tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post7466445122260384671..comments2024-03-28T20:30:10.681-04:00Comments on southern orders: THIS IS WHAT SOME BISHOPS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD WANTED FOR THE LITURGY, PRIOR TO THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL ACTUALLY BEGINNING--EYE OPENING TO SAY THE LEAST!Fr. Allan J. McDonaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16986575955114152639noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-46286696866019162152017-07-30T08:36:22.358-04:002017-07-30T08:36:22.358-04:00There is no way in Hell a Mormon baptism could be ...There is no way in Hell a Mormon baptism could be valid...they are non-Trinitarian and embody a host of other heresies, some unique to them....so, we were all gods on another planet at one time, Jesus came to America, married, and had children...need anymore?Genenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-83123101260431882032017-07-25T18:34:19.059-04:002017-07-25T18:34:19.059-04:00A non-Baptized person can, I think, baptize validl...A non-Baptized person can, I think, baptize validly with the proper intention and the proper form.<br /><br />The validity of Mormon Baptism is doubtful, so a convert to Catholicism from LDS is baptized conditionally.<br /><br />Accd to Fr. John Huels, invalid baptisms are Apostolic Church, Bohemian Free Thinkers, Christadelphians, Christian Community Churches, Christian Scientists, Church of Divine Science, Jehovah's Witness, Masons, New Church, Swedeborgians (aka Church of the New Jerusalem in the USA), Peoples Church of Chicago, Quakers, Salvation Army, Unitarians.Fr. Michael J. Kavanaughnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-76070564169750655272017-07-25T16:49:42.829-04:002017-07-25T16:49:42.829-04:00"In many non-Catholic sects, Baptism is inval..."In many non-Catholic sects, Baptism is invalid because it lacks the right intention; therefore, based on the judgement of the Ordinary, all who convert from these sects should be baptised."<br /><br />This is why I question the validity of my own baptism. Not only that, but if the pastor who baptized me was not validly baptized, he would not be qualified to baptize me. A case of the blind leading the blind. This, above all else, is my greatest fear.Carol H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/02475843499648488542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-39342419550713334472017-07-25T15:59:25.793-04:002017-07-25T15:59:25.793-04:00This sounds like comments from people from around ...This sounds like comments from people from around the world with different views of what they want or think they need to reach more people with the message of the Gospel. It is dosappointing that these people are bishops. So it shows, perhaps, how we remain children of our homeland. It confirms for me more than ever that we should have retained the old form and changes should come slowly and with much greater deliberation. rcghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09131930849106490711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-70263844368791555472017-07-25T12:10:57.596-04:002017-07-25T12:10:57.596-04:00Everyone knows that the movement for liturgical ch...Everyone knows that the movement for liturgical change was very strong after the first world war, and finally started after the second world war. The "experts" were let out of their ivory tower cages to take over the entire debate, forcing change which the popes finally authorised.<br /><br />Looking at these statements, we see how pastoral in nature they are, eventually leading to the dated pastoral statements on the liturgy of Vatican II. As Bishop Scheneider has pointed out, the crisis in the Church has a lot to do with infallibilising pastoral statements of Vatican II which only responded to pastoral situations of a certain period of time, as well absolutising erroneous interpretations of those statements that are actually ambiguous:<br /><br />"We must free ourselves from the chains of the absolutization and of the total infallibilization of Vatican II. We must ask for a climate of a serene and respectful debate out of a sincere love for the Church and for the immutable faith of the Church."<br /><br />There is a great fear at the Vatican, already expressed by Benedict XVI in his reluctance to reform the reformed liturgy, to open such a debate, for fear that the hidden schism in the Church, between the orthodox and the modernists, already becoming more apparent during this papacy, will erupt into a full open and nasty confrontation not seen since the Protestant deformation. In a sense there has been a lack of courage by playing for time in the hope that the schism will eventually go away; but all indications have shown during the past 100 years that it will get worse. <br />Victornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-40612757712057972912017-07-25T11:53:11.792-04:002017-07-25T11:53:11.792-04:00This is interesting. I admit I am not familiar wit...This is interesting. I admit I am not familiar with all this.<br /><br />So what does this really tell us? Three things come immediately to mind:<br /><br />1. Many of us will often say that what came about after the Council was not what the bishops at the Council intended. It might be better to say that it was what <i>some</i> bishops intended; but that's not the same thing as saying it's what the entire group intended.<br /><br />2. What cannot really be maintained is that the post-Vatican II developments in the liturgy were entirely a surprise to all concerned. They were very much a surprise to the faithful; but there were liturgists, including bishops, who hoped more or less for what transpired.<br /><br />3. With all that in mind, the comparative conservatism of <i>Sacrosanctum Concilium</i> becomes more intentional, doesn't it? Even acknowledging the document was a result of compromise among many voices, it remains the case that the bishops were given a pretty wide menu from which to select: and the resulting work shows us what they chose, doesn't it? To maintain Gregorian Chant and Latin, with vernacular as an option, rather than a replacement for Latin; and the people were to be able to sing and say the Ordinary in Latin. And when it came to what changes might ensue, the Council urged care and limitation, not anything goes. Fr Martin Foxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01375628123126091747noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-14681900634342043042017-07-25T10:33:49.182-04:002017-07-25T10:33:49.182-04:00The sad thing is that most Catholics don't eve...The sad thing is that most Catholics don't even care about this.Maxine Waterloohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17292981502532434817noreply@blogger.com