The four marks of the Church are One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. With so many changes having happened within the Church during the past century, many are left wondering: what vestiges remain of the Apostolic deposit of faith? In the era following Vatican II, the two most important evaluations of the four marks of the church are probably going to be the following.
1) Evangelization of the modern world is the main thrust of the actual documents of Vatican II. Have the missions improved since 1965?
2) Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI speaks of the “hermeneutic of continuity.” This means that any council, especially Vatican II, must be interpreted in light of the previous councils. Has this happened since 1965?
More specifically, the hermeneutic of continuity is the teaching of Benedict that the tradition of the Catholic Church before Vatican II can be lived with the new expressions of the faith that were supposed to follow the Council. “Hermeneutic” basically means philosophy or tool of interpretation, and “continuity” signifies the idea that Catholic doctrine, worship, and life after the Council should be the same as the previous generations, but renewed.
While this is theoretically possible, it may not be practically possible (barring a worldwide miracle). Miracle or not, the following seven aspects need to be accepted by faithful Catholics before we experience any possible “hermeneutic of continuity”:
1. Things (good and bad) were already in motion before Vatican II. Some say liberal humanism entered the Church in the Renaissance era (16th century). Some say it entered the Church because of Vatican II (1962 to 1965). Most well-read traditionalists recognize that heresy successfully infiltrated seminaries just before World War I (1905-1915).
The heresy of Modernism (“the synthesis of all heresies,” according to Pope St. Pius X) actually began as an attack on the Bible: Fr. Loisy was a Scripture scholar at a French seminary and made waves in doubting the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture. St. Pius X excommunicated him after numerous attempts at rehabilitation. Of course it starts with this, since Satan’s first words to man and woman were, “Did God really say…?” (Genesis 3:1). In any case, it was probably because Sacred Scripture was questioned in the first half of the 20th century that clerics in the second half of the century had the hubris to question the Church’s prohibition of contraception within marriage.
The cancer we now experience in the Church may have little to do with Vatican II. Even Archbishop Lefebvre said in a 1978 interview: “I would not say that Vatican II would have prevented what is happening in the Church today. Modernist ideas have penetrated everywhere for a long time.” But the good may not be due to Vatican II, either: while many Catholics now rightly recognize that they need a personal relationship with Jesus Christ to keep His commandments, so did St. Ignatius of Loyola in writing the Spiritual Exercises in the 16th century. Jesus Himself said: “If you love me, you will keep my commandments” (John 14:15). So this timeless understanding of relationship was not introduced at the Council. At least we can say that both extremes in the Church need to stop using Vatican II as an excuse for presumption or despair.
2. No council will ever be able to change Divine Revelation. But it can be deepened. Jesus Christ gave the Deposit of the Faith once and for all to the Apostles. A council should grow the understanding of the deposit of the Faith. For example, the Council of Chalcedon gave new depth to the already revealed truths of Christology, now buttressed by new parameters on the wording of Christ’s hypostatic union. Councils should offer organic additions to or extrapolations upon the Sacred Scriptures to meet new social needs or tackle new heresies. But a true Council cannot offer a mutilating subtraction from the deposit of the faith.
I’m not saying that Vatican II does this, but “the spirit of Vatican II” surely does. For example, people say ridiculous things like “Vatican II prohibits Holy Communion on the tongue” or “Vatican II allows contraception.” This would be less of the Catholic faith, which a true Council cannot effect.
Vatican II is difficult to evaluate on this front, since none of the documents were issued with the weight of infallibility. Thus, Vatican II must be weighed against the other 20 ecumenical councils. Had we done that honestly as Catholics, our worship and lifestyle would have experienced only subtle and beautiful changes.
3. The new Mass wasn’t necessary to go Ad Gentes. Ad Gentes is the missionary chapter of Vatican II, meaning “Towards the Nations” as a missionary call. Vatican II was completed in 1965. Then, from 1965 to 1969, the Mass was radically changed.
Did the new Mass help the missionaries go “to the nations”? Well, first we must recognize that Western missionaries to Africa and Asia were abundant before the council, especially from 1800 to 1960. After 1965, almost all mission work to foreign countries was replaced with social justice workers.
Native evangelization seems to have continued after the council. For example, we have the astonishing examples of Chinese Christians evangelizing their countrymen at the constant price of torture and martyrdom. But how about the West? Did the new Mass succeed in the U.S. and Europe?
The architects of the new Mass (like Msgr. Bugnini) told us that the new Mass would be attractive to Protestants. However, decades after these changes, we see that more Americans have left the new Mass for what Protestants do best (praise and worship and exciting preaching) than probably ever before since the days of Luther. I can’t prove causality, but at least the liturgical changes were concurrent with sunken vocations, plummeted Mass attendance, unitarian-sounding catechesis, and the closing of beautiful old parishes along the entire Eastern seaboard. Not far from a chunk of such parishes in Boston, Dr. Peter Kreeft reminds us that this was nothing short of a “liturgical holocaust.” I cannot recall any such experimentation plaguing the Traditional Latin Mass in 1,500 years, even during the doctrinal crises within the Church.
4. The revamping of the sacraments after the Council is not necessarily a part of the hermeneutic of continuity. Following Vatican II, a small group of elitist bishops (admittedly influenced by their progressive Protestant “doctors”) convinced the rest of the bishops in the world to accept a new set of gutted blessings, a gutted exorcism rite, a gutted calendar, a gutted Divine Office, a gutted anointing, and a gutted Mass. Strangely, this became the norm for the Catholic Church, with cruel brainwashing for anyone who holds to the so-called “hermeneutic of continuity.”
Thankfully, God in His great mercy kept all the newly gutted sacraments valid. But there is more than “just valid” for the priest to aim for. For example, there were minor exorcisms to be prayed over the dying man or woman in ancient extreme unction. Why would any “liturgical experts” take exorcisms away from the dying?
5. We can accept the fullness of tradition and still live for the missions. According to Benedict’s Summorum Pontificum document of 2007 (and numerous 16th-century documents), I, as a priest, don’t have to reject the traditional sacramentals or sacraments of the Catholic Church. I am permitted to hold fast to the Traditional Latin Mass and sacraments in my worship and evangelization. All of my study of it has proven that it is not a Mass 500 years old but somewhere between 1,500 and 2,000 years old. Most of the Mass I offer daily is the same as the 5th-century Mass, but the “old Mass” may go even earlier. The Council of Trent calls the so-called “extraordinary form” of the Mass one of “apostolic” origin.
While I prioritize the celebration of the Traditional Latin Mass and the institution of traditional sacraments, I also want to bring Christ to the nations, as St. Paul and St. Francis Xavier did. Yet the thinking today seems to be that the new Mass is best for the missions and that the Traditional Latin Mass is best for the neurotic and psychotic who simply wish to “pull up the drawbridge” for a cultish lifestyle.
We need to stop thinking this way – after all, who were better missionaries than the Apostles? The nations were all successfully evangelized by priests using the Traditional Latin Mass.
6. Lex orandi, lex credendi. We believe as we worship. Bad liturgy will inevitably lead to bad learning, even without bad catechesis. For example, Vatican II was not a dogmatic council, and still American Catholics have all but lost the Faith.
Following the Council, Catholics came to a consistent conclusion: experiment in liturgy warrants experiment in doctrine. Can you blame them? It is only natural for fear of God to be lost in doctrine if first lost in liturgy. The Mass is to bring peace and comfort, yes, but worship is also to reveal an awesome sense of the transcendent. That forgotten union with God – a God infinitely powerful and holy – is nearly impossible to believe in when you walk into Mass amid drab communist marching songs like “Gather Us In.” How could replacing the transcendent grandeur of the Solemn High Mass with Marty Haugen possibly lead more souls to God?
I used to think that this “liturgical holocaust” was a problem exclusive to the United States, but I have found worse music and sacrilege elsewhere in the world (like ants eating the Holy Eucharist in a tabernacle I saw in Brazil). How can anyone fear God if we treat Him this way?
I can say in good conscience that Protestant mega-churches treat God with more holy fear than the average Catholic parish does, at least externally. And I make this statement after travels to parishes on five continents since my ordination.
7. Collateral circulation. There have been some extremely beautiful and powerful movements in the Church since Vatican II. These lay movements are analogous to collateral circulation. Collateral circulation is when blood finds new routes through smaller arteries to perfuse the tissue with oxygen – despite the fact that there are still occluded larger arteries, originally intended for the bulk of the work. The smaller arteries in my analogy could be things like FOCUS, the Augustine Institute, Theology on Tap, and even the charismatic movement (outside the Mass), where I have seen the hand of God work miracles.
The Holy Priesthood in this analogy is the large but occluded artery. It is charged with Apostolic greatness, but currently it is blocked by fear and politics.
Hasn’t this always been the case? No, for this occlusion is due to a lot of new things like the child abuse scandals along with less recognized deterrents to young men. For example, the relativism plaguing our doctrine is so ubiquitous that recently a holy and gentle bishop said that even the Pope’s theology is “objectively erroneous.” What young man would want to follow this confusion into celibacy?
Where do we go from here? Well, I don’t want us to return to the 1950s, as some angry people do. My proposal is simple: let the Church move forward with all of her great lay movements, but have all bishops and priests offer the timeless 1962 sacraments. We can keep “the New Evangelization,” but let’s be careful against modernist doctrine. Then we will see a new wave of inspiring priests come from believing families. In fact, the Mother of God promised a nun in the 16th century that the 20th century (after experiencing a great loss of the Catholic Faith) would be followed by God “sending to His Church the Prelate who shall restore the spirit of her priests.” I believe that this renewal and this “Prelate” are coming in our lifetime, even if the triumph has to follow a few more global and ecclesiastical catastrophes.
Fr. Nix can be followed on blog, video, and podcast at http://www.padreperegrino.org/about-padre/.
Hermeneutic is the methodology of interpretation, not a ‘philosophy’. Pope Benedict chose his words carefully.
Good catch. We’ve updated the post.
Steve, Are you going to put out a piece regarding Card. Sarah’s call for ad orientem?
World War I is too late of a date. “Pastoral mercy” requiring absolution of unrepentant usurers became the norm in the 1800’s.
The authors last paragraph is exactly right. Just as we have seen in so many other segments of society that has changed, we forget why we do what we do.
I believe that getting back to basics is one way to add some cohesion and heal divisions. These basics, for me would include a reverent, holy Mass that worships God and the sacrifice of Jesus for atonement and reconciliation of our sins. I do not care if it is in latin or my own/ your own language. Is the Mass for/about God/Jesus rather than human focused.
Does the church preach about sin, all types of sin, and about reconciliation and the need for it. Is everyone part of the community, welcoming, inclusive, rather than stratified/hierarchical. Do we come to the assistance of our community members and the community at large. Do we teach truth and the importance of truth, of love, compassion, kindness, towards all lovingly.
Do we offer life long formation to discuss, debate, share our faiths with others in the community, and humbly so that we can all grow in faith and how that is lived out. Can these also be live out and expect from our vowed members who seem to be doing the opposite. Can we all have supple hearts so that we do not dig in our heels at the slightest thoughts, changes, as no ones faith is without some form of lacking/misinterpretation/error.
The CC is no longer visibly One or Holy. We are the scattered sheep whose shepherd has abandoned us. Just like the Protestants five hundred years ago left for pastures new, so has there been an emptying of & selling off churches as never before since Vatican II. The introduction of the New Liturgy, the disbanding of certain sacraments, the ditching of catechesis from our schools & the wilful decision not to evangelise the populace for fear of offending other so-called Christians who themselves cannot agree on anything has produced the greatest wounds on the Mystical Body of Christ.
False ecumenism & an obsession with climate change has almost disintegrated the CC. Our only hope of restoration lies with the Traditional Orders who, until now, have shown too much respect to Modernist Popes/Hierarchies at the expense of humungous amounts of souls worldwide who have been under unbelievable pressure to abandon the faith altogether. Their NO Bishops have prevented Traditional Orders from ministering within their Dioceses because they have not been regularised by Rome, so it is absolutely essential that the CDF grant them direct faculties clearing the way for such evangelisation.
We all have been baptised by water & the Holy Ghost and are thereby entitled to be taught the Truth which only the CC can pass on. The amount of Catholics world-wide that have been thus barred from hearing the Truth is inestimable and must be ended.
What sacraments have been disbanded? Last time I checked, there were still seven
Anointing of the Sick, Confirmation & practically speaking Confession also. Of course, I can only say what’s happening in my Diocese of Malaga, Spain. Marriage is also on the way out due to cohabitation & along with it baptism. This seems to be OK with PF as he sees genuine love in non-married situations & as all can get to Heaven by good deeds, baptism isn’t a must either. Little by little all the sacraments will be non-functioning in the near future if this decline is allowed to continue.
From where I’m standing Confirmation has not been disbanded. The confirmandi certainly do not understand it as well as they should and it is often seen as graduation rather than the initiation that it’s supposed to be but it’s still there. I am willing to concede Annointing of the Sick has become just that rather than a sacrament to prepare for death. Confession however is anything but disbanded. In my diocese confessions are heard before every Mass, Sunday and daily, and lines are always sizable if not long
They really do not need to understand it…
Confirmation since VII has become a “right of passage.” It is not.
In fact, Confirmation is the second sacrament of initiation with Baptism as the first. In all the Eastern rites of the Church, infants receive BOTH sacraments.
We have it wrong in the West when it comes to the proper order.
In order to become a full member of the Church, one must receive both Baptism AND Confirmation (Chrismation in the East).
Technically, one should not receive Holy Communion until they receive BOTH sacraments of initiation.
In the Latin rite, we receive in this order:
Baptism, First Penance, Holy Communion, Confirmation.
However, in the diocese I grew up in, it was Baptism, First Holy Communion (2nd grade), First Confession (4th grade), then Confirmation (8th grade).
With exception of Archbishop Samuel Aquila in Denver, no other diocese is doing this in the right order.
Not to mention how many so called parish and diocesan “professionals” would be without jobs if the West administered the sacraments the way it always was from the beginning- the East being the exception.
I was going to mention Archbishop Aquila but you already have. I agree that the proper order should be restored, although we would likely have children and parents flying the coop even earlier and not coming back until the kid has to be married if that were the case.
“Flying the coop?” I would say moving Confirmation to the 8th grade (9, 10, 11, and/or 12th grades depending on the diocese) seems to have not made a difference one way or another.
The fact is that the sacraments confer special graces that ALL Catholics need- the sooner the better. Understanding what these sacraments do (the ones we discuss here) is of no consequence. It is up to the parents as the first teachers of their children to instruct them. Knowledge comes later for the infant/child.
The way I see it, if I had my druthers about it, the entire Church- East and West- would all administer the sacraments in the same order just as they were in the times of the Apostles.
Since you mentioned “the same order…as they were in the times of the Apostles” I think its interesting that the Apostles themselves received the sacraments in the order in which we do now: Baptism (either by St. John the Baptist or Christ Himself), Communion (at the Last Supper) and Confirmation (at Pentecost). Technically speaking, they received Holy Orders before they were Confirmed!
Now, the Acts of the Apostles shows how converts were first baptized (by Phillip, a deacon) and were later confirmed (by having Peter and John, apostles and therefore bishops, lay their hands on them) but there is no mention of communion, either before their confirmation or afterward.
However, the Apostles were one of kind. Of our conversation here, I am specifically speaking about infants born to Catholic parents. Converts are another issue altogether.
The funny thing is that converts actually receive their sacraments in the ancient order: baptism (if not already baptized), confirmation then Holy Communion.
Since you said infants, I am assuming that you are saying that children confirmation at the same time they are baptized? Might it be better to confirm them at the same time they receive their First Communion?
Yes! Infants/children of Catholic parents would receive both Baptism & Confirmation at the same time. First Holy Communion would come only after the child reaches the age of reason (7) provided First Penance is received.
When our Bishop [Larry Silva, HNL] also announced the restoring of the of the reception of the sacraments in their proper order, I asked the why and related questions as I always do. The following is one reason I given:
The other was Jesus was first baptized, received the Holy Spirit and then instituted the Eucharist. It should be noted that In the Eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches, the three sacraments of initiation are administered at the same time to infants.
What Diocese are you in? I’m afraid my Diocese is like our Sister’s in Spain?
Lake Charles, Louisiana. From what I hear, it hasn’t always been this way. Where are you?
Diocese of Saint Augustine FL where everyone goes to heaven and there is no one in hell. You will never hear of sin and the four last things…
Just for the record, you need to reach middle age here for Confirmation which is abysmal IMO as you need the graces that are conferred by this sacrament from an early age. Also, Confession is rare, mostly in the vestry or front bench of the church with Readers & Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion coming & going. There is no privacy and of course many times you are turned away as the priest did not allow the time for hearing confessions. I was once told not to come back for four years!
In my day you were confirmed at 11 or 12 as it was obligatory to have this sacrament conferred before Marriage. Now its the other way around i.e. if young people do aim for Matrimony over cohabitation which is rare these days. Two of my son’s friends have fathered children & then split up with the girlfriend because they were immature & hadn’t the income to support a family. No-one wins in these situations but if catechesis was given through from First Communion to final school examinations (as I had to do) you go into the outside world more mature & confident & this must be resumed. It was only because of false ecumenism that it was dropped and was a catastrophe.
Agreed.
I have been turned away from confession due to Mass being about to start but most of the time the priest will return to the confessional after Mass
They don’t here.
Actually there are 10 Diocese in the United States who have the Restored Order of the Sacraments in place. Let us pray that eventually there will be many more.
Father, thank you for the extra information. Of course, the other issue is that not all of these ten dioceses have the same age requirement. I know the bishop of Knoxville, TN, will allow Confirmation at age 10 starting in two more years. I still for the life me cannot understand that. In a news release last month, the bishop there said that a committee composed of priests studied the issue for nearly three years. I really do not understand what takes three years to make a recommendation to a bishop. Worse yet, the fact that the bishop there accepted what appears an arbitrary age- not at all in keeping with ancient tradition.
Which 10?
The Fargo Diocese is still doing it after Bishop Aquila left for Denver. Young kids are more pure and acceptable to the Sacrament of Confirmation. They also need the extra grace before the teenage years, especially in our current culture.
Seven modernized and watered down!
I’m glad for the shout out to FOCUS and the Augustine Institute. I have seen them do great work as well and really lead souls to Christ. With all the focus on problems after Vatican II and deficiencies in the New Evangelization, I think it’s easy to throw out the baby with the bath water
“…followed by God ‘sending to His Church the Prelate who shall restore the spirit of His priests.'”
Cardinal Sarah is that prelate. Keep faith, hope and love and just watch. Good times are ahead–at least for the faithful.
SO excited to see Fr. Nix working with 1Peter5. Thank you, Steve, for publishing him…He is a true Warrior for Jesus through Mary–I hope we will see his publications often!!!
http://i64.tinypic.com/2dlixja.jpg
I am glad Vatican II allowed it. Can you imagine all the damned souls Vatican II saved! Am-uh-azing – no wonder some people call it the Conciliar Church not the Catholic Church. Yikes
I must have inadvertently skipped over any and all Church documentation stating that Vatican II retroactively provides a Get-Out-of-Hell-Free card to any souls that have already been damned—just because Vatican II (!!!!!) says so.
Oh, the glory of the Supercouncil™! What can’t Vatican II do?
“What can’t Vatican II do?”. Fill the parish churches and seminaries with faithful Catholics????
Diocese of Westminster has had ‘O’ men enter the seminary this year, whilst traditional seminaries sometimes have to turn men away!
Behold: Vatican II, the Supercouncil™ that trumps all other councils in that everything that came before the Supercouncil™ is irrelevant and meaningless.
So Church history can be condensed down to this simple formula, I guess:
Before Vatican II = Bad
After Vatican II = AWWW-YEAHHH!
But nothing of substance changed, don’t you know? Just keep telling yourself that. Just keep telling yourself that. If you say it enough, then they’ll believe it . . .
For decades post-Vatican II Church CCD and RCIA programs taught that the pre-Vatican II Church was “medieval”, “backward”, “oppressive”, “anti-science”, and wrapped up in some sort of siege mentality in it’s dealings with the “world”. Vatican II was supposed to be the breath of fresh air cure-all that would make everybody finally like Catholics.
I was about to make a crack about the dangers of reading too much Balthasar. But I’m not sure that even he could have written that response.
There are two root causes of the great apostasy we see in the post-Vatican II Church. They are terrible leadership by the bishops, and a systematic “protestantization” of Catholic liturgy and theology.
All of the woes that the Church has suffered through since 1965 were either tolerated by the bishops, or sprang from their innovations. The sexual abuse scandals that plagued the priesthood are one example, and reception of Holy Communion in the hand, and the proliferation of annulments are two others. The Vatican II Era popes share this responsibility. It is interesting to note that one of the fruits of Vatican II is a very “flexible” interpretation of papal infallibility. Whereas Vatican I concisely and dogmatically defined papal infallibility, the post-1965 Church has increasingly endorsed the idea that just about anything said by a pope is somehow “magisterial”.
One of the main goals of Vatican II was to reach out to the Protestants. Unfortunately, the game plan to accomplish this aim has degenerated into accommodation and appeasement. The ultimate result is the Pope’s trip to Lund , Sweden this October to “commemorate” Luther’s Reformation. Of course the Novus Ordo Mass itself was a concession to Protestantism.
Excellent article Farther Nix. Last week I had the opportunity to have a half hour discussion during lunch with a visiting Russian (work related) who belongs to the Eastern Orthodox Church.
He regards the Latin Rite Catholic Church, as he put it, as being a hotbed of Freemasonry and likened it to; “A branch which has broken off the tree of life and now lies on the ground, rotting.”
He identified the NO liturgy as a primary cause of the destruction of The Faith. “Your Mass is but mere celebration, understood as mere memorial meal is it not, whereas our rite is understood as actual reenactment of the sacrifice of Christ on Calvary, the broken body of Christ is offered to The Father in atonement for our sins.”
I pointed out to him that the liturgy of the Traditional Catholic Latin Mass remains as it always was – that it is seen as the reenactment of the sacrifice of Christ on Calvary where Christ is offered to The Father in atonement for our sins.
His reply was simple: “Then WHY do your people not go to it then mmmm, eh? Why then do they go to this other travesty mmmm eh? This travesty which makes no sense at all!”
Food for thought isn’t it.
If it was available I’m sure people would flock to it, but it isn’t in my part of the world. The NO Bishops will not allow it to be celebrated. PB should have mandated it, not simply reminded us that it was never abrogated. NO Bishops need to be instructed to allow TLM to be celebrated in every parish throughout the world & this needs to be done NOW. Traditional Orders need regularisation without strings attached – after all, they are only carrying out their ministry as it was before Vatican II.
True Ana, it isn’t always available and I did point that out to the gentleman. I totally agree that NO Bishops should be allowing the TLM to be made available in as many parishes as is possible, so that the Faithful would have ready access.
Currently, I’ve read that some members of the Faithful are moving house to be close to a parish with the TLM – and that others will otherwise travel some hours to go there. In the near future, there may also be the possibility that a few priests will travel a circuit to say the TLM monthly – said in a house or hall if necessary – but that’s a whole new subject….
Mass is offered in the Extraordinary Form in the cathedral of my diocese every Sunday by a rotation of priests, one of whom is my pastor
In the Archdiocese of Miami, with 111 parishes and approximately 1.4 million Catholics, the Latin Rite is published by the Archdiocese website and celebrated at one Parrish, once each Sunday. There is a very small,
minuscule, augmentation by a couple of other Parishes, but they are not published and are seasonal and sporadic.
Feed my lambs. Feed my sheep.
http://www.miamiarch.org/CatholicDiocese.php?op=Masses
One Parish out of 111. So much for Summorum Pontificum, Benedict
XVI’s Motu Proprio and his Apostolic Letter…
At least it’s actively opposed as it is in other Archdioceses. From what I hear, the availability of the Extraordinary Form is the least of the problems for the Archdiocese of Miami…I don’t know how much has changed with the new Archbishop though
Dag, Bro, you just had to go there. I dunno, been thinking about attending the SSPX Chapel 9 miles down the road. Lectoring with a bow (repeatedly got admonished for genuflecting prior to approaching) before the Altar and Tabernacle is problematic as are the plethora of “extraordinary ministers”, reception standing up and in der hand: May God Bless, Strengthen, and Keep Cdl. Sarah and his Brothers in Defending the Faith (talk about having few laborers). I don’t even want to go into my experience as a pre-Confirmation Catechist. Pax Christi
I was given three links a couple of months ago. Two had stopped offering the Latin Rite & the other didn’t respond to my email asking if it was still being offered there (Sevilla) which was the nearest (approx. 150 kms. each way). Most Latin Rite Masses are held in the North of Spain, mainly Catalonia, but we really need Catholic schools preparing children for Holy Communion & Confirmation as well as the full liturgy & sacraments. Priests going around the country saying Holy Mass here & there is not providing a true ministry & our children/grandchildren are missing out. It’s not the priests fault, it is the Bishops who are thoroughly Modernist in their outlook & need a firm instruction to provide TLM & catechesis for schoolchildren, but even PB didn’t mandate it although many think he did.
In which part of Spain do you live, Ana?
It is our pride. We want things our way. We put too much emphasis on our feelings these days.
In a way, the Church’s missionary efforts have been essentially – if not, intentionally – abrogated due to the post-conciliar introduction of “religious liberty.” This masonic-influenced concept promotes religious/spiritual relativism and abolishes any need for evangelization. I mean, why would anyone want or choose to enter into the Catholic Church when declarations like Nostra Aetate/Dignitatis Humanae say you’re free to worship God as YOU see fit? No one has a “right” to dwell in error.
Absolutely True. Modernist Catholics will look at you crazy when you say this…
Thank you Rev. Fr. Nix, may you be blessed on earth and attain everlasting life. Great article and suggestion moving forward. We are nor far for that liberty and exaltation of Holy Mother Church, it will be amazing as Scriptures also tells us. This is a great article. I always distinguish VII and the innovations post VII, even though to me the spirit of the Antichrist was present at the council or specifically in some council fathers; which should not be surprising as the evil one was also in the cenacle.
I’m a convert – 10 years (actually more) a loyal member of the Church. I am not a fan of the present Pope. I guess that converts of my era moved toward the Church of JPII and Benedict. I was a spiritual piece of iron attracted by the magnet ideas of faith and reason and the result – that God had shown his love of us by divine suffering. It was a profound change in my life and I regret none of it. I think I side with “traditionalists” or simply put readers of this site on almost any subject. Except one.
I have only seen one “old mass.” When I was taking my extremely rigorous and content rich confirmation classes for the Lutheran Church in 1962, the “Luther League” took the lot of us (probably 25 early teens) to a “High Mass” conducted at the St. Paul MN Cathedral. I can’t really remember the Holy Day, but it couldn’t have been a standard Christian holiday. In any case, the Cathedral (a large and very lovely place) was full. And we young Lutherans – who had never seen anything like this – I think were initially impressed because of the music, the elaborate dress and the elaborate theater. The bulk of the mass, as I remember it, was entirely ceremonial and included a kind of disrobing of one bishop to another. A kind of intricate dance almost. But everything was in Latin (our public HS had a 4 year Latin program at the time – pretty rare now) except for a short but homily that I remember because it was in English. By the end everyone in our group was bored and thinking that the Cathedral was run by very rich witch-doctors.
In the realm of those who are paid to create war and peace, this expedition would be called “white propaganda.” This refers to a kind of disinformation that is, strictly speaking, true but makes the opponent look bad by omitting ideas or facts central to the argument. That night surely worked on the young Lutherans observing. We walked away thinking “Catholics are weird.” Not bad, or evil mind you – there were enough “RCs” around that were are friends and neighbors that it was more of a “head-scratcher”: I think we considered them superstitious. Not lost, but somehow on the wrong track.
After a 20 year serious relationship with Mother Church the one part of today’s Church that I find essential is the vernacular mass. I do not know what impact the mass had if all the lovely choreography that I appreciate today did not exist and was replaced by a kind of supernatural ceremony in a foreign tongue. It was not my world. I can understand – I think – why others would be drawn to it. But the modern Mass is mine and I love it dearly. Mother Church continues to expand across the world whatever blunders made in Rome. But I cannot see that this growth would have taken place in the world the Vulgate. Nor am I sure that Catholic charismatic movements would be well hinged on a liturgy coming from 18 centuries of European Catholicism.
No answers here. The sort of thing one prays for guidance.
I love Latin (took three years in high school and six semesters in college) but I feel the same way about Mass in the vernacular
The Mass is not about us. It is about Jesus Christ. The new Mass puts more focus on the community, while the traditional Mass put the main focus on Jesus Christ. We tend to focus on our feelings too much these days, and love is an act of the will, whether it be another person or Jesus Christ Himself.
One Peter Five readers,
I have posted below (Source: https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2016/07/07/libellus-di-condanna/) the first official (in Italian as of yesterday- I translated it via Google Translator) posting of the conference in Rome by a large group of Catholic theologians who gathered to list and condemn numerous heresies from the latest apostolic exhortation “Amoris Laetitia” signed by Pope Francis.
Libellus of condemnation of the errors contained in,
presupposed by, or underlying the ‘Amoris Laetitia document’
Mindful of Our Sovereign Lord, Jesus Christ, that our,
“Yes”, is a “yes”, and our “no”, “no”,
and likewise teaching mindful of His Vicar on earth, Pope Pius VI of happy
memory, who taught:
“When it becomes necessary to expose
claims that hide some mistakes suspicion or some danger under the veil of
ambiguity, it must denounce the perverse meaning under which the opposite error
to the Catholic truth is masked”
we members of Real Catholici wish to express our loyalty to
the faith we have received from the lips of Christ through the preaching of the
Apostles, handed down in the Catholic Church and fortified by the infallible
Magisterium of the Church, in condemning the so-called Apostolic Exhortation,
“Amoris Laetitia” like a work of deceit and deception, error and
heresy, between which condemn the following errors:
against Modernism
With Pope St. Pius X, we condemn the notion that the dogmas
of Faith evolve or that the Church arrivals to a clearer knowledge of the truth
through the efforts of men who try to accommodate the teachings of Christ and
the Apostles to the wishes, customs and customs or the culture in which they
live.
Against false pastorality
We condemn the notion that the truth of the Catholic Faith
on Marriage can properly teach and apply pastoral without mentioning the word
“adultery”, which is absent in the entire document, such as Dr. Anna
M. Silva noted.
We condemn the notion that a Catholic moral law or the moral
precepts of the Old New Testament are an ideal to be achieved and not
obligations to be observed by force as the bare minimum of the Christian life,
as our Lord and Savior has commanded at all, ” If you love me, keep My
commandments “, not” If i love, listen to My advice. ”
We condemn the notion that public sinners we can not say
more categorically “be in the state of mortal sin”,
“sinners”, “sinful”, “living sinful lives”, or
“employees from sin.”
We condemn the use of verbose language to hide or forget to
bring the unchanging truth of the Faith taught by Christ and his apostles and
handed down over centuries immemorial within the Church.
We condemn the use of the statements of Catholic truth to
disarm the faithful regard to those parts of the document that are full of
errors, blasphemies and heresies.
We condemn as false pastoral ethics, that the clergy should
not preach or teach at all and to all the faithful that adultery is mortally
sinful,
We condemn as false pastoral ethics that the clergy should
remain shut up or at least not disapprove publicly and routinely adultery or
divorce.
We condemn as cruel and insensitive the notion that it is
morally permissible to settle regular public sinners with integration into
parish life, when they refused to repent and leave their life of sin, and not
to displease usually with perennial apostolic practice of refusing the
sacrament, and human society, as long as they remain such.
We condemn as false and injurious to the good morals and the
right formation of conscience the notion that mortals habitual sinners should
not make people feel excommunicated when they customarily rejected repentance.
We condemn the hypocrisy of the pastor that he would write,
“Of course, if someone flaunts an objective sin as if it were part of the
Christian ideal, or wants to impose something different from what the Church
teaches, can not expect to do catechesis or preaching “(AL 297), while in
the meantime builds a document to exonerate sinners and do seem guilty pastors
of souls that apply to them the apostolic and traditional Church discipline.
We condemn as false pastoral ethics, the preference for a
sacramental discipline that causes confusion with respect to another that is
clear and black and white.
We condemn as deception for the promulgation of a
Exhortation which explicitly states not to impose new rules while giving orders
by the Holy See to the episcopal conferences of the world to report how the
document is made effective in their countries.
We condemn as false and erroneous pastoral practice that
offers all the questions for self-reflection to public sinners except those
concerning the absolute necessity of observance of God and moral precepts as a
condition of eternal salvation, and those questions that relate to the
necessary immediate danger of eternal damnation on account of their objective
lack of compliance with those precepts.
Against false morality
We condemn the Council of Trent the notion that what God has
commanded is too difficult to observe, or that He did not, not, or will not
give sufficient grace to observe each and every one of His precepts.
We condemn the notion that a catechesis which deserves the
name ‘straight and Catholic’, can regardless of talk about the absolute necessity
of compliance with the commandments of God as the pre-condition for the gift of
eternal salvation.
We condemn as false and heretical the assertion that
“it is no longer possible to say that all those who are in some situation
so-called” irregular “they live in a state of mortal sin, deprived of
sanctifying grace”, since it is de fide that mortal sin deprives the soul
of sanctifying grace, as taught by the Apostle St. John.
We condemn as false to assert that even if “A person,
while knowing well the norm, can have great difficulty in understanding the
values inherent in the moral norm”, may be authorized, recommended or
allowed to transgress it.
We condemn as false the notion that someone can avoid sin in
not making a decision, when its objective moral practice is not in accordance
with the objective demands of God, of morality or of natural law, since every
deliberate omission in the observance of this law in grave matter is a mortal
sin.
We condemn as deception and deceit to use a quote from the Angelic
Doctor when he spoke of those with habitual grace, in reference to those who
are in mortal sin.
We condemn as false and blasphemous the notion that God
Himself could inspire a soul to take a step forward towards a better
disposition to repentance and because of this absolve the moral obligation to
repent at that time or to consider the dead as a meritorious work of
justification.
We condemn as deception for the quote of the Angelic Doctor
about the difficulty of understanding the application of moral principles in
particular cases, as he spoke of the failure of the principles themselves or
their applicability to such cases.
We condemn the notion that the natural law inscribed by God
in all things, is not a priori code of moral obligations universally binding
all human beings.
We condemn as false and blasphemous assertion that the
process better disposed to the grace of conversion is a process of
sanctification, because that error revives the error of the Pharisees who
considered works of the law as meritorious or actual from themselves the grace
of justification or sanctification.
We condemn as false, a contradiction in terms and the
heretical notion that a soul in the state of mortal sin can grow in grace, by
any means, and remains in that status.
We condemn as false and heretical the assertion that the
word, “mortal sin”, you no longer use to the public sinners who
violate a grave divine precept revealed by God.
We condemn as false the quote from the writings of Pope John
Paul II in order to refuse its condemnation of so-called “law of
gradualness” in morals.
We condemn as false the notion that the obligations of a
false consciousness acquire priority over the objective requirements of the
moral law or sacramental.
Against the opposite errors to Catholic ecclesiology
We condemn the notion that anyone could participate
spiritually in the Church’s life, but not completely, because all spiritual
things are simple and are not capable of divisions.
Likewise we condemn the notion that those who are in mortal
sin participate in the life of the Church.
We condemn the notion that those in mortal sin have a means
to participate in the life of the Church which is just those who remain in
mortal sin, and repented of their sin and return to the life of grace and the
sacraments.
We condemn as false and heretical notion that those moral
habitual sin, whether public or private, should be integrated in the life of
the Church in any other manner that through repentance and confession.
We condemn as blasphemous and heretical notion that the
Spotless Bride of Christ, the Holy Mother Church, should become dirty with the
sins of his children or accommodate Itself or its ways of practicing pastoral
charity with worldly values and corrupt habits of the world .
We condemn as false and erroneous the notion that in the
pastoral ministry of charity is to preach before faith and repentance, because
for the sinful man is only the fear of God growing love for God.
Against abuse of the sacraments grown
We condemn the notion that under any pretext of
circumstances or consciousness an individual can exempt themselves or be
exempted from his confessor from the obligation to receive the sacraments with
repentance and faith, or in the state of grace.
We condemn the notion that it is morally permissible, and
not deserving of eternal and perpetual damnation, for an individual to receive
the sacraments in a state of mortal sin, or for a confessor to give a sinner to
receive in this way, the Sacraments of the living in this state .
We condemn the notion that an individual who has admitted
the commission of an act which is in itself gravely immoral, and not being
repentant, they may allow you to receive a sacrament, under any pretext, from
the one who knows what in the external forum.
We condemn the notion that a deadly habitual sinner may by
his bad habit of sin get to be as innocent of his acts of sin that they can
approach the sacraments without full repentance, perfect contrition and
catholic faith, or be lawfully authorized to do so by any authority on earth.
We condemn as blasphemy and heresy, the assertion that the
confession was or may be “a torture chamber”, since this statement is
not worthy of the mouth of a Christian but that of a demon.
We condemn the assertion that the perennial sacramental
discipline and received to deny the sacraments to public habitual sinners is
cruel, not suited to modern sensibilities, or in need of reform.
We condemn as blasphemy, heresy and a depraved judgment, the
assertion that those who maintain the traditional sacramental discipline are
Pharisees or penalty takers.
We condemn any suggestion or effort to overcome the existing
forms of exclusion that have been part of the sacramental discipline of the
Church from time immemorial.
Against the opposite errors to the Catholic Faith in the
Last Things
We condemn the notion that “no one can condemn
forever,” or that the claim of a perpetual and eternal condemnation of
individuals in general is contrary to the “logic of the Gospel”
because our Lord Jesus Christ, to fulfill the Will of His Eternal Father,
denounced the Pharisees of the old law, saying emphatically, “you will die
in your sins”, and predicted that he himself in the last judgment will say
to the wicked, “Depart from me fire
forever that was prepared for the Devil and his angels.
”
We condemn the notion that the sacred ministers of Christ,
in fulfilling their apostolic office, they can not threaten with eternal
damnation those individuals who do persist, approve or consent to moral acts of
any kind that are formally opposed to the law of God, according genus, species,
intentions or circumstances.
We condemn the notion that the sacred ministers of Christ
and all the faithful, in fidelity to their Baptism, can not or should not
condemn such moral acts as meritorious of eternal damnation in hell and
everlasting fire, or that in so doing transgress the ‘ obligation of divine
charity.
We condemn the heretical assertion or claim that there are
no, or there would be no soul condemned to hell or that the salvation of all or
any single living it can be assumed a priori.
We condemn the statement or claim that Hell is not a
physical place, as Christ himself said that in Gehenna souls and bodies will be
punished with spiritual and physical pains.
We condemn as heretical the assertion that after death the
human soul does not continue to exist.
We condemn the notion that death is not a particular
judgment of the individual.
We condemn the notion that at death the individual is judged
only on his fundamental option for or against God, and not according to his
particular observance of the divine precepts.
Against errors towards the Sacrament of Marriage
We condemn with the Council of Trent, as false and heretical
notion that the state of choice virginity for love of God and the observance
and participation of evangelical perfection is not in itself superior to the
state of Holy Matrimony, conferred with due rite in the Church.
We condemn the notion that natural or sacramental marriage
is an ideal to be achieved and / or not a divine institution, the obligations
which bind all men and women who want to start a family or join as a couple.
We condemn the notion that the reception of the Sacrament of
Marriage is not a serious moral obligation for all Catholics who wish to have
children, or use the powers of procreation that God gave him, and that the
sacrament is merely an enrichment of their personal well-being.
We condemn the notion that the two ends of marriage, the
procreative and unitive, are the same or that the latter is not subordinate to
the first.
We condemn the notion that the decision of Catholics who
marry civilly and not in the Church “… is very often not motivated by
prejudice or resistance against sacramental union, but by cultural or
contingent situations,” as if the preference for worldly values It did not
constitute a prejudice or a resistance to accept the teaching of Christ with respect
to Sacramento.
We condemn the notion that any deliberate use of procreative
powers of the human body, outside marriage is morally permissible for any
person on any occasion.
We reject such a blasphemy and heresy the notion that the
adulterous or impure marriages may in any way reflect the love
the God who is infinitely pure and that you must worship in
spirit and in truth.
We reject as false and as sacrilegious the Scriptures the
implication that Jesus spoke to the Samaritan woman, in order to sanctify the
union adulterous where he was.
We condemn the notion that the living individual in adultery
has a greater moral obligation to remain in the union adulterous rightly
children, which separate from it to the precept of Christ reason against it.
We condemn the notion that the family or the marriage can
really be any other than the union of a man and a woman.
We condemn the notion that Catholics or any human being
should respect or accept any notion of marriage and the family, the one that
consists of a man and a woman.
We condemn as false and malicious use of quotations of
magisterial documents that concern the Sacrament of Marriage to defend or
illicit adulterous unions.
We condemn the false notion that the validity of a marriage
can legitimately be judged by the individual without recourse to the
ecclesiastical authority, as if it belonged to the jurisdiction of the court
with some right to private judgment, truly or falsely format.
We condemn as blasphemous and heretical notion that the
Gospel of Faith and Repentance, that Christ preached the early days of his
public ministry, it is not an easy solution to every moral difficulties
habitual sinners are found.
Against the pastoral office abuse
We condemn as insulting to the church discipline and
pastoral office as a serious failure to urge the clergy not to continue his
faithful adherence to the sacramental discipline, to sit down with the moral
and corrupt the minds of the present age.
We condemn grave betrayal coma, the Petrine office use to
encourage, promote or dispose souls to accept sin or drift away from fidelity
to Christ, the Apostles, or by their fidelity to the teachings contained in the
Holy Scriptures, under any pretext love, mercy or compassion.
We
condemn as treason and as a serious attack on the unity of the Church, the
Petrine office use to encourage local churches to divert from their fidelity to
Christ, the Apostles, and their fidelity to the teachings contained in the Holy
Scriptures and / or transmitted through the Sacred Tradition, under any pretext
of love, mercy or compassion.
Cranmer Service=Bugnini NO Mass
With respect to the Mass, let’s consider a few of the changes to the liturgy that the Protestant heretics of the 16th century employed and see if there are any similarities to the new Mass.
1.) The heretics changed the language from Latin to the vernacular.
2.) The heretics began to receive communion under both forms.
3.) The heretics received in the hand while standing.
4.) The heretics stripped their churches of the statues, and replaced Gregorian chant with more secular style music.
5.) The heretics downplayed the sacrificial nature of the Mass, and focused on the community meal aspect.
6.) The heretics had the minister begin to face the people.
7.) And lastly they offered their service on a table, rather than an altar.
Let us consider if any of these changes are found in the new Mass. If so, we should ask ourselves if the heretics were correct in what they did? Were they being led by the Holy Ghost, but just a little ahead of their time? And let us also consider the “fruits” of the heretics “mass” and those of the Novus Ordo. In both cases the fruits have been generally the same: A loss of faith in the sacrificial nature of the Mass and in belief in the true presence. In short, a loss of the Catholic faith.
I get the rest, but what’s heretical about receiving communion under both species?
I may be “misremembering” my history, but I believe that there was a belief held by some prior to Trent in which it was argued that the host and wine only become, respectively, the Body (solely under the species of bread) and the Blood (solely under the species of wine), rather than both being wholly and substantially the Body and Blood of Christ. Trent’s ruling that the faithful were obligated only to receive under one species (the Host) was in response to said error.
Eastern Catholics have been receiving Our Lord – Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity – under both Species since Apostolic times.
I am Ukrainian Greek Catholic and have received under both Species since my First Holy Communion.
The Latin Church has its own Tradition and we have our Eastern Tradition .
Right. And a lot of the reforms of Vatican II were meant to try to bridge the gap between traditions
I can’t see any real difference at all. Protestants always believed they were already saved by Justification & that re-enacting Calvary was preposterous as Jesus died once & for all. They also repudiated belief in the Real Presence and Papal Infallibility was loathed by them. Now it seems with this expanded papacy, the Modernist fiends are heading in the same direction. The worst aspect is that the entire Hierarchy has been infiltrated this time round which makes it nigh impossible to see an end in sight. I am sure they have already fixed on PF’s successor so they will continue to hold Christ’s Church on earth to ransom for may decades to come. I am quite certain that they don’t, and never did, hold the Catholic faith & are now fully orchestrated by Lucifer.
More from my previous post… the rest of the translation…
of sanctifying grace, as taught by the Apostle St. John.
We condemn as false to assert that even if “A person,
while knowing well the norm, can have great difficulty in understanding the
values inherent in the moral norm”, may be authorized, recommended or
allowed to transgress it.
We condemn as false the notion that someone can avoid sin in
not making a decision, when its objective moral practice is not in accordance
with the objective demands of God, of morality or of natural law, since every
deliberate omission in the observance of this law in grave matter is a mortal sin.
We condemn as deception and deceit to use a quote from the
Angelic Doctor when he spoke of those with habitual grace, in reference to those who are in mortal sin.
We condemn as false and blasphemous the notion that God
Himself could inspire a soul to take a step forward towards a better
disposition to repentance and because of this absolve the moral obligation to repent at that time or to consider the dead as a meritorious work of justification.
We condemn as deception for the quote of the Angelic Doctor
about the difficulty of understanding the application of moral principles in
particular cases, as he spoke of the failure of the principles themselves or their applicability to such cases.
We condemn the notion that the natural law inscribed by God
in all things, is not a priori code of moral obligations universally binding
all human beings.
We condemn as false and blasphemous assertion that the
process better disposed to the grace of conversion is a process of
sanctification, because that error revives the error of the Pharisees who
considered works of the law as meritorious or actual from themselves the grace of justification or sanctification.
We condemn as false, a contradiction in terms and the
heretical notion that a soul in the state of mortal sin can grow in grace, by
any means, and remains in that status.
We condemn as false and heretical the assertion that the
word, “mortal sin”, you no longer use to the public sinners who
violate a grave divine precept revealed by God.
We condemn as false the quote from the writings of Pope John
Paul II in order to refuse its condemnation of so-called “law of
gradualness” in morals.
We condemn as false the notion that the obligations of a
false consciousness acquire priority over the objective requirements of the moral law or sacramental.
Against the opposite errors to Catholic ecclesiology
We condemn the notion that anyone could participate
spiritually in the Church’s life, but not completely, because all spiritual
things are simple and are not capable of divisions.
Likewise we condemn the notion that those who are in mortal
sin participate in the life of the Church.
We condemn the notion that those in mortal sin have a means
to participate in the life of the Church which is just those who remain in
mortal sin, and repented of their sin and return to the life of grace and the
sacraments.
We condemn as false and heretical notion that those moral
habitual sin, whether public or private, should be integrated in the life of
the Church in any other manner that through repentance and confession.
We condemn as blasphemous and heretical notion that the
Spotless Bride of Christ, the Holy Mother Church, should become dirty with the sins of his children or accommodate Itself or its ways of practicing pastoral charity with worldly values and corrupt habits of the world .
We condemn as false and erroneous the notion that in the
pastoral ministry of charity is to preach before faith and repentance, because for the sinful man is only the fear of God growing love for God.
Against abuse of the sacraments grown
We condemn the notion that under any pretext of circumstances or consciousness an individual can exempt themselves or be
exempted from his confessor from the obligation to receive the sacraments with repentance and faith, or in the state of grace.
We condemn the notion that it is morally permissible, and
not deserving of eternal and perpetual damnation, for an individual to receive the sacraments in a state of mortal sin, or for a confessor to give a sinner to receive in this way, the Sacraments of the living in this state .
We condemn the notion that an individual who has admitted
the commission of an act which is in itself gravely immoral, and not being
repentant, they may allow you to receive a sacrament, under any pretext, from the one who knows what in the external forum.
We condemn the notion that a deadly habitual sinner may by his bad habit of sin get to be as innocent of his acts of sin that they can
approach the sacraments without full repentance, perfect contrition and
catholic faith, or be lawfully authorized to do so by any authority on earth.
We condemn as blasphemy and heresy, the assertion that the
confession was or may be “a torture chamber”, since this statement is
not worthy of the mouth of a Christian but that of a demon.
We condemn the assertion that the perennial sacramental discipline and received to deny the sacraments to public habitual sinners is cruel, not suited to modern sensibilities, or in need of reform.
We condemn as blasphemy, heresy and a depraved judgment, the
assertion that those who maintain the traditional sacramental discipline are Pharisees or penalty takers.
We condemn any suggestion or effort to overcome the existing forms of exclusion that have been part of the sacramental discipline of the Church from time immemorial.
Against the opposite errors to the Catholic Faith in the Last Things
We condemn the notion that “no one can condemn forever,” or that the claim of a perpetual and eternal condemnation of individuals in general is contrary to the “logic of the Gospel” because our Lord Jesus Christ, to fulfill the Will of His Eternal Father, denounced the Pharisees of the old law, saying emphatically, “you will die in your sins”, and predicted that he himself in the last judgment will say to the wicked, “Depart from me fire
forever that was prepared for the Devil and his angels.”
We condemn the notion that the sacred ministers of Christ, in fulfilling their apostolic office, they can not threaten with eternal damnation those individuals who do persist, approve or consent to moral acts of any kind that are formally opposed to the law of God, according genus, species,
intentions or circumstances.
We condemn the notion that the sacred ministers of Christ and all the faithful, in fidelity to their Baptism, can not or should not condemn such moral acts as meritorious of eternal damnation in hell and everlasting fire, or that in so doing transgress the ‘ obligation of divine charity.
We condemn the heretical assertion or claim that there are no, or there would be no soul condemned to hell or that the salvation of all or any single living it can be assumed a priori.
We condemn the statement or claim that Hell is not a physical place, as Christ himself said that in Gehenna souls and bodies will be punished with spiritual and physical pains.
We condemn as heretical the assertion that after death the human soul does not continue to exist.
We condemn the notion that death is not a particular judgment of the individual.
We condemn the notion that at death the individual is judged only on his fundamental option for or against God, and not according to his particular observance of the divine precepts.
Against errors towards the Sacrament of Marriage
We condemn with the Council of Trent, as false and heretical notion that the state of choice virginity for love of God and the observance and participation of evangelical perfection is not in itself superior to the
state of Holy Matrimony, conferred with due rite in the Church.
We condemn the notion that natural or sacramental marriage is an ideal to be achieved and / or not a divine institution, the obligations which bind all men and women who want to start a family or join as a couple.
We condemn the notion that the reception of the Sacrament of Marriage is not a serious moral obligation for all Catholics who wish to have
children, or use the powers of procreation that God gave him, and that the sacrament is merely an enrichment of their personal well-being.
We condemn the notion that the two ends of marriage, the procreative and unitive, are the same or that the latter is not subordinate to the first.
We condemn the notion that the decision of Catholics who marry civilly and not in the Church “… is very often not motivated by prejudice or resistance against sacramental union, but by cultural or contingent situations,” as if the preference for worldly values It did not constitute a prejudice or a resistance to accept the teaching of Christ with respect to Sacramento.
We condemn the notion that any deliberate use of procreative powers of the human body, outside marriage is morally permissible for any person on any occasion.
We reject such a blasphemy and heresy the notion that the adulterous or impure marriages may in any way reflect the love the God who is infinitely pure and that you must worship in spirit and in truth.
We reject as false and as sacrilegious the Scriptures the implication that Jesus spoke to the Samaritan woman, in order to sanctify the union adulterous where he was.
We condemn the notion that the living individual in adultery has a greater moral obligation to remain in the union adulterous rightly children, which separate from it to the precept of Christ reason against it.
We condemn the notion that the family or the marriage can really be any other than the union of a man and a woman.
We condemn the notion that Catholics or any human being should respect or accept any notion of marriage and the family, the one that
consists of a man and a woman.
We condemn as false and malicious use of quotations of magisterial documents that concern the Sacrament of Marriage to defend or illicit adulterous unions.
We condemn the false notion that the validity of a marriage can legitimately be judged by the individual without recourse to the
ecclesiastical authority, as if it belonged to the jurisdiction of the court
with some right to private judgment, truly or falsely format.
We condemn as blasphemous and heretical notion that the Gospel of Faith and Repentance, that Christ preached the early days of his public ministry, it is not an easy solution to every moral difficulties habitual sinners are found.
Against the pastoral office abuse
We condemn as insulting to the church discipline and pastoral office as a serious failure to urge the clergy not to continue his faithful adherence to the sacramental discipline, to sit down with the moral and corrupt the minds of the present age.
We condemn grave betrayal coma, the Petrine office use to encourage, promote or dispose souls to accept sin or drift away from fidelity to Christ, the Apostles, or by their fidelity to the teachings contained in the
Holy Scriptures, under any pretext love, mercy or compassion.
We condemn as treason and as a serious attack on the unity of the Church, the Petrine office use to encourage local churches to divert
from their fidelity to Christ, the Apostles, and their fidelity to the teachings contained in the Holy Scriptures and / or transmitted through the
Sacred Tradition, under any pretext of love, mercy or compassion.
It appears that these Catholic theologians already wrote the anathemas of the next Church Council!
WOW! That’s awesome. Thanks for the link and info.
Do they have an official English translation? I can’t imagine how hard you worked in translating and posting it.
Perhaps you could get it in document form and email/post it on the Remnant website and other TC blogs.
Your 2 posts have got to be a record (lengthwise) for 1P5. ?
Thank you, Margaret! I also posted the link because I was not sure if the entire post would post (thus, the two I put up). Hopefully, From Rome will publish in English. They publish most everything in Italian/Latin first, then in other languages. I am signed up for their email updates.
If it’s OK with you, I’ll copy and paste it in my personal documents. It’s really fantastic.
You can copy/paste as your please. The material is not mine. That is why I provided the link in my post.
Wonderful article by Fr. Nix.
Nice article, Father. In the main I agree with you, except for the “timeless 1962 sacraments.” The reforms under St. John XXIII represent an earlier stage of all the destructive currents that would culminate in the Novus Ordo. The reforms of Pius XII to Holy Week and the rubrics and the reformed psalter of St. Pius X are also earlier examples of the truly timeless liturgy being changed by papal fiat. Whatever the merits of those earlier reforms or their papal authors, they functioned to soften the Church up for acceptance of an entirely new liturgy.