Latest topics
» Polish traditionalists handicapped : Archbishop Lefebvre made a mistake
Wed Nov 15, 2017 8:20 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Communities of Fr.Leonard Feeney in the USA when they interpret Vatican Council II with the irrational premise deny the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus
Wed Nov 15, 2017 5:18 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Bishop Robert J.McManus and Brother Thomas Augustine MICM,Superior,St.Benedict Center,Still River,MA, interpret Vatican Council II with the 'possibilites are exceptions' error
Mon Nov 06, 2017 8:47 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» SSPX must be aware of the deception of Abp.Guido Pozzo and confront it
Tue Oct 31, 2017 11:57 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Two popes must ask all Catholics to affirm Vatican Council II (premise-free) as they do
Mon Oct 30, 2017 5:16 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary Still River Ma., could lose canomical status because of Feeneyism
Sat Oct 28, 2017 5:54 am by Lionel L. Andrades

»  Traditionalists oppose Pope Francis on morals but give him a pass on salvation
Fri Oct 27, 2017 10:06 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Someone needs to help Cardinal Luiz Ladaria, Archbishop Pozzo and Archbishop Di Noia see how they use a false premise to interpret Vatican Council II
Tue Oct 24, 2017 2:53 pm by Lionel L. Andrades

» Robert Siscoe and John of St. Thomas Respond to Fr. Cekada
Mon Oct 23, 2017 9:25 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Still no denial from Abp.Guido Pozzo : SSPX must accept Vatican Council II with a false doctrine and the new theology based on an irrational premise Image result for Photo of Archbishop Guido Pozzo
Mon Oct 23, 2017 7:03 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Five Catholic academics accept the development of doctrine on salvation and Vatican Council II but reject it on morals and the death penalty
Sun Oct 22, 2017 5:32 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Dr.Robert Fastiggi wants Bishop Donald Sanborn and Chris Ferrara to affirm a magisterium in heresy and schism like him
Sun Oct 22, 2017 5:30 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» ]Christine Niles uses the false premise to interpret magisterial documents
Sat Oct 21, 2017 5:30 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» SSPX has a right to canonical status when they correct their doctrinal error in the 'chart'
Fri Oct 20, 2017 6:25 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» No one shows Massimo Faggioli his precise theological and philosophical mistake
Fri Oct 20, 2017 6:07 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Rethink "Feeneyism"?
Fri Aug 11, 2017 6:02 pm by tornpage

» Brother Andre Marie MICM, the Prior at the St. Benedict Center does not correct Frs.Brian Harrison and Cekada,Bishops Sanborn,Pirvanus,Kelly and Fellay
Wed Jun 28, 2017 4:24 pm by MRyan

» Revisiting Diocese/Parish Screening Policy
Wed Jun 28, 2017 4:03 pm by MRyan

» When sedes and trads can accept that Pius XII made a mistake then popes since John XXIII are no more in heresy
Wed Jun 28, 2017 3:08 pm by MRyan

» Doctrinal talks were conducted with Fr.Gleize on 'the other side'
Mon Jun 26, 2017 9:08 am by Lionel L. Andrades


Cradle Catholic or Convert?

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Cradle Catholic or Convert?

Post  Allie on Sat Oct 08, 2011 12:52 am

I have been wondering this question lately and was hoping you all would respond as to whether you are a cradle Catholic, a convert or a "revert".

Thanks in advance!
Allie

avatar
Allie

Posts : 100
Reputation : 116
Join date : 2010-12-20
Location : southern Ohio, USA

Back to top Go down

Re: Cradle Catholic or Convert?

Post  Roguejim on Sat Oct 08, 2011 5:17 am

Define "revert", and I'll give you my answer.
avatar
Roguejim

Posts : 211
Reputation : 315
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : southern Oregon

Back to top Go down

Re: Cradle Catholic or Convert?

Post  simple Faith on Sat Oct 08, 2011 6:22 am

Allie wrote,
''I have been wondering this question lately and was hoping you all would respond as to whether you are a cradle Catholic, a convert or a "revert".''
This could be very interesting if members here choose to answer, as it may give some insight as to how the current opinions by individuals have been formed.
However I think that you should also add the category 'non-Catholic to the mix (I think we may have a few of those here).
Unfortunately, I think, before members respond we would have to define the term 'Catholic' as some believe they have the right to develop their own 'brand' of what a Catholic is. Can I therefore suggest that for the purposes of this survey that a Catholic is accepting of, and submitting to the current Pope as the visible head of the Catholic Church (presuming that is not to radical of an idea for someone you calls themself Catholic).
This should be interesting.
I myself was baptised as a Catholic shortly after birth. I was born into a family of dedicated practicing Catholics, loyal to the Church under the leadership of the Pope. I was born into a violent conflict (N. Ireland) where until recently I could have been mudered for the very fact that I was a Catholic (indeed I know many Catholics who were mudered for this very reason alone). I was born into a country where my ancestors had to attend mass secretly in the countryside at 'mass rocks' for fear of imprisonment and the execution of the priest during the decades of 'Penal Law'. (Numerous priests and Bishops wre martyrred during this period, in fact one Bishop, Bishop Raymond O'Gallagher was hacked to death by soldiers just yards from my present home.).
Despite this I would be more tolerant of non-Catholics attacking the Catholic faith than I am of those within the Church who would do the same.
avatar
simple Faith

Posts : 164
Reputation : 179
Join date : 2011-01-19

Back to top Go down

Re: Cradle Catholic or Convert?

Post  columba on Sat Oct 08, 2011 11:14 am

Allie wrote:I have been wondering this question lately and was hoping you all would respond as to whether you are a cradle Catholic, a convert or a "revert".

Thanks in advance!
Allie


Cradle Catholic too.

Simple Faith wrote:
(Numerous priests and Bishops wre martyrred during this period, in fact one Bishop, Bishop Raymond O'Gallagher was hacked to death by soldiers just yards from my present home.).

Hey Simple faith, You must not live too far away from me as I too know of that site close by where the Bishop was martyred. Small world indeed.
Now that I know this I can be much more derogatory towards you knowing (like all of us in this part of the world) how thick-skinned you must be.

Despite this I would be more tolerant of non-Catholics attacking the Catholic faith than I am of those within the Church who would do the same.

After all the platitudes about allegience to tha Pope, your now saying that you've less tolerance for him than you have for non-Catholics who attack the Church. scratch

avatar
columba

Posts : 979
Reputation : 1068
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Re: Cradle Catholic or Convert?

Post  simple Faith on Sat Oct 08, 2011 12:51 pm

Columba wrote,
"Hey Simple faith, You must not live too far away from me ..."
GREAT!!!, now I'll probably hear that Fatima and Bernadette are my next door neighbours

Columba wrote, Now that I know this I can be much more derogatory towards you knowing (like all of us in this part of the world) how thick-skinned you must be.

No problem Columba, much rather have a straight hitting derogatory remark from you rather than your usual meandering hypothetical musings on straight forward questions.

Columba wrote, After all the platitudes about allegience to tha Pope, your now saying that you've less tolerance for him than you have for non-Catholics who attack the Church.
Here we go again, what a remakable gift you have Columba for mis-stating the obvious.
But let me put it a bit more simply, I am not surprised, and indeed would expect that the true Church will always be attacked by those outside of it and would be tolerant (not accepting) of this due to their ignorance. However I find it more difficult to tolerate or accept the same abuse towards the true Church from those within it who should know better.
Anyway why not meet up for a pint? but hey hold on a minute, on second thoughts we may not even get a drink. For what if you first need to decide if the barman behind the bar is in fact the true barman and if he is not the real barman how would we recognise the real barman.
avatar
simple Faith

Posts : 164
Reputation : 179
Join date : 2011-01-19

Back to top Go down

Re: Cradle Catholic or Convert?

Post  MRyan on Sat Oct 08, 2011 4:07 pm

Roguejim wrote:Define "revert", and I'll give you my answer.
Robert Sungenis is a "revert", by which (I think) we mean someone who left the Church to join a false sect and returned; as opposed to a "fallen away" Catholic who stopped practicing the Catholic Faith for whatever reason.

Me - cradle.

avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Cradle Catholic or Convert?

Post  Roguejim on Sat Oct 08, 2011 6:17 pm

Cradle.
avatar
Roguejim

Posts : 211
Reputation : 315
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : southern Oregon

Back to top Go down

Re: Cradle Catholic or Convert?

Post  columba on Sat Oct 08, 2011 8:14 pm

Simple Faith wrote:
Columba wrote, Now that I know this I can be much more derogatory towards you knowing (like all of us in this part of the world) how thick-skinned you must be.

No problem Columba, much rather have a straight hitting derogatory remark from you rather than your usual meandering hypothetical musings on straight forward questions.

I don't mind the derogatory remarks as long as you at least attempt to answer my questions. I have answered all of yours to the best of my ability even if sometimes it takes a paragraph or two; thus far you have not even attempted to answer any I''ve put to you (check out our previous exchanges for details).

Columba wrote, After all the platitudes about allegience to tha Pope, your now saying that you've less tolerance for him than you have for non-Catholics who attack the Church.


Here we go again, what a remakable gift you have Columba for mis-stating the obvious.
But let me put it a bit more simply, I am not surprised, and indeed would expect that the true Church will always be attacked by those outside of it and would be tolerant (not accepting) of this due to their ignorance. However I find it more difficult to tolerate or accept the same abuse towards the true Church from those within it who should know better.

You've missed my point Simple Faith. Those you accuse of being inside the Chuch and attacking the faith are not mere laymen/woman. Anyone inside the Church who professes beliefs contrary to those which the Church hold, they are the ones who are attacking the Church from within.
Question: What dogma's have been denied by those you target as attackers of the faith? Hope this time you will provide an answer.

Anyway why not meet up for a pint? but hey hold on a minute, on second thoughts we may not even get a drink. For what if you first need to decide if the barman behind the bar is in fact the true barman and if he is not the real barman how would we recognise the real barman.

That sounds like a great idea.. In that case I'll let you discern the qualifications of the bar tender and you can buy all the pints. Smile I'll donate what I save in this arrangement to the up-keep of the Mass Rocks; speaking of which, if you were to meet the good Bishop Raymond O'Gallagher and explained to him how his martyrdom was in vain, that we all get along quite nicely now (catholics & protestants) and we are all having interdenominational prayer services and we're all going to heaven together, each in his own faith, I wonder what his reply would be?

Or, maybe we could attend the next clergy organized NO fund-raiser (for the payment of compensation to victims of the same) and play *Spot the Cathoilc" or, as I prefer to call them, Catholic divorcee match-making events for those awaiting the verdict on their annulments.

On second thoughts, we'll just meet up in the Argyle Arms and have a nice civilized pint. As Pascendi used to say (on the other forum), "If we were all to meet up on such an occasion we'd probably get on just fine together. (It didn't stop him banning Mike a few times though).








avatar
columba

Posts : 979
Reputation : 1068
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Re: Cradle Catholic or Convert?

Post  Allie on Sat Oct 08, 2011 10:31 pm

Jim, see Mryan's definition of "revert". Although, I think that I should have also specified "fallen away" Catholic as an option.

simple Faith, I agree, I think it will be interesting to see where people are coming from. Hopefully others will comment.

Oh and I am glad that if nothing else, you and columba realized that you are neighbors and you can at least agree to drink a few pints together.

avatar
Allie

Posts : 100
Reputation : 116
Join date : 2010-12-20
Location : southern Ohio, USA

Back to top Go down

Re: Cradle Catholic or Convert?

Post  Allie on Sat Oct 08, 2011 11:13 pm

simple Faith wrote: I myself was baptised as a Catholic shortly after birth. I was born into a family of dedicated practicing Catholics, loyal to the Church under the leadership of the Pope.
truly a blessing to be born into such a family

simple Faith wrote: I was born into a violent conflict (N. Ireland) where until recently I could have been mudered for the very fact that I was a Catholic (indeed I know many Catholics who were mudered for this very reason alone). I was born into a country where my ancestors had to attend mass secretly in the countryside at 'mass rocks' for fear of imprisonment and the execution of the priest during the decades of 'Penal Law'. (Numerous priests and Bishops wre martyrred during this period, in fact one Bishop, Bishop Raymond O'Gallagher was hacked to death by soldiers just yards from my present home.).

Thank you so much for telling about this. How long ago was Bishop O'Gallagher martyred? Can you tell more about 'Mass rocks'? How did your family and other Catholics know how to organize and carry on the Faith under such conditions? You say until recently you could have been murdered for your Faith...what events have changed this? I'm sorry to ask so many questions (it's like rapid-fire) but I am embarrassingly not as informed about these things as I would like to be.

avatar
Allie

Posts : 100
Reputation : 116
Join date : 2010-12-20
Location : southern Ohio, USA

Back to top Go down

Re: Cradle Catholic or Convert?

Post  simple Faith on Sun Oct 09, 2011 8:58 pm

Hi Allie,
For centuries Ireland was known as the land of saints and scholars but unfortunately today it is sadly lacking in both.
During the 17th and 18th centuries, the English, who ruled Ireland, made it an offence to practice the Catholic faith and ordered all Catholic clergy to leave the country. The English took all land belonging to the Catholic Church and destroyed all chapels and monasteries and made it an offence to practice the faith. Priests (under the penalty of death) travelled the country staying at 'safe houses' provided by the people and celebrated mass in secret in the countryside using large rocks for an altar (mass rocks). During the mass, men were posted around the area to look-out for 'Redcoats' (the English soldiers) and to warn the priest and the people if they were approaching. Today, mass rocks can be found all over Ireland, my local church has a mass rock in its grounds.
Bishop O'Gallagher, who I mentioned in my previous post, was Bishop of Derry and was martyered in 1603 (approx 80 years of age), hacked to death by English soldiers.
During the oppression all Irish families prayed the Rosary daily and never ever abandoned their faith, passing it on from generation to generation. During this time numerous Catholic people, priests and bishops were martyred for the faith.

In more recent times Northern Ireland has had its own conflict with Engand (the Republic of Ireland had already won its independance from England). During the 1970's, 80's and 90's there was a conflict between N. Ireland and England. Most protestants in N. Ireland wished to stay under British rule whilst most Catholics sought independence and a united Ireland. During this period, protestant paramilitary groups routinely murdered hundreds of Catholics. I grew up in an area which was 95% protestant and lived under threat until the 1990's when a peace agreement was reached to share power between protestant and Catholics in N. Ireland.
Allie, this is a very brief summary of centuries of conflict and oppression but I hope it gives a brief insight to the situation and answers your questions.
You asked how did my family and other families carry on the faith under such conditions.The answer is quite simple, when something you love and believe in is under threat and attack you become stronger and more resilient to defend it, no matter what the cost. Passing on the true faith to the next generation is even more important that personal survival. As I mention in a post by George Brenner re: Fr. Faber, I was delighted to learn that he was also the writer of the great Catholic hymn, 'Faith Of Our Fathers' which was adopted by many parishes in Ireland, and a favourite hymn of my own father.

Faith of our fathers, living still,
In spite of dungeon, fire, and sword;
Oh, how our hearts beat high with joy
Whene’er we hear that glorious Word!

Refrain:
Faith of our fathers, holy faith!
We will be true to thee till death.

Faith of our fathers, we will strive
To win all nations unto thee;
And through the truth that comes from God,
We all shall then be truly free.

Faith of our fathers, we will love
Both friend and foe in all our strife;
And preach thee, too, as love knows how
By kindly words and virtuous life.


avatar
simple Faith

Posts : 164
Reputation : 179
Join date : 2011-01-19

Back to top Go down

Re: Cradle Catholic or Convert?

Post  simple Faith on Mon Oct 10, 2011 6:23 am

PS, Allie,
Columba would have grown up and lived through similar circumstances as my own.This should explain his reluctance to make the fatal jump from the fence that he currently sits on into any sede camp. This also explains the thick skins we both process when exchanging comments and why we exempt each other from any current truce on this forum. We still have to meet up for a pint so I'll deal with him properly then.
avatar
simple Faith

Posts : 164
Reputation : 179
Join date : 2011-01-19

Back to top Go down

Re: Cradle Catholic or Convert?

Post  Guest on Fri Oct 14, 2011 5:18 pm

I have been wondering this question lately and was hoping you all would respond as to whether you are a cradle Catholic, a convert or a "revert".

Thanks in advance!
Allie

Hi Allie,

I am a cradle Catholic. I will give you a little more insight on that later.


Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Cradle Catholic or Convert?

Post  Guest on Sat Oct 15, 2011 7:21 pm

Allie wrote:
simple Faith, I agree, I think it will be interesting to see where people are coming from. Hopefully others will comment.
Hi Allie,

Giving you a little insight on being a cradle Catholic: My mother and father are cradling Catholics. I was baptized Catholic 33 days after birth. I was born one year and two months after my brother (going by the stories my uncle usually tells on the expression on my brothers face each time my diaper was being changed, I don’t think he was to impressed), soon after, my brother and I was blessed with a sister and two brothers.

Growing up under the “authority” of John Paul II, we would frequent the novos ordo “mass” and the recitation of the holy Rosary at night in the living room of our home. At times my parents would have their friends from cursillo over to join us, and sometimes the sound of the rosary being recited was so loud, the children in the street would gather around the front of our house to see what was going on. When my dad would see them peeking in the window, he would open the door and invite them in. Sometimes they would come in, and then sometimes they would take off running. At times (if I can remember correctly) there might have been fifteen to twenty people, or more, in our living room praying the rosary in front of a statue of the Blessed Virgin Mary and a couple of burning candles.

In the early 90’s my mother and father would talk me into becoming an alter boy. At that time I thought only one thing; if I become an alter boy, it will get me out of class for an half hour or so each morning, which sounded like a good deal to me. After learning the routine and building confidence in myself to serve at the alter in front of all the parishioners’, I think I actually enjoyed it.

Anyway, enough about that, I’m rambling on here. To cut a long story short, I always new there was something terribly wrong within the Church, but I never could quite figure out what it was and where it was coming from. Whatever it was, I always thought that John Paul II would straiten things out and rid the Church of Her enemies, for in my eyes he was the greatest man walking the earth (Oh, how I was deceived). If I ever heard anyone say anything insulting towards him or the so-called priests we see in the news every day; I was the first man inn in defense of them, even when I knew what some of them were guilty of was repulsing to me. But, thank God, and Our Blessed Mother, for opening my eyes and giving me the grace to love the truth.

Simple Faith wrote:
This could be very interesting if members here choose to answer, as it may give some insight as to how the current opinions by individuals have been formed.
I never wanted to admit to myself that indeed these last few claimants to the papacy were and are still alien to the Church, but I had to be honest with myself, even though I didn’t want to admit what I was thinking. So I asked myself, after reading and watching all the undeniable evidence of what these guys are guilty of: Does the current man and did the previous men after VII hold the Catholic faith? Are they Catholic? Is a non-Catholic inside or outside the body? Can a non-Catholic be the head of the Catholic Church? Did these men, and does the current man teach contrary to that of Pope St. Gregory the Great, Pope Innocent III, Pope Clement VI, Pope St. Pius V, Pope Leo XII, Pope Gregory XVI, Pope Pius IX, Pope Leo XIII, Pope St. Pius X and Pope Pius XI etc? Does the Church teach that a person incurs automatic ex-communication if he/she obstinately rejects a solemnly defined dogma? Where will my soul end up when I die if I listen to and believe in the teachings of Benedict XVI?

After answering honestly to the above questions according to the teachings of the Church, the conclusion in which I came to was: yes, these men after Vatican II were and still are alien to the Church.

Simple Faith wrote:
For centuries Ireland was known as the land of saints and scholars
I was talking to an Irish man recently; he was telling me some of Ireland’s greatest saints are buried next to the Long Tower Chapel in Derry city, St. Columba being one of them. Have you heard about this? Do you or Columba know of any other saints that are buried there? I would be grateful if you could share your knowledge on this with me.

Simple Faith wrote:
You asked how did my family and other families carry on the faith under such conditions.The answer is quite simple, when something you love and believe in is under threat and attack you become stronger and more resilient to defend it, no matter what the cost. Passing on the true faith to the next generation is even more important that personal survival.


One hundred percent SF, I feel exactly the same way.




Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Cradle Catholic or Convert?

Post  George Brenner on Mon Oct 17, 2011 1:40 pm

I am a cradle Catholic to be sure but the road of life has presented mant twists, turns, detours, road construction signs, caution slippery when wet areas in the road and unexpected dead ends(interesting term) in my life. As the song says, I have been a puppet, a poet, a pirate , a pawn and a king. The givens are that I am a lowly sinner and can not possibly attain the reward of Heaven without the intercession of Our Blessed Mother. I must remain in the Catholic Church and be subject to, love and pray for our Pope; not because I have to but because I want to and know it is the only Ark of Salvation.



So now I will quote from The One True Church, by Joseph Maccarthy, Nihil Obstat: John J. Toomey, J.C.D. Imprimatur + Walter W. Curtis, S.T.D. Bishop of Bridgeport, 1963.... republished in 1978 Pages 13 thru 15



" There is told the story of the old Irishman who never went to Mass on Sunday. When asked by his neighbors why he neglected such a solemn obligation, he replied, " The Mass is all right. It is the blackguards, who offering it that are bad." While we admire his logic, we regret he did not follow through, for knowing that the Mass was good and pleasing to God, he should have attended, closing his eyes to the inconsistencies of the frail mortals who offered it. For they, no less than Judas or Thomas, were called by Christ to preach His Gospel, to administer His Sacraments, to offer His Sacrifice."

" This same failure to seperate the Gospel from those who preached it, was precisley the point of departure in the reformation. Luther{ at one time a devout Catholic } made the mistake of changing the teachings of the Gospel instead of converting the clerics of the Church. Surely, if your attic is full of squirrels, you do not burn the house down; you exterminate the squirrels. If the ship is infested with rats, kill the rats, but do not sink the ship. It is only common sense that, when a policeman is found to be himself a crook, we do not abrogate the laws; we suspend the policeman. If a judge is accepting bribes, we do not change the law but debar the Judge. So it was with the pre-reformation of of the Church. Where the clerics were evil, they should have been suspended, but it was a fatal mistake to change the teachings of Christ's Church."



" What would our LAITY do if history should again repeat itself and the clergy again become lax and sinful, if corruption infested the Vatican and the priests discarded the vows of celibacy? Would our laity cease to believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist or the sacrificial nature of the Mass; would they no longer believe in the forgiveness of sins in the confessional; or would they pray for our conversion, retaining their belief in truths we preached but failed to follow?"



" Be therefore always understanding of the weak and lowly ones that God has chosen as instruments of Salvation. Saint Paul himself had fears " lest in preaching to others, I myself, might become a castaway. It is well to remember that priests became priests with one motive only, that EVERY soul within their reach should be saved. You might even be admonished to do as they say but not as they do. But is it not also so with the doctor who tells you that you have to lose ten pounds? As you take a furtive glance at his own well-rounded corporation, you are tempted to remark: " Physician , hae thyself," but the knowledge that what he tells you is for your own good, and is the truth, forbids you. Then you perfectly realize that the dread death he is trying to avert from you is slowly closing in on himself. Surely the whip of hell that the priests hold over your head, looms also over their own. For the priests, though sent by God to save your soul, like many a lifesaver, in saving others might yet be lost themselves. And those Apostles, whether they be Pope or simple Padre, have themselves no private opinions in matters of faith or morals, but are themselves bound and held by the common truths that hold and bind us all."



END OF QUOTATION...............................................

In the times that we live, our love, prayers and respect for the Priesthood must be intense and with a humble heart. It is the Priest who has the the mission to be with many of us from birth through death. It is the Priest who baptises with water our infants and conveys upon them a permanent sign that the new Christian is now a child of God. It is the Bishop that confers upon the child the seal and gift of the Holy Spirit in Confirmation. It is the Priest that gives the Body and Blood of Christ for the first time at a child's first Communion. It is Christ Jesus Himself through the Priest in the Sacrament of Confession that gives us absolution and says that our sins are forgiven. It is the Priest that can join husband and wife together in heart and soul in Holy Matrimony. Children are the fruit and blessing of the bond of marriage. It is the Priest that annoint us with Blessed oil when we are sick. It is the Priest who is with so many of us near the time of our death and prays for us. It is the Priests who bury us and send us on our way into eternity. Thank our Priests, Encourage our Priests and above all LOVE OUR PRIESTS!



I now have a personal plea, especially to the Sedevacanist. I understand your indescribeable pain. You are not lukewarm. You have a great passion and love for your Catholic faith. You feel as if a dagger has been pierced through your soul. You must stay within the Church in its time of great pain. This will pass. Let Holy mother Church sort out the Glorious, the good and righteous from the scandals and the heresies. The Church needs you to be part of the Church Militant and by deed and example be a soldier for Christ. With an examination of conscience and heartfelt confession, you will participate in the cure. The weight of the world will be lifted from your heart. Let there be NO illusion, the Church is in a period of great crisis from without but most sadly from within. Satan is in our midst and will be defeated. We must not critque our Priest but must work diligently against those who openly attack our good Priests and the very foundations of our Faith and the Church itself. We can no longer be silent,complain or retreat into isolationism. There is no small raft. There is to be sure Our Ark of Truth where Our Catholic Faith exists. There are Saints or Spiritual Diamonds of Faith to read, follow and emulate. Beware of following dimonds in the rough for they lead souls astray. We must love Our Church enough to fight, defend and die for Her. Enough is Enough! You can expect the conditions in the world to continue to unravel and become more evil. But before too long the Masses will once again be so crowded that you will not be able to find a seat. The lines for confession will be so long that Our Priests will be exhausted. The Latin Mass will return to the love expressed by Saint Pius V in His solemn Degree " Quo Primum." The Novus Order Mass, in the near future will be said without the abuses and liberties taken that are allowed in SOME places. Church Doctrine will be explained with specifics and Constinency and vocations to the Religious will increase in great numbers. The Church baskets will be overflowing with monetary support. All these things will come to pass but first the cleansing will take place. This is a call to arms. Those who love the Church, will suffer as did Our Lord who is the Way, the Truth and the Life.



Solemn Decree of Saint Pope Pius V," Quo Primum"





" By this Decree, to be valid in perpetuity, We determine and order that NEVER shall anything be added to, omitted from or changed in the Missal. We specifically warn all persons in authority, of whatever dignity or rank, Cardinals not excluded, and command them as a matter of strict obedience, never to use or permit any ceremonies or Mass prayers other than the ones contained in this Missal ordered by the sacred Council of Trent, and encompassing all that is necessary to preserve a pure and universally uniform way of worshipping God.



At NO time in the future can a Priest, EVER be forced to use any other way of saying Mass. And, so as to preclude once and for all, any scruples of conscience and fear of ecclesiastical penalties and censures, We herewith declare that it is in virtue of Our Apostolic Authority that we DECREE AND DETERMINE that this our present order and decree is to last in PERPETUITY and can NEVER be legally revoked or amended at a later date.

And if anyone would nevertheless ever dare to attempt any action contrary to this order of Ours, given for all time, let him know that he has incurred the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul."

END OF QUOTE>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


Saint Athanasius was exiled five times and excommunicated by every Bishop in the East, who gave orders he be hunted down and killed.



Saint Ignatius of Constantinople died under the threat of Excommunication.



Saint Alphonsus Maria Liquori was formally condemmed by the Pope and kicked out of the Congregation which he had founded.



Saint Ignatius of Loyola was summoned before the Spanish Inquistition and imprisioned eight times on accusations of teaching heresy.



Saint Joan of Arc was burned at the stake as an excommunicated possessed heretic byher Bishop and a council of 164 Church officials, plus the entire University of Paris. ( So much for safety in numbers)



Saint Louis Marie De Montfort was a Papal Missionary whose missionary activities for the Pope were constantly being hampered and undone by the French Bishops who silenced , suspended, censured, and exiled him at least 16 times from one diocese to another across the country.



Saint Augustine was called a heretic for his teachings on grace and free will.



Saint John Damascene and Saint Germanus of Constantinoble were Anthematized by 338 Bishops in Council.

And Jesus cometh to his disciples, and findeth them asleep, and he saith to Peter: What? Could you not watch one hour with me?





God Bless you Father Rodriguez, my prayers are with you, please pray for me.



And as always MRyan , your review is humbly needed


JMJ,

George






avatar
George Brenner

Posts : 604
Reputation : 674
Join date : 2011-09-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Cradle Catholic or Convert?

Post  MRyan on Tue Oct 18, 2011 10:04 am

George, I am always humbled and edified by your heart-felt posts and appeals to live the Catholic faith in spirit and in truth and not to abandon the One Ark of Salvation as if it can be found elsewhere other than “where Peter is”.

My only question for you is: What is the purpose of citing Quo Primum, especially with the emphasis on capitalization, such as:

We determine and order that NEVER shall anything be added to, omitted from or changed in the Missal … At NO time in the future can a Priest, EVER be forced to use any other way of saying Mass … in virtue of Our Apostolic Authority that we DECREE AND DETERMINE that this our present order and decree is to last in PERPETUITY and can NEVER be legally revoked or amended at a later date
You know that as a disciplinary measure Quo Primum cannot legally bind any successor to Peter who alone has full and immediate Primacy of Apostolic Authority over the Liturgy and rites of the Church. Peter alone can add to, omit or change the Missal; and Peter alone approves the ordinary and extraordinary rites for the universal Church and the norms governing each.

A priest cannot licitly say Mass, any Mass, without valid jurisdiction; a jurisdiction originating in Christ and conferred directly upon His Vicar on earth who “sends” ordained ministers to say Mass and to provide for the sanctification of the faithful through the jurisdictional authority of the Bishops in communion with him.

And it is my contention that Saints Athanasius, Ignatius of Constantinople, Alphonsus Maria Liquori, Ignatius of Loyola, Louis Marie De Montfort, John Damascene and St. Germanus of Constantinoble would have gladly accepted excommunication 100 times over, and death, rather than break communion with Peter.
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Cradle Catholic or Convert?

Post  George Brenner on Tue Oct 18, 2011 1:48 pm

To MRyan,

As always, I very much appreciate your comments, guideance and insight.

Does the quoted information below correctly explain Our Masses, both Ordinary and Extraordinary as I think that it does.

" 1. Pius V’s bull, Quo primum tempore, did not grant a “perpetual indult,” or privilege
This was a legislative act, universal law requiring the use of Missale Romanum in the whole Latin Church, except for those dioceses and religious orders that had their own liturgies for at least 200 years. It was not a privilege for any individual, group, or particular territory. Laws enacted by one legislator can be revoked by a successor (canon 20), as Paul VI did with respect to the use of the Missal of Paul VI. The so-called Novus Ordo, or new rite of Mass of Paul VI, is not really a new creation, but a revision of the previous rite, popularly called the Tridentine Rite Mass.

2. Paul VI’s 1969 apostolic constitution, Missale Romanum, was properly promulgated as law in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis (61: 217-222), in keeping with canon 9 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law (1983 Code of Canon Law canon Cool. The constitution required the use of the newly revised Roman Missal and abrogated previous law that had required use of the Tridentine rite Mass. The pope declared that his constitution had the force of law “now and in the future,” and he expressly revoked contrary law, including “the apostolic constitutions and ordinances issued by our predecessors and other prescriptions, even those deserving special mention and amendment.”

Moreover, the March 26, 1970, decree of the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship promulgating the editio typica of the revised Roman Missal contained the phrase “Anything to the contrary notwithstanding.” This general formula revokes: (1) all contrary universal laws; (2) all contrary universal customs, except those that are centenary or immemorial; (3) all contrary particular factual customs, but not particular legal customs observed for at least 30 years.

3. It is correct that the general formula revoking the Tridentine Rite of Mass did not affect immemorial and centenary custom. However, the observance of the Rite of Mass of Pope Pius V was not a custom. It was imposed by law. A custom is introduced by the community (canon 23), whereas a law is introduced by the legislator. The use of the Roman Missal was decreed by universal law in 1570, and the Missal was revised in different ways by legislative acts of subsequent popes in 1604, 1634, 1888, 1920, 1955, 1960, 1961, 1964, 1965, and 1967. Although many of the ceremonies and details of the Mass of the Roman Rite largely developed through customs in the ancient and medireview Church, by 1570 the legal authority for the Rite of Mass was clearly that of papal law, not custom.

Theoretically, it is possible for a capable community to induce the contrary legal custom of observing a former Rite of Mass (if this were to be judged reasonable in a certain situation, as canon 24, §2 requires). However, I do not believe any community has grounds to assert that it has already formed such a custom, as this requires thirty continuous years of observance. The second edition of the Roman Missal published in 1975 interrupted any contrary (factual) customs that had begun since 1970, and thirty years had not yet elapsed since the promulgation of the third edition in 2000, which also interrupted the formation of contrary (factual) customs. Thus, the thirty-year period for any contrary factual custom to become legal must begin anew from the date that the third edition took effect, although this too could be interrupted in various ways, as discussed by the commentators.

4. Many priests have an indult to celebrate the 1962 Rite of Mass, but the indult is quite specific in requiring the use of the 1962 Roman Missal. To suggest that earlier rites may be used is unfounded. That would not be broad interpretation, because broad interpretation must stay within the meaning of the words. An interpretation is illicit if it changes the proper meaning of the words of the indult (canon 36, §1). The proper meaning of “the 1962 Missal” is clear, and must be interpreted as such. Moreover, canon 36, §2, explicitly states that administrative acts (such as an indult) must not be extended to cases other than those expressly stated. "

END OF QUOTE">>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

The reason I put bold caps on some words in my aforementioned Papal Bull was for many reasons, perhaps mainly personal. When my wife and I were married in 1970, we asked for and obtained permission for our wedding Mass to be in Latin. I also took great offense when some Clergy in high positions came on EWTN and said that The Indult would bring back sheep that are not of this fold back into the Faith. I never left the Faith of our One. Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. I along with others got the impression that it was done as a favor or concession. Were they talking about The Society of Pope Pius V for example? I find the 1962 Missal Latin Mass much more reverent and pleasing to God. { my opinion} I quess I can not say it as profoundly beautiful as did Father Michael in your post: Priest under Fire or maybe Priest above the fire would be better. I do not and will not question the validity of the Novus Ordo Mass, for do so would be sinful. In fact the majority of my life has now been worshiping at the Novus Order Mass, with the Mass being the greatest gift that Jesus left us. I much prefer the latin Mass said by the Fraternity of Saint Peter, especially that we are blessed with a Church only a few miles from our home.

Mike, as far as the Saints that you mention from my previous post staying in the Church and being subject to the Pope, all I can add to that is to say but of course, that is an eternal GIVEN.
(There I go with Caps again). Otherwise they would not have been Saints.


JMJ,

Your Friend,

George









avatar
George Brenner

Posts : 604
Reputation : 674
Join date : 2011-09-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Cradle Catholic or Convert?

Post  DeSelby on Tue Oct 18, 2011 3:40 pm

Allie wrote:I have been wondering this question lately and was hoping you all would respond as to whether you are a cradle Catholic, a convert or a "revert".

Thanks in advance!
Allie


Technically I'm not a cradle Catholic because I wasn't baptized as an infant. Given the definition of "revert" we're using, I'm also not one of those. I'm also not a convert.

So, none of the above. Very Happy
avatar
DeSelby

Posts : 211
Reputation : 231
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Cradle Catholic or Convert?

Post  MRyan on Wed Oct 19, 2011 12:53 pm

George Brenner wrote:To MRyan,

As always, I very much appreciate your comments, guideance and insight.

Does the quoted information below correctly explain Our Masses, both Ordinary and Extraordinary as I think that it does. ...[snip]
George,

No problem … I have just a few comments on your tract which says:

The constitution required the use of the newly revised Roman Missal and abrogated previous law that had required use of the Tridentine rite Mass.
Not quite:

“As for the use of the 1962 Missal as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgy of the Mass, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted. At the time of the introduction of the new Missal, it did not seem necessary to issue specific norms for the possible use of the earlier Missal. Probably it was thought that it would be a matter of a few individual cases which would be resolved, case by case, on the local level. Afterwards, however, it soon became apparent that a good number of people remained strongly attached to this usage of the Roman Rite, which had been familiar to them from childhood. (Letter of Pope Benedict XVI to the Bishops of he World, 7 July 2007, issued together with his Apostolic Letter "Summorum Pontificum")
Perhaps this was said with a bit of understatement when we consider that after having the immemorial Roman Rite Mass yanked out from under us, and having imposed in its place what even Cardinal Ratzinger called a “fabricated liturgy…, a banal on-the-spot product” with all of the “experimentations” and attendant abuses, about which Pope BXVI said such “arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church”; it should come as no surprise that “it soon became apparent that a good number of people remained strongly attached to this usage of the Roman Rite, which had been familiar to them from childhood”!

Indeed, and perhaps not just because of the abuses. If we didn’t fully appreciate the "Tridentine Rite Mass" when it was the ordinary Latin Rite of the Church, we certainly did so when it was taken away and replaced with what appeared to be an inferior product, even if the Propitiatory Sacrifice itself is always perfect and pleasing before God.

It was only a small consolation to learn that the TLM was never “juridically abrogated” when there were no specific norms for its celebration until 1988; and even then its celebration was rare -- in the grand scheme of things.

All of that being said, Pope Benedict XVI confirmed in his Apostolic Letter "Summorum Pontificum" issued Motu Proprio, and the Letter of Pope Benedict XVI to the Bishops of he World, 7 July 2007, issued together with his Apostolic Letter "Summorum Pontificum", the following:

It is, therefore, permissible to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass following the typical edition of the Roman Missal promulgated by Bl. John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated, as an extraordinary form of the Liturgy of the Church. The conditions for the use of this Missal as laid down by earlier documents 'Quattuor abhinc annis' and 'Ecclesia Dei,' are substituted as follows:

Art. 2. In Masses celebrated without the people, each Catholic priest of the Latin rite, whether secular or regular, may use the Roman Missal published by Bl. Pope John XXIII in 1962, or the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970, and may do so on any day with the exception of the Easter Triduum. For such celebrations, with either one Missal or the other, the priest has no need for permission from the Apostolic See or from his Ordinary. (Art.4: And may be attended by the faithful who, of their own free will, ask to be admitted.)

Art. 5. § 1 In parishes, where there is a stable group of faithful who adhere to the earlier liturgical tradition, the pastor should willingly accept their requests to celebrate the Mass according to the rite of the Roman Missal published in 1962, and ensure that the welfare of these faithful harmonises with the ordinary pastoral care of the parish, under the guidance of the bishop in accordance with canon 392, avoiding discord and favouring the unity of the whole Church.

Art. 7. If a group of lay faithful, as mentioned in art. 5 § 1, has not obtained satisfaction to their requests from the pastor, they should inform the diocesan bishop. The bishop is strongly requested to satisfy their wishes. If he cannot arrange for such celebration to take place, the matter should be referred to the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei".

In conclusion, dear Brothers, I very much wish to stress that these new norms do not in any way lessen your own authority and responsibility, either for the liturgy or for the pastoral care of your faithful. Each Bishop, in fact, is the moderator of the liturgy in his own Diocese (cf. Sacrosanctum Concilium, 22 …).

Nothing is taken away, then, from the authority of the Bishop, whose role remains that of being watchful that all is done in peace and serenity. Should some problem arise which the parish priest cannot resolve, the local Ordinary will always be able to intervene, in full harmony, however, with all that has been laid down by the new norms of the Motu Proprio.
And still, even with these norms which place the Bishop squarely in the jurisdictional role of Apostolic Authority he has always had as “the moderator of the liturgy in his own Diocese”, Catholics can in good conscience attend a TLM in a Bishop's diocese which does not enjoy his approval/jurisdiction, so long as that same “spirit of schism” that resulted in the excommunication of the SSPX Bishops is not present.

Now there's a slippery slope.

The Church seems to be very much aware of the disenfranchisement so many Catholics have with the New Mass which has “caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church”, and is willing to accommodate them even so far as to authorize attendance at illicit Masses. And yet, look at what ordinary Catholics have to go through, often to no avail, to get their Bishop to approve the TLM in their own parish.

Strange times, these.

avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Cradle Catholic or Convert?

Post  George Brenner on Wed Oct 19, 2011 1:28 pm

Greetings, MRyan,

Thanks again as always for your respone. One more Question.


From Douay-Rheims Bible:

"Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven"

To me the Church official binding Doctrine of Faith seems clearer to accept, follow and obey, whereas the Loosing in Heaven by loosing on earth is harder for me to understand, let alone know when this happens. Any words of wisdom?

JMJ,

Your friend

George



avatar
George Brenner

Posts : 604
Reputation : 674
Join date : 2011-09-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Cradle Catholic or Convert?

Post  MRyan on Wed Oct 19, 2011 2:44 pm

George,

I think I understand where you are coming from. The binding and loosening spoken of here by our Lord pertains to the supreme Apostolic Primacy of Jurisdiction of Peter who has full and immediate authority over the disciplines and laws of the universal Church. What may be bound in one age many be loosed in another as the Pope sees fit for the good of the Church and the sanctification of the faithful. How we know when this happens is by papal promulgation or simply by the manifest words of the pope himself.

Disciplines and ecclesiastical laws, unlike binding matters of faith, are subject to a certain fallible jurisprudence that may not turn out to be the most prudent or wise course of action or law. This is not to say that universal laws can be inherently harmful or sinful, but this does not mean that they cannot cause great confusion or be abused, and be detrimental to good order and discipline became of the fallibility and misunderstandings of those carrying out the will of the Pope (whose true will in these matters may not have been sufficiently stated and/or may be at odds with the understanding of those carrying it out).

We saw this with the Missale Romanum of 1970 when it appeared that the Old Rite was officially abrogated and for all intents and purposes it was definitely suppressed. Many Catholics had and still have a heavy cross to bear in following the will of the Holy Father with respect to what is now called the ordinary form of the Mass … and each of us has had to deal with this in his own way. I have stumbled many times in this regard, and have shed many tears over this devastated vineyard.

The Novus Ordo is for me in one sense a penance, and often a severe penance; though I have learned, I pray, to focus on the “positives” and the grace that is inherent within each Mass.

Pope Pius XI acted in good faith with the Calles government when he ordered the Cristeros to lay down their arms. Little did he know that by doing so, he had sanctioned the death of hundreds of obedient Catholics who were subsequently hunted down and murdered like dogs.

But God had other plans, and we now have martyred advocates in heaven who understand our plight when we remain obedient to the Holy Father, and suffer because of it. I think it comes with the job description of being “Catholic”.

But neither do I make any claim to knowing the "definitive" answer, and I pass no judgment on those who cannot in good conscience attend the Novus Ordo under any circumstances.

I know a good priest who suffered for 10 years because he was not allowed to say the TLM, and he could not say the Novus Ordo; but neither could he go "independent". So he suffered and said the TLM privately, often drawing a small group who would become the impetus for gaining approval for the Indult.

Ostracized (literally) by his Bishop, with whom he remained in prayerful communion; only when a more generous Bishop was appointed and a local Pastor offered his Church to him for the TLM, did he finally find a home.

This is the same priest, God love him, who told (from the pulpit) a few "traditional" malcontents who objected to the necessary occasional use of "Novus Ordo" Hosts, to leave if they didn't like it. And leave they did.
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Cradle Catholic or Convert?

Post  George Brenner on Wed Oct 19, 2011 3:29 pm

Thank you, Mike

I found your last post most comforting as to my question about the Binding and loosing words of Jesus to Saint Peter. It was almost like you read my mind and knew exactly what I was thinking. One answer leads to another question, such is the nature of striving to learn more about our faith and be a good Catholic. Would a Syallbus of Errors be a good thing to do at this point of Church history? I have no particular issues in mind just a general question.

Another thing; although my research is very limited, ALL Saints remained subject to the Pope even in the most difficult of times.

JMJ,

George
avatar
George Brenner

Posts : 604
Reputation : 674
Join date : 2011-09-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Cradle Catholic or Convert?

Post  MRyan on Thu Oct 20, 2011 3:26 pm

George Brenner wrote: Thank you, Mike

I found your last post most comforting as to my question about the Binding and loosing words of Jesus to Saint Peter. It was almost like you read my mind and knew exactly what I was thinking. One answer leads to another question, such is the nature of striving to learn more about our faith and be a good Catholic. Would a Syallbus of Errors be a good thing to do at this point of Church history? I have no particular issues in mind just a general question.
Well, it certainly can't be a "bad" thing; though without a proper understanding it can be a dangerous thing ... just as carrying false assumptions can taint the reading of any papal document.

In his "True and False Infalliblity of the Pope", Bishop Fessler provided an excellent overview of the Syllabus with respect to papal infallibility (or the lack thereof) and how each and every condemned proposition must be treated differently with respect to the underlying doctrine (or discipline) that was most often, but not always, contained in the referenced Encyclical or Allocution for each article.

The fact is, many of the articles are matters of reformable disciplines that a Successor to Peter is free to modify as he sees fit. Immutable truths cannot change, and those errors of modernism that pertain to irreformable doctrines will always stand condemned; but reformable policies and approaches can and do change.

I can be more specific, but I'm not sure where you would like to go with this.

But, it is an excellent topic worthy of discussion.

George Brenner wrote:Another thing; although my research is very limited, ALL Saints remained subject to the Pope even in the most difficult of times.
Precisely.

avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Cradle Catholic or Convert ?

Post  George Brenner on Thu Oct 20, 2011 5:26 pm

Hello MRyan,

I have no particular issues in mind for using The Syllabus of Errors today. This type of undertaking is not for me to say, the sinner that I am.
I do wonder though if it might be useful in todays current crisis of the Faith. Pope Pius X. condemmed Sixty Five specific thoughts/errors during His reign as Pope. He must have felt very srongly that this had to be done and more importantly did in fact do it. This also seems to have more than likely saved many who might have be lost in the Faith or wander from Faith to some strange self imposed religious concoctions of their own liking.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Quote Follows:

SYLLABUS CONDEMNING THE ERRORS OF THE MODERNISTS
LAMENTABILI SANE

Pius X July 3, 1907

With truly lamentable results, our age, casting aside all restraint in its search for the ultimate causes of things, frequently pursues novelties so ardently that it rejects the legacy of the human race. Thus it falls into very serious errors, which are even more serious when they concern sacred authority, the interpretation of Sacred Scripture, and the principal mysteries of Faith. The fact that many Catholic writers also go beyond the limits determined by the Fathers and the Church herself is extremely regrettable. In the name of higher knowledge and historical research (they say), they are looking for that progress of dogmas which is, in reality, nothing but the corruption of dogmas.

These errors are being daily spread among the faithful. Lest they captivate the faithful's minds and corrupt the purity of their faith, His Holiness, Pius X, by Divine Providence, Pope, has decided that the chief errors should be noted and condemned by the Office of this Holy Roman and Universal Inquisition.

Therefore, after a very diligent investigation and consultation with the Reverend Consultors, the Most Eminent and Reverend Lord Cardinals, the General Inquisitors in matters of faith and morals have judged the following propositions to be condemned and proscribed. In fact, by this general decree, they are condemned and proscribed......

{ Then the 65 specific condemnations follow }


avatar
George Brenner

Posts : 604
Reputation : 674
Join date : 2011-09-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Cradle Catholic or Convert?

Post  MRyan on Thu Oct 20, 2011 6:46 pm

George,

We are talking past each other. When you said “Syllabus of Errors”, I was making a direct reference to “THE SYLLABUS OF ERRORS CONDEMNED BY PIUS IX”, whereas you are addressing the “SYLLABUS CONDEMNING THE ERRORS OF THE MODERNISTS” by Pope St. Pius X.

The 65 errors are indeed errors of the modernist’s which stand just as infallibly condemned today as they did in 1907.

A much more complicated subject, due to the mix of discipline and doctrine, is the “The Syllabus of Errors” of Pope Pius IX and the 80 specific errors that are categorized under the following headings:

I. PANTHEISM, NATURALISM AND ABSOLUTE RATIONALISM
II. MODERATE RATIONALISM
III. INDIFFERENTISM, LATITUDINARIANISM
IV. SOCIALISM, COMMUNISM, SECRET SOCIETIES, BIBLICAL SOCIETIES, CLERICO-LIBERAL SOCIETIES
V. ERRORS CONCERNING THE CHURCH AND HER RIGHTS
VI. ERRORS ABOUT CIVIL SOCIETY, CONSIDERED BOTH IN ITSELF AND IN ITS RELATION TO THE CHURCH
VII. ERRORS CONCERNING NATURAL AND CHRISTIAN ETHICS
VIII. ERRORS CONCERNING CHRISTIAN MARRIAGE
IX. ERRORS REGARDING THE CIVIL POWER OF THE SOVEREIGN PONTIFF
X. ERRORS HAVING REFERENCE TO MODERN LIBERALISM

About these errors, Pope Pius IX wrote:

. . . Venerable Brethren, you see clearly enough how sad and full of perils is the condition of Catholics in the regions of Europe which We have mentioned. Nor are things any better or circumstances calmer in America, where some regions are so hostile to Catholics that their governments seem to deny by their actions the Catholic faith they claim to profess. In fact, there, for the last few years, a ferocious war on the Church, its institutions and the rights of the Apostolic See has been raging.... Venerable Brothers, it is surprising that in our time such a great war is being waged against the Catholic Church.

avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Cradle Catholic or Convert ?

Post  George Brenner on Thu Oct 20, 2011 8:00 pm

Mike,

RE: Syllabus of Errors ( Syllabus )

I came across a link that got my interest since this was some terminology ( Syllabus) that I was not at all familiar with.....

so this quote below sounds like me:

"If then, I (Thatsa me) do not know the meaning of the language, I shall be to the one to whom I speak a foreigner; and he who speaks a foreigner to me [St. Paul: 1 Cor. 14:11 (c. 54 A.D.)]"

And here is the link:
http://search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oG7iJ5r6BONUQAKExXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE1bmhqODY0BHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDOARjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkA01TWTAxMV8xNzg-/SIG=120nh2kdq/EXP=1319182329/**http%3a//matt1618.freeyellow.com/syllabus.html



avatar
George Brenner

Posts : 604
Reputation : 674
Join date : 2011-09-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Cradle Catholic or Convert?

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum