New Papal Condemnation!!

'Dig, dig!'

‘Dig, dig!’

 

From Father Hunwicke’s Blog:

Pope Francis breaks his silence!

“In authorising regular use of the older Mass, now referred to as the ‘extraordinary form’, now retired Pope Benedict XVI was ‘magnanimous’ toward those attached to the old liturgy, he [Pope Francis] said. ‘But it is an exception’.

“Pope Francis told Father Spadaro he wonders why some young people, who were not raised with the old Latin Mass, nevertheless prefer it. ‘And I ask myself: why so much rigidity? Dig dig, this rigidity always hides something, insecurity or even something else. Rigidity is defensive. True love is not rigid'”.

Marvellously magnificent stuff from the Roman Pontiff!!! I’ll try to get in with my comments on it before Fr Z does with his!! Here goes:

This is splendid: an authoritative declaration that the word “extraordinary” means “exceptional”. Let us hope that an appropriate Authority very soon makes it clear that the employment of “Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion” must only ever be a tremendously rare “exception”. Perhaps a simple rule such as this would suffice: “Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion may only be used in parishes in which there is at least one Sunday Mass in the Extraordinary Form.” Could anything be more equitable than that? Anything more ad mentem Summi Pontificis?

This is even better!!! Liturgical “rigidity … always hides something”!! After Cardinal Sarah made his splendid and exemplary call for a return to versus Orientem, various hierarchs whom out of respect I am most certainly not going to name got very excited about his words, and even mistranslated some Latin in their Rigid anxiety to discourage clergy from taking His Eminence’s laudable advice. So, if we are to assume consistency on his part, Pope Francis thinks that hierarchs with a “rigidity” about liturgical Orientation, are “insecure”!!!

Now: here’s a diverting question for readers to mull over. Our beloved Holy Father, having asserted that the “Liturgically Rigid” may be “insecure”, gives as an alternative: “or even something else”. What is this “even something else”, which is clearly “even” worse than “insecurity”? Is he suggesting that the “Liturgically Rigid” may be guilty of a tendency towards Homicide? Or Pride? Or Racism? Or Idolatry? Or Theft? Or Paedophilia? Or Genocide? Or Dishonesty? Or Grinding the Faces of the Poor? Or merely the preferred sin of this pontificate, Adultery?

I think we should be told! I am certainly very keen to know of what, without even knowing it, I am probably, in the Holy Father’s view, guilty!! So, surely, are those hierarchs who are with such “rigidity” opposed to versus Orientem!!!

Dig! Dig!

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

77 Responses to New Papal Condemnation!!

  1. JabbaPapa says:

    So, even though it is now demonstrated that a certain degree of dishonest quote-mongery is going on in this latest “exciting” story, some continue to view it as “the truth”™ ?

    Why am I unsurprised ?

  2. Joe says:

    Is this the website for the self absorbed promethean neo-pelagians??

    I want in.

  3. ginnyfree says:

    Ya know the ONLY thing I can say is “Dig it.” Pun intended. Wow. Not hard to figure out our current Holy Father doesn’t understand piety. God bless. Ginnyfree.

  4. kathleen says:

    … some continue to view it as “the truth”

    Because it is the truth. Ginnyfree hits the nail on the head: the HF has no understanding of true “piety”!

    Why not just give up trying to make excuses for him, Jabba? You’re flogging a dead horse.

    There are by now dozens and dozens of examples that prove Pope Francis has no love whatsoever for the ‘Extraordinary Form’, has banned it whenever the opportunity has arisen (e.g., the devastation of the once-thriving Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate), and what is more important: thinks that all those who love it and hold it as a priceless treasure of the Church are either nutcases, or “rigid”, “Pharisees”, “elitists”, “fundamentalists”, etc., etc. Just take your pick of insult from the loooong list in that ‘little book’ compiled by The Bones… as newcomer Joe has done so wittily😉.

  5. John says:

    Is it not truly remarkable that since Latin is no longer taught widely in secondary/high schools many young people who would not understand the wording of the liturgy in the traditional Latin Mass would prefer it over Mass in the vernacular which they do understand ?

  6. JabbaPapa says:

    Is this the website for the self absorbed promethean neo-pelagians??

    Possibly the most misunderstood and to a great extent deliberately misreported comment of the present Roman Pontiff.

    That phrase, if you actually read the homily IIRC in the original Italian and without your ideological blinkers on is one of a small number of the most DIRECT condemnations of “liberal”-“progressive” pseudo- “catholics” and their anti-Traditional anti-orthodox ideologies that the Holy Father has ever made.

    “Self-absorbed” = Modernist ; “promethean” = self-importantly politicised Americanist ; neo-Pelagian = Agnostic, Atheist, or Deist, but in any case denying the Incarnation of God in our Lord Jesus Christ, and therefore viewing Him is a simple “holy man” or mortal “philosopher”.

    It is a deliciously baroque Epithet aimed at the Enemies of Tradition, except that certain “sundry traddies” motivated in knee-jerk Réaction by their hatred of the Pope, and in sheer ignorance seemingly of what the Pelagian Heresy even constitutes in the first place, decided to throw their toys out of their pram under the utterly false pretense that the Epithet was somehow being aimed at themselves.

    Sequitur Pope-bashing ad nauseam.

  7. JabbaPapa says:

    You’re flogging a dead horse

    Are you comparing CP&S to a dead horse ?

    I hope not — though I’m hardly enamoured of the suggestion that to defend the Vicar of Christ against manifest and overt slanders, objectively constituting disobedience of the Commandment “Thou Shalt not bear False Witness against thy Neighbour” (disobedience of which constitutes objective Mortal Sin), might somehow be a blameworthy activity.

  8. mmvc says:

    Of course! The type of Catholics PF referred to in his anecdote illustrating modern day Pelagians are not faithful traditional people who offer rosary bouquets but ‘Agnostic, Atheist, or Deist, but in any case denying the Incarnation of God in our Lord Jesus Christ, and therefore viewing Him is a simple “holy man” or mortal “philosopher”’! (sarc off)

    From Rorate Caeli:
    The Pope had an audience with the presiding board of the CLAR (the Latin American and Caribbean Confederation of Religious Men and Women – Confederación Latinoamericana y Caribeña de Religiosos y Religiosas) on June 6, 2013 (image above, with three sisters and three male religious). It was a private audience, so no transcript was provided, but those who were present were kind enough to provide the words of His Holiness, made available at the Chilean ultra-progressive website Reflexión y Liberación (Reflection and Liberation).

    The excerpt that mentions Traditional Catholic groups is the one below (the ellipses are part of the original long transcript, as provided by CLAR):

    I share with you two concerns. One is the Pelagian current that there is in the Church at this moment. There are some restorationist groups. I know some, it fell upon me to receive them in Buenos Aires. And one feels as if one goes back 60 years! Before the Council… One feels in 1940… An anecdote, just to illustrate this, it is not to laugh at it, I took it with respect, but it concerns me; when I was elected, I received a letter from one of these groups, and they said: “Your Holiness, we offer you this spiritual treasure: 3,525 rosaries.” Why don’t they say, ‘we pray for you, we ask…’, but this thing of counting… And these groups return to practices and to disciplines that I lived through – not you, because you are not old – to disciplines, to things that in that moment took place, but not now, they do not exist today…

  9. JabbaPapa says:

    Is it not truly remarkable that since Latin is no longer taught widely in secondary/high schools many young people who would not understand the wording of the liturgy in the traditional Latin Mass would prefer it over Mass in the vernacular which they do understand ?

    I find that in general, the most ardent blogospherical “defenders” of the TLM as an “absolute” and the Novus Ordo as an “evil” have a poor understanding of Latin itself ; and instead romanticise it greatly, somewhat ritualistically, including when they insist that English-language translations of Vatican II texts somehow “prove” some factionalist notions that the official Latin texts simply do not express.

    Then again, I can’t help but be sympathetic to the more heart-felt grievances of this Traditionalist community, most of whom most likely have never attended a properly Reverent, Latinate, and utterly Catholic Novus Ordo Mass, because of the HORRENDOUS spread of irreverent abusive liturgies throughout the entire world by the very self-absorbed promethean neo-pelagians that the Pope has directly attacked.

  10. JabbaPapa says:

    From Rorate Caeli

    Frankly, I trust their opinions just about as far as I can throw them.

    You are right that it is Rorate Caeli who spread the absolute LIE that the phrase “self-absorbed promethean neo-pelagians” was intended as an insult against Traditionalists.

  11. JabbaPapa says:

    People are no longer being taught how to READ.

    Let me clarify :

    I share with you two concerns.

    1) One is the Pelagian current that there is in the Church at this moment.

    2) There are some restorationist groups.

    Not only does “concerns” not equal condemnation ; but to pretend that these concerns are one and the same is just to fail to comprehend what he said.

  12. mmvc says:

    So, even though it is now demonstrated that a certain degree of dishonest quote-mongery is going on in this latest “exciting” story, some continue to view it as “the truth”™ ?

    Even if one were to make allowances for your ‘dishonest quote-mongery’ theory, there is enough in this latest Spadaro interview to cause traditional Catholics (lay and clergy) considerable concern.

    The ‘exciting story’ thing you keep harping on about is rubbish. Disappointment, hurt and puzzlement is what the Faithful have become accustomed to.

  13. mmvc says:

    People are no longer being taught how to READ.

    Perhaps they haven’t reached the heights of learning you’ve clearly achieved, but they can read well enough to recognise that PF did not view the holy gift of a Rosary Bouquet in a positive light. And that speaks for itself.

  14. JabbaPapa says:

    mmvc, if I did not deeply understand and deeply sympathise with the hurt and the justly expressed needs of the Traditionalists specifically and of Traditional Catholics more broadly, whether you call these “orthodox” or “conservative”, I simply would not be here ; but I do, and my experience of the properly Reverent, Latinate, and utterly Catholic Novus Ordo Mass, when given properly, and yet deprived from the vast majority of the Faithful by treacherous Modernist wreckers, who deprive them of the TLM in exactly the same manner, is not something that any truly Faithful Catholic can accept.

    What I can NEVER support nor agree with OTOH is any schismatic tendency at all, because that is more harmful to Holy Church than any Pope’s private and personal opinions.

  15. JabbaPapa says:

    Perhaps they haven’t reached the heights of learning you’ve clearly achieved

    These aren’t “heights of learning” — these are things that were once systematically taught to teenagers.

  16. JabbaPapa says:

    in the original Italian

    ah — sorry, Spanish

  17. JabbaPapa says:

    there is enough in this latest Spadaro interview

    Spadaro can be trusted not just as far as I can throw him ; but as far as the entire readership of this blog could do so collectively to rid us of his ghastly atheist pretensions and the LIES that he has spread under the false impression that he correctly “understands” the Pope.

  18. kathleen says:

    Are you comparing CP&S to a dead horse ?

    Of course not, Jabba; and you know that very well!

    Your “dead horse” is an unreal attempt at pretending Pope Francis is innocent of all his shocking pronouncements that have so harmed and confused loyal members of the Church! This obsession of yours (even though I don’t doubt it is made with the best of intentions) is becoming ridiculous.
    Whatever the absolutely valid complaint from the faithful might be, you immediately respond saying it is a mistake, not true, all due to a bad translation (or some such other excuse), and that the Pope cannot really be saying this or that Modernist, anti-traditional statement. Have you really not eyes to see nor ears to hear the plain evidence before you?

    These people, including commenters here, do not “hate” the Pope – for if they did, that, as we all know, would be a grave sin – but they may (and certainly should) hate some of his way-out, anti-Catholic deeds and utterances. Is it “slander” to ask for clarification or that he withdraw them? We are not talking about “ultra” groups here (that admittedly sometimes resort to hate-speech) but just honest, traditional clergy and/or laity who desire to do no more than defend the integrity of their Holy Catholic Church.

  19. kathleen says:

    Frankly, I trust their opinions [Rorate Caeli] just about as far as I can throw them.

    And “frankly”, Jabba, I find that insult to one of the blogosphere’s most traditional, scholarly and trustworthy Catholic websites, incredibly sad!

    P.S. No one is suggesting the heresy of “schism” as a solution to the problems. I don’t understand why you even bring the subject up. To criticise error, from wherever it may come, even if it happens to be the Holy Father himself, does not infer schism is the answer!

  20. JabbaPapa says:

    Whatever the absolutely valid complaint from the faithful might be, you immediately respond saying it is a mistake, not true, all due to a bad translation (or some such other excuse)

    That is not true — and of the Popes in my own lifetime, I’m not sure if it’s the amazingly ineffectual Paul VI or blabbermouth Pope Francis I like the least.

    And you’re uncharitable — when there is a mistake I say so ; never when there isn’t. When there is a lie, I denounce it ; never when there isn’t. When there is a bad translation, which has BTW become very frequent during this Pontificate, I denounce it ; never when there isn’t.

    Literarily, I’m a Rabelaisant — and Friar, Father (and father), Husband, Abbott, and Doctor François Rabelais, Catholic Priest, denounced in his glorious Satire papefiguery equally to papolatry. But of course, he had actual Grave Schism occurring before his very eyes because of some German Priest Agitator who unilaterally decided to try and impose his own personal Puritanical and Absolutist views against the Holy See.

    You are playing with fire.

  21. ginnyfree says:

    Well, lookie here! I had to read this twice cause I wasn’t sure I was reading right: “Because it is the truth. Ginnyfree hits the nail on the head: the HF has no understanding of true “piety”!” Kathleen actually agreeing with me? O dear! O my! Well, how did that happen?
    No, we do not have a saint in the Holy Office these days. We got spoiled having so many for so long. Now, I know Kathleen will take issue with what I just said, but that’s okay. I’m going to treasure forever the fact that she actually agreed with me ONCE! Yippie! God bless. Ginnyfree.

  22. mmvc says:

    these are things that were once systematically taught to teenagers.

    Hasn’t it all gone downhill dreadfully since then?

    But let’s be positive. To discern meaning and truth often requires much more than mere academic skills. Common sense, life experience and wisdom are perhaps even more necessary.

  23. kathleen says:

    Dear Jabba, I certainly did not intend to be “uncharitable” towards you. I believed it to be the truth, that while you have indeed denounced “lies or mistakes” from other members of the Church (even Bishops), and done so well and with great erudition, I cannot EVER remember you denouncing the evident “mistakes” of Pope Francis. And I really can’t understand why! Is he ‘untouchable’ for you, as he is for Michael Voris? St Paul wouldn’t have agreed with you!

    There is a loyalty demanded of us that is above that due to any individual mortal man, even if that man be the Pope!

    Cradle Catholic that I am, I have been imbibed since infancy on the respect and loyalty, prayer and love, we owe our Holy Father, Christ’s Vicar on Earth, and Guardian of the Sacred Deposit of Faith in the One True Church. Therefore it is truly heartbreaking to have to witness some of the evident betrayals of that guardianship coming from the HF himself. (Perhaps as a convert to the Faith you do not understand the very real hurt this causes, but I would like to believe you do.) I still pray daily for the HF, and try to love him, despite the insults he pours upon faithful Catholics, and despite the sorrow he frequently brings us by the way he appears to be destroying the Church.

  24. mmvc says:

    No one is suggesting the heresy of “schism” as a solution to the problems. I don’t understand why you even bring the subject up. To criticise error, from wherever it may come, even if it happens to be the Holy Father himself, does not infer schism is the answer!

    Well said, Kathleen. Thank you for making that clear.

  25. mmvc says:

    Sequitur Pope-bashing ad nauseam.

    Nor is it fair to repeatedly accuse (hope I don’t get my knuckles rapped for splitting an infinitive ;-)) traditional Catholics of engaging in ‘pope bashing’ as if it were some exciting new sport.

  26. Toad says:

    “Because it is the truth. Ginnyfree hits the nail on the head: the HF has no understanding of true “piety”!”
    Explanation to puzzled new readers:
    What Gin and Kath mean is that Pope Francis has a different view of “piety” than either of them.

  27. mmvc says:

    Spadaro can be trusted not just as far as I can throw him ;

    What about Archbishop Jan Graubner, who reported remarkably similar reactions from PF re the TLM. Is he not to be trusted in this matter either? Strange that…

  28. johnhenrycn says:

    Eoin (12:35) says something particularly risible – even by his low comedic standards – wondering why people may prefer the TLM, which they cannot understand, to the NO vernacular which they can. With that attitude, I’m almost certain he’s never tried to appreciate or to work out the secrets and beauty of Impressionism, Expressionism, Abstractism, Cubism, Jazz, 19th Century German opera, Calypso, Gregorian Chant, Polyphony, etc, etc. You see, Johann, even if you have no deep understanding of these arts, you know instinctively they are worth learning something about. Take Verdi’s operas or Mozart’s symphonies: have you never been to an Italian opera? Have you never been to the symphony? Have you never purchased a libretto or a musical score or a book about painting and sculpture?

    You will likely never be able to play even a simple camp song like Hello Muddah, Hello Fadduh on the violin, but you can still gain pleasure from hearing a virtuoso play Ponchielli’s Dance of the Hours (which inspired Hello Muddah) on his. So too, even if you don’t know a word Latin, you can purchase Latin-English Missals and DVDs that will lead you through the steps in the TLM liturgy, and eventually you will come to revel in its beauty. Trust me, old fruit, as someone who barely scrapped through High School Latin, it is entirely possible to learn, follow and eventually participate in the TLM if you put your mind to it. You think yourself too old a dog to learn new tricks, but young people are more adventuresome than you are, more eager to explore, not only the future, but also the past glories of Tradition. Don’t be a wet blanket discouraging them.

  29. John says:

    johnhenrycn@16:06
    I am well used to barbs [ e.g. ‘low comedic standards’ ] coming from you. However, it would be a mistake to suppose that you have a monopoly on artistic appreciation.
    Don’t worry. I have been to Italian opera both at home and abroad; have been to symphonies.I have books about painting and have a number of paintings by well-established artists which I admire as others do. I have been to art galleries at home and abroad. I have seen the Mona Lisa at the Louvre in Paris. You should really go to see it. I can recommend a few other galleries both in Europe and the United States to you.

    If you are telling me that someone who does not know Latin should be enthused simply by hearing somebody speaking Latin, or some other language he or she doesn’t know, then I have to question your own artistic standards. Surely the point of the liturgy is to understand what is being said ; not just to hear a foreign sound. Comparing the Latin Mass with Jazz or Calypso seems irreverent to say the very least. I had thought that you with your respect for the sacredness of catholic tradition would not stoop to that. I shall pray for your conversion.

    Personally I have no problem understanding the Latin Mass. I was taught Latin up to high school and beyond by Catholic priest-teachers. My familiarity with Latin or otherwise is, however, not the point. The Pope was speaking about young people who were not raised with the Old Latin Mass still preferring it and wondering why, presumably if they could not understand it.

  30. Toad says:

    I think this is what John is trying to say…

  31. Toad says:

    …Would it be blasphemous to apply the above to the Latin Mass?
    (Yes, Toad., you idiot.)

  32. johnhenrycn says:

    Jack (17:05) –
    Again, you miss the point. Stop boasting about your vast art collection, your deep knowledge of Italian opera, your superb Latinate education, your scorn of jazz (you probably don’t know that Dave Brubeck, the late jazz pianist and convert, wrote To Hope, a much loved and celebrated Mass composition in the style of jazz, which he arranged according to the Roman Ritual).

    What you don’t understand and are too fogbound to see and too hidebound to accept is that young people are actually quite capable of learning new languages. Indeed, they are more capable of doing so than old long-in-the-tooth fogies like you.

    As your gums continue to recede with age, Jack, consider this: for far longer than a thousand years devout Catholics have attended Mass without understanding Latin, either to write it or to speak it. What they did during the service was engage in private devotions, such as the Rosary, whilst the priest faced ad orientem or otherwise went about his business. Both the congregation and the priest were fully participating in the Mass in their respective spheres. They would be shocked to hear mid-20th Century Cafeteria Cat-licks like you sneering and saying their worship was inferior to yours by reason of their not precisely understanding the formulaic utterances and body language of the priest at the altar. Well actually, I think they would laugh at you.

    What a sorry excuse you are, or rather, what a perfect example you are of the “go-ahead” progressive Father Flapdoodle Fan Club types we now have to tolerate and suffer.

  33. John says:

    johnhenrycn@18:30 It was you, dear friend, ( not dear enemy for this once) who questioned my deficiency in artistic sensibility, lack of knowledge of Italian opera etc. Hardly a surprise then that I should wish to respond factually to meet these challenges.
    I am certain that young people,as you say,are quite capable of learning new languages, but Latin is not one of their choices, nor a necessary one given the availability of the Mass in the vernacular.
    You are right, as I recall it attending Pre Vatican II Masses; devout Catholics did engage in private devotions such as the Rosary which, however, shows that their attention was not on the Latin liturgy which they did not understand. If they were concentrating on their rosaries they were not engaged in the Mass which should have been their primary focus. Their worship was by no means inferior to mine, but unfocused and compromised by a Latin liturgy they did not understand. A relief then when the vernacular Mass became available by a decision of the Council Fathers after Vatican II. I can’t help it, but would have found it strange, if they would have laughed at not understanding the Latin liturgy.

    Since you are an admirer of Latin may I ask you do you find the opening words of Horace Book 1 ‘Maecenas atavis edite regibus ..’ more arresting that the opening words of Virgil’s Aeneid : Arma virumque cano .. ? A debate I have had with friends but no firm conclusion yet.

    You call me ‘a sorry excuse’. Excuse for what ? Any more name calling coming my way ?

  34. Toad says:

    Spoken like a true Catholic, JH.
    …Very nasty, hectoring, bullying, tone.

    “As your gums continue to recede with age, Jack,..”
    Are we to suppose the gums of “true” Catholics are somehow miraculously absolved from receding? Or what?
    “What a sorry excuse you are…”
    What sorry excuses any of us are.
    Except for JH, of course.

    Nasty, bullying, persecuting, old Toad!
    Never mind, Kathleen will kiss it better.
    (This brand of vicious verbal abuse from JH is what did for Burro, I reckon.
    Still, it’s funny, and I hugely enjoy it. Maybe John does, too.
    Tells us considerably more about JH than it does about him.).

  35. Toad says:

    I just hope you aren’t going to dump my above comment, Moderators.
    JH dishes out his unctuous bile unmolested, even gets supportive pats on his fat head.
    Let’s see how he handles some flack directed at him.

  36. JabbaPapa says:

    What about Archbishop Jan Graubner, who reported remarkably similar reactions from PF re the TLM. Is he not to be trusted in this matter either?

    No.

  37. johnhenrycn says:

    JK (19:14) begs – “Any more name calling coming my way?”

    Er, you can see that I amended my last sentence at 18:30 to call you a “perfect example” instead of a “sorry excuse”, so quityerbitchin.

    I’m amazed that you’re so forgetful or imperceptive of what was going on in Church when you were still in short pants. You say: “I recall it attending Pre Vatican II Masses…If they were concentrating on their rosaries they were not engaged in the Mass which should have been their primary focus…

    Listen up – and I’ll say this in the vernacular – there is NO WAY the little old ladies wearing their mantillas and saying their Rosaries at the back of the church, who probably couldn’t even hear, never mind understand what the priest was reverently whispering to himself as he faced the Tabernacle, were any less an important, integral and essential part of the Mass. They were completely engaged in it without having to understand or even hear the soft invocations of the priest to God. The priest has a job to do. Like a plumber, he pulls out the tools of his trade: chalice, ciborium, corporal, cruets, paten… and gets on with it. Meanwhile, the parishioners get on with their job – lifting up their prayers to Heaven. The relationship between priest and parishioner during Mass is a symbiotic one in which both are necessary for the Mass to be perfect (which is why Mass said by a priest alone is not ideal, which is not to say that Mass celebrated by a priest alone is wrong – before 1917 a “grave” cause was required, but since then a priest is allowed to do so with “just” cause”). The priest is not an actor on a stage and the congregation is not his audience. To be sure, the congregation is advised to pay attention to what’s taking place at the altar, but that is not its only or even principal role during the Holy Sacrifice.

  38. mmvc says:

    What about Archbishop Jan Graubner, who reported remarkably similar reactions from PF re the TLM. Is he not to be trusted in this matter either?

    No.

    I might have guessed.

    The good Czech Archbishop and PF’s Jesuit buddy no doubt met up some day and cooked up this storyline about the pope’s unfavourable view of the TLM and at the next best opportunity went public with it… Yeah right. Try telling the likes of Fr Z and Fr Hunwicke that this, as well as all the other reports of papal blunders, are nothing but cock and bull stories invented by liberals/devious ‘pope bashers’/thrill seekers etc, etc…

  39. John says:

    johnhenrycn@20:47. If, as you say, the little old ladies wearing their mantillas and saying their Rosaries at the back of the Church, being neither able to hear nor understand what the priest was reverently whispering to himself, were no less an important, integral and essential part of the Mass pre Vatican II, what has changed in the meantime that it has become important that little old ladies or others should now attend a Latin Mass that they will not be able to understand rather than attend a Mass in the vernacular which they do understand. ?

    Or is it that the many persons attending a Latin Mass to-day who do not know Latin should follow the old pious practice and say their Rosary ?

  40. mmvc says:

    You might find this young woman’s testimony illuminating, John:

    http://www.crisismagazine.com/2014/love-for-latin-liturgy-more-than-a-fashion

  41. John says:

    Toad@19:15. I agree very much with you. A pity that there cannot be a civilized debate without name calling and insult, all in the name of advocating a personalized, emotional version of Catholicism with which one dare not disagree.

  42. johnhenrycn says:

    Giovanni (21:22) asks – [Why has it]“become important that little old ladies or others should now attend a Latin Mass…”

    Tradition, old fruit, as those ladies have always said, and as some thousands of extremely bright young militant Catholics now also say. It’s called the Mass of The Ages for good reason, doh! People – not you, obviously, in your role as a shill and bird dog for ecumenical modernization of the Church – should ask PF why he does his best to make it so hard for TLM loyalists to be loyalists. It’s not like they’re demanding prohibition of Novus Ordo. You’d almost think he despises TLMists when you read things he says about them, before the things he says about them are sanitized by our resident multi-linguist and others of his ilk.

    Now, I must be away for 3600 seconds. Catch you later when you wake up, Finnegan.

  43. John says:

    johnhenrycn@22:24.

    So we should all go back to a Latin Mass, which very many did not understand, remain mute and say our our rosaries silently as the Mass proceeds, rather than go to a Mass in the vernacular in which the congregation participate and give their responses to the celebrant ?

  44. kathleen says:

    Jabba,

    You haven’t answered the question I asked you @ 15:40 yet – on whether you consider criticism of the Pope (even when his words and/or actions contradict Catholic teaching) is ever licit? I’d really like to know your thoughts on this.
    I am with you that “pope-bashing”, consisting solely of aggressive ad hominems against the Holy Father, goes beyond the pale (and I’m sure mmvc would agree with this too), but criticism of some of his outrageous statements, or unkind condemnation of (often) the most devout Catholics, I believe is not only perfectly legitimate, but even in some cases, a Christian duty. There’s an important difference here.

    Something else I said that I’d like to correct… Me:
    Perhaps as a convert to the Faith you do not understand the very real hurt this causes, but I would like to believe you do.

    On re-reading all the above a bit more slowly, I realise you did say to mmvc @ 13:52,
    if I did not deeply understand and deeply sympathise with the hurt and the justly expressed needs of the Traditionalists specifically and of Traditional Catholics more broadly, whether you call these “orthodox” or “conservative”, I simply would not be here ; but I do…

    Sorry I missed that earlier, and I’m glad to know you understand our distress, and I even expect you share it too in part.
    But this is not limited just to the Pope’s inexplicable disdain for the Traditional Latin Mass we love, but to almost daily attacks aimed at everything we hold dear, our Catholic Faith itself, and his apparent embracing of an ideology that flies in direct opposition to it. He ignores all the patient, respectful efforts of cardinals and advisors begging him to pronounce the Truth in the face of so much confusion. However much one would like to put all these reported horrors down to no more than an anti-pope campaign or something, that’s plainly impossible.

    We have a pope who wants to reshape the papacy to his own liking, and he’s not going to let anyone stand in his way. Our only consolation lies in knowing that the Holy Spirit will never allow that to happen. But we, all true Catholics, are the instruments who must be His witnesses to stand in the way of such a monstrous attack on the Holy Bride of Christ.

  45. johnhenrycn says:

    Eoin (22:47) – You may be unacquainted with the TLM dialogue Mass where people in the congregation who understand Latin or who have memorized the responses (so easy to do) join with the server in making the Latin responses. If 10 year old altar boys can do it, so can you. Furthermore, there are many other parts of the TLM in which non-Latin speakers participate, if only by standing or kneeling: The Confiteor, the Gloria, the Creed, the Secrets, Sanctus, Pater Noster…
    ___
    Todd (19:57) – I don’t have a “fat head”. I’m a “square head” according to the avatar assigned to me by WordPress since I don’t choose to pick a personalized one; but I take comfort that most people who didn’t vote for Clinton – unlike you who said you would have – are also called square heads.
    ___
    I may return again after another 3600 seconds.
    ___

  46. mmvc says:

    Jabba @ 13:33
    People are no longer being taught how to READ.

    Let me clarify :

    I share with you two concerns.

    1) One is the Pelagian current that there is in the Church at this moment.
    2) There are some restorationist groups.

    With a bit more time on my hands, I’ve been able to return to the Rorate Caeli article I quoted from and realise that I had only posted the first of PF’s TWO ‘concerns’ as this was relevant to the ‘traditional Catholics and practices’ question. Having said that, a close reading of the introductory sentence should have given you enough of a clue that his second concern was recorded in a separate part of the transcript:

    The excerpt that mentions Traditional Catholic groups is the one below (the ellipses are part of the original long transcript, as provided by CLAR):

    I also seem to remember that at the time there were lively discussions going on about whether or not PF really understood the meaning of ‘Pelagian’.

    For clarity’s sake (and to help restore your faith in teachers of reading skills ;-)), here is the complete quote with both of the pope’s concerns listed separately:

    I share with you two concerns. One is the Pelagian current that there is in the Church at this moment. There are some restorationist groups. I know some, it fell upon me to receive them in Buenos Aires. And one feels as if one goes back 60 years! Before the Council… One feels in 1940… An anecdote, just to illustrate this, it is not to laugh at it, I took it with respect, but it concerns me; when I was elected, I received a letter from one of these groups, and they said: “Your Holiness, we offer you this spiritual treasure: 3,525 rosaries.” Why don’t they say, ‘we pray for you, we ask…’, but this thing of counting… And these groups return to practices and to disciplines that I lived through – not you, because you are not old – to disciplines, to things that in that moment took place, but not now, they do not exist today…

    The second [concern] is for a Gnostic current. Those Pantheisms… Both are elite currents, but this one is of a more educated elite… I heard of a superior general that prompted the sisters of her congregation to not pray in the morning, but to spiritually bathe in the cosmos, things like that… They concern me because they ignore the incarnation! And the Son of God became our flesh, the Word was made flesh, and in Latin America we have flesh abundantly [de tirar al techo]! What happens to the poor, their pains, this is our flesh…

    Here’s the link which I should have provided earlier:
    http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2013/06/pope-on-traditional-groups-pelagians.html

  47. JabbaPapa says:

    It’s called the Mass of The Ages for good reason

    No it isn’t — the TLM is the Rite that resulted from liturgical innovations by the Council Fathers of Trent.

  48. JabbaPapa says:

    whether you consider criticism of the Pope (even when his words and/or actions contradict Catholic teaching) is ever licit?

    Of course it can be, and I’ve criticised the current Pope myself, and will likely do so again in the future.

    But there’s a difference between this and maliciously interpreting everything he says or does in the worst possible light in a systematic manner, in the very hermeneutic of rupture that Pope Benedict XVI so rightly condemned.

    Father Z strikes an excellent balance between faithful Communion with the Holy Father and occasional criticism of his less praiseworthy deeds ; he does not however allow his blog to become a vehicle for willfully destructive slanders.

    We have a pope who wants to reshape the papacy to his own liking

    I do not think that this is true — but as the recent wikileaks emails have shown, he has become a bit of a lightning rod for those seeking to effectuate Americanist heretical revisionism of the Soros/Rothschild/Clinton/Masonic “religious teachings must be changed” variety by means of underhanded political lobbying.

    Francis’ three immediate predecessors, JPI, JPII, and BXVI were, each in their own way, truly exceptional Popes — Francis does have his qualities, and he is fairly effectively sanitising the Roman Curia at the structural level (though one can of course be unhappy with certain individual appointments) for example. But one could not describe him as being “truly exceptional” in the same way.

  49. mmvc says:

    It’s called the Mass of The Ages for good reason

    No it isn’t — the TLM is the Rite that resulted from liturgical innovations by the Council Fathers of Trent.

    Common Misconceptions about the Latin Mass
    Many people are unaware of some of the important facts below.

    The Classical/Traditional Latin Mass is not a product of the 16th-century Council of Trent.

    The history of the Traditional Latin Mass, whose latest version dates from 1962, traces back to the beginnings of Christianity. The Mass went through organic, gradual development throughout the centuries. The first written record of the Prayers of the Latin Mass is found in a 6th-century manuscript (Leonine Sacramentary). The Roman Latin Mass was codified and made universal in the 16th century by Pope St. Pius V because of the liturgical confusion then reigning. As this codification was part of the measures taken by the Council of Trent, the Traditional Latin Mass has often been called “Tridentine Mass.” After this, as before, small, incremental changes were made to the Missal (book containing texts and prayer for Mass) in the centuries following, the latest being made by Pope John XXIII in 1962. In 1969 Pope Paul VI promulgated a new form of Mass (Novus Ordo Missae) designed by an appointed committee, based on the Traditional Mass but with substantial changes to it, particularly in the Offertory prayers.

    http://www.institute-christ-king.org/latin-mass-resources/common-misconceptions/

  50. JabbaPapa says:

    The present form of the TLM is the only real triumph of the French Sorbonne/Monastic faction that wanted to instate Cluny Monasticism as the Model for the Universal Church as a response against Protestantism.

    Prior to Trent, the Liturgy of the Mass was in a very parlous state, similar in some ways to the sorts of gross excesses that can be witnessed today in “liberal”-“progressive” parishes (although the present forms of liturgical abuses are actually worse).

    Experimentation was rife, both towards excessive puritanism and towards the similar manner of paganism that can be witnessed today — Montaigne reported about a scandal of Gay “Masses” and Gay “Marriages” in a major Basilica invaded by the local “gay community” in 16th Century Rome, for example, and there is also the earlier example of the Albigensian Heretics who wanted to overthrow all central Authority of every nature.

    The TLM, liturgically, is modelled upon the Monastic Ideal for the Holy Mass as it was developed at the Abbey of Cluny, which BTW is exactly why silence, reverence, sobriety, and the Gregorian Chant are so central to its Form.

    The principle purpose of the Council Fathers of Trent in instituting a single Form of the Latin Rite universally (and in declaring doctrinally that the Form of the Mass is a matter of the Papal Sovereignty) was to curb the various excesses that were occurring everywhere ; but this decision certainly did constitute a liturgical innovation as extreme in its consequences as the implementation of the Novus Ordo after Vatican II.

    The Church in general, at the ordinary Parish level, took a full Century before eventually accepting the innovations of Trent.

    The late 19th Century Myth, however, that the Tridentine Mass was simply the Mass as it always was is historically untrue.

    Just one example — the “kiss of peace” is NOT a recent novelty, but it is something that was repressed by the Fathers of Trent (and it had no place in the Cluny Mass in its more focused devotion towards God in His Eucharist).

    The TLM is very beautiful, and the fact that the Council Fathers of Trent decided to implement this particular Form of the Latin Rite universally for the purpose of ridding the Church of sundry Liturgical excesses, abuses, and violations is an excellent example for a so-called “reform of the reform”. But it is still incorrect to suggest that the TLM represents a norm that existed prior to Trent and prior to the so-called “reformation”.

  51. JabbaPapa says:

    The Anglo-Catholic Rite in use in the English and American Ordinariates is probably the best contemporary example of the sorts of liturgical variations that existed in the Church prior to the Ecumenical Council of Trent ; including in its use of vernacular, that was repressed by that Council.

  52. kathleen says:

    Jabba @ 05:30

    there’s a difference between this [criticism of the Pope] and maliciously interpreting everything he says or does in the worst possible light in a systematic manner, in the very hermeneutic of rupture…

    I do not believe you can accuse us of doing that here on CP&S. We have reported only on the facts of the Pope’s own words and actions. If in some of our re-blogs of articles describing the more contentious of these the author has taken the liberty to forthrightly denounce them, that can only be seen as a natural aversion to their un-Catholocity.

    Yes, Father Z does indeed strike “an excellent balance…. etc.”, which is why we frequently repeat his words here and occasionally re-blog his articles. It is true that to resort to a vicious spate of nothing more than ad hominem attacks at who still is the Holy Father, and little else, serves no purpose whatsoever. It only leads good people to despair, and damages the Church. Criticism should always be within limits of respect for the other, but to not criticise grave error when this is glaringly evident (and in the case of the Pope, would have serious consequences) is wrong too (IMO).

    As a commenter on Father Z’s blog pointed out, quoting St Thomas More, silence can be seen as a form of consent!!

  53. kathleen says:

    Jabba @ 05:12

    the TLM is the Rite that resulted from liturgical innovations by the Council Fathers of Trent

    Not exactly. Yes, there have been slight alterations of the prayers over the centuries, but in its essence, the holy ‘Mass of the Ages’, clearly defined at the Council of Trent (and thus known as the ‘Tridentine’ Mass) has existed as the commemoration of Our Lord’s Passion from the earliest centuries of Christianity!
    It was only at the introduction of the Novus Ordo Mass around 50 years ago that its sacrificial essence was seemingly replaced by an emphasis on a form of community thanksgiving. This inevitably led to a more jolly, noisy type of celebration, thus less serious and holy. The awe-filled silences, personal prayer and a focus on reverence of the TLM were lost to a more active, happy-clappy din. People became more focused on the community, on each other, rather than on Our Lord and the Holy Sacrifice of His Passion.
    You don’t have to have lived through that pre-V2 era and become steeped in the beauty and magnificence of the Mass of the Ages (as most of us today have not) to be aware of all that was lost when the ‘Mass of the Ages’ was replaced with the NOM.

    The renown Catholic author, Michael Davies (1936-2004), once wrote:

    From this early Middle Ages forward there is little to chronicle of the nature of change in the order of the Mass itself which had become a sacred and inviolable inheritance, its origin forgotten. It was popularly believed to have been handed down unchanged from the Apostles, or to have been written by St. Peter himself. Dr. Fortescue considers that the reign of St. Gregory the Great (d. 604) marks an epoch in the history of the Mass, having left the liturgy in its essentials just as we have it today. He writes:

    “There is, moreover, a constant tradition that St. Gregory was the last to touch the essential part of the Mass, namely the Canon. Benedict XIV [1740­ 1758] says: ‘No pope has added to or changed the Canon since St. Gregory’.”

    Whether this is totally accurate is not a matter of great importance, and even if some very minor additions did creep in afterwards, perhaps a few ‘Amens’, the important point is that a tradition of more than a millennium certainly existed in the Roman Church that the Canon should not be changed. According to Cardinal Gasquet:

    “This fact, that it has so remained unaltered during thirteen centuries, is the most speaking witness of the veneration with which it has always been regarded and of the scruple which has ever been felt at touching so sacred a heritage, coming to us from unknown antiquity.”

    Although the rite of Mass did continue to develop after the time of St. Gregory, Doctor Fortescue explains that:

    “All later modifications were fitted into the old arrangement, and the most important parts were not touched. From, roughly, the time of St. Gregory 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.”

  54. JabbaPapa says:

    I do not believe you can accuse us of doing that here on CP&S. We have reported only on

    The reason why I do not accuse anyone at CP&S is that you have originated none of these stories.

    the facts of the Pope’s own words and actions

    But no, interpretations, over-interpretations, and misinterpretations of the Pontiff’s words and deeds are not “facts”.

  55. JabbaPapa says:

    The renown Catholic author, Michael Davies (1936-2004), once wrote:

    From this early Middle Ages forward there is little to chronicle of the nature of change in the order of the Mass itself

    Historically untrue. As his very own evasions demonstrate.

  56. John says:

    johnhenrycn Nov 14@23.48. I am afraid you are mistaken. Personally I never had any problem with the TLM. As a Catholic from birth I would have attended many more such Masses before Vatican II than ever you did. I went to a Catholic secondary school run by Catholic priests in conjunction with a major seminary where there was a strong emphasis on the teaching of Latin and where the liturgy in Latin was a daily occurrence in the College chapel. I am well aware of the responses in Latin during Mass from the ‘Introibo ad altare Dei’ to the final benediction and dismissal. I don’t need to learn them.
    Many persons’ interest in the TLM appears to be emotional or cultural in origin attempting to revert back to a supposed better liturgy which they themselves in fact never actually have experienced.
    What was of interest to me was the very many others in our parish Church, and no doubt elsewhere, who never learned Latin, and who were therefore disconnected with the Latin liturgy which they did not understand, falling back on reciting their private prayers such as the Rosary. To get them to change, to become engaged in the Latin liturgy at that time, would have required a mass education of adults in Latin, albeit confined to the limited text of the Mass, but this was not going to happen and did not happen.
    Hence to accommodate the majority, the Fathers of Vatican II wisely provided for Mass in the vernacular.
    Why make a fetish of the use of Latin in the Mass ?

  57. Roger says:

    The Holy Mass is the Sacrifice of Calvary, a Sacrifice bloodless, but nevertheless real, in which Christ is immolated.
    It is anathema to deny that the Mass is the Sacrifice of Calvary.
    It is anathema for those who say that the Mass is a mere banquet.
    The sins of man are infinite offences directed against God the Father. If sins are infinite offences, in order to make reparation to the Eternal Father, We need to make infinite reparations. This is accomplished in the Sacrifice of the Mass, since here the Victim is Christ, Who, besides being True Man, is True God, and so Victim Who makes infinite reparation.

    The Offertory of the Latin Tridentine Mass of Saint Pius V offers the light to understand that it is an essential part of the Sacrifice. In the prayer of the Offertory are spoken the words, ‘this immaculate host,’ entreating the Heavenly Father to receive it as an acceptable and pleasing Sacrifice. The Church, who has composed the Holy Tridentine Mass in most wise manner could not have used the words, ‘this immaculate host’ if they referred to mere bread. The bread could not be immaculate if it did not become the Host that is the Propitiatory Victim perpetuating Calvary.

    The heresiarch Luther abolished the Offertory, substituting prayers similar to these of the “Novus Ordo Missae” Understand that a Lutheran supper is not a sacrifice. Therefore they call it banquet, agape, or celebrating the Eucharist, celebrating the liturgy, etc

    The “Novus Ordo Missae” the true Offertory was abolished, substituting a prayer of presentation of gifts, fruit of the earth and of the hands of men.

  58. ginnyfree says:

    Bravo Jabba! Bravo! Here is the exact disclosure from Benedict so we can all be “on the same page,” for further discussion about this very key issue: “We do not want to apply precisely this dramatic description to the situation of the post-conciliar period, yet something from all that occurred is nevertheless reflected in it. The question arises: Why has the implementation of the Council, in large parts of the Church, thus far been so difficult?

    Well, it all depends on the correct interpretation of the Council or – as we would say today – on its proper hermeneutics, the correct key to its interpretation and application. The problems in its implementation arose from the fact that two contrary hermeneutics came face to face and quarreled with each other. One caused confusion, the other, silently but more and more visibly, bore and is bearing fruit.

    On the one hand, there is an interpretation that I would call “a hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture”; it has frequently availed itself of the sympathies of the mass media, and also one trend of modern theology. On the other, there is the “hermeneutic of reform”, of renewal in the continuity of the one subject-Church which the Lord has given to us. She is a subject which increases in time and develops, yet always remaining the same, the one subject of the journeying People of God.

    The hermeneutic of discontinuity risks ending in a split between the pre-conciliar Church and the post-conciliar Church. It asserts that the texts of the Council as such do not yet express the true spirit of the Council. It claims that they are the result of compromises in which, to reach unanimity, it was found necessary to keep and reconfirm many old things that are now pointless. However, the true spirit of the Council is not to be found in these compromises but instead in the impulses toward the new that are contained in the texts.

    These innovations alone were supposed to represent the true spirit of the Council, and starting from and in conformity with them, it would be possible to move ahead. Precisely because the texts would only imperfectly reflect the true spirit of the Council and its newness, it would be necessary to go courageously beyond the texts and make room for the newness in which the Council’s deepest intention would be expressed, even if it were still vague.

    In a word: it would be necessary not to follow the texts of the Council but its spirit. In this way, obviously, a vast margin was left open for the question on how this spirit should subsequently be defined and room was consequently made for every whim.”

    https://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2005/december/documents/hf_ben_xvi_spe_20051222_roman-curia.html

    I would posit that some here have their own interpretation of V2 and they are convinced that theirs is the only way to see it. Not so says Benedict XVI. I agree with him. God bless Ginnyfree.

  59. Toad says:

    ” I would posit that some here have their own interpretation of V2 and they are convinced that theirs is the only way to see it.
    Oh, you would posit that , would you, Gin-Girl?
    Fair enough, but others here might well posit that you have your own interpretation of V2, and that you are convinced that yours is the only way to see it.
    For myself, I have no idea, either way. Maybe both interpretations are correct.* Or neither.
    So I will “posit” nothing, personally.

    * There’s more than one way to skin a cat.

  60. Toad says:

    “The Holy Mass is the Sacrifice of Calvary, a Sacrifice bloodless..”
    What do you mean, “bloodless,” Roger?
    Doesn’t the wine literally turn into blood?
    …Or else we are all Lutherans, aren’t we?

  61. JabbaPapa says:

    Maybe both interpretations are correct.* Or neither.

    Dear toad, when a matter has not been determined by the Revelation or the Magisterium, that’s precisely what a Catholic attitude should be, as were the attitudes in these respects of Saints Augustine and Thomas Aquinas and also of our good Catholic friends Montaigne, Saint Thomas More, and Rabelais.

  62. Roger says:

    We receive Flesh and Blood of God, We refer to that Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ as Body and Blood given by the Most Holy Virgin Mary in the most profound mystery of the Incarnation of the Word, through the Work and Grace of the Holy Ghost. In speaking of Flesh and Blood of Mary, We reaffirm once again that Our Lord Jesus Christ besides being true God, is true Man, since his Body is a real and physical body. As you know, there are in Our Lord Jesus Christ two natures, one divine, the other human, while He is the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity, since in Him there is only the one Person, which is Divine.

    Blessed and Wise are those who Use Our Lady’s Jewels (The Rosary) during the Holy Sacrifice Of The Mass because they understand that the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ was given by Our Lady in the Great mystery of the Incarnation.

    See the Pride and Blindness of the Lukewarm who in their folly disdain Our Lady’s Jewels. The Great Mysteries of God are beyond their comprehension.

  63. kathleen says:

    Jabba @ 12:09

    Me: I do not believe you can accuse us of doing that here on CP&S. We have reported only on

    Jabba: The reason why I do not accuse anyone at CP&S is that you have originated none of these stories.

    No, I didn’t mean to infer that you were accusing us of this (creating a Hermeneutic of Rupture), but it’s good to hear you reaffirm we were not all the same.😉

    And concerning my use of the word “facts” – how then would you describe what we see and hear coming straight from the Pope’s own mouth en vivo y en directo via our TV screens? Not much room for “misinterpretations” there! Although, naturally, there will always be those who try to put their own spin on even the most obvious. The ‘Fishwrap’, for instance, are masters of the art of spin!

    ———–

    @ 12:12

    But moving on to your accusing the great Michael Davies of being evasive and not telling the truth… That really shocks me. He has been one of the most lauded Catholic authors of the second half of the 20th Century, and it’s quite unthinkable that he would lie to make his point! He was a devout Catholic, a very knowledgeable man, and I am privileged to count among my friends in the UK, people who knew him very well!
    What you call “evasions” are no more than simple uncertainties on his part, I imagine, through lack of enough reliable documentation.

  64. Toad says:

    ‘The Great Mysteries of God are beyond their comprehension.’
    …Beyond anyone’s comprehension – except Robot’s.

  65. Roger says:

    Toad.
    ‘The Great Mysteries of God are beyond their comprehension.’ …Beyond anyone’s comprehension

    Heaven reveals these to the little ones!

    Luke 10
    21 In that same hour, he rejoiced in the Holy Ghost, and said: I confess to thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hidden these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them to little ones. Yea, Father, for so it hath seemed good in thy sight.

    In 20th Century Heaven raised up St Therese Of the Child Jesus and The Holy Face to teach Us the Little Way which is the key to the Great Mysteries of God.

    This is Our Lord’s commandment to His Church. This commandment of Christ is for yesterday, today and for tomorrow.

    Mark 16
    15 And he said to them: Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

    Understand that the Christian who is not an apostle is an apostate.

    Since when did the Church lose her missionary character out of respect for other religions?,
    What is this false religious liberty coming out of masonic Rome?.

    Since when did the Church pretend that proselytism was illegal, and that it endangered that cursed ecumenism defended by from Rome. Since the 1960’s very few have had the courage to preach the Catholic Faith amongst the Protestant heretics, who are called now ‘separated brethren’.

    A Catholic who will not preach the Gospel out of love for the separated brethren has automatically set himself against Christ’s Commandment “Go forth and preach the Gospel to every creature.

  66. JabbaPapa says:

    Understand that the Christian who is not an apostle is an apostate.

    This is an intrinsically false statement based on false Protestant ideologies.

  67. Roger says:

    Jabba “..This is an intrinsically false statement based on false Protestant ideologies…” That is a cowards answer seeking to justify the indefensible!!

    The Christian who is NOT an Apostle IS An Apostate!

    What did the Prince of the Apostles say? He said: ‘We have to obey God before obeying man’.
    How can you obey one who is in error without yourself falling into the same error? Act with care in the matter of false obedience! Blind obedience is not possible in these present times when the Church is going through a terrible confusion, a terrible storm, a terrible haze.

    Blind obedience is not possible now. One must meditate and know who one must obey. The Jewish people, bearers
    of the Sacred Truths, knew that the Messiah was to come. On Palm Sunday Our Lord was gloriously received in JerusaIem. A few days later, poisoned by the Sovereign Pontiffs of the Church, they demanded Our Lord’s Crucifixion. Why? Because they blindly obeyed their Sovereign Pontiffs Ciaphas and Annas when these latter were in error. They incited the people so that 1 should be crucified; and the people, submissive and obedient, demanded My death because the chief priests were demanding it. Ciaphas and Annas were representing God at that time. The people were submissive to them. Nevertheless
    through that obedience the Jewish people were condemned to be wanderers until their conversion.

    UNDERSTAND UNTIL THEIR CONVERSION.

    Obedience is always to God If there is one lesson that stands above every other it is that prompt obedience to God takes precedence over every and anything else!

    Mark 16
    15 And he said to them: Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature

    Galatians 1
    8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.
    9 As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.

    Understand that the Christian who is not an apostle is an apostate. St Peter ran away and denied Our Lord three times!!

  68. ginnyfree says:

    Roger, an Apostle is one of the original twelve who accompanied Jesus. After he ascended into heaven, one was picked to take the place of Judas Iscariot, Matthias. Acts 1:12-26 [12] Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount that is called Olivet, which is nigh Jerusalem, within a sabbath day’ s journey. [13] And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode Peter and John, James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James of Alpheus, and Simon Zelotes, and Jude the brother of James. [14] All these were persevering with one mind in prayer with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren. [15] In those days Peter rising up in the midst of the brethren, said: (now the number of persons together was about an hundred and twenty:) [16] Men, brethren, the scripture must needs be fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who was the leader of them that apprehended Jesus: [17] Who was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry. [18] And he indeed hath possessed a field of the reward of iniquity, and being hanged, burst asunder in the midst: and all his bowels gushed out. [19] And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem: so that the same field was called in their tongue, Haceldama, that is to say, The field of blood. [20] For it is written in the book of Psalms: Let their habitation become desolate, and let there be none to dwell therein. And his bishopric let another take. [21] Wherefore of these men who have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus came in and went out among us, [22] Beginning from the baptism of John, until the day wherein he was taken up from us, one of these must be made a witness with us of his resurrection. [23] And they appointed two, Joseph, called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. [24] And praying, they said: Thou, Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, [25] To take the place of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas hath by transgression fallen, that he might go to his own place. [26] And they gave them lots, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles. http://www.drbo.org/chapter/51001.htm

    So, Roger, this is part one of my response to your nonsense, “The Christian who is NOT an Apostle IS An Apostate!” Utter nonsense. Only Apostles are Apostles.

    God bless. Ginnyfree.

  69. johnhenrycn says:

    GF: Would Roger’s comment have passed muster for you and the famous theo-critic had he said: “The Christian who is not an disciple is an apostate”? Please submit a 1000 word essay in the morning.

  70. Roger says:

    “..
    An apostle (Greek: ἀπόστολος, translit. apóstolos, lit. ‘one who is sent away’) is a messenger and ambassador. The purpose of such “sending away” is to convey messages, and thus “messenger” is a common alternative translation.
    ..”
    Matthew 12
    50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father, that is in heaven, he is my brother, and sister, and mother.

    Also for those who would deny their Faith and Our Lord (the Church is the Mystical Body Of Christ) implying that salvation can be found outside of the Church.

    Mark 8
    38 For he that shall be ashamed of me, and of my words, in this adulterous and sinful generation: the Son of man also will be ashamed of him, when he shall come in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.

    Now consider what Grace means and what Our Lord said in Matthew 12 :50 and what Heaven requires of Us! Then think again about “The Christian who is NOT an Apostle is an Apostate. “

  71. ginnyfree says:

    Roger, a disciple is like his teacher. That is what we are, not Apostles. Please, simply open any dictionary and learn from them. If you really think you are an Apostle, then you need some help. You’re either delusional or grandiose or both. Have you tried laying hands on anyone yet? Let me know how that turns out for ya. Let the person know what you’re about to do first or they will get you locked up for simple assault with intent to ordain. God bless. Ginnyfree.

  72. Roger says:

    Ginny you view is worldly and not of Heaven.

    This is the Time Of The Marian Apostles because it is God’s Holy Will that Her Immaculate Heart is to Triumph.
    The time of the Hosts of Satan and The Hosts of Mary.

    “..Thank you, my beloved Marian Apostles. Onward, always onward! Make me triumph through your prayers, sacrifices and extending my work through all places. Forward, my Marian Apostles ..”

  73. Toad says:

    it all depends on what you mean by “Apostle,” of course.

    There was, for example, a group of clever men in Cambridge, about 100 years ago, who called themselves, “The Apostles.” Bertrand Russell, a declared non-Christian, was one.
    So, if I wanted to call myself an Apostle, I could. But I don’t. It’s just a word.

    https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-Cambridge-Apostles

  74. kathleen says:

    Ginny, is it really necessary to attack Roger in such an antagonist and uncivil manner for the simple use of a word you don’t agree with?
    Besides, he is not incorrect in using it, for the dictionary’s second definition for “apostle” is:

    “a vigorous and pioneering advocate or supporter of a particular policy, idea, or cause.”

    That would seem to me to sum up pretty well what the demeanour of a true Catholic should be!

  75. ginnyfree says:

    Roger, your flavor is too judgmental today. I decline. God bless. Ginnyfree.

  76. ginnyfree says:

    Very helpful Toad. You cannot claim to be an Apostle in the sense that the Church means it. Sometimes the use of a little “a” apostle, one can refer to some of the Saints, such as Saint Faustina is sometimes referred to as the apostle of Divine Mercy, but if she were alive and you asked her is she an Apostle in the sense Roger means it, then she would cringe from the suggestion because to claim a power to oneself that only the Church can and does rightly give in the fullness of the Sacrament of Ordination, i.e. Apostleship = Bishop, is a huge error. It is gravely disordered in fact. One doesn’t claim to be an Apostle without either being one because the Church gave you the fullness of the Sacrament of Ordination in consecrating you as a Bishop, or in another way as an apostate appropriating a calling that only God can give to oneself. Fraud. It is the perpetration of a fraud. There are many self-styled Apostles and they are mostly of the Protestant kind. Or truly delusional and the same class as those persons who claim to be Napoleon or the reincarnation of Elvis, etc. God bless. Ginnyfree.

  77. Toad says:

    “Roger, your flavor is too judgmental today.”
    How Gin-Free, of all people, can write that with a straight face, is, well miraculous.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s