…There’s a post up at Rorate Caeli today from FFI Father Paolo M. Siano (who has written for 1P5 here), originally published at Corrispondenza Romana and now translated into English. The piece marks the sixth anniversary of a meeting between the (then) General Council of the Franciscans of the Immaculate and the five friars who opposed Father Stefano Manelli, founder of the order. Fr. Siano writes:
Myself, along with other professors of the then FI Seminary and those in charge of formation, were invited by Father Manelli to take part in the event. The meeting, which lasted the entire day in two sessions, was shocking for the amount of vehemence and malicious attacks made against Father Manelli.
With hindsight we see now that those accusations were gradually deployed and developed in the mudslinging and the ecclesiastic, media and judiciary war conducted against Father Manelli, a war promoted and/or backed by some churchmen (even in the Vatican) friars, laity and a somewhat “Tridentine” diocesan priest. Over these past six years I have witnessed the objective devastation of my Religious Family (Friars, Nuns, Laity) the persecution (still going on) of our Founding Father and our authentic FI charism approved by Pope St. John Paul II.
My vocational future and that of other confreres, who like me defend the person and line of our Founders, is uncertain. In the light of various facts, I’m convinced that at least until the end of this Pontificate, we are liable to be monitored, obstructed and persecuted wherever we go and whatever we do or become. In the meeting of January 21st 2012, those three Italian friars essentially said this to us (I’m a witness to it): “If you don’t remove Latin from the Seminary (at that time, The Theological Seminary of the Immaculate Mediatrix) we will denounce you to the Congregation [CIVCSVA-The Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life] where – as you know – the modernists [or progressives] are and who will have you put under a commissioner”. And that’s exactly what happened. We didn’t bend to the threat so the Visit arrived and we were put under the Commissioner.
The post goes on to relate more of the history of what has happened between then and now, and sadly, does not end on a happy note:
Appealing to the Vatican Authorities would appear useless. Our Sisters of the Franciscans of the Immaculate had appealed to the Apostolic Signatura against the CIVCSVA and probably they would have been proven right and gotten justice. However someone from “on high” instead of respecting the correct legal course, perhaps by spurring the Signatura’s sentence, has practically blocked everything, by accepting the CIVCSVA’s request and decreeing another external commissioning.
With knowledge and in conscience before the Divine Judgment, the God of Israel, we can no longer keep quiet and watch silently and passively at the triumph of injustice and speciousness which indeed cry out for vengeance in the sight of God. May God and Mary Our Blessed Mother, Co-Redemptrix, the New Ester, help us to bear this suffering for the good of the Church. We do not know what our future will be: whether it will be as FI, diocesan priests or be reduced to the lay state. Only an extraordinary intervention of Grace can save us. Otherwise “we will die” vocationally, but with honor, not as traitors.
If they’re going to go down, they’ll at least go down fighting. God bless them for that.
Read the whole thing here.
Absolutely brutal. The despicable behavior of people who are supposed to be consecrated to God and living witnesses to Jesus Christ never ceases to amaze me. How is it that the people responsible for persecuting the FFI cannot see how evil their actions are and the wanton destruction of a thriving religious order is not of God? How is it that they do not realize that they will have to answer to a higher Justice than the corrupt CIVCSVA and the current Roman Pontiff?
Christ is thinning the herd. Those that love God and respect His plan for us as outlined in The Commandments, Beatitudes, Sacraments will survive these heretics.
I have an idea on how He might want to thin at least one of the herd.
http://canon212.com/sites/default/files/tribal%20francis.jpg
There is hope. Pope Francis is sending a prosecutor for Bishop Barros in Chile.
This is going to be interesting.
If barros is “proven” to be an abuser, the Pope looks immensely stupid. If he is exonerated, the Pope looks like a coverer-upper.
Either way it is a losing proposition for the Pope.
One reaps what one sows…
They done something with Lumen Dei as well, although the angle of attack was different.
How is it, you ask? These same type of people ran me out of the major seminary nearly twenty-seven years ago. They did not care one bit that I was a mere six months from ordination to the transitional diaconate. I am one of the seminarians that Mr. Michael S. Rose interviewed for his book, “Goodbye, Good Men.” Yes, I attended one of the major seminaries and had many of the priests and nuns mentioned in his book who taught outright heresy. I sat through their classes…and eventually paid the ultimate price with my vocation.
Your brief testimony here is heartbreaking: truly heartbreaking. If that’s the effect it had on me, then God alone knows what it did to you. It’s a miracle that you even retained your faith.
Truthfully, years before meeting my wife, I did leave the Church. I did not go to Mass for years. Only occasionally did I even go to Confession. The painful truth is that I walked and suffered through a very dark night of the soul before returning. And, when I did, I went to the TLM and to the Catholic Byzantine Divine Liturgy. I am still struggling today. Trying to “keep it all together” while married and bringing up a child in the Faith is extremely demanding. Thank God for all the graces that keep my wife and I going.
Hang in there, Al!!
Here’s how I see it.
Some hold to a “High Church” mentality of the Catholic hierarchy and human material making up the administrative and governing bodies of the Catholic Church. “High Church” = High Expectations.
Then, there is what I might call the “Low Church” mentality. “Low Church” = Low Expectations.
I hold to the latter view. This mentality, this paradigm, this picture of the Church is simple; All the doctrines and dogmas of the faith are held in agreement with Tradition & Scripture. However, this assessment simply describes as observations the human material that makes up the administrating elements of the Church and for lack of a better or more theological term, “calls a spade a spade” something I have noticed many Catholics are loath to do as i really do think the prelate has become idolized in some ways as Bishop Schneider and others have pointed out.
This latter view I personally believe is the more Biblical view and a quick perusal of the New Testament indicates that many people inside the Church have always been bad, even at the beginning. I must add, that this view is NOT the heretical Calvinist “visible/invisible” Church concept. Rather, it is wholly Tridentine, recognizing that there are both pretty good and very bad people in the Church and while still members of the Church, they are nevertheless capable of great evil. In fact, they may at times be THE greatest obstacle to the work of the Kingdom.
Basically, this view relieves us of EXPECTING decency from the leaders of the Church. Truth is, they serve a function even if they all wind up in hell; they administered the Church in their lifetimes and passed Her on to the next generation, even if they personally fed Her only enough to allow Her to survive and passed Her on raped and starving yet still breathing to the next generation.
We must protect ourselves from the “make-believe” and “let’s pretend” temptations.
That is, we must fly from deifying MEN or, practically-speaking, even expecting bishops to be decent people possessing a modicum of integrity.
I hold the Low Church notion; That is, the Church both “on paper” and in the fullness of mystical reality is indeed indefectible, infallible, etc, but her human material is a lot of times…crap. I have a VERY low opinion of the leadership elements of the Church and the culture of the prelature. I think integrity ebbs and flows, waxes and wanes throughout history but NEVER is the prelature divine or even close. Thus, at times it gets really pathetic, with substandard, embarrassingly effeminate human material creating a truly wretched subculture run by sodomites, cowards and crooks. St Peter Damian helped me see this.
I think the current picture the CC presents to the world is one of corruption and weakness and cowardice and really, I have almost zero respect for anyone that carts a crook around with them in public…a symbol that appropriately packs a very effective double entendre if there ever was one.
BUT!!!!
They serve a purpose. Hey, I’m not managing the finances and affairs of the Church, they are, and so I am thankful for that, even if they are skimming off the top or directing some to their boyfriends or dumbing-down the message. Somehow, in God’s great and mysterious economy, He uses even the most wretched and this SYSTEM has survived. And let’s face it, survived some pretty tough times in the past.
So I am becoming less and less bothered by the fags, queers, heretics and losers that administer the Church. Oh, they anger me at times, for sure, BUT I NO LONGER EXPECT THEM TO BE DECENT MEN…or, for that matter, act like men at all. And for this Catholic convert, that helps.
And thus, they are no longer as frustrating as they used to be for me.
So the “Low Church” paradigm works for me.
The key is to have high standards and low expectations.
Maybe this is what St Padre Pio mean when he said “Pray, hope and don’t worry”.
In the end, I’m with Hilaire Belloc:
“THE Catholic Church is an institution I am bound to hold divine — but for unbelievers a proof of its divinity might be found in the fact that no merely human institution conducted with such knavish imbecility would have lasted a fortnight.”
May God Save the Catholic Church.
Excellent essay, Rod H. What I like to call “The Vatican I” gave us the tradition of expecting our bishops and generalized spiritual “betters” to be perfect. But now we need the attitude of the laity of the Bourbon Church, or the late Medieval Church on the Eve of the Reformation: believe in and worship God through His (rather disastrous) intermediaries.
Thanks and that is a very interesting analysis.
It just makes sense.
Further, someone I think on this site recommended the following book. It is my handbook on navigating through the mess going on in the Church at this time.
“The Antichrist” by Father Vincent Miceli, SJ. Nihil Obstat; Rev William B Smith, STD.
Imprimatur; Rev Joseph T. O’Keefe.
It is very helpful in understanding what is going on.
What you say about “Vatican 1 Catholics” absolutely describes what I have seen in many. Makes sense. I see this in the NO “Conservative” world more than in the Traditionalist world by the way. Just my experience, FWIW.
I find your story quite distressing. You and your family will be remembered in my prayers at Mass today.
Same here brother. I could have spent time in federal prison and emerged more spiritually healthy than I did coming out of seminary. I was totally schredded. It felt like being in hell itself. A dark night followed and I too wandered in the desert. Many others have had the same experience. I lost my faith but once I realized that the aggiornamento faith that I had lost was not in fact the Catholic Faith, my process of healing began. One lesson I learned was a deep insight into the real evil that entered the Church due to the revolution of the 1960s and its promoters from the popes on down. It was not just misguided, or naive….it was a force of pure evil. I encountered it bare knuckled and unmasked and it marked me for life. We are all victims in the sense of being raised in a false religion parading around as the Catholic Faith—-I mean that…false promises and false outlooks. They took my youth and innocence leading me down blind alley afer another, but we survived and have emerged stronger, if not triumphant. Coming to know the Catholic Faith has been more than worth it. They failed to destroy it and that’s good enough for me. Deo gratias.
Superb, sir. And thanks for writing it!
RC
FWIW, remember Louis XV’s famous quote when some of his cronies tried to foist one of their bootlickers on him as archbishop of Paris: “Gentlemen,” quoth his royalness, “Gentlemen, the archbishop of Paris must at least believe in God.”
The “Bourbon Church” was a disaster, and brought on the French Revolution. And it may take another such bloody mess to happen to clean up today’s Church. But if God put Abraham to the test the way He did, we can only pray for His strength — and wisdom — to get through what He sends us.
RC
There is a story of Mozart getting into a conflict with his Bishop in Salzburg and his office was described….the Bishop had a portrait of Voltaire proudly displayed behind his desk. A lot of flakey apostates then too. They seem to come in waves.
Leo XIII wrote instructions to Catholic faithful that they basically had to obey whatever the clergy told them on whatever subject was at hand!! No ands ifs or buts….This was an extreme response to the pressures of a secular siege mentality but not even Leo XIII with his own vision and Saint Michael prayer seemed to realized the inherent danger of this “Germanic” level of obedience inculcated into the laity or that it could become a time bomb due to the coming wave of subversives operating within the hierarchy itself and biding their time. The modernists perverted this fawning obedience to clergy into a weapon of Mass destruction.
Older members of my family (raised Pre Vatican II) would even comment that the “faith is whatever the Pope says”. That tenet was okay in 1947 but a total disaster by 1967.
“Weapon of Mass destruction.”
You deserve an award for that description!
Hah…it seems apt. Ive been thinking about clericalism some more and I think the reason for Pius X’s ultimate inability to defeat the modernists is, I believe, related to the cult of hyper-obedience (esp after Vatican I). Here you have this saint Pope, who is himself very subversive (in a holy way) telling Catholics NOT to place blind faith in the clergy but to instead use objective measures to ascertain their legitimacy. He’s telling Catholics straight up that the Catholic hierarchy is filled with covert dirt bags and to be watchful! This was incredibly subversive and therefore easily lost in the tidal wave if fawning clericalism that had dominated our mentality both before and after his pontificate. How could his message even really register with rank and file faithful, in the midst of our cultural norms? Pascendi et al were long forgotten, dead and buried way before the 1960’s even arrived. By 1967, Without the, at least tacit safeguard, that the Oath Against Modernism provided, Catholics became sitting ducks for the modernist revolutionaries. Fish in a barrel. Deer caught in the headlights of fawning obedience and clericalism.
You’ve raised an important associated issue : blind obedience. It goes back a few hundred years and sorry I cant link this to a discussion which I saw online a couple of years ago. In the post Reformation period (I think) there was a theological debate between a Jesuit and some other (?) on whether blind obedience was more meritorious before God than obedience which requires the ‘subordinate’ to actually discern. I think the ‘blind obedience’ camp won the day which may have kept everyone in line for the time being but down the track (like now!) has become an issue for Catholics – especially the “he’s the Pope of today therefore whatever he says today is infallible” types. Perhaps the ‘blind obedience’ was approved in light of human foibles and we so often read of how a particular Saint suffered because of Bishop X or spiritual Director Y and it was part of God’s plan (example Padre Pio, Teresa of Avila and John of the Cross). The FI’s situation of course is very much exterior and not an interior trial only. But the times we are undergoing are like nothing ever before. For the Blessed Virgin to prophesy to the Ecuadorian Nun in 1610 about the mid 20th Century naming the M. sect and detailing what they are doing today, goes to prove for me this is like nothing else. Didnt Jesus mention “blind” guides leading people into the pit. Thanks for raising this important issue which no doubt is another thorn in each religious in the FI.
Indeed veritas…interesting observations. Yes the ever obedient Saint who is docile before their superiors is always trotted out, yet there were many saints whose most significant acts were founded on disobedience to clerical authority. What of Saint Athanatius being excommunicated multiple times—-even by Pope Liberius, Saint Jerome railing against the corrupt Roman clergy, Saint John Chrysostom being exiled for saying that most bishops end up in hell, Saint Vincent Ferrer counselling the King of Spain to force the Pope to resign, ending the Great Western Schism. Saint Ambrose defying the emporer. What about Saint Joan of Arc obstinately disobeying the bishops of France and choosing to be burned at the stake as a heretic, disgracing her family, and having her ashes scattered into the river without a Christian burial, rather than acquiesce to a rather reasonable (always in man’s eyes) request from her superiors. There are many other examples. Yet the ‘shut up and obey’ crowd seem to forget these.
I think you ‘have a book in you’ but meanwhile you could be interested in putting something on this subject to send to Steve. I encourage you because understanding what kind of obedience God expects from us today is on the minds of good Catholics.
Thanks. I could write several. Catholic histoy is fascinating and often unconventional—-the nice clean narratives are fine for children but not adequate for adults. People tend to have a very naive view of Church history and are terrified of exploring it in any depth for fear of damaging or complicating their faith—-this is a tragedy. If we really want to understand the mind of God we need to follow the examples of the Saints during the great times of crisis. Our Lord has been remarkably consistent in what kinds of people and principles He consistently approves of across the ages. He definitely favors stubborn masculinity (He set the Divine standard afterall) and he positively abhors people-pleasing effeminacy on the part of Catholic men and moreso the clergy. I was reading an excellent account of Saint John Fisher before the Kings reps and Bishops—-all gathered very respectably and calmly and civilly debating the King’s annulment problem. John Fisher walks in and basically causes an uproar by insulting everyone present, including the bishops and the King himself by saying that Catherine was totally correct and an innocent victim and that he would gladly die like Saint John the Baptist before Herod rather then defame the indissolubility of marriage! The King never forgave him for this public insult (and neither did the Archbishop of Canterbury) and that is why Our Lord loved him. He is a saint for today.
Ok then. There’s another theme to trumpet: meekness is over-rated. John.the Baptist saved his meekness for the locusts but with people he was fearless. I think there’s a meekness plague in the Church. You’ve got a lot to share on the history of the saints and there’s a niche in the market.
Lets not forget Saint Francis of Assissi himself, travelling to the most dangerous Muslim court and challenging the Sultan of Egypt to a trial by fire!
I didnt know about st Ignatius. I did know about St Francis, but just now realised that Francis’ answer to those who say Christians and muslims worship the same God would have been a resounding ‘no’ based on that story. We are likely to get warned by the Moderator shortly for being off topic. Thanks for what you have shared.
They ran you out because they are not the Roman Catholic Church. Take comfort in that. And, truly, thank God that they did. I chose to jump before being pushed off the gangplank. I was even offered studies in Rome, but my thought was, why on earth would I want to go all the way there just to learn heresy?
You chose truth. You will always have some wonderful offering to unite with Christ’s Sacrifice 24/7.
Same here.
I am just reading the book now. I am so sorry. After tribulation comes Grace. We wil all be sifted like wheat and somehow need to gain a fresh understanding of what it means to be in communion with the Pope.
I often wonder if I will ever be able to trust a clergyman again.
There are a lot of wonderful priests out there, human beings carrying many crosses, some caused by colleagues who’ve betrayed their vocation. We’ve got to support our priests and offer encouragement. We are all in this together. I dont want to think about what the world would be like without the Mass! The Mass has to be priority for all us. Who can live without Eternal life – anyone?
When you finish that book, buy Randy Engel’s book, The Rite of Sodomy. I personally knew many of the priests/bishops she names in that book. It will round out the chronological and historical points. Having read both books, one can easily connect the dots to see how Modernism and Sodomy go hand in hand with the post-Vatican II Church. Everything is coming into full light- and it is not pretty.
thanks. I’ve downloaded it. There seems to be a connection between homosexual rights so they appear at the moment to practically own many seminaries and yet this goes with the ordination of women and modernism. Another mysterious contradiction to me is the relentless crunching down of the Franciscans of the Immaculate who offer the 1962 Latin Mass, yet the SSPX offer the same Mass and the official Vatican hand of friendship and reconciliation is given to them. Go figure!
The only plausible reason the Vatican has offered an olive branch is to get the SSPX “back into the fold.” After that, the hammer will come down obliterating the SSPX. The whole offer smells like a dead fish rotting in a newspaper wrap.
Yes I agree.
Well, they don’t believe any of that stuff.
JMJt. This is the Passion of the Church, Father, and we must continue climbing that mountain to Calvary, alongside Our Lord—all for His greater glory, and our sanctification.
¡VIVA CRISTO REY! ¡VIVA LA VIRGIN DE GUADALUPE!
Two very good questions. Ones that I have asked before as well, not just about this tragedy, but, about quite a few things going on now in the Church.
One must wonder what is in store for Traditional Orders of priests/nuns as well?
All I can think of right now is Christ standing in front of Pilate, stripped, scourged, beaten and mocked: Matthew 27-
“And Jesus stood before the governor, and the governor asked him, saying: Art thou the king of the Jews? Jesus saith to him: Thou sayest it. 12 And when he was accused by the chief priests and ancients, he answered nothing. “
I seriously doubt that any of the Vatican power holders actually believe in higher justice. I’ve become convinced they’ve sold their souls to the powers of darkness.
Father Manelli has my prayers and strongest support standing up against the prejudicial “vehemence” issuing not simply from those progressive who wormed their way into the community only to oppose it, but from the vile opposition to anything that resembles the Counter Reformation supported by the two previous Pontiffs contra the heretical post Vat II Reformation now being waged by than none other than Pope Francis. If anyone dreamed that puppet Cardinal Luis Francisco Ladaria Ferrer, S.J would actually exercise the duties of Prefect for the CDF they haven’t the slightest inkling of the absolute control of the Puppeteer.
Ladaria Ferrer would not have been appointed had Bergoglio not been 100% confident that he had Ladaria in his pocket.
And yet, people still marvel at Francis’ humility, his mercy, his charity (especially when the cameras are on him). More and more people are starting to realize that all that is just an act. It is frustrating beyond words for those of us who have seen it from the beginning, but I suppose if God had intervened and ended things then, many others in the Church would have been heartbroken that their most humble, most merciful pope really wasn’t so great.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3lp3Em67Qk
The truth will come out one day as will the holiness of Fr. Manelli. And the Order will be reinstituted with its holy original charism–so hated (as is Our Lady) by the modernists corrupts present in high places at the moment.
So simply said, and so very true!
RC
Neka tvoja djeca vide tvoju ljubav prema roditeljima,
jer će se i oni prema tebi isto tako ponašati kako se ti ponašaš prema svojim roditeljima.
Translation?
It’s spam.
Google Translate is your friend. 😉
“May your children see your love for their parents, because they will also behave like you behave towards your parents.” (Croatian)
“However someone from “on high” instead of respecting the correct legal course, perhaps by spurring the Signatura’s sentence, has practically blocked everything,”
Spiritual Nazis!
‘… at least until the end of this Pontificate, …’ While I can’t be so uncharitable as to actually wish ill health to the current head, that day can’t happen soon enough. Sadly, I fear that until the fulfillment of Fatima (… in the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph), any successor to Francis will be just as bad or worse, or at best (like Benedict XVI) a very temporary reprieve. Patience is not one of my strong points, but it’s become very necessary.
Seems like the more I read about this the less I understand how it all started.
Can somebody outline for me a rough timeline of major events/causes of the current problem?
Here is what I could find, Rod. The first one is short. The second is long, but gives a clearer picture.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/vaticans-four-year-probe-of-faithful-franciscans-of-the-immaculate-could-en
http://traditioninaction.org/religious/m033rpFranciscans.htm
One thing I discovered is that Pope Francis did not violate Summorum Pontificum, which says :
1) priests who wish to offer the Tridentine Mass, cannot refuse to say the Novus Ordo
2) they have to accept the authority of Vatican 2.
(Some friars were refusing the Novus Ordo, and questioning Vatican 2, and that is what
brought down the sledgehammer on them). Francis and Benedict are thus not in contradiction on this issue. I previously overlooked that.
Can you quote chapter and verse where it says that about the Novus Ordo and Vatican 2 in Summorum Pontificum? Here is the full text from the Vatican website. I couldn’t find anything of the sort there, but you may have better eyesight 🙂
https://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/motu_proprio/documents/hf_ben-xvi_motu-proprio_20070707_summorum-pontificum.html
Ezzo referred us to:
http://traditioninaction.or…
Therein it says:
‘As Guimarães points out in his astute analysis of Motu Proprio, which I suggest readers study, “The apparently conservative motu proprio has some progressivist doctrinal demands.” First, priests who have doctrinal objections to the New Mass cannot exclude saying it. Second, priests who say the Mass must unquestioning accept the authority of Vatican II. These conditions must be met to say a Latin Mass for the public in order to “provide for the welfare of these faithful, avoid discord and favor the unity of the whole Church.” ‘
Looking at the text of Summorum Pontificum the only bit I can find which resembles the quote from Guimaraes is:
,Art. 5, §1 In parishes where a group of the faithful attached to the previous liturgical tradition stably exists, the parish priest should willingly accede to their requests to celebrate Holy Mass according to the rite of the 1962 Roman Missal. He should ensure that the good of these members of the faithful is harmonized with the ordinary pastoral care of the parish, under the governance of the bishop in accordance with Canon 392, avoiding discord and favouring the unity of the whole Church.’
It seems to me that he has picked the last bit of that paragraph out and used it in a completely different context quite unjustifiably. But perhaps it is Marian T. Horvat who is misquoting Guimaraes?
Anyway the article by Horvat only says that the FFI had a preference for the TLM and nowhere is there evidence that the NO was excluded. Just because you express your preference for the TLM by always using it does not mean that the NO is excluded. Exclusion implies a refusal to say the NO.
One thing I’ve never understood is how the NO and its promulgation ever passed muster. The Mass of St. Pius V (the original TLM) was promulgated essentially ex cathedra. Additionally, the Council of Trent, which produced the Mass, was a dogmatic council snd gave expression to the will of the universal magisterium. Thus, both the Council of Trent and the promulgation of the TLM were infallible. Ergo, the NO violates the rule of non-contradiction. As such, the NO csnnot supplant the TLM. I may be in error, but that’s my take.
No, it merely codified the Mass for all time. It existed long before Trent.
No, that’s not quite accurate. The Mass existed in various forms throughout the Christian world since the beginning. Trent took what was viewed as the best of the best, edited and made corrections to the various parts and produced, as a result, the Nass of St. Pius V.
Once again, that’s not correct.
The “Mass of St. Pius V” is really the liturgy of St. Gregory the Great. Pius V just codified it, hence the term “Tridentine.”
“From roughly the time of [Pope] St. Gregory [the Great, d. 604] we have the text of the Mass, its order and arrangement, as a sacred tradition that no one has ventured to touch except in unimportant details.” (Fortescue)
Yes.
Only problem I have with these types of statements is that as soon as we say “From the time of Gregory” there are those who immediately take that as an admission that THAT is the date which it began, and THAT is not the case. The truth is, as the opponents of the Gregorian Mass more or less then accuse it of being a “novelty” of Gregory, they CANNOT produce anything like substantiation that the NO has any connection to a previous Mass.
To say the NO is the Mass of the Apostles is essentially like the Protestants who claim “praise services” are the way the “Early Church” “worshiped”. It’s just a wild self-congratulatory guess divorced from history and the tradition of the Church.
Well, Baptists go back to John the Baptist. True story.
The basic form of the Mass goes back to Gregory, and even further. It developed differently in different regions, but remained the basic structure of Gregory’s Mass. The Mass which Pius V codified was the “Roman Use” of the liturgy, which he had slightly altered (especially regarding the Divine Office). This means: The Mass of Pius V IS the Mass of Gregory, but of course, there has been a historical development. Dioceses and Orders with a liturgy that was older than 200 years could keep their liturgy; the “Roman Use” liturgy was only intended for those regions where no such tradition was existent. So, different Rites and Uses continued to exist even after Pius V. Some of those only gave up their liturgy in the late 19th century, and unfortunately, the Religious Orders gave it up following the liturgical reforms after Vatican II.
That’s more in line with what I learned and inadequately expressibg. Thanks for the clarification.
The Norbertines here in Budapest use a pre-1912 version, with the Confiteor just before Holy Communion (it fits really well there) and I was told this was the Norbertines using their old Mass. Also, I have a Dominican friend back in the States who says they’re using their old Rite now and again, as well.
Just sayin’.
RC
The Confiteor before the Communion is also a Roman tradition. It was abolished either in 1955 or 1960 (I am not sure, so please correct me if I am wrong). It was not forbidden, but seen as more of a “personal devotion”, so it was cut from the official books (like the Pater noster and Ave Maria at the beginning and ending of the hours of the Divine Office). Some communities have retained this second Confiteor before Communion.
I think since Summorum Pontificum, also the Religious Orders are re-discovering their liturgical heritage. Many Orders like Benedictines, Trappists, Dominicans, Franciscans etc. have a proper liturgy. More traditional religious priests try to revive their own liturgy, which is an extremely noble cause. After Vatican II, everything has been Romanized, but before that, the traditional religious rites used to be considerably different from the Roman Rite. It would be a shame if this part of Tradition went lost.
My understanding has always been that the first missal to omit the second Confiteor is the 1962 missal (which I believe is considered a transitional missal).
That is possible, I wasn’t sure whether it was done in the “1962” liturgy or prior to it during the reforms of Pius XII (“1955”).
It could be a “transitional” missal, since it was supposed to satisfy the demand for reform, but it was also supposed to be a “first step” towards even more reform, perhaps after the Council.
So as tallorder said.
Trent.’codified’ the missal.
The local Roman Missal of 1570 is identical to the local Roman Missal of 1474. The did not change, they only standardized the Roman liturgy across Europe.
Thanks for your interesting comments and for the details. I agree with you; that quote doesn’t tell us that a priest can’t refuse to offer the Novus Ordo. It just says that he has to keep harmony/unity in his parish, etc.
In the article, Horvat does claim that some friars were more than just expressing a preference. Here is the quote (with my one emphasis on the word “only”) where Horvat writes :
“Because some members of the F.I. were insisting on saying or hearing the Latin Mass ONLY, as well as questioning parts of the Council, the Vatican action is regrettable, but perfectly consistent with Summorum Pontificum. This is, in fact, exactly what Fr. Lombardi affirmed, saying the decisions taken regarding the F.I.’are not a disavowal of the Motu Proprio’.”
I do not believe Horvat is misquoting Guimaraes. I believe they are both of the same view. My sympathies will always be with the friars, even if they do want to exclude the Novus Ordo completely. So please don’t read my comments as criticism of the friars. Not intended at all. I’m just trying to understand the truth about Summorum.
I read it as saying, at MOST, that if a group of people in a parish want the EF, their fellow parishioners who want the OF shouldn’t be deprived of it. There’s really nothing in SP about any priest having to say the NO, and the FSSP at least are adamant about not doing so.
I also don’t think there’s anything about V2 – possibly there’s some confusion about deals offered to the SSPX?
The trouble is that the accusations against the Friars were very vague. My memory is that Fr Manelli had suggested that the TLM should be used for Conventual masses. Now a Conventual mass is celebrated by and for the members of a religious community and is not a Parish mass so the issue of harmony/unity in the Parish does not arise.
I am not sure when Horvat’s article was written as it does not tell the whole story by a long way – for instance there is nothing about Volpi being successfully sued for libel by the Manelli family or the many wilder accusations made against Fr Manelli which have been disproved in court. I regard the actions of Volpi and others in virtually suppressing the order as being wildly over the top even if there were some decrying the NO or Vatican II.
No, I cannot. I have never read the document; I was only relating what Horvat said in the article. Please pardon me if I have mislead you or anyone. I should have been more careful. To be honest, when I read it, couldn’t understand the apparent motive to make Benedict look less sympathetic to tradition than he is usually considered to be. That should have been a warning sign, but I let it go. Mea culpa……
Thanks for the links and help here.
Regarding the “requirement” to say the NO. This is interesting because I have heard that some SSPX priests have taught that FSSP {and I assume ICKSP} priests “must say the NO Mass once a year in order to continue saying the TLM” or some such.
I have discussed this with FSSP priests and none of them have ever said the NO nor do they even know how. The point being, the apostolates of which they are members are not required to say the NO as they were in their establishment approved to say the Latin Mass exclusively in the first place.
As I understand it, this agreement in constitution differentiates them from mill run diocesan priests who decide to say the TLM. In that case, the priest is already formed in the NO and may not simply throw it over the side for the TLM. That is NOT what Summorun Pontificum allows for. It allows for the TLM to be said, but not for the NO to be jettisoned. Thus, a diocesan priest who decides to say the TLM may NOT, as I understand it, simply quit saying the NO and thus “force” his parish to hear the TLM…or nothing. That is the proper definition of the passage I believe. For example, I have NEVER heard of a single case of a FSSP or ICKSP being forced {and complying} by a bishop to say the NO in order to continue on ministering within the borders of his diocese and if it happened, the FSSP would I suspect pack up and leave. I know of no example where the FSSP or ICKSP has been driven out of a diocese but maybe it has happened?
But the deal about FSSP priests secretly saying the NO every year is malarkey.
I wouldn’t put it past some bishops to try and force the issue, but can’t provide a case where they HAVE.
As for the FFI: It sounds like possibly
1} they never had a clear agreement to say the TLM exclusively, and
2} they are being charged with denying certain teachings of V2 {or possibly certain interpretations?}
Now in this case I could see that they might then be held to a different standard than that of the FSSP/ICKSP if in their constitution there is no release from saying the NO.
Does that make sense?
RodH writes, “Without clear law on their side, they are at the mercy of Bergoglio and the progressives…”.
I’d say not quite. I mean, El Caudillo Bergo has continuously “pontificated” (couldn’t resist) about “mercy”, so throw it back to him. Demand “mercy” for these folks! Just keep at it. In every venue possible, request the “mercy” he continually makes noises about. Of course, one could do that to embarrass a local ordinary with a protest at his cathedral filmed by the local TV news, but El Caudillo Bergo could care less.
RC
True enough, but do you really think he cares?
The ICK often concelebrate NO Masses. Usually at least the Chrism Mass of the diocese.
Thanks for that. I have experience with FSSP but not with ICKSP. Very interesting. They must be trained in the NO in seminary?
No. I don’t think they are. I’ve never been able to work out why they do it.
The Trappist Abbey of Mariawald south of Cologne, Germany has been suppressed. It was devoted to the Extraordinary Rite. I cannot say for sure, but from their website I have the impression that the Monastic Community of Bethlehem has had “the eye” cast upon it in the last few years — but I hasten to add that it is an impression, I cannot say for sure. Then in the past few weeks the Poor Clares of Perpetual Adoration were invited to leave San Antonio by the local bishop.
Anyone, including laity, who has any attachment to the perennial Magisterium is a target for the nefarious element holding sway in the Church. One way or another you will be feel their ire — being ignored, mocked, smirked at. In the case of priests and religious their very way of life is at risk. This was even going on in subtle and masked ways during the previous two pontificates, of course without any endorsement from Rome. It was accomplished solely on the local level underhandedly — with mendacity.
How anyone can respond to Christ’s call to religious life or the Holy Priesthood today… it is truly an act of supreme trust in our all benevolent and gracious God.
Let us pray for those willing to take the risk. God preserve them and reward them abundantly.
It’s my understanding that the diocese of Tulsa, OK is being purged of anything resembling traditional Catholic faith under its new Francisbishop. The FSSP has left, and the bishop has thrown Mother Miriam and her Daughters of Mary, Mother of Israel’s Hope out of the diocese along with Fr. Chad Ripperger. Also, in San Antonio, in addition to the expulsion of the Poor Clares, the Archbishop seems to have taken quite poorly the fact that the only Anglican Use Parish in the archdiocese, and I believe the first one in the US, Our Lady of the Atonement, elected to join the Ordinariate established by Benedict XVI, and has taken some nasty actions against the former (and long-time) pastor. http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/historic-anglican-use-parish-faces-challenges-in-bid-to-join-ordinariate
As Fr. R.P. noted in the initial post in this thread, it is despicable the way so-called men of God are acting in this apparently Church-wide hissy fit against any and all who seek to maintain contact with the Church as it existed before the revolution.
Yes. Now that you mention it … Tulsa. I’ve heard “pings” about that. I wonder if Clear Creek Abbey is in the crosshairs? They must be driving Bishop Konderla to the edge.
And of course now we have the faithful of China being thrown under the feet of rabid atheist secular materialists by the Jesuit Pope.
The writing is on the wall.
James and TexasThomist, wow. And these actions are “unconstitutional” in the sense that Summorum Pontificum forbade Trads from being persecuted, right?
So, aside from prayer and fasting, what’s to be done? I’m not even living in the U.S. at the moment, but were I in one of these dioceses, I’d be trying to organize a Canon 212 protest against the bishop, writing to-the-editor letters and trying to raise money for a full page Op-En in the secular press. Maybe even a protest in front of the local ordinary’s cathedral. “Show us Francis’ Mercy! Bring back our Trad Orders!” Something like that. Use their own blather against them.
After all, such would be for the good of their own souls as well as ours.
RC
It is the tip of the iceberg. Individuals are being “knocked off” one by one. Vocations are deemed inadequate because they are of a traditional bent, priests are reassigned punitively, religious are isolated. All this while James Martin and his ilk run rough shod with pride.
Bishops themselves remain mute for fear of retribution.
The laity alone is exempt — at least for the time being. The Bergoglians are ultimately cowards. Anxious for their personal welfare even above and beyond their revolting ideological loyalties. They will wait us all out until their are no longer any catechized Roman Catholics and they will truly have the run of the house.
When the Son of Man returns will he find any faith on the earth?
He has promised He will prevail, but it is agony to observe what transpires before our eyes. They are only beginning…see Sandro Magister:
http://magister.blogautore.espresso.repubblica.it/2018/01/30/goodbye-humanae-vitae-francis-liberalizes-the-pill/
I’m all for U.S. laity getting out there, any way we can. Must come from US. Not enough in Western Europe.
America’s Religious Awakenings – ALWAYS came from the people. From the grassroots upward. Declaration of Independence was 40 years after First Great Awakening. Authors of Declaration and Constitution grew up steeped in the First Great Awakening. It’s a thread running through our country’s culture and history – whatever our faith – as Americans, it’s part of us. And don’t forget Charles Carroll, Catholic signer!
Last time I visited home a couple years ago and visited with some of my old conservative Novus Ordo friends, I had the deep sense (sometimes I get these strong intuitions that somehow end up coming true) that “many of these friends will no longer be Catholic 10 years from now”. It came to me unexpectedly and was quite chilling. The more I’ve reflected on it since, the more it seems to be plausible given our current “Vatican III” pope and his agenda.
On my visit in 2006, a relative was nearly in tears at the proposition of allowing sodomites to “marry.” When I returned in 2015 it was all just laughed at; no big deal. I was ridiculed for mentioning the sin that cries out for vengeance from heaven. To judge by this, I believe your prediction is accurate.
Please forgive this lengthy quote but it seems appropriate and possibly enlightening.
From “Works of the Seraphic father St. Francis of Assisi (London: R. Washbourne, 1882) pp. 248-250
I pray it is quoted accurately and I ask your pardon if it is not. If nothing else, it gives food for thought!
St. Francis was more than just a kindly man who loved animals. He was a valiant defender of the Catholic Faith and the following are supposedly his words to his Brothers concerning a vision he had before his death:
“Act bravely, my Brethren; take courage and trust in the Lord. The time is fast approaching in which there will be great trials and afflictions; perplexities and dissensions, both spiritual and temporal will abound; the charity of many will grow cold and the malice of the wicked will increase.
The devils will have unusual power, the immaculate purity of our Order, and of others, will be so much obscured that there will be very few Christians who will obey the true Sovereign Pontiff and the Roman Church with loyal hearts and perfect charity. At the time of this tribulation a man, not canonically elected, will be raised to the Pontificate, who, by his cunning will endeavor to draw many into error.
Then scandals will be multiplied, our Order will be divided and many others will be entirely destroyed because they will consent to error instead of opposing it.
There will be such diversity of opinions and schisms among the people, the religious and the clergy, that, except those days were shortened according to the words of the Gospel, even the elect would be led into error, were they not specially guided amid such great confusion by the immense mercy of God.
Then our Rule and manner of life will be violently opposed by some, and terrible trials will come upon us. Those who are found faithful will receive the crown of life; but woe to those who, trusting solely in their Order, shall fall into tepidity, for they will not be able to support the temptations permitted for the proving of the elect.
“Those who preserve their fervor and adhere to virtue with love and zeal for truth, will suffer injuries and persecutions as rebels and schismatics; for their persecutors, urged on by evil spirits, will say they are rendering a great service to God by destroying such pestilent men from the face of the earth. But the Lord will be the refuge of the afflicted, and will save all who trust in Him. And in order to be like their Head, Jesus Christ, the elect will act with confidence and by their death will purchase for themselves eternal life; choosing to obey God rather than man, they will prefer to perish rather than consent to falsehood and perfidy.
Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it under foot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for IN THOSE DAYS JESUS CHRIST WILL SEND THEM NOT A TRUE PASTOR BUT A DESTROYER”.
IMHO this prophecy is likely to be playing out right now. The full details of the 3rd secret will probably confirm this, especially given it references a “pope” “under the control of satan” cf Intervew with Fr Malachi Martin on Art Bell show 1998
Some people have tried to discard this prophecy of St Francis as 19th cent. fabrication, but we know that it was already in a 17h century’s book written in latin by a franciscan monk named Lucas Wadding.
“B.P. Francisci Assisiatis Opuscula” per Fr.Lucam Waddingum
The text of the prophecy is on pages 480-81-82:
“Prophetia XIV” : “Magnum in Ecclesia schisma et tribulationem futuram”
One may download a copy of the original book here:
https://books.google.fr/books?id=NHlMAAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=fr#v=onepage&q=452&f=false
Anyways, this prophecy matches very well if not exactly the mess we are currently undergoing thanks to the Bergoglio papacy.
I have a question to the priests here–and priests or bishops only, please. Maybe I’m just both ignorant and naïve, but if Pius V stated that The Mass of All Time would forever more be “the mass”, voiding every possible angle for future busy-fingers to attempt to alter that decree, and further saying that no priest could be compelled to say any other mass–how does that not insulate every priest from pain of sin, or fear of valid excommunication, or any other soul-endangering consequence imposed by superiors for refusing to comply with their orders to say the N.O. ? I know that there are probably many other kinds of persecutions that a priest’s bishop might inflict upon him, but it would seem that a bishop, or even a pope could not, in the eyes of God, do anything that could invalidate that priest’s authority to say the TLM mass and carry on all other duties as a priest. Would not any ecclesial penalty be illegitmate and baseless, and without substance?
Ok then. I received no answers to my questions, but I think that the non-response tells me a few things in its own right.
Co-Redemptrix? That is blasphemy, we have but one Redeemer!
Oh please – do a bit of reading of the writings of Popes of the 20th Century before you go calling blasphemy! I am reading St. John Eudes and he refers to Mary that way!
Current pope also has some writings and they are not worth the paper they are on.
Surely you are not saying Pope Francis is calling the Blessed Virgin CoRedemptrix?
No. I was just pointing out, that as the teaching of the current pope clearly shows, popes make mistakes in their teachings.
Never do they err in matters of dogma and morality! Not EVER!
As of now, unless you know something I do not know, while this pope gives many Catholics “agina”, including me, he has not formally changed any teaching of the Church.
Personally, I believe he is trying to do so. But, he will not succeed. It will cost many persecution, it may even throw the Church into a very dark period, but he will NOT succeed.
Mary IS the Immaculate Conception. She is the Immaculate Heart. She was assumed to Heaven, body and sou, and she is the world’s Sovereign Queen, given to mankind by her Son, Jesus Christ, our Lord.
And if you persist in presenting a different opinion, here on OnePeterFive, please find another venue.
St. John Eudes wrote about the Blessed Virgin in such terms, and so did others before and after him, such as Pierre cardinal de Berulle, M. Olier, Sts. Louis de Monfort and Alphonsus Liguori… Do you think they all got it wrong? If God saw fit to have the cooperation of the Blessed Virgin from the start to the end, by choosing her to be the Mother of His divine Son Jesus, this alone being her greatest honor, who can be against that? If the apostles had the grace to have her to pray with them, to live among them, good grief, we do well to venerate this Blessed Lady for all the marvels God accomplished through her. God bless and may you too discover Mary as such.
From the Selected Texts of St. John Eudes, by Paul Milcent
– In the Heart of Mary we meet Jesus
” Hurry! What are you waiting for? Why do you delay a single moment? Are you afraid of wronging the unparalleled bounty of the heart of Jesus, your God and your redeemer, if you address yourselves to the charity of his mother’s heart? But do you not know that the mother is nothing and has nothing and can do nothing except from Jesus and by Jesus and in Jesus; and that it is Jesus who is everything and can do everything and does everything in her? Do you not know that it is Jesus who has made the heart of Mary what it is, and who wished to make it a fountain of light, of consolation and of every kind of grace for all those who turn to her in their need? Do you not know that not only is Jesus dwelling continually in the heart of Mary, but that he is himself the heart of Mary, the heart of her heart and the soul of her soul, and so, to come to the heart of Mary is to come to Jesus; to honor the heart of Mary is to honor Jesus; to invoke the heart of Mary is to invoke Jesus?”
Pope St. John Paul II and St. Mother Teresa of Calcutta also spoke of Mary as the co-redemptrix. We are all called to offer our sufferings in union with Christ for the sake of souls. Catholics have always understood this, at least the ones who know their faith well.
Not at all. Mary freely and fully cooperated with God’s plan of redemption. Without her ‘fait’, or Yes to the Angel Gabriel’s proposal the Redeemer could not have come into the world in human flesh and a Son of Adam. Jesus is the one and only Redeemer. Nowhere does the Church call Him ‘Co-Redeemer’, only ‘Redeemer.’ Mary’s unique and essential co-operation with the work of the one Redeemer, however, entitles her to be called ‘Co-Redemptrix.’
So she did not redeem us, but was helpful in God’s plan to redeem us. Then perhaps “humble servant of God” would be a better title.
Such a title could be applied to any faithful follower of Jesus and not sufficient for Mary. There needs to be a title that encapsulates Mary’s unique role in the plan of salvation. No one else besides Mary co-operated to the extent of giving God the necessary human nature to redeem sinful humanity.
good to hear your excellent apologetics credentials at the benefit of our brothers and sisters.
It is often stated that this or that “isn’t there” in Holy Scripture. What is there and why? Are we getting the inference?
Oh, the Immaculate Conception isn’t in Scripture…
“Hail, full of Grace…”
Her name is not simply Mary, but “full of Grace.” What is Grace? It is our participation in God’s being. She is full of God’s Being… What does that infer? What does that mean?
Not a word of Holy Scripture is superfluous. If a concept is there boldly or merely alluded, it need be taken as a point for depth reflection. It can find amplification in light of other scriptural passages and the reflections of the saints.
We are not scriptural literalists nor are we scriptural idolaters. We are Roman Catholics, and our theological reflection is a three legged stool – Holy Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the perennial Magisterium of the Church. Take one of them away and the authentic Christian lens is gravely impaired if not shattered.
Co-Redemptrix is not a new notion. It goes back to Colossians 1:24 where Paul exclaims “Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church…”
We are ALL co-redeemers and that, despite the misgivings of our protestant friends, is a
New Testament reality, which highlights we are saved by faith AND works. Who would practice and exhibit more perfectly this Christian characteristic than the Most Blessed Virgin Mary?
Paul was wrong, Christ’s sacrifice was perfect and lacking nothing. His “in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions” is a blasphemy.
You need to think long — long — and hard about that. If you can’t rely on Saint Paul what other portions of Holy Scripture — let alone the Apostolic Tradition and the perennial Magisterium are expendable in the service of your own notions?
You have work to do.
You have to go deeper.
You do not seem to understand the mystery of redemptive suffering.
Christ’s sacrifice was perfect but its application to our lives is not perfect unless we offer up our own sufferings in union with His sacrifice to the Father. This is the meaning of redemptive suffering. It is the mystery behind the Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick, whereby the faithful get to sacramentally join their sufferings to those of Christ and so transform them into salvific offerings.
I understand that we must take up our own crosses and follow Christ. I just don’t see our suffering as redemptive, only as transformative.
Why do you think St. Paul said a woman is saved (not transformed) through childbirth? She offers her suffering to Christ for the sake of the child she is to give new life to. Redemptive suffering is even built into our fallen nature.
As James said, you need to think it through.
I have to research it more, but while looking for the quote you cited, I have found this beauty from Paul: “For there is only one God, and there is only one mediator between God and humanity, himself a human being, Christ Jesus” So there is no Mediatrix.
Do you pray for others in their need?
“All Grace”, in Latin, “Tota Gracia”, is Christ. Christ is “All Grace.” Christ came to us through the Virgin Mary. “The Gift”, Eu Caris, who is Christ, came to us through the Virgin Mary. Therefore, the Virgin Mary is our Mediatrix with the “All Grace”, the Source of All Graces, Jesus Christ. Consequently, she is also Mediatrix of All Graces brought to us by Christ, who is “Eu Caris”, the gift of God to us.
Of course thete is. Every woman who has ever interceded for others in prayer is a mediatrix.
I am not trolling and I am catholic, more so than the current pope.
You are denying the Catholic faith by saying “Paul was wrong”.
“I am catholic, more so than the current pope.”
Careful … pride has led to many individual’s downfall.
There IS no “Mediatrix” in the sense that Mary is co-equal or singularly the “Mediator” of our salvation. However, all of us are “mediators” in bringing the gospel to others, engaging in intercessory prayer for others and exhorting, encouraging and admonishing others. That is a form of mediatorship.
Mary’s is like that, only unique in that she and she only is specially gifted with the grace to literally carry God within her womb AND THEN TO OFFER HIM TO THE WORLD THRU BIRTH AND REARING AND THE TREASURING AND PONDERING OF ALL THESE THINGS IN HER HEART {LK 2:19}.
We see Elizabeth confess this when she met Mary while she and Mary were both still pregnant. “Mary, the mother of my Lord” {Lord = God}. Theotokos; Mother of God, a thoroughly unique place in all of creation. Never before and never after. Once for all time.
This might help in this and other ways.
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/is-there-a-new-covenant-ministerial-priesthood
No, Our Blessed Mother is THE greatest creature EVER in the history of Mankind. She alone was and remains
the only creature without SIN. Our Lady is FULL of Grace.
She alone has a singularly unique role in redemption. It is much deeper than your post offered.
She IS the Queen of Heaven.
She IS the Seat of Wisdom.
WE are all HER Children. There IS a wealth of contemplation in all of this. Satan battles and HATES Our Lady
more than God, given the extraordinary Power She has received from On High as a result of Her Fiat, Her humanity,
and Her humility. There IS more, much more about Our Lady than many might imagine.
Thanks for the link.
“Let us remember that Jesus Christ is a very good Son and that He does not permit that we offend and despise His Most Holy Mother. We have recorded through many centuries of Church history the obvious testimony which demonstrates by the terrible chastisements which have befallen those who have attacked the honor of His Most Holy Mother, how Our Lord Jesus Christ has always defended the honor of His Mother.”
Tramtarataa is a protestant, don’t you have a rapture to prepare for tranny? what are you doing in this forum?
Protestants do not doubt Paul, they live by “sola scriptura”.
“Sola Scriptura” … therin lies the problem.
protestant
😉
Paul was wrong? Now that is a blasphemy.
troll
Agreed.
So…Scripture is infallible and the sole source of revelation when it says what one agrees with, but when the words challenge our understanding of something, suddenly the author is incorrect?
Interesting.
“Co-” anything
“For in those days Jesus Christ will send them not a true pastor but a destroyer.”
I hesitate to say this, but Francis and his thugs cannot die soon enough, in the hope that someone more Catholic will ascend to the Throne of Peter. He and his ilk are devastating the Church. May God have mercy on their souls.
I would never wish death on anyone, for that is up to God. Rather in matters over which I have no control I would with fervent prayer place them in God’s hands for His justice, for vengeance belongs to Him, not to us. And it’s marvelous how effective that kind of prayer can be.
If you read the old CE. At the New Advent site. You will see your thoughts are orthodox. They specifically mention praying for the death of a heresiarch as beneficial and licit. I am not saying to pray for his death, only that it is not necessarily contrary to the faith.
Lol
Why is that funny?
From the Encyclopedia:
The first-named species of hatred, in so far as it implies the reprobation of what is actually evil, is not a sin and may even represent a virtuous temper of soul. In other words, not only may I, but I even ought to, hate what is contrary to the moral law. Furthermore one may without sin go so far in the detestation of wrongdoing as to wish that which for its perpetrator is a very well-defined evil, yet under another aspect is a much more signal good. For instance, it would be lawful to pray for the death of a perniciously active heresiarch with a view to putting a stop to his ravages among the Christian people. Of course, it is clear that this apparent zeal must not be an excuse for catering to personal spite or party rancour. Still, even when the motive of one’s aversion is not impersonal, when, namely, it arises from the damage we may have sustained at the hands of others, we are not guilty of sin unless besides feeling indignation we yield to an aversion unwarranted by the hurt we have suffered. This aversion may be grievously or venially sinful in proportion to its excess over that which the injury would justify.
I agree with you. I just see some humor in it.
Oh. Well, I have posted this content on another Catholic website and I was excoriated for it. I am simply laying out what used to be Catholic philosophy.
People are way too sensitive.
I agree. They operate by emotion.
None of what you say, which apparently is not a direct quote and, therefore, your own interpretation, gives permission to pray for the death of a perniiously sinful person. We are to hate the sin, but love the sinner. Love requires wanting the best for the person for whom we are praying. Which is better – conversion and salvation OR death and damnation?
It is a direct quote. Here is the link: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07149b.htm
My point in this was to point out to another poster his thoughts do not seem illicit or contrary to traditional Catholic thinking.
I do not encourage anyone to pray for the death of the Pope, and I stated that as well. I am just pointing out what the quote “specifically” does say.
For a Pontiff to openly attack the faith and threaten schism, I believe Christ’s words of Judas applies: it would be better for him had he not been born.
Praying for an end to his reign of apostasy is a good and wholesome thing, not for the sake of his death, but for the sake of the Church and of the world being dragged along into error through his apostasy.
I pray for an end to it in conformity to God’s will. I leave the details to Him.
As I stated in my other post as soon as I quote the old CE, granted it was a polemic, posters get all emotional and angry.
Mike44R seems miffed.
Yeah. Some things taste bad in the mouth when spoken/written while being completely true. It’s a matter of context and intent.
I don’t think anyone holding the position you mentioned wants him dead just for the sake of his death or out of some sort of vigilante justice.
It’s a matter of praying for God to mitigate the damage already done and stop what is to come through either his conversion or his death.
Exactly correct.
Amen! But too, what did Jesus pray in the garden on the night of His arrest? Should we not pray in the same vein? Perhaps Francis is God’s will for us right now? Could this not be a decision point; a beginning of separating the sheep from the goats?
Not angry/miffed. Merely adamant. 🙂
Adamant? You are misreading things .
True, I did misread and apologized. Yet, I remain adamant in my view that it is more in keeping with the will of our Lord to pray for the conversion of sinners, even Francis and company, than to pray for the death of anyone who, from all appearances, seems to be unrepentent.
The end of Francis’ reign of terror can end in any of three ways: conversion, resignation or death. To pray for an end to his reign of terror is fine. To pray for his death, which – from what we’ve witnessed – suggests the result of his death at this point could conceivably lead to damnation.
But, if the quote does not ‘specifically’ say then your point is your oen interoretation.
Huh? I have stated exactly what the quote reveals. It is not illicit to pray for the death of a heresiarch.
I was responding to the last line of your post above, which says “I am just pointing out what the quote “specifically” does say.” Oops, I thought I read a ‘not’ between “does” and “say”. Sorry.
Yet, merely because the CE says its permissable to pray for the death of a heresiarch does not make it infallible or true. Show us some Magisterial documents or, better yet, passages from Holy Scripture, that give that permission.
Furthermore, provide us with proof that Francis or any of his cohorts have been convicted of heresy. We may believe they are heretics, but our views are merely our opinions and, thus, hearsay.
I’m really not trying to be argumentive. Rather, I believe it is far more in keeping with the will of our Lord that we pray for the conversion of sinners than for the death of one who, by all evidence, appears non-repentent.
Well, the longer Bergoglio goes on in his wickedness the greater will be his torment in hell if he is indeed damned. In that respect it would be better for him to keel over this evening.
Still I could not bring myself to pray for such a thing. After all God does not take delight in the death of the wicked.
I think the disposition of the one praying is the issue. Certainly, if one is praying for the death of a loved one who is suffering and near death that would not be sinful and would be meritorious. It is common and understood.
I could see a genuine person praying for the death of one causing grave harm if that is placed at the feet of our Lord and if consistent with His will.
Holy Scripture says that we are to pray (for the conversion and salvation of) sinners. THAT is the ORTHODOX intention of our prayers for Francis and his minions. We are NOT to pray for their death and damnation.
I do not think anyone has suggested praying for damnation. That is not the point of the quote.
You can pray for a holy death for someone though.
True, but I was soeaking of praying for the death of anyone who has given strong evidence of non-repentence.
Do you think that Klaus von Stauffenberg who was a sincere Catholic didn’t pray for the success of his plot to kill Hitler in July 1944 ? It was certainly for Hitler’s holy death.
We can pray God that He will give Bergoglio his eternal reward at soonest, whatever this means.
I will continue to pray for Francis’ conversion and repentence and that God’s will be done.
I’d be tempted to pray for the death of Bergoglio but I’d just have to then pray sooner for the death of Parolin his replacement and Schoenborn after him and then Tagle after him and Cupich after him.
It would be so exhausting I reckon I’ll just brace myself to resist another temptation, that of gloating over his demise when the day eventually arrives… {Prov 24:17}
In the meantime, I pray for him. On some days I consider it mortification of the flesh…
Well you could always exchange the temptation to gloat for a toast to Holy Mother Church for having outlived yet another mortal enemy ;+)
Tent stake. Hammer. Modernists’ temple.
Our Lady has the solution.
She does and hopefully Pope Benedict makes that consecration soon.
I don’t see that happening, bud. I’d put money on him riding out the rest of his days in silence while everything falls apart.
That IS exactly what will happen…
But at least he COULD make the consecration, potentially, unlike some other people, I don’t want to mention any names.
Bénédict 16th has not the power to command the world’s bishops performing the Consecration Act in their dioceses in union with him at the same time as he will perform it.
Though it could be easy to warn the world’s benevolent bishops through an e-mail message asking them to be in union with the emeritus Pope at the very moment he will perform the Consecration.
But the old and frail Benedict cannot do this by himself alone. He will need help. Is he free enough? That’s the question.
Anyways if Francis is made aware of this plot, he will try to stop it at once. But has he the power to block a bishop consecrating Russia to the IHM in his private chapel ? I doubt this.
God help them endure the rest of this pontificate.