Chaos Frank strikes again…
Francis: No Catholic Mass available? Just go to the Anglicans!
Every day we are being drowned in news about “Pope” Francis and the Vatican machinery. The incessant flood of information is becoming increasingly difficult for everyone to process, which means it is easy for stories to get missed.
Such was apparently the case with a real bombshell Francis dropped on February 26, 2017 while visiting an Anglican parish church in Rome. Virtually everyone seems to have missed it. What happened? During a Q&A session in which Francis was answering people’s questions off the cuff, he related an anecdote about ecumenical practice with Anglicans in his homeland of Argentina.
Have a look at what Francis said, and don’t forget to close your mouth afterwards:
And then, there is my experience. I was very friendly with the Anglicans at Buenos Aires, because the back of the parish of Merced was connected with the Anglican Cathedral. I was very friendly with Bishop Gregory Venables, very friendly. But there’s another experience: In the north of Argentina there are the Anglican missions with the aborigines, and the Anglican Bishop and the Catholic Bishop there work together and teach. And when people can’t go on Sunday to the Catholic celebration they go to the Anglican, and the Anglicans go to the Catholic, because they don’t want to spend Sunday without a celebration; and they work together. And here [at the Vatican], the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith knows this. And they engage in charity together. And the two Bishops are friends and the two communities are friends.
I think this is a richness [treasure] that our young Churches can bring to Europe and to the Churches that have a great tradition. And they give to us the solidity of a very, very well cared for and very thought out tradition. It’s true, — ecumenism in young Churches is easier. It’s true. But I believe that – and I return to the second question – ecumenism is perhaps more solid in theological research in a more mature Church, older in research, in the study of history, of Theology, of the Liturgy, as the Church in Europe is. And I think it would do us good, to both Churches: from here, from Europe to send some seminarians to have pastoral experience in the young Churches, so much is learned. We know [that] they come, from the young Churches, to study at Rome, at least the Catholics [do]. But to send them to see, to learn from the young Churches would be a great richness in the sense you said. Ecumenism is easier there, it’s easier, something that does not mean [it’s] more superficial, no, no, it’s not superficial. They don’t negotiate the faith and [their] identity. In the north of Argentina, an aborigine says to you: “I’m Anglican.” But the bishop is not here, the Pastor is not here, the Reverend is not here . . . “I want to praise God on Sunday and so I go to the Catholic Cathedral,” and vice versa. They are riches of the young Churches. I don’t know, this is what comes to me to say to you.
(“Pope’s Q & A at Anglican All Saints Church”, Zenit, Feb. 27, 2017; underlining added. Original Italian at Vatican web site here.)
Wow. Anglicans worship with “Catholics” and “Catholics” with Anglicans because they “want a celebration”, as though sacred worship were about them and not about God primarily. (To see what God thinks of unauthorized worship, even if not heretical, have a look at the demise of Core in Numbers 16; cf. Jude 11.)
Does Francis condemn this practice? Does he denounce it as offensive to God, dangerous, and favoring the heresy of indifferentism? Of course not. No, it is clear from the words, the context, and the absence of a condemnation that he is effectively endorsing it, using it as an example of ecumenically “working together”, which he calls a “richness” (or “treasure”) that churches in Latin America can give to Europe! The man is an indifferentist and a Modernist through and through. This should make it even more clear now why Francis couldn’t have had the slightest bit of a problem with the Anglican evensong service that was recently performed in the Vatican’s St. Peter’s Basilica.
For those who cannot believe Francis actually said this, we invite you to watch the video recording, and you will see Francis saying exactly this (in Italian, of course). The anecdote starts at the 1:27:57 mark:
Notice also that he speaks of “church” and “churches” entirely without qualification, refusing to distinguish the true Church from Protestant sects. He does not have the Catholic Faith, which is why he cannot possibly be the “rock” on which Jesus Christ built His one and only true Church, “the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15; cf. Mt 16:18-19) — the rock whose purpose is to confirm the brethren in the faith (cf. Lk 22:32), and who will never himself suffer shipwreck in it:
This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this see so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell.
(Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus, Ch. 4; underlining added.)
By the way: In 1868, Pope Pius IX had something to say about the true Church of Christ versus the false churches of the Protestants:
Now, whoever will carefully examine and reflect upon the condition of the various religious societies, divided among themselves, and separated from the Catholic Church, which, from the days of our Lord Jesus Christ and his Apostles has never ceased to exercise, by its lawful pastors, and still continues to exercise, the divine power committed to it by this same Lord; cannot fail to satisfy himself that neither any one of these societies by itself, nor all of them together, can in any manner constitute and be that One Catholic Church which Christ our Lord built, and established, and willed should continue; and that they cannot in any way be said to be branches or parts of that Church, since they are visibly cut off from Catholic unity. For, whereas such societies are destitute of that living authority established by God, which especially teaches men what is of Faith, and what the rule of morals, and directs and guides them in all those things which pertain to eternal salvation, so they have continually varied in their doctrines, and this change and variation is ceaselessly going on among them. Every one must perfectly understand, and clearly and evidently see, that such a state of things is directly opposed to the nature of the Church instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ; for in that Church truth must always continue firm and ever inaccessible to all change, as a deposit given to that Church to be guarded in its integrity, for the guardianship of which the presence and aid of the Holy Ghost have been promised to the Church for ever. No one, moreover, can be ignorant that from these discordant doctrines and opinions social schisms have arisen, and that these again have given birth to sects and communions without number, which spread themselves continually, to the increasing injury of Christian and civil society.
(Pope Pius IX, Apostolic Letter Iam Vos Omnes)
A few years prior, the Holy Office under the same Pope had written a letter to the Puseyite Anglicans and reminded them that “all groups entirely separated from external and visible communion with and obedience to the Roman Pontiff cannot be the Church of Christ, nor in any way whatsoever can they belong to the Church of Christ” (Instruction Ad Quosdam Puseistas Anglicos, Nov. 8, 1865; italics added). So much for the Vatican II doctrine of “ecclesial elements” and “imperfect communion” that supposedly exists between the Church of God and the sects of man — but that’s another issue.
Assisting at the liturgical services of non-Catholics is a mortal sin and makes anyone who does so, suspect of heresy. This is clear from the Church’s Code of Canon Law (1917) and her moral theology:
It is not licit for the faithful by any manner to assist actively or to have a part in the sacred [rites] of non-Catholics.
Whoever in any manner willingly and knowingly helps in the promulgation of heresy, or who communicates in things divine [=assists at sacred rites] with heretics against the prescription of Canon 1258, is suspected of heresy.
It is unlawful for Catholics in any way to assist actively at or take part in the worship of non-Catholics (Canon 1258). Such assistance is intrinsically and gravely evil; for (a) if the worship is non-Catholic in its form (e.g., Mohammedan ablutions, the Jewish paschal meal, revivalistic “hitting the trail,” the right hand of fellowship, etc.), it expresses a belief in the false creed symbolized; (b) if the worship is Catholic in form, but is under the auspices of a non-Catholic body (e.g., Baptism as administered by a Protestant minister, or Mass as celebrated by a schismatical priest), it expresses either faith in a false religious body or rebellion against the true Church.
(Rev. John A. McHugh, O.P. & Rev. Charles J. Callan, O.P., Moral Theology: A Complete Course Based on St. Thomas Aquinas and the Best Modern Authorities, vol. I [New York, NY: Joseph F. Wagner, 1958], n. 964)
The Catholic prohibition against worship with non-Catholics is clear, then, both from a legal-canonical as well as a moral perspective.
In 1948, this prohibition was underscored once more through a canonical warning issued by the Holy Office specifically in the context of a rising interest in ecumenical (ha!) religious gatherings, which for Catholics were (and still are) strictly forbidden:
Mixed gatherings of non-Catholics with Catholics have been reportedly held in various places, where things pertaining to the Faith have been discussed against the prescriptions of the Sacred Canons and without previous permission of the Holy See. Therefore all are reminded that according to the norm of Canon 1325 § 3 laypeople as well as clerics both secular and regular are forbidden to attend these gatherings without the aforesaid permission. It is however much less licit for Catholics to summon and institute such kind of gatherings. Let therefore Ordinaries urge all to serve these prescriptions accurately.
These are to be observed with even stronger force of law when it comes to gatherings called “ecumenical”, which laypeople and clerics may not attend at all without previous consent of the Holy See.
Moreover, since acts of mixed worship have also been posed not rarely both within and without the aforesaid gatherings, all are once more warned that any communication in sacred affairs is totally forbidden according to the norm of Canons 1258 and 731, § 2.
(Holy Office, Decree Cum Compertum)
In the case of Francis’ practical endorsement of Anglican worship, there is more to it than a “mere” participation in false worship, however, because not only is the worship of Anglicans heretical, schismatic, and unauthorized, and therefore objectively odious in His sight (cf. Jn 4:24; Jude 11; Num 16), but any Anglican “Masses” are also invalid because all ordinations performed by the Church of England are “absolutely null and utterly void”, as declared by Pope Leo XIII in 1896:
Wherefore, strictly adhering, in this matter, to the decrees of the pontiffs, our predecessors, and confirming them most fully, and, as it were, renewing them by our authority, of our own initiative and certain knowledge, we pronounce and declare that ordinations carried out according to the Anglican rite have been, and are, absolutely null and utterly void.
(Pope Leo XIII, Bull Apostolicae Curae, n. 36)
Thus, Anglican “priests” are nothing but mere laymen dressed in fancy clerical robes. (The same theological principles which prove Anglican orders invalid, by the way, also prove Novus Ordo ordinations [after 1968] invalid.)
Pope Leo’s pronouncement, we might add, is considered infallible:
It belongs to a class of ex cathedral utterances for which infallibility is claimed on the ground, not indeed, of the terms of the Vatican definition, but of the constant practice of the Holy See, the consentient teaching of the theologians, as well as of the clearest deductions from the principles of faith.
(The Catholic Encyclopedia, s.v. “Anglican Orders”)
For all intents and purposes, then, Francis has endorsed active participation in non-Catholic, heretical, schismatic, and even invalid liturgical rites, for he has told his followers that assistance at an Anglican “Mass” is not objectionable but praiseworthy, and is licitly done at least whenever (what he considers to be) a Catholic Mass is not available.
Here we see once again that the real news is much more absurd than any fake news ever could be. You just can’t make this stuff up!
In light of this latest Bergoglian scandal, we exhort all who still believe Francis to be a true Pope, to meditate on these words of Pope Pius IX: “The Church can never be reconciled with error, and the Pope cannot be separated from the Church” (Allocution to Pilgrims, Nov. 27, 1871; in Papal Teachings: The Church, n. 389).
Not only is Francis not a true Pope, but the entire religion presently occupying the Vatican — so different from the true Catholic religion of Pope Pius XII and all his predecessors — is a cruel joke perpetrated on the unsuspecting masses. This “Novus Ordo religion”, as we call it, began with one key event: the election of the first false pope, John XXIII, on October 28, 1958, the result of a conclave that had mysteriously indicated, through the white smoke and an announcement on Vatican Radio, the election of a true Pope two days prior (i.e. on October 26), which Pope, however, never emerged from the conclave.
We don’t have all the answers here, but we do have some:
- What the heck is going on?! START HERE
- The Syllogism of Sedevacantism
- Why we cannot simply “resist” a true Pope
- Introduction to Sedevacantism, Part 1
- Introduction to Sedevacantism, Part 2
- The Impossibility of Judging or Deposing a true Pope
- Have the Gates of Hell prevailed?
- Sedevacantism and Private Judgment: Are we just “Protestants”?
- The Pope and the Antichrist: What Catholic Tradition says about our times
- The Papacy and the Mystical Passion of the Church
- Okay, so… NOW WHAT?
In case you were always waiting for that one unmistakable sign from God, wait no longer. It’s (probably) not going to get any clearer than this. And do not ask for ever greater signs (cf. Mt 12:39) nor impose on the patience of God. Instead, learn your lesson from the Gospel: “If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they believe, if one rise again from the dead” (Lk 16:31).
Image source: youtube.com (screenshot)
License: fair use
;
Nothing to worry about. Soon the SSPX will be accepted by the Vatican and they will fight modernism together! ( muhahahahahahahahahahahaaaaa)
Don’t you mean “fight”? LOL.
Apostolicae Curae is also immutable. Its meaning cannot be changed into something different from its original meaning. Nor can it be, if I am not mistaken, abrogated or repealed even by a future pope.
NOW, would you care to confirm or refute that? Thank you.
I think you are correct.
Truth. But they do not care. They simply ignore Apostolicae Curae.
How long before Mr. Bergoglio declares himself and the Archlayman of Canterbury to be coequals? He would be right, but because Francis is falsely perceived by so many to be the Vicar of Christ, how much damage will it do to the office?
I thought public worship with false sects was considered a public act of apostasy and therefore results in automatic excommunication.
NOW will you help with this question also?
Certainly worshipping with Muslims would be an act of apostasy, and if done publicly, one would immediately cease to be a member of the Church (even aside from any automatic excommunication – an excommunication is not required to cease being a member of the Church).
But if one worships with Anglicans or some other Protestant sect, does that person cease to be a member of the Church?
No. Not even a mortal sin causes one to cease being a member of the Church.
That’s true. Mortal sins of themselves don’t put one outside the Church. Public schism, heresy, or apostasy does. I wonder if Frankie’s going for a hat trick.
As far as I know, no, at least if it happens once. When we’re talking about habitual worship with non-Catholics, that’s probably a different story altogether.
Here is a quote from Fr. John Bancroft’s book, “Communication in Religious Worship with Non-Catholics” (1943): “The question might arise as to whether one who denies his faith externally ONLY by formal communication in non-Catholic worship is a heretic. Heresy is defined as a voluntary and pertinacious error, or doubt, of a Christian [i.e. baptized person] concerning one, or more, truths, which must be believed by divine and Catholic faith. The error, or doubt, must be in the person’s mind, not merely implied in his actions. Therefore, in our case the person would not be guilty of the sin of heresy. Canon 2316 declares him suspect of heresy.” (p. 46; emphasis added.)
If you want to understand this in detail, I would encourage you to look for a copy of this book, which explains all the principles that are relevant here. The subject is complex.
That clarifies it quite a bit. Thank you.
To be blunt… that seems pretty limp wristed. This seems to fly in the face of the early martyrs who were skinned alive, wracked, roasted and cut to pieces for refusing to drop a single grain of incense.
How is it that going to a mosque is different than going to the Anglican sect “service”? I can see a distinction between perhaps the “Orthodox” or even an “Old Catholic” “service” in error. But going to a Protestant “service” is ridiculous. There’s a lot of flimsy books written in the 40’s in English. I wonder what an older source might say… maybe 1700’s or 1800’s?
On a practical note… “suspected of heresy” does become heresy very quickly especially when behavior is repeated and/or when there’s no renouncement of the error in question.
I think you’re confusing two things: It is definitely a mortal sin to go to a non-Catholic service. Hence anything at all, including torture and martyrdom, must be preferred over committing a mortal sin.
But that’s not what the question was. The question was whether assistance at a Protestant service, even once, automatically renders one a heretic, not whether it is mortally sinful or not. This is the kind of question the answer to which you would look up in a moral theology book and/or canonical commentary. As far as I can find, the answer is that it renders one suspect of heresy. Fr. Bancroft’s book was published by the Catholic University of America Press, and the Catholic University of America at the time was a bastion of orthodoxy – unlike today.
Well said… and as always, a paragon of Orthodoxy. Thanks for the distinction.
I just stumbled across this quote while researching another topic. I found it pertinent. “No one,” say the Fathers of the Fourth Council of Carthage (in 398), “must either pray, or sing psalms with heretics; and whosoever shall communicate with those who are cut off from the communion of the Church, whether clergyman or layman, let him be excommunicated.”
I think you’re right on the mark. Of course the Church CAN impose an automatic excommunication on anyone participating in a Protestant service once. That, however, is a different question from whether such a thing renders one automatically a heretic. All heretics are excommunicated per the 1917 Code of Canon Law, but not all excommunicates are heretics. One is automatically expelled from the Church for public heresy — an excommunication is not necessary (i.e. even without the Church applying this penalty for heretics, one would still lose membership in the Church).
Paul VI: “Moroccan Muslims…our brothers in faith in the one God. You will always be made very welcome and you will find esteem and understanding here.” JPII publicly kissed the Quran, and Francis publicly prayed in a mosque with an imam. Anything goes in Novus Ordo land.
Cf. Leviticus 10 (Nadab and Abiu) also for a good example of Our Lord’s view of unauthorized worship or worship contrary to what God has commanded.
Jorge’s statement also has the effect of blurring the lines between religions and advancing the agenda for a one world church.
Interstingly enough this reminds me of many R&R people who are eager to come to a sede Church but when it’s not available or it’s a little further out of the way they’ll just go to the SSPX church. Bells, smells, and fellowship are more important than making a sacrifice by either not going or going further to the right Church. This is why the novus ordo has prevailed against so many people over the years and it’s because of a lack faith, laziness, and human respect.
Exactly right; we have to keep the Faith no matter what it costs.
It should be noted that one must ask an SSPX priest about the particulars of his ordination & a number of SSPX priests are non-una cum.
Why would one need to ask them all that info? If they joined the sedevacantist priests and bishops there would be no problem. The problem is that they haven’t ditched the Society which is a heretical and schismatic sect with no realistic purpose other than pretending to act like traditional Catholics.
Well of course. My note was more of an alert to those Recognize & Resist Catholics who visit this site of whom there are many. Without wishing to denigrate any of them personally, there are many la-la-lands in which they dwell, objectively speaking
I got ya. Unfortunately the reason why they’re in la la land is the same reason why protestants are. It’s an emotional christianity based on how you “feel” about something instead of based on how you think about something regarding faith and reason. Hence the reason they’re not Catholic
The problem with the Lefebvrists aka SSPX and offshoots is not just their psedo-schismatic mess of a “theology” but there is a very real probable doubt to Leinart line consecrations. Especially seeing as soon as Masonic forces got into control some of the first things they did was publicly invalidate the mass and holy orders.
Why would we not suspect that they’ve done the exact same thing secretly before the public takeover of Vatican II? There’s no reason not to, and it is perfectly logical and reasonable to assume that they’ve had the same evil goals before and after the council. So all “ordinations” via Leinart are suspect of invalidity. Scary, but its the situation.
What do you think about this article Michael? http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/MasonicBishops.pdf
The article is heavily biased by a “priest” who is defending the validity of his “ordination”. He starts the piece by mocking the position as an “old canard” and continues to align absurdity to a very real and probable… not to mention logical conclusion. “That high ranking Freemasons, like open satanists, invalidate sacraments at every opportunity”. Just look at what Paul VI did to the mass and the ordination rite. Its not rocket science, but they try to make you out to be simple minded if you make the obvious conclusion.
“Cracks in the Masonry” was also not very impressive considering.
While we can speculate all we wish about what *might* have happened, the Church in her sacramental theology requires us to go by what is publicly ascertainable. The truth is that no sacrament can ever be PROVED valid, it only be PRESUMED valid. The question is whether there is any objective, prudent, positive doubt with regard to a particular sacramental administration, that would defeat the presumption. That is not the case with regard to the Lienart ordinations. The Church, therefore, requires us to presume them as valid. If you take away that principle of presumption of validity, you will cause absolute chaos in the Church.
“Speculation” is not required. When Masonic forces took control of the Vatican infrastructure they wasted no time invalidating the mass and the ordination rite. These were “publicly ascertainable” and very “objective” creating a very “positive doubt”. Lienart was said to be a Mason by Lefebre himself, among others of HIGHLY respected morals and research. No reason to doubt what’s coming from the horses mouth.
The Church was in “absolute chaos” before I got here. The presumption of validity is always assumed in normal situations. This is not a normal situation. We know what they’ve done publicly and we would be blind to ignore it and just hope they didn’t do it before Vatican II.
Respectfully,
No, that’s not sufficient to create a prudent, objective, and positive doubt. I recommend you read “The Dogmatic Theology on the Intention of the Minister in the Confection of the Sacraments” by Fr. Raphael De Salvo (1949). Cardinal Lienart conferred the ordination ceremonies in a regular fashion. There was nothing about them to indicate that he had a contrary intention. In order to create a sufficient doubt to vitiate the presumption of validity in the case of the ordinations of Abp. Lefebvre (priesthood and episcopacy), you would have to establish that Lienart publicly expressed a contrary intent for these particular ordinations in question.
Let me reiterate: If your position were correct, it would open the floodgates to all sorts of doubt about ordinations of ‘suspect’ bishops, etc. The entire Church’s sacramental structure would collapse.
I’ve read the argument. And the “contrary intention” was manifest after the fact by the discovery of his high level Masonic membership (1) and again by the public masonic takeover and deconstruciton of sacramental validity in the Novus Ordo sect (2). (1 +2) = “sufficient doubt to vitiate prusumption of validity in the case of the ordinations of Lefebve ‘priesthood & episcopacy'”.
The public manifestation of Lienart’s HIGH RANKING membership in the satanic cult of Freemasonry and the same cult destroying sacramental validity PUBLICLY and willfully shows an obvious “contrary intention”.
Let me reiterate on your iteration: The floodgates of doubt about ordinations of suspect bishops has already collapsed the visible sacramental structure of the Church. (RESPECTFULLY) The CRUSHING majority of the Roman clergy fell into apostasy.
Answer me this my friend… How many VALID and ORTHODOX Roman Catholic Bishops do you know of TODAY? (Even if your position is correct and I have SERIOUS doubts that it is) INCLUDING Lefebrist “Bishops”… HOW MANY?
8-15? Tops?
Now if I am right… then that number drops to maybe 3-5… maybe a few more that I don’t know about. Is this a complete “collapse”? No way. The situation is fundamentally the same. MASS APOSTASY and tons of invalid “clergy” with a very small minority holding to valid orders and Orthodoxy.
Nothing really changes objectively. Now subjectively a few careers could be ruined and some people are receiving doubtful sacraments if I’m right. That is terribly inconvenient and tragic for some. But this is a terribly inconvenient and tragic situation.
Michael,
No, there was no contrary intention manifest at all. You are mixing up different things and not properly distinguishing. In fact, a lot of your argument simply rests on assumptions, assumptions you may personally find convincing, but this is where any doubt produced would be subjective only, not objective.
Without meaning to get into the whole issue in depth (because that’s not what this combox is for, at least not on this post, which is about Francis and Anglicans), it is by no means *proven* that Cardinal Lienart was a Mason, at least not as far as I recall.
Secondly, what other people — probably Masons themselves, but even if not — did in the 1960s cannot be used to draw a *certain* conclusion about Cardinal Lienart’s sacramental intention in 1929 (when Lefebvre was ordained a priest – this is the *only* ordination that really matters, because the consecration in 1947 had three consecrators). Your inference that because a bunch of Masons in 1968 invalidated the rite of episcopal consecration (and probably also the rite of priestly ordination), therefore one alleged Mason in 1929 had a “manifest” contrary intention that vitiated the presumption of validity for a priestly ordination, is simply absurd. It is not an inference at all, really, it is simply a hypothesis. The doubt here is not objective, it is not prudent, and I am not sure it would even qualify as positive.
The burden of proof is on the person claiming invalidity. In order to have sufficient doubt of the validity of the 1929 Lefebvre ordination, you have to (1) demonstrate (not merely speculate or assert) that (2) Lienart withheld (or probably withheld) his intention (3) for this particular ordination (4) despite the manifest public evidence to the contrary at that ceremony. There is a reason why the Church has a very high bar for claims of invalidity.
Even assuming Lienart to have been a Freemason (which I am doing for this argument, but which I do not remember the details on), it is simply your subjective assumption that he would have wanted to invalidate an ordination in 1929. But Masons may also very well intend for a sacrament to be valid, for any number of evil reasons. Aside from that, withholding one’s sacramental intention is not that easy to do because one would have to deliberately intend to be meaning something other than what one is doing.
I don’t know what your question about how many valid and orthodox Catholic bishops I know of today, has to do with what we’re discussing. My point was that if we start to base doubt on subjective hypotheses or inferences, then the entire Church’s sacramental structure collapses, and by that I didn’t mean that we have only few valid sacraments today but that you could start doubting all sorts of ordinations from the beginning of the Church until the 20th century.
Also, just in case some people think I might have a conflict of interest here, the truth is that I do not: I do not, myself, receive sacraments from any clergy in the Lefebvre-Lienart line. So, I just wanted that cleared up as well.
Anyway, the longer we discuss this, the less time I have to work on this blog and on refuting the errors of the R&Rs and Novus Ordos, so I would really like for this to come to a close. God bless you.
Agree to disagree. You’re still Catholic one way or another. But to call my position “absurd” is a complete failure to recognize the scope of our situation. This has NEVER happened before. Nothing even close. This is the kind of thing a council would have to decide on after great deliberation. You know they use to accept heretic baptisms unquestioningly… until the heretics changed their modus and what do we do now? When in doubt… conditional baptism. I’m sure you have a very technical answer for that as well and something about how absurd it is. “Fr.” Cekada makes a very authoritative sounding piecemeal argument. But its flawed and this is a real issue whether you want to admit it or not. And it is an issue that matters because there are some Sede “clergy” that originate their orders from this questionable source. Big deal. Receiving “sacraments” from questionable “clergy” does not make you a non-Catholic, but it seems very dangerous/reckless to me.
Pax tecum
Michael,
I think we’re both aware of the magnitude of what we’re dealing with in this eclipsing of the Church. But I think you’re not drawing the necessary distinctions and/or are blurring different things. Catholic sacramental theology — and that includes the question of doubt regarding validity — does not change, does not become more strict, with the changing of circumstances. It is always the same standard. There is nothing for an ecumenical council to decide here. Everything that needs to be decided on this issue has already been decided.
I’m glad you bring up the conditional administration of the sacraments, because there too the Church does not just repeat a sacrament conditionally if someone has a doubt. There too the doubt has to be real, meaning it has to be objective, positive, and prudent. If it doesn’t meet all three of these criteria, the Church does not *permit* even the conditional administration of a sacrament.
“[A] perverse minister can nullify the sacramental action not only by vitiating his intention, but as well by altering the essential matter and form, without the attendants knowing it. In the work of our salvation, no small share anyway must be left to trust in God.” (Fr. P. Pourrat, “Theology of the Sacraments” [1930], pp. 389-90).
God bless.
A happy Holy Week to you and a grace filled home stretch for Lent.
My friend… I understand your position. I think we disagree on what constitutes “positive & objective doubt”. We are talking about events that happened well after the “ordination” in question.
According to your position, Leinart would have to say publicly… on CNN for example, that he faked it. I don’t agree. Communists and Masons have proven themselves to have an organizational goal of destroying sacraments. This is a game changer as no previous heretical sect has specifically gone the route of faking sacraments as a major objective to the sect.
If John Doe were to start a sect and call it, “Destroy Catholic sacraments by infiltration and invalidation” and then members of said sect were discovered to be doing just that… then later on the sect were to take over the visible hierarchy and PUBLICLY invalidate the sacraments while still pretending to be Catholic. Don’t you think a re-evaluation would be in order for how we deal with infiltrator “sacraments” once outed for being part of the sect?
This is not rocket science. Sacramental theology has not covered this area specifically… NOT YET. Hence the need for a council.
Pax Techum
Michael, all I can do, again, is to repeat the bedrock principle: If the ordaining bishop properly applies the matter and form in the ceremony, then the necessary intention is presumed. To doubt this, you would have to prove (not just assert or speculate) that the bishop in question, despite external appearances, either did or probably did withhold his intention, contrary to what was manifestly evident at the ceremony. The doubt you are proposing is based on what you *think* or *fear* Cardinal Lienart *might* have done at that particular ordination in 1929, based on *alleged* membership in Freemasonry, one of whose members decades later invalidated the rite of epsicopal consecration under the “authority” of a false pope.
This is *subjective* doubt. The presumption of validity cannot be so easily overthrown, and with good reason. Every administration of a sacrament is, by definition, a human act, and human beings are ordinarily presumed to intend to be doing what they are externally seen to be doing.
Yes, brother… this bedrock principle is good reasoning in a canon court room under a judge, prosecution and defence… but my friend… this is NOT that situation. The courts have been overrun by the enemy, there are no judges, lawyers and no heigharchy. This is the wild west… and if a man is suspected of poisoning people because he’s been found to be part of an assasin guild of poisoners… its wise to not accept drinks from the man until the proper authorities get things worked out… if there’s ever a resurrection of the Church. This could be the end for all we know… (probably not, but who knows).
I’m not a lawyer, not a theologian… I’m no-one. So is everyone else… those who claim to be clergy (most of them). Have questionable origins. “a doubtful pope is no pope” some saint said… that goes DOUBLE for a priest/bishop.
You’re using courtroom logic in a street fight. It just doesn’t work because there are no authorities to try the case. This is self defence in the moment.
The bedrock principle in question is highly practical. It is not simply meant for a canonical trial but in fact to be applied by Catholics on a daily basis.
You can use analogies from daily life to illustrate Church teaching but not to replace it. Your argument must be theological, and it’s not (at least not the one you made in your last comment).
At the end of the day, the Church either requires us to hold Abp. Lefebvre’s priestly ordination in 1929 was valid, or she requires us to hold it was invalid/doutbul, but either way it is a *requirement*, because the Church cannot leave it to each individual’s personal opinion, meaning the Church cannot say that we can consider the ordination either doubtful/invalid or valid, depending on what we find to be more reasonable. That’s why the doubt must be positive, prudent, and objective.
This principle is valid for all times and not subject to revision based on historical circumstances. I can understand if you have a subjective doubt, an uneasy feeling about it, but the subjective doubt must yield to the objectively known facts about the 1929 ordination.
God bless you, brother!
That is a very probable argument, however not binding. My argument is equally probable. We’re not talking about heresy in this situation, but a technicality on what constitutes “moral certainty” and in a unique case that has NO HISTORICAL PRECEDENT to compare too. This issue requires expert legal and authoritative judgement, not to mention an investigation. You, me, “Fr.” Cekada (even if valid) are not qualified to make a binding declaration on this matter. Worse yet… none of these so-called clergy (even if valid) who trace their “orders” to Leinhart have jurisdiction. So they still wouldn’t be able to make a binding declaration with any authority.
The fact that there is no clear hierarchy and few certain clergy today puts the laymen in the know on the defensive. My “subjective doubt” & “uneasy feeling” is within my personal right to make judgements about. I can’t bind anyone else to my personal self defence measures, but nor can you or Cekada or whoever, bind mine to throw caution to the wind and just pretend this case isn’t different. This case IS different. It would be wonderful to know for sure that I can trust them as valid clergy, but I can’t. You are free to do so at your own risk. I re-emphasise that you risk the sin of sacrilege if you worship an invalidly consecrated piece of bread. The intention is not there…. BUT yikes.
God bless!
It is quite true that neither you, me, Fr. Cekada, or anyone else, really, has any authority to make a binding declaration on this. But it is merely *your opinion* that one is required. You keep saying “this case is different.” Different so as to overthrow the Church’s presumption of validity? Hardly, for that principle — acc. to which validity is presumed until there is positive, objective, and prudent doubt to the contrary — is not subject to change.
Pope Leo XIII taught: “A person who has correctly and seriously used the requisite matter and form to effect and confer a sacrament is presumed for that very reason to have intended to do what the Church does. On this principle rests the doctrine that a Sacrament is truly conferred by the ministry of one who is a heretic or unbaptized, provided the Catholic rite be employed.” (Apostolicae Curae, n. 33)
Cardinal Pietro Gasparri hits the nail on the head when he says: “[I]t is never presumed that a minister, in carrying out an ordination, had … an intention of not ordaining, as long as the contrary be not proved, both because no one is presumed wicked, unless it be proved, and because an act, especially [one] so solemn as is an ordination, must be considered valid as long as invalidity be not irresistibly proved” (“Tractatus Canonicus de Sacra Ordinatione”, vol. 2, p. 194).
This is why it is so important to recognize merely *subjective* doubt for what it is. Subjective doubt does not overthrow the presumption of validity. This teaching is given us by the Church. Trust Holy Mother Church!
I do trust Mother Church… but “this is different”. Broken record, but true.
PLXIII was speaking on a very specific matter that had nothing to do with secret infiltrators, so this statement above is not about our situation. He’s speaking about a new rite by a heretical/schismatic sect. This does not apply to us.
C. Gasparri… I have no access to the source you are quoting so I don’t know the context. He could also be speaking about something that does not apply to us. Could you quote more of the source, or supply a link?
Also, I do not hold merely “subjective doubt” because there is manifest evidence. “no one is presumed wicked, unless it is proved” Freemasons have been proven wicked by Popes and by the Church and by their actions to destroy said Church by invalidating sacraments publicly.
I am not making an assumption, but following the declaration of evil already known. Then Apply this to manifest evidence and we have a new situation where we must question the “sacraments” of a man discovered to have been a secret member of an evil society that is bent on destroying the Church from the inside. The same evil society responsible for invalidating the current Novus Ordo clownshow’s “sacraments”.
None of these situations address the “ordination” done by a secret Freemason discovered after the fact.
Even if they did directly address this… and they don’t… it would yet still be lacking since it was not yet manifest publicly (until 1968) that the Masons had the clear and exacting agenda of invalidating Church sacraments. This intention is now publicly manifest and must be addressed by Holy Mother Church.
Pax Tecum,
M.
Here is where I am very confused: where to attend the sacrifice of the Mass? How do I know which “Catholic” church is truly catholic? There are “independent” catholic churches, National Polish Catholic Church, SSPX, FSSP, SSPV, & diocese sponsored latin masses? They all claim to be Catholic, but which is really Catholic? This is quite a struggle for me.
We explain all that here: http://novusordowatch.org/now-what/
The article has given me a clear path to follow. I will anxiously follow the included links. I have been learning more about my Roman Catholic Church for the past 2 years & have arrived here. Thank you very much!
I think l just vomited in my mouth upon reading that…
Dear Novus Ordo Watch
There has been something in my mind. What is the deal with Private Judgement, now before I begin I am not advocating at all for substituting private judgment for the doctrine of the Church. Rather what I ask is at what point are we allowed to use private judgement to believe in something we have certitude over? For instance we do not wait at an intersection for a police officer (authority) to come tell us that the light is green and we must go, we simply see the green light and then move our vehilce through the intersection. Likewise we don’t need a weatherman to tell us it’s raining when in fact it raining for us to say: “it is raining.” My point is at what point does something become so painfully obvious, like Francis is a heretic & not the Pope, that we can make a judgment on the matter?
In my opinion With individual heresies we probably aren’t qualified to say he is now a heretic, but with repeat offenders then yes. Much like if I caught someone in a lie I could not say certainly that man is a liar, however if he lies to me every day for a year then I think I could.
I don’t want to take up too much of your time, but maybe you could address this in your next tradcast?
God Bless
The first thing that needs to be done here is define “private judgment” (something Salza and Siscoe never do). It does NOT mean the cognitive judgment of an individual. That would be absurd because this kind of judgment is what is called the second operation of the intellect (the three operations are: simple apprehension, as in, “car”; judgment, as in, “This car is expensive”; discursive reasoning, as in, “This car is expensive. I cannot afford expensive things. Therefore, I cannot afford this car”).
We are forbidden by divine law from making RASH judgments, which means unfavorable judgments based on insufficient evidence. But certainly when there is sufficient evidence (meaning evidence that produces so-called “moral certitude”), then a judgment is permitted, oftentimes necessary.
Now if I can know, based on objective criteria, what it takes to be a Catholic (member of the Catholic Church), then I can know who is and isn’t a Catholic, at least after having pondered the available evidence. If that weren’t possible, then the entire visibility of the Church would be toast.
Fr. Felix Sarda y Salvany addresses this matter well in his book “Liberalism is a Sin”. He refutes the objection, “You have no authority to say who is a heretic!” Read it here: http://novusordowatch.org/2013/04/who-are-you-to-say-who-is-a-heretic/
The funny thing is that acc. to the semi-trads’ own criteria, even saying that Francis IS Pope, is also a “private judgment” if we use their implied definition of the term because it is still the cognitive judgment of an individual based on the ‘evidence’ before him (i.e., “The ‘Church’ says Francis is Pope, therefore I too hold that Francis is Pope”).
In case you haven’t seen it yet, here is a really good article on “Private Judgment”, based on John Daly’s book “Michael Davies – An Evaluation”: http://novusordowatch.org/2015/12/sede-private-judgment/
And isn’t the ability – necessity even – of making cognitive judgments on these matters implied by St. Paul when he warns against even an angel coming and preaching a gospel other than the one Paul has? That implies those to whom Paul is speaking are able to know and understand, at least to some degree, what Paul has taught and then judge, by contrast, what an opposing teaching would be.
Thank you for the response I will read the articles. I’m actually reading Fr. Sarda’s book right now. I agree with you that if we have the intellect to understand what Catholicism is and isn’t we should therefore have the same power to understand who is and isn’t Catholic. So the whole argument of private judgement does seem to be an argument by prestigious jargon fallacy then.
Here is a link to an audio from a Catholic who has recorded Fr. Sarda’s book. I find it convenient to listen to when Modernists spew any particular aspect of this heretical synthesis to listen this audio –even for a quick refresher on different chapters:
Thank you
I’m confused by this: “These are to be observed with even stronger force of law when it comes to gatherings called “ecumenical”, which laypeople and clerics may not attend at all without previous consent of the Holy See.”
Specifically, why would the Holy See ever consent to an “ecumenical” gathering? I thought the worship with non-Catholics was always and everywhere wrong. Thank you for any help you can offer.
The document in this place is not referring to common worship but to gatherings, meetings, in which both Catholics and non-Catholics participate to speak on religious issues and/or discuss them. In 1949, the Holy Office issued a precise instruction on that:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFECUM.HTM
Simply meeting with non-Catholics is obviously not wrong in and of itself. But it does present a certain danger, hence it needs to be strictly regulated. Let me know if this helps.
Got it, thank you. I see that the distinction between common worship and other meetings is huge and that obviously, (so-called) worship in common would never be permissible.
Yes, exactly. And of course from that we could infer — nay, would HAVE TO infer — that the messenger is in fact not “an angel from heaven” but a demon from hell.
Anglican, Church of Jesus Christ the Scientist, Kingdom Empowerment Temple – doesn’t matter. For Francis and his fellow freemasons, all religions and sects are more or less venerable and praiseworthy and seek to “discover truth.” He’s merely following in the footsteps of “Blessed Pope” Paul VI of unhappy memory:
– “At the Second Vatican Council, the Catholic Church exhorted her sons and daughters to study and evaluate the religious traditions of mankind and to learn by sincere and patient dialogue what treasures a bountiful God has distributed among the nations of the Earth…Buddhism is one of the riches of Asia. (General Audience to Japanese Buddhists, 1973)
H E R E T I C !
Once again he proves himself a heretic.
I am so glad I am going to hell with Your Pope and not to heaven with you and your true church! Then you can laugh and give thanks as I suffer! It will by my Joy!
I don’t think it will work out quite like you say.
He’s not our “Pope”, he’s the head of your non-Catholic sect. To call him a “pope” at all is kind of misleading. Perhaps “grand wizard” or “pooh bah” would make more sense. Anyway, you’re not going to enjoy hell. Feel free to convert. No one is stopping you but you and course ole Frankenstein.
Man do I feel stupid. We’ve been driving all the way to Cincinnati for Mass, and we could’ve been going to the anglican church right down the road.
And don’t forget Francis’ favorite… “tenderness”!
Yes, how could I forget “tenderness” and also “caressing”, “God forgives with a caress not a decree”. Funny how Bergoglio has so much love and tenderness for perverse behavior and only wrath and condemnation for true Catholics.
Such Apostasy is Worthy of removal for heresey period. Sadly typical of Argentina church of Paglia, Sparando and Bergolio our alleged Pope Francis……. . Now we know why they are so much like dying rump church clerics in Germany, low countries and Malta.
May our Lord deliver us soon from this nightmare!!
If all religions are more or less true; if there is no “Catholic God,” if validity obviously doesn’t mean anything to the New Order sect — then it not only should it be tolerated, but people must be encouraged to engage in worship with Anglicans, or with anyone else for that matter. In this way Bergoglio is being true to Vatican II, and to the example of his 5 predecessors of unfelicitous memory.
Fr. Gregory a voice of reason…God bless you.
“Ubi caritas et amor Deus ibi est”. I am hesitant to engage in these conversations. However, this post disturbed me deeply. If I were to hold the Holy Father in such contempt and publish an article with such vitriol and venom, I would feel obligated to accuse myself in Confession of the sins of pride, irreverence, anger – especially pugnacity and quarrelsomeness, malice and contempt. I believe Jesus calls me to be better than this.
Thank you for your feedback. Please understand that we do not believe Francis is in fact a true Pope, or even a valid priest. So, there is certainly no irreverence in that regard. As far as pride, there is nothing prideful here either, merely the faithful application of Catholic teaching and a powerful denunciation of a man who hates Catholicism. Any anger displayed is righteous anger and therefore not sinful.
I would like to remind you that Our Blessed Lord was rather blunt in his scathing rebukes of the Pharisees – see Matthew 23 and John 8.
Lastly, please have a look at this excerpt from a book explicitly endorsed by the Vatican under Pope Leo XIII, which refutes the idea that it is never permissible to attack a person polemically, or to use satire, derision, or other unkind words: http://novusordowatch.org/2015/08/polemics-venom-bitter-zeal/
We must at all times be charitable – this much is clear. But charity and kindness are two different things. We are not obliged (or even permitted) to always and only be kind, as is clear neither our Lord nor the saints were at all times.
God bless you.
Charles Todd, you hit the mark. Perhaps a long meditation on 1 Corinthians 13 is in order?
“…if the speech be always nicely framed, it will not be grateful to the readers” (2 Machabees 15:40).
“Amongst all these must be excepted the declared enemies of God and His church, such as the sects of heretics and schismatics and their Ringleaders, since it is charity to cry out against the wolf when he is among the sheep. We must decry them as much as we can wherever we see occasion.”
—St. Francis de Sales
It’s a testament to the effeminacy of the culture that so-called Catholic men whine about being unkind to apostate Bergoglio when, if there were any good Catholic men left, they’d in unison grab Bergoglio, tape his mouth shut & cast him into the Tiber. Instead, when & if -God forbid these men become heads of families-they teach there children that a true pope can teach & say the vile anti-Catholic things Bergoglio teaches & says.
God help them.
“Does Francis condemn this practice? Does he denounce it as offensive to God, dangerous,…” – this reminds me of those that persecuted Jesus for healing a man on the sabbath.
Really? It reminds me of these words of our Lord: “God is a spirit; and they that adore him, must adore him in spirit and in truth” (Jn 4:24).
I can tell you love winning every doctrinal discussion and yet I will risk one more comment as your entire article brings these words from Jesus to mind, “thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do.”
Isn’t that interesting… Coming from an Anglican whose entire church was founded on a tradition of men condemned by God — that of divorce and remarriage. And of course the entire ecumenism that is so popular nowadays is exactly that: a tradition of men that makes void the Word of God.
Your apparent disdain for true doctrine is frightening. I suggest you meditate on 2 John 9-10: “Whosoever revolteth, and continueth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that continueth in the doctrine, the same hath both the Father and the Son. If any man come to you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him, God speed you.”
Wishing you God’s blessing.
Saepius Officio was the Church of England’s immediate response to Apostolicae Curae. Long but very worth the read. It successfully refutes all of the arguments made against the validity of Anglican holy orders.
To a Catholic, an Anglican response does not matter in the least. The Holy See is judged by no one, and its decision is final and, in this case, infallible. Roma locuta est, causa finita est.
Of course the Anglicans have a song and a dance. All heretics and schismatics do. Did you think they’d say… “Oh… you got me! We’re heretics with an invalid priesthood. We almost had you though!”. No way. There’s always a song and a dance and a whole list of sophisms.
I am not Catholic, so, an honest question: who is the recognized pope for the non-novus ordo Catholics? I’m confused on this point.
There is none. We are so-called “sedevacantists”, meaning we believe that the Chair of St. Peter is vacant. There is no Pope, and this is a great tragedy. Here is a brief overview of the situation: http://novusordowatch.org/start-here/
It’s clear by one of your statements you are not connected with what “celebration” means, or why one would want a celebration. It’s not about them alone, it’s about an opportunity for them to receive from God that which sustains them.
Nope… The Catholic sacrifice of the mass is for God and Catholics attend first as a duty to God and second to receive the sacraments. The Anglican “celebration” and the Novus Ordo sect’s “celebration” are clown shows that offend God. There’s no sacrifice and there’s no valid priesthood. Its a circus for entertainment purposes. Catholics cannot attend such “celebrations” under pain of mortal sin.
We all share a common cup. Those who refuse to kneel down in prayer with Mormons and other Christians do not trully know Christ’s second commandment to love thee neighbor.
The FIRST commandment is to love God with all your strength and all your will and all your mind. To put the second commandment above the FIRST and at the expense of God’s objective Truth is a mortal sin. Love your neighbor for the love of God…. NOT “forget about God and love your neighbor”. You, and everyone like you… have forgotten God.
Nothing to worry about indeed. The SSPX will have its own personal prelature with that the Church of Rome will destroy heresy after all! And what will be left is a pope-less Catholic church of sedevacantists. I call that Anglo Catholicism! (muhahahahahahahaha)
I am not Catholic, but I am a history professor. I was wondering you any of the anti-papal commenters here are aware of the name for Christians that disagree with official papal pronouncements; I believe they’re called “Protestants.”
Indeed we are. We even mention the word several times in the post you’re commenting on. What is your point, though?
I just think it is interesting that there are Catholics that disagree with core Papal doctrines. Yes, I know that when the pope speaks informally that is not the “Word of God.” But there are Catholics that will tell me right to my face “This pope has no idea what he is talking about.” It’s amazing to hear. That is all.
Oh, I misunderstood your original comment then – my apologies. I see what you’re asking now. Basically, the matter is this: We do not acknowledge Francis as a legitimate Pope of the Catholic Church, nor, indeed, any Pope since the death of Pope Pius XII. We are so-called “sedevacantists”. We’ve put together a little overview of the matter here: http://novusordowatch.org/start-here/
What “core papal doctrines” are you observing here Dan? Because it sounds like you don’t have any idea of what you are talking about. Being a non-Catholic doesn’t help here, but here’s some homework for you “professor”… learn what the Catholic Church has taught for 2000 years on infallibility, indefectability and what we MUST believe to be Catholic… (here’s a catechism written prior to the apostate council of Vatican II to get you started… https://archive.org/details/deharbeslargecat00deha )
Once you have a handle on that… read some of the non-Catholic nonsense that has been taught for the last 50 years by these pretender “catholics” that have taken over our churches, pretenders like Francis… who is not a Pope… he’s not even Catholic. Protestants deny the papacy itself while we only deny the last 6 non-Catholics are/were popes. You can’t be the leader of the Catholic Church if you are not even a member.
Side note. You might wish to learn the one true faith and become a member. Its the only way to eternal life. All are welcome… Read that catechism not only so you can know what your talking about next time, but to save your soul.
Its a sad school in a sad world that you teach as a “professor” of history. And then have to gall to come to a Catholic site (as a non-Catholic) and tell us your version of fictional history. Do some home work professor. You are embarrassing the title of “professor”.
God doesn’t care if you worship with Anglicans, Muslims, Jews or Pentecostals. Is your version of God such an insecure being that He must be “worshipped”? NO! We worship God for our own betterment, not for God’s vanity. And by the way – it is Pope Francis, not “pope” Francis (unless you hypocrites have determined that the apostolic succession is only valid when their is a pope you approve of…)
“We worship God for our own betterment”, sounds like you’re worshiping yourself.
Where do you learn your religious doctrine?
Do you think it is vanity that God creates rational beings whose end is to know, love, and serve Him? Or do you think that angels and human beings were created for some other end?
Pantheism is disgusting… spiritual promiscuity. Keep up all that “faith” hopping and you might catch a spiritual std.
You DARE to say that God’s right to be worshipped in the way He prescribes is “vanity” and “insecure”? You sir are a heretic. “God is not mocked”. Its bad that you are a heretic… but it’s worse that you open your mouth to spread your sickness. Unbelievable.
He prescribes “When you pray, do so in secret, not like the heathen in the synagogues”. Not one word of “fight among yourselves, and be sure to build separate buildings and exclude everyone you disagree with”
“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.” (Gal 1:8)
“If any man come to you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him, God speed you.” (2John1:10)
“Beware of false prophets…” (Matt 7:15)
Also, your own quote “… not like the heathen in the synagogues” works against you. Note, “heathen” & “synagogues”. That would include “muslims” and “jews”. As in, don’t worship with or like them. So you are a walking contradiction.
Heretics usually talk out of both sides of their mouth so go figure. Lastly… “building separate buildings and excluding” is necessary. We are not fighting with “ourselves”. Once you deny a single Catholic Tradition, dogma or doctrine you cease to be a member of the Church. So this isn’t infighting. Its the Church is right and everyone else is wrong. “Wide is the gate to destruction…”(Matt 7:13)
Kaci, not sure what you’re saying here about “celebration”? As true Catholics we must put Our Lord Jesus and His doctrines and morals first, and this all goes back to which church did He establish? There are so many protestant denominations with such a huge amount of different doctrinal beliefs and opinions that the truth of Our Lord has been lost. The only way to salvation is through the Church he established, the true Holy Catholic Church. Not the heretical institution in Rome that calls itself Catholic that has defected from the faith, but the one that contains the Faith of the ages, whole and inviolate. It may seem kind and generous to “say” or “believe” that all “Christian Faiths” lead to salvation and that we can worship with any or all, but that is doing a disservice to souls and only leads to error. Bergoglio is not concerned with the true Church and doesn’t care at all for truth. He is the leader of the Cult of man, where all religions are a path to Heaven and in his sect even atheists can be saved. Please don’t be deceived by this man, shun him and seek out independent Catholic priests that hold to the true faith.
I will be 66 years old next month, I have known of this practice ever since I was a child. It is nothing new, on a much less grand arena, within many dioceses of both Roman Catholic and Anglican, throughout college, seminary, and all of my ministry, there have been Roman Catholic, Orthodox and Anglicans practicing inter communion. It isn’t new with Pope Francis.
This article sounds like an Anglican/Episcopalian recruiting tool.
You should actually admire Francis’ admiration for ++Venables, as he is one of the most reactionary bishops in the Anglican Communion today
I am amazed that the conversation here is almost completely devoid of Christ or His Holy Spirit.
What’s even more amazing is that you think the “Holy Spirit” exists in Protestant sects. The gifts and fruits of the Holy Ghost are only available to those who profess the Catholic faith in its entirety and are baptised members. Feel free to convert! Come on home to the One and Only Christian Church started by God Himself in the Flesh… Jesus Christ. All are welcome, but only members are able to enter into His Kingdom.
I have known this from the beginning, and I have commented on the blog https://iudicamedomine.blog/2017/03/05/desvario-radical-del-padre-fortea/.
This goes in the direction of the creation of the new “new mass”.
Hello. We have put together a guide on that here: http://novusordowatch.org/now-what/
Why are you an Anglican? Where exactly do you learn your doctrine? Obviously not from the Bible.
Do the Angels worship God? For their own betterment?
Yes, I do believe that God created rational beings to know, love, and serve Him because He is so good. He made us that we might share in His infinite happiness for all eternity. But to get there, we have to love truth and goodness above all else in this life. In this fallen world we have the great privilege of being able to suffer something for the love of God.
As a Catholic I believe that non-Catholic religions are false, and that God doesn’t intend for anyone to belong to them. It’s pretty simple. If 2+2=4, then it doesn’t equal 5 or 6 or 7.
The New Testament does specifically mention heresies and heretics and that they are to be avoided. I guess in your view the Bible is just wrong about that.
In the bible, where does it say the angels worship?
Do you demand that YOUR children get together to tell you how great you are? No! Do you really think God needs you on your knees so he can feel large? That’s Zeus, not Yaweh.
I would not tell my children to worship me because I am not the eternal being, creator and sustainer of all things, infinitely good, wise, knowing, powerful, and holy. God is.
Psalm 96:7 (97:7 in Protestant bibles), quoted in Hebrews 1:6
Isaias 6:1-3
Apocalypse 4:8-11
Apocalypse 5:11-14
Apocalypse 7:11-12
also see Daniel 3:51-90 and Psalm 148
Sarah, what unity can there be without agreement in faith and morals? Is there no such thing as a heresy?
It’s a sad kind of unity when people get along because they say “believe whatever you please; do whatever you wish.” I think people say this because they don’t believe there is any such thing as religious truth or falsehood. They believe that religion is just fairy tales that perhaps can help people to develop the natural virtues.
On the contrary, it is a sad kind of society when people can’t get along because they cannot grant fellow humans the freedom to believe what they believe, and do as they wish! What would Jesus have said about this, do you think?
And how exactly is this heresy?
You are not a “Christian”.
It’s hard to answer your questions briefly. Because of fallen human nature, there is going to be conflict and bad behavior in any society. Authority is needed to make laws and to enforce them, to keep evil people in check. What some people prefer to believe and to do is just not acceptable, as I’m sure you’re aware. Such people need to be in prison.
Especially in religious matters, no man has the right to grant any freedoms to anyone. We are all held to the same standards, made by God. We are free to believe what is true and to do what is good; in fact, it is by conforming ourselves to truth and goodness that we become truly free. “If the Son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed.”
Jesus said that His followers would be hated and persecuted by the world, precisely because they would reproach it for its wicked ways. Let me know if you want citations from the Bible. Or you could just read through the New Testament and you’ll see them. It would be an excellent thing to do.
I will leave it to someone more knowledgeable to point out the specific heresy in what you’ve said so far. My point was that if Protestantism is not heresy, then what is? The essence of heresy is to believe whatever one wishes to believe, instead of being taught by the Church.
Exactly. You’re right, it is sad because it’s false unity, partly resulting from that which is intertwined within the Heresy of Modernism-specifically-Vital Immanentism.
It’s explained here: http://novusordowatch.org/start-here/
Howler of an article! 🙂
Signed,
A laughing Anglican.
St Paul’s letter to the Galatians will really make you mad.
You’re catching on Dan. The Vatican has been occupied by enemy forces for the last 50 years. Our last Catholic pope (Pius XII) died in 1958 and it has been a circus ever since. The formal division came in the early 1960’s via a false “council” called by the anti-pope usurper “John XXIII” who was invalidly elected.
They proceeded to gut the Catholic faith from that point on in various ways up to including a false worship “service”, invalidating the priesthood ordination rite and blasphemously holding hands with false religions.
The people parading around as “Catholics” and “Popes” and “Bishops” for the last 50 years or so are not Catholic. There are not many proper Catholics left that hold to the True faith and practice it in the way our ancestors and the apostles did. What you know of “Catholicism” is mostly wrong if you think Francis is Catholic.
Glad you got the bones of it. Hopefully you convert to proper pre-Vatican II Roman Catholicism before He returns, or before your death finds you. Its the only way to eternal life. The pass-code, if you will, to the “narrow path” that leads to heaven is Roman Catholicism as taught prior to said takeover. Climb aboard while the climbings still good.
Very sad that you have to waste time squabbling & mocking others, clinging onto divisions & aiding the devil in the name of God. 1 shepherd, 1 flock.