Thursday, May 21, 2015


Pre-Vatican II Catholics uncorrupted by post Vatican II "spirit of the Council" dissent (which now affects not only progressives who are becoming or have become post-Catholics but neo-traditionalists/conservatives who are just as dissent oriented but in a dissenting regressive way, like Protestants of yesteryear) were and are faithful to Holy Mother Church and their local bishops in the areas of faith and morals as well as Church discipline to include her approved liturgies.

I know liberal dissent when I see it as I was taught it in the liberal seminary I attended in Baltimore in the late 70's. I see its flip side in so many negative comments from neo-Protestants who claim to be Catholic of the ultra-conservative types who nonetheless disparage so much about the Church today and in the most disrespectful ways to include their attitude about the pope, who by the way is the Vicar of Christ, and the bishops in union with him not to mention the Roman Missal of the Ordinary Form. I think Fr. Martin Luther did the same thing as well as his lay and clerical followers. He and they would be proud of this new crop of "protestants."

In so many of the comments concerning the OF Mass, I find an ideology of dissent once absent from true conservative Catholics who in obedience accepted the new Roman Missal, all the while decrying the abuse of that missal which is so common today.

So, orthodox Catholics, get with it. We aren't dissenters from the official teachings and disciplines of the Church, if we are, that makes us spirit of Vatican II in the worse sense and comrades in arms with the liberal, post-Catholics! True Catholics love the pope and bishops and believe they are the successors to Saint Peter and the apostles. They love the Church and her liturgies, all of them which are approved by the Pope and the bishops in union with him. They aren't cafeteria catholics in other words. If they have a negative or mean-spiritedness in themselves they keep it to themselves so as not to give bad example in their mortal sin made public what true Catholics called and call scandal!

Oh, did I mention that, that these neo-traditionalists/conservatives are just like the liberal catholics who once were disparagingly called "cafeteria catholics" but at the other end of the buffet table?


jolly jansenist said...

My Church…love it or leave it…
Do you, or does anyone here, detect a true prophetic voice coming from the Church regarding this culture and the "Powers and Principalities, the spiritual wickedness in high places" (including in the Church) that hold sway in our lives? What if the only prophetic voice is coming from these "traditional/conservative" Catholics whom you are disparaging? It has happened before (pre-figured by the OT prophets). Luther and Calvin were both raised as devout Catholics and Calvin's theology is right out of Augustine (albeit extreme interpretations of certain aspects)…and, this is not to say I am encouraging more Luthers and Calvins…I think the Reformation is the worst thing that has ever happened to the Church and God's people, right alongside Vatican II. But, we are certainly moving in that direction and I cannot for the life of me lay the blame it on the laity…it is the hierarchy that is failing. Now, if anyone does not believe that God judges the Church and society through historical events, they need to re-read Holy Scripture while watching the evening news...

John said...

Is the cafeteria having a promotion or $1 off on, say, easy annulments or other dessert goodies?

Blaming the conservatives for balking at buying certain items is just another way to blame the customer for refusing to buy junk food.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

I was taught as a pre-Vatican II Catholic that no matter how corrupt a priest, bishop or pope might be and even if the priest of the parish was a drunk, carousing and contemptible person, a good Catholic bore the cross, gave good example to other Catholics and attended that parish and received those sacraments.

Just which lay person who comments here has been appointed by God to be more authoritative than the pope and bishops and the Magisterium, which one?

I think John and JJ enunciate very well what our next door neighbors here at St. Joseph, the Baptists, believe. It is personal infallibility. Each Baptist interprets the bible for themselves and thus has a personal infallibility.

So, what JJ and John would prefer is to give bad example to other practicing Catholics by being dissenters, thinking they are appointed by God to be bishops and thus to call the pope and the bishops out on this, that and everything else and to drag as many other catholics into their dissent as possible.

Hog Wash. It ain't Catholic and it never will be Catholic.

jolly jansenist said...

Fr, your ultramontanism is showing. How are you on the Borgias? Your accusations against me and John and others are absurd…besides, if you must accuse me of protestantism, please have the decency to call me a Calvinist…LOL.

Catechist Kev said...

I don't know, Fr. McDonald.

Would you put the fellow, who's sermon includes the following entry, into the new dissenter category?

"In 1992 Pope Benedict outraged the entire liturgical establishment by endorsing, as Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, the posthumous work of the New Mass’s leading – and outstandingly qualified and unrepentant – critic, Monsignor Klaus Gamber; his La Reforme Liturgique en Question.

One of the things most sharply criticized by Monsignor Gamber is the practical attack carried out on the Catholic faith itself by the unhistorical and anti-liturgical introduction of so-called “Mass Facing the People.” Understanding this apparently shocking assertion so abrasive to those who endorse serious and novel reconfigurations of the liturgy of the Roman Rite is an example of Pope Benedict XVI’s “asceticism of truth.” Asceticism is the manly Christian struggle against lower nature and sin to acquire virtue."

See article here:

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

JJ, aren't Baptists of the Calvinist school of theology and dissent from Catholicism? They are classically Protestant in the historic sense.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

CK, we are speaking about a bishop here, then Cardinal Ratzinger. A bishop has certain rights and responsibilities in the Church that lay people don't. It is a matter of hierarchy and authority, both of which modernists, be they conservative or liberal, want to overthrow.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

A bishop can call out another bishop and in a public way as is being done currently with the current controversies concerning Communion, annulments and second marriages. I think some of the closest advisers to the pope have called out Cardinal Kasper's ideologies and those who support him. Others, like Cardinal Pell have stated on worldwide video that to follow the Kasperites would lead the Catholic Church to become as irrelevant as liberal protestantism and he points to the countries where Catholicism once was strong and liberalism as destroyed it.

Bishops, as the Church teaches, are the teaches of the faith and have a responsibility in times of controversy that are of a different kind and level and authority than laity.

Of course if one thinks laity should be like bishops and there shouldn't be distinctions in practice, then by all means shout away. That's what the progressives have done for 50 years and they call it loyal opposition.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Oh, by the way, I can smell a Calvinist a mile away! Gene and JJ are very, very similar!

Jolly Jansenist (isn't Jansenism a heresy?) Are you a heretic in other words? Seeing the speck in others' eyes, especially the pope and bishops while ignoring the plank in your own, in terms of heresy, is quite telling.

jolly jansenist said...

Fr, if you don't know the difference between Calvinism (Presbyterianism) and the Baptists, please read a bit of Calvin's Institutes. You may find it very informative and will probably agree with much of it, as any Catholic could. To begin with, Calvinism actually has a theology and real doctrine. I have yet to detect any of that in the Baptists. My moniker is sort of a joke because I have been taunted by theological colleagues with it since I became Catholic. They are really such dogs and need to get out of academia and get in a fist fight or get drunk or something. I am not a Jansenist…but an extreme Augustinian.

Catechist Kev said...

Okay, Fr. McDonald. Fair enough.

I'm still trying to "get" where you are coming from... especially when it comes to liturgical matters and laymen.

So, you would consider this layman a dissenting "traditional/conservative" by calling for a change in the practice of Holy Communion in the hand? (even though the indult was given... um, grudgingly)

John said...

Fr. McDonald

With all due respect, Calvin and Luther had the intellectual and spiritual honesty to leave the Church when they were no longer Catholic. I personally do not disagree with any Catholic doctrine. Yet, from the beginning we have been warned about false teachers, wolfs in sheep's clothing eager to entertain those who have itchy ears.

Lay people have right to authentic teachings and liturgies without fantastic innovations even when we are treated to such by high church officials. The Catechism of the Catholic Church tells us this.

I would respectfully suggest to you that name calling is a sign of a weak argument. I am not a protestant Baptist, Calvinist or otherwise. Some Baptist are much better Christians than some Catholics who purport to teach true doctrine but advocate heterodox praxis a la Cardinal Kasper, et al. His position smacks of relativism. Why is it a sin to point this out for a layman?

Lefebvrian said...

Father, your misunderstanding and subsequent false equivalency is based on two things: your admitted ultramontanist views (which are erroneous) and your recollection of the Church of your youth and "what you were taught as a pre-Vatican II Catholic."

Somone has to fight for the Church, and that someone isn't just a bishop. Like many here, I'm sure, I have vowed to live and die in the Catholic Faith, even if I'm the only one left, and even if the men running the visible Church continue their wholesale defection.

Studying the perennial Magisterium and following its commands is anything but Protestant. Putting all your faith in one man and doing whatever he says regardless of it correctness, as you're suggesting, is idolatry. For me, I am a Catholic, so I'll stick with the Magisterium.

Anonymous said...

Father, as a pre-Vatican II Catholic I can say that the new Missal was never accepted by many Catholics. For example, Una Voce (One Voice) was established in the early 1960s to fight for the Traditional Mass because some Catholics believed that the Traditional Mass had never been abrogated. Pope Benedict confirmed this in his Moto Proprio Summorum Pontificum.

The New Mass was imposed on the Church, despite the protests of many. I read where some Catholics left in tears after attending their first Mass in the vernacular. Many I know left all together. My family continued to practise but did like the new Mass one bit. They were grateful for the indult Mass of St John Paul The Great.

The warnings that the new Mass would gravely affect the Church went unheeded. What was warned of at the time of the imposition of the new Mass has largely come true - although this is still being denied. What a massive coincidence then if the introduction of the new Mass has not led to a serious decline in Catholics attending Sunday Mass. There is also massive confusion over what the Church now actually teaches and a huge liberal group now openly within the Church: lex orandi, lex credendi.

If what you were taught is correct, that Catholics must accept everything - even if it is patently wrong - then how could Archbishop Fulton Sheen say of the laity: “Who is going to save our Church? Not our Bishops, not our priests and religious. It is up to the people. You have the minds, the eyes, the ears to save the Church. Your mission is to see that your priests act like priests, your bishops like bishops and your religious act like religious”? Where did he receive his Catholic formation which is so different from yours? And how on earth could we have a saint, such as St Athanasius who dissented against the Catholic teaching at the time? Or indeed St Catherine of Siena who wrote to the Pope of her time and didn't mince her words?

I also know of a number of priests (now deceased) who told us not to go to Piux X but at the same time to stand up against the liberalisation that was happening in the Church. They were good holy priests who stuck with it despite going through tough times with their bishops.


Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Yes, Martin Luther, John Calvin, the Wesley brothers and on and on fought for the Church and they knew better. Yes, exactly you are right.

But I prefer Catholic reformers who never went into schism or feigned schism to get what they wanted, like St. Francis of Assisi, St. John Chrysostom, St. Teresa of Avila, St. Catherine of Siena, St. Theresa of the Little Flower and on and on and on.

In that little, but powerful group, there were no schismatic tendency and no going it on their own as though they had a pipe line from God directly (gnostics) and knew something no one else knew, especially the Magisterium.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

The first experience with the beginning of the revision of the Mass was the 1965 Missal which was a vernacularized 1962 missal. I remember the first Sunday we use it and the priest faced the congregation.

What upset some older Catholics was that they were to participate and not just sit back. But it was the Tridentine Mass with some English.

The canon at that time was still in Latin, but the collects, Gloria, Sanctus, Pater Noster, Agnus Dei were in English and a relatively good English translation at that .

What people got truly upset about was the loss of Catholic music, creativity imposed upon the revised Mass, casualness spurred on by folk music and disrespect and contempt for traditional Catholic piety and reverence especially anything that smacked of scrupulosity and legalism.

The abysmal implementation of the new Missal should have been protested and loudly.

Lefebvrian said...

How long has schism been defined merely as not submitting to whatever the current pope happens today or do?

The answer to that demonstrates why the "reformers" you listed (I'm not sure how many of them were actually reformers as such) were never labeled schismatic by the hierarchy. And, by the way, the hierarchy doesn't label "us" as schismatic now--only people like you (i.e., Magisterial positivist neo-Catholics) do that.

Anonymous said...

Father, I view participation in the EF of the Mass as reading the missal and offering the Mass in union with the priest. On the contrary, I don't feel I participate in the Ordinary Form of the Mass. I feel I am a mere spectator sitting in a pew watching a parade of lay people doing all sorts of things - sometimes pretty odd. I do pray the Mass with the priest but it is much harder to do so with all the distraction going on - sometimes the priest even explaining what he's doing.

If you stand back and look dispassionately at the Ordinary Form of the Mass it is so obvious that it is closest to protestant services in form, with a focus more on a meal than on sacrifice. Now with the music it is becoming closer and closer to Protestant pentecostal get togethers.

I realise that the Ordinary Form of the Mass can be celebrated ad orientam but that is where the similarity to the EF of the Mass ends because there are still the offertory processions, lay readers, Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist and sign of peace, and all of those things help to make the Ordinary Form of the Mass man-centred rather than God-centred. That is without mentioning all the prayers that have been stripped of any mention of sin, etc. There is a massive difference in the two Masses as can be seen by anyone who looks at both forms and not just the cosmetic changes.

How is it that those in the Anglican Ordinariate are allowed to prefer their form of the Mass and yet we Catholics who have been Catholic for over 50 years are not allowed to express a preference for the form of the Mass that we were brought up with? If members of the Anglican Ordinariate say that they prefer their Mass to the Ordinary Form of the Mass will they be dumped on as well? Quite possibly.

There is a huge anomaly there and there is a massive difference in the way those coming into the Church via the Ordinariate have been treated thus far with decency, as compared to how most who have been treated who have a preference for the Extraordinary Form of the Mass. I won't go into it but it leaves a bitter taste in the mouth and it's not worthy of the Catholic Church I was born into and it is certainly not Christian. Even now to attend the EF of the Mass most of us have to go off to far flung chapels and are told we are not allowed to express any prefernece or we face the EF Mass being cancelled - and yet there is plenty said against the EF of the Mass without anythign being said. Is this the Church or are we living under the gestapo?

Meanwhile amidst all this the SSPX is growing and the continued attempts to suppress the EF Mass is helping them to grow.

Looking at Catholic statistics there are now more than 2.3 priests per parish in the US and other countries. That is not because the number of priests being ordained is rapidly rising but the reality is that the parishes are shrinking. There seems to be disbelief that this is happening but soon, like Holland, we won't be able to deny it and priests may well be searching for a congregation because there will not be the numbers to support them. I am sure then that those faithful who prefer the Extraordinary Form of the Mass will be welcomed and perhaps even treated with respect which is not the case in many quarters - and Pope Francis has not helped the situation in that regard it must be remembered.


Anonymous said...

CK, we are speaking about a bishop here, then Cardinal Ratzinger. A bishop has certain rights and responsibilities in the Church that lay people don't. It is a matter of hierarchy and authority, both of which modernists, be they conservative or liberal, want to overthrow.

It was a layman who was the first to publicly confront the heretic Nestorius; the clergy followed later. That's an historical fact.

With all due respect, Father, the essay smacks of the worst type of clericalism, the kind of "pray, pay, and obey" that no longer exists in this age of "Hagan Lio."

The pope himself most certainly does not agree with your sentiments of shutting up the laity merely because you don't like the way they express themselves.

It is ironic that, for decades, Catholics have been told this is the "Age of the Laity," yet when the laity finally speak up, they are called Protestants, mortal sinners, and told to basically shut up. And the ones doing the telling are clerics.

The abysmal implementation of the new Missal should have been protested and loudly.

It was.

And the people who "protested, and loudly," were labeled schismatics, Protestants, mortal sinners, et cetera.

It begs the question, Father. What did you do to protest the "abysmal implementation" of the modern Roman missal?

That's question number one.

Question number two is: What makes you think that the Novus Ordo Missae was "abysmally implemented"?

Wasn't it implemented by the very authorities who promulgated it?

Weren't the bishops who attended Vatican II the very same ones who then went home to their dioceses and put the reforms in place?

Who are you to say that it was implemented incorrectly?

The implication of your statement is clear: If the implementation of the modern Roman Mass was done "abysmally," the fault lies with the popes and bishops who did it.

Who else could possibly be responsible for implementing a new missal? Surely not the laity. They never asked for it.


jolly jansenist said...

Luther WAS a Catholic reformer to begin with…then Pope Leo, who was as mule headed as Luther, sicced Eck on him, the political powers seized upon this conflict as an opportunity to kick the Church's tail, and it was off to the races. Your remarks, in effect, discount any and all criticism or questioning of dubious behavior and theology on the parer of Priests and Popes. So, basically, you are saying anything goes, let the good times roll…as long as the Pope, any Pope, says it is ok. Well, Hell, let's bring back Julius II and let him deal with all the problems once and for all.

Anonymous said...

All I know is Jesus said, I am the vine, you are the branches. Only through the Catholic Church do I remain a branch on the vine. If I sever myself, regardless if I think the vine is rotting and dying and being infected by errors, it is a foolish act, because I cannot survive detached from the vine. Even with a not healthy vine, I have a chance to live. Severed, I die.

I agree with Fr. McD - there are plenty of reformers (St. Francis of Assisi being my most favorite of all) who brought about a renewal of the Church not by condemning Her and breaking Faith with Her, but by praying and sacrificing themselves for Her. Francis loved Her so much, the Bride of Christ, that he actually helped Her, defended Her, assisted Her through his spiritual knighthood, not pointing out her flaws and failures to others, but rather extolling Her beauty, and doing penance and dying for Her in secret, because he loved Her for the sake of God.

The Church is an extension of the vine. Apart from Her we wither and die. I only have pity for Martin Luther, John Calvin, and all the other self-righteous reformers who passed judgement on the Church and did not have enough faith and confidence in God to right the wrong Himself. IMHO, their teachings and religions are poor substitutes for the real thing. IMHO, they failed miserably in their call as reformers, and we to this day are still suffering the fallout.
So I have pity too on the current left or right wing self-righteous self-appointed reformers within the Church, who actually believe their critique of Her justifies their hacking at Her. Instead of appealing to God, and asking Him to bless Her again, they publicly spit at and revile Her, and proudly proclaim they are doing good because they are telling her how she needs to fix Herself. They may be factually correct about the problems they see, (as probably was Martin Luther), but their prideful attitude of superiority plays right into the devil's hands - causing more wounds and lost souls.

Not me, thank you very much. I sure wouldn't want that on my head for all eternity.

jolly jansenist said...

"Magisterial positivist neo-Catholics"…has a nice ring to it. Also, maybe Uber Ultra-montanist positivist monists, or Jesuitical Jonestown Papal Jollies. Hey, how about Monistic Montanist Myrmidons…that's cool.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Jan, your version of laity activism is "spirit of Vatcan II" activism usually associated with liberalCatholics who despise the "pray, pay and obey!" That mantra was never heard from orthodox Catholics. You make my case' I resty case!

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

There is a schismatic tendency in the SSPX and when the bishops were excommunicated, they were defacto schismatic.

Today, the bishops and priests are suspended which is a very, very serious canonical punishment in order to call them back to full communion with the Church. In other words, they have no canonical permission, which is necessary, to hear confessions and celebrate Holy Matrimony. In fact since they do not have faculties from the legitimate bishop of any particular diocese, their marriages are canonically invalid not just illict.

Lefebvrian said...

I was present for three SSPX Masses yesterday (two were at the same time). We had the Catholic faith and the Catholic worship. We prayed for the pope in the Mass.

Sure didn't seem like schism. And, if that is schism, then I'm happy to be schismatic.

Lefebvrian said...

Let's discuss that phrase "schismatic tendency." That is a meaningless phrase, which I presume is based on the erroneous post-conciliar ecclesiology that sees degrees of communion. But, what does it actually mean to have a schismatic tendency? One is either in schism or one is not. Since schism is an ecclesiastical censure, only the proper authority can declare one schismatic and that after an appropriate process.

To label a group as having a tendency to schism is meaningless, especially when it comes from one without authority.

Have you ever met an SSPX priest, heard their sermons, listened to the bishops? Have you seen their Masses and met the attendees? Have you read the Society's publications or taken time to digest their official positions?

How about we focus on the current "heretical tendencies" of the pope, many cardinals, bishops, and priests and the "apostasizing tendencies" of the vast majority of the laity?

Anonymous 2 said...

Father McDonald:

Thank you for your post and comments. I had drafted (but not yet posted) a comment for another thread asking whether JJ and Lefebvrian had a name for their new religion yet. Whenever I read some of the comments on the Blog to my Episcopalian wife she invariably asks: “Aren’t these people supposed to be Catholic?” It is a good question. So, at least judging from her reaction, your point about the risk of scandal is well taken.

There is surely nothing wrong in asking questions, provided it is done in a respectful way and after undertaking some effort at informing oneself before asking. But the sort of knee-jerk vilification of Pope Francis and the magisterium that characterizes some of the comments here on the blog is very troubling. I generally put it down, though, to an excess of zeal of on the part of relatively new converts to the Faith (combined with a crusading mentality to smite the liberal enemy in politics) and try to cut some slack because of this while also pushing back on some of the more extreme positions. Unfortunately I do not always succeed in the slack cutting department and my own faults sometimes show through in the pushing back when emotion gets the better of me and manifests, for example, in sarcasm (pace JJ).

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Did the priest, during the silent canon pray for Pope Francis and the local bishop of the particular diocese where you went to Mass?

Did he acknowledge that he is suspended and his Masses and confessions are illicit and any marriages he witnesses are not only illicit but invalid?

It is not the schismatic who determines who is in schism, but the Pope. Excommunication of a bishop who then continues to act and function as a bishop is schism pure and simple. But thanks to the charity and generosity of Pope Benedict, the excommunication was lifted but not the suspension, a very serious canonical penalty to say the least.

To say that one is happy to be schismatic makes them like the Eastern Orthodox and any other branch of Christianity that has valid sacrament but not in communion with the Pope and local bishop. There are plenty of these including those who have gone into schism with the SSPX. How many? Sound sound protestant to me! I'm sure Fr. Martin Luther would approve of your glib attitude toward schism, to say the least!

Anonymous said...

Holy mackerel, Gene is back. I am officially renaming jolly jen gobshite jr

Lefebvrian said...

The SSPX priests always pray for the pope and the local bishop in every Mass. Why wouldn't they?

Their confessions are illicit? Are you a canon lawyer now too in addition to your full time job of schism detector? Since it is the pope who determines who is in schism, why aren't you content to let him do his job? Since you are disobeying the pope's decision that the SSPX aren't in schism, does that make you schismatic?

Anyway, I'll happily be a schismatic in your eyes and in the eyes of New Church. That is a strong indicator that I remain in the Truth and bosom of the Holy Catholic Church. You should join us--it's loads of fun taking insults from Novus Ordo priests. You might like it. You'll have to renounce you ultramontanism, though. Orthodoxy is a prerequisite.

jolly jansenist said...

I see Anon 2 is still sucking eggs for the Pope and Obama…some things never change.

Anonymous said...

In our latest diocesan paper (The Georgia Bulletin---the "other" diocese in Georgia as in other than the one which includes Macon), there was an article about an ecumenical gathering with Atlanta's Catholic archbishop and the Greek Orthodox metropolitan (archbishop) of Atlanta. I doubt either cleric was calling the other "schismatic" at that gathering---though obviously each denomination's official teaching is that the other one is in such a state. Of course they could not recite the creed together because of the ancient filioque controversy.

Anonymous 2 said...

Yes, Anon, I have been thinking for some time now that JJ’s “voice” seemed jolly familiar but that Gene had cleaned up his act for a new identifier. Someone called Jolly Jansenist was already posting last year, though, albeit not as a “follower” or “member” of the Blog.

By the way, Jolly Gene Jansenist, the word “jolly” in British English can also mean “very” as in “jolly familiar” or “jolly jansenist.”

Anonymous said...

Father, I was taught to stand up for my Faith, and that means if some things are wrong then we have to speak out against them. I am in good company with Card Burke, Card Pell, Bishop Athanasius Schneider, Mons Gheradini and many others - all who are in good standing with the Church and all who say the laity must stand up against errors in the Church. That is not the spirit of Vatican II at all, and no one is advocating leaving the Church.

As with other great reformers, St Francis himself did not stand idle and keep his mouth shut, as Bee seems to think he did. He didn't walk around with a smile on his face and act like there was nothing wrong with the Church. He took action and he went to see the Pope. St Catherine of Siena actually sent quite rude letters to the Pope of her time, which can be viewed online. In summary she told him to shake himself up. St Teresa of Avila didn't mince her words either.

None of them were pray, pay and obey Catholics at all and we were never taught to be that. They were active Catholics who spoke out against bad things in the Church at the time as good Catholics must do now.

The pray, pay and obey Catholics are the neocons in the Church who unfortunately have their heads in the sand and they seem to believe that if the Pope told them to jump off a cliff then they should do that. They don't appear to no the limitations of infallibility.

There is a good article from Fr Ripperberger that explains the differences between neocons and traditionalists where he says: "In summary, then, the differences between traditionalists and neoconservatives are rooted in their respective attitudes to extrinsic or ecclesiastical tradition. Even if a neoconservative holds notionally that the extrinsic tradition is of value, nevertheless in the daily living of his life and in his deliberations he simply ignores a large portion if not all of it".

Well worth a read because it explains why neoconservatives and traditionalists are approaching the crisis in the Church is starkly different ways:


jolly jansenist said...

Maybe they could have just sung a little song….

jolly jansenist said...

Who ees thees "Gene" of whom you speak...

Anonymous said...

Some pray, pay and obey Catholics would surely be scandalised by the words of St Catherine of Siena to the Pope of her time:

“Since [Christ] has given you authority and you have accepted it, you ought to be using the power and strength that is yours. If you don’t intend to use it, it would be better and more to God’s honor and the good of your soul to resign….If I were in your place, I would be afraid of incurring divine judgment.” Later in her letter she continued, “Cursed be you, for time and power were entrusted to you and you did not use them!”

I don't think that any one writing on this blog has written about this Pope in such harsh terms.

When the Faith is on the line the saints show us what to do!


Anonymous said...

Anonymous at 9:00pm said, "As with other great reformers, St Francis himself did not stand idle and keep his mouth shut, as Bee seems to think he did. He didn't walk around with a smile on his face and act like there was nothing wrong with the Church. He took action and he went to see the Pope."

Please, enlighten me Anonymous (if that is in fact, your real name :-). Tell me what St. Francis went to see the Pope about. I thought it was to get permission to start a religious order. I don't know, I've read three or four biographies of St. Francis and I never heard anything about "He didn't walk around with a smile on his face and act like there was nothing wrong with the Church."

Please, give me examples I may have forgotten about where he was critical of priests, bishops or the Pope, or other things about the Church. All I can remember is that he believed the vessels used for Mass should be worthy, meaning made of precious materials.

I cannot speak about Catherine of Sienna, or even Teresa of Avila, and their boldness, so you may have a point to make about them. But please, tell me instances of Francis' boldness. I may have just forgotten.

George said...

I know and acknowledge there are disconcerting things going on in some parts of the Church, things which greatly offend God, both among some of her members, and even among some of her ministers. My advice is to keep in mind and adhere faithfully to our Holy Church and her magisterium, this Church, which like a ship on the sea keeps plowing along through seas, both rough and calm. We should not (as Bee said in her comment above) sever ourselves from the vine. We separate ourselves from Christ and His Church at our peril. This is a time for those of faith to unite among ourselves in spirit and join in continual prayer for the Church, the Pope and the bishops. Prayer can affect profound change. Prayer,such as the rosary, and sacrifice are our weapons. As Blessed Jacinta said, "men are lost because they don't think of the death of our Lord and the don't do penance".

Flavius Hesychius said...

I, for one, freely admit to having miaphysitic tendencies.

I think V2 Catholics could learn much from Calvinist attitudes regarding salvation and ecclesial behaviour.

Anonymous said...

Bee, my name is Jan as was stated at the end of my post to which you have referred :). St Francis has been portrayed by many as a hippie who wandered around the place doing nothing but smiling and singing peace songs. St Francis was a man of action. When his rule was at first turned down he went and preached at the Lateran before the Pope and the cardinals. The Pope then had a dream that St Francis was holding up the Lateran and approved his rule. He also preached to the Muslims. He didn't just turn a blind eye to things that were wrong. What I have read: "To think that Francis nonchalantly wandered the countryside is to underestimate his devotion to scripture and sacraments. Arnold credits Francis with “renewing the liturgical principles in the church because he restored the centrality of the sacramental life” returning the people to the altar as participants in the Eucharist. (Arnold 73)
His preaching was purposeful and measured for the good of his listeners. His worship and liturgy were disciplined and examined. He was cautious to not let worship be used for any other means other than the adoration of God. Arnold emphasizes that liturgy and worship of the church were central to Francis’ life. (Arnold 81) The seminal events in his life were all associated with the worship of God and the word of God."

The majority of people speaking out against what is happening are not preaching schism or any such thing. On the contrary, those who are silent and say nothing are guilty of complicity - silence means assent - and I would rather speak out now than go before the judgment seat of God with that on my conscience.