus Christ himself, as if the gravity of such a gathering were not enough. Does this not make of the Pope, presiding over this meeting, not the head of the Catholic Church but the head of a “Church” of the United Nations, the primus inter pares of a religion of all the religions, essentially identical with the Masonic cult of the Great Architect of the Universe? Is this not a satanic perversion of the mission of Peter? Whereas Christ solemnly commanded Peter to “confirm his brethren in the faith” and to feed His sheep, the successor of Peter is in fact going to confirm his brethren in indifferentism and relativism.”
Archbishop Lefebvre, together with Bishop de Castro Mayer protested against the first Assisi scandal in an open letter: “The public sin against the one, true God, against the Incarnate Word, and His Church, makes us shudder with horror. John Paul II encourages the false religions to pray to their false gods—an immeasurable, unprecedented scandal … an inconceivable impiety and an intolerable humiliation for those who remain Catholic in fidelity to twenty centuries of the same Faith.”
Surely, faced with such an insult to the glory of God, shunning of the truth of religion, and disregard for the salvation of souls, we too cannot keep silence today, if we do not want to be like “dumb dogs not able to bark” (Isaias 56:10).
“But Catholic doctrine tells us that the primary duty of charity does not lie in the toleration of false ideas, however sincere they may be, nor in the theoretical or practical indifference towards the errors and vices in which we see our brethren plunged, but in the zeal for their intellectual and moral improvement as well as for their material well-being. Catholic doctrine further tells us that love for our neighbour flows from our love for God, Who is Father to all, and goal of the whole human family; and in Jesus Christ whose members we are, to the point that in doing good to others we are doing good to Jesus Christ Himself. Any other kind of love is sheer illusion, sterile and fleeting.”- Saint Pius X, Encyclical Our Apostolic Mandate, 1910
Is the Mystical Body of Christ now to be reduced to some sort of religious mediation agency of the UN?
Pius XI wrote thus in Mortalium Animos in 1928 concerning ecumenical encounters:
“We see some men, convinced that it is very rare to meet men deprived of all religious sense, nourish the hope that it might be possible to lead peoples without difficulty, in spite of their religious differences, to a fraternal agreement on the profession of certain doctrines considered as a common foundation of spiritual life. That is why they begin to hold congresses, reunions, conferences, frequented by an appreciably large audience, and, to their discussions, they invite all men indistinctly, infidels of all kinds along with the faithful of Christ and even those who, unfortunately, have separated themselves from Christ or who, with bitterness and obstinacy, deny the divinity of His nature and of His mission.
“Such undertakings cannot, in any way, be approved by Catholics, since they are based on the erroneous opinion that all religions are more or less good and praiseworthy, in the sense that all equally, although in different ways, manifest and signify the natural and innate sentiment that carries us towards God and pushes us to recognize with respect His power. In truth, the partisans of this theory fall into a complete error, but what is more, in perverting the notion of the true religion, they repudiate it, and they fall step by step into naturalism and atheism.”
The same Pope instituted the feast of Christ the King. The Collect of the Mass of this feast expresses very clearly the Catholic attitude towards peace between nations:
“Almighty everlasting God, Who in Thy beloved Son, King of the whole world, hast willed to restore all things anew; grant in Thy mercy that all the families of nations, rent asunder by the wound of sin, may be subjected to His most gentle rule.”
I’d like to be wrong, but I doubt somehow that those words were heard in the Vatican gardens yesterday.
Brilliant, Leo. I imagine that it’s your excellent post which has ignited the “inter-faith spirit (of Vatican II) in the souls of the two defenders of the indefensible, James and FidelityAlways, below.
Christ said, “Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church”.
He definitely didn`t say, “Thou art Peter and Anwar and Maxi and Nigel and Kenyon and Desmond and Jack and Ian and Lizzie and upon these pile of loose rocks I will build my many churches”.
I notice he didn’t “hide” his pectoral cross this time??II What will happen if some good does come from this; remember that true good can never be the fruit of a poisoned tree, and peace is the gift of the Holy Spirit. Would you feel cheated, annoyed, even…just a little bit wrong in your judgments of the marvelous Pope! Gooday to one and all!
I imagine a Catholic who wanted to pray in a friends house would avoid rooms with images contrary to the faith, or images that would wholly distract during the time of prayer. The Garden might well be the best place.
Likewise, it has been made clear that whilst all three religions believe there is one God they don’t worship the same God, and only Christians pray to the Father through Jesus. That is why they didn’t pray together.
People of all three faiths are being imprisoned, tortured and martyred, and one underlying reason ifor that is the lack of a free Palestinian homeland.
Jesus said when you do it to one of these,,,you do it to me. To save one life, by charting a road to peace, is to do the will of Christ, and to serve him.
Only a true believer in God, and a faithful servant of God, take the risk of looking foolish for Christ’s sake.
God bless Francis, Bishop of Rome.
I’m copying here the reply I made to FidelityAlways, since the posts are very similar.
There is absolutely NO justification for any pope being ashamed of the cross. That is what this scandal amounts to. With respect, your analogy of a Catholic wishing to pray in the home of a friend is a nonsense – especially in today’s ecumenical “Church”. It would be highly offensive to let your mythical friend know that you objected to signs and symbols of their false religions. And those recent popes who have visited synagogues and mosques have made public signs of their “respect” – such as when Pope Francis recently removed his shoes on entering the mosque. Nobody said “no need to do that, it may offend your Catholic sensibilities” All this fear of offending others is one way.
It is a nonsense to say that they were all praying to the same God and that only their “knowledge and understanding of God differs” Patent baloney.
God has revealed Himself as Father, Son and Holy Ghost. In no other way does God exist. To fail to preach that is to deny non-Christians true “knowledge and understanding of God.”
As to martyrdom – there can be no Jewish or Muslim “martyrs”. A martyr is one who dies as a result of refusing to deny the one true Faith. If others are put to death because of their religion or in the cause of animal rights, that is terrible, but it doesn’t make them martyrs in the true sense of the word.
Your oblique reference to St Paul’s being “a fool for Christ” is to turn the facts upside down. Had Pope Francis acted as a true shepherd of souls and insisted on preaching Christ to his visitors, THEN he could be “accused” of being a fool for Christ, knowing that the world would denounce him.
God will definitely not “bless” Pope Francis for his scandalous words and actions on this and on many other occasions. He is, to date, the worst of the post-Vatican II pontiffs and we should pray for him to see the error of his ways, asap. THAT would be true charity, not pretending that everything he does is good just because he’s pope. That error was exposed and denounced by Melchior Cano, theologian of the Council of Trent who said the following:
“Peter has no need of our lies or flattery. Those who blindly and indiscriminately defend every decision of the Supreme Pontiff are the very ones who do most to undermine the authority of the Holy See – they destroy instead of strengthening its foundations.”
The garden was chosen because it was free of images. Surely any catholic who wished to pray in the home of a friend would choose a room, or a place, free of images contrary to their faith, or those which would distract during prayer. Would not a good Catholic host not do for the same for a person of another faith?
They didn’t pray together precisely because their knowledge, and understanding, of God would differ, and they wouldn’t be praying to the same God, and only a Christian would pray to the Father through Christ, Our Lord. However they all believe in One God, and Christians believe specifically that Jesus is the Messiah promised to the Jews.
Jesus what you do to another you do to me, and we should work for a peace, and justice, and respect our neighbour. The conflict in the Middle East is partly the cause of Christians, Jews and Muslims being tortured, imprisoned and martyred. Any step progressed on the way to peace built on the foundation Christ taught, and established, is worth it.
Only a person of faith, would take the risk of being deemed foolish for the sake of Christ.
God bless Francis, Bishop of Rome And Vicar Of Jesus Christ; Successor Of St. Peter, Prince Of The Apostles; Supreme Pontiff Of The Universal Church; Servant Of The Servants Of God.
There is absolutely NO justification for any pope being ashamed of the cross. That is what this scandal amounts to. With respect, your analogy of a Catholic wishing to pray in the home of a friend is a nonsense – especially in today’s ecumenical “Church”. It would be highly offensive to let your mythical friend know that you objected to signs and symbols of their false religions. And those recent popes who have visited synagogues and mosques have made public signs of their “respect” – such as when Pope Francis recently removed his shoes on entering the mosque. Nobody said “no need to do that, it may offend your Catholic sensibilities” All this fear of offending others is one way.
It is a nonsense to say that they were all praying to the same God and that only their “knowledge and understanding of God differs” Patent baloney.
God has revealed Himself as Father, Son and Holy Ghost. In no other way does God exist. To fail to preach that is to deny non-Christians true “knowledge and understanding of God.”
As to martyrdom – there can be no Jewish or Muslim “martyrs”. A martyr is one who dies as a result of refusing to deny the one true Faith. If others are put to death because of their religion or in the cause of animal rights, that is terrible, but it doesn’t make them martyrs in the true sense of the word.
Your oblique reference to St Paul’s being “a fool for Christ” is to turn the facts upside down. Had Pope Francis acted as a true shepherd of souls and insisted on preaching Christ to his visitors, THEN he could be “accused” of being a fool for Christ, knowing that the world would denounce him.
God will definitely not “bless” Pope Francis for his scandalous words and actions on this and on many other occasions. He is, to date, the worst of the post-Vatican II pontiffs and we should pray for him to see the error of his ways, asap. THAT would be true charity, not pretending that everything he does is good just because he’s pope. That error was exposed and denounced by Melchior Cano, theologian of the Council of Trent who said the following:
“Peter has no need of our lies or flattery. Those who blindly and indiscriminately defend every decision of the Supreme Pontiff are the very ones who do most to undermine the authority of the Holy See – they destroy instead of strengthening its foundations.”
I specifically said they wouldn’t be praying to the same God, and that is why they couldn’t pray together.
If I visit a place where they take off my shoes I would take off my shoes, and the same with other things that show respect to my host.
To recognise that other regard some things as sacred is to be sensitive to them. That is not to say you recognise them as Sacred. St Paul says we shouldn’t eat food sacrificed to idols, even though we know they are false idols, but because the weak would be confused. Neither you, or your fellow commentators, claim to be weak minded, and in fact claim the opposite, and claim to know better than The Bishop of Rome. Therefore your disgust might give a lie to your patronising high handed approach. Perhaps you are weaker, and less knowledgeable, than you claim.
Either you accept The Bishop of Rome, and his advisors, and spokesman, speak the truth, and you then, as a good Catholic, share than the world, or you support the weak minded in their failed understanding.
The events at Assisi, and this, and every visit to places of worship have been explained in advance.
Will you follow Peter, or help destroy the Church you claim to love?
Perplexed
Maybe the wind blew its cover.
I notice you used the IF word. Well done for covering your tracks.
Would you feel cheated, annoyed, even…just a little bit wrong in your judgment of the marvellous Pope IF some good doesn`t come out of it?
And ta ta to you too.
Actually, I would’nt. I believe in the mysterium iniquitatis that sometimes (apparently) thwarts the efforts of goodness. The Holy Spirit is working though them all and will prevail, with your tuppence worth too. I won’t say “ta ta”, just “au revoir”: I enjoy this blog immensely and I enjoy your company too. God bless!
Perplexed,
Whatever apparent “good” may come of this, is only that – good in appearance. The same applies here as to false apparitions; the devil can use such things to lead people astray. The peace which Christ alone gives, cannot result from this sham prayer-fest, that we know for certain and that is the only “peace” that matters. The “ecumenical good” that will result is even more indifference – one religion definitely as good as another, is the attitude now embedded in Catholic souls. That so many Catholics are at ease with that heresy, is a matter of the deepest concern and all those priests and bishops who are going along with this insult to God, Father, Son and Holy Ghost, will tremble at their Judgment as they seek to explain their spiritual and theological neglect.
For a pontiff to actually arrange to meet with non-Christians in a place where they will not witness holy pictures and crucifixes is an outrage beyond outrages. The fact that so many Catholics cannot see this, speaks volumes about the extent of the devil’s influence in Catholic souls at the present time.
Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.
Interfaith dialogue meetings could be an aspect of Catholic Mission. The same with ecumenism.
Unfortunately,the Vatican Curia is not affirming the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus in agreement with Vatican Council II.They interpret the Council inferring that the dead are visible on earth.
The Vatican is not being corrected by the traditionalists.They too interpret the Council with this irrationality.
The Vatican uses the irrationality and accepts the Council, the traditionalists use the irrationality and reject the Council.
The Vatican is glad that the Council is a break with the past and this is politically correct, the traditionalist consider this heresy.
To use a space where there are no religious images out of respect for your guests is showing them respect as human beings.
is it likely they flew to The Eternal City in response to an invitation to pray, and entered in The Vatican with all its religious symbols, and in the presence of a man understood to be the earthly leader of The Catholic Church, and surrounded by other clerics, and at least one Rabbi and an Imam, they did not know they were in a religious setting important to The Catholic Church.
St Francis said preach the Gospel, and if necessary use words. Perhaps in this context he might say preach Gospel, and if necessary use images.
The conflict between Israel and The Palestinians is affecting the whole world, and a religious image will not save the situation. but prayer and action will.
People are dying of hunger, as a consequence of war, abortion and other injustices and you concentrate your efforts on religious images in one part of The Vatican City? If the Church is dying you are surely helping to kill it.
“To use a space where there are no religious images out of respect for your guests is showing them respect as human beings”- not at all, you are merely respecting their decision to worship a god that is not your God. Your decision to remove all images of the God you worship, from your home is your way of assuring your guest that his comfort and peace of mind mean more to you than standing up for your beliefs. You give him the impression that your God does not mind taking second place to the guest’s god.
If the Church is dying – which it not- it’s thanks to Catholics who choose to remain ignorant of the Faith. They will not rouse themselves to ask why things have started to deteriorate- why vocations are dropping off, why there is no difference between Catholics and non Catholics in terms of divorce and contraception. If Catholics truly loved the Church, they would try and learn something about the history of the Church, they would know enough about the Inquisition and the Crusades to be able to talk about them without grovelling, simpering and apologizing. That is what this blog tries to do, Fidelity Always, it tries to educate those Catholics who are humble enough to know there is much to be learned. Editor and the bloggers here are a patient lot, they know educating the ignorant is a Spiritual Work of Mercy.
No you are saying, as the Church does, every human being is made in the image and likeness of God, and working with you for a greater good is more important than an image on a wall.
Christ died to save all people, and I can show I believe it when I seek to imitate his love.
I don’t wish to be controversial but I know, as you must, many were sexually abused in the presence of sacred images. The images did not alter the mind-set of the evil doers. Truth faith, and living the faith, is what was needed to help them.
How likely is it the two Presidents, and the watching world, didn’t know that The Bishop of Rome was motivated by the faith that has directed his whole life?
Fidelity Always
What nonsense. People here are not “concentrating their efforts” on this single issue. You will find more mention and concern for the great evil of abortion on this blog than you will hear from the pulpit of the vast majority of Catholic churches in the land. Any comments to make on that?
To quote The Editor “For a pontiff to actually arrange to meet with non-Christians in a place where they will not witness holy pictures and crucifixes is an outrage beyond outrages. The fact that so many Catholics cannot see this, speaks volumes about the extent of the devil’s influence in Catholic souls at the present time”
Images won’t save people.
The Word of God lived, Prayer, The Sacraments and action will.
The devil will triumph if we have a faith that is more idolatry than and an active response to God’s word.
I have just read this elsewhere: “Francis, Bishop of Rome, spoke of recently. Those who insist others pray and believe exactly like they do, those who have alternatives to every church teaching and benefactors who use the church as a cover for business connections may call themselves Catholics, but they have one foot out the door, Pope Francis said.
‘Many people say they belong to the church,” but in reality have “only one foot inside,’ the pope said Thursday at the morning Mass in the chapel of his residence.
‘For these people, the church is not home,’ but is a place they use as a rental property, he said, according to Vatican Radio”
FidelityAlways,
You quote me while clearly not understanding the point I was making. Nobody ever said that “images save” – neither does taking off one’s shoes to enter a mosque.
So, ask yourself why Pope Francis is so keen to observe the customs and practices of Islam and Judaism, while telling the world that Catholics who observe Catholic customs and practices only have “a foot inside” the Church and are using their place of worship as “a rental property.”
Does that not apply to Muslims and Jews who insist on even visitors strictly observing their rules and regulations? Why does Pope Francis seek to insult Catholics seeking to be faithful to our Faith, while showing inordinate (and scandalous) respect for the followers of false religions?
That is not what all recent Pope’s have said and you know it.
You are defeating your own cause here.
In my home town Catholic hospital, in the ER, there were only crosses on the walls. It was easy to see that they weren’t just protestant crosses. They had been crucifixes but someone had removed the Corpus as you could see where they had been detached. Even the little nail holes were still present.
If the care is truly Catholic then whether there is a Corpus on the cross will not be the issue that win’s people for Christ.
FidelityAlways
You keep missing the key point. Why would anyone working in a Catholic hospital, even consider removing the Corpus from a cross? Why?
Because it is not the Crucifix that makes the institution Catholic. Gospel values, and living, does.
I meant some nasty people who wear crucifixes and scapulars, and lovely Christian people who don’t.
A religious not in a habit who does good, is a better witness to Christ than one in a habit who is an outright public hypocrite.
It is not me missing the point.
FidelityAlways,
I can see that you are missing the point. Just because a religious who is not in a habit does more good than one who is in a habit, doesn’t mean it is good not to wear a habit! She would do much more good if she wore the habit and everyone knew that she was committed to Christ.
Also, being a lovely person who doesn’t wear sacramentals doesn’t mean you are good because you don’t wear sacramentals. You are very mixed up about this. Our Lady asked us to wear the Brown Scapular so obviously if someone knows that and decides not to wear one maybe Our Lady doesn’t see her as being a lovely person!
Fidelity,
Removing the Corpus, or hiding the Crucifix, is a way of denying Christ. Would you also be wary of blessing yourself in public for fear of offending non Catholics?
How do you define care that is truly Catholic? If the care does not include saving the soul by bringing it into the Church founded by Christ, then the best of care will amount to nothing more than social service. Saving the body will not automatically save the soul.
Jesus saves souls. We don’t.
Witness to Christ with your lives, and leave the rest to God.
As Jesus said many who say I know you won’t get in to heaven, whereas others who did good will.
The parable of The Pharisee and The Tax Collector also have resonance here.
Jobstears,
I agree with you – care that is truly Catholic has to include everything possible to bring the person to Jesus and being in a wholly Catholic atmosphere, with Catholic iconography, is all part of making the ethos truly Catholic and helpful to souls.
I think removing the Corpus from the cruxifix is really symbolic of all that is bad about Ecumenism and Religious Liberty. The big formula to use is “what unites us is more important than what divides us”. But when you get down to the nitty gritty what divides us is Jesus crucified. We have to get rid of Him or we’ll never have unity. Maybe we can have “Christ” without Jesus. Or the “Mass” without the Sacrifice. We can have Encounters where we talk peace and brotherhood and kindness and we can eat together. But what will the final Encounter be? Probably the introduction of a new “Christ” and a new “Church” we can all accept.
As someone once said, “They wanted to throw God out of the world He created.” And there are those who want to throw Our Lord out of His own Church.
What divides us is Truth.
I know deeply religious Catholics who prefer a cross to a crucifix. I prefer a crucifix myself. But ecumenism doesn’t come into it.
In a hospital setting a crucifix may not be what a sick or dying person wants to see.
Believe me, this Catholic hospital became very ecumenical. They had a protestant co-chaplain who visited Catholic patients to counsel them about receiving the sacraments.
Anybody who chooses a Catholic school or hospital, must expect to see Catholic images, including crucifixes. If they don’t like it, they go elsewhere. If I chose to attend a Muslim hospital, it would be ridiculous ( and quite a cheek) for me to complain about the red crescent or any other Islamic symbolism. I’d tell myself to gerragrip.
People choose Catholic institutions as they believe they are better, and more caring. They do not do so for religious images on walls. They could buy them if they wanted. They cannot but love.
The Crucifix is a sacramental.
To a non Catholic, it would have no such meaning or significance, and I think Jesus said something about pearls before swine, (Not that such people are swine, but Trad’s like you can’t keep moving the goal posts surely?)
Well then, what’s the issue? If they want the better caring blah blah then they take the Catholic images. If they don’t like them, tough. Those of us who don’t like Islamic art, stay away from Mosques. It’s that simple.
The non Catholics present in The Vatican were specifically invited to his (Francis) home to pray for peace.
They travelled a long way to do it.
“In a hospital setting a crucifix may not be what a sick or dying person wants to see”, really? Why not? It would be source of comfort for the suffering or dying person to contemplate the God who held nothing back for love of souls. It might spur the soul into making an act of perfect contrition which would have eternal consequences.
Not so. If you are sick or dying the image of a dying person might not comfort you at all, and may add to your discomfort.
FidelityAlways,
I am now convinced that my first guess was correct – you’re having us on.
I always have a crucifix in a room, but I am a Catholic who seeks to live my faith.
Not every Catholic would focus on a crucifix, and certainly not a person who is not Catholic,
“Not every Catholic would focus on a crucifix, and certainly not a person who is not Catholic”. You are dead wrong there. I know a non Catholic woman who went through a period of horrendous suffering, and she, the non Catholic, told me, that suffering was not a curse, one had only to look at the Cross and see what God did to the One He loved! Apparently, that gave this non Catholic woman a way of dealing with her suffering.
I would suggest that those who do not want to look at a crucifix, ask themselves why that is so. It will, as it usually does, come down to the person’s unwillingness to resign himself to the Will of God as it is expressed in suffering and death. It’s not easy, because of the natural revulsion humans have for suffering and death, but it is something that has to be done. Why else would the saints down through the ages recommend that Catholics consider death and the judgment of God every single day of their lives?
In general a non catholic would not focus on a crucifix, obviously some would, and do. But ordinarily no!
The Editor and others keep replying to defend the importance of images, and strangely haven’t attempted to reply to this:
!No you are saying, as the Church does, every human being is made in the image and likeness of God, and working with you for a greater good is more important than an image on a wall.
Christ died to save all people, and I can show I believe it when I seek to imitate his love.
I don’t wish to be controversial but I know, as you must, many were sexually abused in the presence of sacred images. The images did not alter the mind-set of the evil doers. Truth faith, and living the faith, is what was needed to help them.
How likely is it the two Presidents, and the watching world, didn’t know that The Bishop of Rome was motivated by the faith that has directed his whole life?”
Do you believe that the Pope’s Rabbi friend (I can’t remember his name) may convert to Catholicism because of the efforts of the Pope? Does Pope Francis want him to convert?
I don’t know the answer to your questions. Presumably God does, and there isn’t a vacancy for you.
I am sure Francis, Bishop of Rome, echoes the constant teaching of The Church that is only through Jesus that people can be saved. Who wouldn’t want their friends to be saved?
You can, of course, ignore what I said about abuse, by Church people, in rooms where religious images were displayed.
FidelityAlways,
Like Pope Francis himself, who is a master of the false dichotomy, you set up a false “gap” between Catholic images and “working for good” to set one against the other whereas, seeing the crucifix, and other Catholic images, should spur us on to greater action and a deeper spiritual life.
Of course we must show our belief in Christ’s salvific death and resurrection by seeking to imitate his love. But it’s a strange kind of love that is ashamed of images which remind us of God’s saving love. What would you think of someone who said he loved his mother but removed her photos every time a relative or friend who didn’t really like her too much, came to visit. Now, you’re having us on. I say that because, frankly, nobody could be so confused about the purpose of Catholic images, especially the crucifix, nor would anyone with a truly Catholic soul fail to see the shocking scandal of a pontiff actually taking care not to “offend” non-Christians by taking them into a place where they would see a crucifix.
So let’s leave it there. If you do not see the error of Pope Francis’s ways on this and on just about everything else, you won’t like this blog and maybe you’d be better sticking with the various neo-Catholic sites – there’s no shortage out there.
God bless
I think to value images over living the faith, and your own world view over that of the Occupant of The See of Rome, poses greater problems for you than for me.
Can I quote the Christocentric address of Francis, Bishop of Rome. where he simply professes his faith, entrusts those present to The B.V.M. , and invokes God’s blessing:
“History teaches that our own powers do not suffice. More than once we have been on the verge of peace, but the evil one, employing a variety of means, has succeeded in blocking it. That is why we are here, because we know and we believe that we need the help of God. We do not renounce our responsibilities, but we do call upon God in an act of supreme responsibility before our consciences and before our peoples. We have heard a summons, and we must respond. It is the summons to break the spiral of hatred and violence, and to break it by one word alone: the word “brother”. But to be able to utter this word we have to lift our eyes to heaven and acknowledge one another as children of one Father.
To him, the Father, in the Spirit of Jesus Christ, I now turn, begging the intercession of the Virgin Mary, a daughter of the Holy Land and our Mother.
Lord God of peace, hear our prayer!
We have tried so many times and over so many years to resolve our conflicts by our own powers and by the force of our arms. How many moments of hostility and darkness have we experienced; how much blood has been shed; how many lives have been shattered; how many hopes have been buried… But our efforts have been in vain.
Now, Lord, come to our aid! Grant us peace, teach us peace; guide our steps in the way of peace. Open our eyes and our hearts, and give us the courage to say: “Never again war!”; “With war everything is lost”. Instil in our hearts the courage to take concrete steps to achieve peace.
Lord, God of Abraham, God of the Prophets, God of Love, you created us and you call us to live as brothers and sisters. Give us the strength daily to be instruments of peace; enable us to see everyone who crosses our path as our brother or sister. Make us sensitive to the plea of our citizens who entreat us to turn our weapons of war into implements of peace, our trepidation into confident trust, and our quarreling into forgiveness.
Keep alive within us the flame of hope, so that with patience and perseverance we may opt for dialogue and reconciliation. In this way may peace triumph at last, and may the words “division”, “hatred” and “war” be banished from the heart of every man and woman. Lord, defuse the violence of our tongues and our hands. Renew our hearts and minds, so that the word which always brings us together will be “brother”, and our way of life will always be that of: Shalom, Peace, Salaam!
Amen.”
Wars are a punishment from God because of sin. To end wars souls have to stop sinning and do penance.
3LittleShepherds,
Correct, and to achieve peace, the Pope knows perfectly well that he has to consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Praying with rabbis and imams isn’t going to bring about peace. On the contrary, it is such an insult to God, such an affront to the First Commandment that it is much more likely to set peace BACK by a couple of decades – at least.
Wars are a consequence of sin, and not a punishment for them.
Our Lady of Fatima told Blessed Jacinta that world war 1 was a punishment for sin.
http://old.fatima.org/library/cr73p08.htm
Josephine,
It would be very interesting to do see how many Catholics really do believe the message of Fatima. For starters, to put stock in anything Our Lady has said, is not ecumenical, then, the call for penance and reparation and more penance is uncomfortable. Surely, God does not expect us to be uncomfortable? A Catholic lady told me, most sincerely, that constant sacrifice was something God asked for, only from the saints! As for willingly giving up the good things on earth, why should she? After all, God did put them there for our enjoyment! As Editor would say, “you couldn’t make it up”. 😀
Jobstears,
That lady who told you that “constant sacrifice was something God asked for only from the saints” was actually quoting Cardinal Kasper, can you believe. We discussed his (at that time) latest heresy here
We live in interesting times, she said angling for a place in the Guinness Book of Records in the category “understatements of the century” !
Incidentally, if you think you missed that [Cardinal Kasper] thread and don’t want to miss others, you’d be wise to click +Follow on the blog and WordPress will send you a link to every new post as I publish them.
Thank you, Editor, I didn’t know WordPress could do that!
The lady I mentioned, is a friend who made the comment to me 10 years ago! Maybe she and Cardinal Kasper are closer friends!! It boggles my mind, that the Pope will do nothing about what this cardinal says and does.
FidelityAlways,
“…in the Spirit of Jesus Christ…”
That’s the first and last mention of Christ – so “Christocentric”? I don’t think so.
Who is this “Lord” to whom the Pope is addressing his “prayer”? Do you know?
Oh and what IS this “Spirit of Jesus Christ”?
Signed: Confused, Glasgow…And How…
I think Francis knows more about Liturgy, and Theology, than you, and Pope emeritus Benedict can’t speak of him too highly.
Benedict is presumably someone you do take seriously.
Who’s talking about Liturgy?
Fidelityalways, it really is truly pointless arguing with this lot in CT, especially the editor!! If the Lord God Almighty came down and stated something this lot would argue otherwise!!! The vast majority of bloggers on this site are ,hard hearted,and toally convinced of their own self righteous infallible position. Views to the contrary are ignored, blocked, and removed. Simply dont waste your time arguing with CT. Its a little club of dissafected persons who have little else to do but crticise any effort by others to promote the one true catholic faith
Editor: all of the above is patent nonsense. Most blogs are fully moderated. This one is not moderated beyond the first comment, and that is because WordPress recommend it for technical reasons. It’s less likely that there will be login problems if we moderate first comment. Domchas, who doubles as Chasdom, is the only blogger here who is always moderated, and that is because he ignored repeated, again and again, requests to stop making nasty personal comments about other bloggers, my slim, glamorous, intelligent and witty self included. Again, most blog administrators give no warning – they merely delete comments when they see fit. So, that places Domchas and his bitterness against CT in context. As for the rest of his remarks about “the one true catholic (sic) faith” – well, he has never, not once, made any serious contribution to any of our topics, so his alleged concern for promoting the Faith has not been demonstrated here. He comes on only to attack “this blog” and me, personally. See if I care, sob, sob 😥
I actually visit this blog frequently, and I have done so over a good many years. Very occasionally, there is actually something at least worth reading, and it does provide a window into the thinking of some folks.
This particular thread, and most of the comments, especially from The Editor, are an example of the excesses, and an open attack on The Supreme Pontiff, and The Church.
These are the people Francis, The Bishop of Rome, dictate to others whilst renting a room in The One, Holy, Apostolic Church.
This is a slightly amended reply to my original one (below?):
I actually visit this blog frequently, and I have done so over a good many years. Very occasionally, there is actually something at least worth reading, and it does provide a window into the thinking of some folks. Until this week I have not commented.
This particular thread, and most of the comments, especially from The Editor, are an example of the excesses, and are an open attack on The Supreme Pontiff, and The Church, and a total misrepresentation of an event that, in a sense, is self-explanatory, and was a completely sensible, rational, orthodox work of faith in the name of Jesus Christ, and has been further explained by The Vatican Press Office.
Sadly, some of those writing here are the people Francis, The Bishop of Rome, says dictate to others whilst renting a room in The One, Holy, Apostolic Church
Follow Peter! God bless, Francis, Bishop of Rome.
Follow Peter! Absolutely!! Peter did not tell the Jews and the pagans they did not have to convert! The martyrs did not throw in that pinch of incense to avoid offending their pagan neighbors.
Neither did Francis! We always have to witness to our faith, but work with people where they are at.
To quote Francis, Bishop of Rome:
“Lastly, we cannot forget that evangelization is first and foremost about preaching the Gospel to those who do not know Jesus Christ or who have always rejected him. Many of these are quietly seeking God, led by a yearning to see his face, even in countries of ancient Christian tradition. All of them have a right to receive the Gospel. Christians have the duty to proclaim the Gospel without excluding anyone. Instead of seeming to impose new obligations, they should appear as people who wish to share their joy, who point to a horizon of beauty and who invite others to a delicious banquet. It is not by proselytizing that the Church grows, but “by attraction”. John Paul II asked us to recognize that “there must be no lessening of the impetus to preach the Gospel” to those who are far from Christ, “because this is the first task of the Church”. Indeed, “today missionary activity still represents the greatest challenge for the Church” and “the missionary task must remain foremost”. What would happen if we were to take these words seriously? We would realize that missionary outreach is paradigmatic for all the Church’s activity. Along these lines the Latin American bishops stated that we “cannot passively and calmly wait in our church buildings”; we need to move “from a pastoral ministry of mere conservation to a decidedly missionary pastoral ministry”. This task continues to be a source of immense joy for the Church: “Just so, I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance” (Lk 15:7).” (14-15)
It’s amusing to note that those who preach “love, love love to all and don’t worry about dogma and tradition and what the Church has always taught” etc, so frequently make ad hominem attacks on those with whom they disagree. It amazes me how judgemental they are of others while at no time do they actually engage in serious discussion about the matter in hand or show the slightest interest/awareness/concern about the actual crisis in the Church. What crisis, they say? Any attempt to enlighten their ignorance is ignored/denigrated and refuted, without benefit of actual facts to back up their point of view.
I actually agree with Domchas/Chasdom on one point. It is absolutely pointless to engage them in conversation; it is as fruitful as talking to a computer, and even less sincere.
You will need to explain why the regular commentators on this blog, and its Editor, know better than The Supreme Pontiff and The Council of Bishops, and its conciliar Teaching which espouse Tradition and Holy Scripture consistently.
Why, for example, did Pope Benedict have a Holy Year just to mark the beginning of the last Council and said it teachings are truly in continuity with that which he was called to safeguard, and that anyone who denies the efficacy, and validity, of the so called Ordinary Form of The Holy Mass should be denied the Extraordinary.
Why would anyone seek enlighten here when most who post don’t actually listen to The Church they claim to love, and denigrate the Liturgy they claim is their right?
Fidelity Always
1. How many Catholics do you know who follow the Church’s teachings on contraception?
2. Why do you think there is such a monumental falling away by priests and religious?
3. How do you explain the catastrophic lack of belief in the true meaning of the Blessed Sacrament by so-called Catholics?
4. Why haven’t public heretics like Karl Rahner not been excommunicated?
5. Why haven’t public personalities who claim to be Catholic and yet voice their support for abortion not been refused Holy Communion?
So many examples – and the above are just a very few – and yet you don’t seem to acknowledge that there is
anything gravely wrong, and that Satan (yes, he does exist) is waging all out war on the Bride of Christ.
You have a lot of nerve telling people here that they only “claim” to love the Church. We love Her too much to remain silent in the face of so many sacrileges.
When the Pope and the hierarchy defend the Church and teach the Truth they have my unfailing support. When they fail to do so it is my duty, and the duty of every FAITHFUL Catholic to speak out.
Spot on Therese.
Why haven’t self proclaimed loyal Trad’s who daily
Self proclaimed “loyal” “Traditionalists” who claim to know better than The Successors to The Apostles, and The Church Councils, and broadcast their error in the public sphere do more damage than an errant politician. Cardinal Ratzinger, and The CDF, said Canon Law does not apply in the way you claim.
I can’t help wondering about your username. “FidelityAlways” is an unusual choice and since you clearly think “Catholic fidelity” means fidelity to a particular pope at any given point in history, I have a few questions for you.
1) Are you aware that there have been bad popes in the history of the Church. Can you name one?
2) Assuming that you have located one, how would you explain the fact that we have had bad popes (“bad” for various reasons) throughout history. How can that be explained, for example, to a Protestant?
3) Clearly, anyone who actually knows the history of the Church and the extent and limitations of the papal office, realises that Catholics do not owe “fidelity” to any particular pope, just because he’s the pope. Do you agree?
4) What, is the nature of “fidelity” then, in Catholic life?
The fidelity is to Christ and his Church.
Yes,, there have been “bad” holders of the Office, but the promise of Jesus to safeguard his church from error has never failed.
I assume in the history of the Church there have been one or two bad lay people who have fermented trouble and rallied others around them. The Internet sadly makes that easier.
If you read my posts you would see I have said it is this particular thread that prompted me to write. The event on Sunday was explained by The Church beforehand. They did not pray together, but were sensitive to the religious disposition of each person present, but it was led by The Bishop of Rome in his “home” on his terms.
It is the fact, you won’t accept the explanation on this matter, and the fact you use your refusal to listen to that explanation as a reason to cause scandal by attacking the Church that grief’s me.
Fidelity Always
Are you ignoring the list of questions I posed?
In this context I assume “in the spirit of Jesus” means to follow his example. I, for example, could say I was acing in the spirit of Catholic Truth who I wrongly attacked the actions of The Supreme Pontiff, Francis.
FidelityAlways,
The “spirit” in the Pope’s text had a capital “S” = Spirit of Jesus, but anyway, it makes no sense to speak of “the spirit of Jesus” – what does it mean to say “follow Jesus’s example” ? What example condones the facilitation by a Pope of prayers to false gods on Catholic premises? Is it in the Gospel of Matthew? Mark? Luke? John?
In his talks he often uses phrases that translators then struggle to give meaning to. I think, but do not know for certain, this is one of them.
To give people the right to exercise their own religion is a right the Church recognises, and demands for itself from secular authorities.
The fact the ceremony was in the garden, and not a Church, would indicate sensitivity, and a sense of proportion, as to why a genuine Sacred place was not used. Being on Vatican territory does not, of itself, make a place holy, just as being elected Pope does not guarantee holiness. Your own logic works against you.
FidelityAlways,
There is your key error. The Church does not “recognise” the right to followers of false religions to practice their religion, the Church merely tolerates these religions, in order not to encourage disturbance of the peace in society. So, in a Catholic state, for example, there would be no permission to build a mosque or other place of worship to a false god.
That’s what has changed since Vatican II – the chucking out of the cornerstone of Catholic Social Teaching that Christ must be the head of every nation under heaven and that the First Commandment must be strictly observed in public. Here’s what Pius XI thought about ecumenism, which clearly applies to the scandal of the inter-faith prayer meeting hosted, in public, at the Vatican, by one of his own successors.
Pope Francis and his immediate predecessors since Vatican II have broken with Tradition on this key teaching, the First Commandment. You either have to admit that, or denounce those popes who denounced recognition of false religions as true and equal to Catholicism. You can’t have it both ways.
Catholics cannot demand of other authorities, and they do, the right to freely practice their religion if The Church does not also respect the right of others to do so.
I, and The Church, say it is only through Jesus that people can be saved, and we are called to witness to that in our lives, but we cannot compel others, and nor does God, to believe what we believe.
The gift of salvation is a free gift, which invites a free response.
In recognising a legitimate human right the Church is not denying The Apostolic Kerygma it is enforcing it. It is saying the truth we preach is for all, and all time, and for that reason we will support you on your journey to faith, but we will not force you to accept it.
I believe the Church speaks of some of these other faiths as a preparation for The Gospel.
Your first error, is to believe in your own personal infallibility, and not to follow Peter.
Can I repeat something I said in another post? Namely, some of what you post on this blog is worth reading, and serves a purpose, but this, and some other threads, highlight why you endanger The Faith, and Church, you claim to love.
Nobody said anything about “compelling” – you keep moving the goal posts, which is always a sign of weakness in the case proposed.
The Church prohibits compelling anyone to accept the Faith. But she cannot acknowledge the rights of error. Error has no rights. Would you accept it if your child’s Maths teacher truly and sincerely believed that two plus two equals five? Or would you try to persuade her that this is not the case? And while she held to her error, would you encourage other parents to send their children to that school?
You are a papolatrist. That is the problem. You have elevated Pope Francis to the level of a deity who is to be worshipped. That is not the teaching of the Church. He is a very bad pope because, contrary to what you are trying to claim, he did NOT use his Vatican Gardens Prayer-Fest to bring his Muslim and Jewish visitors closer to Christ. As far as I can see, Jesus was mentioned only once, and then it was “the Spirit of Jesus” – an allusion, I imagine, to an inoffensive friendly, be nice to all, “spirit” which is the OPPOSITE of what Christ preached. Christ, whose last words on this earth to his infant Church were: “go out into the whole world, baptising them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.”
You just cannot get round the facts, that’s your problem FA.
Error has no rights, but you keep repeating them!
It is highly unlikely you know better than the Successors to The Apostles, and it Conciliar teaching, I am with them, all the way.
Follow Peter.
Fidelity Always,
Did you read the link Leo posted? Without bias?
You go around accusing the bloggers of fermenting schism, destroying the Church and generally being trouble makers, yet you don’t respond to questions that would help focus the discussion on particulars rather than vague generalities. It looks like you have come on this blog to ‘correct’ what you perceive as wrong, you aren’t even trying to see what Editor and the bloggers are saying.
Nobody here hates the Pope, and you know very well, ignoring a problem does not make it go away. There IS something wrong, you don’t run a fever without there being a cause/ infection. The world sees the symptoms: chaos like never before in the Church, widespread disobedience of Church teaching by clergy and laity, Catholics picking and choosing what they want to believe (so long as they love their neighbor), the marked arrogance that believes we can not only dispense with everything that was taught before Vatican II, but that it would be praiseworthy to do so, never mind that these are the very teachings that safeguarded the Church from the heresies that plagued her from the time of her founding, the breakdown of families and morals, the loss of vocations…..Why is there such chaos? If you don’t question these things, there seems to be little point in a discussion. Maybe you would be content with a one-world-religion, where all beliefs are accommodated? From what you say, it looks like the chief purpose of religion is reduced to keeping your neighbor happy without offending God too much.
I did reply to this but it disappeared. I assume “in the spirit of Jesus” means following his example. As in the spirit of Catholic Truth I criticised The Supreme Pontiff needlessly.
June 11, 2014
If the ‘magisterium’ of 1949 inferred Catholics could see the dead it was an objective error
Catholic Truth, Scotland.
A Warning Folks…
Please note that Lionel Andrades has a bee in his bonnet about the SSPX and baptism of desire. He is supporting Feeneyism, despite its condemnation by the Holy Office in 1949.
Lionel :
Feeneyism’s condemnation by the Holy Office ? (Editor: yes, absolutely, 1949)
Vatican Council II (AG 7) says all need ‘faith and baptism’ for salvation, this is condemned? The thrice defined dogma says all need to convert into the Church to avoid the fires of Hell, is this condemned too ?
The Catechism of the Catholic Church under the title Outside the Church No Salvation cites Ad Gentes 7. This is condemned too.Dominus Iesus 20 of Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI also stand condemned with the same message ?
And is the Holy Office saying there are visible exceptions to Feeneyism and these exceptions are known to all of us in 2014? This irrationality is not condemned?
When Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre infers that the baptism of desire is an explicit exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus, because the Holy Office says so, then this has to be accepted even though no Church document or pope earlier,has made this claim ?. Archbishop Lefebvre could see the deceased who were exceptions to this de fide teaching of the Church Councils and expressed by saints ?.
So we have to accept that those saved with ‘a ray of the Truth’ (Nostra Aetate 2,Vatican Council II) are visible to us in 2014, since Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop Bernard Fellay and the Holy Office infer that we can see these cases in real life?
Catholic Truth, Scotland:
He does not understand either the teaching of the Church about baptism of desire nor the meaning of the Catholic Dogma “Outside of the Church, there is no salvation”. He is no theologian to say the least. So I would not pay any attention to his flights of fancy.
Here are a few links about the errors of Feeneyism on the SSPX US District Website that you may find interesting:
http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/feeneyism/three_errors_of_feeneyites.htm
Lionel:
In the above link Fr.Francois Laisney cites the saints who mention the baptism of desire.He then gos on to assume that the baptism of desire is visible in the flesh for us.Once he infers that they are visible physically he infers that they are exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma outside the Church no salvation. None of the saints whom he has quoted has stated that the baptism of desire is explicit for us.None of them have said that we can see these people now in Heaven as also being on earth.
Fr.Francois Laisney says:
This traditional interpretation of this dogma, including the “three baptisms,” is that of St. Cyprian, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, St. Fulgentius, St. Bernard, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Peter Canisius, St. Alphonsus de Liguori, Pope Innocent II, Pope Innocent III, the Council of Trent, Pope Pius IX, Pope St. Pius X, etc.,…
(Lionel :True and where do they state that the baptism of desire is visible to us in daily life ?. The baptism of water is visible.It can also be repeated.Where do these saints state that the baptism of desire is an exception to the interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus ? And where in the text of the thrice defined dogma, is there mention of the baptism of desire or being saved in invincible ignorance ? No where.)
Fr.Francois Laisney says:
and unanimously all theologians (prior to the modernists). St. Alphonsus says: “It is de fide [that is, it belongs to the Catholic Faith – Ed.] that there are some men saved also by the baptism of the Spirit.”[4]
The traditional interpretation of “Outside the Church there is no salvation,” was approved by the Council of Florence (1438-1445). The Council Fathers present made theirs the doctrine of St. Thomas on baptism of desire, saying that for children one ought not to wait 40 or 80 days for their instruction, because for them there was “no other remedy.”[5] This expression is taken directly from St. Thomas (Summa Theologica, IIIa, Q.68, A. 3) and it refers explicitly to baptism of desire (ST, IIIa, Q.68, A.2). Despite the fact that the Council of Florence espoused the doctrine of St. Thomas Aquinas, it is astonishing to see Feeneyites opposing this council to St. Thomas!
Lionel:
The Catholic communities, Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary accept the baptism of desire. However for them it leads to justification and it must be followed by the baptism of water.So this should be clarified by the SSPX website.
I(Lionel) accept the baptism of desire as being implicit for us and explicit only for God.It is invisible for me, and also for all SSPX members.So it is not relevant to the teaching which says all need to be visible members of the Church. All need to convert into the Church in 2014 and we do not know of a single exception; we do not know of a single case of the baptism of desire.
So I accept the baptism of desire as being implicit for us. I reject an explict for us baptism of desire.
Fr.Francois Laisney assumes that the baptism of desire is explicit for us ( and so an exception to the dogma), this is irrational and heretical.
Catholic Truth,Scotland:
http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/feeneyism/fr_feeney_catholic_doctrine.htm
Many of our friends have heard of Fr. Leonard Feeney… to make his point, Fr. Feeney went so far as to exclude Baptism of desire (and martyrdom) from the means of salvation.
Lionel:
The issue is : is the baptism of desire an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ? Can we see any such exception, do we know of any one who will be saved or is saved this year without ‘faith and baptism’? This is important for me.The SSPX and the communities or Fr.Leonard Feeney have to deal with this issue. Since even if the baptism of desire results in justification only or justification and salvation, it is not an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. It is not an exception to the traditional interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.So the debate above is meaningless.
Catholic Truth,Scotland :
http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/feeneyism/may_01_district_superiors_letter.htm
However, it is entirely unacceptable for a Catholic to willingly and knowingly deny the Church’s explicit teaching on the question of baptism of blood and desire. For it is not because these questions are not formally defined that they are optional extras that a person can take or leave.
Lionel:
I make the distinction between explicit for us baptism of desire and implicit for us baptism of desire.I do not deny the baptism of desire (implicit) while I reject an explicit visible for us baptism of desire.This is not theology. I am referring to a physical phenomenon.I am reasoning intellectually, philosophically and not as theology.Once you decide intellectually if the baptism of desire case can be seen on earth with the naked eye, then you build your theology, traditional or heretical.
Fr.Peter Scott, the former District Superior of the SSPX(USA) here assumes that the baptism of desire is physically explicit for us. So for him the baptism of desire is an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
This is irrational. How can we see the dead who are saved with the baptism of desire.How can it be visible to us on earth? This is the eror of Archbiship Lefebvre.
There are three baptisms ( or more) in principle, hypothetically, but in reality, defacto there can only be one baptism, the baptism of water.The baptism of desire cannot be administered or seen.
Catholic Truth,Scotland:
http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/feeneyism/three_baptisms.htm
Lionel:
Fr.Joseph Pfeiffer in this link, also like Fr.Francois Laisney, assumes that the baptism of desire is visible for us , it is objective, it is not hypothetical.
If the cardinal who issued the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 also assumed all this, then he made a factual mistake. Objectively, we cannot see the dead.He assumed the dead were visible on earth.
No Church document prior to 1949 makes this fantastic claim and then builds an irrational theology upon it.
If the ‘magisterium’ of 1949 infered that we Catholics can see the dead then this was an objective error. The dead man walking theory is not rational.
Also when Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops continued to make this mistake they were not corrected by any of the popes or Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. The ‘magisterium’ made a mistake here.
I respect the Magisterium and follow it, however this would be an objective error independent of theology or doctrine. -Lionel Andrades
http://catholictruthblog.com/2014/05/29/accept-vatican-ii-or-else/
Editor: Lionel is in error. He writes about this subject interminably; I’ve seen his writings on various blogs and I receive his emails, despite repeated requests to be unsubscribed (I don’t recall ever subscribing) but he is determined to have his say, over and over a gain. Our policy is not to moderate posts unless there is a breach of our in-house rules, so I am releasing this with a warning that he is in theological error. He is not a theologian – that is obvious – and he does not understand the teaching of the Church on baptism of desire. Unless you feel that you can correct him further – I just don’t have the time – then I suggest you ignore his comments. Given his error, I will moderate his posts in order to add an editorial caution each time, so be aware that if you use his name, your comment will also go into moderation. I suggest addressing him, if address him you must, as LA
WHAT DOES THE CATHOLIC CHURCH TEACH ABOUT ISLAM: VATICAN COUNCIL II INDICATES THE PROPHET AND MUSLIMS ARE LOST
The Church teaches in Magisterial documents that Islam has ‘good and holy ‘things but the religion is not a path to salvation. Muslims need to convert to avoid Hell.
According to Vatican Council II the Prophet was not saved. This is same the message of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, Dominus Iesus and other Church documents based on the Bible, Tradition and the Magisterium. So according to the official teaching of the Catholic Church the prophet was oriented to Inferno at the time of death.
According to Vatican Council II, Ad Gentes 7 all people need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation.This includes the Prophet.
Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church’s preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself “by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door.-AG 7
Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14 also state that those who know about the Church and its necessity for salvation and yet do not enter are on the way to Hell. The Quran shows that the prophet knew about Jesus and the Church.
Therefore those men cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it.”-Ad Gentes 7
Therefore those men cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it.”-Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II.
The ex cathedra dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus says the same.
1. “There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215). Ex cathedra.
2.“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.).Ex cathedra.
3.“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.) Ex cathedra – from the website Catholicism.org
The same message is repeated in Dominus Iesus.
This doctrine must not be set against the universal salvific will of God (cf. 1 Tim 2:4); “it is necessary to keep these two truths together, namely, the real possibility of salvation in Christ for all mankind and the necessity of the Church for this salvation”.-Dominus Iesus 20
If there is an objection with reference to Lumen Gentium 16 it is a straw man. LG 16 does not say that we know any case of invincible ignorance in the present times.
Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.-Lumen Gentium 16, Vatican Council II.
So Lumen Gentium 16 does not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus or Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II.
If there is an objection that Fr. Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for affirming extra ecclesiam nulla salus, this is a falsehood. The ‘dogma’ referred to in the Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston 1949 indicates that all Jews in Boston need to convert into the Church to avoid Hell.
Now, among those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach is contained also ‘that infallible statement’ by which we are taught that there is no salvation outside the Church.
However, this ‘dogma’ must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church…-Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston (Emphasis added)
So the Letter of the Holy Office supported Fr.Leonard Feeney on doctrine.The dogma(above) indicates all Jews in Boston need to convert into the Church to avoid Hell. This was exactly what Fr.Leonard Feeney taught.
It indicates also that all Muslims are on the path to Hell. According to the official teaching of the Catholic Church the prophet was oriented to Hell at the time of death. It is said that the Church does not say that any one is in Hell, not even Judas. However the Church does teach, that there are some sins that orient a person to Hell at the time of death. It is a grave sin for a non Catholic to have had the Gospel preached to him, to know about Jesus and the Church and yet to reject the Holy Spirit guiding him in his heart. The Church also teaches that all of us know what is right and wrong deep within our heart. Conscience can be good or bad. We need to follow our good conscience. Someone who follows his good conscience would be led to Jesus and the Church.’
This is not just a personal view but the official teaching of the Church before and after Vatican Council II.
The Church is saying that salvation is open to all Muslims and other non Catholics but if they do not respond they have chosen damnation. If there is anyone among them in invincible ignorance etc it will be known only to God.
A Muslim can be saved if he gives his life for Jesus and the Church (baptism of blood) . Similarly a Catholic who dies a martyr, goes straight to Heaven.
Some theologians say that the Church does not claim anyone is in Hell. They hold this illusion since they do not know or believe in the ex cathedra dogma Cantate Domino, Council of Florence (above). It says Hell has fire. It indicates millions of non-Catholics are there.
Others say that the Church does not say that Judas is in Hell. We know that the Church also does not say that Judas is in Heaven.
What about the ‘theology of religions’? The Church has rejected it in the Notification issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican (2001) to Fr. Jacques Dupuis S.j. It indicates that ‘there is no theology’ which can say that Islam is a path to salvation.
We accept the possibility of non Catholics in invincible ignorance etc, being saved (Lumen Gentium 16) and they are known only to God. However the Lumen Gentium 16 text does not state that we know of specific cases in the present times and so this contradicts the dogma.
So there is no text from Vatican Council II for supporting a heresy. It is heresy to reject or change an ex cathedra dogma even after being informed.
The hermeneutic of continuity, is that for centuries popes, Councils and saints taught that everyone with no exception needs to enter the Church formally to avoid Hell.
The hermeneutic of rupture was when the Archbishop of Boston Cardinal Richard Cushing, said that there could be people in invincible ignorance etc who are known to us in the present times and so this contradicted the dogma and Fr. Leonard Feeney. This is irrational. We can never know any such case. The Archbishop of Boston Cardinal Richard Cushing held the heretical belief that there were non Catholics saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire in the present times and they were known to us. So for him this contradicted Fr. Leonard Feeney and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
The hermeneutic of rupture was there when Fr. Hans Kung said that Lumen Gentium 16 indicates that people in invincible ignorance etc can be specifically known to us in the present times and so this contradicts extra ecclesiam nulla salus (and Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council 2).
We do not know who is joined to the Church in partial communion or invisible bonds. We do not know who has perfect contrition or a conscience Jesus will judge as good on the day of Judgement. No specific case can be known.
We know for sure that some sins lead to Hell. Some sins orient a person to Hell.
The Bible tells us that some sins will prevent people from seeing the Kingdom of God. There are also mortal sins of Faith.
‘Being oriented to Hell’ does not mean ‘condemned to Hell’. Correct, and neither does it mean not being condemned.
If you think someone is an exception to the rule then again I would ask you how would you know? How would you know specific cases?
If you believe the exception makes the rule (as says Fr. Charles Curran etc) then this is not the teaching of the Church.
Every non-Catholic who achieves salvation, it is said, is nevertheless saved because of the graces radiating from the Catholic Church as the “sacrament of universal salvation”. True and this does not conflict with the teaching that everyone with no exception in the present times needs to formally enter the Church to be saved.
Liberal theologians affirm that the necessity of the Catholic Church for salvation is absolute. Correct. However they need to mention that it is necessary to be a formal member. Many liberal theologians leave this issue vague.
Liberal theologians say this union is not confined to the status of actual and explicit visible membership in the Catholic Church. It’s here where they go off the track since they assume that we know cases in the present times, who are saved with invincible ignorance etc and so every one does not have to be a formal member of the Church to be saved.
We cannot name a specific individual person as being in Hell. We cannot do this with our human abilities. However the Church does tell us that there are some sins which orient a person to Hell. If one dies with mortal sin and without absolution in the Confessional, your on the way to Hell. The Catechism indicates all it takes is just one mortal sin for a soul to go to Hell. One mortal sin without Confession. To reject an ex cathedra dogma is a mortal sin according to the Church. You are on the way to Hell.Pope John Paul II excommunicated Fr.Tissa Balasuriya, OMI, the Sri Lankan priest, for rejecting the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Our Lady.
If you die without the Sacraments I would assume that you were oriented to Hell, gone to Hell and are there still. If there was an exceptional reason for not being damned it would be known only to God.
Muslims are lost unless they accept Jesus’ great Sacrifice and respond.
We love all Muslims in Jesus, who also, in charity asks to tell them about the condition of their soul. In John 3:5 we are reminded of the necessity of the baptism of water for salvation, in John 6 we are told about the importance of the Eucharist for salvation. In Mark 16:16 we know that those who do not believe will be condemned.
At Assisi,Italy the birth place of St.Francis of Assisi there was an inter faith meeting. St.Francis believed that it was necessary for all Muslims including the Sultan, whom he met, to convert into the Catholic Church for salvation. He taught, what the media calls, ‘the rigorist interpretation’ of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.He believed that all Muslims like other non Catholics were damned unless they enter the Church. This was the will of God. God wants all people to be united in the Catholic Church (Catechism of the Catholic Church CCC 845), the Church is like the Ark of Noah that saves in the Flood (CCC 845), all people need to enter the Church as entering, through a door (CCC 846).
-Lionel Andrades
Editor: “The Church” never points to individuals and says he/she is not saved. That is prohibited to us – only God sees the soul and knows its disposition. Anyone who IS saved, however, can only be saved through the Church. So, give up chasing this nonsensical straw man, Lionel. Life is too short. If you think bloggers will read these lengthy posts, read again – I can see your heresy in the first few lines and don’t read further, so you can bet your bottom dollar that nobody else will plough through these lengthy comments.
Lionel is in error.
Lionel:
Lionel is not denying the baptism of desire. Just like you and the SSPX bishops and priests, he affirms the baptism of desire.
He only clarifies that the baptism of desire which you and the SSPX priests and the liberals refer to, is not visible for us. It is visible only to God. We can only accept it as being hypothetical. There is no other choice.So it cannot be an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.For something to be an exception it must be different and it must exist in our reality.It must be explicit. None of the readers here can name a person saved with the baptism of desire this year or last year.
He writes about this subject interminably; I’ve seen his writings on various blogs and I receive his emails, despite repeated requests to be unsubscribed (I don’t recall ever subscribing) but he is determined to have his say, over and over a gain.
Lionel:
You are not on my mailing list.I sent you the few posts recently since they were related to the SSPX in Great Britain and Archbishop Lefebvre. You had no specific comment.I was waiting for you or a priest of the SSPX in Great Britain ( whom you could consult) to show me where I was wrong.No one has done so.
Our policy is not to moderate posts unless there is a breach of our in-house rules, so I am releasing this with a warning that he is in theological error.
Lionel:
No one in the SSPX (USA or Europe) has showed me where is my theological mistake. I have been writing on this same subject for long.
He is not a theologian – that is obvious – and he does not understand the teaching of the Church on baptism of desire.
Lionel:
The SSPX position on the baptism of desire is the same as the liberal theologians and dissenters who are otherwised criticized on this blog.
Unless you feel that you can correct him further – I just don’t have the time – then I suggest you ignore his comments. Given his error,
Lionel:
Given his error- what is it precisely?. Tell it to me and I will correct.
I am saying there are no known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This is also the position of the SSPX General Chapter Statement 2012.It is also the position of the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, traditionalists, who affirm the dogma according to Fr.Leonard Feeney.
Fr.Francis Laisney, Fr.Peter Scott and Fr.Joseph Pfieffer (SSPX -Resistance) say there are exceptions and the General Chapter Statement says there are no exceptions.I too say there are no exceptions.
Is the SSPX General Chapter Statement 2012 contradicting the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 regarding Fr.Leonard Feeney ? Could you ask an SSPX priest in Scotland to respond here?
I will moderate his posts in order to add an editorial caution each time, so be aware that if you use his name, your comment will also go into moderation. I suggest addressing him, if address him you must, as LA
In Christ
LA
Editor: the root of your confusion, it seems to me, is that you think that some people see baptism of desire as “an exception to extra ecclesiam…” That is utter nonsense. The “desire” (of those who die without baptism) is precisely to die “within the Church”. You are wasting your life chasing this straw man of your own making, Lionel. Gerragrip.
If anyone is in any doubt about the scandalous nature of the event that took place in the Vatican gardens on Sunday, please read the following article by John Vennari of Catholic Family News.
http://www.cfnews.org/page88/files/fd408b8279e3fa9e52aecf63d8ed310b-235.html
I can’t find any reference to the local Ordinary that says the website is an official publication of The Catholic Church, and mandated by him. Have I missed it?
I know Michael Voris was told, in accordance with Canon Law, he should not present on his website as “Catholic”.
“Traditional Catholic” used to mean Loyal to the Pope and The College of Bishops as successors to The Apostles.
Are you kidding? So you would refuse to accept the evidence of your eyes, that this circus took place in a Catholic cathedral, unless it was reported on the official website of the diocese?
Does that mean you do not accept all the newspaper reports about world affairs unless you read it on the official website of the relevant government agency or whatever agency the report is about?
I can’t help but think that you really are having us on, FidelityAlways.
The Vatican Gardens are not a Cathedral, They are gardens.
I presumed you were referring to the circus event (horses in the cathedral) in Leo’s link – 9.1.5.pm, 11 June.
Not the Vatican Gardens circus. Apologies for my mistake. I have no idea to what you are referring in your post of 10.22.am today.
I am not sure what my post of 10.22 was, and if you remind me of it I will seek to clarify it.
I don’t see how you thought I was querying a link about a Circus as the link from Leo was to a website article about the grace filled event at The Vatican on Sunday.
The query about websites claiming to be “Catholic” is not a new issue. Canon Law requires a Bishop to authorise such things.
As you know authentic Catholic publications need a Nil Obstat and an Imprimatur. You would scream from the rooftops if a “Catholic” publication didn’t have one. Only a person mandated by a Bishop can grant one, and only a Bishop can pronounce something as heresy. Just when did you receive Episcopal Ordination, and for what Church?
Double standards do lower the tone of a debate.
Correction of typing error: Nihil obstat!!!!!!
Editor: “The Church” never points to individuals and says he/she is not saved.
Lionel:
And except for the saints the Church never says he or she is in Heaven, including Judas, whom Scripture indicates is damned.
Editor:
That is prohibited to us – only God sees the soul and knows its disposition.
Lionel:
We cannot read souls and neither the do popes claim that they can read souls.
However the Church does tell us that all need ‘faith and baptism’ (AG 7,Vatican Council II) for salvation.
The Church does tell us that those who do not convert into the Church are oriented to Hell which has fire.(Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441, extra ecclesiam nulla salus).
So the Church is telling us that all Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Muslims, Protestants and other non Catholics are on the way to Hell unless they convert with ‘faith and baptism’.
The Church is saying that all the Jews,Muslims and others in England in 2014 are on the way to Hell without Catholic Faith and the baptism of water.
The Church is telling us that in Heaven there are those only those Catholics who have died without mortal sin and with Catholic faith and the baptism of water.
Jesus tells us that those who do not believe will be condemned. The Bible and the Church tells us that mortal sins lead to Hell.
So when I meet a non Catholic, I know he is on the way to Hell since the Church tells us so and it is not because I can read souls.
Editor: but you miss the point. Whether they are “oriented” to Hell or not, they may not end up there. That is the point you appear not to grasp. We know that the ordinary means of salvation is by sacramental Baptism, but that doesn’t mean that “from the Bridge to the water” so to speak, a soul is not converted into Christ’s Church. Neither you nor I are free to make that judgment. We have to pray and assume the merciful grace of God at work. We don’t know the level of culpability of any soul. THAT judgment is for God, not for us. You are constantly confusing the issues, Lionel.
Editor:
Anyone who IS saved, however, can only be saved through the Church.
Lionel:
Agreed.
Editor:
So, give up chasing this nonsensical straw man, Lionel. Life is too short. If you think bloggers will read these lengthy posts, read again – I can see your heresy in the first few lines and don’t read further, so you can bet your bottom dollar that nobody else will plough through these lengthy comments.
Lionel:
‘I can see your heresy’?
It is heresy to allege that you can see the dead saved with the baptism of desire who are visible to you in Scotland and so you reject the traditional interpretation of the ex cathedra dogma on salvation, with explicit, visible- in- Scotland exceptions.
Anyone who says there are exceptions, infer they can see the dead.
-Lionel Andrades
Editor: Lionel, it is YOU who do not understand the dogma Extra Ecclesiam… Not me. I have never said that I see any dead person. I have no idea what you mean by this. If you think that Catholic teaching on baptism of desire requires a vision of the dead (to see if they are, in fact, saved) that’s plain ridiculous. The Church has always taught baptism of desire which is why we may never EVER consign a soul to Hell.
Editor:
the root of your confusion, it seems to me, is that you think that some people see baptism of desire as “an exception to extra ecclesiam…”
Lionel:
Yes.
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre sees the baptism of desire as an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.So does Bishop Bernard Fellay.
Fr.Francois Laisney, Fr.Peter Scott and Fr.Joseph Pfieffer in the links you have provided, see the baptism of desire as an exception to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.
All salvation for them ( baptism of desire, being saved in invincible ignorance, a ray of the Truth, imperfect communion with the Church etc) is an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. For them it is saying there is salvation outside the Church. It means, for them, that every non Catholic does not need to enter the Church. So they reject Vatican Council II.
Why do they reject Vatican Council II?
Since they assume that those saved with ‘a ray of the Truth’ are explicit. Since they assume that these cases are explicit they criticize NA 2 for suggesting that there is salvation outside the Church.’
Is it not the same with you?
Is NA 2 ( a ray of the Truth) an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Syllabus of Errors etc ? Is it not saying for you that there is salvation ( known) outside the visible limits of the Church? Is it not saying for you that every one does not need ‘faith and baptism'(AG 7) in Britain in 2014 for salvation?
Editor:
That is utter nonsense. The “desire” (of those who die without baptism) is precisely to die “within the Church”.
Lionel:
Yes they die within the Church and they are saved.
The issue is are these cases relevant to extra ecclesiam nulla salus? Are they exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma which does not mention any exceptions ?
Editor: Father Feeney was wrong. The SSPX priests are right to uphold Catholic teaching on baptism of desire. End of. Now, you are never in a million years going to convince me – or any of our bloggers here – otherwise, so please stop posting on this topic, Lionel. Be warned, all future posts on this will be deleted. You are welcome to participate in our various discussions but you must respect my request to you not to post further on this topic. I simply do not have the time to keep responding. Thank you.
The following example of the invariably excellent work of Louis Verrecchio might help clear up some of the confusion that is wafting around in the wake of this latest papal scandal.
http://www.harvestingthefruit.com/defiling-the-masters-bride/
There is no confusion. The Bishop of Rome is doing the work of Christ, and others who promote such nonsense as the link you provide are fermenting schism, endangering their own souls.
FA,
Did you read the words of Pius XI in the encyclical Mortalium Animos, which I posted above? Because either HE got it wrong and was not “doing the work of Christ” or Pope Francis has got it wrong and is not doing the work of Christ.
They cannot possibly both be correct, and since the Church has always taught that Faith cannot contradict reason, then, we have to make an intelligent judgment on the matter.
Who was right about ecumenical activities – Pius XI or Francis I ?
I really do not wish to make any personally insulting remarks, FA, so am making no comments on your personal intelligence, but you really must make your view clear on this. It is pivotal to our argument. Since truth is truth and cannot change over time (a heresy condemned by the Church) then one of those two popes was or is wrong. Which one is it?
I did write a reply but it seems you have blocked me. I will try again latter.
FA,
I have not blocked you – I’ve never blocked anyone. I’ll go and check if your comment has gone into SPAM as that happens from time to time, sometimes for no apparent reason.
A few seconds later…
I’ve just check the SPAM and Moderation queues and there are no posts in either. Please re-submit. If you are answering my question about Pius XI Vs Francis 2, that would be a short reply. No dissertation required there.
Blogging with WordPress Tip: Always best to save comments in case of WordPress blips. Then if they don’t go up first time, you can try again.
Editor, you ‘ve never blocked anyone!!!!! Yet you constantly remove my posts which is tantamount to blocking. Explanation required here, please and thank you
Editor: Sugar Plum, you know perfectly well that your posts are in moderation due to your inability to keep the simple house rule of no rudeness to fellow bloggers or even sister bloggers like moi. You know that. Stop attention seeking. 😀
As I understand it Pius Xl rejected false ecumenism which usually took a “lowest common denominator” approach: They envisaged a worldwide religious “unity” in which all would agree on a few basic beliefs while “agreeing to differ” on others. The pope observes that these religious liberals apparently “hope that all nations, while differing indeed in religious matters, may yet without great difficulty be brought to fraternal agreement on certain points of doctrine which will form a common basis of the spiritual life” (n2)
They also presuppose the erroneous view that all religions are more or less good and praiseworthy, inasmuch as all give expression, under various forms, to that innate sense which leads men to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of his rule. Those who hold such a view are not only in error; they distort the true idea of religion, and thus reject it, falling gradually into naturalism and atheism. To favor this opinion, therefore, and to encourage such undertakings, is tantamount to abandoning the religion revealed by God. (MA 2)
Turning from the inner nature of faith to outward forms of visible organization, Pius XI found another related error. In those initiatives limiting the quest for unity to those who already professed faith in Christ—what the Church today calls “ecumenism” as distinct from “inter-religious dialogue”—the pope discerned a false ecclesiology (theological understanding of the Church). For the visibly united “Christian church” that these liberal Protestant ecumenists dreamed of would be “nothing more than a federation of the various Christian communities, even though these may hold different and mutually exclusive doctrines” (MA 6).
However the question is does Vatican II adopt a “lowest common denominator” approach to “balance” unity and truth? Not at all. Unitatis Redintegratio 3 affirms that while the separated brethren have many elements of truth, God’s will is that they all come to that plenitude which can be found only in Catholicism:
“For it is through Christ’s Catholic Church alone . . . that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained. It was to the apostolic College alone, of which Peter is the head . . . that we believe the Lord entrusted all the benefits of the New Covenant in order to establish on earth the one Body of Christ, into which all those who already in some way belong to the people of God ought to be fully incorporated. “ (UR 3,)
The Document Dominus Iesus published by the C.D.F. , and approved by Pope John Paul, in 2000 said that Protestant bodies “are not Churches in the proper sense” and “suffer from defects” and that non-Christian religions are “gravely deficient,”
Francis, Bishop of Rome, would work within that teaching.
Ironically, Pope Benedict of all Popes, by creating The Ordinariate, and treating Anglican Ministers as if they had been to Junior Seminary, and had to catch up briefly before being ordained as Roman Catholic priests has partly undermined that teaching.
In other words what Pius Xl understood to be the basis of ecumenical activity in his day was condemned, but that was supported by his successors, and The Council.
However , with the exception of The Ordianariate, ecumenism, on a sound basis, and a proper ecclesiogy, has been pursued in recent times.
The Church then, as now, says it is only through Jesus that people can be saved, but other religious experiences may work as groundwork for the presentation of the Gospel.
(Some of the above I have lifted from other sources, as they say things more succinctly than I would!)
FidelityAlways,
I was so surprised at your comments about Mortalium Animos that I went into the link and read it again. There is no question at all about it, it’s obvious that Pope Pius XI was condemning ecumenism – not “false ecumenism” , all ecumenism because he makes clear that all ecumenism is false.
How can you read the following and not see that?
From Pius XI –
“This being so, it is clear that the Apostolic See cannot on any terms take part in their assemblies, nor is it anyway lawful for Catholics either to support or to work for such enterprises; for if they do so they will be giving countenance to a false Christianity, quite alien to the one Church of Christ…
Let, therefore, the separated children draw nigh to the Apostolic See, set up in the City which Peter and Paul, the Princes of the Apostles, consecrated by their blood; to that See, We repeat, which is “the root and womb whence the Church of God springs,”[27] not with the intention and the hope that “the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth”[28] will cast aside the integrity of the faith and tolerate their errors, but, on the contrary, that they themselves submit to its teaching and government.”
There is no question of Pius XI tolerating errors, so the answer to editor’s question about which pope is doing the work of Christ, the answer must be Pius XI. Pope Francis is constantly breaking with what has gone before and causing confusion. He is definitely not doing the work of Christ although he probably thinks he is.
Pope Pius was talking about a completely different world view and understanding of ecumenism.
This issue is related to the Vatican Curia’s problem with the Franciscans of the Immaculate and the SSPX. How do they interpret Vatican Council II is the issue. Do the FFI have to interpret Vatican Council II as a break with the teachings on other religions and salvation? Yes- because of the irrational interpretation of the Council.No-if they are aware of the false inference.
I think based on doctrine the advantage is with the Franciscans of the Immaculate.They have to be aware of it and make it known. Then the Vatican can respond. They must make it known to all.
________________________
Make an announcement : Say the Franciscans of the Immaculate affirm extra ecclesiam nulla salus in accord with Vatican Council II.Ask the CDF to do the same.
Franciscans of the Immaculate must announce that they are accepting Vatican Council II but without the explicit exceptions theory. This is an irrational theory being used by the Vatican Curia and the political Left in the interpretation of the Council.
If the Vatican Curia would ask the Franciscans of the Immaculae (FFI) if they endorsed Vatican Council, they would answer, “Yes we accept Vatican Council II in accord with the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus”.
If the Vatican Curia ask the FFI if they reject Nostra Aetate 2 they would respond, ” We do not reject Nostra Aetate 2. We affirm it as being being implicit for us and explicit only for God. So it is not an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.We reject Nostra Aetate 2 ( a ray of the Truth) as being physically explicit for us in 2014″.
If they are further questioned, “Do you accept the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney”?, they would respond, “Yes we accept the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus and reject an explicit for us baptism of desire.Instead we accept an implicit for us baptism of desire. So we affirm the baptism of desire (implicit desire) along with the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus”.
If the CDF/Ecclesia Dei,Vatican asks them to clarify, how can they affirm the baptism of desire and also the traditional interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney they could respond, “Since implicit baptism of desire is not visible to us it does not conflict with the teaching which says every one needs to be a visible member of the Catholic Church. There is no conflict with the Principle of Non Contradiction. Defacto every one needs to be a visible member of the Catholic Church and there are no exceptions. De jure there could be those saved with the baptism of desire.This is hypothetical so it is not an exception to the traditional interpretation of the dogma”.
So the bottom line is that they can affirm Vatican Council II and also Catholic Tradition.Things couldn’t be so good. It’s a win-win situation. They can have their cake and eat it too!
So make an announcement!
Say the FFI affirm extra ecclesiam nulla salus in accord with Vatican Council II without the irratonal inference of being able to see the dead-saved who are living exceptions to Tradition.
The FFI affirms extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors along with the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 846) in which those who are saved through Jesus and the Church are not known exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
The FFI affirms extra ecclesiam nulla salus in accord with the Catechism of Pope Pius X and Vatican Council II.
The FFI would invite the Vatican Curia to confirm if they also interpret Vatican Council II according to Tradition, especially the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as interpreted by the Church Councils, popes, saints and Fr.Leonard Feeney of Boston.-Lionel Andrades
Editor: I completely do not understand what you mean by seeing the dead. Who on earth has ever claimed to “see the dead” in relation to the dogma “Outside the Church, no salvation”? Are you saying that if someone who is not sacramentally baptised, but plans to BE sacramentally baptised (i.e. desires to be a member of Christ’s Church) but dies suddenly before his sacramental baptism, are you saying that this person is NOT within the Church because we can’t see him? I really do struggle to understand what you mean, Lionel. I really do. It’s a very simple dogma – very easy to understand – yet you seem to want to make a meal of it.
Now, you are never in a million years going to convince me – or any of our bloggers here – otherwise, so please stop posting on this topic, Lionel. Be warned, all future posts on this will be deleted. You are welcome to participate in our various discussions but you must respect my request to you not to post further on this topic. I simply do not have the time to keep responding. Thank you.
Editor: I completely do not understand what you mean by seeing the dead.
Lionel:
I am glad you asked.
I am referring to physics and not theology. I am saying physically with the human eye we cannot see the deceased now saved in Heaven with the baptism of desire.
I am saying physically, in the flesh, we cannot see the baptism of desire in someone’s soul.
I am not talking theology.
However when you use theology and assume that there are exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus; all needing to visibly enter the Church, you imply, that physically you can see an exception.
Any time someone says there is an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla sulla, be it the pope, he is inplying that he can physically see the dead.
Theologically I agree with the SSPX priests that there is a baptism of desire.
______________________________
Who on earth has ever claimed to “see the dead” in relation to the dogma “Outside the Church, no salvation”?
Lionel.
Good point!
Every time some one says there is an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus he is implying that he knows someone on earth who does not need faith and baptism for salvation, or he has divine knowledge and knows someone who will be saved in future without faith and baptism.
The moment you say there are exceptions you imply you can meet someone who does not need to convert, you can physically see him, know him, shake his hands etc.
This is irrational. How can the dead be on earth to be an exception.How can you personally know him after he is dead?
__________________________
Are you saying that if someone who is not sacramentally baptised, but plans to BE sacramentally baptised (i.e. desires to be a member of Christ’s Church) but dies suddenly before his sacramental baptism, are you saying that this person is NOT within the Church because we can’t see him?
Lionel:
No I am not saying this!
He is in the Church.
I am saying that we cannot see him physically so he is always for us a hypothetical case.
If there was such a person in Heaven he would be in Heaven and so would not be an exception to the dogma.
I make the distinction between being invisible (and not being an exception) and being visible ( and being an exception). If you say there is an exception you are telling me this case is visible. You will admit this is irrational. The dead are not visible.
___________________________
I really do struggle to understand what you mean, Lionel. I really do. It’s a very simple dogma – very easy to understand – yet you seem to want to make a meal of it.
Lionel:
I understand .
This is a subtle error that the enemies of the Church have used for some 70 -plus years.
The propaganda on Feeneyism in the secular media sustains this lie and confuses Catholics.
________________________________________
Editor: Because you have attempted to answer questions I posed in my previous editorial footnotes to your posts, I am letting this one through. It is the last one to be approved. Any future posts on this subject will be deleted, Lionel. That’s a promise. Your comments about seeing the dead are utter nonsense. The entire Church, SSPX all are in error except you and Fr Feeney. You are completely confused about the dogma “Extra Ecclesiam…” End of topic, Lionel. If you respond to this note, your response will not be published. Don’t waste your time.
Fidelity Always
Your failure to answer my questions is proof that you have your own special brand of “Catholicism”. The kind that sees no evil, hears no evil and speaks no evil about anything except those who actually protest at the attempted destruction* of the faith for which countless martyrs have died. For them you have a mission to “correct”.
The gravity of the situation in the Church is crystal clear to anyone with a modicum of Catholicity in their bones, and the fact that you continue to ignore it, whilst attacking those who protest, casts doubt of your fidelity.
* Editor: Therese, you wrote “discussion of the faith” which I presumed was a typo – so changed to “destruction”. Hope I’ve not misinterpreted.
I answered your questions. You don’t like the replies.
No, FA. You haven’t answered any of the key questions at all.
But if I could remind you of the last question I asked: who is in the wrong Pius XI or Francis I? Pius XI who denounced inter-religious activities in no uncertain terms, calling the thinking behind them “dangerous fallacies” or Francis 1 who promotes them?
It’s a simple question – what’s your answer? It’s as simple as “Pius XI” or “Francis 1” So, please, no more ducking and diving. What’s your answer?
Editor The reply at 6:58 was, I thought, to Therese. I have just posted a reply to you above, where you posed the question.
Fidelity Always
Your reply at 6.58 said you have replied to my questions. “I have answered your questions. You don’t like the response”. Er, no. To refresh your memory I repeat them below:
1. How many Catholics do you know who follow the Church’s teachings on contraception?
2. Why do you think there is such a monumental falling away by priests and religious?
3. How do you explain the catastrophic lack of belief in the true meaning of the Blessed Sacrament by so-called Catholics?
4. Why haven’t public heretics like Karl Rahner not been excommunicated?
5. Why haven’t public personalities who claim to be Catholic and yet voice their support for abortion not been refused Holy Communion?
These are not hard questions for a faithful Catholic to answer. I await your response.
Editor – thanks for amendment – not for the first time, you were quite correct!
Some of what you ask is clearly nothing to do with me. I do not know the details of the lives of other people.
Priests and religious have always left, and had difficulties, and vocation numbers fluctuate. The greater crisis, in the west, is secularisation, and atheism, and not within the Church itself,
Some people don’t fully accept Church teaching on anything, and your attack on the Supreme Pontiff is one such example.
People are given chance to correct errors, you may be familiar with the parable of the wheat and the darnel, for example. Jesus spoke, did you listen?
Cardinal Ratzinger and The CDF disagreed with the interpretation of some on Canon 915.
Fidelity Always
You’ve exhausted my patience. Talk about sticking your fingers in your ears and loudly singing “la la la”. Your inability (or unwillingness) to make even one reasonable, Catholic response, speaks volumes. It seems you have no strong views about the honour and reputation of the Church. The only judgement you are prepared to make is against those who defend the Catholic Faith.
So be it; at least I now know where you stand.
Listen to Peter, The Magisterium in general, and try not to speak and act on the basis of your own wish list.
The Church is in good hands, and will welcome you back when you accept Official Church Teaching rather than your limited interpretation of it.
“Cardinal Koch said he was pleased to hear that Pope Francis told the rabbi that the next step in Catholic-Jewish dialogue must be theological, “perhaps developing further a Christian theology of Judaism and, perhaps, a Jewish theology of Christianity to understand each other better and to deepen our understanding of all we have in common.”Rabbi Skorka said that for him as a believer, “I want to know why Catholics are Catholic and I want them to know why I am Jewish. Only when we understand this will there be mutual respect.”
This is from a CNS article from some months ago. According to some Catholics the Popes are using dialogue and encounters with those outside the Church as a kind of friendly persuasion. Does Rabbi Skorka know the Pope is really trying to convert him?
3LittleShepherds,
Pope Francis is definitely not trying to convert Rabbi Skorka or anyone else. He said in one of his shocking interviews that such seeking conversions is “solemn nonsense.”
The Vatican didn’t correct that or his many other scandalous statements. He doesn’t believe in the need to convert to the Catholic Church. That’s from his own lips.
“About the rights of man as they are called, the people have heard enough, it is time we should hear about the rights of God.” – Pope Leo XIII, Tametsi Futura Prospicientibus #13
FidelityAlways
With the greatest respect, your posts are riddled with a rather alarming level of confusion and wishful thinking, not to say error and apparent ignorance. Tragically such confusion and rupture from the teaching of the constant magisterium are now very widespread among sincere Catholics, due to the devastation wrought over the last five decades. The Modernist and neo Catholic disciples of the late John Courtney Murray SJ, the main architect of the Council’s document on Religious Liberty, Dignitatis Humanae, have been extremely effective in propagating the sort of thinking reflected in your posts, Fidelity Always.
You have stated that “I am sure Francis, Bishop of Rome, echoes the constant teaching of The Church that is only through Jesus that people can be saved.” ( June 10, 8.21pm) and referred to “the Supreme Pontiff and The Council of Bishops, and its conciliar Teaching which espouse Tradition and Holy Scripture consistently.” ( June 11, 6.09pm). All I can say, in charity, is that those words represent an epic triumph of wishful thinking, or ignorance, over reality.
Your reading of this blog and many other faithful, well-informed Catholic blogs must have been very sporadic up to now. As for “schism”; well there’s hardly a week goes by without that particular charge, or variant, being hurled in the direction of this blog. That particular defamation has been refuted numerous times.
Editor has already pointed out and corrected one of your most serious errors, Fidelity Always: that which contends that people have a right to exercise false religions. That amounts to nothing more than religious relativism.
“…that which does not correspond to the truth or to the norm of morality objectively has no right to exist, to be spread, or to be activated.” – Pope Pius XII, Ci riesce
What answer can those who concede the “right” to exercise a false religion give to satanists who demand to be able to worship, or carry out satanic black masses? Of course that’s an extreme example, but the question is unavoidable.
As Editor has pointed out, the Church has never taught that coercion is an acceptable means of conversion.
“And, in fact, the Church is wont to take earnest heed that no one shall be forced to embrace the Catholic faith against his will, for, as St. Augustine wisely reminds us, ‘Man cannot believe otherwise than of his own will.'” Leo XIII, Immortale Dei §36.
To conclude however that, because the State is forbidden to coerce belief, it must therefore declare itself entirely separate from the Church or treat all religions equally is not only a non sequitur, but runs contrary to the Church’s perennial teaching.
“For right is a moral power which…it is absurd to suppose nature has accorded indifferently to truth and falsehood, to justice and injustice”. – Pope Leo XIII, Libertas
Condemned proposition #78: “Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship” Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors
No doubt very Catholics who have been robbed of their inheritance by Bugnini’s fabricators will be aware that in the Leonine prayers recited at the end of the Mass of All Time, we quite rightly pray for the “liberty and exaltation of the Church”. It’s funny how the revolutionaries who no doubt would happily talk about “freedom of religion” saw fit to pluck that particular prayer. The Church prays for the liberty that is Her due, as the one true religion. Natural reason dictates that the Church’s claim is exclusive to Her, and not to be shared with false religions.
The dangers of the Conciliar understanding of so-called religious freedom to souls was prophetically called out by Cardinal Ottaviani when he stated that the granting by secular powers of freedom to Protestant sects to propagate their beliefs and practices in South America would prove a disaster for the Church in those countries. The empirical evidence justifies that prediction more and more as the years go by.
You pose the question, Fidelity Always, “Will you follow Peter, or help destroy the Church you claim to love?” (June 10, 12.55pm)
I am confident that the vast majority of regulars here are more than happy to be judged on their fidelity to Peter. Amidst all the Conciliar madness, Catholics faithful to Tradition, whether here or elsewhere, most certainly do “follow Peter”, Eternal Rome, in the Faith held “everywhere, always, and by everyone”. Amid all the calumnies and insults and injustices it is precisely that, adherence to Tradition as held by the Popes all the way back to Peter, that enables Catholics to face this formerly unimaginable crisis of apostasy in the Church. The finger wagging neo-Catholic Pollyannas on the other hand are going to face ever growing, and eventually overpowering, tests of their powers of mental gymnastics, self-delusion and excuse making, before we even get on to amnesia.
Pope Pius XI’s comprehensive encyclical Mortalium Animos has been mentioned more than once. Despite the efforts of the neo-Modernist and ecumaniac burial parties to remove it from the sight of Catholics, it remains a clear and unambiguous exposition of the universal ordinary magisterium before the Council.
The Popes have traditionally condemned in the most forceful terms the belief that the state has no right to repress public heresy and that truth and error should be accorded equal right. Pope Pius VII termed it “disastrous and ever-to-be deplored heresy” (letter to Mgr. de Boulogne); Pope Gregory XVI condemned it as “the insanity” (Mirari Vos); Pope Pius IX termed it “a monstrous error” (Qui Pluribus), “most pernicious to the Catholic Church, and to the salvation of souls” (Quanta Cura), “the liberty of perdition” (Quanta Cura), something which will “corrupt the morals and minds of the people” (Syllabus of Errors), something which propagates “the pest of indifferentism” (Syllabus);
The encyclicals Immortale Dei and Libertas Praestantissimum by Pope Leo XIII, are devoted almost entirely to the Catholic Church’s teaching on the right ordering of state and society. The authority of Immortale Dei is particularly high. While falling short of an ex cathedra definition, Leo XIII intended for it to be definitive, for he summarizes his teaching as follows: “This, then, is the teaching of the Catholic Church concerning the constitution and government of the State.” Immortale Dei §36.
In Immortale Dei, Leo XIII teaches that secular rulers are obligated, as part of their governance, to promote the one true Faith. The Pope, “insists on public acknowledgment of religion by the State as a logical deduction from acceptance of the premise that God is the Author of civil authority. Such acknowledgment has reference to the only true religion-the Catholic Faith . . . ” Sidney Z. Ehler and John B. Morrall, eds. Church and State Through the Centuries : A Collection of Historic Documents with Commentaries. (Westminster, Md. : Newman Press, 1954), 298.
The Pope states unequivocally that “it is not lawful for the State, any more than for the individual, either to disregard all religious duties or to hold in equal favour different kinds of religion.” Immortale Dei §35.
The following words of Pope Pius IX don’t leave any room for confusion when it comes to the issue of religious freedom:
“From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our predecessor, Gregory XVI, an ‘insanity’, Namely, that ‘liberty of conscience and worship is each man’s personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted Society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word or mouth, by the press, or in any other way.’ But while they rashly affirm this, they do not understand and note that they are preaching liberty of perdition…’ Therefore, by Our Apostolic Authority, we reprobate, proscribe, and condemn all the singular and evil opinions and doctrines mentioned in this letter, and will and command that they be thoroughly held by all the sons of the Catholic Church as reprobated, proscribed and condemned.” Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura (#’s 3-6), Dec. 8, 1864
The issue of so-called religious freedom is one of the most glaring examples of the Conciliar rupture with Tradition. After five decades, with Pope Benedict amongst a small band of surviving participants at the Council, there is still no hint of a magisterial reconciliation of Dignitatis Humanae with the ordinary universal magisterium as very clearly and continuously set out by the Popes before the Council.
So, Fidelity Always, it is a completely ill-founded charge for anyone to claim that Catholics faithful to Tradition yield to anyone in their loyalty to Peter, let alone to start desperately calling up the long discredited “schism” slur.
Catholics faithful to Tradition want nothing so much as a Pope who will “confirm the brethren in the faith”. In this dark eclipse, we look to the following words of guidance from one of Peter’s successors.
“It is necessary to obey a Pope in all things as long as he does not go against the universal customs of the Church, but should he go against the universal customs of the Church, he need not be followed.”
– Pope Innocent III, De Consuetudine
I will close with the words of an heroic French Dominican, the late Father Roger Calmel, who showed unyielding loyalty to Tradition and the Mass of All Time when the revolution was in full swing:
“Using virtue and the love of God, and the abolition, in the name of virtue, of the indispensable means of formation and conservation, to blackmail the faithful into bending – that’s modernism at its most basic. Modernism controls its victims in the name of obedience, thanks to the suspicion of pride which is cast on any criticism of their reforms, in the name of respect for the Pope, in the name of missionary zeal, of charity, and of unity.”
(Fr. Calmel OP, Letter of 8th August, 1973)
Leo,
Phew! Saved by Leo! I thought I would be having to roll up my sleeves, metaphorically speaking, and tackle FA’s errors again but, like the proverbial knight in shining armour, or should that be “papal encyclicals”! you have said it all and that, brilliantly. Thank you. I especially like this:
“…The finger wagging neo-Catholic Pollyannas on the other hand are going to face ever growing, and eventually overpowering, tests of their powers of mental gymnastics, self-delusion and excuse making, before we even get on to amnesia.”
Game, set and match, Leo. Game, set and definitely match!
Saved by Leo, again, and how!
I had never heard of Fr. Calmel until I read your last paragraph quoting him. It was outstanding. If that won’t halt people in their tracks long enough to think, I don’t know what else could. Thank you, Leo. I guess you can only take the horse to the water, you can’t make him drink.
Leo
You selectively quote documents, whose application has to be judged by the Magisterium , which I assume doesn’t include you, and applied to each new age, whilst being faithful to unchanging truth.
You cannot dismiss Papal and Conciliar Teaching as if it never took place. Pope Benedict has said the Second Vatican Council is central to the work and mission of The Church, and the renewed liturgy is part of the unchanging Tradition of the Church.
In Canon Law, people publishing stuff on Faith and Morals need the approval of their Bishop, and be granted a Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur. This blog, and your writings lack both.
Pope Benedict said those who reject The Ordinary Form of the Holy Mass should be denied The E.F, and Francis, Bishop of Rome, has said the E.F. was a pastoral response to misguided dissidents.
As always, Follow Peter, and listen to the authentic voice of Christ and not you own wish list, and misguided yearnings.
FA,
We cannot help you. As Therese says, you have your fingers stuck in your ears. You just cannot grasp the link between Faith and Reason. You also fail to understand that there is a crisis in the Church, and the nature of that crisis. Cardinal Ciappi, preacher to five pontiffs up to John Paul II, said that the Third Secret of Fatima reveals that “the crisis in the Church begins at the top” – you, I can see, would beg to correct Our Lady on that point. Crazy.
You accuse Leo of “selectively quoting documents” when the quotes he selects stand on their own. And if you took the time to read through the encyclicals he quotes from earlier popes, you would see that he is not quoting anything out of context – far from it. Those popes knew the Faith and their own duty to speak out to quell dissent.
You, on the other hand think that all a Catholic has to do is defend every action of a pope. YOU have misinterpreted Pope Benedict, notably on the subject of ~Summorum Pontificum in which he states expressly that the old rite Mass was never forbidden. That makes liars out of most of the bishops, who told people that it had been abolished. I have a copy of a letter stating that explicitly to one of our readers, from Cardinal Winning of Glasgow RIP.
So, as I said at the outset – we cannot help you. Nothing that this pope does will bother you at all because you – frankly – haven’t a clue about the extent AND LIMITS of papal authority.
Feel free to continue to read this blog but I fail to see how commenting here and provoking the same responses each time, can really help you. You are happy with Papa Francis. We are not. We do “follow Peter” when he repeats Traditional Catholic Teaching. It’s Papa Francis who fails to “follow Peter” in his scandalous words and actions. So you want to defend his every action, we refuse to leave our brains at the login menu. Our opinion of him will not change unless he changes, so there’s no point in going round in circles. As I say, you are welcome to read this blog but I see no point in submitting comments and eliciting the same (unacceptable to you) replies.
God bless
Pope Benedict was unhistorical in his claims on the Old Rite, but was able to do as he did as he has Universal Authority.
If the Old Rite was not abrogated then it is difficult to explain why specific permissions had to be given until he wrote history. His judgement was not theological, and was historical, and legislative, and there it was a personal act not covered by any notion of infallibility. The current Bishop of Rome has said what Benedict did was, in effect, a misguided pastoral response to dissidents. Pope Benedict said The Ordinary Form, as he calls it, was the norm for the Church, and part of unbroken Tradition, and if anyone denied that they should be denied the E.F..
Papal Documents have to be read in their historical context, and judged in the light of the understanding, circumstances, and issues at the time. For a Pope to define dogma is one thing,but to write off an evolving ecumenical movement is another. ARCIC for example has made great progress, but even that progress has to be judged in the light of Dominum Jesus in 2000.
I ask again where is the Nihil Obstat, and Imprimatur, and the document giving you permission to present yourself as an authoritative source of Catholic Teaching?
In note too you are banning me!
FA,
I am not banning you. I just explained that I cannot help you. You are not a good student. You ignore the facts and stick to your own misguided opinion. When it suits, you criticise a pope – Benedict – but Pope Francis who is an outright Modernist, and whom history will judge as possible the worst ever pope, can do no wrong. You do not know the Catholic Faith. You really don’t. You think popes cannot make mistakes (except Benedict!) Read away and comment if you wish but I, for one, do not have sufficient time to devote to correcting your errors.
God bless.
I am not criticising Pope Benedict, I am saying he is not an historian, and he made two non binding errors of judgement: The E.F., and The Ordinariate. His understanding of the history with regards abrogation was wrong, and The Ordinariate must be anathema if your understanding of what Pius Xl wrote about other religions. Pope Benedict treats the C.E. as equals, and co-religionists in a way Pius said is wrong. In every other respect history will, surely, judge Benedict as one of our greatest leaders.
The ARCIC Process, The Inter-faith movement, The worldwide ecumenical movement, and the fact The Church is engaged at every level, and the fact The Holy See writes letters to other religious leaders affirming letters for every one of their religious seasons, or major festivals, says I am in step with The Church which cannot err.
I didn’t come here to be taught by you, as they would be a major error bordering on heresy, but to observe and engage in fraternal dialogue. You have nothing to teach, and are damaging The Church you claim to love.
What Bishop mandates your blog?
Comment removed.
In the last post which you removed I did not mention Fr.Leonard Feeney, the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus or the SSPX .There was no reference to the baptism of desire.
Here it is again.Please review it.
Magisterium: it all depends on how you look at it!
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/magisterium-it-all-depends-on-how-you.html#links
Editor: the removed comment was off topic and listed the SSPX amongst others who had misinterpreted Vatican II. Stick to the topic, Lionel.
Fidelity Always
Pope Benedict was unhistorical in his claims on the Old Rite, but was able to do as he did as he has Universal Authority.
Lionel:
Unhistorical ? The Catholic Church is ‘historical’.Jesus came some 2000 years back.
Fidelity Always
If the Old Rite was not abrogated then it is difficult to explain why specific permissions had to be given until he wrote history.
Lionel:
The popes used their privilege to change the liturgy. It is as if it is all was relative for them. Perhaps someone in future will come and say there will be no Extraordinary Form or the Novus Ordo Mass. ‘This is the new version!’ Every one will have to follow it.
Fidelity Always
His judgement was not theological, and was historical, and legislative, and there it was a personal act not covered by any notion of infallibility. The current Bishop of Rome has said what Benedict did was, in effect, a misguided pastoral response to dissidents.
Lionel:
All those bishops and cardinals who offered the EF are dissidents for you.
Also the saints of the past.And the popes!
Fidelity Always
Pope Benedict said The Ordinary Form, as he calls it, was the norm for the Church, and part of unbroken Tradition, and if anyone denied that they should be denied the E.F..
Lionel:
It is the norm for the Church now, as in heresy in others of the Church.However it was not the norm for the Church in the past.
Fidelity Always
Papal Documents have to be read in their historical context, and judged in the light of the understanding, circumstances, and issues at the time. For a Pope to define dogma is one thing,but to write off an evolving ecumenical movement is another. ARCIC for example has made great progress, but even that progress has to be judged in the light of Dominum Jesus in 2000.
Fidelity Always
I ask again where is the Nihil Obstat, and Imprimatur, and the document giving you permission to present yourself as an authoritative source of Catholic Teaching?
Lionel:
The same thing could be asked of you ? Where is your Nihil Obstat.We all just have to get along without one.
It is not difficult to see why a minority wanted The Old rite, and Pope Benedict responded generously as a pastor, and re-wrote history. The problem is when those same people bite the hand that fed them, and continue to cause dissent, and deny that The Ordinary Form, so called ,is The Universal Norm, and part of the unbroken Tradition of the Church, and if they do not accept that, Benedict says that should be denied The so called “E.F.”.
I am writing as a private individual and not publishing a blog claiming to be a “Catholic” source without ecclesial authority. I am not also claiming to know better than The Universal Church, and it lawful authoritative Magisterium.
Fidelity,
Do you mind telling us what age you are? I find your understanding of the Church and papacy amazing. I suspect you are a very young person which is why I ask. I hope you don’t mind me asking and I hope you feel you can tell me.
I am a lifelong Catholic of a significant age, and knowledgeable about such matters; if you think my understanding of The Papacy is lacking it is because you want a Church and Papacy in your own image, and not the one founded by Christ, and fulfilling its role under the able leadership of Francis, Bishop of Rome.
I don’t know what you mean by “a significant age”. Do you mind if I ask if you grew up with the old rite Mass? I ask because you seem to think nothing of using the words “ordinary” and extraordinary” form and I wonder if you know about Pope Pius V papal Bull about the Mass? Here’s a link and as you see he forbids creating a new Mass for all time.
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius05/p5quopri.htm
I use the terms because they are the ones favoured by Pope Benedict, your benefactor that you continue to slap in the face! As Pope Benedict says there isn’t a new Mass. There is one Mass. Full stop.
Fidelity,
I note you don’t give your age so I presume you did not grow up with the old rite Mass.
I think you might be surprised to know how concerned Cardinal Ratzinger was about the new Mass and I think it was one of the reasons why he brought in Summorum Pontificum. The Institute of Christ the King website has a good page of quotes from him on the new Mass. I copied some for you but there’s more if you click on the link at the end.
Cardinal Ratzinger on the Latin Mass
Various excerpts on the sacred liturgy from Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger before becoming Pope Benedict XVI.
Spirit of the Liturgy (Ratzinger, 2000)
“For fostering a true consciousness in liturgical matters, it is also important that the proscription against the form of liturgy in valid use up to 1970 should be lifted. Anyone who nowadays advocates the continuing existence of this liturgy or takes part in it is treated like a leper; all tolerance ends here. There has never been anything like this in history; in doing this we are despising and proscribing the Church’s whole past. How can one trust her at present if things are that way?”
Salt of the Earth (Ratzinger, 1997)
“I am of the opinion, to be sure, that the old rite should be granted much more generously to all those who desire it. It’s impossible to see what could be dangerous or unacceptable about that. A community is calling its very being into question when it suddenly declares that what until now was its holiest and highest possession is strictly forbidden and when it makes the longing for it seem downright indecent.”
Reform of the Roman Liturgy (Gamber, 1992)
From the preface to the 1992 French translation of Reform of the Roman Liturgy by Monsignor Klaus Gamber.
“[W]e have a liturgy which has degenerated so that it has become a show which, with momentary success for the group of liturgical fabricators, strives to render religion interesting in the wake of the frivolities of fashion and seductive moral maxims. Consequently, the trend is the increasingly marked retreat of those who do not look to the liturgy for a spiritual show-master but for the encounter with the living God in whose presence all the ‘doing’ becomes insignificant since only this encounter is able to guarantee us access to the true richness of being.”
http://www.institute-christ-king.org/latin-mass-resources/ratzinger-latin-mass/
I am familiar with the texts as I have read the books. They are, as you say, quotes, and as Benedict described the Rite you denigrate as The Ordinary Form of the Mass, and as The Pope he never publicly celebrated The E.F., one can conclude his quotes are taken out of context.
Article 1 of Summorum Pontificum : ” The Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the lex orandi (rule of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. The Roman Missal promulgated by Saint Pius V and revised by Blessed John XXIII is nonetheless to be considered an extraordinary expression of the same lex orandi of the Church and duly honoured for its venerable and ancient usage. These two expressions of the Church’s lex orandi will in no way lead to a division in the Church’s lex credendi (rule of faith); for they are two usages of the one Roman rite.”
Pope Benedict said those who deny the validity, and efficacy , of The Ordinary Form, and that is is part of the one unbroken Tradition, should be denied The E.F..
He also said no group of Priests committed to the E.F. should totally exclude The ordinary Form.
Pope Benedict ever publicly celebrated The E.F. – even after he himself promulgated. That says as much as needs to be said.
Pope Benedict did nothing more than was his duty, a duty to return what should never have been taken away.
And yes, you are right, there is only one Catholic Mass, the one that has come down through the ages, the one martyrs died for, the one that was not officially ‘written’ by an odd mix of Catholics and non Catholics who wanted to remodel the Church and the Papacy according to their wishes. Doesn’t it bother you, Fidelity, that Protestants who disagree with the idea of the Mass as sacrifice, helped write the new Mass?
I am pretty sure that anyone that helped produce The Ordinary Form believed what we believe. Those same people, or types of people, were given The Ordinariate. Pope Benedict re-wrote history for a pastoral purpose and those who should approve his strange undertaking fail to accept his teaching. How odd!
Do you honestly believe ANY protestant would think of the Mass as a sacrifice? Do you by any chance know what Luther that deeply religious man said of the Mass?
And why should anyone have had to “produce” the Ordinary Form? What was the need? And to answer with “just because a pope wanted to do it” is not an answer.
The Church, in Council, in Communion with the Successor of St Peter, decreed the Liturgy should be reformed. Shock, horror, The Church working as Jesus intended!
The decrees were issued, and the work of reform began. Each Occupant of The See of Rome since then has only celebrated the one Rite. Even Pope Benedict who rewrote history, legislated for the reintroduction of an abrogated Rite never celebrated the Old Rite publicly. That is a statement in itself: This Rite is the perfect representation of Calvary.
Anglo /High Anglicans and various other denominations do believe it is a Sacrifice as much as we do. Alas they had no priests. Pope Benedict helpfully elevated their status and if they enter into Full Communion through The Ordinariate they are ordained as Catholic Priests within weeks of joining, (There was even one in a Civil partnership.)
Rumour has it one of The Ordinariate Nuns was once Ordained too.
But, of course, Pope Benedict wasn’t like Francis is now. People say he is just so unorthodox, and unprincipled. The old days were best!
Jobstears,
Don’t waste your intelligence and energy on FA. He/she is somewhere over the rainbow, as the song goes, in terms of understanding Catholicism. Unfortunately, there’s no reply button at her post of 6.08 pm today or I’d be asking him/her to quote from the document(s) which mandated the new Mass. Details, please, FA. Where does it say the Mass must be in the vernacular? Priest facing the people? Altar rails removed? People standing to receive Communion in the hand.
Let me save you the bother of checking up. NOWHERE – not a sentence in any document mandates (or even suggests the possibility) of the above.
Jobstears, when you feel the slightest inclination to reply to any of FA’s nonsense, do what All Americans do when faced with baloney; looked shocked 😯 and say “WOW! Then “go make some cookies”!
See, I can speak American, too!
PS I sincerely hope FA is not Scots. I mean, we’re reputed to have the best education system in the world, according to the SNP and local folklore… But anyone graduating from a Scottish institution of education with FA’s level of confusion into chaos, scuppers that claim outright! 😀
Fidelity Always
The Roman Forum Summer Conference this month will use the right hand side column in the interpretation of Vatican Council II.Just like Pope Francis and the secular media, they will interpret Vatican Council II with the irrational column.
The Roman Forum Conference beginning on June 30,2014 will review Vatican Council II using the irrational right hand side column and then they will reject Vatican Council II.
If they used the left hand side column in the interpretation of Vatican Council II the interpretation would be rational and the Council would not be a break with the past.
The interpretation with the left or right hand side column decides if there is a hermeneutic of continuity or rupture. This is the missing link which makes Vatican Council II traditional or heretical.
We have finally found ‘ the missing link ‘!.
LEFT HAND SIDE COLUMN or RIGHT HAND SIDE COLUMN
All salvation referred to in Vatican Council II i.e saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16), imperfect communion with the Church (UR 3),seeds of the Word (AG 11), good and holy things in other religions (NA 2) etc are either:
implicit or explicit for us.
hypothetical or known in reality.
invisible or visible in the flesh.
dejure ( in principle) or defacto ( in fact ).
subjective or objective
So one can choose from the left hand side or the right hand side column.
If the right hand side column is chosen then Vatican Council II contradicts itself. Lumen Gentium 16 ( being saved in invincible ignorance) contradicts Ad Gentes 7 ( all need faith and baptism) and Lumen Gentium 14.
If the left hand side column is chosen then Vatican Council II does not contradict itself.LG 16 is not in conflict with AG 7.
Most people, incuding you and the Editor, interpret Vatican Council II with the right hand side values.
Editor: if anyone understands what Lionel means above, please explain it to me in very simple English below. Or even Scots below. I’m not fussy. Just confused.
I think it means Feeneyites could interpret Vatican II in the light of not being able to see the dead but no one else will admit this truth.
When the Catechism of the Catholic Church 846 indicates that those who are saved in another religion are saved through Jesus and the Church , do we know of any such case?
Are these cases invisible or visible for you?
Editor: have you any idea how ridiculous this question is? You are making yourself look completely idiotic, Lionel. Take my friendly advice and change the record.
When the Catechism of the Catholic Church 846 indicates that those who are saved in another religion are saved through Jesus and the Church , do we know of any such case?
Are these cases invisible or visible for you?
Editor: have you any idea how ridiculous this question is? You are making yourself look completely idiotic, Lionel. Take my friendly advice and change the record.
Lionel:
Vatican Council II says all need faith and baptism for salvation. This means all Jews, Muslims etc in 2014 are oriented to Hell.
Then someone comes up and says , “No this is wrong.We know that a person can be saved in X,Y and Z manner and so all who are saved in XY and Z manner are saved through Jesus and the Church”
And I would say “Yes all who are saved in X,Y and Z manner are saved through Jesus and the Church and those who are saved in X,Y and Z manner, and if you are implying without the baptism of water, are VISIBLE to you and me in 2014, then they would be exceptions to AG 7, the Catechism of Pope Più X etc.” They are visible exceptions of someone saved without the baptism of water,someone saved outside the Church.
On the other hand if they are INVISIBLE, if they do not exist in 2014 they are irrelevant to the traditional teaching on salvation.
When you say there are EXCEPTIONS it is YOU who are implying that they are VISIBLE.
Editor: There are no “exceptions” – I’m sick of saying that. The word you keep omitting from your nonsensical non-theology is IF… Nobody’s saying this, that and the other non-Christian is saved. The Church teaches IF… they are saved they are NOT saved in their false religion but through Christ. That means they are saved through Christ’s Church, not “by exception” – Can you honestly not see that? Please don’t answer. I’m deleting all other posts on this – there are several in the queue and I just do not have the time or energy to read them all. This is the only one getting through. Please stop posting this rubbish.
Editor:There are no “exceptions” – I’m sick of saying that.
Lionel: No exceptions ? Are you finally saying that the bapism of desire is not an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?
Editor: I have tried hard to explain to you that if someone is saved through Christ’s Church, then it cannot possibly be described as an exception, since they are, by desire, inside Christ’s Church although due to circumstances beyond their control, unable to have sacramental baptism. You are denying this teaching of the Church on baptism of desire, so I think you ought to give up now. I keep saying I’m not going to post any more of your comments. That now takes absolute effect from now, so don’t post again on this topic. Unless I post a thread on baptism of desire, I do not want you to write again about this. There are no plans pending to discuss baptism of desire.
Fidelity,
Are you an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion, by any chance?
Not sure of its relevance, and there is no reason for me to answer person questions.
That, of course, say there is no need for me to answer personal questions. However, questions about a Nihil Obstat, Imprimatur, and permission from the Ordinary about the right to present a publication as Catholic are entirely proper. Canon Law, and Papal Teaching are clear. How could a Traditional Catholic choose to ignore Church Teaching, and Discipline?
FA
What is your understanding of Modernism as condemned by Pope Pius X?
That some of what he defined as Modernism either remains wrong, and on other things the later Magisterium concluded he had got the emphasis wrong, and the changes were to be welcomed,
Modernism is to infer that there are visible exceptions to the traditional teaching on exclusive salvation in the Church.
It is to interpret the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 as saying there are known exceptions to the ‘old’ ecclesiology on salvation.
It is to assume that in this year we can physically see cases of non Catholics saved with ‘ a ray of the Truth’.(NA 2)
Modernism is to imply that in Mystici Corpris Pope Pius XII was telling us that there are some cases in Heaven, of persons, who are visible to us on earth and these cases are exceptions to the ‘the infallible teaching’, the ‘dogma'(Letter of the Holy Office 1949).For them to be exceptions they would have to be visible to us in the flesh.
This is present day modernism.
Editor: Your definition of Modernism is incorrect. Modernism is the synthesis of all heresies. Your erroneous view of salvation (which is getting really tedious in the extreme), that souls are denied heaven unless they are sacramentally baptised into the Catholic Church is false. A man who desires to please God, above all else, but who, through no fault of his own for whatever reason, was unable to be sacramentally baptised, you believe will go to Hell – unless I’m misunderstanding you. That is not what the Church has always taught.
Well then please explain why several books granted Nihil Obstat, Imprimatur, were found full of heresy and errors and ultimately removed from use – e.g. HIV AIDS – a Christian Response in use in Edinburgh schools even after the Vatican instructed that it be removed and other school textbooks, which, to this day, are in use in Catholic schools? You are so far gone and so out of touch with reality, FA, that you just do not get it. The Church is full of Modernist priests who approve heretical texts all the time. Pope Francis himself has recently written to thank Hans Kung, the well known heretic, for his latest book! Kung doesn’t believe in papal infallibility, so really you ought not to like him one bit but then Kung has come round to loving Papa Francis to bits, so maybe you will think again.
Gerragrip.
Just as you fail to assimilate information a Censor can get it wrong.
You cannot say I can ignore Church Law myself because it is imperfectly applied? Can You?
How very modernist of you.
That’s not a personal question. EMHC are on show in public – nothing “personal” about it.
Anyway, you’ve answered Josephine’s perceptive question and confirmed what we have observed many times on this blog. Handling the Blessed Sacrament de-sensitises a Catholic and further protestantizes them. What the new Mass begun, handling the Sacred Species finishes.
No. I wasn’t asked about Holy Communion Hand, and I didn’t comment on it.
I declined biographical details.
No wonder you come to the wrong conclusions if that is how you assimilate answers.
Fidelity Always,
EMHC take and give Communion in the hand so you were asked about it. I’d never think of that information as “biographical details”!
Because you didn’t ask me what I thought about it. You asked if I was one.
Fidelity Always,
I’m wondering if you won’t answer the question on being an EMHC because either you ARE one or – worse – you’re a priest.
Frankly, my own experience of EMHC is that they are about the most prideful species on the face of the earth. Ask any priest who has tried to dispense with their services. All Hell breaks loose.
I am not answering your question because details of my own life are not relevant on a blog such as this.
Nonsense. Communion in the hand … “details of my own life” Are you for real?
With respect I was asked if I was if I was a Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion.
With regards Holy Communion in the hand I would refer you to what The Church says.
Please explain why you contravene Canon Law by calling your endeavours “Catholic Truth” when Canon Law is specific that The Local Ordinary has to mandate such use. Michael Voris learnt that to his cost, and has complied with the lawful Church authority, will you?
The Rev Joseph Fessio states Sacrosanctum Concilium in “paragraphs 50 to 58 contain nine specific changes the Council had in mind for the renewal of the liturgy. But before we consider them, we must recall that when the Council made these proposals, it didn’t dream them up overnight. Although this was the first document issued at the Council, it was not issued without long preparation. The modern liturgical movement began in the middle of the 19th century. It was given great impetus by Pius X himself, in the beginning of the 20th century, and by years of study, prayer, and liturgical congresses during the first half of the century. In fact, after Mediator Dei in 1947, there were seven international liturgical conferences, attended by liturgical experts, by pastors and by Roman officials. If you read the minutes of those meetings and the concrete proposals they made, you will see that what the Council outlines here is the fruit of those meetings. This is really the distillation of the prayer and reflection that was the culmination of the liturgical movement, which had existed for over a century prior to the Council”
Fidelity Always,
I looked up Sacrosanctum Concilium and copied paragraphs 50-58. None of the changes listed by editor are there. Also, as you can see, some of the things we see all the time like Communion under both kinds at every Mass, are forbidden in these very paragraphs:
50. The rite of the Mass is to be revised in such a way that the intrinsic nature and purpose of its several parts, as also the connection between them, may be more clearly manifested, and that devout and active participation by the faithful may be more easily achieved.
For this purpose the rites are to be simplified, due care being taken to preserve their substance; elements which, with the passage of time, came to be duplicated, or were added with but little advantage, are now to be discarded; other elements which have suffered injury through accidents of history are now to be restored to the vigor which they had in the days of the holy Fathers, as may seem useful or necessary.
51. The treasures of the bible are to be opened up more lavishly, so that richer fare may be provided for the faithful at the table of God’s word. In this way a more representative portion of the holy scriptures will be read to the people in the course of a prescribed number of years.
52. By means of the homily the mysteries of the faith and the guiding principles of the Christian life are expounded from the sacred text, during the course of the liturgical year; the homily, therefore, is to be highly esteemed as part of the liturgy itself; in fact, at those Masses which are celebrated with the assistance of the people on Sundays and feasts of obligation, it should not be omitted except for a serious reason.
53. Especially on Sundays and feasts of obligation there is to be restored, after the Gospel and the homily, “the common prayer” or “the prayer of the faithful.” By this prayer, in which the people are to take part, intercession will be made for holy Church, for the civil authorities, for those oppressed by various needs, for all mankind, and for the salvation of the entire world [39].
54. In Masses which are celebrated with the people, a suitable place may be allotted to their mother tongue. This is to apply in the first place to the readings and “the common prayer,” but also, as local conditions may warrant, to those parts which pertain to the people, according to the norm laid down in Art. 36 of this Constitution.
Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.
And wherever a more extended use of the mother tongue within the Mass appears desirable, the regulation laid down in Art. 40 of this Constitution is to be observed.
55. That more perfect form of participation in the Mass whereby the faithful, after the priest’s communion, receive the Lord’s body from the same sacrifice, is strongly commended.
The dogmatic principles which were laid down by the Council of Trent remaining intact [40], communion under both kinds may be granted when the bishops think fit, not only to clerics and religious, but also to the laity, in cases to be determined by the Apostolic See, as, for instance, to the newly ordained in the Mass of their sacred ordination, to the newly professed in the Mass of their religious profession, and to the newly baptized in the Mass which follows their baptism.
56. The two parts which, in a certain sense, go to make up the Mass, namely, the liturgy of the word and the eucharistic liturgy, are so closely connected with each other that they form but one single act of worship. Accordingly this sacred Synod strongly urges pastors of souls that, when instructing the faithful, they insistently teach them to take their part in the entire Mass, especially on Sundays and feasts of obligation.
57. 1. Concelebration, whereby the unity of the priesthood is appropriately manifested, has remained in use to this day in the Church both in the east and in the west. For this reason it has seemed good to the Council to extend permission for concelebration to the following cases:
1.
a) on the Thursday of the Lord’s Supper, not only at the Mass of the Chrism, but also at the evening Mass.
b) at Masses during councils, bishops’ conferences, and synods;
c) at the Mass for the blessing of an abbot.
2. Also, with permission of the ordinary, to whom it belongs to decide whether concelebration is opportune:
a) at conventual Mass, and at the principle Mass in churches when the needs of the faithful do not require that all priests available should celebrate individually;
b) at Masses celebrated at any kind of priests’ meetings, whether the priests be secular clergy or religious.
2.
1. The regulation, however, of the discipline of con-celebration in the diocese pertains to the bishop.
2. Nevertheless, each priest shall always retain his right to celebrate Mass individually, though not at the same time in the same church as a concelebrated Mass, nor on Thursday of the Lord’s Supper.
58. A new rite for concelebration is to be drawn up and inserted into the Pontifical and into the Roman Missal.
H.C. under both kinds is broadened, not forbidden, in 55.
The article says the Council built on work long before begun.
This is only one Document.
The Ordinariate is a complete contradiction of what Pius Xl said, and much more, but it was the action of a Pope who rewrote history to give you the E.F.. If you are going to take everything literally, when you read a document, rather than attentive to The Magisterium, that has to draw on the things old and new, you should refuse to attend celebrations of the E.F. because clearly Pope Benedict is a strident Modernist.
FA,
“This is only one document”
Er… it’s the document YOU chose to support your theory about the changes in the Church being mandated by the Council. They’re not.
The Ordinariate IS a complete scandal. We’ve said so from the start. If Anglicans wish to be within the Catholic Church then they convert like everyone else, they don’t bring their false religion with them. At least we agree on that. Brilliant.
Yes, Pope Benedict is a Modernist. All of the recent popes have been Modernists to one degree or another. Francis is an “outright Modernist” as Bishop Fellay rightly said.
But your key problem is that you haven’t a clue about how to test what is true and what is false. You’ve ignored all the help we’ve given you and frankly, I question your good faith. I am torn between thinking you are “having a laugh” at our expense since I find it hard to believe that anyone could be so … finished the sentence, I’m too polite…
Then I wonder if you really ARE so ignorant, perhaps because you are too young to have been taught the Faith (or so old you’ve forgotten what you were taught, or were inadequately taught) but then I remember other young Catholics, like Petrus and Stephen among others, and older bloggers, all of whom took a mature and educated approach to the crisis in the Church and, wanting to know the truth, asked questions, read up on the matter and came to the same conclusion that informed Catholics must reach, that we have had a succession of bad popes – that Our Lady warned that the Church would take a “diabolical disorientation” and that “the crisis in the Church would begin at the top” – and thus, we quickly realised, must be on our guard and make sure we know what the Church teaches, not any individual modernist pontiff. That’s the truth of the matter and we are only alerting Catholics to that truth. No use attacking us – we’re only the messenger.
Indeed, shooting the messenger is just plain stupid. Check out the new thread to see that Bishop Schneider agrees with us. Wouldn’t be fair to shoot HIM just because he’s repeating a very unpleasant message about the state of the Church.
I would say the Universal Church is faithful to Holy Scripture and Tradition.
It is unfortunate you have set up a Cult in which, unknown to the Catholic Church, you a lay woman have been elected by your followers to Occupy the See of Rome.
Editor, in reply to your post of 8:06 pm, I’m making cookies!!!!! 😀
Jobstears,
Put the coffee pot on – I’ll be offer to share those cookies 😀
These are all the same arguments and ideas like the blogger Waynek…
It is shocking that young people are being taught that parts or most of modernism are okay. I was very surprised when a Cardinal was quoted referring to himself as a modernist.
Fidelity Always
With respect, and in charity, I can only say that you continue to present us with very serious error and confusion. Having clearly demonstrated that your understanding of papal infallibility and the Ordinary Universal Magisterium are way off beam, you have treated us to your views on the Mass, which include the false claim that the Mass of Tradition was “abrogated”.
“Even Pope Benedict who rewrote history, legislated for the reintroduction of an abrogated Rite…” – June 13, 6.08 pm
Regulars will be familiar with the following, but I think it is worthy of constant repetition:
“Pope John Paul asked a commission of nine cardinals in 1986 two questions. Firstly, did Pope Paul VI or any other competent authority legally forbid the widespread celebration of the Tridentine Mass in the present day? No. He asked Benelli explicitly, ‘Did Paul VI forbid the old Mass?’ He never answered –never yes, never no. Why? He couldn’t say, ‘Yes, he forbade it.’ He couldn’t forbid a Mass which was from the beginning valid and was the Mass of thousands of saints and faithful. The difficulty for him was that he couldn’t forbid it, but at the same time he wanted the new Mass to be accepted. And so he could only say, ‘I want that the new Mass should be said.’ This was the answer all the princes gave to the question asked. They said that the Holy Father wished that all follow the new Mass.
“The answer given by eight cardinals in 1986 was that, no, the Mass of St. Pius V has never been suppressed. I can say this: I was one of the cardinals. Only one was against…
“There was another question, very interesting. ‘Can any bishop forbid any priest in good standing from celebrating a Tridentine Mass again?’ The nine cardinals unanimously agreed that no bishop may forbid a Catholic priest from saying the Tridentine Mass. We have no official prohibition and I think the Pope would never establish an official prohibition.”
– Cardinal Alfons Stickler in The Latin Mass, Summer 1995, p.14.
Mgr Perl disputed the account, and logically Pope Benedict, a stickler for details, does not refer to the so called Commission, when rewriting history, which would be an obvious thing for him to do when writing his novel polemic on the history of the abrogation.
He does, however, in his documents list every Indult lifting the Universal abrogation for specific needs, and says I am going to make those provisions universal again.
If I have missed Pope Benedict referencing that Commission, as Cardinal Ratzinger, or as the Pope, please provide the full details of that referencing. He does not, for example, mention it is The Spirit of The Liturgy, Or Summorum Pontificum.
Fidelity Always
You really do need to withdraw these totally unsustainable comments:
“…the renewed liturgy is part of the unchanging Tradition of the Church.”- June 13, 8.57am
“As Pope Benedict says there isn’t a new Mass. There is one Mass. Full stop.” – June 13, 1.01pm
“…The Ordinary Form, and that is part of the one unbroken Tradition.”- June 13, 3.55pm
“I am pretty sure that anyone that helped produce The Ordinary Form believed what we believe.”- June 13, 3.17pm
We’ve had the New Theology, New Pentecost, New Advent, New Springtime, New Canon Law, New Catechism, New Sacraments, and New Evangelisation. Does anyone seriously believe the New Mass is a coincidence?
And New Mass is certainly what we are talking about. Don’t take my word for it. At the risk of boring people with lengthy quotes, that some may have read before, the following selection of words should make the point. I would say that reading one or two at random is sufficient to understand that talk of continuity and organic development is unsustainable.
On November 26 1969, Pope Paul VI uttered some of the strangest words ever spoken by a reigning Pope, arguably on a par at least with the same Pontiff’s “smoke of satan” remarks:
“We ask you to turn your minds once more to the liturgical innovation of the new Rite of Mass…a change in a venerable tradition that has gone on for centuries. This is something that affects our hereditary religious patrimony, which seemed to enjoy the privilege of being untouchable and settled…It is the kind of upset caused by every novelty that breaks in on our habits…This novelty is no small thing…We have reason indeed for regret, reason almost for bewilderment.”
Here’s the evidence of some of the fabricators themselves:
“We must strip four our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren, that is, for the Protestants.” – Annibale Bugnini, L’Osservatore Romano, March 19, 1965
“The liturgical reform is a major conquest of the Catholic Church and has its ecumenical dimension, since the other churches and Christian denominations see in it not only something to be admired, but equally a sign of further progress to come.” Bugnini, Notitiaem no 92, April 1974, p. 126
“It is not simply a question of restoring a valuable masterpiece, in some cases it will be necessary to provide new structures for entire rites…it will truly be a new creation.” – Annibale Bugnini, May 7 1967, La Documentation Catholique, no. 1493
“Let them compare it with the Mass we now have. Not only the words, the melodies and some of the gestures are different. To tell the truth, it is a different liturgy of the Mass. This needs to be said without ambiguity: the Roman Rite as we know it no longer exists. It has been destroyed. Some walls of the former edifice have changed their appearance, to the extent that it appears today either as a ruin or the partial substructure of a different building.” – Joseph Gelineau SJ, Demain La Liturgie, Paris, 1976, pp 9-10
“An ecumenically-oriented sacramental theology for the celebration of the Mass emerged…it leads us…out of the dead end of the post-Tridentine theories of sacrifice, and corresponds to the agreements signalled by many of last’s year’s interfaith documents.” Fr. Lengeling, Consilium member
Evidence of the intended doctrinal changes comes from an irrefutable witness- Bugnini’s assistant, Father Carlo Braga:
“Revising the pre-existing text becomes more delicate when faced with a need to update content or language, and when all this affects not only form, but also doctrinal reality. This (revision) is called for in light of the new view of human values, considered in relation to and as a way to supernatural goods…In other cases, ecumenical requirements dictated appropriate revisions in language. Expressions recalling positions or struggles of the past are no longer in harmony with the Church’s new positions. An entirely new foundation of Eucharistic theology has superseded devotional points of view or a particular way of venerating and invoking the Saints. Retouching the text, moreover, was deemed necessary to bring to light new values and new perspectives.”
I counted the word “new” five times in that paragraph.
Consilium actually considered abolishing Ash Wednesday but reluctantly retained it because “it would be difficult to take it away without encountering other inconveniences.”- Fr. Braga, Ephemerides Liturgicae 83 (1969).
Fr. Braga admitted that the Novus Ordo had been given “an entirely new foundation of eucharistic theology” resulting from a revision affecting “not only form, but also doctrinal reality”, dictated by “ecumenical requirements…in harmony with the Church’s new positions.” – Fr. Carlo Braga, Il ‘Proprium de Sanctis’, Ephemerides Liturgicae 84 (1970), 419
If anyone is inclined to dismiss the importance of the changes to the orations in the Mass and their effect, they need to read the words of Monsignor A.G. Martimort, another of Consilium’s experts:
“The content of these prayers is the most important of the liturgical loci theologici ( theological sources). The reason is that they interpret the shared faith of the assembly.” (- The Church at Prayer, vol. 1)
Compare the words of Father Braga when he said that the New Missal will indeed “have a transforming effect on catechesis” (Il Nuovo Messale Romano, Ephemerides Liturgicae 84 (1970) with those of Pope Pius XII who wrote in his encyclical, Mediator Dei, that the entire liturgy “bears public witness to the faith of the Church.”
I think anyone who claims that those “dissident” Catholics who want the Mass of All Time, the Mass which sanctified and sustained so many Saints and Martyrs, are motivated by aesthetics (“bells and smells”) or nostalgia, really, with respect, needs to get a whole lot better informed.
Then they might understand why the “banal fabrication” of Bugnini must be returned to the workshop for permanent mothballing.
Bugnini, may have had his views on The Liturgy, as does Cardinal Kasper on Marriage, but each had to work with The Universal Church, and the checks and balances that would come from working within a body overseen by The Magisterium. Cardinal Ratzinger proposed liturgical changes in “The Spirit of The Liturgy” which never became a reality. However, he has a right, as did Bungnini and Kasper to express opinions. Instead of looking at opinions lets reflect on actual teaching from a Pope:
Pope Benedict, Summorum Pontificum
He says The Vatican Council Mandated Change:
“In more recent times, Vatican Council II expressed a desire that the respectful reverence due to divine worship should be renewed and adapted to the needs of our time. Moved by this desire our predecessor, the Supreme Pontiff Paul VI, approved, in 1970, reformed and partly renewed liturgical books for the Latin Church. These, translated into the various languages of the world, were willingly accepted by bishops, priests and faithful. John Paul II amended the third typical edition of the Roman Missal. Thus Roman pontiffs have operated to ensure that ‘this kind of liturgical edifice … should again appear resplendent for its dignity and harmony.’ “
And
“Art 1. The Roman Missal promulgated by Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the ‘Lex orandi’ (Law of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. Nonetheless, the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and reissued by Bl. John XXIII is to be considered as an extraordinary expression of that same ‘Lex orandi,’ and must be given due honour for its venerable and ancient usage. These two expressions of the Church’s Lex orandi will in no any way lead to a division in the Church’s ‘Lex credendi’ (Law of belief). They are, in fact two usages of the one Roman rite”
Pope Benedict in the accompanying letter:
“….it must first be said that the Missal published by Paul VI and then republished in two subsequent editions by John Paul II, obviously is and continues to be the normal Form – the Forma ordinaria – of the Eucharistic Liturgy. The last version of the Missale Romanum prior to the Council, which was published with the authority of Pope John XXIII in 1962 and used during the Council, will now be able to be used as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgical celebration. It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were “two Rites”. Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite.”
“There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture. What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place. Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books. The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness.”
Pope Benedict is surely an authoritative source in saying the recent Council mandated liturgical change. He was at it after all.
He rewrote history, but not the theology, when he said The New Rite is part of the one unbroken Tradition, but wrong when he said The Old write wasn’t abrogated. He even lists Papal Indults sidestepping the abrogation! He, as Francis, Bishop of Rome says, was trying to reconcile discontents to the Church. Sadly he failed, as they daily deny his teaching, and authority, and slap him in the face. No wonder he found the pressure too much, and retired. The Trad’s weighed him down.
We’ve had the New Theology, New Pentecost, New Advent, New Springtime, New Canon Law, New Catechism, New Sacraments, and New Evangelisation. Does anyone seriously believe the New Mass is a coincidence?
Lionel:
And what about the new dogma on salvation.
And the new interpretation of Vatican Council II.
Amd the new interpretation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church resulting in a new theology and a new ecclesiology.
And the new understanding in the Church on we Catholics allegedly being able to see explicit exceptions( even though deceased) to the Syllabus of Errors on salvation.
And the new perspective on how ‘ a ray of the Truth’ (NA 2) is explicit for us and so there is salvation outside the visible limits of the Church.
Those priests who are alowed to offer the Traditional Latin Mass with the permission of the Vatican,have to accept all this ‘newness’, this New Revelation. And most of this newness is based on an irrationality which has not been identified.
Without the irrationality, resulting in the newness, they would not get permission to offer the Extraordinary Form of the Holy Mass.
Bishop Schneider warns of schism and actively promotes Ecumenism to assist The Church in proclaiming The Gospel. (h/t The Editor of this blog) he says:
‘Ecumenism is necessary in order to be in contact with our separated brethren, to love them. In the midst of the challenge of the new paganism, we can and have to collaborate with serious non-Catholics to defend the revealed Divine truth and the natural law, created by God.’
Bishop Schneider:
‘Thanks be to God, Pope Francis has not expressed himself in these ways that the mass media expect from him. He has spoken until now, in his official homilies, very beautiful Catholic doctrine. I hope he will continue to teach in very clear manner the Catholic doctrine.’
Comment removed
Comment removed
Comment deleted
“If anyone says that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, accustomed to be used in the administration of the sacraments, may be despised or omitted by the ministers without sin and at their pleasure, or may be changed by any pastor of the churches to other new ones, let him be anathema.”
– Council of Trent, Canons on the Sacraments in General, Session 7, Canon 13 (March 3, 1547).
Fidelity Always
The following could just as easily have been posted on the latest thread, but I am posting them here in reply to you latest comments above.
If you still honestly believe that the Mass that was canonised by Pope Saint Pius V was ever “abrogated”, I can only say that you are treating us to a prime example of the devastating effects of the ignorance which have followed the Conciliar Revolution.
Not that it is needed, but Cardinal Stickler’s testimony should have settled that question, in the case of anyone still be trying to make believe that there is some papal decree that attempted such an unlawful abrogation. In saying that, I am fully that there was a de facto attempted suppression of the Mass by means of an unprecedented abuse of authority. I will add, in passing, that the very fact that the decision of the group of Cardinals who looked at the issue was not made public until nine years later at a Conference in New Jersey brings the human element of the Church into disrepute, to say the least.
And the sneaky little remark about Pope Benedict “trying to reconcile discontents to the Church” does not so much as confirm the impression of ignorance. “To the Church”, really? The facts of the matter have been explained numerous times on this blog.
I can understand you quoting from Summorum Pontificum, Fidelity Always. It must said, with all due respect for the papal Office, that there are some remarkable statements in there; statements either alarming, or resembling extraordinary wishful thinking, or completely at odds with reality as demonstrated by the bitter fruit of the protestantised liturgy.
To talk of undermining belief in the Real Presence, in the sacrificial nature of the Mass, and in the clear, unique, irreplaceable role of the ordained priest as an alter Christus is a great deal more accurate than Pope Benedict’s words referring to “the reformed and partly renewed liturgical books for the Latin Church.”
I have to say that the observation that, “there is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal; in the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture”, comes across as a barely believable breech of the law of non-contradiction.
A priest who said the Mass in 1570 could have been transported in time to 1962 and have no problem saying the Mass of that time. For many priests and laity, the Mass was unrecognisable eight years later. How can anyone now talk of continuity or organic development? The man-centred, desacralized, Novus Ordo Missae, fabricated by a shadowy committee with undeniable revolutionary intentions, is defined by its being at variance, on a line by line basis, with the unambiguous presentation of Catholic dogma in the Mass of All Time. No one can creditably say that the alarming replication of the liturgical changes wrought by heretics in the sixteenth century which has engulfed unsuspecting Catholics since 1970 was due to some strange coincidence. The fabricators knew exactly what they were doing.
The new way that the overwhelming majority of Catholics now worship is of course the most obvious manifestation of the Invasion of the Modernists. Many loyal, faithful Catholics appear to be utterly and determinedly unaware of the part the liturgical revolution has played in the “silent apostasy” amidst the Conciliar devastation.
The familiar “don’t judge by the more extreme, sacrilegious abuses” defence of the Novus Ordo Missae fails to take account of the fact that the 1969 General Instruction that accompanied it represented a sort of liturgical “Big Bang” whereby regulation was thrown out the window. Pre Vatican II, a uniform set of laws minutely regulated the Catholic liturgy. Priests were obliged to stick to the rubrics and had no opportunity for personal creativity. Very importantly, liturgy was inextricably linked with doctrine and discipline. And everyone knew it. Pope Pius XII addressed this subject in detail in Mediator Dei.
The very character of the 1969 General Instruction, in stark contrast to what was previously in place, leads to liturgical indiscipline, creativity and abuse. The fact is that following the General instruction, wild-man liturgists were unleashed on the unsuspecting and obedient flock throughout the Catholic world.
In 1973, a Vatican directory created by the master of disaster himself, Annibale Bugnini and approved by Pope Paul VI allowed celebrants near-total creative freedom in the celebration of Mass for children with predictable and lamentable results.
Pagan ritual and cultural practices were introduced into the New Mass in many non-western countries. In his memoirs, Bugnini was happy to list the litany of adaptations in Zambia, The Congo, and Zaire, including the liturgical dance in Africa and the celebration of Chinese New Year, which, as he noted, was condemned as superstitious by Pope Benedict XIV.
You quoted Summorum Pontificum, as stating the following, Fidelity Always:
“Vatican Council II expressed a desire that the respectful reverence due to divine worship should be renewed and adapted to the needs of our time.”
Compare this with the warning given by Pope Saint Pius X’s in his 1907 condemnation of Modernism in his encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis.
“The chief stimulus of the evolution of worship consists in the need of accommodation to the manners and customs of peoples, as well as the need of availing itself of the value which certain acts have acquired by usage. Finally, evolution in the Church itself is fed by the need of adapting itself to historical conditions and of harmonizing itself with existing forms of society. – paragraph 26
Between the presentation of the Novus Ordo Missae and the General Instruction on 3 April 1969 and September of that year, the text of the famous Ottaviani Intervention was prepared before being presented to Pope Paul, along with a the Cardinal’s covering letter, on 29 September 1969.
I’ve posted the following comments on a previous thread, but they may bear repetition here.
The undeniable truth is that, from the time Bugnini’s Mass was brought out from behind the curtain, the objections were doctrinal. The expression lex orandi, lex credendi (the law of prayer is the law of believing) was at the heart of the many critiques that followed. It wasn’t a novelty either. The doctrinal importance of the liturgy has been keenly felt by the Church and Her enemies since the time of Cranmer and Luther.
If anyone wants to understand the theology behind the new Mass, the best place to start is the General Instruction (GI) which accompanied Pope Paul’s New Missal in 1969. The Instruction was meant to be the theological blueprint of the New Mass. On 30 August 1968, Bugnini had stated that “the General Instruction is a full theological, pastoral, catechetical, and rubrical exposition, that it is an introduction to the understanding and celebration of the (New) Mass.”
Such was the uproar caused by doctrinal objections to the New Missal and General Instruction, notably those objections included in the Ottaviani Intervention, that publication of the Missal was delayed for five months. And we’re not talking about clown masses and tambourines here.
To save the project, a bit of nifty needlework was required with the wording of the General Instruction. To allay fears and keep the quell disturbance in the ranks, an altered Instruction was produced with the intention of putting a “Tridentine” gloss on things.
Hardly surprisingly, the language used in the revised General Instruction’s definition of the Mass glows with the ambiguity and double speak, the familiar stamp of the modernists. The Catholic terms Mass and Eucharistic Sacrifice are presented alongside the Protestant terms Lord’s Supper and memorial of the Lord respectively. Christ’s substantial, corporeal presence is equated with His presence in the congregation and in the Scripture readings. And just for good measure, it’s the “people of God” who celebrate, having been called together.
The revised Instruction does not clearly state that the Mass is a sacrifice of propitiation, offered to God for the sins of the living and the dead. We know why, of course. Also, wherever the word sacrifice appears in the Instruction, the word meal is never far away. So Catholics are now left to choose to believe that the Mass is either:
A propitiatory sacrifice, the re-presentation of the sacrifice of Calvary, offered by an ordained priest, in which Our Lord is made present, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity through the miracle of Transubstantiation.
Or
An assembly of the people, with a priest presider, celebrating the memorial of the Lord’s Supper, during which Our Lord is present in the congregation, and the readings, as well as in the bread and wine.
Realistically, no amount of reform of the reform of the reform is going to protect Catholics from random spectacles of sacrilege. I know there are good priests with the very best of intentions, but does anyone believe that reverence at Mass and in Church will once more become the universal norm, anytime soon? Or indeed ever, as long as the Bugnini programme is in place? The novus ordo reforms are programmed to facilitate a laissez faire policy, precisely because of a lack of rubrics. I dare say the vast majority of liturgical lunatics at large today are pretty much operating with impunity.
Before children masses, clown masses, circus masses, balloon masses, puppet masses, beer tent masses, beech masses, world cup masses, country and western masses, jazz masses, rock masses, hindu masses, voodoo masses, masonic masses and sodomite masses were ever suspected by Catholics, the doctrinal threat to their faith was highlighted by those who refused to go along with the revolution. The evidence was available, written down for all to see, or least for those who cared to look. Problems with the novus ordo don’t begin with incense maidens and balloons. They begin with the General Instruction presented in 1969. If anyone disagrees, they can take it up with one of Bugnini’s band of helpers, quoted in my previous post.
In a 1975 statement, Father Emil Joseph Lengeling, a member of the Consilium’s Study Group, gave the following rather revealing commentary on the 1970 Instruction:
“In the 1969 General Instruction for the (new) Missal, an ecumenically oriented sacramental theology of the celebration of Mass emerged – a theology already self-evident in the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy and in Pope Paul VI’s instruction on the Eucharist. Despite the new 1970 edition forced by reactionary attacks – but which voided the worst, thanks to the cleverness of the revisers – it takes us out of the dead end of the post-Tridentine theories of sacrifice and corresponds to the agreement marked out in many of last year’s interconfessional documents.” – (Tradition und Fortschritt in der Liturgie (1975), 218-219.
The following words of Pope Leo XIII could have been written with the twentieth century liturgical destroyers in mind:
“They knew only too well the intimate bond which unites faith with worship, ‘the law of belief with the law of prayer,’ and so, under the pretext of restoring it to its primitive form, they corrupted the order of the liturgy in many respects to adapt it to the errors of the Innovators.” – Apostolicae Curae, 13 September 1896
“beech masses”?
Haven’t seen one of them – perhaps you could post one one Yew Tube 😀
(Sorry, couldn’t resist!)
Confitebor Domino
Naughty! 😀
Normally, I’d go in and correct a typo but since your reply is so comical, I’ll leave it. Poor Leo may never recover from the shame of it, but at least we’ll all have had a laugh! Not at you, Leo – never! 😀
Fair play, Confitebor.
At least someone was reading.
I’d like to say it was a plant, but my proof reader doesn’t work on Sundays.
Yew tube! Excellent. I think you’ll fit in rather well around here.
1.The Pope invited an imam to the Vatican to say prayers at an interfaith event.
2.Departing from a pre-released script, the imam prayed in Arabic for Allah to grant victory over the unbelievers.
3.The Vatican denied that the imam said anything of that nature.
4.The Vatican altered a video of the event to remove any evidence of the damning clause.
http://gatesofvienna.net/2014/06/who-edited-the-tape/
Fidelity Always
Are you saying that the public, cited testimony of Cardinal Stickler is false, mistaken, or dishonest? (June 14, 1.38pm). It’s not particularly intellectually challenging to figure out why a shroud of silence might have enveloped the whole issue.
Whatever, if the Cardinal never said anything publicly on this matter, nothing whatsoever changes. His words are just one more piece of evidence, and nothing absolutely depends on them alone. If, as you claim, the Mass canonised by Pope Saint Pius V was abrogated you must be able to cite the binding, papal decree to that effect. Name and date please. And a Wednesday morning allocution doesn’t qualify. And an instruction from Bugnini’s Congregation for Divine Worship certainly doesn’t either.
You are the one, Fidelity Always, making the false claim about “abrogation”. As in the case of other arguments that you have presented on ecumenism and religious liberty, you have, by any reasonable reading, evaded or dismissed papal teaching.
Leo,
Additionally, Pope Benedict XVI declared in Summorum Pontificum that the Mass of St. Pius V was never abrogated, or even forbidden to any priest who chose to celebrate it. Those who claim it was abrogated are simply liars because the make statements they must know to be untrue.
Comments are closed.