So disheartened. Feel like leaving Church.

[bear06]

Actually no, he was excommunicated for being a cross-dresser who liked to fondle little boys in between black masses and before gay rallies. There’s something in there about him denying the true presence, inviting clowns and scuba-divers onto the altar and hosting co-ed naked tarot card readings with leaders of other religions and cults.

Thanks for the heads up…

Oh bother, another person who likes to point the finger at someone else to excuse Archbishop Lefebvre.

 

[stevusmagnus]

tomorrow I’ll be heading for a mass that isn’t extraordinary, just exTRAORdinary. The sanctuary will be whole, unbroken, undefiled. The priest will face God, not me. We will kneel to recieve Our Lord, not dance our way up the aisle. We will say the prayers at the foot of the alter. ** Lefebvre was excommunicated for his protection of this. **

Steve

The boldface section is what I was responding to. Lefebvre was excommunicated for illicit consecration, not his protection of the Tridentine Rite.

I used to go to SSPX Chapels. The people there were devout and well meaning Catholics, so were the priests.

However, the bottom line is authority. If you attempt to “sift” through Papal teaching post Pius XII, accepting some doctrines and rejecting others, you need a standard. The standard for the SSPX was Abp, Lefebvre. Now who is it? Bishop Fellay? Is Bishop Fellay the infallible interpreter of Tradition?

You get into the problem of Protestantism. The Pope is the Vicar of Christ and we can trust his teachings and those official teachings of the Church with certainty. When we start to question this or that teaching of the Pope we become our own Pope. Or else we set someone else to be Pope, whether it be Abp. Lefebvre or Bishop Fellay. No matter how personally holy they are morally, they do not have the charism of infallibility. They are incapable of becoming a magisterium unto themselves.

Steve, I think it’s providential your last name is Sanborn.

Please read this article by the Rev. Donald Sanborn.
It helped me to find peace and return to the Church.

I hope that it will help you as well.

traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=50&catname=12

God Bless,

Steve

 

[bear06]

I know I shouldn’t judge, but sure looks like Steve went way beyond slander!

OK, I’m sure this will be the last time I defend Steve but he was being sarcastic. He really should learn to use the smilies. I think that’s even in the rules. He was referencing the liberal wackos in order to excuse Lefebvre.

 

[SeanTom]

After reading all of the postings on this topic, I feel I am one of the few who seems to be in the right place at the right time. We have three priests, all of whom give a minimum of 15 minute homilies which are based on the Gospel readings. We have several Bible studies, and all are packed. In fact we have to have two of he Bible studies repeated in the evening so that everyone that wants to can attend. We have a Nun leading one of them and a Theologan leading others. Two of our Bible studies are “A walk through the old and new testaments” and the one I attend is on “The Book of Revelation”.

We have about 1600 families and have enough Committees going on that we can put them all to work. We have a very active large Men and Women’s Club plus the Knights of Columbus (The Knights have their own building on the premises).

I distribute Communion and after Mass my wife and daughter runs the Catholic Book store which is also in the Church building.

I love my Catholic church and I feel so sorry for those of you do not have the opportunity to belong to a church as I do.

We also have a meeting once a month between the Eastern and Western churches (Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Byzintine), consisting of priests from these churches, to discuss the difference in those faiths and the steps we can take to better our relationships in an Ecuminical setting.

I realize that all churches aren’t alike, and that all Priests aren’t alike - we are all different and all sinners to some extent. But the Catholic Faith will never change no matter what happens in individual churches.

I can only say, please have patience and look to the bright side of our faith. Don’t let “blips” in your churches take away from your faith.

 

[Like]

OK, I’m sure this will be the last time I defend Steve but he was being sarcastic. He really should learn to use the smilies. I think that’s even in the rules. He was referencing the liberal wackos in order to excuse Lefebvre.

My apologies, I had not read any of his other post & that one just jumped completely off my screen. SORRY STEVE:blush:

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

It sounds to me that you need to see another priest at a different church. Believe me there are many orthodox Catholics and priests out there. Despite what this seemingly misguided priest has said, we as Catholics do believe firmly in the primacy of the pope, who under the guidance of the Holy Spirit is infallible on matters of faith and morals. Both the issues of homo-sexuality (the practice of - not the tendency to) and contraception are morally wrong. The Catholic Church, headed by the pope is the one true Church founded by Jesus Christ. We are the only Church that has an apostolic succession that goes back in an unbroken line to the time of Jesus and the apostles. I don’t know where you are from, but try, if you are able,to listen to Catholic Radio. It is loaded with much good advice and has many programs that deal with Catholic issues and morality and everything you seem to be inquiring about. If you have specific questions, please respond to this reply and I will do my best to try to help you. You will be in my prayers…
God bless
Deacon Ed B

 

[Cranch]

The Catholic Church, headed by the pope is the one true Church founded by Jesus Christ. We are the only Church that has an apostolic succession that goes back in an unbroken line to the time of Jesus and the apostles.

Welcome to CAF! While not in communion with Rome, the Orthodox Churches possess along with the Catholic Church true Apostolic succession. This is made clear in the Decree on Ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio:15 §3 These Churches, although separated from us, yet possess true sacraments and above all, by apostolic succession, the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are linked with us in closest intimacy. Therefore some worship in common (communicatio in sacris), given suitable circumstances and the approval of Church authority, is not only possible but to be encouraged.

 

[scottm]

Alright my dear friend, I can see you are serious in your faith and I am happy for you. You are quite intelligent, why not get “some” Catholic GOOD books, and read it for yourself.

Yes, I take religion very seriously. PM me some suggested books. (If you have any that you’re done with I’ll accept a donation. )

To tell you the truth, there is like 10% of the stuff I learn is from the priest, I do personal reading all the time and debate and so on.

Church shouldn’t be this way. The “Great Commission” was to “teach them all the things that I have taught you.” Hello, mister priest! Why aren’t you teaching me?

But to go to another church is the worst thing you can do, I dont care how much you think they love Jesus.

Hey, that’s what my friend Anthony says! He’s one of the two Catholic guys who gives me encouragement.

ONE word that is truly said with the best thought and faith is greater then everything a pastor could say.

I do not share your assumption that a non-Catholic pastor is incapable of saying anything doctrinal correct. I think there’s good and bad, both, on both sides of Christianity.

 

[TuEsPetrus]

I distribute Communion and after Mass my wife and daughter runs the Catholic Book store which is also in the Church building.

Ohh man and I was like yes this is great a guy. The only thing is that being a good conscious person who knows so much about theology and still be a Eucharistic minister. I tell you this in the name of Charity , when anyone who does not have consecrated hands touches the host it is a sacrilege (mortal sin once you know its wrong). So whoever you give the eucharist only receives a wafer rather then the Body, blood, soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, even if you say a tridentine mass and give the Eucharist you commit and the same results after a wafer rather than the real presence. The church has had that policy for the past something 1980 years maybe about, with a few exceptions like under persecution. Again I tell you this with love and good admonishing. Not with a evil intention.

 

[bear06]

Ohh man and I was like yes this is great a guy. The only thing is that being a good conscious person who knows so much about theology and still be a Eucharistic minister. I tell you this in the name of Charity , when anyone who does not have consecrated hands touches the host it is a sacrilege (mortal sin once you know its wrong). So whoever you give the eucharist only receives a wafer rather then the Body, blood, soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, even if you say a tridentine mass and give the Eucharist you commit and the same results after a wafer rather than the real presence. The church has had that policy for the past something 1980 years maybe about, with a few exceptions like under persecution. Again I tell you this with love and good admonishing. Not with a evil intention.

Usurping more authority than the Pope has given again? By the way, he didn’t say he was a eucharistic minister (there is no such thing oh educated one). He said he distributed Communion which, of course, would make him an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion. There is no indication that it’s the EF at his church so I think we can assume that’s the OF. I believe the Holy Father gave permission for their extraordinary use. And, again, btw, did you notice that his parish had 1600 families. That’s families, not people. That could be quite a few people in that Mass. Here is the teaching on the matter:

§ 2. Extraordinary ministers may distribute Holy Communion at eucharistic celebrations only when there are no ordained ministers present or when those ordained ministers present at a liturgical celebration are truly unable to distribute Holy Communion.(99) They may also exercise this function at eucharistic celebrations where there are particularly large numbers of the faithful and which would be excessively prolonged because of an insufficient number of ordained ministers to distribute Holy Communion

Not, I am not in favor of the abuse of EMHCs. In fact, my church doesn’t use them. We also don’t have 1,000 or more people at my church. So, next time you tell someone that they’re going to committ a mortal sin if they distribute Communion, learn all of the facts first.

 

[TuEsPetrus]

Maybe I am wrong in the sense the he is a EM, but even in those “special cases”. 1600 families and not enough priest that is sad first of all, but that is not the point. Do you wear gloves? You can reiterate all you want about this exception or that or w/e. The church right now gives so many annulments where as before the church would have maybe 2 or 3 annulments per year if you had a “busy year”. Now it is HUNDREDS and HUNDREDS thousands worldwide. I guess King Henry VIII in our times would be one of our special “exemptions” and it is kind of sad that a whole country went schismatic, heretical in order to defend the sanctity of one of the sacraments. How there were early martyrs in the Church that would die so that no one would ever sacrilege the Holy Eucharist just to touch it w/o consecrated hands to the point of death to defend the sanctity of the sacrament of the Eucharist. You can give all the excuses you want the only valid ones in my eyes are the SUPER SUPER EXRAORDINARY beyond belief and nature type of exception for giving out communion. Blah blah blah excuses are like door knobs everybody has them. If it takes 10 to 15 more minutes in the mass so be it and just offer more masses so that not all the families are in the same one, you can spent all that extra time in more prayer and thanksgiving to God. Not only that if you put the kneelers it is faster to give communion like that. Rather then in a straight line where you have to wait for one person to take it then the next. If you put kneelers and have more masses then the distribution of communion is quicker. But who cares right if we have to do something extra to defend the sacred.

 

[Holly3278]

If I were you, I’d just check around the other parishes in your area and see if you find one that you like. Remember that if you leave the Church, you’re more than likely leaving the Eucharist.

 

[SeanTom]

Ohh man and I was like yes this is great a guy. The only thing is that being a good conscious person who knows so much about theology and still be a Eucharistic minister. I tell you this in the name of Charity , when anyone who does not have consecrated hands touches the host it is a sacrilege (mortal sin once you know its wrong). So whoever you give the eucharist only receives a wafer rather then the Body, blood, soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, even if you say a tridentine mass and give the Eucharist you commit and the same results after a wafer rather than the real presence. The church has had that policy for the past something 1980 years maybe about, with a few exceptions like under persecution. Again I tell you this with love and good admonishing. Not with a evil intention.

I want you to know that I conform and obey the strict policies of the Pope, with personal written documentation from our Bishop, to distribute Communion in accordance with the accepted procedures of our Church. I don’t believe it necessary to defend myself any further. Perhaps you should be addressing your concerns with the Bishops and on up to the Pope. What I do is in good conscience and with the blessings of our priests, our Bishop and Pope. This matter is closed as far as I’m concerned, except to say that I am truely sorry that you feel the way you do.

May the peace of the Lord be with you and may you be enlightened by the directives as handed down by our church superiors.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Do you not deny Papal Infallibility? The Immaculate Conception? Purgatory?

As the Apostles didn’t teach them, yes we deny them.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

History does recall that:

Pope Pius XI, A. D. 1922-1939: “Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors. Did not the ancestors of those who are now entangled in the **errors of Photius [the eastern “Orthodox” schismatics]**and the reformers [the Protestants], obey the Bishop of Rome, the chief shepherd of souls?

“If, then, the Greeks or others say that they were not committed to the care of Peter and his successors, they necessarily confess that they are not of the sheep of Christ; for the Lord says, in John, that there is one fold, one shepherd, and one only.” (Unam Sanctam) Pope Boniface VIII

“Therefore if a man does not want to be, or to be called, a heretic, let him not strive to please this or that man …] but let him hasten before all things to be in communion with the Roman See. If he be in communion with it, he should be acknowledged by all and everywhere as faithful and orthodox. He speaks in vain who tries to persuade me of the orthodoxy of those who, like himself, refuse obedience to his Holiness the Pope of the most holy Church of Rome: that is to the Apostolic See.” (Quoted by Pope Leo XIII in Satis Cognitum)

“They, therefore, walk in the path of dangerous errors (ie. heresy) who believe that they can accept Christ as the head of the Church, while not adhering loyally to His Vicar on earth. They have taken away the visible head, broken the visible bonds of unity and left the Mystical Body of the Redeemer so obscured and so maimed, that those who are seeking the haven of eternal salvation can neither see it nor find it.” Pope Pius XII

“So little does the Roman Church stand alone, as you think, that in the whole world any nation that in its pride dissents from her is in no way a church, but a council of heretics, a conventicle of schismatics, and a synagogue of Satan.”

• Pope Leo IX speaking of the Orthodox at the time of the schism

Yes at the time he was busy overturning the precedence of his predecessor Pope St. Leo III, and demanding the filioque be translated into the original Greek (he was accusing us of dropping it, to give you an idea of how straight was his “facts”), which, with meaning of the original ekporeuomai, comes out as a statement that the Latin church now even admits is heretical, and forbids the translation of the filioque into Greek.

 

[SemperFidelis]

Yes at the time he was busy overturning the precedence of his predecessor Pope St. Leo III, and demanding the filioque be translated into the original Greek (he was accusing us of dropping it, to give you an idea of how straight was his “facts”), which, with meaning of the original ekporeuomai, comes out as a statement that the Latin church now even admits is heretical, and forbids the translation of the filioque into Greek.

Way come back with my quote so late in the game, but the truth is to Catholicism, Orthodoxy is heresy, and on more than one issue than just the filoque. Most Orthodox consider us as heretical, and that’s fine if they do. Ya’ll feel that you are right, and we feel we are right.

 

[Genesis315]

Way come back with my quote so late in the game, but the truth is to Catholicism, Orthodoxy is heresy, and on more than one issue than just the filoque. Most Orthodox consider us as heretical, and that’s fine if they do. Ya’ll feel that you are right, and we feel we are right.

The error of rejecting the authority of the Pope, even after the First Vatican Council, has always been considered to fall under the sin of schism. The Orthodox are rightly considered schismatical, not heretical. In fact, Popes such as Leo XIII and Pius XI as well as those who presided over the reunion of the Eastern Catholic Churches have never required any change in theology, but only the acceptance of the authority of the Roman Pontiff.

They call us heretics because they misunderstand Catholic teaching on subjects, not because they profess errors per se.

 

[SemperFidelis]

The error of rejecting the authority of the Pope, even after the First Vatican Council, has always been considered to fall under the sin of schism. The Orthodox are rightly considered schismatical, not heretical. In fact, Popes such as Leo XIII and Pius XI as well as those who presided over the reunion of the Eastern Catholic Churches have never required any change in theology, but only the acceptance of the authority of the Roman Pontiff.

But those same Popes have also spoken of the Orthodox as being heretical.

 

[lak611]

just offer more masses so that not all the families are in the same one, you can spent all that extra time in more prayer and thanksgiving to God.

There is a limit on the number of Masses a priest is allowed to say in a day. It may be that he is already at his limit and cannot say any more.

 

[Genesis315]

But those same Popes have also spoken of the Orthodox as being heretical.

Again, the “error” you spoke of has been classified under the sin of schism, not heresy. They reject a meaning of the Filioque we don’t subscribe to (ie, double procession as from two principles) and likewise they believe Mary was all Holy her entire life and free from all sin, but they think we divinize her on earth, whereas we acknowledge this happening in Heaven (where we all will experience theosis). It is the fires of Purgatory they object to, not the fact that man is in need of cleansing and perfecting after death.

The declaration of them as being heretical by popes around the time of the schism was a result of misunderstanding as we both ascribed meanings to terms that the other did not ascribe.

The Popes rightly declared things heretical that were heretical, but that doesn’t mean they were actually professed as such by a certain group. We see this with the Oriental Orthodox being called monophysite, when they actually do not profess the error of Eutychetes.