Mon 1st Sep 2014 | Last updated: Mon 1st Sep 2014 at 15:21pm

Facebook Logo Twitter Logo RSS Logo
Hot Topics

Comment & Blogs

As a young priest Benedict XVI ‘called for the Church to investigate priestly celibacy’

In 1970 Fr Joseph Ratzinger signed a petition that suggested the Church re-examine the obligation of priestly celibacy, according to a German newspapaer

By on Friday, 28 January 2011

As a young priest, Pope Benedict put his name to a document calling for the Church to seriously investigate the obligation to priestly celibacy.

Joseph Ratzinger was one of the signatories of a 1970 document calling for an examination of priestly celibacy which was signed by nine theologians.

The memorandum was drawn up in the face of a shortage of priests and other signatories included Karl Rahner and the future cardinals Karl Lehmann and Walter Kasper.

The German newspaper Die Sueddeutsche reported about the document today.

The memorandum, which was sent to the German bishops reads: “Our considerations regard the necessity of a serious investigation and a differentiated inspection of the law of celibacy of the Latin Church for Germany and the whole of the universal Church.”

According to the Sueddeutsche, the document said if there were no such investigation, the bishops’ conference would “awaken the impression that it did not believe in the strength of the Gospel recommendation of a celibate life for the sake of heaven, but rather only in the power of a formal authority”.

If there weren’t enough priests, the document said, then the “Church quite simply has a responsibility to take up certain modifications”.

The signatories who had drawn up the document acted as consultors to the German bishops’ conference in a commission for questions of Faith and Morals.

The document’s release coincides with a renewed debate on priestly celibacy after prominent German politicians called for the Church to change the teaching on priestly celibacy in the face of a serious lack of priests.

  • Anonymous

    We’re not talking about canonisation, but about beatification. There is a huge difference: canonisation is infallible and the cultus (Mass, prayers, etc.,) of the newly declared saint is made universal, whereas beatification is non-infallible and the cultus restricted normally to the diocese to which the beatified belonged in life.

    Besides this, you choose the process of two of the greatest saints of the Church in an attempt to justify the haste with which Pope John Paul II’s Cause has been introduced. But let’s face it, Pope John Paul II was not outstanding in virtue in the way that St. Francis and St. Thomas Aquinas were. He was certainly charismatic, which I personally believe has caused much mass hysteria in his case, but he was certainly not on a par with these outstanding saints. Furthermore, the cases of two saints you mention had the Devil’s Advocate and at least two miracles involved in proving their Causes. Pope John Paul II has had no Devil’s Advocate assigned (Vatican II done away with this wise procedure), and only one miracle stands in support of his rushed Cause. It’s hardly convincing, is it?

  • Anonymous

    It shows that intelligent people with open minds, become more conservative and unwilling to accept change with age.

  • peterb

    I belong to Orthodox Church where priests are not celibate (even though bishops are). It is purely a Catholic thing. I think it was introduced in a fully roman catholic council after the Great Schism of 1054. There is nothing wrong in reverting back to the early church traditions.

  • http://twitter.com/catholicgadfly Catholic_Gad_Fly

    There will never be a married priesthood because the church simply can not afford it.

  • Nishant Jeyaraj

    Martyjo, the SSPX was no more excommunicated by the Catholic Church twenty years ago than were the whole of the Greek community nearly a millenium ago. Only one man, Patriarch Cerularius in that case and Archbishop Lefebvre here, were. What is tragic is that many chose to follow that one man rather than the Pope and the whole Church in either case. I bear no ill will towards anyone, and schism is so much more unfortunate to me than heresy in that it hits so much more closer to home, and seems so so needless, but I know where my loyalties lie, and that is, to Peter and the one fold Christ founded.

    I know of the canonist gymnastics and the selective quotations of the Church’s actions some people involve in, to try and maintain that they still have jurisdiction for penance and matrimony, while refusing to allow the Bishop of Rome ordinary, immediate, full, supreme and universal jurisdiction in all the society does, which is his Divine right. It is this latter action that is the proximate cause of their being in schism, just like with the Greek schismatics.

    I know how you must respect Archbishop Lefebvre, and I don’t want to needlessly offend anyone, but the Church was supremely patient with his open and continuous dissent. After repeated and continual admonitions to conduct himself with deference towards his superiors, which he did not, pretending, as is always the case, that his cause was the old one, the Faith of the Fathers, the Orthodox Faith, the Church excommunicated him.

    The Church has never ever dealt so kindly and so patiently in her history with anyone who has so willfully and persistently refused her wisdom as she is doing now with Bishop Fellay. Yet, Martyjo, he goes about continuing his scandalous insubordination, infinitely more hurtful to the cause of the Faith which works through love, and offensive to the pious ears of the faithful, than anything the Holy Father or his predecessor has ever done.

    I know that what I say will probably not convince you, but I urge you, even if you remain in the society, not, under any pretext whatsoever, to separate yourselves, as an indivdual and a community, insofar as you are able, from the mind of the Pope, for that would imply that you are the Catholic Church, and its head is not to be followed by the body. I don’t believe those in full communion with the SSPX are in the body of the Church, but in St.Pius’ expression, if in good faith and not intending to refuse submission to the Roman Pontiff can be united to the soul of the Church and thus have a possibility of salvation.

    Once more, it is a question of Church discipline, not dogma. Whatever the Church binds, she may freely loose. What the head does, the body follows. St.Peter and the Apostles worshipped with the Jews in the synagogue. I wish you well, my friend. God bless you.

  • Anonymous

    Nishant, what hurts more than anything else is the constant accusation of schism and excommunication levelled against Archbishop Lefebvre by people who have never taken the time to study the life of the man or his case thoroughly. This false idea that people have today about the Pope and his use of authority betrays such an ignorance of both Church teaching and history that it’s almost as if people just want to live by blind obedience to every word and action of the Pope, which neither Our Lord nor his Vicars on earth have ever demanded of us.

    Popes are men, not gods, and as such they do sometimes err, and sometimes quite scandalously so, as in the case of the excommunication of St. Athanasius (4th century Bishop) by Pope Liberius, who, incidentally, was supported in this injustice by most of the bishops of the time.

    Obedience to God through the constant and authentic Magisterium of the Church is the duty of every Catholic. When, therefore, a Pope quite scandalously, and against everything his predecessors condemned as “deadly to the Catholic religion,” chooses to participate in prayers with heretics and pagans, then it is a duty of charity to respectfully refuse to participate with that Pope in his error. To claim that our duty of obedience to the Pope equates to slavery is not Catholic.

    Now, I have provided evidence from very senior prelates and clerics of the Church, all in perfectly good standing, which shows that the so-called schism and excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre was unjust and void. The canonist I linked you to is no SSPX priest, but rather a senior jurist of the Holy Roman Rota. Pope John Paul II was no jusrist and so he made a monumental mistake when he proposed that Archbishop Lefebvre was schismatic and excommunicated. Now remember, he only PROPOSED this on the basis of Latae Sententiae. It was never ratified, as the Church demands in justice, by a Roman ecclesial Court. Furthermore, as I stated, and as the Church clearly explains, schism is only present in cases where the authority of the Pope is completely rejected. It does not automatically follow from a single act of disobedience, especially when that act has a solid foundation in the midst of the worst crisis the Church has ever witnessed.

    Being objective, I always study both sides of a case before I pronounce one way or another. In the case of Archbishop Lefebvre, a study of the evidence is so overwhelmingly in his favour that one can only admire his holiness and steadfastness in the Faith. Catholics have to free themselves from this modern erroneous belief that Popes are impeccable if they are to expedite their duty of charity towards him. This would be true love of the Pope and the Papacy. It’s utterly useless to hide behind papal impeccability while the True Faith of Tradition continues to decline to the point that it is barely distinguishable from Pentecostalism.

    Our Lord said: “By their fruits ye shall know them.” Well, look at the stats for vocations, seminary closures, the demise of the religious orders, the rapid decline in Sunday Mass attendance, clerical sexual scandals, sacrileges against the Blessed Sacrament, etc., and then tell me that these are this New Pentecost of Vatican II is actually the work of the Holy Sprirt.

    And please also bear in mind that Archbishop Lefebvre was persecuted and punished for one reason alone, and that was that he refused to alter a single aspect of the Faith as it had been handed down to him. He was not the innovator, the liberal, the dissenter from past teaching, yet he is the only prelate in the modern Church to be declared schismatic and excommunicate. Think about it!

    For my part, I can say with all truth that I dearly love our Holy Father and will remain steadfastly obedient to him in all that does not oppose the Faith handed down through Tradition. I will not, however, pretend obedience to a grossly mistaken belief that Popes have the authority of God to introduce new doctrines, which ecumnism and interfaith dialogue are.

    I practice the same Faith that my forefathers practiced. I have the same Mass as the saints and Martyrs, the sacraments administered correctly by priests, not lay people, Catholic sermons, Traditional devotions and Church decor, high altars, altar rails, etc., and I thank Almighty God for the SSPX. I attended my local parish for some twenty five years before finding an SSPX church, during which time I nearly lost my Catholic Faith altogether. Frankly, I didn’t have a clue about my faith when I first went to the SSPX, so incredible banal and Protestant-leaning was the parish equivalent. No, Vatican II has been a disaster for the Catholic religion and its transmission to future generations. I know the fruits of both so I can speak from supernatural experience.

    Nishant, I know you are of good will, as many other anti-SSPX Catholics are, but you, and they, really must investigate matters before proclaiming so decisively in favour of the Conciliar revolution. Just look around you during Mass and you should see how the Faith has been altered these past forty years.

    Now, God bless you and God bless and enlighten our Holy Father, the Pope. Immaculate Heart of Mary pray for him!

  • Anonymous

    Nishant: You say in your opening paragraph:

    I know where my loyalties lie, and that is, to Peter and the one fold Christ founded.

    but what you have not grasped is that Pope Benedict XVI has been infected by Modernism and has drifted away from the course expected of him, thereby forfeiting on certain scores the loyalty due to him.
    Those who blindly follow him are going astray and that includes yourself.
    Popes can err, and your loyalty should be towards what has gone before marked with the pledge of infallibility, not with what has recently been foisted upon the Faithful by pastors who are working to a different agenda than the one Christ came to implement.
    Archbishop Lefebvre saw the difference, and where it was going to lead, and were it not for him, Tradition would be dead and buried by now and we should all be on the falsely ecumenical road to Protestantism, indifference, apathy, lapsation and eventually Hell.
    The Church Authorities who tried to silence Archbishop Lefebvre would have been dismissed on the spot by just about every Pope who preceded Pope John XXIII. The fact that they are still in office shows how successful the Modernists have been in their work to weaken the Roman Catholic Church. They had no right to try to silence Truth but they went ahead because they feared the loss of their objectives unless they used their temporal authority to silence the Archbishop.

    Submission to the Pontiff is all good and well provided he is going in the right direction: Is Assisi the right direction? Is False Ecumenism the right direction? Is failing to discipline open dissenters the right direction? Is the proposed beatification of the Koran-kissing Pope John-Paul II the right direction?

    If you answer “Yes” to these questions, then all hope is lost for you unless you think again.

    One thing is certain: We have Christ’s promise that the Gates of Hell shall not prevail, and as long as there are loyal Traditionalists to keep bailing, the Barque of St Peter will remain afloat.

  • Profidebookstore

    Could we have an infallible declaration what a “dogmatic Cuncil” and “pastoral Council” mean, and with particular reference to what follows by way of assent or dissent from these Councils?

  • Profidebookstore

    Gandalf is right, although perhaps over the top with “any meaningful sense”. He forgets about bona fide, and invincilble ignorance.

  • Anonymous

    Never mind drifting off subject to Councils and their authority. My question related to a single scandalous act of Pope John Paul II, not something the Council said or authorised in any way. Now, would you care to answer that question.

    Let me also ask two other questions: Does the Church teach infallibly that it is a mortal sin for a Catholic to participate in the religious services of non-Catholics and non-Christians, or to otherwise show approval of their false doctrines? If so, are the clergy, including the Pope, exempt from this infallible teaching?

    My questions are straightforward. I ask only a straightforward reply on the basis of what the Church has always taught.

  • Profidebookstore

    Our Lady’s request is out of date today: Russia is certainly not worse than other countries, and while the Russians are devout people (one has to turn heretic to peep into their church) and would be only too happy to be consecrated to Our Lady, they would certainly resent consecration that implies that they are worse than others.

    What is wrong with Assisi? Could we have a list of “false” gods? And another of “true gods”

  • Profidebookstore

    St.Paul persecuted the Church, St. Augustine’s and St.Jerome’s life histories are known. Why Father Ratzinger should be treated differently?

    Dogma “outside the Church no salvation” doesn’t mean that all those who are not on records in Catholic parishes are outside the Church. This dogma should be understood in the sense as authoritatively declared in the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church by Vatican II (LG 14), not as misleadingly stated by Pius IX.

  • Anonymous

    “What is wrong with Assisi? Could we have a list of “false” gods? And another of “true gods”

    Well now, there is, as you should know, only one true God, so no list available in that department. As for the false gods, I’ll list a few. You can do your own research to get the comprehensive list of Assisi demons.

    There is the god of the Muslims, a god that does not include Our Lord Jesus Christ, and you know that St. Paul said: “no one speaking by the spirit of God sayeth anathema to Jesus.” So there’s false god number one.

    Then there is the multitude of gods of the Hindus, of which Shiva is one. Then the Buddhists, who worship the Dalai Lama as a living god. And there’s Zoroastrians, whose god is called Ahura Mazda.

    In addition to these, there are Jews who reject Christ Our Lord, and a myriad of schismatic and heretical so-called Christian Sects which are united in their rejection of the true religion founded by Our Lord for the salvation of souls.

  • Profidebookstore

    “However, we should not confuse this with a correct personal judgment of a Pope’s words and actions in the light of sacred tradition, and, where necessary, to publicly announce a contradiction.”

    At last we have discovered who is the pope, infallible even on Internet. He knows what is the “light of sacred tradition” and knows it infallibly; he knows infallibly what the Pope means by what he says even if the Pope denies it; and, of course, he infallibly compares his infallible notion of the light of tradition with his infallible understanding of what the Pope means, and proposes it infallibly.

  • Profidebookstore

    Transalpine Redemptorists’ blog published Fr.Michael Mary’s documented evidence of Popes’-approved intercommunion, and had to cease the series because he was receiving abusive communications.

  • Profidebookstore

    “Submission to the Pontiff is all good and well provided he is going in the right direction:” – but who is to determine that the direction? Private judgment of an indiviual to whom it is “self evident”. Typical Protestant attitude.

    We discused this at length in the Post on “traditionalist” funny farm, 13 Jan.11, and you stopped when cornered. You and Martyo.

  • Anonymous

    “Transalpine Redemptorists’ blog published Fr.Michael Mary’s documented evidence of Popes’-approved intercommunion, and had to cease the series because he was receiving abusive communications.”

    And the point you’re trying to make is?

  • Anonymous

    “We discused this at length in the Post on “traditionalist” funny farm, 13 Jan.11, and you stopped when cornered. You and Martyo.”

    No, we stopped because, if you recall, your posts were becomming increasingly incomprehensible. You’ll have spotted that I have now stopped responding to all of your lengthy posts, not out of malice or because I’m lost for answers but rather because you have the strangest ideas about Catholicism. To be honest, I’ve even wondered if you are a Catholic. If you are, then your education in the Faith leaves a lot to be desired. Sorry but it’s the truth.

  • Profidebookstore

    Our Lady’s request is out of date today: Russia is certainly not worse than other countries, and while the Russians are devout people (one has to turn “heretic” to peep into their church) and would be only too happy to be consecrated to Our Lady, they would certainly resent consecration that implies that they are worse than others.

    “I attended my local parish for some twenty five years before finding an SSPX church, during which time I nearly lost my Catholic Faith altogether”

    I am both glad and sad, in this case, to agree with you. The situation in numerous places is disastrous, and I fully appreciate your reaction. And exactly because you have learned nothing there, you were keen to take for granted everything that you learned on your new place; i.e. you were without background that would enable you to take it critically.

    My history was the opposite. I was already at home with essentials, and in no way influenced by what I saw happening but motivated to study doctrine from reliable sources, and so was able to follow the deterioration from its beginning, but believed that it would stop. I read Vatican II documents, and realized that the situation was incompatible with it, and that Vatican II articulated in substance what I had believed before, and was reinforced by my reading of earlier documents, starting from Nicea.

    As the things didn’t improve I began to go to the Mass Centres, and did it for some 15 years, but never broke away from my Parish. It was there, at the Centre in Paddington, that I bought L.Ott’s book, which was a good systematization of documents I had read earlier. It was all neatly tied consistently together: my earlier knowledge (born long before the Council), earlier documents, Vatican II documents, L. Ott’s book. It can’t be otherwise, and Ott is packed with references to documents, scripture, tradition, Aquinas.

    So, while I was impressed with devotion of the SSPX’ priests, I also realized that something was wrong with fundamentals of their doctrine, not so much with what I heard from them personally, but from the literature they permitted to be available, and from the people. I was particularly shocked by theological incompetence of one of the SSPX leaders and the language he used when referring to the Holy Father. I had put great hope and resources in the Society, trying to turn blind eyes to what I saw and read, believing that they would be the yeast of the Church, but eventually realized that their theological position was untenable.

    On practical side, one of the very disturbing things was their advice to people not to go to the New Mass because it was “dengerous to Faith”, instead of teaching them how to discern what is wrong from what is essential and cannot be wrong, i.e. that the Mass, even in its worst form provided it is valid, is the same Sacrifice of an infinite value everywhere; and that it is up to them to make best out it if the ritual in which it is embedded is bad. Instead, they were inciting people to put themselves in the same situation in which they themselves had been; i.e. material schism. Material because, whatever canonical devices one uses, or authorities quotes, the fact that they would not go to, let alone concelebrate, the Mass which is celebrated by the Pope, not merely as a matter of dislike, but as the matter of principle, means that they are not in communion of worship with the Pope, and that is what the schism is all about.

    While I am fascinated by your dedication, I have already gone, long time ago, through arguments you have offered thus far. When I write something I already know the kind of response you are able to make. And it is clear to me that some basics are difficult for you to understand, because they demand a detachment from the range of concepts you operate with, in the same way that it was difficult to me when facing them for the first time. I have been in it, in philosophy and theology, “since conception”; and can tell you that the SPX’s sources are not reliable.

    I have read the DH several times, I have and have read the commentary in the five vol. Commentary on Vatican II, ed. by Vorgrimler, and translated from German, I have read at least three times M. Davies book, and judging from what I have seen in the place you recommended, I am pretty sure that, given time, I could smash it into pieces.

  • Anonymous

    “I am both glad and sad, in this case, to agree with you. The situation in numerous places is disastrous, and I fully appreciate your reaction.”

    Then you recognise the confusion that has entered into the Church since Vatican II. The question is: Does the Holy Spirit sow confusion? There’s no point in arguing the soundness of conciliar doctrine when it can, and has, clearly been intepreted almost universally in an unsound way. We follow Our Lord’s advice in the matter: “By their fruits ye shall know them.”

    “My history was the opposite. I was already at home with essentials, and in no way influenced by what I saw happening but motivated to study doctrine from reliable sources, and so was able to follow the deterioration from its beginning, but believed that it would stop.” I’m pleased to hear that you were not influenced by the liturgical revolution, that’s quite unique. Your use of the word “deterioration” to describe what happened to the Faith after Vatican II is very poignant. And you’ll have noted that it hasn’t stopped. Sign of the work of the Holy Spirit? I don’t think so.

    “I read Vatican II documents, and realized that the situation was incompatible with it, and that Vatican II articulated in substance what I had believed before, and was reinforced by my reading of earlier documents, starting from Nicea.”

    You should follow this link to Fr. Hesse, theologian appointed by Pope John Paul II and secretary to Cardinal Stickler: http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/vatican2/documents.htm

    Now, you mention Ludwig Ott in your next parahraph but I fear you misinterpret his theological definitions. Here’s another link to help you with that: http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2008-1031-davies-vatican-II.htm

    “So, while I was impressed with devotion of the SSPX’ priests, I also realized that something was wrong with fundamentals of their doctrine, not so much with what I heard from them personally, but from the literature they permitted to be available, and from the people. I was particularly shocked by theological incompetence of one of the SSPX leaders and the language he used when referring to the Holy Father. I had put great hope and resources in the Society, trying to turn blind eyes to what I saw and read, believing that they would be the yeast of the Church, but eventually realized that their theological position was untenable.”

    But it’s the conciliar liberals who have altered doctrine, not the SSPX. The SSPX are specifically dedicated to the Church’s traditional doctrine, that’s why they’re persecuted and calumniated by the liberals. You will have to be more precise in your accusation that SSPX publications were doctrinally unsound. As for the Holy Father, I know that all SSPX priests and faithful offer a specific prayer for him during Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament. I have never heard any SSPX priest speak ill or disrespectfully of the Pope.

    “On practical side, one of the very disturbing things was their advice to people not to go to the New Mass because it was “dengerous to Faith”, instead of teaching them how to discern what is wrong from what is essential and cannot be wrong, i.e. that the Mass, even in its worst form provided it is valid, is the same Sacrifice of an infinite value everywhere; and that it is up to them to make best out it if the ritual in which it is embedded is bad.”

    The very fact that Catholics would have to discern what is good from what is bad in the New Mass says all that needs saying about the New Mass. One cannot constantly expose oneself to the Protestant poison that surrounds the New Mass without being affected by it, as is amply demonstrated by the numbers of priests who have abandoned their vocations since its inception, the decline in vocations, clerical abuse scandals of various kinds and the apostasy of millions of lay Catholics from the Faith, etc.

    The New Mass may well be valid where proper matter, form and intention are present, but the problem lies with the shift of emphasis from the Sacrifice of Our Lord on the Cross to a communal meal, a supper or a celebration of the Eucharist. Don’t think for one moment that such modern terms of reference in relation to the Mass are accidental. Nor must you believe that the removal of altar rails and the obligation to kneel and receive Holy Communion on the tongue are just innocent updates. They have their origin in the heretics Martin Luther and Thomas Cranmer. It’s little wonder that the Synod of Bishops in Rome in 1967 overwhelmingly rejected the New Mass!

    Perhaps you should re-read the Ottaviani Intervetion and the Papal Bull Quo Primum of St. Pius V. I would also advise a read of Michael Davies’ ‘Cranmer’s Godly Order.’ Very revealing! No, we are not obliged to expose our souls to the dangers inherrent in the New Mass.

    “Instead, they were inciting people to put themselves in the same situation in which they themselves had been; i.e. material schism.”

    You say this of those who refuse the New Mass on principle and advise others to avoid it, yet I wonder where the real incitment to schism really lies? The old Mass was never abrogated, nor could any priest be forbidden to celebrate it, yet it was actively suppressed by the Bishops for forty years as though outlawed. What would you call such despise for a venerable liturgical rite of the Church, a rite that sanctified the the saints and martyrs? Your accusation of de facto material schism against the SSPX holds no water, but what about my suggestion of schism de jure on the part of those Bishops?

    “…they are not in communion of worship with the Pope, and that is what the schism is all about.”

    First of all, as I have already pointed out elsewhere, it has been made abundantly clear by Rome that the SSPX is not in schism, so let’s hear no more about schism. Secondly, is the Pope in communion with the explicitly-Catholic worship of his predecessors?

    The question has to be asked given the admissions that the New Mass was constructed to please Protestants, and given that six Protestant ministers actively participated in its construction, and given that it is imbued with a Protestant spirit, and given that no one now refers to it as the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, but rather a celebration of the Eucharist, a meal or a supper. Remember the rule of the Church: Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi (One prays as one believes)! So while the New Mass may be valid (provided matter, form and intention are present), is it licit? It’s a valid question in light of the present crisis of faith in the Church.

    “When I write something I already know the kind of response you are able to make. And it is clear to me that some basics are difficult for you to understand, because they demand a detachment from the range of concepts you operate with, in the same way that it was difficult to me when facing them for the first time.”

    These “basics” you claim I can’t understand are perfectly understood, they are the basics that every Catholic must abide by, namely, that we should hold fast to sacred tradition and refuse novelty, and that we should hold fast to the Mass of the ages and refuse that which is clearly and admittedly constructed (NEW) to please Protestants and advance condemned ecumenism. Furthermore, that “range of concepts” you claim I should be detaching myself from are none other than those expressed dogmatically in the Encyclicals and Syllabi of the pre-conciliar Popes.

    “I have read the DH several times, I have and have read the commentary in the five vol. Commentary on Vatican II, ed. by Vorgrimler, and translated from German, I have read at least three times M. Davies book, and judging from what I have seen in the place you recommended, I am pretty sure that, given time, I could smash it into pieces.”

    It’s interesting posturing, but a rather hollow statement.

  • Profidebookstore

    “My question related to a single scandalous act of Pope John Paul II, ”
    Easy to answer: It is in your mind.
    ” Does the Church teach infallibly that it is a mortal sin for a Catholic to participate in the religious services of non-Catholics and non-Christians”. Even easier: show me the text of this dogma.
    ” or to otherwise show approval of their false doctrines?” Easy too: show me that dogma.
    ” If so, are the clergy, including the Pope, exempt from this infallible teaching? impossible to answer to the meningless question.

  • Profidebookstore

    ” your posts were becomming increasingly incomprehensibe” – true at last, and you know why? Because
    theological issues are nor for theological diletantes.

  • Profidebookstore

    You have enormous Faith: all these are infallible.

  • Profidebookstore

    My friend, I tried to tell you my life story, and you are only after polemics.Can’t you see that, compared with you, I am Aristotle?

  • Profidebookstore

    Open the blog and you will see.

  • Hs

    To Admbradshaw: You may believe that Popes can do no wrong and are beyond criticism. But not everyone would subscribe to that view even though they are Catholic. The Pope is a human being and therefore as fallible as the next person. I know you will quote me the Catholic Cathechism. But why not try to believe in the Bible which is the true and undiluted word of god. Where is the bible does it say the pope is infallible. Will be very interested in your reply.

  • Nishant Jeyaraj

    I shall give you an example of how living Tradition, as the sacred deposit is guarded by, and authentically interpreted by, the Magisterium, i.e. by the bishops, particularly the Head.

    You must be familiar with the Church’s condemnation of usury, which was interpreted by many as a condemnation of all loans at interest. But when the economic order changed, the Church approved such loans. The Church was consistent both in formerly condemning them, and now in engaging in them. In both cases, it is not individuals, but the Magisterium to whom the lot falls to make that determination. Do not neglect the living character of Tradition, nor imagine in vain that Tradition is something written somewhere. It is not. Revelation comes to us, says Vatican I, through a written word of God and an unwritten tradition, that is through the teaching Church. This is not to say that Tradition may not be kept somewhere in written works, that is true, but it is for the Church to interpret how they apply today.

    The same is true of ecumenism. The world has changed, and so the Catholic Church authentically interprets the deposit of faith to how we must interact with it. Peace was a common ground between religions, and that is why Pope John Paul II in Assisi said, “I humbly submit that peace bears the name of Jesus Christ”. While St.Paul did speak the truth, in a letter to Christians, that the gods of pagans are devils, he himself in speaking to them, did appeal to the common ground. You expect mass and immediate conversions, while the Church works toward building good will, knowing this will build one step towards their coming to God’s intended home for them, His Church.

  • Profidebookstore

    Did you learn about these from the sources of the religions referred to, or you blindly obeyed, as you otherwise do, others’ indoctrination?

    Did you know that the Christian Arabs use the name Allah for God?

    Do you know that it is a dogma that a man can know His existence by natural reason, and that it is God we believe, in spite of the fact that man cannot know those truths about Him which can be known only by Revelation? Are you suggesting that Yahveh of the OT is not God in whom we believe although the OT does not know of Trinity or Jesus’ divinity.

    Do you know that the Moslems are human beings? And that they too can know God by natural reason?Do you know that Mohamad lived among Jews and Christians, and that it is from them that he learned about God whom he called Allah, as the Chistians Arabs did?

    Have you ever read Quran? It contains numerous elements of the Bible. It is evident that he misunderstood the NT notion of Trinity for “three gods”, which obviously he rejected as his aim was to teach people of the One-nes of God against the polytheism they believed. In other words, he learned about God from Judeo-Christian Revelation too.

    As I honestly told you, my friend, in the longer Post: you yourself admitted that you haven’t learned anything in your former Parish. You moved to the Mass Centres where you were exposed to false doctrines and took them uncritically as you have come there without sufficient knowledge of Catholic faith.

    Be more critical and selective in what you read: don’t take for granted the nonsense you hear from self-appointed mini-popes, to become the mini-pope yourself. Be humble; othewise…

    I am telling this to you as brother Catholic, take care of yourself, and keep in mind that for all you say in public you will sooner or later be responsible “before the dread judgment of Christ” as they say in one of the litanies of the Bzantine Liturgy.

  • Nishant Jeyaraj

    Martyjo, there is scarcely a person excommunicated who doesn’t try to draw some parallel between himself and St.Athanasius. Some scholars believe the document excommunicating St.Athanasius was written under distress. Be that as it may, St.Athanasius didn’t create a storm railing against the Pope. He remained humble, and in absolute submission trusting God to work through the Church He founded. The Archbishop was given numerous chances to come back to full communion, which as far as we know, he scorned as if it was something unworthy. His successor in the society has already been given far, far more than what was originally asked for, yet he refuses to allow the Church jurisdiction over the Society. What are you saying Martyjo, this has nothing to do with impeccability. Nothing whatsoever.

    You commit the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Does it follow that everything that proceeded Vatican II was caused by it? Not at all.

    Once more, does a decline in numbers, numbers of anything, prove less than anything at all? Obviously not, this is poor social science, because you fail to take into account a number of other factors in the world at the time. What if the Church had done nothing at all and numbers had fallen far, far more than they did? Would you then think the Church committed a mistake of omission on the same basis you are arguing for now, namely a decline in vocations or mass attendance and the like?

    The crux of your argument, dear Martyjo, seems to be based on a logically unsustainable premise. Both our Lady’s words about Russia spreading her errors and the fact that Communism was for a long time engaged in a full scale war with the Church, combined with other “revolutions” doing the rounds at the time of the Council are more probable factors affecting the declines you speak of.

    You are determined to see everything as the fault of the Council. You will not trust the word of a Pope together with an Ecumenical Council, if you will implicitly trust just about anything coming from earlier Popes, and yet show that same implicit mistrust to everything the Popes say today. Is it then their persons, rather than their office you believe to be supernaturally protected? Cheer up, Martyjo, God is not unfaithful. Yes, we must fight against what is happening in the world, and yes, in the Church, but not under any pretext in the way of the SSPX.

    About the other thing, you know the old saying, there may be more splendid chefs than mom and better fishermen than dad, but guess where I’ll be this sunday?

    I’m so glad to be home and come what may, my feet will be firmly planted here. I will fight, yes, for all I’m worth, but I will never ever leave. I will not abandon a stalling ship, she is still my mother. The SSPX has gone down a mistaken road.

    Next, let me just cross reference something about the Eucharistic prayers of the OF of the Roman Rite:

    On July 4, 1976, the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship unequivocally declared: “The Protestant observers did not participate in the composition of the texts of the new Missal.” (Documentation Catholique #58, 1976, page 649). What is clear in the Pauline Rite Mass? It reflects the Eucharistic Sacrifice as a propitiatory work offered for the living and the dead; concerning the Transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ; concerning the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary and the saints; concerning prayer for the dead- are all points on which Protestants continue to disagree with the Catholic Church but all of which are explicitly present in the Pauline Rite Mass. (Whitehead, p. 85).

    Eucharistic Prayer II is substantially that of St. Hippolytus that goes back to the year 215 AD, and declares: “In memory of his death and resurrection, we offer you, Father, this life-giving bread, this saving cup.”

    Eucharistic Prayer III says:

    We offer you in thanksgiving this Holy and Living Sacrifice. Look with favor on your Church’s offering, and see the Victim, whose death has reconciled us to your self.

    Eucharistic Prayer IV says:

    We offer you his body and blood, the acceptable Sacrifice which brings salvation to the whole world. (Whitehead, 120-121)

    Nothing has changed, Martyjo. Nothing at all. The only tragedy is that some of our most priceless assets, beloved sons and daughters of holy Mother Church, in defending the true Faith had they stayed, by being divided have made it all the easier for our enemies. You must see, Martyjo, how disastrous to the common cause is the scandal of the division, so crying an evil, you must see that by returing to the fold and being under lawful, immediate and ordinary jurisdiction, you can do far, far more good than you ever could do outside it.

    May Jesus richly bless you.

  • Anonymous

    Profidebookstore: To read your words: “Our Lady’s request is out of date today” tells me so much about you and the influences you are under.

    Did whoever told you that also claim that the Rhein Fathers were right to proclaim that the Church was henceforth to be run by the Bishops, and that the Pope was to be no more than “the first amongst equals”?

    Well, well, what a surprise!

    I don’t recall that being the arrangement Our Lord had in mind when he established St. Peter as his Vicar on earth, but I am sure you will have a reference from somewhere to say that Our Lord’s instruction also is out of date today.

    As for “shutting up when cornered” why should I (and MartyJo for that matter) continue to reiterate to you the Truth as taught by the Church down the ages? Our Lord urged his followers not to “cast their pearls before swine” (St.Matthew Ch.7 v.6 of the Douay-Rheims bible). Furthermore, He urged them to walk away from those who would not hear their words (St.Matthew Ch.10 v.14).

    We shall continue, given the Grace and the opportunity, to defend Tradition to all those that have ears, and I pray that you will one day be amongst that number.

  • RJ

    Well, I understood them. Made perfect sense.

  • RJ

    Don’t be provoked into going over the top, Profide.

  • Anonymous

    “Martyjo, there is scarcely a person excommunicated who doesn’t try to draw some parallel between himself and St.Athanasius.”

    Nishant, I have never heard of these excommunicates you speak of. The only prelate I know to have been excommunicated since Vatican II is the only one who refused to alter the faith for the sake of false ecumenism, namely Archbishop Lefebvre.

    “Be that as it may, St.Athanasius didn’t create a storm railing against the Pope. He remained humble, and in absolute submission trusting God to work through the Church He founded.”

    I recall here his “railing” words to the faithful who supported him: “They have churches but we have the Faith.”

    “The Archbishop was given numerous chances to come back to full communion, which as far as we know, he scorned as if it was something unworthy.”

    Not remotely true! In 1970, the Archbishop had his seminary in Switzerland approved by the local Ordinary. He subsequently had a visit to his seminary by Cardinal Gagnon, who highly commended it. What followed was an order from the Vatican to close the seminary under threat of suspension. He was given no explanation and no hearing. This was long before any controversy existed. Later, he was told to toe the Modernist party line by the Vatican. Pope John Paul II promised him a Bishop for the SSPX in 1988, but the Vatican then became very ambiguous on the agreed date for that Bishop, and even if the candidate would be an SSPX priest. There was complete dishonesty right down the line. The truth is that the Modernists in the Vatican wanted to shut him and his traditional seminaries down permanently. Pope Benedict XVI alludes to this in his motu proprio on the TLM. No, Archbishop Lefebvre was never dealt with in any kind of fair manner. You should read his own accounts. I know for sure that he would have jumped at any honest opportunity to resolve issues between Rome and the SSPX.

    “His successor in the society has already been given far, far more than what was originally asked for, yet he refuses to allow the Church jurisdiction over the Society.”

    And he will continue to do so until the authorities in Rome recant their Modernist errors, particularly condemned ecumenism and interfaith dialogue based on a condemned freedom of conscience and religion.

    “You commit the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Does it follow that everything that proceeded Vatican II was caused by it? Not at all.”

    Any objective comparison of Catholic belief and practice pre-Council with Catholic belief and practice post-Council (just forty years) must necessarily result in a post hoc ergo propter hoc conclusion. Who or what else can be blamed for such a gravitation towards Protestantism?

    “Once more, does a decline in numbers, numbers of anything, prove less than anything at all? Obviously not, this is poor social science, because you fail to take into account a number of other factors in the world at the time.”

    Souls are drawn to holiness and the sacred, but are repulsed by banality. Just prior to the Council, the Church was at its height in terms of vocations. Seminaries and religious orders were bursting at the seems with vocations. In addition, there were huge numbers of Anglicans coming back to the true Faith. It is well known that in city parishes there were four or five Sunday Masses to cope with the numbers. The streets were lined with faithful waiting to enter the church at the end of the preceding Mass. That all fell into serious decline in the years immediately following the Council. It’s quite obvious what happened.

    “…Both our Lady’s words about Russia spreading her errors and the fact that Communism was for a long time engaged in a full scale war with the Church, combined with other “revolutions” doing the rounds at the time of the Council are more probable factors affecting the declines you speak of.”

    I’m not aware of any other “revolutions” doing the rounds at the time of the Council, just the big one: Communism. It certainly affected matters, especially when Pope Paul VI and other liberals prelates started doing deals with Moscow, which Pius XII forbade. The agreement reached was that Moscow would allow Orthodox observers at the Council if the Vatican promised to silence its condemnations of Communism. You’re probably not aware that some 480 Council Fathers presented a petition to the President of the Council calling for a solemn renewal of the Church’s condemnation of atheistic Communism. It never saw the light of day!

    It seems remarkably odd that the two prelates sent into exile by Pope Pius XII, Cardinal Roncalli to Venice for refusing to end the worker priest project in France, and Archbishop Montini to Milan, without being raised to the Cardinalate for a See that traditionally had a Cardinal, for dealing with Moscow against the direct instructions of the Pope, should become the two Popes of Vatican II and the reformers of the Catholic Faith.

    Moscow, while persecuting religion, was the proponent of ecumenical and interfaith initiatives. It fits really, for if you can’t destroy the Catholic Faith from the outside then you get Churchmen to adopt initiatives that will destroy it from inside. Ecumenical and interfaith initiatives lead, as the Popes have always stated, to religious indifference and, ultimately, apsotasy. This is precisely what we have been witnessing these past decades.

    “You are determined to see everything as the fault of the Council. You will not trust the word of a Pope together with an Ecumenical Council, if you will implicitly trust just about anything coming from earlier Popes, and yet show that same implicit mistrust to everything the Popes say today.”

    And why do you think that apparent anomoly exists in me? Isn’t it because the Popes of today have embraced doctrines that their predecessors clearly and unambiguously condemned, doctrines that have led one Pope to kiss the Koran and pray together with the false religions of this world, and another to declare to Jews and Muslims that “we are all the children of Abraham,” while not mentioning Christ Our Lord? Isn’t it because the new liturgy is almost identical to that invented by the Protestant Reformers? Isn’t it because millions of fragments of the Blessed Sacrament are being trodden underfoot every week as a result of Communion in the hand, which Paul VI tried to ban and was ignored, and which Pope Benedict XVI has tried to correct by example, if not by command, and has been ignored? Isn’t it because practically every parish uses lay people as ministers of the Eucharist in defiance of the Vatican’s rule that they should only be used in rare circumstances? Isn’t it because Cardinals, such as Walter Kasper and Karl Lehmann, preach heresy, while countless heretical and morally dissenting priests spread their poison without censure? Isn’t it because I have witnessed many Catholics receiving the Sacred Host in their hands, pop it into their mouths like a sweetie and leave the Church while chewing? I could go on and on, but enough said.

    “On July 4, 1976, the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship unequivocally declared: “The Protestant observers did not participate in the composition of the texts of the new Missal.” (Documentation Catholique #58, 1976, page 649).”

    On June 27, 1967, Bishop (later Cardinal) William Baum told The Detroit News that “they [were] not simply there as observers, but as consultants as well, and they participated fully in the discussions on Catholic liturgical renewal. It wouldn’t mean much if they just listened, but they contributed.”

    And as for the Eucharistic Prayers you mention, they are an insufficient replacement for the sacred Canon that was trashed. Here are some interesting quotations:

    The December 22, 1972 issue of The London Catholic Herald quoted a prominent Anglican minister as stating: “Today’s liturgical study has brought our respective liturgies to a remarkable similarity, so that there is very little difference in the sacrificial phrasing of the prayer of oblation in the Series Three (Anglican “Mass”) and that of Eucharistic Prayer II in the Missa Normativa (New Mass)”

    “The Anglican Bishop of Southwark has stated on several occasions that he greatly admires the N.O. Mass, uses it himself, and would like to see it generally available to Anglicans at least as an alternative. He has also “concelebrated” Mass with Catholic priests when travelling on the continent!” (The Catholic Herald, 15 December, 1972).

    Perhaps what is even more revealing concerning the nature of the New Mass is a key statement from M. G. Siegvalt, a professor of dogmatic theology in the Protestant faculty at Strasbourg: “… nothing in the renewed Catholic Mass need really trouble the Evangelical Protestant”( Le Monde, 22 November, 1969).

    “Jean Guitton, a close friend of Pope Paul VI and a lay-observer at Vatican II, quoted a Protestant journal as praising the manner in which the new Eucharistic prayers had “dropped the false perspective of a sacrifice being offered to God” (La Croix, 10 December, 1969).

    “If one takes account of the decisive evolution of the Eucharistic liturgy of the Catholic Church, of the option of substituting other Eucharistic prayers for the Canon of the Mass, of expunging of the idea that the Mass is a sacrifice, and of the possibility of receiving communion under both kinds, then there is no further justification for the Reformed Churches forbidding their members to assist at the Eucharist in a Catholic Church” (Le Monde, 10 September, 1970).

    If one compares the New Mass with the Anglican Book of Common Prayer, one finds them almost identical. It’s as Archbishop Bugnin intended: “We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren, that is for the Protestants” (Annibale Bugnini, co-author of the New Mass. L’Osservatore Romano, 19 March, 1965).

    Little wonder, then, that Archbishop Lefebvre declared: “All these changes [in the Mass] have but one justification, an aberrant senseless ecumenism that will not attract a single Protestant to the Faith but will cause countless Catholics to lose it, and will instil total confusion in the minds of many more who will no longer know what is true and what is false”(World Trends, May 1974).

    One final thought. Condemning the Anglican liturgy, Pope Leo XIII, in his Bull Apostolicae Curae, par. 30 (1896), writes for our instruction today as follows:

    “Being fully cognizant of the necessary connection between faith and worship, between ‘the law of believing and the law of praying’, under a pretext of returning to the primitive form, they corrupted the Liturgical Order in many ways to suit the errors of the [Protestant] reformers. For this reason, in the whole Ordinal not only is there no clear mention of the sacrifice, of consecration, of the priesthood (sacerdotium), and of the power of consecrating and offering sacrifice but, as we have just stated, every trace of these things which had been in such prayers of the Catholic rite as they had not entirely rejected, was deliberately removed and struck out.”

    This is why our church’s, seminaries and religious houses are emptying and closing down in unprecedented numbers.

  • Anonymous

    You claim to be “Aristotle” in comparison with me, yet you don’t appear to know the dogmatic teaching of the Church with regard ot false religions. I will provide you with ‘Extra ecclesia nulla salus’ and let you go research the others for yourself.

  • Anonymous

    So you’re a qualified theologian then?

  • Anonymous

    “My friend, I tried to tell you my life story, and you are only after polemics.Can’t you see that, compared with you, I am Aristotle?”

    I’ll take your work for that little outburst of spiritual pride. May I suggest a wee read of the Gospel passage concerning the Pharisee and the Publican!

  • Anonymous

    Profidebookstore, Any Catholic who puts forward a defence of Islam, as in any way wholesome and pleasing to God, is no longer a Catholic. Islam is a false religion that cannot save a single soul, pure and simple. The infallible dogma is clear: “extra ecclesiam nulla salus.” Invincible ignorance does not encompass the recognition of false religions as having salvific doctrines. It is the heresy of universal salvation you preach.

  • Nishant Jeyaraj

    The ecumenism isn’t false. Please see my reply to Gandalf about the usury example. There is no gravitation anywhere. We see that many people have lost faith, yes, but what heresies exactly are you accusing the bishops of the Church of holding? Outline these specifically.

    And trust me, I study correlation, and what you have provided is far from sufficiently rigorous to draw the kinds of conclusion you are drawing. Communism was one cause and the “free love” movements of the 60s were another. And how is it your divine right, Martyjo, to judge the manner in which the Church fights her battles? The Church fights against Communism in the same way the Church fought against Hitler. It is for her to decide.

    Sometimes things get worse before they get better. Sometimes some battles are foregone that the war may be won.

    Let’s suppose everything you say is true. And yet, say, the Orthodox return soon. Will you then agree that good has been done? That’s about 250 million souls in the 50 years since the council or more than 5 million a year. If it’s numbers alone that interest you, that should suffice. But I don’t think it will be. So then it isn’t the numbers?

    I see, so how many Protestant services you know of will assent to use the Ordinary form of the Roman rite in their celebrations: If “holy and living sacrifice, the Victim whose death etc” is not sufficient, then nothing will be, I fear.

    Finally, “In the early days of the Church the faithful frequently carried the Blessed Eucharist with them to their homes (cf. Tertullian, “Ad uxor.”, II, v; Cyprian, Treatise 3.26) or upon long journeys (Ambrose, De excessu fratris, I, 43, 46)”

    From the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia.

    Again, Martyjo, it all comes down, whatever you say, to a refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff, to being under his jurisdiction. This is what Bishop Fellay has been offered. Why will he not take it up?
    I’ve answered you on the charges of heresies or at least erroneous interpretations of the SVC. Please reply to that for us to move on. God bless you.

  • Anonymous

    Well, Hs, before I answer that, will you tell me where in the bible it says “Sola Scriptura” (Scripture alone) which is what Luther and his cronies teach.

    Asa waiting…

  • Anonymous

    What short memories you have, peterb. Now, let me think. Why are priests celibate… Oh yes, I remember.

    Jesus was celibate. Remember?

  • Anonymous

    The reason the process was tightened up, simple, was to make sure that candidates were truly deserving. In the very early days of the Church, beatification was by “proclamation” – because the candidate was well known for his/her virtue.

    One alleged miracle, not independently verified and surrounded by claims of a relapse, is not sufficient evidence.

    As to the reputation of Pope JPII for holiness during his life: pull the other one. Whatever his personal qualilties, he was duff at his’ job.’ He presided over the worst crisis ever in the Church and did nothing to put it right.

    If he’s beatified, there’s hope for thee and me – that’s for sure.

  • Anonymous

    And tell me this, Gandalf. Do you think it was the Holy Spirit who inspired Pope Benedict to invite the heretic, Hans Kung, into the Vatican for a completely private and personal meeting which lasted four hours, as soon as he assumed office? Hans Kung who doesn’t believe in the papacy – who hates it?

    Was it the Holy Spirit who inspired Pope Benedict to invite disaffected Anglicans to come into the Catholic Church and bring their own “liturgy” and prayer books with them?

    Do you really think that the Holy Spirit is behind the Pope’s invitation to pagans and Protestants to “live their faith as a service for the cause of peace.” Really? The Holy Spirit is happy for the Pope to affirm pagans and Protestants in their false beliefs?

    Be like the man who was delighted with his new carpeted stairs and handrail. Get a grip.

  • Anonymous

    PFBS – you cannot possibly lay claim to being a Catholic. ‘Fess up. Which is it – Anglican or Islam?

  • Anonymous

    “I’ve answered you on the charges of heresies or at least erroneous interpretations of the SVC. Please reply to that for us to move on.”

    In actual fact, you haven’t answered anything in respect to the heresies and doctrinal deviancies I’ve raised. I have produced countless statements of Popes, senior prelates, priests, and even Protestant theologians to prove the case. Indeed, I have even produced Archbishop Bugnini’s own 1965 promise to strip the Mass of all that could be offensive to non-Catholics. but all I get in return is this constant echo of blind obedience to the Pope.

    Furthermore, I have highlighted clear Papal scandals including the kissing of the Koran and Assisi, neither of which can be defended in the light of traditional Magisterial teaching. I have told how Pope Paul VI tried and failed to prevent the illicit introduction and spread of Communion in the hand (Memoriale Domini), which has resulted not only in indifference and irreverence, but also in countless documented sacrileges. I have highlighted Papal condemnations of ecumenism, as in the Syllabus of Pius IX and in Quanta Cura (just two examples). I have highlighted the crisis in the priesthood, religious life, vocations and a sizeable apostasy of the laity. I have highlighted the heresies of Cardinals Kasper and Lehmann.

    Cardinal Kasper calls the Gospel miracles “non-historical stories” and says that Our Lord never advanced the claim that He was God. He also doubts the Ressurrection, citing the empty tomb as “an ambiguous phenomenon, open to different possibilities of interpretation.”

    As for Cardinal Lehmann, his 1986 document on Justification and Priestly Ministry, produced by a Catholic/Lutheran working group, of which he was co-director, claims that the Council of Trent’s anathemas have no value in relation to the “separated brethern.” The document also emphasises that the “departure from Trent” has been established in the Catholic Church. He further states that “what is decisive in the reformers’ conception of faith” no longer constitutes “any problem for today’s Catholic theology.” In this same document, Protestant heresies are blasphemously and impudently placed on the same plane as Trent’s infallible definitions, and Protestant sects’ human and heretical “traditions” are put on the same level as the Church’s Divine, Apostolic Tradition.

    “And how is it your divine right, Martyjo, to judge the manner in which the Church fights her battles? The Church fights against Communism in the same way the Church fought against Hitler.”

    This is not so! The Church fought Hitler with a certain prudence for the sake of Jewish lives, but She explicitly named and condemned Communism and anyone who would do deals with it in any way. As for my so-called assumption of a “divine right” to judge, you are quite mistaken. I only echo the Church’s infallible judgments and refuse the novelties She has condemned.

    If I have made any judgment of my own, which I am entitled to do in matters touching on my Catholic Faith, it has been to compare the Mass of all time (TLM), together with the reverence of those who celebrate and participate in it, with the New Mass, its celebrants and those who participate in it, and reach the only conclusion a Catholic can reach on the basis of “by their fruits ye shall know them.” Its a no brainer for any objective Catholic!

    “Sometimes things get worse before they get better. Sometimes some battles are foregone that the war may be won.”

    For that to happen you need a militant supreme commander who uses the fullness of his authority when lesser officers and foot soldiers step out of line. Thus far, the only one I know of to have felt the weight of punishment is the one who remained faithful to the battle strategy of the Church throughout the centuries (Archbishop Lefebvre). Whatever happened to the Church’s Militancy?

    “Let’s suppose everything you say is true. And yet, say, the Orthodox return soon. Will you then agree that good has been done?”

    It hasn’t happened, so the proposition is a strawman.

    “I see, so how many Protestant services you know of will assent to use the Ordinary form of the Roman rite in their celebrations: If “holy and living sacrifice, the Victim whose death etc” is not sufficient, then nothing will be, I fear.”

    I can’t answer as to how many Protestants are using the New Mass as their own rite. From the Protestant statements I’ve read (and provided), it seems that a majority are quite comfortable with it, either for use within their own Sects or participating in it in Catholic churches. The few referrences you quote, i.e., “holy and living sacrifice, the Victim whose death etc” are very easily re-interpreted by Protestants and dissenting Catholics. The method is called ambiguity, and let’s face it, these quotes are hardly comparable with the explicit referrences to sacrifice and oblation in the old canon. Even the Protestants have admitted this much.

    “Finally, “In the early days of the Church the faithful frequently carried the Blessed Eucharist with them to their homes (cf. Tertullian, “Ad uxor.”, II, v; Cyprian, Treatise 3.26) or upon long journeys (Ambrose, De excessu fratris, I, 43, 46)”

    It is a monumental error to want to cut down the “great tree” of sacred tradition in order to return to the “mustard seed.” Pope Pius XII warned against this, calling the error “Antiquarianism.” This is precisely how the Protestant Reformers proceeded to dismantle the Catholic Faith, claiming that tradition and authority must be cast aside in favour of sola scriptura, or rather their intepretation of it.

    You mention early Church examples of the laity handling the Blessed Sacrament, which was generally only permitted during the great persecution, and even then with what reverence and faith amongst the first Christians! This does not compare in any way with the irreverent and careless manner with which we see the Blessed Sacrament handled today.

    Besides this, folowing the end of the persecution we find the Church outlawing the practice. To give just a few examples:

    Pope St. Sixtus I ( 115-125): “it is prohibited for the faithful to even touch the sacred vessels, or receive in the hand”

    Origen (185-232 A.D.): “You who are wont to assist at the divine Mysteries, know how, when you receive the body of the Lord, you take reverent care, lest any particle of it should fall to the ground and a portion of the consecrated gift (consecrati muneris) escape you. You consider it a crime, and rightly so, if any particle thereof fell down through negligence.” (13th Homily on Exodus)

    St. Basil the Great (330-379), one of the four great Eastern Fathers, considered Communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault (Letter 93)

    The Council held at Saragozza (380), it was decided to punish with excommunication anyone who dared to continue the practice of Communion in the hand

    The local council at Rouen, France (650) stated: “Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layman or laywomen but only in their mouths”

    The Council of Constantinople (692) which was known as in trullo (not one of the ecumenical councils held there) prohibited the faithful from giving Communion to themselves. It decreed an excommunication of one week’s duration for those who would do so in the presence of a bishop, priest or deacon.

    Council of Trent: “To omit nothing doctrinal on so important a subject, we now come to speak of the minister of the Sacrament, a point, however, on which scarcely anyone is ignorant. The pastor then will teach, that to priests alone has been given power to consecrate and administer the Holy Eucharist. That the unvarying practice of the Church has also been, that the faithful receive the Sacrament from the hand of the priest, and that the priest communicate himself, has been explained by the Council of Trent; and the same holy Council has shown that this practice is always to be scrupulously adhered to, stamped, as it is, with the authoritative impress of Apostolic tradition, and sanctioned by the illustrious example of our Lord himself, who, with His own hands, consecrated and gave to His disciples, His most sacred body. To consult as much as possible, for the dignity of this so August a Sacrament, not only is its administration confided exclusively to the priestly order; but the Church has also, by an express law, prohibited any but those who are consecrated to religion, unless in case of necessity, to touch the sacred vessels, the linen or other immediate necessaries for consecration. Priest and people may hence learn, what piety and holiness they should possess who consecrate, administer, or receive the Holy of Holies.” (Council of Trent, Session 13, Chapter 8).

    “In view of the state of the Church as a whole today, this manner of distributing Holy Communion(kneeling and on the tongue) must be observed, not only because it rests upon a tradition of many centuries but especially because it is a sign of the reverence of the faithful toward the Eucharist.” (Pope Paul VI, Memoriale Domini, 1969).

    “…After he had considered the observations and the counsel of those whom “the Holy Spirit has placed as bishops to rule” the Churches, in view of the seriousness of the matter and the importance of the arguments proposed, the Supreme Pontiff judged that the long received manner of ministering Holy Communion to the faithful (i.e., kneeling and on the tongue) should not be changed.” (Pope Paul VI, Memoriale Domini, 1969).

    “… in the years following the Council, in order to fulfill this desire, the confusion of functions in regard to the priestly ministry and role of the laity was arbitrarily extended,” he explained. Symptoms of this confusion are “the indiscriminate and common recitation of the Eucharistic Prayer,” “homilies given by lay people” and the “distribution of Communion by the laity.”
    These “grave abuses often originated in doctrinal errors, especially in regard to the nature of the liturgy, of the common priesthood of Christians, of the vocation and mission of the laity, but also in regard to the ordained ministry of priests,” the Pope stressed.
    The Holy Father said that one of the consequences of this phenomenon is “the lack of observance of certain ecclesiastical laws and norms, the arbitrary interpretation of the concept of ‘substitution,’ the tendency to ‘clericalize’ the laity, etc.”
    (Zenit report on a statement of Pope John Paul II, September 23, 2002).

    Finally, for those who claim infallibility for Vatican II: “That Vatican II chose to remain on a purely pastoral level, is a well documented fact. Documented, by none other that the present Pope when – as Cardinal Ratzinger – he addressed the Bishops of Chile: “The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero. The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of superdogma which takes away the importance of all the rest.” (As reported at link: http://www.catholictruthscotland.com/blog/2010/03/professor-john-haldane-vatican-ii-was-dogmatic/).

  • James H

    I’m afraid that anyone referring to ‘heddie days’ is already a few fries short of a happy meal.

    And, I cannot believe anyone still insists on Catholic states! Hello? Inquisitions? Anti-Popes? Heretic burning? Has any of it sunk in yet? You do not give bishops political power: it attracts the worst sort of petty tyrant (and others less petty), and compromises the church.

  • James H

    And since then, the Metropolitan has died and been replaced by someone a lot more willing to co-operate.

    You need to keep up-to-date! Zenit is good

  • James H

    Barking.

  • Anonymous

    Now, there’s a profoundly intelligent response to the matter. NOT.

  • Anonymous

    I hold the same position as the Cardinals of Vatican II who expressed concerns that the new Mass is “a grave departure in whole or in part from Catholic theology of the Mass.” See Ottaviani Intervention http://www.fisheaters.com/ottavianiintervention.html

    Then take a look at the links on our Mass page at http://www.catholictruthscotland.com/mass.html

    Oh and I should point out that Paul Paul VI himself said, rather late in the day in the face of the desolation in the place where thriving parishes used to be, that he’d only intended the new Mass to be an “option.”

    Hilariously, to try to correct the damage caused by the newer and fewer Mass, the Church authorities are having to reintroduce Latin! Truly, you couldn’t make it up.

    And as for your assertion that “it has never been the practice of the Church to simply excommunicate anyone and everyone with no thought to possible schisms….”

    The “great” (not) Pope John Paul II obviously forgot that rule when he excommunicated Archbishop Lefebvre.

  • Anonymous

    Uh Huh! Co-operate in what exactly? Let’s hope it’s in the return of the Russian Orthodox to the true Faith.

    By the way, I’ve been getting my daily email from Zenit these past five years.