The Second Vatican Council conclusively clarified the question whether the deacon receives the Sacrament of Orders. The Sacrament of Orders is received not only by the bishop and the priest, but also by the deacon. If there is only one Sacrament of Orders (in three stages, that is, deacon, priest, bishop), the admission of women would be sacramental, transmitted through ordination, diaconate would mean their admission to priestly and episcopal ordination.
During a recent diaconal ordination, I noted that sitting beside the bishop at his throne was not a priest, but a deacon. During the whole Mass, the bishop was assisted at the altar and at the faldstool, by a deacon. Following the ordination, the new deacon took his proper place at the altar beside the bishop. It was obvious, that the first role of the deacon, is to assist the bishop. The deacon is first and foremost, a liturgical minister. He also assists the bishop, as the prayers made clear, in other assignments, including charitable actions on the bishop's behalf.
The Second Reading for the Mass of Ordination was appropriately from the Book of Acts beginning at chapter six. Let us take a look at what Holy Scripture states. I have chosen it from the New Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition, just to point out that the newest, most scholarly translation, and the one used in the approved Canadian Lectionary, is quite clear:
6 Now during those days, when the disciples were increasing in number, the Hellenists complained against the Hebrews because their widows were being neglected in the daily distribution of food. 2 And the twelve called together the whole community of the disciples and said, “It is not right that we should neglect the word of God in order to wait on tables. 3 Therefore, friends, select from among yourselves seven men of good standing, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may appoint to this task, 4 while we, for our part, will devote ourselves to prayer and to serving the word.” 5 What they said pleased the whole community, and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and the Holy Spirit, together with Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolaus, a proselyte of Antioch. 6 They had these men stand before the apostles, who prayed and laid their hands on them.
Note that, they selected "seven men." Seven men, not seven women!
Not even one, woman!
Not even one, woman!
Not. One. Woman!
Not Phoebe. Not Miriam. Not Sarah. Not Elizabeth. Not Mary.
Not any woman.
They chose men.
Not Phoebe. Not Miriam. Not Sarah. Not Elizabeth. Not Mary.
Not any woman.
They chose men.
Who are we in our modernist mindset to argue with the Apostles. Only a fool or an apostate would attempt it. Who are you, who am I to dispute Holy Scripture. Who is any priest or any so-called, "theologian." Who is any bishop or cardinal to do this? What kind of pope would think this even possible.
To put the matter to rest, Pope John Paul II had the matter studied. No women deacons. He also pronounced definitively, no women priests. The matter was studied decades ago. Instead of just admitting he misspoke, which would be a true sign of humility, Francis charges ahead. Why? Is it because he cannot admit he erred? Is it to placate women that this is something to study and then reject? Cruel, to be sure and dishonest. Is it to change the Church and blame those opposed to his Peronist schemes as not trusting the "god of surprises?"
To put the matter to rest, Pope John Paul II had the matter studied. No women deacons. He also pronounced definitively, no women priests. The matter was studied decades ago. Instead of just admitting he misspoke, which would be a true sign of humility, Francis charges ahead. Why? Is it because he cannot admit he erred? Is it to placate women that this is something to study and then reject? Cruel, to be sure and dishonest. Is it to change the Church and blame those opposed to his Peronist schemes as not trusting the "god of surprises?"
Based upon what he did at the Synod, I suspect that if the Commission does not do as he wants, he will do what he wants; and I suspect it will be to have some kind of women deacons.
Women were never deacons.
Any women that may have been called such were the wives of deacons. They assisted women getting into baptismal pools and other functions for the sake of modesty. They were not ordained.
No woman can be ordained deacon.
No woman can take the role of the deacon described above.
If a woman wishes to "serve," she can become a religious sister or a contemplative nun. How hard is this for the Bishop of Rome and feminist, radical religious and their aiders and abettors such Phyllis Zagano to understand. The fact is, they do understand it. They want women priests even if they don't live long enough to see it! That is what this is about. This is the nose of the camel into the tent.
Those who are pushing for this are apostates.
Those who are pushing for this are apostates.
We follow Our Lord Jesus Christ and the revealed truth of Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition as it has been handed down to us. Period!
The Pope is being irresponsible by undertaking this unnecessary commission and Phyllis Zagano, is an apostate!
Any diocesan official such as the Judicial Vicar for the Archdiocese of Toronto, who would sit on a panel discussing and promoting "women deacons" and not denounce such ideas is misleading the faithful. What position did the Reverend Brian Clough take on the matter of women deacons when he had the chance at St. Michael's College? Did the Judicial Vicar reject it? Did he correct Phyllis Zagano and denounce the idea? Did he remain silent on it?
When you're a bishop, such as Durocher of Hull, what does it say about you when you go to a Synod on the Family and raise this heretical agenda of women deacons?
Let the light shine.
When you're a bishop, such as Durocher of Hull, what does it say about you when you go to a Synod on the Family and raise this heretical agenda of women deacons?
Let the light shine.
70 comments:
I'm getting geriatric; I stand rejected by my family and my Catholic friends as a heretic, i.e. a sedevacantist, but I can't understand why. I was born a Catholic. I was educated by beloved Loretto Nuns and Christian Brothers. I clearly remember the days before the Catholic Church was invaded by judeo-masons; the sacred beauty of it. There was no disunity among Catholics. Well, I haven't changed and Catholicism hasn't either, so where have I gone wrong? Follow my reasoning and show me my mistake.
There has been much talk of Amoris Laetitia. Now in the old days, this Apostolic Exhortation would have been indisputably Magisterial. It was promulgated by the Pope, as Pope, as teaching on Faith and Morals, to the Universal Church and all Catholics would have joyfully accepted it and submitted to it, the Church being Infallible and Indefectible and the Pope teaching with the Authority of Christ, Himself.
However, in AL 297 the Pope says:
“No one can be condemned for ever, because that is not the logic of the Gospel!”
Now that does not gel with what Sr. Colombo taught me from the Penny Catechism!
Listed among the Dogmas of the Catholic Church are the following:
1. The souls of those who die in the condition of personal grievous sin enter Hell.
2. The punishment of Hell lasts for all eternity.
The Pope denies a Dogma of the Faith! It is a one liner; in black and white; there is nothing ambiguous; nothing that requires a long, complicated theological explanation. The Church says punishment in hell lasts for eternity. The Pope says it does not! The Pope utters an indisputable, undeniable, formal (public, manifest), pertinacious (knowingly), heresy!
Am I correct? Let's check the definition of Heresy:
“Heresy consists in a stubborn denial of truths which have been defined and proposed by the Church as divinely revealed doctrines.”
(Canon 1324-1325 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law).
And Pope Benedict XV says:
"Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected: “This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly; he cannot be saved"
(Encyclical Ad Beatissimi, n. 24)
So, if he's a heretic and out of the Church, can he still be Pope? Apparently not:
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; the Council of Bishops could depose him for heresy, for 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.)
The Papal Bull Cum ex apostolatus officio of Pope Paul IV teaches that: if anyone was a heretic before the Papal election, he could not be a valid pope, even if he is elected unanimously by the Cardinals. 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. St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Antonius, St. Francis deSales, St. Alphonsus Liguori, and many other theologians all teach that a heretic cannot be a pope.
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.”
For brevity, I just quoted one Saint and for the same reason here's one theologian:
“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.)
Well, that seems pretty clear to me. An heretic cannot become Pope, because he's not a member of the Church and if a Pope becomes an heretic, he is no longer Pope and the Chair of Peter is vacant. Such is my logic and my problem is that I just cannot fault it. Also the Church seems to agree. I must be missing something?
So, what to do about it, the Pope being a heretic? Well, I did some checking up and here's what I found. (Again only a few for brevity.):
St. Cyril of Alexandria:
“It is unlawful, and a profanation, and an act the punishment of which is death, to love to associate with unholy heretics, and to unite yourself to their communion.”
St. Athanasius:
“Saint Anthony never held communion with the Meletian schismatics, knowing their wickedness and rebellion from the beginning; neither did he have friendly converse with the Manichees or any other heretics, except only to warn them to return to their duty, believing and teaching that their friendship and society was harmful and ruinous to the soul. Thus also he loathed the Arian heresy, and taught all men neither to go near them nor to partake in their bad faith.
II Lateran Council
“The accursed perversity of heretics has so increased that now they exercise their wickedness not in secret, but manifest their error publicly, and win over the weak and simple-minded to their opinion. For this reason, We resolve to cast them, their defenders, and their receivers under anathema, and We forbid under anathema that any one presume to help heretics or to do business with heretics."
St. Thomas Aquinas:
To know whom to avoid is a great means of saving our souls. Thus the Church forbids the faithful to communicate with those unbelievers who have forsaken the faith by corrupting it, such as heretics, or by renouncing it, such as apostates.”
Well, as far as I can see, a Catholic must have nothing to do with a false heretical "pope", or his church and so I don't. But what about the "Recognise and Resisters" who recognise an heretic as still being a valid Pope and Bp. Fellay and the SSPX, who also do and who offer the Sacrifice of the Mass to God in union with an heretic and who want to join the heretic's church? What can they see that I cannot see? Why do some of them hate sedevacantism and call me an heretic? Am I not just following the teaching of Holy Mother Church? Why do they ostracize me? I just don't get it, but I suppose it's part of getting geriatric!?
Peter:
I guess the reason is that sedes display a total lack of obedience & discipline by discontinuing communion with Rome. It is not for the ordinary member of the laity to discern whether or not the Pope & Hierarchy of the day are heretics - that is for a Council to decide, & the only one who can call it is the Pope, which PF will not, naturally, do. As most of the Hierarchy is comprised of IMO heretics, there may not be the numbers to force him to remove himself, as apparently there were in getting PBXVI to resign. It is now a question of waiting until PF goes over the accepted line ,i.e. by Canon Lawyers, & teaches manifest heresy. They keep telling us this line has not, as yet, been transgressed.
It is truly a shocking situation & one that calls for Divine intervention which will happen when the Pope(?) consecrates Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary which Our Lady has said will be done but late. It is then we expect to witness Her Triumph which should finally put an end to Marxist/Masonic/Modernism once & for all. Again, while having serious doubts about PF's election, as it wasn't carried out in accordance with JPII's instructions but rather they ignored them completely, it is up to the Prelates to decide & not us pew sitters whether we like it or not.
With Lund approaching & the 100th Anniversary of Fatima in May of next year, there is bound to be some striking occurrence between Rome & Heaven. I expect to see the Word of Christ that He will be with His Church until the end of time being clearly made manifest & the usurpers of His Church punished. Clearly we must believe that God understands our situation absolutely, but expects us to remain faithful to Him & His Church despite all the trials we have endured for the past sixty years. By leaving the jurisdiction of Rome we are rejecting His competence to restore His Bride to the greatness He wishes her to have, but in His own time. We are nobody's in His eyes & He will not be told when, how or what must be done. Patience & Trust are the required optimum.
For Phyllis Zagano the apostate Satan has a bed in Hell waiting for her. St. Paul says; Work out your Salvation in fear and Trembling. Obiviously she's not.
Dear Ana,
"It is not for the ordinary member of the laity to discern whether or not the Pope & Hierarchy of the day are heretics - that is for a Council to decide ..."
The question whether Jorge Bergoglio is a public Catholic, or a public non-Catholic cannot be a matter of opinion: We know what he professes in public, and we know how he acts in public. That is all any Catholic, who knows his Faith, needs to know to be able to make a judgment - not a legal one but a cognitive one - on whether Bergoglio speaks heresy, or not. The objective evidence indicates that the man is not a Roman Catholic. Francis is not a Catholic but a Modernist, a Naturalist, a Sillonist, an Ecumenist, an Indifferentist, and a Communist.
We know what Catholicism is, and so we necessarily also know what is not Catholicism, i.e. what contradicts Catholicism. We judge by fact and not in the order of law. No lay Catholic could issue a legal judgment against Francis, because such a legal judgment would indeed require the special authority of the College of Cardinals. But the legal judgment, although desirable, is not necessary to be able to know that Francis is an apostate and thus not Pope. It is not necessary because the fact of Francis’ apostasy is manifest — if it weren’t manifest, we wouldn’t be talking about it! In canonical language, Francis’ departure from the faith is "notorious in fact", and even in an ecclesiastical trial, what is notorious does not need any further proof, much less a judgment:
"[T]he judge, and in general the person in authority, holding what is notorious to be certain and proved, requires no further information, and therefore, both may and ought to refrain from any judicial inquiry, proof, or formalities, which would otherwise be necessary. For these inquiries and formalities having as their object to enlighten the judge, are useless when the fact is notorious. Such is the true meaning of the axiom that in notorious matters the judge need not follow the judicial procedure….
(The Catholic Encyclopedia, s.v. “Notoriety, Notorious”)
Bergoglio deposed himself long ago by committing the sin of heresy. Canonical deposition by the Cardinals, if it ever happens, merely serves to depose him in the legal order, in the interest of good Church Governance.
29 July 2016
SEDEVACANTISM: only for new readers.
I don't want to bore faithful long-time readers of my effusions ... but (happily) new readers do keep turning up. To these I desire to make clear that it is my policy to decline to enable posts which assert or imply Sedevacantism.
I have often written on this distasteful subject, and my pieces can, I presume, be accessed by means of the Search Engine.
Two very brief pointers.
(1) Sedevacantism is the other side of the coin of Ultrapapalism (Hyperbergoglioism?) expressed by a number of the undesirables who surround the Holy Father. In each case, there is the same erroneous major premise.
The Pope is a demigod;
Bergoglio is clearly not a demigod;
Therefore Bergoglio is not pope.
The Pope is a demigod;
Bergoglio is pope;
Therefore Bergoglio is a demigod.
BOTH ARE HERESIES contrary to the teaching of Vatican I about the papal office.
(2) Whichever of the many forms of sedevacantism you are tempted by, subject it to the Pope Honorius Test. He was condemned by an Ecumenical Council and anathematised by a successor. But can anyone produce any evidence that the Council, or any subsequent popes who condemned him, or any reputable ecclesistical writer, has ever argued that Honorius had ceased to be Pope at the moment when he acted heretically?
Whether or not you like Bergoglio, he is, beyond any shadow of doubt, the Pope.
You endanger your soul if you risk flirting with such ideas.
Posted by Fr John Hunwicke at 10:48
Dear Fr. Hunwicke, With respect, that was not a very theological critique of sedevacantism. :)
Father, you, yourself, have failed the "Pope Honorius test!" You see, Pope Honorius was not a heretic!
"Can anyone produce any evidence that the Council, or any subsequent popes who condemned him, or any reputable ecclesistical writer, has ever argued that Honorius had ceased to be Pope at the moment when he acted heretically?"
Yes, I can!
Both St. Richard Bellarmine and the Fathers of Vatican I examined the question of whether there had ever before been heretical Popes in the history of the Church, in detail:
Saint Robert: In his tome, "Controversarium de Summo Pontifice, Liber Quartus, de Potestate Spirituali", St. Robert carefully examined all the cases of every true pope who had ever been accused of heresy, up to his own time. He, as was natural to him, proved conclusively that such a thing had never, ever, in fact occurred. In chapter six of that book, he goes further and says: "Since it can be proven that no true pope has ever become an heretic, THIS IS A SIGN FROM HEAVEN THAT IT CAN NEVER OCCUR."
Vatican I:
"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 HAD NEVER BEEN SUCH A CASE."
(The New Princeton Review, Volume 42 p. 648, also The Life and Life-work of Pope Leo XIII. By James Joseph McGovern p. 241.) [The Council examined 40 alleged cases.]
So, there we have it Father. According to Vatican I and St. Robert Bellarmine there never had been an heretical Pope, up to their times and Pope Honorius lived before their times. I am not inclined to dispute such authorities!
Dear Father, no sedevacantist on Earth says the Pope is a demigod! To say that would be heresy most foul!
No, dear Father, Sedevacantism is not the other side of the coin of Ultrapapalism, nor is it a distasteful subject! Sedevacantism is traditional Catholicism, pure, simple and unadulterated by Modernism. The many forms of sedevacantism? I only know of one, which states that a heretic cannot become Pope and a Pope cannot be an heretic.
I'm sure a debate on the subject, based on Catholic doctrine and theology, could be most instructive to all, but ad hominem attacks merely display a paucity of counter argument. Might that be why your policy is to decline to enable posts which assert or imply Sedevacantism?
Vox's blog is, in my experience, unique, in that he permits free, unimpeded debate among traditional Catholics who seek answers in these troubled times. He expresses, but never imposes his views and allows all to speak freely. His Readership statistics reflect the success and popularity of his blog. Might your Readership not improve, if you did the same?
I beg pardon and humbly apologize to Fr. Hunwicke! I attributed the comment to him when I read: "Posted by Fr John Hunwicke at 10:48." My response should have been directed to "Mick Jagger gathers no Mosque".
Good comments all.
Either way, I think we are stuck with him until and unless God decides to change things. I'm not holding my breath anymore waiting for any council to be called or any bishop to intervene in any way whatsoever. At this point I have doubts that if he acts on his own (again) and declares we can have women deacons and that Cecile Richards is going to be one of them, that our bishops would raise a hair.
Peter:
You cannot argue against Christ. He left His Church in the hands of St.Peter whom He knew would deny Him three times & who, together with most of the other Apostles (save John) would scarper through fear. At the end of the day we are all human, we don't have hindsight nor can we predict the future. Any CEO of a big company would tell you it is a miracle that the CC is still functioning, being run as it has been for over 2,000 years by people who have little cognisance of how a huge institution should be managed & with all the in-fighting that has been going on down through the ages.
The Schismatics & Protestants also were not satisfied with the governance of the CC & after many arguments decided to leave saying it was not going in the direction that God wanted it to go. The gross amount of churches & sects they both have founded is witness enough that none of them is the Church of Christ on earth. The only one that can still manage to trace its existence back to St. Peter & the First Apostles is the One Holy Catholic & Apostolic Catholic Church.
I don't like descriptions such as Traditional, Neo Cats, R&Rs, Conservative, Sedevacantist, for the simple reason we are all baptised Catholics & despite personal concerns about Vat II & its scuppering by Modernists we are all destined for Heaven unless we turn our backs on God in a very big way. If Popes & Hierarchies to whom much is given have done so they will reap the whirlwind. If Catholics leave the CC for what they believe the best reasons & refuse to partake in the still valid Holy Sacrifice of the Mass & the Sacraments, they also will have to accept the outcome. If all the predictions to date which are coming to pass at an inordinate speed are factual, we are nearing the End Times. This is not a time to give up on Christ.
In my youth to be a 'lapsed Catholic' was considered worse that being a Protestant because we were baptised & confirmed in Christ's Church & they weren't., nor had they access to the Holy Mass or sacraments as their forefathers had rejected them. To reject them because of the presumed Marxist/Masonic Modernist/ & heretical status of the reigning Pope is putting yourself beyond the jurisdiction Christ gave His Apostles & their successors. We all have to listen to the Holy Ghose - not the God of surprises. Satan is no match for God & if he reigns at the moment in the Vatican it is with His will. We cannot know the reason but patiences is a virtue - seldom in a woman but never in a man.
"Any CEO of a big company would tell you it is a miracle that the CC is still functioning ..."
No dear Ana, it is not a miracle; it's because Christ promised that He would be with His Church and that the Holy Ghost would guide it, until the end of time. The Catholic Church is the one true Church and it is not the church of Bergoglio. A day, or two ago, you said: "It's unbelievable how far this man is prepared to go down the road of perdition. He couldn't possibly be Catholic," You were correct - he is not. Catholics who leave the conciliar church take the Catholic Church with them - they are the Catholic Church. I don't think any of us intend to give up on Christ Ana. :)
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=20981956&postID=8539030333124636743&isPopup=true
Denying the Divinity of the Eucharist
by Feminizing the Church:
10 Quick & Easy Pastoral Steps!
1. Mess with the Canon.
2. Rip out altars (of sacrifice, replace with a "mensa").
3. Rip out altar rails (ie: eliminate kneeling).
4. Enforce communion in-the-hand (progress).
5. Enforce female altar servers (thanks Sodano).
6. Introduce Extraordinary Ministers (hordes of females - for the leftover females who need "active participation" add liturgical dancing).
7. Rename them "Eucharistic Ministers" (the title only of the priest, the ordinary minister).
8. Feminize the Church with pro-homosexuality sermons, music, drama, groups, outreach, and finally, tacit approval of "gay" priests.
9. Ordain female deacons.
10. Ordain female priests.
When this finally occurs, we will have noticed that someone has fallen by the wayside, not much thought of anymore, gee, what happened to her? The beautiful, holy and immaculate virgin Mater Dei.
Ironically, when the Church is feminized, it will be emasculated, and we will not need the SON of MAN as our Savior. The sign of this apostasy is Mary - sidelined... and along with her we lose all the glory, beauty, sanctity, sweetness, purity, loveliness, gentleness, peace and holiness of the Faith.
I kept on digging the hole deeper looking for the treasure until I finally lifted my head,looked up and realized that I had dug my own grave.
St Dominic
I don't know whether you purposefully misread my posts but your responses seem to indicate such. My reference to what a CEO would say of the CC was made because only the Holy Ghose could save it from itself & therefore it had to be the One Holy Catholic & Apostolic Church of Christ on earth. No-one here ever said it was Bergoglio's Church or any other Pope's Church but all Popes have been elected by their peers to the Papal Office & as such we have to accept them. The fact that the people of Rome accept Bergoglio as their Vicar means the rest of us have to as well - unless the Cardinals & Canon Lawyers can come up with something tangible to denounce PF with, which they haven't. The fact that I personally don't believe him to be a Catholic is neither here nor there. Until the Hierarchy tell us that he is definitely NOT a Catholic & by definition NOT Pope we have to shrug our shoulders & carryon regardless. The apostasy is theirs, not ours.
I do not agree that you take the Catholic Church with you when you leave - that was what Luther thought. He said it was not the Church God founded & then started making his own rules. The Orthodox similarly had misgivings about papal infallibility & they are still arguing amongst themselves. Anyone leaving the CC with the same mindset saying there are no valid priests, hierarchy, pope is fooling themselves. As you concede Christ is still with His Church, it is a great pity you are not.
I am leaving this thread now as I find your contentions delusional. It is out of order to try & dissuade Catholics to leave the REAL Church Christ founded for yet another sect/company of people waiting it out to see what happens rather than living according to the sacraments of their baptism & confirmation & staying faithful to Christ in the Church He founded. If & when that Church becomes Satan's we shall all know, but we who remain place our full confidence in Jesus being still with us according to His promise.
Vox said..."To put the matter to rest, Pope John Paul II had the matter studied. No women deacons."
Vox, the commission's 2002 A.D. document, "From the Diakonia of Christ to the Diakonia of the Apostles," left open the question on the ordination of women to the diaconate.
The International Theological Commission stated that the "deaconesses mentioned in the tradition of the ancient Church...were not purely and simply equivalent to the deacons;"
"The unity of the sacrament of Holy Orders, in the clear distinction between the ministries of the bishop and the priests on the one hand and the diaconal ministry on the other, is strongly underlined by ecclesial tradition, especially in the teaching of the Magisterium."
That leans against the ordination of women to the diaconate. However, the commission left open the question about ordaining women to the diaconate.
That said, the Magisterium will, of course, answer the question about women deacons.
I find it difficult to believe that His Holiness Pope Francis would authorize the ordination of women to the diaconate. Pope Francis said the following in regard to women:
"There is no problem for a woman – religious or lay – to preach in the Liturgy of the Word. There is no problem.
"But at the Eucharistic Celebration there is a liturgical-dogmatic problem, because it is one celebration – the Liturgy of the Word and the Eucharistic Liturgy, there is unity between them – and He Who presides is Jesus Christ.
"The priest or bishop who presides does so in the person of Jesus Christ. It is a theological-liturgical reality. In that situation, since women are not ordained, they cannot preside."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Vox said...Instead of just admitting he misspoke, which would be a true sign of humility, Francis charges ahead. Why? Is it because he cannot admit he erred? Based upon what he did at the Synod, I suspect that if the Commission does not do as he wants, he will do what he wants; and I suspect it will be to have some kind of women deacons."
1. Vox, I don't understand as to how His Holiness Pope Francis "erred" in this matter. During am audience with 800 women general superiors, he was asked the following:
"Why not set up an official commission to study the question?"
Pope Francis said that he had been informed that in the Early Church, "the role of the deaconesses was to help with the baptisms of women, the immersion, they were baptizing them, for the sake of decorum; also to anoint the bodies of women in baptism.
"And also something curious: when there was a marriage trial, because the husband was beating his wife, and she went to the bishop to complain, the deaconesses were charged with looking at the bruises left on the body of the woman from her husband’s beatings and informing the bishop."
2. Pope Francis accepted the request.
3. There wasn't anything to suggest that he had "erred" or "misspoke" when he answered the question.
4. He noted the impossibility of women preaching at Mass...that means, adios to women's ordination to the diaconate.
Pope Francis said about women preaching at Mass: "Then there is the problem of preaching at the Eucharistic Celebration. There is no problem for a woman – religious or lay – to preach in the Liturgy of the Word. There is no problem.
"But at the Eucharistic Celebration there is a liturgical-dogmatic problem, because it is one celebration – the Liturgy of the Word and the Eucharistic Liturgy, there is unity between them – and He Who presides is Jesus Christ.
"The priest or bishop who presides does so in the person of Jesus Christ. It is a theological-liturgical reality. In that situation, since women are not ordained, they cannot preside."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
The "Catholic" church; the Spirit of Vatican II.
Who needs Deaconettes - they already have them:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVCWzFyn-jM
Vox said..."Based upon what he did at the Synod, I suspect that if the Commission does not do as he wants, he will do what he wants; and I suspect it will be to have some kind of women deacons."
-- I don't know what His Holiness Pope Francis "did at the Synod."
-- Pope Francis' remarks to the International Union of Superiors General weigh heavily against his favoring the ordination of women to the diaconate. As I noted in an earlier comment here, Pope Francis said that at Mass, the notion of a woman preaching "is a liturgical-dogmatic problem, because it is one celebration – the Liturgy of the Word and the Eucharistic Liturgy, there is unity between them – and He Who presides is Jesus Christ."
"The priest or bishop who presides does so in the person of Jesus Christ. It is a theological-liturgical reality. In that situation, since women are not ordained, they cannot preside."
Good luck to those who believe that Pope Francis will permit the ordination of women to the diaconate. Pope Francis rained on that belief.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
By coincidence, I saw Fr. Hunwicke's post on his blog, (posted above by Mick Jagger gathers no Mosque), a few minutes ago. I read the following disclaimer and was genuinely rather shocked by it. I'll break it into segments to illustrate why I found it shocking:
Firstly he uses his priestly title in the title of his blog, thus making clear to the Reader that what he reads, is written by a Catholic Priest, which should impart some aura of authority and orthodoxy, to reassure the Catholic Reader.
Now the disclaimer:
"He [Fr. Hunwicke] is now incardinated into the Personal Ordinariate of our Lady of Walsingham."
- good to know.
"The opinions expressed on this Blog are not asserted as being those of the Magisterium of the Church, but as the writer's opinions as a private individual."
- Wow! So, a Catholic Priest is letting us know in advance, that his opinions/writings might not conform to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church! Gee, this should discourage any Catholic from reading one word that this man writes! When a Priest talks to me, I want to hear what the Church teaches, not his private opinions, which he tells me, might be in conflict with what the Church teaches.
"Nevertheless, the writer strives, hopes, and prays that the views he expresses are conformable with and supportive of the Magisterium."
- Crazy! He should have paid attention and striven harder in seminary classes, so he could be sure that as a Priest, his views reflected those of the Church.
"Nothing on this site is to be taken as representing the views of the Ordinariate of our Lady of Walsingham, of its Ordinary, or of any part of it."
- No fear of that Father, I'll never be reading a word on your blog.
Peter Lamb, you seem to know very little about Fr. Hunwicke. He's not only quite "orthodox" and devoted to the traditional church, he is truly intelligent, not a poseur like so many blogging priests. In the opinion of many, he is the ONLY Catholic priest on the entire web worth following.
Mark Thomas said, "I don't know what His Holiness Pope Francis "did at the Synod."
Oh? I actually think you do! If you've been coming to this blog as frequently then as you do now, you certainly do! You're just shamelessly feigning ignorance.
And you need to familiarize yourself with the Bergolian strategy, the same he used at the Synod, which you say you "don't know" about.
The strategy is to open those doors that were authoritatively shut. Put Tradition on the one hand. Heresy on the other. Find a synthesis.
Just as he did for Holy Communion for public adulterers as in Amoris Letitia (which you have run away form answering as to how it's teachings on conscience don't contradict Veritas Splendor). Francis, through this Commission can act to bring about a synthesis position for enlarging the role of women to ACT like Deacons and DO what Deacons do, YET not be ordained.
Because in the end, he and other modernists, the same ones who tinkered with the Mass know... it's all about the appearances. Lex Orandi and all that... Their work is not total revolution overnight. It's the work of a hundred years.
They will count on you Mark Thomas to defend them every step of the way by appealing to the little vague gates they leave open for you to pretend that practice doesn't hurt doctrine.
Johnno,
1. I "ran away" from what? (By the way, your time is better spent then taking digs at me...or attempting to place me on the defensive. That won't work.)
2. Yes..."they" can "count on" me to "defend them every step of the way by appealing to the little vague gates they leave open for you to pretend that practice doesn't hurt doctrine."
What "they" can count on is that I will submit to Holy Mother Church and the Vicar of Christ as God commands me. If that upsets you...sorry.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
All these Mark Thomas comments help this humble, unintelligent visitor to understand the meaning of papolatry.
Mark Thomas:
If you're going to write more in the comment section than the blogger has written in his post you really should start your own blog.
I come here to read Vox Cantoris not Mark Thomas.
Mark Thomas -
---"I "ran away" from what?"---
Perhaps you missed reading what I said above, it tells you precisely what you ran away from which is back in the previous deaconness thread.
---"By the way, your time is better spent then taking digs at me...or attempting to place me on the defensive. That won't work."---
Please clarify the grammar in this sentence. And are you admitting that by 'placing you on the defensive' means you therefore have no response to the evidence I and others have put forth for you? You consider that intellectual honesty? Hence you are 'running away.'
---"What "they" can count on is that I will submit to Holy Mother Church and the Vicar of Christ as God commands me. If that upsets you...sorry."---
What upsets me is you automatic reliance on authority without critically thinking and simply swallowing every heretical statement and treasonous action hook, line and sinker, because... 'authority.' Which you then go to lengths to defend hap-hazardously and with dishonest means of selective quotation and convenient appeals to your supposed ignorance of matters that you'd have to be living under a rock to not know about, which doesn't sound true given our dealings with you, so we are aware that you are engaging in dishonest argumentation about not only the Pope's character, or the situation in the Church, but also about yourself.
No Mark, I think my time is better spent calling you out so as to better expose your errors to anyone who might just as uncritically accept what you put here, while you play the lamb; and also to (perhaps futilely) help you to whatever extent my knowledge and patience can afford whilst praying for you. This, after reading and then trying to ignore your many posts for a very very long time.
I've frankly had enough and so have others. So if I see you spreading faulty arguments or slanted opinions, you're going to be called out. And I encourage others to do likewise. Get used to it.
Dave, Is everyone who posts on your blog crazy?
Many are; and I love them all!
Johnno, feel free to call me out.
But I wish to make certain of one thing...are you in communion with His Holiness Pope Francis? I just wish to be certain that you're in communion with the True Church. I want to be certain that I'm dealing with somebody who obeys God.
Do you adhere to the following teaching of the True Church (First Vatican Council):
"Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate.
"Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.
"In this way, by unity with the Roman Pontiff in communion and in profession of the same faith, the Church of Christ becomes one flock under one Supreme Shepherd.
"This is the teaching of the Catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Johnno, thank you for explaining the sentiments of the rest of us here. It only takes one person to totally ruin a blog's combox. I used to come here and enjoy reading the informative points others made. Now every one of Vox's posts are jammed with a Polyanna attacking everyone else who is willing to call a spade a spade. It makes me sick. The same thing has happened now over at Eponymous Flower. I'm sorry to sound harsh Mark Thomas, but commenters like you are exactly the reason Rorate Caeli had to close their comboxes for good.
Mark Thomas -
Of course I do and accept those teachings of Vatican I.
Now I ask you, do you also accept these following teachings, also from Vatican I's Paster Aeternus?
---------------
3. To SATISFY THIS PASTORAL OFFICE, our predecessors strove unwearyingly that the saving teaching of Christ should be spread among all the peoples of the world; AND WITH EQUAL CARE THEY MADE SURE THAT IT SHOULD BE KEPT PURE AND UNCONTAMINATED WHEREVER IT IS RECEIVED.
4. It was for this reason that the bishops of the whole world, sometimes individually, sometimes gathered in synods, according to the long established custom of the Churches and the pattern of ancient usage referred to this Apostolic See those dangers especially which arose in matters concerning the faith. This was to ensure that any damage suffered by the faith SHOULD BE REPAIRED in that place above all where the faith can know no failing [59] .
5. The Roman pontiffs, too, as the circumstances of the time or the state of affairs suggested, sometimes by summoning ecumenical councils or consulting the opinion of the Churches scattered throughout the world, sometimes by special synods, sometimes by taking advantage of other useful means afforded by divine providence, defined as doctrines to be held those things which, by God's help, THEY KNEW TO BE IN KEEPING WITH SACRED SCRIPTURE AND THE APOSTOLIC TRADITIONS.
6. For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter NOT SO THAT THEY MIGHT, by his revelation, MAKE KNOWN SOME NEW DOCTRINE, but that, by his assistance, THEY MIGHT RELIGIOUSLY GUARD AND FAITHFULLY EXPOUND THE REVELATION OR DEPOSIT OF FAITH TRANSMITTED BY THE APOSTLES. Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: "I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren."[60]
7. This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this See so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ MIGHT BE KEPT AWAY BY THEM FROM THE POISONOUS FOOD OF ERROR AND BE NOURISHED WITH THE SUSTENANCE OF HEAVENLY DOCTRINE. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole Church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell.
8. But since in this very age when the salutary effectiveness of the apostolic office is most especially needed, not a few are to be found who disparage its authority, we judge it absolutely necessary to affirm solemnly the prerogative which the only-begotten Son of God was pleased to attach to the supreme pastoral office.
9. Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our Savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the EXERCISE OF HIS OFFICE as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, IRREFORMABLE.
Hey Mark, Good to see you quoting some pre-Vatican II magisterium! :)
Yip! what you quote about the Pope is true and applies to every Catholic. Problem is it only applies to a Pope.
Bergoglio denies the dogma of eternal punishment, which makes him an heretic, so obviously your quote doesn't apply to him, because as the same pre-Vatican II magisterium says, " from the moment he becomes a heretic he is not the head or even a member of the Church."
Johnno said..."Of course I do and accept those teachings of Vatican I."
That is fine. Then you are in communion with His Holiness Pope Francis. You recognize him as the Vicar of Christ. You submit to Pope Francis' authority. You recognize that he has been authorized by God to teach, govern, and sanctify you.
You recognize that only the Church's Magisterium has the authority to interpret Church documents. You recognize, for example, that the Magisterium, not you, has the authority to interpret Amoris Laetitia. That is good news.
In obedience to God, you accept with meekness your call as a Catholic to offer your "religious submission of mind and will" to the "authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will."
Very good.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
You know, it occurs to me that we may soon face a validly ordained male deacon transitioning to a female. Strange times we live in.
Blogger Peter Lamb said..."Hey Mark, Good to see you quoting some pre-Vatican II magisterium! :)"
Peter, I quote the "pre-Vatican II" Magisterium, the "post-Vatican II" Magisterium, the...it's the same Magisterium.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Lamb said..."Bergoglio denies the dogma of eternal punishment, which makes him an heretic..."
Peter, by whose authority are you able to pronounce Pope Francis a "heretic"?
Thank you.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
The Church pronounces him a heretic Mark:
“Heresy consists in a stubborn denial of truths which have been defined and proposed by the Church as divinely revealed doctrines.”
The punishment of Hell lasts for all eternity - Dogma of the Catholic Church.
“No one can be condemned for ever, ..." - Bergoglio.
Anybody who denies Catholic dogma is a heretic - makes no difference what his position in the Church is Mark.
Let's not forget the popes recent pronouncement that Luther was right.
God bless your patience, Johnno!
Lynda, Is that you? :)
Peter Lamb,
His Holiness Pope Francis denies eternal punishment? He doesn't But I am more interested the following as I'm certain that Pope Francis is orthodox.
Peter, I wish to make certain the following:
-- Are you a sedevacantist who believes that Pope Venerable Pius XII was the last true Pope? Or are you among those who believe that Pope Saint Pius X was the last true Pope?
-- Are the only true Catholics on earth to be found among sedevacantists who believe that Pope Venerable Pius XII (or is it those who favor Pope Saint Pius X) was the last true Pope?
-- Peter, who are the only true bishops on earth? The list must be very short.
-- Peter, why don't sedevacantists elect a Pope?
-- Peter, what is your opinion of the Recognize-but-Resist argument that certain Catholics offer in regard to how they view Pope Francis?
Thank you.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark Thomas -
How about before you start asking more questions of others you actually answer the many questions we've asked of you?
And can you at least attempt to rebut the actual statements and actions others point out about Pope Francis rather than deflecting the conversation away into other topics and attempting to shift the spotlight onto other people? We can see through your passive tactics.
Oh, but "His Holiness Pope" Jorge does deny eternal punishment Mark! I gave you the citation, but in case you didn't notice it, here it is again:
Amoris Laetitia 297:
"It is a matter of reaching out to everyone, of needing to help each person find his or her proper way of participating in the ecclesial community and thus to experience being touched by an “unmerited, unconditional and gratuitous” mercy. NO ONE CAN BE CONDEMNED FOR EVER, BECAUSE THAT IS NOT THE LOGIC OF THE GOSPEL! Here I am not speaking only of the divorced and remarried, but of everyone, in whatever situation they find themselves."
Be very interested in this Mark! This one line denial of Catholic dogma puts "His Holiness" right out of the Church and infinitely far from orthodoxy! Be aware of the consequences of defending heretics Mark.
1. Pope Pius XII was indeed the last true Pope.
2. Are sedes the only true Catholics? Canonically speaking no, but they are indeed the only Catholics who practice unadulterated pre-Vatican II Catholicism.
3. All Bishops consecrated in the "old" rite, by Bishops consecrated in the "old" rite are true Bishops - any surviving NWO Bishops who qualify, sede, SSPX. There are many and there will always be, because the Succession of Peter is guaranteed until the end of time.
4. Canon law prohibits any group of Catholics from sitting around the kitchen table to elect their own Pope. The Pope is elected by the College of Cardinals, who are governed by specific laws. The theologians have detailed the sequence of electors who would preside, should all Cardinals be obliterated simultaneously.
5. R&Rs act in complete contradiction to traditional Catholic teaching regarding the Papacy. A good example:
Father de Cacqueray, SSPX, writes:
"Pope Francis, like all his predecessors since the Council, is a revolutionary. He is in rupture with the immutable Tradition of the Church and he is teaching in its stead a new doctrine that is poisoning souls."
In that one sentence, Fr. de Cacqueray has brought the whole "recognize and resist" house of cards ecclesiology via a free fall collapse into its own footprint. Father admits, as does t he Society of St. Pius X, that Jorge Bergoglio is teaching a false doctrine. What did St. Paul say about such a situation? "If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema."!
Bishop Bernard Fellay, at the 2013 Angelus Conference in Kansas City, described "Pope" Francis as a "genuine modernist". By that statement, Bp. Fellay is calling Jorge a super heretic, because St. Pius X unequivocally condemns modernism as the synthesis of ALL heresies!
To recognise an heretic as Pope, to offer the Sacred Mass to the Father IN UNION with a super heretic is not Catholic. Where there is no hatred of heretics, there is no holiness!
To sift the magisterium of a Pope for orthodoxy is not Catholic. I could provide you with pages and pages of magisterial teaching in this regard, but a combox is too short. Maybe just a few quickies:
"Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."
(Pope Boniface VIII, Bull Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302)
"Nor will We permit anything against the sanctity of the oath by which We were bound when, however undeservingly, We ascended the supreme seat of the prince of the apostles, the citadel and bulwark of the Catholic faith."
(Pope Pius IX, Encyclical Qui Nuper, n. 3)
"Be vigilant in act and word, so that the faithful may grow in love for this Holy See, venerate it, and accept it with complete obedience; they should execute whatever the See itself teaches, determines, and decrees."
(Pope Pius IX, Encyclical Inter Multiplices, n. 7)
"This is Our last lesson to you: receive it, engrave it in your minds, all of you: by God's commandment salvation is to be found nowhere but in the Church; the strong and effective instrument of salvation is none other than the Roman Pontificate."
(Pope Leo XIII, Allocution for the 25th Anniversary of his Election, Feb. 20, 1903; excerpted in Papal Teachings: The Church, n. 653)
"Union with the Roman See of Peter is ... always the public criterion of a Catholic .... "You are not to be looked upon as holding the true Catholic faith if you do not teach that the faith of Rome is to be held."
(Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Satis Cognitum, n. 13)
If you are seriously interested in the problems with R&R, read this for starters:
http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/Resist-Franken-P.pdf
Time to get serious and Catholic about this stuff Mark.
Disclaimer: I intend in no way to be hostile towards those who don't agree. I am merely trying to explain the sede response to our situation, in an effort to disperse the wild statements sometimes made regarding sedevacantism and the false views sometimes attributed to sedes. I will be grateful if anybody can point out to me, anything I have said, which is not Catholic.
Peter Lamb,
Thank you for your replies. I agree with you in regard to Recognize & Resist. R&R folks insist that Pope Francis is Pope. During Mass, R&R folks unite to the priest's (via the Roman Canon) commemoration of Pope Francis as the Pope of the True Church.
R&R folks affirm that Pope Francis holds and teaches the orthodox Apostolic Faith. R&R folks, via the prayers of the Holy Mass, acknowledge that with God and authorized by Him, Pope Francis guards, unites, and governs the True Church.
However, the R&R folks, also hold that Pope Francis is a satanic, vile heretic, who is determined to shipwreck the Faith. R&R recognize Pope Francis as orthodox and heretical. That is preposterous.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Peter Lamb said...
"Pope Pius XII was indeed the last true Pope."
Peter, why are you correct about that? There are sedevacantists who insist that Pope Saint Pius X is the last true Pope. Why are they wrong?
===================================================================
Peter Lamb said..."Are sedes the only true Catholics? Canonically speaking no, but they are indeed the only Catholics who practice unadulterated pre-Vatican II Catholicism."
But Pope Venerable Pius XII, whom you recognize as the last true Pope, established many radical changes to "unadulterated pre-Vatican II" Catholicism.
Examples:
-- As a Sedevacantist, you condemn Catholic participation in the Ecumenical Movement. Correct? You condemn the practice of Catholics praying with schismatics and heretics. That is a grave sin against God, according to "unadulterated pre-Vatican II" Catholicism. Correct?
However, Pope Venerable Pius XII, whom you recognize as last true Pope, insisted that the Holy Spirit inspired the creation of the Ecumenical Movement. Pope Venerable Pius XII also authorized prayer with heretics and schismatics.
Peter, if you obey Pope Venerable Pius XII's teachings, then you accept the above, which goes against "unadulterated pre-Vatican II" Catholicism as practiced prior to Pope Venerable Pius XII's Pontificate.
-- Peter, as you practice "unadulterated, pre-Vatican II" Catholicism, then you condemn Pope Venerable Pius XII's radical fasting reforms. Correct?
Pope Venerable Pius XII's radical reforms in question are contrary to the traditional fasting practices that were in place prior to his Pontificate.
-- Peter do you accept or condemn the many radical liturgical reforms that Pope Venerable Pius XII enacted? If you accept his radical liturgical reforms/novelties, then how do you practice "unadulterated, pre-Vatican II" Catholicism?
However, if you condemn and refuse to adhere to his radical liturgical reforms, then you practice Recognize & Resist in regard to Pope Venerable Pius XII. Correct?
Peter, I am interested in your responses to all of the above. I wish to understand as to how you reconcile Pope Venerable Pius XII's undeniable liberalism and radical reforms to your belief that he is the last true Pope.
Thank you
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Peter Lamb said..."Are sedes the only true Catholics? Canonically speaking no, but they are indeed the only Catholics who practice unadulterated pre-Vatican II."
Peter, if sedevacantists are not the only true Catholics, then that means that Catholics who belong to the so-called "heretical Vatican II Church" are true Catholics. Correct?
If one can be a true Catholic without being a sedevacantist, then Catholicism is basically a matter of one's tastes. That is, a Catholic can practice "post-Vatican II Catholicism while remaining a true Catholic. Or one could opt for sedevacantism while remaining a true Catholic. Either way, one remains a true Catholic.
Therefore, pre-Vatican II and post-Vatican II Catholicism are merely two forms of the one Catholic religion.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Peter Lamb said..."Canon law prohibits any group of Catholics from sitting around the kitchen table to elect their own Pope. The Pope is elected by the College of Cardinals, who are governed by specific laws."
But if sedevacantists are the only true Catholics, which was my understanding when I asked my question, then sedecavacantists are not just any old group of Catholics gathered about the kitchen table.
But my question doesn't apply as you noted that sedevacantists are not the only true Catholics.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Peter Lamb said..."All Bishops consecrated in the "old" rite, by Bishops consecrated in the "old" rite are true Bishops - any surviving NWO Bishops who qualify, sede, SSPX."
Peter, what does the "old rite" guarantee as Popes Saint John XXIII, John Paul I, and Saint John Paul II, who, in your opinion, were false and heretical Bishops of Rome, were consecrated bishops via the "old rite" by bishops who, in turn, had been consecrated via the "old rite."
What does adherence to the "old rite" guarantee in regard to orthodoxy? Throughout the centuries, many priests/bishops/Cardinals ordained via the "old rite" had fallen into heresy.
Therefore, what does "consecration" via the "old rite" prove?
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Dear Mark, To recognize that a formal (true) Pope cannot be both orthodox and heretical, is a great step forward.
I've never heard of sedevacantists who regard St. Pius as the last true Pope.
Mark you have very skewed ideas about Pope Pius XII. He magisterially condemned false ecumenism:
"Therefore the whole and entire Catholic doctrine is to be presented and explained: by no means is it permitted to pass over in silence or to veil in ambiguous terms the Catholic truth regarding the nature and way of justification, the constitution of the Church, the primacy of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, and THE ONLY TRUE UNION BY THE RETURN OF THE DISSIDENTS TO THE ONE TRUE CHURCH OF CHRIST."
(Holy Office of Pope Pius XII, "On the Ecumenical Movement", 1949.)
"Even on the plea of promoting unity it is not allowed to dissemble one single dogma; for, as the Patriarch of Alexandria warns us, 'although the desire of peace is a noble and excellent thing, yet we must not for its sake neglect the virtue of loyalty in Christ.' Consequently, the much desired return of erring sons to true and genuine unity in Christ will not be furthered by exclusive concentration on those doctrines which all, or most, communities glorying in the Christian name accept in common. The ONLY SUCCESSFUL METHOD will be that which bases harmony and agreement among Christ's faithful ones upon all the truths, and the whole of the truths, which God has revealed."
(Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Orientalis Ecclesiae (1944), par. 16.)
Pope Pius XII permitted true ecumenism where the goal is to bring heretics BACK INTO THE CHURCH. He made that condition very clear. He did NOT permit false ecumenism which aims at syncretism!
"Pope Venerable Pius XII also authorized prayer with heretics and schismatics." This is a lie.
There is nothing whatever wrong, or improper in his fasting reforms. The Pope is the supreme legislator and may alter church (canon) law as he considers appropriate. The same applies to disciplinary matters - liturgy resorts under discipline.
I did not say novus ordites are true Catholics. I said that CANONICALLY speaking, novus ordites are still Catholics.
Novus ordo Catholics remain canonical (legally) Catholics until a future true (formal) hierarchy declares them non-Catholics canonically.
Informed novus ordites who believe the NWO heresies are heretics who have suffered automatic excommunication and remain as material (still legally) Catholics, although formally they are not Catholics.
Innocent novus ordites who through ignorance believe the NWO church to be the Catholic Church, are material heretics, who are unaware that they accept, or commit, heresy and are therefore guiltless of sin.
The College of Cardinals are canonically designated,(legally) Cardinals, who may legally elect a new Pope. If the latter were a Catholic, he would be a true (formal) Pope. If they elected another heretic, he would be a material pope - legally designated, but without authority, or membership of the Church.
Peter Lamb said..."Mark you have very skewed ideas about Pope Pius XII. He magisterially condemned false ecumenism...and THE ONLY TRUE UNION BY THE RETURN OF THE DISSIDENTS TO THE ONE TRUE CHURCH OF CHRIST.":"
Peter, the Church continues to condemn false ecumenism. The Church continues to teach that it is God's will that "dissidents" are called to One True Church of Christ.
Now, let us please explore the following:
Peter, do you, with Pope Venerable Pius XII, hold that the Protestant-created Ecumenical Movement is the inspiration of the Holy Ghost? Or do you hold that the Ecumenical Movement is harmful to the Faith and must be rejected?
Peter, do you, with Pope Venerable Pius XII, hold that Catholics are permitted to pray with schismatics and heretics? Or do you hold the Church's ancient teachings that condemned prayer with schismatics and heretics?
Thank you.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Yes, Dr Lamb! Sorry for late reply. Just happened to come to the site again and skim through the comments. I hope you're well. Miss you on Mr Verrechio's site. God bless you and your family. Your sister in Christ. Lynda
Dear Mark,
"Peter, the Church continues to condemn false ecumenism" - LOL! Tell that to Jorge - he's busy arranging the fourth Assisi! Mark, you're being humourous right? :)
The Vatican II sect believes:
The civil right to religious liberty. (See Dignitatis Humanae, paragraph 2.)
That heretical and schismatic sects are means of salvation. (See Unitatis Redintegratio paragraph 3.)
That past dissensions with Mohammedans should be forgotten.(See Nostra Aetate, paragraph 3.)
The Catholic Church teaches on religious liberty:
"And from this wholly false idea of social organisation they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, especially fatal to the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by our predecessor, Gregory XVI, insanity, namely that the liberty of conscience and worship is the proper right of every man, and should be proclaimed by law in every correctly established society... Each and every doctrine individually mentioned in this letter, by Our Apostolic authority We reject, proscribe and condemn; and We wish and command that they be considered as absolutely rejected by all the sons of the Church." (Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura (1864).
On heretical and schismatic sects:
"The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the Devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with her..." (Council of Florence, Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino (1441).
You wanna bet Jorge is gonna keep mum about this to his pals at Assisi? More likely he will reassure them with " No one can be condemned for ever, because that is not the logic of the gospel!"
On "dissentions" with Islam: The Catholic Church has the Divinely instituted right and obligation (a) to tell the human race what they must believe and (b) to govern them. Therefore, it is not possible that any "quarrels and dissensions" which have remained unresolved can be Her fault, or need to be apologised for.
"What does adherence to the "old rite" [of episcopal consecration] guarantee in regard to orthodoxy?" - Nothing!
"what does "consecration" via the "old rite" prove?" - Validity!
Dear Lynda, So nice to see you're still on the go. I always remember you and your son in my prayers. Hope things are going well. God bless! XXX
Peter Lamb,
Peter, you said the following: "Sedevacantism is traditional Catholicism, pure, simple and unadulterated by Modernism."
Peter, you also said that sedevacantists are "the only Catholics who practice unadulterated pre-Vatican II Catholicism."
Peter, in light of the above, as well as your belief that Pope Venerable Pius XII is the last true Pope, you are stuck with the following:
-- Do you accept or reject Pope Venerable Pius XII's radical liturgical reforms?.
-- During Holy Week, do you worship via Pope Venerable Pius XII's Reformed Holy Week? Or do you reject his radical Holy Week reforms?
-- Do you accept Pope Venerable Pius XII's radical Eucharistic Fast reforms?
-- Do you accept Pope Venerable Pius XII's teaching that the Protestant-created Ecumenical Movement was inspired by the Holy Ghost?
-- Do you embrace the Ecumenical Movement, into which Pope Venerable Pius XII plunged the Church? Or do you reject the Ecumenical Movement as a grave danger to the Faith?
-- Peter, do you uphold the Church's ancient teachings that prohibited Catholic to pray with schismatics and heretics? Or do you accept Pope Venerable Pius XII's teaching that permitted Catholics to pray with schismatics and heretics?
-- Do you accept or reject Pope Venerable Pius XII's exhortation that each nation surrender its armaments to the United Nations?
Peter, again, as you claim that Pope Venerable Pius XII is the last true Pope, you are stuck with either accepting or rejecting his many radical reforms. Please let me know your position on that.
If you accept Pope Venerable Pius XII's radical reforms, then why do you claim that you practice "pure" Catholicism? If you don't accept Pope Venerable Pius XII's numerous radical reforms, then why do you believe that he is the "last true Pope" as you resist his authority/teachings?
Thank you.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Dear Mark, All your questions have been answered in prior posts. God bless.
Pax et Bonum. :)
Peter Lamb,
Peter, you claim that you practice "pure" and "unadulterated pre-Vatican II" Catholicism. Peter, if that is the case, then where do you stand in regard to the following:
-- In regard to the Holy Sacrament of Penance, "pure" ancient traditional Catholicism featured harsh and lengthy (lasting for years) penances. Peter, in regard to Confession, do you, in keeping with "pure", "authentic," ancient Traditional Catholicism, favor harsh, lengthy (lasting for years) penances?
Or do you partake of the form of Confession that was reformed radically, in which the sinner prays a few Hail Marys and/or Our Fathers?
-- Peter, do you hold to the Church's ancient "pure" and traditional stringent fasts? Or do you hold to the far less stringent, reformed, modern form of fasting?
-- Peter, in regard to the Eucharistic Fast, do you accept Pope Venerable Pius XII's radical reforms? Or do you hold to the traditional stringent midnight fast?
-- Peter, do you support the ancient, traditional practice of heavy lay involvement in Church affairs? Examples: Do you support the laity's direct involvement in the elections of Popes and bishops?
-- Peter, the Low Mass, which is not ideal liturgy, represents a deformation of the Church's ancient, traditional approach to liturgy. What is your take on the Low Mass?
Thank you.
Mark Thomas
Peter, I noted a few months ago that sedevacantist Father Anthony Cekada, whom you've cited as an excellent source of information in regard to the Faith, identified the following radical liturgical reforms that Pope Venerable Pius XII had introduced into the Church.
Peter, do you accept or reject the following radical reforms?
(1) Liturgy must follow the “pastoral” principle to educate the faithful.
(2) Vernacular may be an integral part of the liturgy.
(3) Reduction of the priest’s role.
(4) Lay participation must ideally be vocal.
(5) New liturgical roles may be introduced.
(6) Prayers and ceremonies may be changed to accommodate modern “needs.”
(7) “Needless duplications” must be eliminated.
(8) The Ordo Missae itself may be changed, or parts eliminated.
(9) The Creed need not be recited on more solemn occasions.
(10) The priest “presides” passively at the bench when Scripture is read.
(11) Certain liturgical functions must be conducted “facing the people.”
(12) Emphasis on the saints must be reduced.
(13) Liturgical texts or practices that could offend heretics, schismatics or Jews should be modified.
(14) Liturgical expressions of reverence for the Blessed Sacrament may be “simplified” or reduced.
Father Cekada also noted that "we recognize that these principles and precedents were the foot in the door to the eventual destruction of the Mass. In the very document promulgating the Novus Ordo, in fact, Paul VI himself points to the Pius XII legislation as the beginning of the process.
"Continuing to follow these practices promotes the modernist lie that the New Mass was merely an organic development of the true Catholic liturgy. You can hardly criticize the New Mass' vernacular, passive presider and ceremonies facing the people if you engage in the very same practices every year when Holy Week rolls around."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Peter Lamb said...""what does "consecration" via the "old rite" prove?" - Validity!"
Each Rite of the Church is valid.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Peter Lamb,
I again thank you for your responses. The problem that you face is that your notions — Pope Venerable Pius XII is the "last true Pope"...sedevacantists are the only people on earth who practice "pure" Catholicism — are unsustainable.
-- Pope Venerable Pius XII, who, conserved supposedly, "pure" Catholicism in his role as the "last true Pope," enacted radical reforms throughout his Pontificate.
-- Monsignor Bugnini played a major role in the concoction of radical liturgical reforms that Pope Venerable Pius XII enacted. However, sedevacantists insist that Monsignor Bugnini was a Freemason. Sedevacantists insist that Monsignor Bugnini's reforms, which Pope Venerable Pius XII approved, are harmful to the Faith and must be rejected.
-- Sedevacantists play the Recognize & Resist game in regard to the "last true Pope." That is, sedevacantists claim that Pope Venerable Pius XII is the "last true Pope," but, in turn, resist his liturgical reforms.
-- Sedevacantists who claim that Pope Venerable Pius XII is the "last true Pope," insist that the Ecumenical Movement is evil and destructive to the Faith. However, it was Pope Venerable Pius XII who entered the Church into the Ecumenical Movement, which he insisted was inspired by the Holy Ghost.
-- Sedevacantists invoke the ancient Catholic teachings that prohibited Catholics to pray with schismatics and heretics. However, it was Pope Venerable Pius XII, the supposed "last true Pope," who authorized Catholics to pray with schismatics ad heretics.
-- Pope Venerable Pius XII, the "last true Pope," enacted radical reforms in regard to the Ecuharistic Fast.
-- Sedevacantists insist that they practice "pure" Catholicism. However, sedevacantists do not adhere to several ancient traditional practices that I noted during an earlier post to this thread.
Examples: Sedevacantists, if they adhere to the teachings of the "last true Pope" do not, in turn, adhere to ancient, traditional, strict fasting practices. They don't support the ancient traditional practice that featured the laity's direct involvement in the elections of Popes and bishops.
Sedevacantists hold to the Low Mass. The Low Mass represents a deformation of the Church's ancient, traditional approach to liturgy.
Peter, there are more examples that I could list that demonstrate that sedevacantists do not hold to the "pure" ancient traditions of the Early Church.
Example: As I noted in a previous post, in regard to Confession, sedevacantists do not practice the "pure" ancient traditional approach that featured harsh penances that lasted for years.
Sorry, Peter, but the notions that Pope Venerable Pius XI, in light of his many radical reforms, is "the last true Pope," as well as sedevacantists practice "pure", ancient traditional Catholicism, are untenable.
The forms in which Holy Mother Church has presented the Faith have changed dramatically over the centuries. The problem is that sedevacantists pretend that they are the only people on earth who adhere to "pure" Catholicism.
What they adhere to, at least those who claim that Pope Venerable Pius XII is the "last true Pope," is simply a period of time existed from 1939 A.D. to 1958 A.D. But during that time, Pope Venerable Pius XII enacted dramatic, radical reforms, that sedevacantists reject.
Incredibly, sedevacantists who claim that Pope Venerable Pius XII is the last true Pope, practice the Recognize & Resist game in regard to the very man whom they claim is "the last true Pope."
Sorry, Peter, but the Church, along with new Popes, continued to march forward following Pope Venerable Pius XII's reign. God's Church did not freeze in place in 1958 A.D.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
You are so very kind! I shall try to remember you and your family in my prayers. Thank you and Gos bless you. Lynda
Misogyny, even when shouted from the steeple of a church, is still misogyny.
It has nothing to do with misogyny and everything to do with ontology. Clearly, you don't get it.
You can fishwrap it any way you want to disguise it, but it's all mansplaining - not christianity.
"Fishwrap?" You have the wrong place.
Now, you are entitled to your opinion, you are not entitled to your own facts.
You want to obsess on Tridentine liturgy, go ahead. No one is listening.
But to state that Phyllis Zagano is an apostate relegates this blog to the status of fishwrap my friend.
They still have a few old school confessionals left in Canada I believe...
Sorry, my anonymous coward, as for your last, you do not get the last word on this blog!
See this morning's post.
Daer Anonymous @11:10pm, You might bear the words of St. Robert Bellarmine in mind:
"It is granted to few to recognize the true Church amid the darkness of so many schisms and heresies, and to fewer still so to love the truth which they have seen as to fly to its embrace."
Bellarmine? Figures. Complicit in the murder of Fra Giordano Bruno and who so erroneously :
the Council [of Trent] prohibits interpreting Scripture against the common consensus of the Holy Fathers; and if Your Paternity wants to read not only the Holy Fathers, but also the modern commentaries on Genesis, the Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and Joshua, you will find all agreeing in the literal interpretation that the sun is in heaven and turns around the earth with great speed, and that the earth is very far from heaven and sits motionless at the center of the world.
Dear Anonymous @ 10:03am, Saint Robert was far ahead of his time. The cutting edge of cosmology, as determined from the background radiation in space, is currently indeed that the Earth is the centre of the Universe, with the whole Universe revolving around the Earth. One shouldn't knock Doctors of the Church lightly! :)
Dear Peter,
So when did they discover the edges of the universe - must have missed that press conference and Journal of Science article - since you can't define the 'center' without that?
Maybe you're confusing something passed off as science in the Journal of Creation.
Doctor? You mean the murderer, Bellarmine?
Post a Comment