Saturday, 28 October 2017

Bishop Crosby of Hamilton "commemorates" the Reformation! His Cathedral is to Christ the King!

Coming Together in Common Prayer: The 500th Anniversary of the Reformation
One of these is Bishop Doug, the Catholic Bishop of Hamilton
In a Diocese with one of the most beautiful cathedrals in Canada outside of Quebec built in the 1930 and named after Christ the King, which commemorated the then recent institution of the Social Kingship of Christ the King by Pius XI on the protestant "Reformation Sunday," Bishop Douglas Crosby, OMI of Hamilton joins in celebration with Lutherans, the heretical poisonous action of that lecherous malefactor.

Clearly following the lead of Bergoglio of Rome, the one thing Crosby didn't do is erect a chocolate statue of the heretical Augustinian.

Celebrating and commemorating the loss of nation and peoples from the Church, the destruction of monasteries, the murder of hundreds of thousands of faithful Catholics, the spread of heresy, the creation of an environment of philosophical and theological error that persists to this day and which lead to the French Revolution, Freemasonry, Communism and Illuminism and the complete loss of faith of Germany and the rest of Europe. Yes, let us commemorate and celebrate that.

The article states, "the Spirit of God is calling us in our time to a renewed sense of common mission, prayer and service." What blasphemy. The Holy Spirit would only call protestants back to the unity of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Fifty years of this wretched false ecumenism and all it has done is make Catholics, protestant.

How many more stories such as this will we be subjected to this weekend?

Perhaps Bishop Doug should read this!

LUTHER? NOT A REFORM BUT A REVOLUTION
by Gerhard L. Cardinal Müller
There is great confusion today when we talk about Luther, and it needs to be said clearly that from the point of view of dogmatic theology, from the point of view of the doctrine of the Church, it wasn’t a reform at all but rather a revolution, that is, a total change of the foundations of the Catholic Faith.
It is not realistic to argue that [Luther’s] intention was only to fight against abuses of indulgences or the sins of the Renaissance Church. Abuses and evil actions have always existed in the Church, not only during the Renaissance, and they still exist today. We are the holy Church because of the God’s grace and the Sacraments, but all the men of the Church are sinners, they all need forgiveness, contrition, and repentance.
This distinction is very important. And in the book written by Luther in 1520, “De captivitate Babylonica ecclesiae,” it is absolutely clear that Luther has left behind all of the principles of the Catholic Faith, Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition, the magisterium of the Pope and the Councils, and of the episcopate. In this sense, he upended the concept of the homogeneous development of Christian doctrine as explained in the Middle Ages, even denying that a sacrament is an efficacious sign of the grace contained therein. He replaced this objective efficacy of the sacraments with a subjective faith. Here, Luther abolished five sacraments, and he also denied the Eucharist: the sacrificial character of the sacrament of the Eucharist, and the real conversion of the substance of bread and wine into the substance of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. Furthermore, he called the sacrament of episcopal ordination, the sacrament of Orders, an invention of the Pope — whom he called the Antichrist — and not part of the Church of Jesus Christ. Instead, we say that the sacramental hierarchy, in communion with the successor of Peter, is an essential element of the Catholic Church, and not only a principle of a human organization.
That is why we cannot accept Luther’s reform being called a reform of the Church in a Catholic sense. Catholic reform is a renewal of faith lived in grace, in the renewal of customs, of ethics, a spiritual and moral renewal of Christians; not a new foundation, not a new Church.
It is therefore unacceptable to assert that Luther’s reform “was an event of the Holy Spirit.” On the contrary, it was against the Holy Spirit. Because the Holy Spirit helps the Church to maintain her continuity through the Church’s magisterium, above all in the service of the Petrine ministry: on Peter has Jesus founded His Church (Mt 16:18), which is “the Church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15). The Holy Spirit does not contradict Himself.
We hear so many voices speaking too enthusiastically about Luther, not knowing exactly his theology, his polemics and the disastrous effect of this movement which destroyed the unity of millions of Christians with the Catholic Church. We cannot evaluate positively his good will, the lucid explanation of the shared mysteries of faith but not his statements against the Catholic Faith, especially with regard to the sacraments and hierarchical-apostolic structure of the Church. 
Nor is it correct to assert that Luther initially had good intentions, meaning by this that it was the rigid attitude of the Church that pushed him down the wrong road. This is not true: Luther was intent on fighting against the selling of indulgences, but the goal was not indulgences as such, but as an element of the Sacrament of Penance.
Nor is it true that the Church refused to dialogue: Luther first had a dispute with John Eck; then the Pope sent Cardinal Gaetano as a liaison to talk to him. We can discuss the methods, but when it comes to the substance of the doctrine, it must be stated that the authority of the Church did not make mistakes. Otherwise, one must argue that, for a thousand years, the Church has taught errors regarding the faith, when we know — and this is an essential element of doctrine — that the Church can not err in the transmission of salvation in the sacraments.
One should not confuse personal mistakes and the sins of people in the Church with errors in doctrine and the sacraments. Those who do this believe that the Church is only an organization comprised of men and deny the principle that Jesus himself founded His Church and protects her in the transmission of the faith and grace in the sacraments through the Holy Spirit. His Church is not a merely human organization: it is the body of Christ, where the infallibility of the Council and the Pope exists in precisely described ways. All of the councils speak of the infallibility of the Magisterium, in setting forth the Catholic faith. Amid today’s confusion, in many people this reality has been overturned: they believe the Pope is infallible when he speaks privately, but then when the Popes throughout history have set forth the Catholic faith, they say it is fallible.
Of course, 500 years have passed. It’s no longer the time for polemics but for seeking reconciliation: but not at the expense of truth. One should not create confusion. While on the one hand, we must be able to grasp the effectiveness of the Holy Spirit in these other non-Catholic Christians who have good will, and who have not personally committed this sin of separation from the Church, on the other we cannot change history, and what happened 500 years ago. It’s one thing to want to have good relations with non-Catholic Christians today, in order to bring us closer to a full communion with the Catholic hierarchy and with the acceptance of the Apostolic Tradition according to Catholic doctrine. It’s quite another thing to misunderstand or falsify what happened 500 years ago and the disastrous effect it had. An effect contrary to the will of God: “… that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou has sent me” (Jn 17:21).

11 comments:

Ana Milan said...

Why didn't ++Müller state this prior to PF's trip to Lund? Silence = complicity. Saving one's back often results in dismissal from office &, maybe in this case, with God's approval. He needs soldiers not 'yes' men.

Peter Lamb said...

MARTIN LUTHER ON THE TEN COMMANDMENTS

Christ taught:
“If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.”[2]

Luther in speaking of the commandments teaches:
“Their only purpose is to show man his impotence to do good and to teach him to despair of himself”[3]

“‘Thou shalt not covet,’ is a commandment which proves us all to be sinners; since it is not in man’s power not to covet, and the same is the drift of all the commandments, for they are all equally impossible to us.” (De Lib. Chris.tom 4:2)

“Moses is an executioner, a cruel lictor, a torturer a torturer [sic.] who tears our flesh out with pincers and makes us suffer martyrdom . . . Whoever, in the name of Christ, terrifies and troubles consciences, is not the messenger of Christ, but of the devil . . . He [Christ] is not rough, severe, biting like Moses, who looks like the very devil and speaks in a way that our heart almost vanishes before him. For he has lips overflowing with gall and wrath, that have been embittered with laurel and gall, in fact, with hellish fire. [So away forever with Moses!*] Let us therefore send Moses packing and for ever.”[4]
*According to other translations.
“We must remove the Decalogue out of sight and heart.” (De Wette 4, 188)
“It does not matter what people do; it only matters what they believe.”[5]

“If we allow them - the Commandments - any influence in our conscience, they become the cloak of all evil, heresies and blasphemies.” (Comm. ad Galat, p. 310)

What is more is that scripture constantly declares the greatness of the commandments and the importance of keeping them:

Psalms 19 :7 “The law of the Lord is perfect, reviving the soul; the decrees of the Lord are sure, making wise the simple; the precepts of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart; the commandment of the Lord is clear, enlightening the eyes.”

MARTIN LUTHER ON FREE WILL

Christ taught:
“Not every one who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.”[6]

Luther teaches:
“...with regard to God, and in all that bears on salvation or damnation, (man) has no ‘free-will’, but is a captive, prisoner and bond slave, either to the will of God, or to the will of Satan.”[7]

“...we do everything of necessity and nothing by ‘free-will’; for the power of ‘free-will’ is nil...”[8]
“Man is like a horse. Does God leap into the saddle? The horse is obedient and accommodates itself to every movement of the rider and goes whither he wills it. Does God throw down the reins? Then Satan leaps upon the back of the animal, which bends, goes and submits to the spurs and caprices of its new rider... Therefore, necessity, not free will, is the controlling principle of our conduct.God is the author of what is evil as well as of what is good, and, as He bestows happiness on those who merit it not, so also does He damn others who deserve not their fate.”[9]
“His (Judas) will was the work of God; God by His almighty power moved his will as He does all that is in this world.”[10]

Peter Lamb said...

MARTIN LUTHER ON REASON

Christ taught:
“Be therefore, wise as serpents and simple as doves”[11]

“You know then how to discern the face of the sky: and can you not know the signs of the times?”[12]

Luther teaches:
“No good work happens as the result of one’s own wisdom; but everything must happen in a stupor . . . Reason must be left behind for it is the enemy of faith.”[13]

“Reason is the devils handmaid and does nothing but blaspheme and dishonor all that God says or does.”[14]

“Reason is directly opposed to faith, and one ought to let it be; in believers it should be killed and buried.”[15]

“One should learn Philosophy only as one learns witchcraft, that is to destroy it; as one finds out about errors, in order to refute them”[16]

MARTIN LUTHER ON SIN

Christ taught:
“He that commits sin is of the devil: for the devil sinned from the beginning. For this purpose, the Son of God appeared that He might destroy the works of the devil.” (1 John 3:8)

Luther teaches:
“A person that is baptized cannot, thou he would, lose his salvation by any sins however grievous, unless he refuses to believe. For no sins can damn him but unbelief alone.”[17]

“Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world. We will commit sins while we are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides... No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day.”[18]

“Do not ask anything of your conscience; and if it speaks, do not listen to it; if it insists, stifle it, amuse yourself; if necessary, commit some good big sin, in order to drive it away. Conscience is the voice of Satan, and it is necessary always to do just the contrary of what Satan wishes.”[19]

This is just a sample. More @ http://www.catholic-saints.net/martin-luther/

Brian said...

Vox:
This Crosby is a member of the vast "Modernistocracy" that makes up the college of bishops. Those orthodox priests (and there are some) of the Church of Hamilton will, sadly, remain silent.

LORD deliver us from the negligence of the bishops.

Kathleen1031 said...

Well, thanks Peter Lamb, that is informative. What a plague on mankind, and no wonder we are in the state we are in, and no wonder the man in the Vatican is embracing Protestantism. This is right up their alley.

Jay Jay said...

Hmmm, "Doug" huh? I'm gonna guess he's the transgender on the right. But that would be too easy though. Ya got me VOX!

Irenaeus said...

Well, I cringe saying it, but Hamilton's been going along a shaky rock road for a while now. The Hamilton seminarians are a little concerned with what they are seeing.

susan said...

Peter Lamb....you are a treasure.

Peter Lamb said...

Thanks Susan. :) :) :)

Peter Lamb said...

"If Bergoglio is in heresy, is he still Pope?"

NO! NO! NO! SAYS:

1. The topic of a pope becoming a heretic was addressed at the First Vatican Council by Archbishop Purcell, of Cincinnati, Ohio: “The question was also raised by a Cardinal, ‘What is to be done with the Pope if he becomes a heretic?’ It was answered that there has never been such a case; ... from the moment he becomes a heretic he is not the head or even a member of the Church. The Church would not be, for a moment, obliged to listen to him when he begins to teach a doctrine the Church knows to be a false doctrine, and he would cease to be Pope, being deposed by God Himself. (The New Princeton Review, Volume 42 p. 648, also The Life and Life-work of Pope Leo XIII. By James Joseph McGovern p. 241.)

2.Bull of Pope Paul IV — Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio, 1559 :
“Further, if ever it should appear that any bishop (even one acting as an archbishop, patriarch or primate), or a cardinal of the Roman
Church, or a legate (as mentioned above), or even the Roman Pontiff
(whether prior to his promotion to cardinal, or prior to his election
as Roman Pontiff), has beforehand deviated from the Catholic faith or
fallen into any heresy, We enact, decree, determine and define ... by that very fact and WITHOUT NEED TO MAKE ANY FURTHER DECLARATION, shall be deprived of any dignity, position, honor, title, authority, office and power.”

3. Canon 188.4 (1917 Code of Canon Law) teachers that : If a cleric (pope, bishop, etc.) becomes a heretic, he loses his office without any declaration by operation of law.

4. St. Alphonsus Liguori: – “If ever a Pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he should at once fall from the Pontificate. If, however, God were to permit a pope to become a notorious and contumacious heretic, he would by such fact cease to be pope, and the
apostolic chair would be vacant.”

5. “Given, therefore, the hypothesis of a pope who would become notoriously heretical, one must concede without hesitation that he would by that very fact lose the pontifical power, insofar as, having become an unbeliever, he would by his own will be cast outside the body of the Church.” (Billot — De Ecclesia, 1927.)

6. Now the fifth true opinion, is that a Pope who is a manifest heretic, ceases in himself to be Pope and head, just as he ceases in himself to be a Christian and member of the body of the Church: whereby, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics soon lose all jurisdiction…. The foundation of this opinion is that a manifest heretic, is in no way a member of the Church; that is, neither in spirit nor in body, or by internal union nor external….
(St. Robert Bellarmine, On the Roman Pontiff, Vol. 1, Book II, Chapter 30, trans. Ryan Grant [Mediatrix Press, 2015], pp. 304-310.)

!

Peter Lamb said...


7. "If someone is not even capable of being a member of the Church on account of public heresy, then much less could he be the head of the Church! This stands to reason, for “it is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church” (Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Satis Cognitum, n. 15.)

8. “Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith… For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or HERESY or apostasy…”
(Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Mystici Corporis, nn. 22-23).

9. Coronata — Institutions Juris Canonici, 1950: "...if the Roman Pontiff were to profess heresy, before any condemnatory sentence (which would be impossible
anyway) he would lose his authority.”

10. Billot — De Ecclesia, 1927 – “Given, therefore, the HYPOTHESIS of a pope who would become notoriously heretical, one must concede without hesitation that he would by that very fact lose the pontifical power, insofar as, having become an unbeliever, he would by his own will be cast outside the body of the Church.”

11. St. Francis de Sales: – “Now when the Pope is explicitly a heretic, hefalls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church . . . ”

12. St. Alphonsus Liguori: – “If ever a Pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he should at once fall from the Pontificate. IF,however, God were to permit a pope to become a notorious and
contumacious heretic, he would by such fact cease to be pope, and the
apostolic chair would be vacant.”

13. St. Antoninus: – “In the case in which the Pope would become a
heretic, he would find himself, by that very fact alone and WITHOUT ANY OTHER SENTENCE, separated from the Church. A head separated from a body cannot, as long as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut off.”

14. Wernz-Vidal — Canon Law, 1943 – “Through notorious and openly divulged heresy, the Roman Pontiff, should he fall into heresy, by that very fact (ipso facto) is deemed to be deprived of the power of
jurisdiction even BEFORE ANY DECLATORY JUDGEMENT BY THE CHURCH… A
Pope who falls into public heresy would cease ipso facto to be a
member of the Church; therefore, he would also cease to be head of the Church.” And also: “A doubtful pope is no pope.”

15. Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913 – “The Pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be Pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.”

That's enough to make the point. An heretic cannot become, or remain Pope. So speaks the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ!!!