Catholic Church: now run by heretics?

[MrS]

Rand Al'Thor:

My uncle said he thinks that there is a good chance of some things from the old Mass coming back during Benedict’s papacy.

That is nearly a given. The good Pope will be publishing much on his views and expectations following the synod. It is meant to be published mid year 2006. We won’t have to wait long, God willing.

How comforting it will be to have a plan of action in place that may require bishops to conform to. There will be much dissent from the libs, and perhaps many will opt out for Protestantism. That will be sad.

Pray that more good priests and bishops will be able to teach and lead before too many leave.

 

[George_Waters]

Rand Al'Thor:

Mass is Mass and I recieve Christ no matter what.

I think too may people sometimes forget that! Good post Rand!

Peace,

George

 

[MatsMom]

Malachi Hello

Here I am an ex-Catholic (now fundamental) searching too find truths to bring me/convince me to “come home to Rome” and this is very frightening. That link, those pages…

If I may make a suggestion, What I found most helpful when I was searching was to concentrate on what the church teaches and utilize Catholic materials dedicated to Truth. Such as Cath Awnsrs, EWTN, I found it best to buy my books from these sites also, because when you go into a Christian Supply store you cannot be sure that the book you choose teaches the truthes of the Church. I also found out the hard way that just because a book had catholic in the title that it did not necessarly mean it taught the truth. ie: Boettners book.

Its much easier to learn the truth in the first place then it is to sort everything out from a witch hunt

Many Prayers
MM

 

[rbrooks]

Hi all…

I have just read the entire thread and have yet to find anything answering the original question. I too am now intrigued. There has been bashing on where this “conclave” took place and the thread has gone completely off topic. hhhhhmmmmmm

The argument for traditionalist is a darn good one and very articulate. We are told “be carefull”, “use caution” etc… with these sites, but no body has any arguments in rebutal.

I am very interested in this subject now. I am a convert and in my conversion, I was joining the ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC and APASTOLIC CHURCH. I have seen many things that are NOT holy and especially NOT Catholic in the Church. Granted, not by church teaching, but how about a little leadership by example?

Today we get watered down Catholicism. Homilies that are general, priests that are obviously just not “into” their vocation. What has happened to our HOLY mother Church??

Do not be confused by my statements. There is absolutely NO way I will leave the Church. I am loyal to Rome and Tradition. I would never become a protestant or fall into schism. BUT, I want some answers!! Truth is Truth. PERIOD! My opinion matters as much as the next guys. NOT AT ALL!!! There is no opinion when in comes to our Lord. He is the Son of God. PERIOD!! He made a promise and no way would He break it. I ask though, in our fleshly state, who are we to judge God’s will? How do we know VII is NOT what it says it was? Satan is definately working his booty off, there is no doubt about that. What better way to destroys Gods’ Holy Church, but from the inside? This does not mean Christs’ promise is broken, or that Satan is more powerfull than our Lord. It simply means we need to look at all of the teachings of the Church (2000 years worth) and make sure we are keeping ourselves in check.

Infallible teaching can not contradict a previous teaching. If it does, it can not lay claim to being infallible. If VII has in fact tought something under the claim of the council as infallible and it contradicts previous statements by Popes or other councils, we definately have an issue.

How about some facts people. I don’t want opinions, thank you very much. We all know what opinions are like and how everyone has one. We MUST be in this together. If not is the Church truely ONE???

Mary, pray for us!!
Rich

 

[Jaypeeto3]

An incorrupt body is just one possible factor in the determination of a person’s holiness. John the XXIII was embalmed at tremendous cost, so it should be no surprise that he is incorrupt.

I myself agree with the above poster who noted that those who object to Traditionalism rant against it, but never offer a sane rebuttal, especially of particular issues raised by the Traditionalists. However, I should warn all of you that www.truecatholic.org is an extremely radical site run by a man who has never even been validly ordained as a bishop and yet claims to be the reigning pope. There are much better sites for studying Traditionalism than that one, for sure.

Love,
Jaypeeto3

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Jaypeeto3:

An incorrupt body is just one possible factor in the determination of a person’s holiness. John the XXIII was embalmed at tremendous cost, so it should be no surprise that he is incorrupt.

True. I also think a pope (ages ago) said an incorrupt body could be a trick of Satan. What matters is that Blessed John XXIII has been declared a *beati *by the pope. In my reading of such things, that’s infallible.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

rbrooks:

Hi all…

I have just read the entire thread and have yet to find anything answering the original question. I too am now intrigued. There has been bashing on where this “conclave” took place and the thread has gone completely off topic. hhhhhmmmmmm

The argument for traditionalist is a darn good one and very articulate. We are told “be carefull”, “use caution” etc… with these sites, but no body has any arguments in rebutal.

I am very interested in this subject now. I am a convert and in my conversion, I was joining the ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC and APASTOLIC CHURCH. I have seen many things that are NOT holy and especially NOT Catholic in the Church. Granted, not by church teaching, but how about a little leadership by example?

Today we get watered down Catholicism. Homilies that are general, priests that are obviously just not “into” their vocation. What has happened to our HOLY mother Church??

Do not be confused by my statements. There is absolutely NO way I will leave the Church. I am loyal to Rome and Tradition. I would never become a protestant or fall into schism. BUT, I want some answers!! Truth is Truth. PERIOD! My opinion matters as much as the next guys. NOT AT ALL!!! There is no opinion when in comes to our Lord. He is the Son of God. PERIOD!! He made a promise and no way would He break it. I ask though, in our fleshly state, who are we to judge God’s will? How do we know VII is NOT what it says it was? Satan is definately working his booty off, there is no doubt about that. What better way to destroys Gods’ Holy Church, but from the inside? This does not mean Christs’ promise is broken, or that Satan is more powerfull than our Lord. It simply means we need to look at all of the teachings of the Church (2000 years worth) and make sure we are keeping ourselves in check.

Infallible teaching can not contradict a previous teaching. If it does, it can not lay claim to being infallible. If VII has in fact tought something under the claim of the council as infallible and it contradicts previous statements by Popes or other councils, we definately have an issue.

How about some facts people. I don’t want opinions, thank you very much. We all know what opinions are like and how everyone has one. We MUST be in this together. If not is the Church truely ONE???

Mary, pray for us!!
Rich

Here’s a fact: the pope, protected, by Christ’s promise, cannot lead the Church into error. Whatever you perceive to be a contradiction isn’t if it’s papal teaching because it can’t be a contradiction (for example, the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Radical traditionalist sites love to compare what this and the documents of the Council say what previous popes and councils say). There isn’t contradiction. There’s refinement, there’s explanation, there’s clarification, but there isn’t contradiction. Also, I don’t feel the need to qualify my religious “label” with a adjective. I’m a Catholic Christian, which is implicitly traditional, but which understands that there have been councils since Trent and popes since Pius XII.

Whether you fall out of the boat on the left side or the right side, you’ve still fallen out of the boat.

 

[st.jerome]

rbrooks:

Infallible teaching can not contradict a previous teaching. If it does, it can not lay claim to being infallible. If VII has in fact tought something under the claim of the council as infallible and it contradicts previous statements by Popes or other councils, we definately have an issue.

It is important to remember that God’s Church on earth must be a vigilant Church since, here on earth, no one is (always) exempt from error. If you check out www.vatican.va and check out the introduction to the code of cannon law, you will see that:

“During the course of the centuries the Catholic Church has been accustomed to reform and renew the laws of canonical discipline so that in constant fidelity to its divine founder, they may be better adapted to the saving mission entrusted to it.”

The Code of Canon Law is not infallible. It is a useful constitution, but is not a holy book receiving direct inspiration from God. If, over the course of time, it contradicts itself, then it must be reformed. If it makes a statement which is not necessary to Christian faith, then it is open to revision. I hope this helps.

 

[Jaypeeto3]

True, disciplinary laws of the Church can change.
Doctrine cannot.
The historic magisterial teaching of the Catholic church, for 2000 years, was that the Law of Moses, the Old Covenant, has been ABOLISHED, that it is over with, done, finished, kaput, nullified by Christ’s sacrifice on the cross and the promulgation of the Gospel. This is the solemn and infallible teaching of the ordinary magisterium as well as of the Ecumenical Councils, most notably the Council of Florence.

TODAY, it is being said by the highest Vatican Authorities that the Law of Moses, the Old Covenant, has NOT been abolished and is still in force. Some, such as Cardinal Walter Kasper, even go so far as to say it is salvific !!

This IS a direct contradiction of the historic magisterium’s teachings, and I am certainly not someone who attends schismatic chapels, but rather the New Mass at my local parish.
One doesn’t have to be a Traditionalist to notice the obvious.

Love,
Jaypeeto3

 

[Pjs2ejs]

After looking at the website, I can’t help but see the similarities between the Great Schism of 1959 and the Mormon’s Great Apostacy. Neither happened and both are hard to defend against those who truly see them as truths.

Vatican II did not change doctrine of the church. Disciplines were adjusted and reconsidered.

What did the vision of 1884 really mean? Could it have been Satan’s work in the sexual revolution which caused deep divisions in church doctrine (infidelity, abortion, and birth control) and severe abuses that lasted for the next 40 years? Could his vision simply have been Lucien’s movement to convince people that the true church is not true?

Satan did not succeed. I recall a line in the bible that says that the gates of hell will not prevail against the church. Apparently Lucien thinks Satan did prevail. Satan is the Prince of Lies and the apparent belief in this Great Schism seems like the work of Satan himself.

In the vision, the Lord was annoyed with Satan and knew that whatever he did, no matter how long he took, would fail.

To revolve your entire Christian belief on a vision is scary. May the Lord bless all of you.

I assure you that today’s Roman Catholic Church is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Jaypeeto3:

True, disciplinary laws of the Church can change.
Doctrine cannot.
The historic magisterial teaching of the Catholic church, for 2000 years, was that the Law of Moses, the Old Covenant, has been ABOLISHED, that it is over with, done, finished, kaput, nullified by Christ’s sacrifice on the cross and the promulgation of the Gospel. This is the solemn and infallible teaching of the ordinary magisterium as well as of the Ecumenical Councils, most notably the Council of Florence.

TODAY, it is being said by the highest Vatican Authorities that the Law of Moses, the Old Covenant, has NOT been abolished and is still in force. Some, such as Cardinal Walter Kasper, even go so far as to say it is salvific !!

This IS a direct contradiction of the historic magisterium’s teachings, and I am certainly not someone who attends schismatic chapels, but rather the New Mass at my local parish.
One doesn’t have to be a Traditionalist to notice the obvious.

Love,
Jaypeeto3

IF that’s the case (ie, there is no subtlety in either the earlier or latter proclamations, nothing that needing clarification or explication or illumination, etc.), then the Church HAS been lead into error, which nullifies and renders a lie of Christ’s promise, and the gates of hell HAVE prevailed against the Church. This, in turn, calls into question the whole of Christianity (if He can fail in this promise, how can we trust anything He said?).

 

[Jaypeeto3]

I do not believe that Christ has abandoned the Catholic Church or that she has failed. That being said, not everything that comes out of a pope or a Cardinal’s mouth is necessarily “gospel.”
Pope John the 22nd taught - wrongly!! - that the souls of the Saints do not see the beatific vision UNTIL the Last Day and the Resurrection of the Body. He was in error, and took a long time to recant his error (which he finally did).

Because of the horrific Jewish holocaust in the 1940s, Catholic theologians have decided to take a “fresh look” at Church teachings regarding Judaism. Moved I feel more by sentiment than objectivity, they are coming up with weird conclusions.
That the old covenant has been abolished is the perennial teaching of the Catholic magisterium. It is not in force, and it is not salvific for anyone, Jewish or gentile. To say that it is still in force says, in effect, that Jewish people are under no moral obligation to enter the New Covenant, since the Old suffices for them, having never been revoked, still in force, and salvific. This is the view of Walter Kasper and many, many other Catholic bishops. It is error. John Paul II and Benedict XVI haven’t gone quite as far as this, yet their statements that the Old Covenant “has not been revoked” have never been clarified by them, nor have they rebuked those who are publically teaching that the Law is “salvific.” This is creating quite a bit of confusion and driving many good people into the Traditionalist camp, along with other current teachings.

Love,
Jaypeeto3

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Jaypeeto3:

I do not believe that Christ has abandoned the Catholic Church or that she has failed. That being said, not everything that comes out of a pope or a Cardinal’s mouth is necessarily “gospel.” Certainly not (and I should clarify, I was addressing your words “highest Vatican authorities,” of which the highest is the pope. BUT, for example, the CCC was promulgated for the entire Church by the head of the Church, in persona Petrus, as it were, as a “sure norm” for teaching the faith. What it contains (spelling words/mistranslations aside) cannot be false teaching or lead the faithful astray.

Because of the horrific Jewish holocaust in the 1940s, Catholic theologians have decided to take a “fresh look” at Church teachings regarding Judaism. Moved I feel more by sentiment than objectivity, they are coming up with weird conclusions.
That the old covenant has been abolished is the perennial teaching of the Catholic magisterium. It is not in force, and it is not salvific for anyone, Jewish or gentile. To say that it is still in force says, in effect, that Jewish people are under no moral obligation to enter the New Covenant, since the Old suffices for them, having never been revoked, still in force, and salvific. This is the view of Walter Kasper and many, many other Catholic bishops. It is error. John Paul II and Benedict XVI haven’t gone quite as far as this, yet their statements that the Old Covenant “has not been revoked” have never been clarified by them, nor have they rebuked those who are publically teaching that the Law is “salvific.” This is creating quite a bit of confusion and driving many good people into the Traditionalist camp, along with other current teachings.

Love,
Jaypeeto3

Here’s what the Catechism says and it doesn’t say anymore that I’ve found:

[839](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/839.htm’) "Those who have not yet received the Gospel are related to the People of God in various ways."325

The relationship of the Church with the Jewish People. When she delves into her own mystery, the Church, the People of God in the New Covenant, discovers her link with the Jewish People,326 "the first to hear the Word of God."327 The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God’s revelation in the Old Covenant. To the Jews “belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ”,328 "for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable."329 [840](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/840.htm’) And when one considers the future, God’s People of the Old Covenant and the new People of God tend towards similar goals: expectation of the coming (or the return) of the Messiah. But one awaits the return of the Messiah who died and rose from the dead and is recognized as Lord and Son of God; the other awaits the coming of a Messiah, whose features remain hidden till the end of time; and the latter waiting is accompanied by the drama of not knowing or of misunderstanding Christ Jesus.

 

[Jaypeeto3]

121 The Old Testament is an indispensable part of Sacred Scripture. Its books are divinely inspired and retain a permanent value,92 for the Old Covenant has never been revoked.

The above is #121 of the new Catechism.
This statement was first made, without any clarification, by Pope John Paul in Mainz, Germany, in 1980. Those last eight words are the basis on which many Catholic Bishops and Cardinals are saying that the Catholic Church has no right to evangelize the Jewish people, etc., because their covenant is still in force. Such an attitude is manifest heresy. These bishops need to be rebuked, and the statement itself needs to be carefully clarified.

Love,
Jaypeeto3

 

[JKirkLVNV]

121 The Old Testament is an indispensable part of Sacred Scripture. Its books are divinely inspired and retain a permanent value,92 for the Old Covenant has never been revoked.

The above is #121 of the new Catechism.
This statement was first made, without any clarification, by Pope John Paul in Mainz, Germany, in 1980. Those last eight words are the basis on which many Catholic Bishops and Cardinals are saying that the Catholic Church has no right to evangelize the Jewish people, etc., because their covenant is still in force. Such an attitude is manifest heresy. These bishops need to be rebuked, and the statement itself needs to be carefully clarified.

Love,
Jaypeeto3

Well, I agree, all should become Christian, and all Christians should become Catholic Christians. Perhaps we’re not to understand “not revoked” as “salvific.” Remember, the covenant of Moses spoke of the Jews having a land and becoming a people. Jews themselves didn’t come to believe in an afterlife until after the Bablylonian captivity.

 

[Ortho]

fcfahs:

Dear Albert Ko:

In my Roman Catholic highschool theology class (if not before) I was taught that the mass was said in Latin, not to make it cryptic of mysteriously secret like some Masonic ritual, but rather because Latin is a dead language. And, being a dead language (not subject to any change in the meaning of its words and/or or phrases), the use of it for saying the mass prevents the original meaning and import of the words of the mass from being adulterated by the evolutionary changes that a living language, like English, is subject to. Indeed, the meaning of some words and expressiond in our English language have not only changed, but have actually come to mean the exact opposite of their original meaning!

Just making an observation,

Frank

The idea of a dead language is interesting. Since it is not spoken, it is not learned as we learn our native language. When we learn Latin, we learn corresponding English words. So, changes in English word meaning can influence what one learns as the meaning of Latin words.

 

[Ortho]

MrS:

That is nearly a given. The good Pope will be publishing much on his views and expectations following the synod. It is meant to be published mid year 2006. We won’t have to wait long, God willing.

How comforting it will be to have a plan of action in place that may require bishops to conform to. There will be much dissent from the libs, and perhaps many will opt out for Protestantism. That will be sad.

Pray that more good priests and bishops will be able to teach and lead before too many leave.

Should the priest still celebrate mass behind a screen so the audience can’t see him? That’s how it used to be done. How does one determine what changes are acceptable?

 

[legeorge]

The old Covenant was revoked? I thought it was fulfilled in Jesus Christ. Is that wrong?

I refuse to believe that the Holy Spirit ran the Catholic Church off into a ditch. It’s impossible. As for specific refutations to sedevacantist arguments, I will leave that up to someone much wiser than me. I only know that it is impossible for the Church Jesus Christ established on earth to become corrupt. It is, after all, His Body. Besides, it is His promise to us. Those who insist differently are being misled and need to humble themselves and try harder to better understand the Church’s teachings.

I am more of a traditional Catholic myself. I am quite drawn to the pre-vatican II Mass. But that is because I didn’t grow up with it, and it is new to me. I have read a lot of the “traditionalist” literature, and one thing that always strikes me is the level of contempt that seeps out on every page. They are quite sure of themselves, aren’t they? It really comes accross as prideful and just plain mean sometimes. That just doesn’t say “God’s Truth” to me. In my view, they are no different than the Protestant “reformers”.

I really enjoyed the Chesterton quote. Thanks!!

 

[JKirkLVNV]

legeorge:

I have read a lot of the “traditionalist” literature, and one thing that always strikes me is the level of contempt that seeps out on every page. They are quite sure of themselves, aren’t they? It really comes accross as prideful and just plain mean sometimes. That just doesn’t say “God’s Truth” to me. In my view, they are no different than the Protestant “reformers”.

This is my reaction as well. I read a letter from the SSPX superior in Britain, Fr. Paul Morgan, in which he stated with confidence that the Pauline Rite would disappear when the Pope inevitably granted a universal indult on the Tridentine. Then he went on to talk about how the SSPX had so much to teach the Church. I have a great deal of trouble wishing him well at all, as I love the Pauline Rite, and I don’t really see the point of messing with them (the SSPX) except to call them to repentance. It’s ISN’T just the Mass for them, I think they want the council repudiated. At any rate, their smugness and superior attitude grates.

 

[rbrooks]

Thank you all for getting the thread moving again. Here’s the sedevacantist position, as explained to me, by a friend who holds the position.

Vatican II, by it’s nature is a dogmatic council. Therefore, the teachings of the council are to be held as doctrine, not discipline. Therefore, the changes made, or the contradictions to the past papal encyclicals and Church councils are in error, even heretical. They do not deny that the Holy Father is validly elected, nor do they deny that he validly holds the office of Pope. However, by default he forfiets his authority of the seat of Peter by means of manifest heresy. If corrections aren’t made to the errors of VII then the teaching authority is “fruit of the poisonous tree”. I hope I am on the correct track here. I have started looking into these things objectively and honestly. Understanding that this will be quite a task and will take some time.

Here is my reason for doing so. I am not justifying my actions, only providing food for thought here. As a husband and father of 5 children it is my responsability to care for the souls of my family. My concerns are as follows:

#1 Being at Mass in todays world is an occaision of sin. There are young ladies with thongs hanging out of their pants, and other provacative clothing. AT MASS!! That is a problem. Not just with the lack of individual modesty, but with the lack of leadership and fear of offending, our priests (most not all) are affraid to do anything about it. For the sake of attendence??

#2 We have entrust people who live in public sin the responsability of catechising our chilren. There are CCD teachers who may not be able to recieve our Lord in the Eucharist or don’t even attend Mass regularly. I personally have been in several discussions with my former priest about this issue and he failed to take any action. The priest who has replaced him has not done any better of a job regarding this issue. Again, leadership??

#3 The reverence of the Mass is gone. It is more like a social gathering then a sacrifice. It is almost impossible to pray before mass and for those of us who still kneal during the consecration, we are a minority. Again, this is not the case for all parishes, but certainly not uncommon in the Church throughout America.

I could continue with my list of issues that I hold personally. Now the question has to be raised, why is this happening? An obvious lack of leadership within the clergy, is just one answer I hold. So, if the leadership is lacking, where are we as Catholics really being lead.

I have no choice, in the name of salvation and truth to look into the matter and see what has gone wrong. I understand that there are some traditionalists out there that are completely off base and out of line. Is ther a solution to the problems in todays Church? This is what I intend to find out.

Does anyone else see these things also? Curious to see what your answers are.

God bless us all and fill us with your Spirit!
Rich