Skip Navigation Links
Home
Donate
Free News via Email
Subscribe for a Friend
Send News Tip
Contact Us
Search
About Us
Is California Catholic Daily important to you?
You can help keep us online!
HELP WANTED ADS
See All Help Wanted Ads
Submit Help Wanted Ad
POSITIONS WANTED ADS
See Position Wanted Ads
Submit Position Wanted Ad
Churches Worth Driving To
* Submit Your Church *

News from the Trenches
Grow a uterus!...
Advertise with us
Currently more than 150,000 visitors read CalCatholic.com
Servant of God! Father John Hardon, S.J.
Refuse to Choose! Women deserve better!
Changing Times! Holistic approach in education.
CLASSIFIED ADS
See All Classified Ads
Submit Classified Ad
CALENDAR
See All Calendar Items
Submit Calendar Item
LATEST FEEDBACK
German prelate to head Vatican doctrinal congregation KENNETH M. FISHER there you go again, using the word 'hereti... [max - 7/6/2012 6:45:51 PM]
Same-sex attractions in youth Retaction Gene, you are correct in what you are saying. I h... [Mark from PA - 7/6/2012 6:31:16 PM]
Will she be removed? Archbishop Jose Gomez is a wonderful bishop. Shame on whoev... [Shirley J. Schultz - 7/6/2012 5:59:07 PM]
A Constitutional wreck Constitutional validity depends entirely on an educated, pro... [JLS - 7/6/2012 4:55:28 PM]
Parents should not block vocations "Why does he call so few?" by Bob One: I cannot fathom how ... [JLS - 7/6/2012 4:46:36 PM]

Links to Other Sites
Prior Site Archives
Article Archives

Truth in Tradition

Men’s conference in Central Valley


Today’s society needs real men to fight the good fight. Stand up and learn more about conquering the challenges every man faces in this time. Be empowered by learning more about your Catholic faith.

This conference will feature Catholic speakers from around the country.

Speakers will include:
Father Isaac Mary Relyea, Father Shannon Collins, C.P.M., Father Sean Kopczynski, C.P.M., and Father Peter Carota, Pastor

Father Isaac Relyea came back to the faith after many years living in contradiction to Christ’s teachings. Due to his Mother’s Prayer and a call from God to the priesthood Father Isaac finally said “Yes.”

Father Shannon Collins has been featured on EWTN as well as speaker at Catholic conferences. Most recently Father Collins was chaplain for the Shrine of the Most Blessed Sacrament of Our Lady of the Angels Monastery (Mother Angelica’s place).

In addition to the fantastic topics, men will have the opportunity for confession and several breaks for camaraderie with fellow Catholic men.

Limited seating so please register early!

Saturday, June 9, 2012 8:00 AM – 4:00 PM
St. Patrick’s Catholic Church 19399 E Hwy 120 Ripon, CA

Sign-in begins at 7:00 AM Cost is $30 and includes:
Light Breakfast, Catered Lunch, Snacks

Registration/Information
Visit our website at www.centralvalleyconference.com
or call 209-838-2133.


READER COMMENTS

Posted Wednesday, June 06, 2012 6:18 AM By St. Christopher
How about "real men" standing up and demanding their Faith back, the Faith of Our Fathers kind of Faith. Look at the many, many masses in CA and everywhere where there are celebrations of the priest and meal sharing. Where is the Tabernacle, where is the talk of sacrifice, of sin and salvation? Very little in today's Church. In fact, most the Mass is made up of happy talk, or apologetic discussion ("the new missal does not really mean that Christ died "for many", he died for all" -- that sort of thing). The kind of "fantastic topics" of these kinds of retreats are often emasculating, feminizing issues, intended to make the man happy to not be called to sacrifice, to work hard, to demand fidelity from his family, including by example. Where are the Knights of Columbus, as well, in demanding a return to the time when they really were defenders of the true Faith?

Posted Wednesday, June 06, 2012 7:03 AM By max
this is what we need --- the chance for men to come together and embrace virtue rathher than vice. however, it's a MEN'S conference, so what's the deal with the "light breakfast?" i'd go for a good irish fry (meat, eggs, more meat, bread, sausages) any day...

Posted Wednesday, June 06, 2012 7:05 AM By max
just wondering --- why is father collins wearing a pectoral cross with a chain like a bishop? and that cross is bigger than anything even the plumpest pope would wear! i thought such attire was for bishops?

Posted Wednesday, June 06, 2012 8:24 AM By MD
This sounds awesome!!! This is exactly what we and Catholics need. Men who embrace the teachings of the Lord and are guided by His most Blessed Mother. God Love you.

Posted Wednesday, June 06, 2012 8:29 AM By VirgoPotens
What a great conference, but I absolutely can't make it on such short notice. If CCD announced this previously, I guess I just missed it. Fr. Isaac Mary Relyea is the bomb - I've listened to his recorded talks, and talk about lighting a fire under you....

Posted Wednesday, June 06, 2012 11:30 AM By CW-Obl.SB
MAX: In answer to your question about Fr. Collins wearing a large Crucifix... That would be a "Mission Crucifix" used for preaching parish missions. This is not representing a bishop pectoral cross in any way! God Bless You!

Posted Wednesday, June 06, 2012 12:46 PM By Arness
Father Collins is a member of the Congregation of Fathers of Mercy -- Congregatio Presbyterorum a Misericordia -- CPM. If you look at their website, it seems they all wear a cassock, giant pectoral cross on a chain, and a badge of some kind.

Posted Wednesday, June 06, 2012 2:38 PM By JLS
Refreshing to hear about a Catholic men's gathering that does not include jumping naked through a bonfire.

Posted Wednesday, June 06, 2012 3:05 PM By Kenneth M. Fisher
Max, Did you even bother to notice the low cost for this conference? That alone would justify a "light breakfast"! If gas wasn't so expensive, I would try to go to this Conference. It's interesting that the Conference will be held in a location called "Ripon", the Ripon Society is one of the most liberal groups that infest the Republican Party today! I don't know if there is any connection, but God has a great sense of humor! God bless, yours in Their Hearts, Kenneth M. Fisher

Posted Wednesday, June 06, 2012 5:14 PM By Elizabeth
Kenneth M. Fisher, Not to worry about Ripon....It has been there for many years and is right outside of Modesto. And if Father Collins is going to be there, you can bet it is VERY ORTHODOX.....in fact, there is much ORTHODOXY in the Central Valley, Praise be to God !!!

Posted Wednesday, June 06, 2012 9:04 PM By Catherine
Today's society does need real men to stand up and defend the Catholic Faith. Boy do we all need to be toughened up. Yes, there is a reason that good men have to travel to Ripon and leave their families to learn how to defend the faith. Why isn't each local bishop providing this manly training through the priests in his diocese? St. Christopher, I guess you noticed in the top paragraph the phrase, "Be empowered" by learning more about your Catholic Faith." The word "empowered" was first coined in the mid-17th century and used to mean "to invest with authority" or "to authorize." In modern times this term has become so blurred in it's usage and meaning. The word "empowered" is an absolute favorite of radical feminists who often overuse this word to politically distort the meaning by appealing to pop psychology. Hillary *Rodham* Clinton and Gloria Allred also use the word "empower" in every other sentence. Gloria Steinhem's favorite "empowerment" quote was, "A liberated woman is one who has sex before marriage and gets a job after." Yes, even Oprah Winfrey is giving a Life Class to empower the people but Our Lord had another meaning when he empowered the Apostolic Succession of Peter. The words "to empower" in it's proper Catholic usage would truly mean that this "empowering" conference should only be held for our lead shepherds for these are the men who God "invested with the authority to authorize" the upholding and the guarding of the deposit of faith. Our Lord did not authorize a cowardly spirit that authorizes error or spiritual neglect. If the USCCB is truly serious about defending social justice and defending the teachings of the Catholic Faith, they should offer to help pay the the social justice cost of a movie ticket for every Catholic immigrant who has entered this country looking for refuge in Our Lady of Guadalupe. The movie For Greater Glory will help to teach all men how to be men and why you do not compromise the faith and vote evil into power.

Posted Wednesday, June 06, 2012 11:21 PM By Abeca Christian
I appreciate Father Shannon Collins, he is an excellent holy priest! I wish we could have him speak at our annual Catholic Convention and wish he would also come to San Diego as well. My husband would of loved to attend this one too, if only we had known, he may have even taken a road trip.

Posted Thursday, June 07, 2012 6:56 AM By MAX
friends, thanks for educating me about the pectoral cross question. also, my comment about the "ligght breakfast" was not to mock the cost of the confverence, but more of a culinary comment about my own desire to start the day with a hearty breakfast, like maybe a side of beef...

Posted Thursday, June 07, 2012 1:02 PM By James
To bad Bishop Fellay isn't a guest speaker. He would answer your desired topics St. Christopher. All attendees would benefit immensely by learning our Roman Catholic Faith. Most of us don’t have a clue and only a very narrow and thin understanding of our traditional Roman Catholic faith as it hasn’t been past down to us well at all for the last 40 plus years.

Posted Thursday, June 07, 2012 1:28 PM By MacDonald
BISHOP FELLAY AS GUEST SPEAKER??? I SHOULD HOPE NOT...:On July 2, 1988, Pope John Paul II issued the motu proprio Ecclesia Dei, in which he reaffirmed the excommunication, and described the consecration as an act of "disobedience to the Roman pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the Church", and that "such disobedience — which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy — constitutes a schismatic act". Cardinal Darío Castrillón Hoyos, head of the commission responsible for implementing Ecclesia Dei, has said this resulted in a "situation of separation, even if it was not a formal schism." This person was excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church for being disobedient...who wants to listen to this??? (The current Holy Father listed the excommunication to try to bring these guys home to Rome, but they are still being stubborn as mules, claiming they know better than the Church.)

Posted Thursday, June 07, 2012 3:48 PM By JLS
MAX (aka max), a side of beef for breakfast?!!? Why not rather a slab of bacon? That way you can save the side of beef (are you related to Friar Tuck?) for dinner and quaff it with at least a round of stout ale ... or even mead. Or ... gamebirds ... yeah, now I'm thinking ... when will one of these meetings take place during game bird hunting ... uh, make that harvesting season?

Posted Thursday, June 07, 2012 3:55 PM By JLS
MAX, if this meeting were only a month later, I'd likely be there in the locale (extended family get together). Also, I may bring some "hardware" because the region is rife with wild hogs, and there is no season on them, and I already have myself a tag for one. "Side of beef"? Heck with that, it could be a side of wild acorn and berry fed pork ... not at all like the cellophane wrapped variety. But the bad news is that I've never gone after wild pigs before, and it is best to go in a group, as they are dangerous game animals. Gee, what an idea, hunting game animals and supplying "man meetings" or even "family meetings" ... maybe for a gasoline stipend, yet: After all, how can one serve God on an empty gas tank?

Posted Saturday, June 09, 2012 5:04 AM By JS
Posted Wednesday, June 06, 2012 11:21 PM By Abeca Christian: I appreciate Father Shannon Collins, he is an excellent holy priest! I wish we could have him speak at our annual Catholic Convention and wish he would also come to San Diego as well. My husband would of loved to attend this one too, if only we had known, he may have even taken a road trip. Abeca Christian, Why don't you call him up and discuss your conference. If he is able and interested, he may be willing to speak at your conference.

Posted Saturday, June 09, 2012 5:17 AM By JS
James and St. Christopher - Father Isaac Mary Relyea, Father Shannon Collins, C.P.M., and Father Sean Kopczynski, C.P.M. are real men who speak on real men topics. The SSPX does not have the only priests who can speak on tough topics. I am very familiar with these priests and the priests of the SSPX and I can say this without any hesitations. No one who hears these 3 priests speak will ever be dissapointed. These 3 priests know the traditional faith very well and have no problems expressing it and passing it on. They are excellent priest by any standard - even the toughest, most skeptical trad would have trouble fainding fault with them. The only reason I don't mention Father Peter Carota is I have never heard him speak. Although I have heard he is good, too. If anyone is able to attend this conference, they should!

Posted Saturday, June 09, 2012 3:47 PM By max
JLS at 3:55 PM: have faith! Deus providebit sibi victimam -- or, in this case, the gasoline. All your talk about pig hunting has made me hungry for bacon.

Posted Saturday, June 09, 2012 6:08 PM By JLS
max, at first I thought you were posting in "tongues", and then I realized it must be Latin (translated from Hebrew by St Jerome long ago). The upshot in context means something like "Forget the cost of the fuel, for God will provide the feast".

Posted Sunday, June 10, 2012 5:18 AM By Sister John
MacDonald...Bishop Fellay is a good and gracious priest. He was NOT 'excommunicated' if you do your homework. It is perfectly allowable to attend the SSPX, and the only reason they are 'under suspicion' is that unlike other priests, they will NOT accept the 'vow' of possibly having to give the "Novus Ordo" which has proven to be the downfall of our Catholic Traditions. If We Were Right Then, We Are Right Now. If We Are Right Now, You Are Wrong Now. WE are not the 'extraordinary' Mass. YOU are. We are the "Mass Of All Time". And no, I am not SSPX. I am a member of a Traditional Community. I am Benedictine. I live, pray, sing and give glory to God in the language of the Church. The language in which our Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, presents the Mass. Latin. Is HE wrong? It is the language HE was taught the Mass. It is the ONLY language in which he offers the Mass. The SSPX only want the opportunity to offer the Mass ONLY in Latin. They will accept no less, as well they should not. There are plenty of other priests who will dress as Santa Claus and present the Mass if that is your wish. There are plenty of Masses for you to choose from, from "Country and Western" to "Jazz". You have YOUR choices, yet you will not allow the SSPX to choose the beautiful reverence of the Tridentine. It stinks of hypocrisy that you would take that away. Is it that you refuse to learn a few Latin responses? The Missal is printed with BOTH languages side by side. You miss nothing. If you can't or won't learn the Latin, you can read it in the language of your choice. The priest reads the Epistle and the Gospel in the language of the area, after the Latin. What then is the problem? The priest gives the homily in the language of the area. What then is the problem? .

Posted Sunday, June 10, 2012 1:11 PM By Abeca Christian
max and JLS you two are funny. LOL. Bacon sounds good with my eggs and a cup of fruit. But I never thought of people craving bacon not unless one is pregnant and the cravings just come in due to some lack of nutrient that one may need.

Posted Sunday, June 10, 2012 5:19 PM By Canisius
MacDonald would prefer some pant suited valkrie from Womenpriests than a great Bishop like Fellay, Hey MacD, what are you going to do when SSPX is regularized this summer???

Posted Sunday, June 10, 2012 7:09 PM By max
SISTER JOHN, umm, hate to break it to you, but he and the otherr bishops whom lefevre ateempted to 'consecrated' where all excomjmunicated precisely when they took part in this act, in direct violation of the holy father. pope john paul ii was very clear on this, you know. just like those oth3er renegades who attempt to 'ordain' women because they, like lefebre, believe they know better than the pope, better than the church, better than god...

Posted Sunday, June 10, 2012 7:09 PM By max
p.s. to ABECA ---- i'm not pregant, but still thinking abou tbacon and eggs.

Posted Sunday, June 10, 2012 8:59 PM By JLS
I attended a novus ordo Mass today, one that was reverent and done well. It has been years since the last time I went to a regular novus ordo Mass. What hit me today is the forced interior activities ... each one very abbreviated and directed by the priest. This is the way this liturgy functions, unlike the Tridentine liturgy which not only allow for but promotes many orders of magnitude more interior time. Those who have no idea what I've talking about ... well just stick with your ordinary form because it'll leave very ordinary. The Church was not build on the ordinary but on the extraordinary (Yes, there is a pun here but it has nothing to do with the context, so ignore it).

Posted Monday, June 11, 2012 12:34 PM By Abeca Christian
don't forget the cup of fruit max. Fiber is good. haha

Posted Monday, June 11, 2012 12:54 PM By Larry
"The SSPX only want the opportunity to offer the Mass ONLY in Latin." Not true, Sister John. If it were, things would have been settled a long time ago. The problem with the SSPX is that is does not speak with a unified voice--but what is clear is that they have a serious problem accepting the Second Vatican Council as an infallible and authoritative act of the Magisterium--which it is because it is an ecumenical council ratified by the pope. The differences between SSPX and the Catholic Church are doctrinal--they do NOT involve merely the language or format of the mass. As for myself, I have no problem with mass in Latin or the Tridentine Mass in particular. But I have a serious problem with your condemnatory attitude towards any mass which is not the Tridentine. Those of us who patronize the Novus Ordo are not wrong to do so and are not necessarily less holy than those who patronize other approved rites, such as the Tridentine (of 1962) or the Eastern Rites or the Anglican Use Rite which is to come. As for the pope, he celebrates the Novus Ordo--and when I've watched telecasts from the Vatican, I hear him using both Latin and Italian, the latter in the body of the mass as well as the readings and the homily. In short, I would never want to take the Tridentine Mass from the SSPX. But were I able, I would want to take away their arrogant, rejectionist attitude towards the Council.

Posted Monday, June 11, 2012 1:02 PM By JLS
max, the SSPX bishops are not now excommunicated. Even when they were, yet their sacraments were valid.

Posted Monday, June 11, 2012 1:04 PM By JLS
Abeca, I like that menu for breakfast: bacon, eggs, and coffee (the coffee bean is a fruit, right? If not, then at least it is a vegetable, no? Besides one can enjoy the eleven food groups by using ketchup).

Posted Monday, June 11, 2012 7:58 PM By Abeca Christian
"Charity may be a very short word, but with its tremendous meaning of pure love, it sums up man's entire relation to God and to his neighbor." -- St Aelred of Rievaulx

Posted Monday, June 11, 2012 8:01 PM By Abeca Christian
JLS that is interesting, I would have to look it up, I never considered coffee bean a fruit. haha You can stick to your ketchup, I prefer salsa or hot sauce.... : )

Posted Monday, June 11, 2012 10:14 PM By JLS
Well, Abeca, I also prefer salsa, but it does not keep as well as ketchup.

Posted Monday, June 11, 2012 10:17 PM By JLS
Well, that explains it, Larry. You're a novus ordo dude ... to each his own.

Posted Monday, June 11, 2012 10:23 PM By Kenneth M. Fisher
Are there two Max's, one who ignorantly spells his name in all lower case letters, and the other who properly spells his name with the first letter in caps? The first one should know that Pope Benedict withdrew those illegal excommunications, just as Pope St. Sixtus (I believe that was his Papal name, the Pope proceeding poor Pope Liberius) condemned the actions of that poor man for excommunicating, again illegally, St. Athanasius the Great, Doctor of the Church! God bless, yours in Their Hearts, Kenneth M. Fisher

Posted Monday, June 11, 2012 10:36 PM By Kenneth M. Fisher
"The Novus Ordo represents a complete change in direction in the Theology of the Mass", the late Cardinal Ottaviani. The Novus Ordo completely dropped the priest's prayers at the foot of the Altar. Had this not taken place, the recent crisis in the priesthood might hot have taken place or at least have meliorated! It changed the Confiteor to be more what Cranmer wanted, and many British Recalcitrants died fighting against. More horizontal than rising to heaven, verticle. It dropped the Last Gospel, which Blessed Anna Catherine Emmerich, and I believe others predicted would represent a great step backward and a time of great tragedy for the Church. It also dropped the prayers for the conversion of Russia. Perhaps some of you actually believe that Russia was fully converted to the Faith! That is why even Young Families that had never experienced the Mass of St. Pius V are now flocking to it. Pope Benedict himself stated that it was his wish that the restoration of the Tridentine Mass would bring more sanctity to the Novus Ordo. God bless, yours in Their Hearts, Kenneth M. Fisher

Posted Tuesday, June 12, 2012 5:37 AM By PETE
Sister John, please read the postings on the VATICAN web site, and the CCC. You are bordering on heresy. There is heresy on the far right as well as the far left. Further, you are completely wrong - the FSSP offers Mass only in Latin and are in complete unity with the Vatican as well as Bishops across the USA. If I had a son, I would encourage looking into FSSP not SSPX.

Posted Tuesday, June 12, 2012 5:55 AM By MAC
JLS, when the SSPX bishops were excommunicated although their Sacraments were valid, they were ILLICIT. ILLICIT means - Not sanctioned by custom or law; UNLAWFUL. One may not do evil so that good may result from it. . I'm sure Martin Luther thought he was doing the "right" thing as well. The FSSP is the way to go for the Extraordinary Form of the Mass

Posted Tuesday, June 12, 2012 7:30 AM By JLS
The coffee bean is not a bean, but a seed in a berry type fruit. So a cup of coffee is actually fruit juice ... no wonder it is so healthful, and explains why it goes so well with donuts, which are made from grass (sugar cane is a grass) or roots (sugar beets are roots) and high vitamin B content animal lipids (hog fat) or heart friendly vegetable oil. However, if it is hydrogenated, then it is not so heart friendly but rather heart clogging: But not to worry, because that is where the health friendly coffee comes into its own ... it balances out the heart yukky hydrogenated oil and thus ... well, rumor has it that Methusaleh would hang out in the donut and coffee shops with the cops all the time.

Posted Tuesday, June 12, 2012 8:28 AM By MacDonald
It amazes me in this site that people often ask that people be excommunicated for obvious evils like supporting abortion, yet DEFEND excommunicated obvious heretics who publicly denounce the Ecumenical Councils of the Catholic Church. "The doctrine of the infallibility of ecumenical councils states that solemn definitions of ecumenical councils, approved by the Pope, which concern faith or morals, and to which the whole Church must adhere are infallible. Such decrees are often labeled as 'Canons' and they often have an attached anathema, a penalty of excommunication, against those who refuse to believe the teaching."

Posted Tuesday, June 12, 2012 8:38 AM By MacDonald
More for those who reject an Ecumenical Council, such as Vatican II: "The Roman Catholic Church teaches that an ecumenical council is a gathering of the College of Bishops (of which the Bishop of Rome is an essential part) to exercise in a solemn manner its supreme and full power over the whole Church. It holds that "there never is an ecumenical council which is not confirmed or at least recognized as such by Peter's successor". Its present canon law requires that an ecumenical council be convoked and presided over, either personally or through a delegate, by the Pope, who is also to decide the agenda." "Ecumenical Councils are those to which the bishops, and others entitled to vote, are convoked from the whole world (oikoumene) under the presidency of the pope or his legates, and the decrees of which, having received papal confirmation, bind all Christians." BIND ALL CHRISTIANS. This is why the unfortunate followers of Marcel Lefebvre got into, and remain, in trouble: they defy the Church and lead others astray. The authority of an Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church is greater than that of some French renegade.

Posted Tuesday, June 12, 2012 9:13 AM By JLS
MAC, I've experienced sufficient in this world to have only a limited respect for "licit". It is not "licit" that gets one to Heaven, but "valid". You take licit and I'll take valid. "Licit" is what goes haywire, and is what Jesus consistently jumped on the pharisees about.

Posted Tuesday, June 12, 2012 10:07 AM By Abeca Christian
JLS wow I would of never known had you not brought that up. Well here's to a cup of coffee, don't mind it at all. I read that coffee was low alkaline, high acidity, so best to enjoy a cup or two should be enough. haha

Posted Tuesday, June 12, 2012 10:10 AM By Dana
JLS, inre:Methusaleh, who lived 900 years, but 'who calls that livin' when no gal will give in to no man what is 900 years?!" ( Ira Gershwin) Man, I used to love a good doughnut mmmm. with jelly or cream filling, so yummy. If I ate one now it would kill me, literally. Phooey! As Bette Davis said, growin old ain't for sissies.

Posted Tuesday, June 12, 2012 1:30 PM By Francis
It is odd that some commentors here think the pope offers Mass only in Latin! Try a search on youtube, for "pope mass in german" and you'll see (near the end of the clip) Benedict opening the Mass... in German. The clip also includes the congregation responding to the opening peace blessing with "und mit deinem Geiste" ("and with your spirit). This stuff about Benedict saying Mass only in one langauge or another, or only one rite or another, seriously underestimates his intellect. It is an unfortunate delusion.

Posted Tuesday, June 12, 2012 1:47 PM By Abeca Christian
Dana ok but how about them Crispy Creme donuts. Wow super yummy. But Donuts aren't good for my waist line. Gotta keep that waist line good. haha

Posted Tuesday, June 12, 2012 1:49 PM By Abeca Christian
by the way...back to this topic did any gentleman attend this wonderful conference? Please give us your reviews. I can discern that it was wonderful and faith filled. God bless all who attended!

Posted Tuesday, June 12, 2012 2:41 PM By Kenneth M. Fisher
MacDonald, In case you don't know it, the liberals mostly from Germany completely threw out the "Schema" for the Vatican Council II prepared by the Pope and replaced it with their own LIBERAL Schema. Also non other than Pope Benedict XVI has stated that the Council was a Pastoral Council and had not authority to change any Dogma. God bless, yours in Their Hearts, Kenneth M. Fisher

Posted Tuesday, June 12, 2012 2:50 PM By JLS
The ph of coffee is maybe five as I recall, neutral being seven. Five is on the acidic side but most food is ... at least from my quick search a couple months ago.

Posted Tuesday, June 12, 2012 2:51 PM By JLS
Dana, donuts are extremely expensive, especially if you do not have dental insurance.

Posted Tuesday, June 12, 2012 2:59 PM By JLS
MacD, you continue to display your lack of learning by calling the SSPX "heretics" and "schismatics". Being excommunicated does not mean "heretic" as in the case of the SSPX. Plus they are not in schism and they are not excommunicated. Their sacraments are valid, which means their Holy Eucharist when including "every word that comes from the mouth of God" effects union with God. When is the last time you heard a Roman Catholic sermon which included "every word that proceeds from the mouth of God"? Also, were you in a perfect state of contrition when you received Communion, or only in a good state of contrition? The way you post stuff, the real deciding thing is administrative whim rather than valid sacraments and following the Greatest Commandment. Your dull comment about Luther fails because you are attempting to accuse anyone who opens his or her mouth in a way that might offend some bishop as a heretic, schismatic and devil's disciple. Consider not only the lillies of the field but your penchant to break the commandment about bearing false witness against your neighbor.

Posted Tuesday, June 12, 2012 3:57 PM By Larry
JLS--Jesus "jumped on the Pharisees" for substituting their own rules (and loads of them) for those of God. For example, God commands that we honor father and mother, but the Pharisees created a rule that said if you donated a certain amount of money to the Temple, that would dispense you from the obligation of caring financially for your parents in their old age. He rejected that and demanded adherence to God's law. Likewise he condemned the religious authorities for allowing divorce and declared that God's law allowed no such thing. He chastised them for making up hundreds of meticulous regulations (still observed by Orthodox Jews today) regarding the preparing and eating of food, saying that man is not defiled by what goes into him, but what emerges from the heart. On these threads, YOU are the Pharisee, substituting your own judgment for that of the successor of Peter and the Apostles and continually calling on other Catholics to usurp the role of the hierarchy and regard the bishops as unworthy pretenders to authority--hence your denigration of the term "licit," as though a bishop has no right whatsoever to determine what is licit and what is illicit--when in reality he has every right to do so, and that right is given him directly by the Son of God! I am amazed that you have the effrontery to pass yourself off as a good old fashioned, back-to-the-basics, devoutly Traditional Catholic when in reality YOU ARE NO SUCH THING. God The Son appointed the bishops to rule over the Church, which means that we are all commanded by none other than God Himself to BE ruled by those whom He has appointed rulers--the chief ruler, of course, being the pope. How DARE you equate frank insubordination to the hierarchy with Traditional Catholicism--and obedience to the bishops' lawful authority with "legalism" and "Pharisee-ism"? Such talk is not holiness. It is the sin of pride--coupled with calumny.

Posted Tuesday, June 12, 2012 6:16 PM By Canisius
My God what the Novus Ordo crowd has wrought, I pray for a new Council that completely suppresses Vatican II and all of the mistakes it caused

Posted Tuesday, June 12, 2012 7:55 PM By Larry
"Also non other than Pope Benedict XVI has stated that the Council was a Pastoral Council and had not authority to change any Dogma." NO ONE, Ken, is ever authorized to "change any dogma." No pope, no council, no individual bishop--no human being or collection of human beings may change a single dogma. As a matter of fact, none of the above are even authorized to CREATE dogma in the first place. They may, however, formally DEFINE dogma--and for that purpose they are held infallible by the Holy Spirit. But really, in order for a dogma to be defined, it must already exist in principle anyway. The formal definition only comes because perhaps objections have been raised and the controversy must be settled. So your statement regarding the Council is rather disingenuous. What you say about Vatican II is also true about every bishops' council and every pope for that matter. But what, then, is your point in raising the issue? Are you saying that the Council indeed ATTEMPTED to change dogma? But in order for that to be the case, they would have had to promulgate new (and consequently invented) dogma in contradiction to older dogma. Since we all (including the pope and the council fathers) agree that there were no new dogmatic definitions springing forth from the Council, then what is there about the Council to which a faithful Catholic could possibly object? The Council could not possibly have committed heresy if there were no new assertions of truth contained in the Acta. This strange argument advanced by the Council's detractors is in fact no argument at all--merely a logical contradiction--a square-circle, if you will--a daylight-night.

Posted Tuesday, June 12, 2012 8:18 PM By MacDonald
JLS, if you don't like what the Roman Catholic Church teaches about the importance and authority of an Ecumenical Council, maybe you should try a Congegational Church instead, where each person makes up their own rules as they go along. Our Church is "one, holy, catholic and apostolic," which means, among other things, that our teaching goes back to the very beginning, and is not dependent on the whim of some feisty Frenchman or sour Swiss cleric. They should stick to making cheese and chocolate, and not try to make a new Church.

Posted Tuesday, June 12, 2012 8:21 PM By MacDonald
FOR THOSE WHO STILL OBSTINATELY REJECT THE ECUMENICAL COUNCIL: 891 "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," AOVE ALL [emphasis added] in an Ecumenical Council. When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed," and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith." This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself. (CATHECISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH)

Posted Tuesday, June 12, 2012 8:28 PM By JLS
Larry, your post is hogwash. You seem obsessed with distorting my posts. I've never claimed the things you accuse me of.

Posted Tuesday, June 12, 2012 8:55 PM By JLS
Larry, why is it that you interpret criticism of bishops with not following them? The Prodigal son complained but followed; yet the son who agreed with everything did not follow. Which are you?

Posted Tuesday, June 12, 2012 10:24 PM By JLS
MacD, exactly what was defined as dogma for the first time in Vatican II? Was there a new dogma that came out of it? If so, does that mean that the entire set of documents of Vatican II is newly defined doctrine? If so, where does it say that?

Posted Wednesday, June 13, 2012 4:44 AM By RR
MacDonald: Vatican II was ONLY a PASTORAL council. NO dogmas were declared in that council. Liberal and progressive priests, bishops, Freemasons, and yes, Protestant ministers took over the council and totally changed the Catholic Church.

Posted Wednesday, June 13, 2012 6:24 AM By Larry
Oh really, JLS? What exactly have I "distorted" about your posts, and how have I distorted it? What, then, is your true belief as opposed to my "distortions?" We've all clearly seen you write over and over--including yesterday at 9:13 a.m.--of how you view the licitness or illicitness of anything as unimportant. Obviously the Church doesn't agree--else why bother to declare anything licit or illicit? You said at 2:59 p.m. yesterday that SSPX was perfectly okay because its sacraments are valid. At other times, you've said that what counts is that a church possesses valid sacraments and Apostolic succession--that "administrative communion" with the Roman Pontiff and the bishops who serve under him is secondary--and, we could gather, completely unimportant. When I point out, with references to Church documents, that the above is heretical, you respond by accusing me of "legalism." You refuse to rebuke SSPX or the "independent parishes" mentioned by Ken Fisher. Indeed, you give them pats on the back for their feisty defiance of mere nit-picking, hair-splitting legalists such as myself. What is there to misunderstand or distort? You're preaching heresy pure and simple. Your words at plain, face value are offensive to the genuine, traditional Catholicism which you purport to uphold. You don't need me to accuse you. You convict yourself with your own words.

Posted Wednesday, June 13, 2012 6:57 AM By Larry
Canisius--if a new council were to come along and, with papal approval, completely abrogate Vatican II and extirpate its Acta from the record--on what basis could you have faith in either one of these councils? On what basis could you have faith any longer in ANY ecumenical council--or for that matter, the pronouncements of any pope? An ecumenical council with papal approval is a Magisterial act and as such its acta are forever unchangeable. Were it not so, than the Church Herself would be a lie and would have no power to teach anything at all. Is logic unimportant to you?

Posted Wednesday, June 13, 2012 7:18 AM By Dana
MacDonald, if everyone would confine themselves to cheese and chocolate, think what a wonderful world it would be! Everyone would be so fat and jolly there would be no more wars (no one could lift the weapons or even push buttons) and even the population problem would be resolved, cut like the gordian knot...everyone would be too fat and satisfied to procreate. Sorry, sometimes my mind is rather like Calvin's in Calvin & Hobbes. Waterson lives/lived not far from where I live. haha Is it contagious? Abeca, Dunkin Donuts is my poison...or was. But Crispy Cream will sure do in a pinch. JLS, at Catholic Daughters last night someone said coffee made in a French press will make your cholesterol higher...that using a filter will lower it. Another woman verified it on her iphone. Just a heads up if you're trying to save money by going without filters. haha

Posted Wednesday, June 13, 2012 9:53 AM By k
Canisius, I am curious about something. I understood you to say that you became a Catholic after the War in the Balkans, which would be in the 90's or later? I think you said that you entered into the Church through a traditionalist order (SSPX?). Is Vatican II talked about a lot at your parish or did you study Church History?

Posted Wednesday, June 13, 2012 9:55 AM By Larry
"Larry, why is it that you interpret criticism of bishops with not following them?" I DO NOT! It is you who distort what I say, not the other way around. You are praising DISOBEDIENCE to the bishops, and for that I call you out. Don't try to claim that what you are doing is mere criticism of bishops (which is what I do all the time.) That insults my intelligence. It goes far beyond that. "The Prodigal son complained but followed; yet the son who agreed with everything did not follow. Which are you?" First, you're getting two parables mixed up. That of the Prodigal Son is separate from that of the two sons of the boss, which you've cited above. That aside, the real question is which are YOU, and which do you want others to be? Sounds to me like you're the second. You say, "I obey," yet you do NOT.

Posted Thursday, June 14, 2012 7:40 AM By Larry
The Congregation known as the Religious Sisters of Mercy of Alma, whose members are not only nuns but also doctors, has released a statement criticizing the Leadership Conference of Women Religious for its resistance to Vatican correction. The Sisters of Mercy statement said in part that the hope for the future of religious life in the Church depends upon remaining within “the deposit of faith and the hierarchical structure of the Church.” I couldn't have said it better myself. In fact, remaining within "administrative communion" with the Holy Father and the bishops serving under him (i.e., the "hierarchical structure") is EQUAL in importance to adherence to the deposit of faith itself. One is not inferior to the other--neither is dispensable.

Posted Thursday, June 14, 2012 2:35 PM By Abeca Christian
Oh loving Lord, all this division just breaks my heart.

Posted Thursday, June 14, 2012 4:58 PM By James
It is sad to see so many people here who despise the SSPX and any other traditional Roman Catholic societies/parishes, like they are a menace and evil. (Yes there are numerically more traditional Roman Catholic societies/parishes world-wide than just the SSPX, and I am not referring to those liberal 'incorrectly labeled' catholic parishes/societies masquerading under pretense as though they are traditional Roman Catholic parishes/societies when in-fact they are so liberal/far fetched to the left having departed from most if not all of Roman Catholic tradition, they simply aren't what they pretend to be.) For the most part many traditional Roman Catholics believe the biblically foretold Great Apostasy is here today considering all of the evidence of bad fruits and implosion over the last 50 years predicted in by the prophets. Traditional Roman Catholics see that the Church is in a state of emergency, unable to restore traditional values, morals, worship, the 7 Holy Sacraments, doctrine, and its teachings. That is why ABp Lefebvre consecrated four SSPX bishops over 30 years ago. The consecrations did not stop the revolution taking place in the VII Church; rather he and his followers were declared excommunicated. Excommunicated for what? Holding fast to traditional Roman Catholic morals, values, worship (TLM), 7 Holy Sacraments, doctrine, and Roman Catholic teachings preserved for nearly 2,000 years. So before mocking them, we should open up our minds and our hearts to understand them. Sister John was right, what was so right for nearly 2,000 years was rejected and considered so wrong. In reality, tradition is still right today. If it's so wrong today, does that mean our ancestors were wrong too? If you believe that, we had better pray for the lost souls of our deceased parents, grandparents, great grandparents, other remembered dear relatives and friends, for their souls may be suffering in purgatory for not living their lives in the spirit of V II.

Posted Thursday, June 14, 2012 7:03 PM By JLS
Larry, I'm willing to do a line item veto. So, go ahead and post one item at a time.

Posted Thursday, June 14, 2012 7:03 PM By Larry
James: There is no dichotomy between adhering to the deposit of faith and adhering to the hierarchical structure of the Church. And not only that, but it is impossible that there ever COULD be any such dichotomy, because God the Son has promised the Holy Spirit would be with the Church for all time, to prevent any possibility of it being conquered by error. The two aspects--loyalty to the faith and loyalty to the hierarchical body--ARE ONE AND THE SAME--inextricable--indispensable--neither can exist without the other. The notion that adherence to the hierarchical structure of the Church must sometimes be sacrificed for the sake of protecting the deposit of faith is not only heresy by itself, but is the philosophy which has underpinned every schismatic movement since the founding of the Church. This so-called "state of emergency" talk is garbage, and the people who advance it are NOT traditionalists, but nostalgists. Real traditionalists know that no "state of emergency" could ever possibly exist which would force the laity and renegade clerics to overthrow the Magisterium and usurp that role for themselves. DON'T LISTEN TO THE NONSENSE COMING FROM THESE FALSE "TRADITIONALISTS!"

Posted Thursday, June 14, 2012 7:05 PM By JLS
Canisius, you surely have drawn some fire on this one : ))

Posted Thursday, June 14, 2012 8:03 PM By Canisius
K, I have attended SSPX chapels but I made my way back to the Church via the Serbian Orthodox Church, I never converted to Orthodoxy but attended numerous Divine Liturgies while in the Balkans. I met an excellent traditional priest (non-SSPX) who guided me back home. I never studied Vatican 2 I just see the end results of people like Larry who have taken control of the Church and its hierarchy. The Church is in collapse and we need to physically remove the corruption, I believe in direct confrontation when we see it. I have already stated that I have torn down rainbow flags in parishes, confronted priests, attacked heretics in parishes. I enjoy the fight because modernist fear confrontation and usually retreat into silence when they are proved wrong. Unfortunately we cannot remove the bad priests and demolish the modernist parishes.. that would be added bonus if we could

Posted Thursday, June 14, 2012 9:32 PM By JLS
Larry, both parables mean the same thing.

Posted Thursday, June 14, 2012 9:39 PM By JLS
Dana, unless you have such information from the horse's mouth, it is not worth much more than as conversational fodder. Why do people follow all sorts of dietary fads trying to find the fountain of youth? Jesus, in the Gospel, provides the answer. Now here is my sure to be surprising and mystical report on this: With God thousand years is as a day, and a day as a thousand years. Now, as movie legend Dirty Harry would say, you have to decide whether you're a day old or a thousand years old. Or, as I say, age is a state of mind (but don't quote me on this, since I heard it ... well, it seems as though I heard it only yesterday).

Posted Thursday, June 14, 2012 9:44 PM By JLS
Abeca, the "division" is "out there", and this site brings some of it into focus in an arena where we can deal with it. How does one domesticate a lion? How does one bring another to bend the knee and confess Jesus Christ? When we read Church history, it seems easy enough; when we attempt it, it doesn't seem so easy.

Posted Thursday, June 14, 2012 11:25 PM By Abeca Christian
k you may be asking questions to Canisuis but it comes across more like you are trying to attack! Sneaky.

Posted Friday, June 15, 2012 12:08 AM By Angelo
James, Many despise the SSPX because they are working hard to preserve Tradition. When it comes to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, it was not the Pope who excommunicated him, he incurred automatic excommunication as did the 4 newly consecrated Bishops and Bishop Mayer who took part in the illicit consecrations. Archbishop Lefebvre signed an aggreement of reconciliation along with Bl. John Paul ll and the then Cardinal Ratzinger. The Holy Father was to have a priest of the SSPX consecrated a Bishop to succeed Lefebvre upon his retirement. They were to come under a Personal Papal Prelature, which meant they would only answer to the Pope. A sort of world wide Diocese. Archbishop Lefebvre renegaded from the signed aggreement and consecrated 4 Bishops against the express will of the Holy Father. By Church law he excommunicated himself, called "Latae Sententiae". So Lefebvre was not excommunicated for his Catholic faith. He was excommunicated for gravely defieing the Holy Father and Canon Law, and causing a direct rupture in the Church.

Posted Friday, June 15, 2012 5:08 AM By Canisius
For Larry: We are what you once were We believe what you once believed We worship as you once worshiped If you were right then we are right now If we are wrong now, you were wrong then

Posted Friday, June 15, 2012 7:59 AM By k
James, Bishop Lefebvre and the 4 men he made bishops were not excommunicated for holding fast to traditional Roman Catholic morals, values, worship, 7 Holy Sacraments, doctrine and Roman Catholic teachings. They were excommunicated for disobeying the Pope. Lefebvre was told by Pope John Paul II that if he consecrated bishops without the Pope's permission, it would be considered an act of schism and they would be excommunicated. Lefebvre agreed not to do it; then turned around and did it anyway. They were excommunicated. Now that the excommunications have been lifted and, now thsat the Vatican has made the overture to Bishop Fellay to set up a personal prelature, it is up to him to decide if he will accept.

Posted Friday, June 15, 2012 9:18 AM By JLS
k, the point James made is the issue behind the excommunications. Had that issue not existed, then there would have been no reason for the Pope to forbid the consecration of the four bishops, right? Does this make sense to you? In other words, the whole dispute is not based on bishop making but on the wellbeing of the Church. Abp Lefebvre was disputing the Pope's judgment. This has happened in Church history and sometimes the popes have recanted. The nature of a bishop is not intended to be a yes man to the pope ... if it were, then there would be no reason for the existence of a bishop. As the recent growing knowledge about the Cristeros shows, many bishops are beholden to govt money instead of popes and/or Jesus. The bottom line is whether the pope is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Many many bishops do this, to wit abortion; so what is to say that a pope cannot make a bad or even a malicious judgment?

Posted Friday, June 15, 2012 10:23 AM By k
Canisius thank you for your answer. If you write an autobiography, I will be first in line to buy it.

Posted Friday, June 15, 2012 10:24 AM By k
abeca, I love Canisius. I do not attack him.

Posted Friday, June 15, 2012 11:42 AM By James
Larry, May I suggest that you read some history about the Arian Heresy whereby nearly 2/3rds of the clergy had strayed from the truth and taught heresy. Unlike other schismatic events in history, the Arians remained holding onto the Churches and infrastructure until their demise, similar to what we can see today with V II only at a much more grandiose scale. God kept His promise holding fast at the side of true Holy Mother the Church where the remaining loyal 1/3rd of the clergy united and remained faithful. So by precedent, loyalty to the faith and loyalty to the hierarchical body--ARE NOT NECESSARILY ONE AND THE SAME! Angelo and k, Automatic excommunication for doing something valid but illicit? Would our Lord agree to that? St. Robert Bellarmine said in 1610, "A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church" (self-excommunication). -- De Romano Pontiface. II.30. Considering V II encyclicals on religious liberty and ecumenism, these counter traditional Roman Catholic teaching. Publically kissing the Koran at Assisi and worshipping with idols, was it against God's 1st Commandment? Morally, heresy as a sin is against divine law. Canonically, heresy as a crime is against cannon law. What is worse, breaking divine law or cannon law? Unfortunately you only reported the Vatican's explanation of ABp Lefebvre's actions and not that of the SSPX. What was ABp Lefebvre's reason for doing so? It was not the reckless and lose modernists charge that he or his SSPX thought they were better than the pope! I enjoy your discussion in a most civil manner. Let us all pray the Rosary that God will help us all see His truth, for God does not deceive, nor can He be deceived! We all should want to know His truth which is whole and complete.

Posted Friday, June 15, 2012 2:24 PM By Larry
James: I know about the Arian Heresy, which raged like a forest fire in dry timber for roughly 60 years or so in the fourth century. A major reason, if not THE reason, it became so strong at one point is the support given by the Imperial Roman state. Two things must be noted: 1) at no time was Arianism ever approved as dogma by the pope and the bishops who kept union with him (in fact it was formally condemned as heresy) and; 2) within a century it was ground back into the dust by the pope, the bishops in union with him, and all those loyal to orthodoxy. Far from being a refutation, it is in fact a brilliant confirmation of the fact that loyalty to the faith and loyalty to the hierarchical body are and always will be one and the same, contrary to your heretical notion. On the other hand, many of you nostalgists (whom I have distinguished from Traditionalists) even attack the validity or binding authority of an ecumenical council which carries papal approval. In this you have far more in common with the Arians than the orthodox. As for Canisius--how I wish that I DID control the hierarchy--because if I did, Father Jenkins at Notre Dame would have been fired long ago, the University would have been given an ultimatum to clean up its act or change its name to something like "Golden Dome University"--pro-abortion Catholic politicians would have been publicly excommunicated--resignations would have been asked of most of the American bishops including all the ones in California--need I go on? There's no way people like me control the hierarchy. If they did, you wouldn't have any excuses today to advocate schism as the solution to the problem of anarchist dissenters.

Posted Friday, June 15, 2012 4:23 PM By k
James, our loyalty is to the Holy Trinity. Jesus Christ, the Son of God is the head of the Church. The Holy Spirit is the infallible guide of the Church. Our times have been filled with errors so one needs to know the Teaching of the Church, the Scriptures, the writings of the Fathers. I googled your quote from St. robert Bellarmine. I found that St. Robert Bellarmine believed that a Pope could not be a heretic. We have to trust the Pope. He is the Vicar of Christ. The things you brought up are disturbing but we have to pray for the Pope, not reject him. Popes are not impeccable.

Posted Friday, June 15, 2012 5:09 PM By Rick DeLano
Vatican II, that remarkable and singular thing, was supernaturally preserved from the binding of the faithful to error in matters of faith and morals. The modernists did the next best thing; they invented the remarkable and singular thing, a "pastoral council", which formulated its teachings in language so vague and ambiguous as to admit then logical possibility of diametrically opposed interpretations. Since this presents great problems, the indicated course is simply to hold fast to the Faith and Tradition which proceeds from the authoritative definitions of the magisterium. Certainly these cannot be seduced by any lying novelty. The rest is in the good and capable hands of the Holy Father.

Posted Friday, June 15, 2012 5:13 PM By JLS
Larry, you still do not see that you view everything legalistically. There is more to Catholicism than law. Too bad you cannot understand that your legal talents are not the sum of Catholic talents.

Posted Friday, June 15, 2012 5:59 PM By max
okey-dokey, now we have poeple saying the pope HIMSELF is a heretic because he doesn't fall at the feet of the SSPX gang who claim to know the truth better than the church! the following groups all have the same thing in common: they believe the church is wwrong, and they are right. ready for the list? the LCWR. the SSPX. the independent catholics. the ROMANCATHOLICWOMENPRIESTS. the followers of david allen bawden aka POPE MICHAEL (who attended the SSPX seminary in switzerland). another fun-loving american, "Reinaldus Michael Benjamins or Pope Gregory XIX who claims to have been crowned by angels in 1983." the list goes on and on, with each group claiming to have a monopoly on god's will. as for me and my house, we'll stick with POPE BENEDICT XVI.

Posted Friday, June 15, 2012 9:54 PM By Catherine
k, I certainly don't call 54% of Catholics voting for Obama loyalty to the Holy Trinity.

Posted Saturday, June 16, 2012 5:41 AM By Larry
What I see, JLS, is that by "legalism," you mean the refusal to anoint oneself as holier and more orthodox than the pope and the Church--the refusal to claim to act as a one-man court of appeals over the decisions of the pope and the bishops faithful to him--the refusal to reject the catechism and canon law and substitute one's own ersatz interpretations of Catholic theology--the refusal to countenance prideful schism in the name of alleged holiness and fidelity to the faith--the refusal to invent a completely novel conception of "tradition" which faithful Catholics of bygone days wouldn't even recognize--etc, etc. If that's "legalism," then I'll wear that logo proudly. And by the way, you never did back up your claim that I was distorting your posts, because you can't.

Posted Saturday, June 16, 2012 4:35 PM By k
Catherine, I did not mean the "our" in "our loyalty" to refer to the whole of baptized Catholics. You are correct that many Catholics are not loyal to the Holy Trinity (or to the Church or to Holy Father.) I am sure that James is sincerely trying to choose the best way to worship. I am sure he made his choices based on the best information he had. When people (SSPX or others) are justifying themselves, information can be distorted. The Holy Catholic Church is the true Church of God, established by Christ Himself. The successor to Peter is the Vicar of Christ. The Bishops are the successors to the Apostles. The Catechism of Trent written by Pope Pius V is an excellent resource to use to understand the true nature of the Church.

Posted Saturday, June 16, 2012 8:19 PM By Canisius
Larry as a modernist do you honestly believe the Church is stronger since the failed Vatican 2 council?? Tradition is Novelty really?, I am sure you think all the innovations done by the parish councils like rock masses, clown masses, etc are wonderful treasures of the Church to be handed down to the Faithful

Posted Sunday, June 17, 2012 12:23 PM By Abeca Christian
Catherine I agree.

Posted Sunday, June 17, 2012 3:47 PM By JLS
k, in that you refer to "baptised Catholics", what would a non-baptised Catholic be?

Posted Sunday, June 17, 2012 3:51 PM By JLS
max, the difference in your list between the SSPX along with some "independent" Catholics is that all the others teach false doctrine.

Posted Sunday, June 17, 2012 6:48 PM By MacDonald
Papal and conciliar infallibility are correlated but not identical. A council's decrees approved by the pope are infallible by reason of that approbation, because the pope is infallible also extra concilium, without the support of a council. The infallibility proper to the pope is not, however, the only formal adequate ground of the council's infallibility. The Divine constitution of the Church and the promises of Divine assistance made by her Founder, guarantee her inerrancy, in matters pertaining to faith and morals, independently of the pope's infallibility: a fallible pope supporting, and supported by, a council, would still pronounce infallible decisions. This accounts for the fact that, before the Vatican decree concerning the supreme pontiff's ex-cathedra judgments, Ecumenical councils were generally held to be infallible even by those who denied the papal infallibility; it also explains the concessions largely made to the opponents of the papal privilege that it is not necessarily implied in the infallibility of councils, and the claims that it can be proved separately and independently on its proper merits. The infallibility of the council is intrinsic, i.e. springs from its nature. Christ promised to be in the midst of two or three of His disciples gathered together in His name; now an Ecumenical council is, in fact or in law, a gathering of all Christ's co-workers for the salvation of man through true faith and holy conduct; He is therefore in their midst, fulfilling His promises and leading them into the truth for which they are striving. His presence, by cementing the unity of the assembly into one body — His own mystical body — gives it the necessary completeness, and makes up for any defect possibly arising from the physical absence of a certain number of bishops. The same presence strengthens the action of the pope, so that, as mouthpiece of the council, he can say in truth, "it has seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us", and consequently can, and does, put the seal of infallibility on the conciliar decree irrespective of his own personal infallibility.

Posted Sunday, June 17, 2012 6:51 PM By MacDonald
CANISIUS, "the failed Vatican 2 Council?" Really? By denying the Ecumenical Council of the Church, you are speaking like an ecclesiastical anarchist. What will you deny next, the Pope? The Bible? The Magisterium of the Church? The Real Presence?

Posted Sunday, June 17, 2012 6:54 PM By MacDonald
THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH: "11 This catechism aims at presenting an organic synthesis of the essential and fundamental contents of Catholic doctrine, as regards both faith and morals, in the light of the Second Vatican Council and the whole of the Church's Tradition. Its principal sources are the Sacred Scriptures, the Fathers of the Church, the liturgy, and the Church's Magisterium. It is intended to serve "as a point of reference for the catechisms or compendia that are composed in the various countries". CANISIUS, if you reject the Second Vatican Council, you are in some other religion...

Posted Monday, June 18, 2012 5:30 AM By Canisius
MacDonald you are such a liberal, you twist my words, I never denied Vatican 2, I just stated that it failed, whatever the Pope, Cardinals and Bishops tried to implement it has failed on a tragic and monumental scale. I don't deny any of the things you stated, (Pope, Bible, Real Presence) so don't say that I do. But I will tell you what I do deny, you and your modernism...may the modernist infection be wiped out in my lifetime and all things may be renewed in Christ.

Posted Monday, June 18, 2012 8:33 AM By k
JLS, ok, be picky. People who have been baptized in the Catholic Church.

Posted Monday, June 18, 2012 9:35 AM By JLS
k, all baptisms are Catholic, because baptism is a sacrament. Catholicism offers additional sacraments not available in other groups. The sacrament of Confirmation is what makes one a card carrying Catholic, also providing the confirmed soul with graces not available to the unconfirmed.

Posted Monday, June 18, 2012 9:49 AM By JLS
For the blog record: When opine about the function of Vatican II, I notice it comes out seemingly ... seemingly ... opposite from the view expressed by Canisius. Let me say, though, that what Canisius and what I present is different from what others such as MacDonald present. A. What is similar in my and Canisius' view? We both recognize Vatican II as it is. The others present a fantasy view of it. B. Whereas Canisius sees it as a failure, and I interpret this view to depend on the effect of V2's severe reduction in both pew counts and altar counts and its its crazy grappling of the tillar on the Barque of Peter, yet my view sees this but concludes not that it is bad but that it is good. So, I think both Canisius and I see the effects of Vatican II in the same light; but with the difference in whether this is good or bad: Maybe, I wonder, there should be more work by more people on the conclusion of what both Canisius and I and many others are seeing. I rarely if ever find a discussion on this suggestion. For example, MacD rambles on in the politically correct manner of sound bite manner which serves to estrange the argument from anything serious. You will also read others in the MacD camp leading the discussion away from the points being made by the likes of Canisius and myself. That strategy is parroting that level of episcopacy which prefers the tyrant approach to serving Jesus by beating his flocks senseless. Some members of the flock, however, have hard heads and do not conk out from abusive intellects, who confuse compassion with serving the devil.

Posted Monday, June 18, 2012 9:50 AM By Larry
Canisius: You know better than to spew that malicious nonsense in your June 16, 8:19 p.m. post.

Posted Monday, June 18, 2012 9:52 AM By JLS
Notice the liberal apologists always work the CCC, and never rely on common sense including reason? They use craft and guile to manipulate through the medium of the CCC passages. I grew up in an era where this was called brainwashing, and was attributed to the run of the mill Soviet Union / Communist / Marxist state way of "education".

Posted Monday, June 18, 2012 9:54 AM By MacDonald
CANISIUS: you now state, ex cathedra, that the Second Vatican Council failed? What will you declare as "failed" next? Humanae Vitae? Caritas in Veritate? Veritatis Splendor? Mit Brennender Sorge? The Council of Trent?

Posted Monday, June 18, 2012 10:45 AM By Abeca Christian
JLS excellent comments from your Post of Sunday, June 17, 2012 3:51. It's interesting because I have seen many Novus Ordo masses and many are very protestant and do not seem Catholic at all. So my family and I usually try to attend a Latin Rite Parish, also our Maronrite parish but since our pastor was transferred to Sacramento we are now trying to find a more reverent and solid Novus Ordo parish also in San Diego. I am more Charismatic in my worship, I wish I could find a more reverent and traditional NO mass.

Posted Monday, June 18, 2012 11:18 AM By k
Canisius, a lot of what I think you may be referring to was not done by Vatican II. I was in religious education when Vatican II was being implemented. Our catechism went from the Baltimore Catechism to Jesus Christ Superstar. It was not Vatican II that did that. It was a teacher who was trying to be hip. The "smoke of satan" that the Pope bemoaned having entered the Church was the doubt that entered the Faithful's minds after the changes. "They changed their minds about (eating fish on Friday, wearing hats for women, Latin Mass, etc), they might change their minds about (divorce, contraception, Purgatory, etc). Before Vatican II, people accepted without question that what they were told was Truth and that it was from God. The changes in the liturgy and disciplines made people question everything. Some people really studied to learn what would be pleasing to God. Other people just did whatever pleased them or reflected their idea of Love. Some just stuck with the pre-Vatican II faith because they had confidence in it and did not trust the Church anymore. As the saying goes, Catholicism is not for wimps. Keep praying. Keep worshipping. Keep learning.

Posted Monday, June 18, 2012 1:30 PM By Canisius
MacDonald will you honestly state that the end results of Vatican 2 were a success.. HA! Joke @ Larry I stated the truth being modernist you just could not discern it

Posted Monday, June 18, 2012 1:34 PM By JLS
k, faithful Catholicism does not accept without question; rather that is what manipulated people do under tyrannical rule. Your pitch is extremely narrow in scope, very "folksy" and of the kumbayah crowd. That was the Catholic stream that got diverted off into never never land, and today struggles to pit its emotionalism against Catholic reason.

Posted Monday, June 18, 2012 1:44 PM By k
JLS, there are baptisms which are not Catholic, because they are not Trinitarian or because they do not intend to do what the Church does. One becomes a member of the Church at Baptism. You are correct that Communion and Confirmation are also Sacraments of Initiation but it would not be correct to say that one is not Catholic if they have not received them, such as in the case where one has not obtained the age that the Church confers the sacraments.

Posted Monday, June 18, 2012 2:21 PM By Larry
JLS: There's just no limit to the amount of theological nonsense you're willing to crank out, is there? "The sacrament of Confirmation is what makes one a card carrying Catholic..." Wrong! A person in "full communion" with the Catholic Church is anyone who is "joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ," which is governed by the pope and his bishops--such junction being achieved through the "bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government and communion..." CCC 837. A toddler whose parents had him baptized in the Catholic Church, and who will take him to Sunday mass as soon as he is old enough to behave himself, is already a "card carrying Catholic" just as much as his baptized, confirmed and communion-receiving parents.

Posted Monday, June 18, 2012 3:25 PM By James
What a dichotomy of so many different posters. It is evident where traditionalist and modernist lines are drawn, but there is also dichotomy within the modernists own remarks. These modernists point out the errors of V II and its clergy; and if they were king or queen (or pope) for a day explain how they would correct the situation; but heaven forbid don't challenge the authority (rather they defend it) of the leaders for the modern broad crooked path they've forced us down, in-turn reaping spoiled fruits! St. Robert Bellarmine points it is theoretically possible there can be a heretical pope, who then is really no pope at all by committing/teaching heresy! Look back into RC history, there have been nearly 40 anti-popes! k you need to find better sources to do your research before posting counter comments without facts. Don't rely on modern written documents within the last 50 years, dig down into old Roman Catholic documents. Wikipedia and other modern internet sites can be shallow, uncredible, except on occasion one can find the Catechism of the Council of Trent and other old RC documents on-line! The RC Church cannot give evil! One of the essential properties of, the RC is her indefectibility. This means, among other things her teaching is immutable and always remaining the same (St. Ignatius of Antioch). It is impossible for her to contradict her own teaching. However V II did and modern encyclicals have done so since then! Further, another essential property of the RCC is her infallibility. This does not apply only to rare ex cathedra papal pronouncements like those defining the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. Infallibility also extends to the Church's universal disciplinary laws. Based on bloggers own recognition that the post V II hierarchy has officially sanctioned errors and evils, it is impossible that the errors and evil could have proceeded from what is in fact the authority of the Church. There must be another explanation!

Posted Monday, June 18, 2012 4:47 PM By JLS
k, a baptism is always Catholic; otherwise it is not a baptism.

Posted Monday, June 18, 2012 4:56 PM By JLS
k, baptism confers Catholicism on the baptised. Instead of pushing the Jewish custom that one is born a Jew, a Catholic should teach the Catholic doctrine that one is baptised into Catholicism. No one can be born into Catholicism; this error stems from people confusing their culture with their religion.

Posted Monday, June 18, 2012 5:26 PM By k
James, read the Catechism of Trent on the Church; also Holy Orders. Can the Church change a Dogma? No, it can not. Dogma is that the Church is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. You are saying that the Catholic Church has ceased to exist. This is contrary to the revealed truth. It is what Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses believe and some Protestants. It is not possible. Either the church exists with the Holy Spirit as Her guide and Jesus as her head or she never did. I believe in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Are you familiar with Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma? What do you make of the Church having changed the Nicene Creed to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son? Why do you persist in doubting? Have faith.

Posted Monday, June 18, 2012 5:28 PM By Larry
"It is impossible for her [the Catholic Church] to contradict her own teaching. However V II did and modern encyclicals have done so since then!" What a masterpiece of faulty logic, contradiction and muddled thinking, James. The correct line of reasoning is the following: "It is impossible for her to contradict her own teaching. Therefore, V II did not, and neither did subsequent encyclicals, because they COULD not have. Therefore, if they SEEM to me to contradict earlier teaching, I must be mistaken in my understanding of them." Then you say, "Infallibility also extends to the Church's universal disciplinary laws." No, James--it does not. The Church's disciplinary laws are NOT infallible. They are not meant to be. Therefore, they are changeable from time to time--and have been changed. Whatever they are at any one time, they are absolutely binding on the faithful. But they are not infallible and immutable. James, Canisius and JLS claim to be Traditionalists, and they call anyone who disagrees with them Modernists. But the fact is that they are cranking out absolute bunk that isn't even coherent, logical or understandable, let alone faithful to Church teaching. Don't be fooled by it!

Posted Monday, June 18, 2012 5:45 PM By k
JLS, there is nothing kumbaya about what I wrote. You didn't live it. You didn't become Catholic until later. I was young when the change occurred. The smoke of satan homily was from 1972.

Posted Monday, June 18, 2012 7:20 PM By MacDonald
James, your 3:25 PM post is ridiculous. You divide the world into "traditionalists" and "modernists" and then opine that a pope hundreds of years ago who said XXX must be believed until the Second Coming, whereas a pope who says XXX today need not be believed. You cannot have it both ways: you either believe in the living Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church, or you choose to become an anarchist, in which case you may discard the teachings of Pope Pius V just as easily as those of Pope Benedict XVI. Is this REALLY what you want for your Church? Anarchy? If you truly believe the Church is infallible, you cannot at the same time discard the most recent Ecumenical Council (Vatican 2), which the Church itself declares as infallible.

Posted Monday, June 18, 2012 8:37 PM By Rick DeLano
James, you greatly err. The Church is indefectible, but not impeccable, and certainly not incapable opt pastoral and prudential error. The sedevacantist is like the modernist in denying the indefectibility of the Church; in the modernist's case, by claiming She has erred, and in the sedevacantist's case, by denying that the Church is united with a valid Pope. It is possible to say the modernist is worse only because the sedevacantists are so weak, few, and logically challenged.

Posted Monday, June 18, 2012 10:44 PM By Abeca Christian
I like what one priest once told us all, that when we die in state of grace, that we are all Catholic.

Posted Tuesday, June 19, 2012 12:20 AM By k
JLS, no one is born Catholic. That is correct.

Posted Tuesday, June 19, 2012 7:35 AM By JLS
k, as I've repeatedly blogged, I ran into Catholics socially for the first time when I began college in 1966. I quickly sorted them into two groups ... ok, three groups counting the men. The description you posted was very very obvious to me. One group loved to develop reason, and the other group simply regurgitated what they were told and hated and feared the use of reason. We see the same thing on the blogs all the time.

Posted Tuesday, June 19, 2012 7:45 AM By JLS
False, James! You quote St Robert Bellarmine and then slide in your own false logic as if that Saint said it. "St. Robert Bellarmine points it is theoretically possible there can be a heretical pope, who then is really no pope at all by committing/teaching heresy!": Whereas the Saint confesses even an heretical pope is possible, you make it seem as though he were saying that an heretical pope is not a pope. But that is not what St Bellarmine said. You said it, and you have slandered the Saint, and also have vainly attempted to elevate yourself at the expense of truth by attacking the Eleventh and Greatest Commandment, which in part says to "love thy neighbor". What kind of love is it when you attribute a false doctrine to a Doctor of the Church, James? Have you ever heard of "crow"? You need to eat some.

Posted Tuesday, June 19, 2012 11:23 AM By James
K, I have read parts of the Catechism of the Council of Trent, a very old version published in Baltimore by Lucas brothers, and posted on the internet on the University of Toronto's Library website, just use your computer's search engine/browser to find it. I agree completely with Roman Catholic Church teaching. I am not sure what you refer as my doubts. Apparently you've misinterpreted my blog as well as a few others. I do believe the Roman Catholic Church has not ceased to exist, and I do believe our Lord's words that He will be with Her until the end of time. The point is where the Roman Catholic Church exists. She exists where Holy Bishops and Priests say the TLM and perform the 7 Holy Sacraments before they were changed by the V II Council. Rest assured, I am a member of a traditional Roman Catholic Parish where only the TLM and 7 Holy Sacraments of old are performed! Naturally, I also believe in Holy Orders of the old way, i.e. the form, matter, prayers, and intentions of those performed by our Lord and our Roman Catholic fore-fathers (as in clergy) prior to the changes of V II. Are you aware that the first sacrament to be changed by the V II Council was that of Holy Orders? Words, form, matter, and intentions are undeniably critical, they are what constitute the validity of the sacrament besides a holy valid apostolic and catholic bishop that it requires to render Holy Orders. Do some serious research and see for yourself the significance of the changes made by the V II Council, you may be surprised! I agree completely with all the teachings and practices of the Roman Catholic Church before the V II Council. It is readily apparent from many of the bloggers (including modernists) here on this site that they likewise don't agree with all of the changes made by the V II Council or its aftermath. Please pray for me, for like all of us here, I haven't all of the answers; however, I do believe I have found a safe refuge where our Lord truly is!

Posted Tuesday, June 19, 2012 1:16 PM By max
"I agree completely with all the teachings and practices of the Roman Catholic Church before the V II Council." JAMES, well, whoop-dee-doo! how generous of you to deign to grace holy mother church with your agreement of the way she does things...or used to do them...or still does them in your chapel. i'm sure the holy spirit avoids the sacraemnts scrupulously when they are not celebrated according to your list. it must be humbling to have such power over how GOD operates...

Posted Tuesday, June 19, 2012 1:18 PM By k
James, you cannot have the Holy Catholic Church without the Pope. It exists with the Pope as its head. If you belong to a Roman Catholic Church that is not in union with Pope Benedict XVI then you are in an ecclesial imitation of the Holy Catholic Church or a Catholic sect. If your priest was validly ordained then yes, the Lord Jesus is truly there when the sacrament is confected. He is truly in every Catholic tabernacle. Do you remember that not a sparrow falls to the ground without your Heavenly Father's consent? It is beyond understanding as to why the Lord has permitted certain things to occur in His Church. We will understand it at the proper time and we will be amazed at God's wisdom. I will include you in my prayers.

Posted Tuesday, June 19, 2012 1:42 PM By Larry
James: And you know all of this better than the bishops of the world and Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, JP I & II and Benedict XVI? Pardon me if I don't buy it. And you wouldn't happen to be related to the posters Bruce and Doug, would you? I seem to recall that the language of their posts in the past on other threads was very much like yours, both in certain phrases and concepts.

Posted Tuesday, June 19, 2012 2:21 PM By JLS
James, if you are really serious about the discussion, then you should explore the criticism I leveled at your faulty conclusion to your quote of St Bellarmine. Yes, you can ignore it; and guess what that does to your credibility as someone seeking what is true. Are you, in other words, simply pasting up a billboard for your position, or are you attempting to engage in discussion, dispute, argument and exploration hoping to better see what is true?

Posted Wednesday, June 20, 2012 10:56 AM By James the Least
Rick, You too seem confused, having jumped to conclusions, close-minded or I didn't write clearly with the limited space available. My apologies if the latter. I know some Roman Catholics who are sedevacantists and they do not deny the indefectibility of the Church as you accuse them; and they are not weak, few, nor logically challenged. They follow valid holy clergy that are faithful to all the traditional teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. These faithful Roman Catholics are not misled, nor are they better nor consider themselves better than the pope as many modernists criticize them. The sedevacantists have been given the graces to see the truth, to keep Christ as their head, Christ who founded the Roman Catholic Church, revealed and taught the truth, and prescribed exactly how to worship the God the Father and conduct their daily lives with the help of the Holy Ghost and Blessed Virgin Mary, unlike every other religion that was founded by man or as you might say modernists.

Posted Wednesday, June 20, 2012 11:37 AM By k
James, you believe there is no pope?

Posted Wednesday, June 20, 2012 11:48 AM By JLS
Denying the existence of a pope contradicts confessing the indefectibility of the Church, contrary to what James Least claims. At least this type of mind succeeds in marketing and sales; would wither away fast in any occupation dealing with hands on skills ... hmn, Jesus became the "hands on" person of God. Now where does that leave the airhead sedevacantists? Judaism?

Posted Wednesday, June 20, 2012 11:58 AM By k
James the least: the belief that "the Roman Pontiffs and ecumenical councils have wandered outside the limits of their powers, have usurped the rights of princes, and have even erred in defining matters of faith and morals." is one of the beliefs of modernism that was condemned in Pope Pius IX "Syllabus of Errors."

Posted Wednesday, June 20, 2012 12:32 PM By James the Least
JLS, I gather from your criticism that you are saying that a man that is committing and teaching heresy can be a pope? Don't shoot me, I'm only the messenger, a bit of dust I am, not a theologian, just a reader of Roman Catholic theology and a practicing Roman Catholic holding steadfast to tradition. St. Robert Bellarmine is not the only Roman Catholic saint or holy theologian that wrote about this subject, try reading these texts: Pope Innocent III's Sermo 4; In Consecratione PL 218:670, St. Antoninus Summa Theologica, cited in Actes de Vatican I, St. Alphonsus Liguori in Oeuvres Completes, and Pope Paul IV's Papal Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio. This is not the complete list, many other holy Roman Catholic theologians like J. Wilhelm (1913) Caesar Badii (1921), Dominic Prummer (1927) F.X. Wernz and P. Vidal (1943), Udalricus Beste (1946), A. Vermeersch, and I. Creusen (1949), and Eduardus F. Regatillo (1956) support and explain this Roman Catholic philosophy. It’s not my credibility that you challenge, it is theirs. Who are you to challenge them? I am engaging in this frank discussion, and know by the above listed Popes, Saints, and theologians that what they speak is the truth! All I ask is you read their Roman Catholic works, then you too will draw the same conclusions and understand the reasons for the spoiled modern fruits i.e. the state of the modern V II Church that we speak of. May God enlighten your path to heaven.

Posted Wednesday, June 20, 2012 1:05 PM By JLS
Rick Delano's blog is clear, logical, and based on Church doctrine. In opposition is James tL's "he said, she said" relativism rant).

Posted Wednesday, June 20, 2012 1:44 PM By MacDonald
JAMES THE LEAST: "The sedevacantists have been given the graces to see the truth..." Okay, now you have shown your true colors, and they are blurred, like a watercolor left out in the rain. If you REALLY think the Chair of Peter is empty, you are nuts, and your sect has separated itself from the Roman Catholic Church. Not interested in any more nonsense from you -- and by the way, the earth is not flat, either.

Posted Wednesday, June 20, 2012 2:00 PM By Larry
So, James--you are a sedevacantist?

Posted Wednesday, June 20, 2012 2:50 PM By JLS
Why is it that not a single dissenter ever puts forward a clear and reasoned statement based on revealed truth?

Posted Wednesday, June 20, 2012 5:03 PM By JLS
James, notice how you see matters according to levels of confusion, and yet where blogs such as Rick's do not?

Posted Wednesday, June 20, 2012 10:21 PM By k
Is James and James the Least the same person?

Posted Thursday, June 21, 2012 6:56 AM By Larry
James, the problem facing your Roman Catholic Church of the Old 7 Holy Sacraments group today is that all your authority figures are dead. When disputes arise, as they inevitably will, regarding whether "tradition" is being adequately served in the "parishes", there's no way to settle it except by majority vote, which the losing side can always attack as wrongheaded. Look how the SSPV deserted from SSPX because they believed the latter had gone soft. It won't be long before you folks start splintering, too--we'll wind up with the Roman Catholic Church of the 7 Older and Holier Sacraments, the Church of the 7 Much Older and Holier Sacraments and finally the Church of the 7 Oldest-and-Holiest-Yet Sacraments, etc, etc. That's how it always is with Protestantism.

Posted Thursday, June 21, 2012 11:40 AM By James the Least
k, You are correct I am also James. I thought a new handle was appropriate being that I am but dust and only the messenger. I am not starting a new religion, just share the truth of our own Roman Catholic faith, which a few of you appear to emphatically deny! Don't shoot me, I am open-minded to Roman Catholic Church teaching and only the messenger! It befuddles me how a few folks jump to conclusions, challenge the facts ridiculing me (that"s OK truth is in my old RC references), but won't engage in civil discussion of each issue/topic. JLS and Larry, I doubt that either of you have ever made an attempt to even look these holy Roman Catholic documents have you? Are you lazy or cowards? One doesn't have to be a sedevacantist to read and accept the infallible and indefectable Roman Catholic Church writings of our saintly forefather theologians. These writings will not change over time because the truth doesn't change over time! As Roman Catholics, it is our duty to try to do spiritual reading whose writings are indefectable and infallible. Think about it, if those writings were to change over time, then would they be infallible or indefectible? God is the Alpha and the Omega, He is the Truth, the Way, and the Life and He doesn't change over time. However man by his free liberty granted by God can and does change over time. The key is in holding onto and abiding to the Truth which is for all time! You're correct Larry, the protestants have splintered into many sect generations over the centuries. So has the modern V II Church. Just drive across town and you'll see one parish different in its ways (varying degrees of liberalism imposed) than another parish -- nuns dancing, rock and roll choirs, joke-filled homilies, different vestments, altar girls, lay ministers of communion, immodest dress, talking, irreverence, 1962 Mass, Paul VIth Mass, NO, and cultural additions, etc.) Traditionalists do have political differences, but sacramentally they're one.

Posted Thursday, June 21, 2012 12:35 PM By Abeca Christian
I pray that we unite and be kind in sharing our truth. Some people truly are in the dark of things and all we need is some charity and prayer to help them.

Posted Thursday, June 21, 2012 1:16 PM By Larry
"One doesn't have to be a sedevacantist to read and accept the infallible and indefectable Roman Catholic Church writings of our saintly forefather theologians." More error--and what error! The writings of "forefather theologians," no matter how saintly they were, are neither infallible nor indefectable. The latter word cannot even appropriately be applied to writings--it would refer to some kind of machine or organization. The AUTHORITATIVE TEACHINGS of the Catholic Church are infallible (including the teaching that the pope and bishops united to him can never bind the faithful to error in faith & morals)--and the Catholic Church ITSELF is indefectable.

Posted Thursday, June 21, 2012 1:42 PM By max
"k, You are correct I am also James. I thought a new handle was appropriate being that I am but dust and only the messenger" --- JAMES, the only dust around here is the kind you have been inhaling, which is hallucinogenic. the notion that the council of trent is more importantt than other more recent councils is just plain nutty. when the catholic church comes togetrher for an ecumenical council, that's a big deal, whether you like ity or not.

Posted Thursday, June 21, 2012 1:51 PM By k
James the Least, Traditionalists are not one. There are sedevacantist, sedeprivationists, SSPX, other independents. Then there are those who stay with the Church and attend the Extraodinary Form of the Roman rite. I can't find most of the sources you listed but the one I could find was the Papal Bull. This was written in 1559 in the wake of the Protestant revolt. I assume that the part you are referring to is number 6 where it states that if a Roman Pontiff is found to have, before his promotion, deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy then his promotion is null, void and worthless. This document is intended to keep the Church free from error. So you are telling me that schismatics are using this document to justify rebellion? This is the Catholic Church. A lay person, or a priest or a bishop, cannot just decide that the pope said something heretical and then decide that there is a "Magisterium of Error." The Papal bull does not identify the means by which a Pope would be removed for being a heretic, but I am fairly certain that the process is not "leave the church, start your own and call it the true Catholic Church."

Posted Thursday, June 21, 2012 2:50 PM By JLS
James, you're an idiot.

Posted Thursday, June 21, 2012 3:34 PM By Larry
"I thought a new handle was appropriate being that I am but dust and only the messenger." We're laying it on a little thick, aren't we, James? It's unbecoming to brag about one's humility. After all--we're ALL dust.

Posted Thursday, June 21, 2012 4:59 PM By JLS
max, again, which new ... new, max, new ... doctrine came out of Vatican Council 2? Yet, consider how much dogma came from Trent.

Posted Thursday, June 21, 2012 6:11 PM By James the Least
Funny k, Larry, and JLS you jump to conclusions. Max likes to make childish snide remarks, then JLS and Larry like to call names or like to insult, which seems a bit childish and rather un-Catholic indeed. The problem is your lack of not really completely (broadly and deeply) thinking what others say before you lash out with your loose and uninformed comments. You haven't done your homework. k, You need to find a good Roman Catholic library. Unfortunately you won't find many old Roman Catholic documents like I cited on-line. Many have been destroyed, but some good traditional and faithful Roman Catholics have rescued some documents from the bond fires and garbage dumpsters when the fad "out with the old and in with the new" was raging. My brother-in-law save many old Roman Catholic books from a renowned Catholic University dumpster! I can list the documents that the theologians quotes were copied from above, they aren't my own doing! Please do not try to read between the lines or put your own words in my mouth. I am glad to see you searched, found, and "verified" one of the many documents referenced exists and the truth in its contents". Thank you, it proves credibility to my message, and that I haven't been lying. Larry, for your clarification, when I wrote about Roman Catholic documents it is the contents that are infallible and indefectible because they were approved by the Roman Catholic Church. Pray the Rosary to see God's Holy Truth, and for courage to follow His Way.

Posted Thursday, June 21, 2012 6:42 PM By James
Friends, What does the following list of men have in common? Alexander V, Albert, Anacletus II, Anastasius, Benedict X, Benedict XIII, Benedict XIV, Boniface VII, Calixtus III, Celestine II, Christopher, Clement III, Clement VII, Clement VIII, Constantine II, Dioscorus, Eulalius, Felix II, Felix V, Gregory, Gregory VIII, Honorius, Honorius II, Innocent III, John, John XVI, John XXIII (1410 - 1415 AD), Laurentius, Nicholas V, Novatian, Paschal, Paschal III, Philip, Severinus, Stephen II, Sylvester IV, Theoderic, Theodore, Ursinus, and Victor. Needless to say, I was shocked after having done the research! Never in my wildest dreams would have I ever guessed there were so many. Surprised by two different John the XXIIIrds? I was. Just by John the XXIIIrd taking on his name in 1958, only reinforces the point that John the XXIIIrd (1410 - 1415 AD) was not what he was. Oh but don’t rely on my message, before you landblast. Research this information for yourself! Roman Catholic history is fascinating, but although it has had its share of problems (look even the devil tried leading our dear Lord into sin), the true Roman Catholic faith prevailed because our Lord stood beside His bride, our Roman Catholic Church. Larry your right, I'll drop "the Least", I am open-minded to your intelligent comments, just not always agreeable after serious thought. Please pray for me.

Posted Thursday, June 21, 2012 10:56 PM By JLS
James, you must represent the new comedy fad ... you need your own tv show.

Posted Thursday, June 21, 2012 10:58 PM By JLS
Btw, James, tell us all the other handles you have ... might take you several full posts to list them all.

Posted Thursday, June 21, 2012 11:17 PM By Abeca Christian
James stick to one name here, having two names, well, people may not take you very seriously. Just saying. God bless you.

Posted Thursday, June 21, 2012 11:18 PM By k
James, you have access to information that I don't have. are all those anti-popes? So do you follow a Pope? Where did you find the Roman Catholic Church? I assume you are not affiliated with the Roman Catholic Womenpriests. if the Catholic Church that I go to is not the Catholic Church then I have no where to go. Let's get out of history and into the present. You haven't exactly said what you believe about Pope Benedict XVI and why. When did you leave the post Vatican II church (if you did)? Why?

Posted Friday, June 22, 2012 4:27 AM By RR
JLS: I cannot believe that you would stoop so low as to call James an "idiot." You may not agree with him, but to start name calling is ridiculous and out of line. I cannot believe the editor would even post that comment. I have stopped posting on here because of comments like yours and because of what gets edited and not. My posts have never called anyone names, and my posts either don't get published or are edited so much that the message I was trying to convey is so skewed that it didn't represent the true meaning of what I posted. How can name calling be published but posts about Catholic tradition are deleted? I guess if your a regular, daily poster, such as yourself, you get to say anything you want and are able to call names. I still read CCD, but I can't stand what these blogs have become, even by some of the regular posters.

Posted Friday, June 22, 2012 7:17 AM By Larry
James: First off, I think you mean "lambast," not "landblast," which is not a word. Secondly, I don't understand what you're driving at in your 6:42 p.m. post. Cardinal Baldassare Cossa, who called himself "John XXIII" between 1410 and 1415 was one of the antipopes of the Western Schism. He is not recognized as a genuine successor to St. Peter, which is why his number was not retired with his death--so Cardinal Angelo Roncalli was perfectly free to use it in 1958. If a future (genuine) pope were to take the name John, he would be John XXIV, and so on. As for your 6:11 p.m. post, I'm puzzled there as well. Good for your brother-in-law for saving those old books, but if you're implying that he and others saved infallible teaching from being forgotten, that's ridiculous. With the exception of Sacred Scripture, what is infallible is TEACHING, not writings (even of the saints) and all infallible teaching has been preserved and passed down to those of us willing to accept them in books readily available. You'll find all the infallible teaching necessary for salvation in the Catechisms of Vatican II and Trent as well as Scripture. Another excellent source is the Baltimore Catechism. There is no need to go dumpster-diving for old books in order to discover long-lost infallible teaching.

Posted Friday, June 22, 2012 10:10 AM By k
RR, if I remember correctly, you have your own chapel and priests come to say Mass there. I assume it is the Traditional Latin Mass. I assumed it was because there was no Latin Mass near you. Since then I have learned a lot about traditionalist but I am a dillitante. Is there anything you can share with me about how this came to be? Has your family always had this chapel? I am trying to understand what has freaked people out about the Catholic Church so that they feel uncomfortable there and find these alternative places to worship.

Posted Friday, June 22, 2012 11:19 AM By Abeca Christian
I agree with RR, there was no need to name call a person who knows a lot about the early church, more than protestants do. At least he studies that and hopefully it will lead him to Rome. There are truly true idiots out there and James is not one of them but perhaps mislead or whatever reason. If truly his goal is Jesus, then his knowledge of God's faith, will eventually lead this soul to Christ and His wholeness, unity in the faith. Let us not allow pride to infect us but approach with charity and humility. God bless you all.

Posted Friday, June 22, 2012 11:24 AM By James
JLS, In the infamous words of Ronald Reagan to those who would attack and slander the President, JLS, “there you go again”! You can not counter a comment based on fact that you don’t comprehend or are unwilling to accept, instead like many of todays political liberals, you go on personal attacks. How shameful, irresponsible, and immature. k, yes you guessed correctly they are all anti-popes. If you are horrified and saddened by the long list so was I at first. It bothered me. That really stuck in my craw and started to make me learn Roman Catholic Church history, first of all to prove the facts were wrong. The facts weren’t wrong. Instead I came to the realization that the devil has been attacking our Roman Catholic Church from the beginning with Jesus as Her head. What was perceived as holy men by many, have fallen along the way throughout the centuries. It is just a fact of life, and it isn’t any different today. The clergy are attacked from the top down to the bottom up even today. The source of the list is Felician Foy, OFM, 1967 National Catholic Almanac, pp. 182-183. Yes I follow the papal succession. Technically speaking there is no such thing as Roman Catholic Women priests, nor any liberal Churches that can honestly take the name of Roman Catholic, although there are deceivers out there that do. I spent my childhood in the pre-concilliar RC Church, then following my parents blindly followed the modern V II church as an altar server for 20 years with its clown masses and liturgical abuses, major sacrament changes, watering down of the catechism and CCD classes, and etc. Earlier I had thought about attending a seminary, but couldn’t motivate myself. Too many things in the V II Church wasn’t right. Surprisingly, I found the TLM and RC parishes like-in-the catacombs in the late 1980s when the TLM was effectively abolished. I stayed and never left. Today these traditional RC parishes are flourishing. Browse “traditio” for a US directory.

Posted Friday, June 22, 2012 11:54 AM By James
Larry, I am sorry; however you seem to like to nit-noy about small trees (counter by chiselling at small mute points and personal attacks); but fail to see and discuss the more relevant forest i.e. the message. It appears however, you came to the same conclusion as I on John XXIIIrd, that my point was even John XXIIIrd and the Vatican recognized the first John XXIIIrd as an anti-pope by repeating the number XXIII. However my main driving point was was, anti-popes can exist, and as many as 40 have existed. They existed back then, and they can exist at any time. This is counter to what some appear to believe or accept especially in this day of a Great Apostasy. I agree with on the infallible teachings in the Catechism of Trent, and you must admit there are many other Roman Catholic infallible documents too. You are wrong and should be ashamed of yourself showing a coldness toward rescuing beautiful Roman Catholic documents. There is a need for those lost texts, as they contain many subjects that have been watered down or forgotten that lay people don't hear or read of today. Catholic laymen could have had the privilege to access, but are unable today as they are nolonger exist on the library shelves. TAN Books publishes only a small fraction of those documents lost today! These documents are excellent spiritual reading to learn about our Roman Catholic Church faith and dogma, and the lives of the saints to embolden our faith and receive guidance to find our way to heaven. A great chasm appeared i.e., happened in the loss of our Roman Catholic faith when it was "out with the old, and in with the new". My main point for all of us to restore Roman Catholic Church teaching, daily practices, the 7 holy sacraments. Find a traditional Roman Catholic parish, do spiritual reading, study RC history, and strive to be holy by avoiding sin, going to confession periodically, and increasing our prayer lives by saying the Rosary and by regularly attending a TLM.

Posted Friday, June 22, 2012 12:37 PM By k
James, thank you for your answer. I am confused by your statement that the LM was effectively abolished in the late 1980's. What do you mean? Also, how did you find the RC parish? Were you led there?

Posted Friday, June 22, 2012 12:44 PM By Larry
"k, yes you guessed correctly they are all anti-popes. If you are horrified and saddened by the long list so was I at first. It bothered me. That really stuck in my craw and started to make me learn Roman Catholic Church history, first of all to prove the facts were wrong. The facts weren’t wrong." So what, James? Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, JP I & II and Benedict XVI are all recognized as valid popes. They are NOT antipopes, and you and I are NOT empowered to declare them otherwise.

Posted Friday, June 22, 2012 12:51 PM By Catherine
Larry, Thank you! What an excellent focus point of unity! "With the exception of Sacred Scripture, what is infallible is *TEACHING*, not writings, (even of the saints) and all infallible teaching has been preserved and passed down to those of us willing to accept them in books readily available." We certainly know that Our Lord did not want all of this confusion or division. It is disobedience to these infallible teachings that has brought such disunity. The Holy Father is working very hard to bring unity.

Posted Friday, June 22, 2012 12:59 PM By max
being catholic is a good thing, a challenging enterprrise, and something for hwich i give thanks each day. however, i DO NOT need some nut telling me that pope benedict XVI is "not really" the pope, or that the sacraments the faithful celebrate daily are "not really" sacraments, or that the holy saccrifice of the mass is "not really" the mass because of his reading of history. nonsense. poppycock. kerfuffle. JAMES, stopping watching "the borgias" and start reading something s3ensible instead...the teaching of the church...the documents of the second vatican council...the papal encyclicals...

Posted Friday, June 22, 2012 1:07 PM By Larry
"It appears however, you came to the same conclusion as I on John XXIIIrd..." James, really! Saying that Cardinal Cossa was an antipope and Cardinal Roncalli a genuine one is like saying that George Washington was the first U.S. president. Those are simple facts on the record--they're not "conclusions" that you or I have arrived at. "However my main driving point was was, anti-popes can exist, and as many as 40 have existed." We all know that. It's common knowledge. "They existed back then, and they can exist at any time." But if one exists, James, YOU wouldn't have to tell us. We would know, because that fact, too, would be common knowledge. "I agree with on the infallible teachings in the Catechism of Trent..." I'm happy to hear that, and I assume Our Lord is, also! "...you must admit there are many other Roman Catholic infallible documents too." Well, I wouldn't dream of denying it, James--but you seem confused about just who issues them. If I understand you correctly, you have people like Saints Robert Bellarmine, Alphonsus Liguori and Antoninus of Florence issuing infallible documents, which is heretical nonsense. "You are wrong and should be ashamed of yourself showing a coldness toward rescuing beautiful Roman Catholic documents. There is a need for those lost texts, as they contain many subjects that have been watered down or forgotten..." I didn't say they weren't needed or could not serve a good purpose or that you shouldn't rescue them. I said that writings of theologians are not infallible, which is correct and anyone will tell you that.

Posted Friday, June 22, 2012 1:23 PM By k
James, do your priests have faculties to hear confession? From whom?

Posted Friday, June 22, 2012 1:47 PM By James
k, Actions speak louder than words despite what high clergy say that the TLM was never not permitted. Effectively it was abolished/not permitted! Think back to the 1980s, 99.99% of practicing Catholics when they worshipped at their local parishes only the Norvus Ordo service was available! There really wasn't any widely publicized alternative available or known. In the 1980's where could one go to find a Roman Catholic parish or a priest saying the TLM? Those un-publicized traditional parishes and missions were few and far between! They were hidden from almost all of us, like being underground (current day catacombs in private homes or dwellings) as they were criticized by the modern V II Church and her members, even today! So by the very fact, one couldn't find a Roman Catholic parish practicing tradition or celebrating the TLM, they effectively were not permitted and just not in the US, but world-wide. Think back in those times! I was a member of the V II Church, with no clue that the TLM still existed but being celebrated in the "underground". My dearest and best friend, whom I later married, she reintroduced me to the TLM. It took me a few months to realize what had happened in the previous 20 years, but the hard cold evidence of errors, of spoiled fruit convinced me we Roman Catholics needed to return to our basic traditions our Roman Catholic Church, the unchanged true faith, sacraments, and practices of our ancestors. If you visit a truly traditional Roman Catholic Church, some imposters will label themselves as traditional when they are liberal, two fairly easy ways to tell is observe the clergy's holy reverence toward the Blessed Sacrament (in their spoken word, humble bows, genuflections, and kneeling), and the gender of the clergy (sorry no females). Larry, Matthew 7:20 "Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them". While the anti-popes intermittently reigned, a small remnant RC Church with our devoted Jesus prevailed at Her side!

Posted Friday, June 22, 2012 3:03 PM By Abeca Christian
James all these long posts, if k is correct about you being an anti-Pope, I feel insulted because I love our Pope and I hope you unite yourself. Niki Minaj the rapper made anti-Pope comments and disrespected our Pope, I refuse to listen to her music and I don't let my kids listen to her. James you don't want to be like her, being anti-Pope.

Posted Friday, June 22, 2012 3:06 PM By Abeca Christian
k you are such an instigator! Stop it, why don't you question PA for being a pro-gay rights guy, or how about Mr. Maquire or PA for voting for Obama. Leave RR out of your sting!

Posted Friday, June 22, 2012 6:17 PM By k
abeca, what? Instigator? Maguire voted for Obama? What? Maguire? Stinging RR? What? I'm trying to learn why Catholics make the choices they make. People make choices based on the information they have. If they have information that I don't have, I would like to know it. If I have information they don't have, I would like to share it. If I remembered incorrectly what RR posted about the chapel or got her confused with someone else, I would like to be told that. What would I be instigating? (And anytime Mark from PA says something contrary to Church teaching, I do say something.)

Posted Friday, June 22, 2012 6:52 PM By JLS
k, what James is up to by saying the LM was abolished in the 80s is to use this idea as a launch pad for justifying his extreme and even "para" sedevacantism.

Posted Friday, June 22, 2012 6:54 PM By k
James, thank you very much for your answer. I do remember the '80s and it was dismal. It was also during the 80s that Pope John Paul II allowed the Latin Mass again. You are correct that it did not take off like a wildfire. I spent time in the '8os in a crisis on whether I was offending God more by attending Mass than by staying home. So I agree that the '80s were a horrible time for the liturgy and the Faith. I spent a lot of time during the Masses turned toward the tablernacle making reparation. It is much better now. However, I may just have 'boiled frog syndrome" and have gotten used to things being a certain way. Also, I did not say you were an anti-pope. Abeca got confused. I think that you feel safe where you are now. You also said that you studied church history so you know that there has never been a time without challenge for the Church. Do you know Don Bosco's dream?

Posted Friday, June 22, 2012 9:01 PM By MacDonald
K, don't you stop pushing buttons! That's (obviously) what this site is for. It gets people thinking -- which is a first for some. Especially challenging those who are making up their own "Catholicism" is a good thing, because they can mislead others who fall for their whole silly spiel and imagine they have found the One True Church. It already exists, and it's headed by Pope Benedict XVI, not some character in Kansas or Ohio or God knows where...

Posted Saturday, June 23, 2012 11:31 PM By k
abeca, an anti-pope is someone who claims to be the pope without having been duly elected. There are some anti-popes, but James is not claiming to be one, nor does he claim to be a follower of one. He is claiming to follow a bishop that is not in communion with the Pope.

Posted Saturday, June 23, 2012 11:33 PM By k
James you claim to belong to the Roman Catholic Church. Is it underground or does it have a website? The North American Old Roman Catholic Church has a website but they seem to have split from the Church before Vatican II. Could you tell me who your bishop is?

Posted Sunday, June 24, 2012 6:51 PM By k
James, Now I found a website of people who believe there are no bishops or priests. Everybody associated in any way with the Catholic church is going to hell-even traditionalists. They believe all you can do to get to heaven now is get baptized Catholic and believe Catholic dogma. They believe there are no other valid sacraments since Dec. 8 1965. See, we must stay unted with the Pope. Even the Catechism of Trent says so. We can't interpret events ourselves.

Posted Sunday, June 24, 2012 11:50 PM By Abeca Christian
k I have asked God to make me innocent once again, to approach Him like a little child.......I guess that could be why the anti-pope comment was and is how I saw it....now about your other comments to me, well there were a few thoughts that came to mind but I decided not to post them.

Posted Monday, June 25, 2012 10:36 AM By James
k, Pray to God that He will lead you to where He wants you to go. He will! Then you will see. He won't refuse anyone of their spiritual needs per St. Alphonsus Ligouri, material needs He may refuse if they do not benefit our souls, but He will not refuse anyone of their spiritual needs if they just ask Him. Abeca is correct, our Lord said in Matthew 18:3 "Amen I say to you, unless you be converted, and become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven". Jesus also said in Luke 11:9 "And I say to you, Ask, and it shall be given you: seek, and you shall find: knock, and it shall be opened to you". Too many people here misinterpret, read between the lines, claiming I say this or that when I am not. My message has been straight-forward for those who read carefully and ponder. Many of my inputs are writings from true Roman Catholic documents of yore, not my own words or interpretations. Roman Catholic parishes based on tradition that were figuratively speaking underground in the 1970s and 1980s have grown in numbers with more parishes/missions and more prominent so they aren't underground anymore! I don't no what frightening website you are refering to of people even traditionalists going to hell. A few liberals are trying to be imposters of tradition. Pray to the Holy Ghost for guidance and wisdom. There is just to much confusion all spawned by what happened with V II. If V II had never happened, the faithful Catholics wouldn't be in the confused state we are today, millions wouldn't have left the Church and we wouldn't see events like the bad fruits, like reported last Friday 22 June, in the newspapers about the conviction of Monsignor Wm Lynn endangering children for covering up child abusers, and Rev James Brennan an accused sexual molester and Rev Edward Avery already in prison. By not connecting the bad fruits to the possible causes, only shows cowardice and ignorance.

Posted Monday, June 25, 2012 1:11 PM By Larry
James, I'll be frank with you about my impressions. I think you're trying to recruit people into SSPV, the even-more-radical offshoot of SSPX--and that you've been doing this over a long period of time on various threads on this website. Also, based on identical writing styles, catch-phrases, themes, tone, etc, I believe you've posted in the past not only under the name "James," but also "Doug," "Bruce," "Charles" and "Jerry" and perhaps others, sometimes using multiple names on a single thread and pretending to be several people in order to give the impression that you're part of a much larger movement than is actually the case. You gave yourself away once when one of your identities mistakenly claimed credit for something another identity had purportedly written, and I called you out on it--but I think your BIGGEST mistake is that you've hugely underestimated the intelligence, knowledge and perception of the other posters here. As a result you're tailoring your pitch for highly suggestible mental midgets--which we, most certainly, are NOT. You couldn't possibly have been shocked and stunned to learn that there have been antipopes in the past. After all, that's always been public knowledge--but you think that we here WOULD be. I don't think you really believe that the infallibility of the Church in faith and morals extends also to the writings of canonized saints, but you think you can gull US with that line. You can't--and what's more I think you've damaged your cause here at least as much as you had hoped to help it, if not far more, by insulting people's intelligence the way you have. If you were smart, you'd quit while you were ahead--but I think you'll do the opposite, and wind up exposing your movement to more and more scorn the longer you make your pitch. Go right ahead.

Posted Monday, June 25, 2012 1:40 PM By k
James, you won't tell me who your bishop is? OK. Is your church a legal entity? Is it a non-profit? Is it more than one parish? I have looked in the directory. There seem to be organizations like the SSPV, CMRI, SSPX. and independents. None that I have found claim the title Roman Catholic Church, at least not in the directory. A lot of them have Mass in hotel conference rooms or private chapels. There is one entity that calls itself the true Roman Catholic Church which has a Pope named Pope Anathasius I. I know you don't want to give specific information about yourself and where you live and that is always wise on the internet. The traditionalist community is so confusing. (Also, there were children sexually abused by priests before Vatican II.)

Posted Monday, June 25, 2012 3:08 PM By Abeca Christian
Macdonald mislead? k mislead?

Posted Monday, June 25, 2012 11:01 PM By k
abeca, thanks!

Posted Tuesday, June 26, 2012 9:56 AM By James
k, I don't remember your asking me who my bishop was in the past. My Bishop is a reverent and holy Bishop validly consecrated under the old Roman Catholic rite before V II by another validly consecrated Bishop under the same old Roman Catholic rite and under apostolic succession. My holy Bishop's name is Bishop Dolan. I don't know what directory you are speaking of; however, SSPV, CMRI, SSPX, are all truly Roman Catholic, and hopefully most independents. All 3 keep and practice the same faith, doctrine, and sacraments that were before V II. No doubt they have some political differences that need mending; however aside from the politics, the Roman Catholic faith,is completely the same. I do believe it is in the traditional Roman Catholic organizations where Christ keeps His promise that He will be with Holy Mother the Church until the end of time, just like it was centuries ago when the Arian heresy and other heresies had been accepted in large numbers of the clergy, a remnant few remained loyal and holy to Roman Catholic teachings, scoffed at the heresys, and in the end prevailed because our Lord was with them. These Roman Catholics haven't left the Church of our forefathers, but have remained loyal to all of the popes at least before the V II council convened. You know there is a major difference in sexual abuse of children before the V II changes and after. Perhaps 10000 times worse in the V II Church. Pre-V II priests were no doubt staying close to our Lord through their daily recitations of holy office, saying TLMs, hearing daily confessions and etc. They received graces daily to remain holy and strong. After V II all that changed. Man-centeredness crept in, sacraments changed, prayers and spiritual life gave way to socializing and society. The devil is actively working to keep everyone from unifying because it keeps traditionalists weaker by his doing so, but that doesn't mean they aren't holy and truly Roman Catholic. Satan even tempted Jesus!

Posted Tuesday, June 26, 2012 1:31 PM By Larry
Well, doggone, James--I guess by grace of the Holy Spirit, I was right! You're undoubtedly referring to Bishop Daniel L. Dolan, age 61, who is in fact a sedevacantist bishop and one of the founding fathers of SSPV, having been expelled from SSPX over the sedevacantist issue. Dolan was validly ordained a priest by SSPX and validly (though illicitly) consecrated bishop by a sedevacantist bishop. Kudos to K for asking for the identity of James' bishop!

Posted Tuesday, June 26, 2012 1:46 PM By k
James, thank you for your post. I have seen bishop Daniel Dolan's information. He is a sedevacantist who was expelled from the SSPX. The directory is the Official Traditional Catholic Directory. As far as I can tell, you are correct that they keep the faith, doctrine and sacraments that were before V II (except for the obvious disagreement of the primacy of Peter and the oneness of the Catholic Church.) That seems to be one of the main differences among traditionalists-how they justify their existence outside the Church. Which, obviously, would not be part of the deposit of faith. Father Dolan's bio expressly states what I feel is the source of the error-"He came to the conclusion that the only logical explanation for evil of the New Mass and the errors of Vatican II was that Paul VI, due to personal heresy, had lost the pontificate." Theologically, Catholically, this is not possible. Why is the sacrifice of Calvary renewed being called evil? What errors of Vatican II?

Posted Tuesday, June 26, 2012 4:57 PM By James
Larry, Are you maybe a bit paranoid and afraid of traditionalists? So what if many of us think alike and share the same traditional Roman Catholic beliefs? The people you named must be good God fearing and loving people who heed to His holy Word. I've friends in the SSPV, CMRI, SSPX, and independent Roman Catholic parishes. Really! Yes I do! When it comes to Roman Catholic teaching, doctrine, the sacraments, we all hold true and share the same Roman Catholic faith and practices. We all say the same Roman Catholic prayers of thanksgiving and for conversion of Russia after the TLM. We all say the rosary and share the same Roman Catholic faith and morals. We all go to receive the Sacrament of Penance through confession. We know we are unlike modernists/liberals, and we prefer to be the old fuddy-duddy's you and others laugh at and scorn because we are holding dear to Christ's teachings and sacraments the way He taught the Apostles, the way it should be including the additions (not subtractions) in sacramental prayers and readings that our forefathers cautiously added through divine inspiration from the Holy Ghost. They did not change what Christ had so directed; however, the V II council did! A major revolt happened there in the 1960s, with the widely synchronized "anything goes" changes in the aftermath, and are now being slowed and in some cases reversed by Benedict XVIth as he is convinced by the irreverence and realization of a smaller Church in the future (i.e. loss of millions of faithful)! Face it Larry, the traditional Roman Catholic parishes are growing in numbers, clergy, and laity. I've seen it in the last 20 years first-hand! Christ will not let His bride die, He promised He will be with her always until the end of time. Open your eyes and your heart to see His truth, don't be paranoid. Pray for me. I'll pray for you.

Posted Tuesday, June 26, 2012 6:45 PM By Larry
James: You've told us all the things that you share with us. Now I'll tell you what you do NOT: unlike us, you have rejected Christ's promise to Peter, "You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church...whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in Heaven; whatever you loose on earth will have been loosed in Heaven." And when it all comes down to the basics, it doesn't matter how many Rosaries you pray, how many Sacraments you take part in, how many Signs of the Cross you make, how many times you bless yourselves with holy water, how much Latin you know, how many times you can pack the phrase "Holy Roman Catholic" in your posts, etc. None of the above matters because you have called Christ a liar. He promised that the Magisterium--the pope and bishops in union with him--would NEVER corporately defect from the faith. You say they HAVE, and that the Magisterium must therefore be overthrown, redefined and reconstituted. You say that the very thing the Son of God promised would never happen has indeed happened. We here love Him too much to ever dream that He would default on His pledge to the Church. So when it comes down to it, James, what we do NOT share is far greater and more fundamental than what we DO.

Posted Tuesday, June 26, 2012 8:04 PM By k
James, I am glad to hear that someone else still does the prayers after Mass. It helped me to know who your bishop is because now I understand which of the multiplicity of tradionalist viewpoints you might be coming from. Do you know that there are traditionalists who believe that Archbishop Lefebvre who ordained your bishop, Daniel Dolan, was himself ordained by a Freemason? That has never been proved, I think. But this is sure- your bishop Daniel Dolan, upon his ordination by Archbishop Lefebvre, was suspended by the Pope. I am sure you know this but it is my duty to make sure. Any Mass said by him is illict and criminal. The sin of scandal, inducing another to do what is evil, is very grave. Please understand that this sect that you are worshipping with is not the one, holy Catholic and Apostolic Church founded by Christ. Your numbers are growing? So are the numbers of atheists and Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons.

Posted Wednesday, June 27, 2012 11:33 AM By k
From the Catechism of Trent by Pope Pius V: Hence there are but three classes of persons excluded from the Church's pale:infidels, heretics and schismatics, and excommunicated persons. Infidents areoutside the Church because they never belonged to, and never knew the Church, and were never made partakers of any of her Sacraments. Heretics and schismatics are excluded from the Chruch, because they have separated from her and belong to her only as deserters belong to the army from which they have deserted. It is not, however, to be denied that they are still subject to the jurisdiction of the Church, inasmuch as they may be called before her tribunals, punished and anethematised. Finally, excommunicated persons are not members of the Church, because they have been cut off by her sentence from the number of her children and belong not to her communion until they repent. But with regard to the rest, however wicked and evil they may be, it is certain that they still belong to the Church. Of this the faithful are frequently to be reminded, in order to be convinced that, were even the lives of her ministers debased by crime, they are still within the Church and therefore lose nothing of their power.

Posted Wednesday, June 27, 2012 1:15 PM By Abeca Christian
James I pray that you listen to Larry's kind words and unite with Christ and His Catholic church, you already know the faith and it's richness, why not make it more complete by uniting.

Posted Wednesday, June 27, 2012 2:47 PM By James
Larry, You erred in accusing me of calling our Lord a liar. I have not and I have explained myself many times in these posts on this article but you are to deaf to hear, to blind to see, and unable to comprehend and connect the dots. By committing heresy before papal election, a candidate is automatically excommunicated. A pope committing heresy becomes an anti-pope and is automatically excommunicated, ceasing his function. Unfortunately our Church history as written in Church records is black-marked with 40 anti-popes, so the fact of the matter heresy at that level is possible because it has happened! Larry and k, If you are so very certain that you are following the legitimate magesterium, then please explain to the 100,000+ of of us traditional Roman Catholics made up of SSPV, CMRI, SSPX, and other traditionalist Roman Catholic societies, and independent parishes world-wide, spawned by the errors of Vatican II, how we are wrong. Please explain to us, the violation of St. Pope Pius Vth's Papal Bull yet BXVIth slowly returns to the TLM. If it wasn't wrong then why was it in the 1970s-1990s based on real-world inability to find a TLM except underground? Explain to us the loss of millions of the faithful world-wide and world-wide liturgical abuses. Explain to us the overwhelming number of pedophile priests world-wide. Explain why a NO service looks more Lutheran than TLM. Explain why JPII worshipped with pagans at Assissi and kissed the Koran all against God's 1st Commandment, and Paul VI's "Smoke of Satan" comment. Explain why the USCCB doesnt denounce publicly American politicians spewing heresy in national audiences, or speaking out again the atrocities and genecide of innocent babies through abortions when they would rather fight for civil rights of illegal immigrants. Yes Larry, stand up and explain it to all of us. Until you convince us otherwise, I will play it safe and remain a traditional Roman Catholic following His loyal remnant Church!

Posted Wednesday, June 27, 2012 2:48 PM By k
From the Catechism of Trent by Pope Pius V: "The Church has but one ruler and one governor, the invisible one, Christ, who the eternal Father hath made head over all the Church, which is his body; the visible one, the Pope, who, as legitimate successor of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, fills the Apostolic chair. It is the unanimous teaching of the Fathers that this visivble head is necessary to establish and preserve unity in the Church. This St. Jerome clearly expressed when, in his work against Jovinian, he wrote: One is elected that, by the appointment of a head, all occasion of schism may be removed. In his letter to Pope Damasus the same holy Doctor writes: Away with envy, let the ambition of Roman grandeur cease! I speak to the successor of the fisherman, and to the disciple of the cross. Following no chief but Christ , I am united in communion with your Holiness, that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that on that rock is built the Church. Whoever will eat the lamb outside this house is profane, whoever is not in the ark of Noah shall perish in the flood...Again, Optatus of Milevi says: You cannot be excused on the score of ignorance, knowing as you do that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was first conferred on Peter, who occupied it as head of the Apostles; in order that in that one chair the unity of the Church might be preserved by all, and that the other Apostles might not claim each a chair for himself; so that now he who erects another in opposition to this single chair is a schismatic and a prevaricator."

Posted Wednesday, June 27, 2012 3:11 PM By James
Larry and k, Do you really believe our Lord is going to stand behind a bunch of liberals and renegades that have done more to insult and destroy his bride by the few historically documented actions that I have reiterated above, than any other magesterium in Church history? Where was our Lord during the Arian heresy and other major heresy's? He was with his faithful remnant part of His Church, those whom remained loyal to His truth and holy teachings. Even though 40 anti-popes were pulling her in the wrong direction, He held her tracking on His straight and narrow path. The truth will be revealed in the future. We will see as BXIth has forecasted a smaller Church (on account of the loss of millions of faithful, fewer vocations and etc). Expect more parish closures and consolidations. That is counter to what the 12 Apostles with the graces of the Holy Ghost accomplished in more trying pagan and Christian martyring times. Yet expect the SSPV, CMRI, and SSPX will continue to flourish, not because they are bad like you try to paint a holy Roman Catholic Bishop (to bad you have never met him personally and come to know his holy heart, you wouldn't criticize him or any of the other traditional Roman Catholic Bishops, the true princes of the Roman Catholic Church). God knows what is in we traditional Roman Catholics hearts. He knows our love for Him. I will close for now and pray that those who really care for their souls will play it safe, seek and find a TLM parish. May God shed His light on us, through saying the Rosary, receiving the Sacraments, TLM, Benediction, and most importantly silent meditation and prayer before the Blessed Sacrament, which some folks don't seem to appreciate the infinite graces and merit that can be received. Like my once NO priest's reply to my dear Dad, some people pray to much, which contradicts St. Alphonsus Ligouri talk on prayer.

Posted Wednesday, June 27, 2012 5:04 PM By JLS
James, the "he said, she said" style of your rhetoric does not help your cause. You should try picking one point and arguing that until it is settled rationally with fact and reason.

Posted Wednesday, June 27, 2012 6:02 PM By Larry
"Larry, You erred in accusing me of calling our Lord a liar." I made no mistake, James. I stand by it. "By committing heresy before papal election, a candidate is automatically excommunicated." And I'm supposed to take YOUR word that this is the case? I've already dealt with this on another thread. Canon law is explicit that Church officials retain their authority until such time as they are FORMALLY and publicly deposed by competent Church authority. And that authority ain't you, my friend. "Larry and k, If you are so very certain that you are following the legitimate magesterium, then please explain...how we are wrong." I have, James. K has. JLS has. Abeca has. You refuse to listen. You might say that you are too "blind to see," and too blind "to comprehend and connect the dots." You say, "Explain to us the overwhelming number of pedophile priests world-wide." The number of pedophile priests world wide is NOT "overwhelming." It is a vicious, destructive, yet tiny minority. "Where was our Lord during the Arian heresy and other major heresy's? He was with his faithful remnant part of His Church, those whom remained loyal to His truth and holy teachings." That "remnant" included the pope and the bishops loyal to him. That "remnant" included priests and laity loyal to the pope. Loyalty to Christ NEVER requires disloyalty to His pope. As for the rest of your pitch--it's irrelevant. The Church has never been composed of perfect people. It isn't now. It never will be.

Posted Wednesday, June 27, 2012 6:33 PM By max
guys, poor old JAMES has been attending too many high masses, and by "high"" i'm talking about what he put into the thrurible...it wasn't incense!

Posted Wednesday, June 27, 2012 9:20 PM By k
James, do you know that the Arian Catholic Church calls itself the Holy Catholic Apostolic Church? The error people make it a logical fallicy where they confuse cause and effect. "I see something that I don't think should be in the Church therefore it must not be the True Church." The liberals and renegades have not destroyed the Bride of Christ. Jesus remains in the tablernacles 24/7 like He always has. His Word is proclaimed in its fullness. It teaches the same Way and Truth and Life that it always has. The Arian heresy is a really bad analogy. It is not like that. No one has denied the divinity of Christ. The faith of the Church is intact. Don't offend God by using false history to defend schism. The anti-popes do not apply to this present situaltion either. There is nothing that any of us can say that will convince you. You have been fed falsehood. Do your own research. I am not trying to paint your bishop as bad. He may be sincere but he is also a schismatic. I don't think he would put his soul in such jeopardy for a lark. God does know what is in all people's hearts and I believe that you sincerely want to worship the Lord. Do you love him enough to do the hard work of undoing the false teaching you have imbibed? You have said it twice-I feel safe, playing it safe. The things you mention-praying the rosary, Eucaristic adoration, Mass, all are good. You are doing well. You can do those things in the Catholic Church as well. Do not be afraid. Pray much to the Holy Spirit, to Jesus, to Mary, to St. Michael and to your Guardian Angle Please, do not speak falsely of God's Holy Church

Posted Wednesday, June 27, 2012 10:25 PM By k
James, I am sure you are aware of Pope Leo XIII vision of the Lord giving the devil a century to try His Church. And I am sure that you pray the long version of the St. Michael prayer. You unwittingly answered your own question when you stated "SSPV, CMRI, SSPX and other traditional Roman Catholic societies and independent parishes worldwide spawned by the errors of Vatican II." They abandoned Holy Mother Church but unwilling to go without Jesus, they exploited the great gift he had given them to enter into the Eucharistic species when they prayed the prayers of Consecration (a gift not even given to the angels or his own Mother) against His Will as expressed when He was in the Flesh on earth before His Crucifixion in His prayer to His Father 'that they may be one as you and I are one."

Posted Wednesday, June 27, 2012 11:17 PM By JLS
k, "one" is created by the Holy Eucharist; for some odd reason you do not get it. You see it as a symbol instead of as God.

Posted Thursday, June 28, 2012 4:13 AM By OSCAR
k, there are NO errors of Vatican II itself. Please be specific if you know of any. There are only misinterpretations and abuses of Vatican II. Please read the "Ratzinger Report" pages 27 - 44.

Posted Thursday, June 28, 2012 4:24 AM By BILL KELLS
Something is coming from the Vatican regarding the SSPX soon. It's time to stop arguing and pray for UNITY - if at all possible. Those who oppose Vatican II are heretics and schismatics. Vatican II itself has no errors; however there have been abuses against Vatican II. "We must remain faithful to the today of the Church, not the yesterday or tomorrow. And this today of the Churcd is the documents of Vatican II, without reservations that amputate them and without arbitrariness that distorts them". - Cardinal Ratzinger. See - Mt 16:17-19 for obedience and unity.

Posted Thursday, June 28, 2012 8:39 AM By k
JLS, I do not see the eucharist as a symbol. It is Jesus Christ, Body, Blood Soul and Divinity.

Posted Thursday, June 28, 2012 8:43 AM By k
OSCAR, I know of no errors in Vatican II documents. I was quoting the other poster. He did not say documents or teachings. I asked him what his bishop meant by that and he did not answer or if he did it was indirectly (such as the things in the post Vatican II church rather than doctrine). I know that some traditionalists have issues with ecumenism, collegiality and religious freedom, but he did not say this.

Posted Thursday, June 28, 2012 8:47 AM By k
BILL KELLS, Bishop Fellay rejected the Vatican offer of reconciliation on June 25.

Posted Thursday, June 28, 2012 9:38 AM By Larry
For any who might be curious--a June 27 story by CNA/EWTN says that an internal SSPX letter has been leaked to the Internet indicating that SSPX has REJECTED the Vatican's latest reunification attempt.

Posted Thursday, June 28, 2012 10:34 AM By Abeca Christian
Larry I'm sorry to learn of this news. I was hoping that they would unite. This news has broken my heart today. I will continue to pray for them. I suggest we all offer our prayers for them today, God bless you all.

Posted Thursday, June 28, 2012 1:32 PM By k
James, after Archbishop Lefebvre expelled Daniel Dolan and 8 other SSSPX priests, they started the SSPV but because of persona conflicts with Fr. Kelly, Fr. Dolan left taking about 500 people with him (I am assuming that was the parishioners of St. Gertrude the Great). Do you know why his bio skips mention of the SSPV? Also, he said he accepted a dubious ordination to the episcopy (which he admits he had great reservations about) because desperate times require desperate measures. Since validity of ordination is of paramount importance in the traditionalist movements, do you know if he has attempted to ordain any priests?

Posted Thursday, June 28, 2012 4:13 PM By Charles
Larry, Thanks for the invitation to speak, after seeing James holding to the truth so well as I watched from the bleachers. Just for fun, I'll try and mimick James writing style. Why don't you explain the non-isolated, rather world-wide errors? Answer: You can't, but if you were king -- closedminded! Your lack of explanations says a lot! Please explain why the Rome is open to ecumeism, interfaith services with protestants who broke away and were excommunicated centuries ago; but now their protestant formed and married Anglican ministers are invited to be say the NO mass in modern Catholic Churches expeditiously; Unsensibly, it forbids association with parishes and clergy true to RC tradition, like the SSPX! Why did thousands of religious RC vocations exodus from the RCC after V II? Check it out and other imploding modern Church statistics on Georgetown University's (catholic?) CARA website. 25% RCs practice their faith regularly today after 50 years, if the demise continues, in one generation the RCC in America will look like the RCC in Europe with 2% practicing. How will vocations and parishes be sustained? Fewer vocations every year. BXVIth's prediction will likely come true without major restoration of all 7 Sacraments especially the TLM. In 20 years where will you go to receive communion? When dying to receive your sacraments of reconciliation and anointing of the sick? Today's seminaries are nearly empty and the outlook isn't any better without children being taught their faith. Is there anywhere in the modern Church where growth is today? If so, it is probably where the EFM and FSSP exist. You can thank the traditionalists due to pushing for the TLM! You and k persecute Bp Dolan. Before judging listen to his sermons on his website. They are God and Heaven centered, truly RC. Not man and society centered, nor jokes like protestants. Visit and observe him and his parish's reverence to God in the Holy Eucharist. May God lead you to a TLM

Posted Thursday, June 28, 2012 5:01 PM By Charles
k, I don't know where you obtained your information; however one must always question the source, particularly in these times regarding those who oppose traditional Roman Catholicism. If you are refering to the Bishop's autobiography on his parish website, you seem to have inserted your own false opinion regarding it. Could this be slander or calumny to ruin his holy and moral character? The Bishop's autobiography simply reads: "After considerable hesitation, Fr. Dolan agreed in mid-1993". In accepting the episcopal consecration. He did not say in your words "accepted a dubious ordination to the episcopy". Knowing first-hand his reason for his "considerable hesitation" was the grave responsiblity as a prince of the RC Church for a priest to not mislead their sheep in faith and morals. Bishop's will be held to the highest of Christ's standards at their final judgement! Recall our Lord's words: "Whatever you do to the least of these my brethren, you do them to me". Accepting the office of the episcopate is no light responsibility. Love and reverence to God, the Sacraments and RC faith, prayers and prudence 24/7 are so essential to avoid scandal and save souls. He weighed the responsibilities very heavily for a year before agreeing. Attempted to ordain? Check out his website and read for yourself. So k, what do you call those 75% of modern catholics that don't practice their faith regularly? Those 67% of modern catholics who don't believe in our Lord's soul, body, blood, and divinity in holy communion? Those 55% who are divorced with many remarried? Those that believe in abortion? Those 50% who voted in 2008 for Obama knowing his pro-abortion platform and now forcing catholic organizations to buy pro-abortion healthcare for their employees? Do you lavel them as protestants, agnostics, or atheists? Do you hold them in the same category as those who simply follow very devotedly and regularly RCC teachings, practices, and reception of the Sacraments?

Posted Thursday, June 28, 2012 5:13 PM By k
Charles, I am not persecuting bishop Dolan at all. I am curious about the whole Traditionalist landscape and how people got there. It is not persecution. I am a Catholic and bishop Dolan is a schismatic. Bishop Dolan probably thinks that we are the schismatics because we do not leave the "Novus Ordo sect." The Church does not forbid association with the SSPX as they are not formally schismatics. They do not encourage going there, but they do not forbid it. Until I started researching, I never even heard of SSPV or the others. I knew sedevacantists existed because I had run across their websites. I have never been told anything about this at Church. I do not doubt that I would be advised not to go to them and told that they are not part of the Catholic Church. Do you know the vision of Pope Leo XIII? It explains the phenomena that you speak of. Also, we have 7 sacraments. They are all valid. What is the EFM? FSSP are the priests who came back to the Church when Archbishopo Lefebre was excommunicated, I think. Looking at the dysfunction that has occured in the Church, it can be explained in numerous ways. At my parish, it happened because a pastor believed that the Holy Spirit spoke through the laity. He learned differently and at his next parish he established Perpetual Adoration and limited "Scripture studies" and "adult ed."To say that it is caused because the person in the Papacy is a heretic or that the seat is vacant is really stretching it. I know I won't convince you.

Posted Thursday, June 28, 2012 7:08 PM By k
Charles, My source was a book called"The Smoke of Satan: Conservative and Traditionalist Dissent in Contemporary American Catholicism" by Michael W. Cuneo. Here is the quote: " In the autumn of 1994, I met with Dolan in Spokane and asked why he had accepted episcopal consecration under such dubious circumstances..."Bishop Pivaruna approached me first with the idea, and at first I had serious reservations on both the Archbishop Thuc and Old Catholic background of the Mount St. Michael's community. I don't deny that there have been problems here, but we're not living today under normal circumstances. We're faced with a vacumn of authority; the papacy has been vacant for more than 20 years now and desperate times call for desperate measures. Our people need to receive the sacraments and for this they need priests and it takes bishops to make priests." It is on 101-102. (I used a search on amazon.) Again I have to remind you that this is schism and that schismatics are not part of the Catholic Church but those Catholics who do evil are, although they are sinful members and unfaithful Catholics. This is the teaching of Pope St. Pius V in his Catechism. The quote is in my post of June 27 11:33 AM above. The problem isn't at all how I hold them or what I think of them. I am trying to tell you how the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church with the invisible Head being Jesus Christ and the visible Head being the Roman Pontiff holds them. I am not trying to smear a bishop and church that I didn't know existed until this week. I just want to give you the information that Jesus Christ left for you to find in the Catechism of Trent by Pope Pius V which seems to be accepted by all the Traditionalists.

Posted Thursday, June 28, 2012 7:16 PM By k
James and Charles, I long for and await the times when the old devotions are restored to prominance in the Church. But I can't leave the church to go to what I might like because it will be a mortal sin. It is not a mortal sin if you do not know it is a sin. But now you know.

Posted Thursday, June 28, 2012 8:34 PM By max
ah, well, the SSPX gang has refused the holy see's "welcome home" offer? not surprising, but sad all the same. one of the things that troubles me is their hesitation about the freedom of religion issue, and their stance against the jews as well. mary and joseph were JEWS, for goodness' sake, not swedish lutherans or american baptists. "A statement by the Vatican doctrinal office stresses that the "broad respect" that Di Noia enjoys in the Jewish community should help alleviate Jewish fears that the SSPX would not have to accept the Vatican II document that rejected anti-Semitism as part of a reunion with Rome."

Posted Friday, June 29, 2012 3:37 AM By Larry
"Just for fun, I'll try and mimick James writing style." You didn't have to try very hard, did you "Charles?" It came pretty easily too you. From K: "The Church does not forbid association with the SSPX...They do not encourage going there, but they do not forbid it." Except in Bishop Bruskewitz' Lincoln, Nebraska Diocese, K. He DOES forbid it--in writing.

Posted Friday, June 29, 2012 6:43 AM By JLS
k, now if that don't beat all!!! But the Holy Eucharist is also a symbol. And since It is the Body of God, Who Is Jesus, then oilah, we have before us (especially when we're near the Holy Tabernacle) God the Man ... or were you thinking God is a woman? Uh huh, I thought so.

Posted Friday, June 29, 2012 6:51 AM By JLS
Murky, k, murky. Interesting that Charles' post refers to specific people, in the manner of the life work of Bl John Paul II, and your post hazes everything into a bowl of mush, which is the work of modernism. Charles is precise, whereas you are pouring the ink on the paper.

Posted Friday, June 29, 2012 6:54 AM By JLS
"a pastor believed that the Holy Spirit spoke through the laity. He learned differently": k, read the Gospels, Acts, the Letters of St Paul, the Old Testament, the Saints, the Doctors of the Church, ask the Holy Spirit about it.

Posted Friday, June 29, 2012 8:46 AM By k
Larry, yes. You are correct.

Posted Friday, June 29, 2012 8:56 AM By k
JLS, The Holy Eucharist is Jesus Christ, Body, Blood Soul and Divinity.. God is not a woman. My 5:13 post was written before Charles' 2nd post was posted. My response to him included a quote from the source of the information, a book called The Smoke of Satan. It includes names. We'll see if it gets posted. Yes, The Holy Spirit can speak through the laity. We ended up with modernism in Scripture Study and liturgical abuse which I know did not come from the Holy Spirit.

Posted Friday, June 29, 2012 8:58 AM By k
Yes, it is posted now marked 7:08 PM.

Posted Friday, June 29, 2012 11:56 AM By JLS
Bishop Bruskewitz is no long bishop of Lincoln, NE. Moved from there about two years ago. I have not read that he invoked the same tabu in his new diocese; maybe because the SSPX bishops are un-ex-communicated, and are in communion with the Church, thus there now being no legal grounds for doing so.

Posted Friday, June 29, 2012 11:59 AM By JLS
max, God smote the Temple; before presuming anything about the situation, you ought to read what Jesus and St Paul say about it. Or do you imagine the Jews are saved through genetics?

Posted Friday, June 29, 2012 12:15 PM By k
JLS, I don't think Charles is going to be too thrilled to see himself favorably compared to John Paul II. Charles does have the advantage of being a member of the sect, where I can only learn about it from books and articles. Also, my post is not modernism, although the followers of sedevacantism and sedeprivationism who believe that the Holy Catholic Church in a modernist sect, might agree with you. I can tell that the bishops in these sects study and take great care not to cross certain lines, which I greatly respect. I do not believe they are doing it for self-glorification. I think they are genuinely frightened of the Catholic Church after Vatican II and I understand the need some people have for the feeling of being safe from error and confusion. Those of us in the Catholic Church must patiently wait. Pope Benedict has declared the Year of Faith which will begin October 11. I hope it will be treated seriously.

Posted Friday, June 29, 2012 1:34 PM By Charles
Larry, You have taken that quote of our Lord out of context. It does not infer that the holy fathers can do anything they wish to do and that He will approve of it, otherwise if He had, bad men filling those positions could go and change whatever our Lord had directed. No, if you look up that quote in the most Roman Catholic Douay-Rheims Holy Bible you will find a footnote that states it is limited to the clergy in forgiving us of our sins and that is the size of it. Also our Lord points out to be careful of judging others; however he later says that we have the ability to distinguish from right or wrong and admonishment. Please don't get me wrong that I encourage inflicting any punishment here. St Mathew Chapter 7: "[1] Judge not, that you may not be judged, [2] For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged: and with what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again": [16]By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? [17] Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit. [18] A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit. [19] Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be cut down, and shall be cast into the fire. [Matthew 7:19] [Latin] [20] Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them. Finally, suit yourself! I am finished here. May God bless you all.

Posted Friday, June 29, 2012 3:42 PM By k
JLS, I'm sorry. I know you are a convert but Catholics do not use that terminology. We do not call the Eucharist "God's Body" and we do not call Jesus "God the Man." We say that Jesus is God; We do not say God is Jesus (the Apostolic Churches who only baptize in the Name of Jesus teach that.) I am sure that you know the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. I am not trying to insult your intelligence.

Posted Friday, June 29, 2012 4:02 PM By Abeca Christian
k but I hate to break it to you but the NO mass does use all those terms. I was taught them while growing up. I am the generation raised in the new Mass, John Paul II generation, so yes I have heard those terms especially during our youth group gatherings and functions. I was even called a youth group leader minister youth.

Posted Friday, June 29, 2012 4:55 PM By max
"11:56 AM By JLS ---Bishop Bruskewitz is no long bishop of Lincoln, NE. Moved from there about two years ago." JLS, i'm sorry, but he is STILL the bishop of that diocese. you are having a very bad day with facts...go for a nice walk with your dogs...they don't care about all this ecclesistical chatter...

Posted Friday, June 29, 2012 5:16 PM By JLS
k, your comedy of manners is hilarious.

Posted Friday, June 29, 2012 5:21 PM By Larry
Charles, you're co-mingling two different commands of the Lord--"whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven...(etc)" refers to the pope's authority to bind the faithful in matters of faith and morals and from time to time to make and amend disciplinary rules (such as modifying the liturgy, fasting requirements, etc.) It gives the pope exactly the authority you wish to take away from him. On the first Easter Sunday evening, the Lord told the Apostles in the Upper Room, "receive the power to forgive sins. Whose since you shall forgive, they are forgiven. Whose sins you shall retain, they are retained." That is the quote you are describing in your 1:34 p.m. post. You say, "Finally, suit yourself! I am finished here." You promise?

Posted Friday, June 29, 2012 6:26 PM By Dana
I'd like to add one little mite. If you who are so ardently against Vatican II would just think for a moment, don't you think it strange that most of the people who began making modernistic changes in the late 1960's and 1970's had ALL been catechized and brought up in tradition and the Latin mass. It was not Vatican II that brought about these changes, for many of these changes were not mentioned at all, but were the deliberate actions of people who'd obviously been chomping at the bit for many years to break from the past and have a new, modern church. These people weren't living in a vacuum. That is what EVERYONE was doing back then...tearing down whole downtowns, dismantling old buildings, throwing out heirloom antiques as old junk (my dad threw out a black walnut, horse hair love seat his grandfather had made for his wife, eg) It was a time of craziness and the sky was the limit with rocket ships, sputniks, men on the moon, fast cars on endless highways. People were drunk on NEW and IMPROVED. Old fashioned was a stigma to live down. I really think Vatican II was in response to all these scary changes that really started after WWI. (birth control, planned parenthood, drugs, illegal booze,really raunchy movies,etc) If we've learned nothing else from all this, we've learned to cherish our past, our think it's past time for the schizmatics to rejoin the ranks. They say they didn't leave, the Church left them. Our beloved Pope Benedict is really going out on a limb for these people and I can only think they're completelly callous and without charity to be so stiff necked and proud. They remind me of Martin Luther in their complete inability to compromise and submit to papal authority. Rebellion is a seductive mix of self-righteousness and individuality.

Posted Friday, June 29, 2012 9:34 PM By JLS
k, why do you confuse Catholicism with culturalism? And what do you not get about no one is born a Catholic; it's not genetic?

Posted Saturday, June 30, 2012 10:27 AM By JLS
Catholics, k, use truth, not artifice. The words I used reflect truth. You have trouble seeing that, and this is why I keep telling you that you view the Holy Eucharist as a symbol instead of reality. You do not seem to get it, the Catholicness of it that is. It is not a recitation of formulae, but a union with God. Study up on St Paul's lecture on language. Throw away your comic books on this topic and do some real study.

Posted Saturday, June 30, 2012 10:32 AM By JLS
Another point, k: Jesus Himself refers to Himself as Son of Man, and as Son of God: thus, God the Man. k, as I've posted over and over, many people think in sound bites ... there is a better way, known as the use of language.

Posted Saturday, June 30, 2012 1:28 PM By Abeca Christian
Dana the Protestant Jesus movement (around 60's) which started before I was even born, probably has a lot to do with why there were so many abuses. I'm sure there were some influences there.

Posted Saturday, June 30, 2012 2:25 PM By Larry
For the record--max is correct, at least according to the website of the Catholic Diocese of Lincoln, Nebraska which still lists Fabian Bruskewitz as its bishop.

Posted Saturday, June 30, 2012 3:04 PM By JLS
"Sound bite" harping is an audio version of making and using idols. God put the ancient Hebrews to a lot of trouble to advance them from this poor way of the means of communicating important things. So, get off the sound bite trip and develop your language skills. If God had an entire civilization do this, then it is a task necessary for people of all levels of intellect.

Posted Saturday, June 30, 2012 3:21 PM By JLS
Right you are, max. But issue to address now is whether Bp Bruskewitz still holds the excommunication of SSPX in his diocese ... after the restoration of the SSPX bishops by the Pope two or three years ago. I just googled for this and came up empty.

Posted Saturday, June 30, 2012 3:43 PM By max
DANA makes a very good point about the craziness of the period. even if there had not BEEN a second vatican council, some crazies would have done weird things----just look at what the priests of austria are doing right now, all things FORBIDDEN by vatican 2, by the magisterium, etc. if you are going to go hog-wild, you won't pay any attention to what the church says, or your parents, or your government. you'll just do it to annoy them.

Posted Saturday, June 30, 2012 4:01 PM By MacDonald
Regarding the various ways of referring to Our Lord. In a film about Saint Patrick, another Bishop had come to evangelize the Irish (failing miserably), and had called Jesus the "God-Man."

Posted Sunday, July 01, 2012 6:53 PM By Abeca Christian
Blame it on the NO, they use the those terms very heavily. I don't know what to tell you, just leave JLS alone, he is right to use them, since that is how the NO attendee's may understand it.

Posted Tuesday, July 03, 2012 10:45 PM By Charles
Sorry Larry, you need to be corrected so as not to mislead others. From thr Holy Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible, St Matthew's Gospel, Chapter 16: "[18] And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. [19] And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven". Then on the same page the footnote says: "[19] Loose upon earth: The loosing the bands of temporal punishments due to sins, is called an indulgence; the power of which is here granted".

Posted Thursday, July 05, 2012 10:56 AM By Abeca Christian
Now that you mention it.....St. Patrick pray for us!

Posted Thursday, July 05, 2012 2:30 PM By Charles
k, I am glad to see that you have the gumption to research information on your own. We have to, with so much false and misleading information passed around by so many people who try to come off as experts when in reality they aren't. They haven't done their homework. Any homework that disagrees with them, they simply ignore the facts, smile and naively carry on with persecuting others who don't ignore the facts. We need to be discrete about articles not gulible, note reliable and conservative trustworthy sources, confirm truths and identify lies. While your doing your research, I'd like to suggest you do a little research on the errors that happened in Assissi between JP II and the world's religious leaders both protestant, jewish, and pagan all in attendance on/about 27 October 1986. Have courage and check these undisputable heretical facts out, then please explain why these facts as well as JP II's untouched up photographs kissing of the Koran do not break God's 1st Commandment: I am the Lord your God and thou shalt not put strange Gods before me. Though the world may laugh at us traditionalists to scorn, we will fear no human judgments, as long as we loyally follow Christ's standards in our daily lives. To often worldly people look up to and hold dearly others external successful, charismatic, and powerful appearances: incomplete visible results of their efforts, and human recognition. Christ on the other hand looks at us regarding our Roman Catholic faith, love, and unselfish intentions in our actions. These are the virtues which make our actions holy and make us like Him. We need to follow Christ's standards from now on, like daily devotions, especially before the Eucharist. Abeca, may all the saints, and angels in heaven pray for us! We need all of them to intercede for us and restore our Roman Catholic faith and church. I am finished here. Shalom

Posted Thursday, July 05, 2012 7:46 PM By Abeca Christian
Charles you are right, may all the saints pray for us. I mentioned Saint Patrick because he is one of my favorite saints.

Posted Thursday, July 05, 2012 8:10 PM By Larry
Charles: Footnotes are not vested with the charism of inerrancy. Furthermore, the footnote you quoted does not say that the above passage refers ONLY to indulgences--just that it does refer to them. I agree. It refers to them, all right. And to much, much more.

Posted Friday, July 06, 2012 5:46 AM By Abeca Christian
Another great example of the usage of THE POEM OF THE MAN-GOD Written by Maria Valtorta, Valtorta Publishing, I think this one is more traditional and not NO. See how there were those books using that term under the Catholic name. I also found on some comments by a poster saying this "In 1959 when the "Poem" was put on the Index of Forbidden Books, it was described as "a badly fictionalized life of Christ" (L'Osservatore Romano, quoted by Cardinal Ratzinger in a letter to Cardinal Siri, 31 January 1985). Catholics were warned that it was not to be considered as revealed by God. Instead read Anne Catherine Emmerich.". But this poster did not post his name.

Posted Friday, July 06, 2012 5:50 AM By Abeca Christian
in continuation to the Book titled The poem of the Man God, here are some more comments : His Holiness Pope Pius XlI, February 26 1948: "Publish this work as it is. there is no need to give an opinion about its origin, whether it be extraordinary or not. Who reads it, will understand." The names of the three Servite priests were listed the next day in l'Osservatore Romano as having had the private audience with the pope: Fr. R. Migliorini (Maria's spiritual director), Fr. C. Berti, professor of Dogmatic and Sacramental Theology at Marianum, Pontifical Faculty of Theology, in Rome, and Fr. A. Cecchin, Prior of the Servites International College. Fr Peter Mary Rookey, a well known healing priest based in the Chicago area, had a conversation with Fr. Cecchin in the 1990's who recalled that the pope did indeed order the work to be published, but that the pope also advised them to try to find a bishop who would give it an Imprimatur. Bishop Soosa Pakiam M. of Trivandrum, India, granted an Imprimatur for the Malayalam translation of POEM OF THE MAN-GOD in 1992. Blessed Pope John Paul II made Bishop Soosa an archbishop after he issued his Imprimatur for POEM OF THE MAN-GOD. William F. Buckley, Jr., was so impressed with Maria Valtorta's account of the Crucifixion of Jesus, that he included a long excerpt of it in his book: NEARER MY GOD (1998). Archbishop Alfonso Carinci, Secretary of the Congregation of the Sacred Rites (1946): " There is nothing therein which is contrary to the Gospel. Rather, this work, a good complement to the Gospel, contributes towards a better understanding of its meaning."

Posted Friday, July 06, 2012 10:09 AM By Larry
Despite the alleged 1948 approval of "Poem..." by Pius XII, the Holy Office in 1949 condemned it--and in 1959 Pope John XXIII personally placed it on the Index of Forbidden Books at the recommendation of Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, whom many posters on this very website often cite as a bastion of truth and orthodoxy. Although the Index was abolished in 1965, Cardinal Ratzinger wrote in 1985 that it retains its moral force. To date, no official statement has been released rescinding either the 1949 condemnation or the 1959 placing of the book on the Index. It is also worth noting that "Our Lady of Medjugorje," a phenomenon strongly and consistently condemned by the Yugoslav bishops and still viewed with disfavor by then, has promoted Valtorta's book.

Posted Friday, July 06, 2012 11:13 AM By Abeca Christian
Larry thanks for pointing that out.

Post your Comment
Name:
Email: (Optional: Will not display)
Comment:
 
Comments are limited to 1500 characters, and cannot contain offensive or libelous language. For security, comments cannot contain html tags, including < and > symbols - and NO URLS or LINKS. Comments will appear after they have been approved by the editor. Inclusion of your email address is optional so the editor may contact you.



Calcatholic Mobile
Optimized for your
mobile device













Visitors since January 1st, 2009:
javascript hit counter