Over the coarse of the past several years, many good priests and bishops have been cancelled. Among those are Fr Pavone, Bishop Strickland and many others. Given the recent Vatican approval of the blessing of same sex couples, it's easy to see that, unless God somehow intervenes, many more good priests will likely follow.
No matter how prepared we are, this is going to be extraordinarily painful. No Mass, no sacraments; couple that with some other physical chastisement that hits and whatever charity there currently still is in the world will likely go out the window.
Fr Ripperger talks about what to do to prepare.The talk was originally on Sensus Fedelium, but it's since vansihed. But I found it here below.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5cAzuZc6Zo
I listened to it the other day - it was fantastic. His call to stay in the state of grace is really a wake up call.
I wish I could have been there, because I would have asked him about Orthodoxy....if we can receive their sacraments in a state of emergency (ie. danger of death) can we thus receive them if Catholicism virtually doesn't exist where we live, but Orthodoxy does? I think the answer has always been yes, but I would have liked to have heard his take on it.
Side note, it's been so refreshing hearing Father get back to the spiritual topics - he spent a lot of time on the exorcism train, which is great but after a while, you've heard it all. I just listened to a new talk of his today about the Eucharist and it was incredibly uplifting.
Quote from: LausTibiChriste on February 24, 2024, 12:08:45 PMcan we thus receive them if Catholicism virtually doesn't exist where we live, but Orthodoxy does? I think the answer has always been yes, but I would have liked to have heard his take on it.
No amount of waiting is equivalent to the danger of death, so the situations aren't similar enough to draw that conclusion.
He said that marriages can't be performed but I thought it was a unique sacrament that the couple and God in the presence of witnesses can do it themselves. Japan didn't have Catholic priests for something like 300 years and survived on the Rosary, so how did they do the marriages?
Otherwise a very worthwhile listen, its almost like he is prepping us.
Quote from: diaduit on February 24, 2024, 02:42:43 PMHe said that marriages can't be performed but I thought it was a unique sacrament that the couple and God in the presence of witnesses can do it themselves.
The spouses are the ministers of the sacrament. The priest is a witness.
Canon law prevents us from marrying without a priest where one is available.
But if one is indefinitely unavailable, two baptized people can effect a sacramental marriage without a priest.
Just point of information: I don't know why the video would be "not available." Like others, I also listened to it fully about a week ago. And I can re-view it, too.
Yes, obviously staying in the state of grace is the single most important priority. However, if one finds oneself in mortal sin, I somewhat disagree with Fr. R. regarding his position on a Perfect Act of Contrition. Yes, it is a bad idea to rely on that, and that might be a tendency of those who fall into a mortal sin out of rationalized weakness. ("I'll just make a Perfect Act of Contrition later." Presumption is also sinful, of course.)
But for those who weren't engaged in presumption before they made the choice and were surprised by their weakness and/or alarmed once they became aware of their sin, it certainly doesn't hurt to pray the Act as sincerely as one knows how, and to ask for true compunction. The idea of refusing to try merely because a priest who is not one's confessor or spiritual director is making an objective, general statement about a behavior in principle is dangerous, i.m.o.
I interpret Fr. R as referring to the casual way that many modern Catholics, especially those who haven't studied traditional spirituality much, diminish the importance of true sorrow for sin. (Fr. Phil Wolfe has excellent talks on this; I posted at least one last year on the 4 Kinds of Sorrow.) Fr. R is much more interested in doctrine, and when we listen to published talks, we have to be careful not to interpret doctrine (and general principles of traditional spirituality) as personalized spiritual advice.
@Miriam_M yeah, sorry about the video. If you go to YouTube and put the title in search, it'll come right up. So it's still available.
But anyway..
If we're not in a state of grace, it means that we already knowingly and willingly, seriously offended God. So the ability to make a perfect act of contrition--purely for the love of God--is going to be unlikely because we already proved we don't love Him enough. Otherwise we wouldn't have sinned gravely in the first place.
Without some extraordinary grace (which can happen, but is rare), I think it's more fear of hell than love of God that motivates us.
And as Father points out, we wouldn't need confession if we could just turn to God and say we're sorry.
@diaduit, about marriage, we're supposed to be getting married in the Church if we're Catholic. But that's a good question about what they did with regard to marriage in Japan and other places.
Great video, thanks for posting!
There is such a thing as streaming mass from Sedevacantist chapels.St. Gertrude the Great in Ohio has their own channel. And one can find a Sedevacantist or SSPX still open. There's nothing Pope Francis can do to them unless he gets government authorities to force closure. If he does, he will be sued.
Quote from: Jacafamala on February 27, 2024, 03:38:36 AM@Miriam_M yeah, sorry about the video. If you go to YouTube and put the title in search, it'll come right up. So it's still available.
Yes. I was never the one who had a problem finding the video. It has never been "unavailable" to me, so no need to apologize.
:)
Lent is a really good opportunity for us to get into the discipline of an intentional spiritual life. We have in this season the most essential elements of the Christian life outside of the sacraments: prayer, spiritual reading, fasting, good works/almsgiving -- none of that meant to be occasional, but regular. In addition -- and whether we are inside a church or not -- nothing prevents any Catholic from doing a spiritual communion.
Spiritual communion is an underutilized practice that is good for all of us to do every once in a while, even when we do have access to sacramental communion. It benefits other aspects of our prayer life, for one. Second, it keeps us away from Presumption and a general careless attitude toward the sacrament. Third, it increases in us a hunger for it and encourages gratitude when we later receive. Fourth, the deliberate occasional self-deprivation is a meritorious way of making reparation for our own sins.
https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/act-of-spiritual-communion-11891
When I have done a spiritual communion properly, it provides the same sacramental graces as a sacramental one. (My spiritual director had promised me that, and he was correct.)
This video has me disturbed. It seems I'm subconsciously preparing for this chastisement, perhaps by God's inspiration. I've been doing thorough spiritual "house cleaning" lately, confessing old sins or sins I thought not worth confessing earlier. I'm doing fasting and abstinence for Lent (the full vegan fast). And due to health issues, I've cut out all caffeine, spices, and most fats. I'm responding really well to a bland vegetarian diet. Father Ripperger said people won't get to eat the foods they like, and here I've already dulled my diet down. Other little things besides, too many to mention, come to mind. And most of us have had a foretaste of no sacraments due to 'rona. I'm already prepared mentally for the Mass to disappear, since with everything come from the Vatican one never knows if tomorrow the TLM will be abrogated.
Is anyone else experiencing this?
No where near the disciplines you are doing Drummer but the last couple of years I realised I have been in bootcamp for the soul. I have always felt my nosedive in health was for reparation of sins particular to me. E.g. For 9 months now I have had severe jaw pain and had prepare mentally for the pain of eating everytime, this to me was for my sins of the tongue, well I offered it up for such. I have lost friends since the rona which at the time struck me that God was cleaning my house of friendships not necessary for me and only served as a distraction. Many more examples but recently it has really hit me that I have been in bootcamp and it was badly needed, Deo Gratias.
My final battle is that of the taste of comfort and discipline in fasting.....might have to wait till we are in it to master that.
Although I'm trying to prepare, there's no way I'm ready for what's probably coming.
We pray the rosary most nights, go to Mass Sunday and regular confession, but I know I don't love God nearly enough because I'm spiritually lazy in many ways.
This video was insightful. I thought the questions that the parishioners asked Father were interesting, especially the emergency baby baptism. Would it be better to record it for proof?
Quote from: LausTibiChriste on February 24, 2024, 12:08:45 PMI listened to it the other day - it was fantastic. His call to stay in the state of grace is really a wake up call.
I wish I could have been there, because I would have asked him about Orthodoxy....if we can receive their sacraments in a state of emergency (ie. danger of death) can we thus receive them if Catholicism virtually doesn't exist where we live, but Orthodoxy does? I think the answer has always been yes, but I would have liked to have heard his take on it.
Side note, it's been so refreshing hearing Father get back to the spiritual topics - he spent a lot of time on the exorcism train, which is great but after a while, you've heard it all. I just listened to a new talk of his today about the Eucharist and it was incredibly uplifting.
Re: Orthodox: doesn't matter since it takes two to tango.
The Catholic Church could say you can always meet sacramental needs at the most anti-Catholic Orthodox parish ever, even cus you don't want to walk next door to Fr. Jazz hands, and if the Patriarch or even Priest says no, well there's your answer.
I'm frankly kinda tired of Fr. Ripperger. He's really bad about sourcing claims and the more I listen to him, the more I think I don't want to.
Between his idiotic take on the SSPX and his little bitch boy Steve Cunningham skadaddling off to the Byzantines when his fag bishop shut down the diocesan TLM (God forbid he go SSPX!!!!), the whole enterprise comes off as distasteful.
Quote from: Gardener on March 10, 2024, 07:37:17 PMQuote from: LausTibiChriste on February 24, 2024, 12:08:45 PMI listened to it the other day - it was fantastic. His call to stay in the state of grace is really a wake up call.
I wish I could have been there, because I would have asked him about Orthodoxy....if we can receive their sacraments in a state of emergency (ie. danger of death) can we thus receive them if Catholicism virtually doesn't exist where we live, but Orthodoxy does? I think the answer has always been yes, but I would have liked to have heard his take on it.
Side note, it's been so refreshing hearing Father get back to the spiritual topics - he spent a lot of time on the exorcism train, which is great but after a while, you've heard it all. I just listened to a new talk of his today about the Eucharist and it was incredibly uplifting.
Re: Orthodox: doesn't matter since it takes two to tango.
The Catholic Church could say you can always meet sacramental needs at the most anti-Catholic Orthodox parish ever, even cus you don't want to walk next door to Fr. Jazz hands, and if the Patriarch or even Priest says no, well there's your answer.
I'm frankly kinda tired of Fr. Ripperger. He's really bad about sourcing claims and the more I listen to him, the more I think I don't want to.
Between his idiotic take on the SSPX and his little bitch boy Steve Cunningham skadaddling off to the Byzantines when his fag bishop shut down the diocesan TLM (God forbid he go SSPX!!!!), the whole enterprise comes off as distasteful.
For the record, I share some of your Ripperger Fatigue. For example:
Some of what he says about trads --especially the most fringe elements, and no, I am not talking of sedes; I am merely talking about The Angry Crowd wedded to their High Misery Index -- is too much of a generalization (inaccurate) and a highly uncharitable one. So the person who lectures about virtue might want to demonstrate some himself. ;)
OTOH, a lot of what he says about hard-core trads is unfortunately true; it's just that he stereotypes all of us as a group, which is a poor example for a priest to set.
I don't mind his not sourcing everything he says, since he usually announces at the start of a lecture/talk that he's relying on St. Thomas a lot. (He's clearly a Thomist.) At other times, if it's a different theologian or set of them, he'll mention them at the beginning or middle of the talk.
What I do not believe is helpful to the flock at large (all Catholics) is his obsession with technicalities -- which unfortunately spills over into his talks on spirituality. And when he gets technical he also gets very, very negative. That might inspire some of his listeners, but probably a minority of them, I'm guessing.
Comparing three articulate priests on theology and spirituality -- from at this point fairly different charisms and training -- Fr. Phil Wolfe, Fr. Ripperger, and Fr. Anthony of the Marian Friars Minor -- I find Fr. Ripperger least helpful in the spirituality realm; for me, the other two speak much more directly to the spiritual life -- that is, growing in holiness, the importance of prayer, the approach to the sacraments, etc.
Fr. Ripperger might even be great 1:1 -- I don't know -- but in his public talks, he spends excessive time on technical definitions, doctrine, and scolding the laity for our supposedly infinite sins and faults, and he does it in a reproachful tone, peppered with sarcasm and mockery. Again, I'm not denying that may work for some people, but for myself, I find that Fr. Anthony and Fr. Phil Wolfe, when they reproach, do it without condemnation and dismissiveness in their tone.
Point of Information, since this is public:
Fr. Ripperger said some time within the last few years that "people accuse [him] of arrogance." He then admitted that he
is arrogant, but added something about he deserves to be or should be, etc. because he is "right."
Quote from: Miriam_M on March 10, 2024, 08:38:20 PMComparing three articulate priests on theology and spirituality -- from at this point fairly different charisms and training -- Fr. Phil Wolfe, Fr. Ripperger, and Fr. Anthony of the Marian Friars Minor
Interesting. If you recall any inspiring videos from the other two priests you mention, please post links for us.
Quote from: Maximilian on March 10, 2024, 10:13:17 PMQuote from: Miriam_M on March 10, 2024, 08:38:20 PMComparing three articulate priests on theology and spirituality -- from at this point fairly different charisms and training -- Fr. Phil Wolfe, Fr. Ripperger, and Fr. Anthony of the Marian Friars Minor
Interesting. If you recall any inspiring videos from the other two priests you mention, please post links for us.
Shall do, Max.
I. FR PHIL WOLFE:
Note that here is also the entire website of his talks, listed by year, and with a few of these years including a few pages.
https://www.veritascaritas.com/
Below is just a sampling. He includes many talks on specific saints, and many other talks feature End Times and The Great Apostasy. The latter two are not included below, since my emphasis -- and the request -- was on spirituality, not the Crisis.
Note also that these of Fr. Wolfe's are fairly short, many of them -- typically 30 minutes
https://episodes.castos.com/veritascaritas/Fix-Your-Intention-at-Mass.mp3
https://episodes.castos.com/veritascaritas/Supernatural-Charity-Loving-Our-Neighbor-As-Ourself.mp3
https://episodes.castos.com/veritascaritas/Who-is-Ruling-Your-Heart-.mp3
https://episodes.castos.com/veritascaritas/It-Is-Really-Not-So-Hard-to-Become-a-Saint.mp3
https://episodes.castos.com/veritascaritas/Spiritual-Contraception.mp3
https://episodes.castos.com/veritascaritas/Christ-is-the-Point.mp3
https://episodes.castos.com/veritascaritas/The-Purpose-of-Suffering.mp3
https://episodes.castos.com/veritascaritas/Trust-in-Our-Lord.mp3
https://episodes.castos.com/veritascaritas/Fidelity-To-Our-Cross.mp3
https://episodes.castos.com/veritascaritas/Ponder-the-Word-of-God-in-Your-Heart.mp3
https://episodes.castos.com/veritascaritas/Am-I-Conformed-To-The-World.mp3
II. MARIAN FRIARS MINOR
Talks and Videos in general are on this cumulative page. The ones that say "videos" do not necessarily include visuals of the speaker, which is also true of Fr. Wolfe's sermons. Fr. Anthony is speaker on all of them.
https://www.marianfriarsminor.com/videos
For the last two nights in a row I have listened to this one. Interesting, his point of view on sin and its relationship to heaven.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CF52MWZFfPI
Harder to download particular windows and list them as separate URL's, but I have listened to many, including these, so you can scroll one by one:
The Imitation of Christ
Thinking About Self: The Great Hindrance
Enough! Shortcut to Holiness
Effeminacy and Living a Life Worthy of God
Sin- Stop Offending God
The Meaning of Penance
I've been thinking about my earlier comments. You know, we are each made for different purposes in life, relative to God's will and the world's needs. Not every priest is equally inspiring. Some are very good at preaching; others, teaching; others, leading parishes; others, giving spiritual counsel.
I do not criticize Fr. Ripperger for (i.m.o.) being better at teaching than spiritual counsel in a public arena. (Again, he may be great 1:1; don't know.) I think one problem, though, is that there are a number of talks he has given at parish missions or more recently without sufficient reflection as to his tone. It's a lesson for all of us not to record or to encourage others to be recorded when we're especially frustrated by the way the Church is going, or we're beset by disappointment in people. Fr. R is a lot more pleasant when his talks are planned in a series. A recent one -- Modesty in speech -- is not such an example, i.m.o. More like a rant.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKGYHWG8aCE
Quote from: lauermar on March 03, 2024, 08:13:38 AMThere is such a thing as streaming mass from Sedevacantist chapels.St. Gertrude the Great in Ohio has their own channel. And one can find a Sedevacantist or SSPX still open. There's nothing Pope Francis can do to them unless he gets government authorities to force closure. If he does, he will be sued.
Your link above doesn't work. Here is SGG's stream:
https://www.sgg.org/for-newcomers/mass-streaming/
Here is Most Holy Trinity Seminary:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZJm_YkVTBU
Here is the CMRI (scroll down):
http://www.miqparish.org/livestreaming-mass/
Thanks, Miriam, that was a lot of work. I will take a look.
Quote from: Jacafamala on February 21, 2024, 05:02:19 AMOver the coarse of the past several years, many good priests and bishops have been cancelled. Among those are Fr Pavone, Bishop Strickland and many others. Given the recent Vatican approval of the blessing of same sex couples, it's easy to see that, unless God somehow intervenes, many more good priests will likely follow.
No matter how prepared we are, this is going to be extraordinarily painful. No Mass, no sacraments; couple that with some other physical chastisement that hits and whatever charity there currently still is in the world will likely go out the window.
Fr Ripperger talks about what to do to prepare.The talk was originally on Sensus Fedelium, but it's since vansihed. But I found it here below.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5cAzuZc6Zo
It looks like Ripperger does not want people spreading the video. I wonder why.
Quote from: LausTibiChriste on February 24, 2024, 12:08:45 PMI listened to it the other day - it was fantastic. His call to stay in the state of grace is really a wake up call.
I wish I could have been there, because I would have asked him about Orthodoxy....if we can receive their sacraments in a state of emergency (ie. danger of death) can we thus receive them if Catholicism virtually doesn't exist where we live, but Orthodoxy does? I think the answer has always been yes, but I would have liked to have heard his take on it.
Side note, it's been so refreshing hearing Father get back to the spiritual topics - he spent a lot of time on the exorcism train, which is great but after a while, you've heard it all. I just listened to a new talk of his today about the Eucharist and it was incredibly uplifting.
Canon 1261 of the 1917 Code, or 844 of the 1983 Code.
I listened to some of the videos suggested by Miriam, and one of them was on the topic of this book, which I found quite enlightening, as well as particularly appropriate for this time of year.
To Love Fasting : The Monastic Experience
by Adalbert de Vogüé, OSB
https://archive.org/details/tolovefasting/page/n3/mode/2up
Regarding post 23, perhaps try this. Fr. R's remarks begin more on point at about 1:30, at least specifically with regard to the fairly recent dust-up over +Strickland. I may have some earlier links regarding preparation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NVMAE2itDg
I enjoy Fr Ripperger and don't really mind the focus on technicalities as much as it suits my faults of being too careless with an attitude of 'sure it'll be grand' and his talks snap me into reality and to take my actions more seriously. However, in a recent video he mentioned something of a vision of saints recently (can't remember which and it could have been during an exorcism) and he mentions St Pope John Paul appeared with the saints....I cannot fathom this.
Quote from: Maximilian on March 19, 2024, 12:33:13 PMI listened to some of the videos suggested by Miriam, and one of them was on the topic of this book, which I found quite enlightening, as well as particularly appropriate for this time of year.
To Love Fasting : The Monastic Experience
by Adalbert de Vogüé, OSB
https://archive.org/details/tolovefasting/page/n3/mode/2up
I printed the whole book off and bought a binder just for it. Excellent work, a shame it's not in print.
Natural Preparation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7P20XhNFlQw
Spiritual Preparation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3oqUkCm0i4
Quote from: diaduit on March 29, 2024, 01:03:45 PMI enjoy Fr Ripperger and don't really mind the focus on technicalities as much as it suits my faults of being too careless with an attitude of 'sure it'll be grand' and his talks snap me into reality and to take my actions more seriously. However, in a recent video he mentioned something of a vision of saints recently (can't remember which and it could have been during an exorcism) and he mentions St Pope John Paul appeared with the saints....I cannot fathom this.
I can't fathom a "Saint" JPII. Whose vision was this? I would argue that anyone with that sort of vision shouldn't be trusted.
Quote from: diaduit on March 29, 2024, 01:03:45 PMI enjoy Fr Ripperger and don't really mind the focus on technicalities as much as it suits my faults of being too careless with an attitude of 'sure it'll be grand' and his talks snap me into reality and to take my actions more seriously. However, in a recent video he mentioned something of a vision of saints recently (can't remember which and it could have been during an exorcism) and he mentions St Pope John Paul appeared with the saints....I cannot fathom this.
If you could locate that recording, I think it would benefit all of us. :)
Quote from: Baylee on March 30, 2024, 07:25:26 AMI can't fathom a "Saint" JPII. Whose vision was this? I would argue that anyone with that sort of vision shouldn't be trusted.
It surprises me to hear this report from diaduit, not that I'm doubting her word; it's just that I've never heard Fr. R. refer to any apparitions of any kind in his own exorcisms, EXCEPT rare appearances of Our Lady herself, who quickly puts an end to the demon's nonsense -- and, like our poster LTC -- I've heard scores of his exorcism talks.
Keep in mind that there are other exorcists out there, of course, on both sides of the pond, although I think few of them publish about them to the degree that Fr. R. does. Sometimes a YT host who is a "conservative Catholic" will invite Fr. R. on to talk about his work, yet the host has a somewhat different doctrinal orientation than Fr. R. does, using language Fr. R would not. That said, I recently heard Fr. R. say that canonizations are infallible, without referring to the recent canonizations by name. (I believe in his talk on The Limits of Magisterial Authority, but I'd have to check on that.)
Nevertheless, a tangent on canonizations themselves: My Catholic understanding about them is that, lacking proof ourselves, and lacking the authority to dogmatically state who is and who is not in Heaven, a Catholic should "accept" on a basic level --i.e., suspending disbelief as a matter of compliance-- what the Church says in real time about canonizations until the contrary may be known. But that is true, actually, of even previous canonizations.
Although pre-V2, a Catholic was much more assured of the accuracy of any Church statement, including that of a canonization, if you asked prelates then about the "absolute" quality of such pronouncements, they would have admitted that the Church is making only a very strongly evidenced guess. If later, apparitions and miracles followed such canonizations, a person might assume even greater credibility to the declarations.
Second point: A traditionalist priest whom I highly respect for his spirituality, doctrinal understanding, and personal formation, told me that even a declaration of canonization does not mean in all cases that the declared saint never spent a New York second in Purgatory. Technically speaking, he said, what a canonization means is that the soul is dogmatically assured of Heaven.
Third point: In tradition with a small "t," the devotional lives of the laity have often reinforced --
and often rapidly after their deaths -- the canonizations of earlier Saints, such as The Little Flower, the Apostles, Fathers/Doctors of the Church, St. Joseph, and many others. These would be mostly intercessory, and some with miracles as well. Diaduit's post is the first time I've heard of a "vision" of any kind in which JP2 appeared.
Fourth point: Even if we are suspending our disbelief, we needn't affirmatively embrace any canonization from any era. The dogma of the Roman Catholic Church, regarding devotions, is that they are entirely personal because the Church does affirm the power of the Holy Ghost to enlighten and guide the individual -- that power being infinitely superior to any Church declaration. That works two ways: anything that we experience as harming our spiritual lives we should avoid.
Fifth point: Anyone who chooses JP2 as an object of devotion instead of pre-V2 Saints is a sad Catholic, i.m.o. -- in the sense only that he or she has chosen to deprive themselves of the more certain members of the Church Triumphant and their tremendous wisdom and power.
adding only this:
Fr. Phil Wolfe has also separately said what my traditionalist priest did: that canonizations are merely a statement that the soul is dogmatically assured of Heaven and that the Church is not in a position to know if that soul will spend any time in Purgatory, and if so, how much time. It is clearly a matter of pious belief that certain souls probably did spend zero time in Purgatory, but even the holiest Pope in history would not have known that in an absolute sense. Again, what would confirm that assumption is intercessory or miraculous intervention attributed to such souls very, very soon after their earthly deaths.
(I'm excluding martyrdom here.)
I was watching the video in work (I do one day a week) and if I can get it, I will post it, it was a sort of side comment thrown in during a talk on a particular topic.
Quote from: Miriam_M on March 30, 2024, 10:05:36 AMNevertheless, a tangent on canonizations themselves: My Catholic understanding about them is that, lacking proof ourselves, and lacking the authority to dogmatically state who is and who is not in Heaven, a Catholic should "accept" on a basic level --i.e., suspending disbelief as a matter of compliance -- what the Church says in real time about canonizations until the contrary may be known. But that is true, actually, of even previous canonizations.
Agreed.
What authority does any Catholic need in order to state an opinion?
In my opinion, the conciliar church is not the Catholic Church and the conciliar 'popes' are not Popes. Therefore, whatever heresy comes out of the latter is not binding on me and imposes no obligations on me.
This is my opinion. What authority do I need to state it?
Quote from: awkward customer on March 31, 2024, 06:28:46 AMWhat authority does any Catholic need in order to state an opinion?
In my opinion, the conciliar church is not the Catholic Church and the conciliar 'popes' are not Popes. Therefore, whatever heresy comes out of the latter is not binding on me and imposes no obligations on me.
This is my opinion. What authority do I need to state it?
The same authority everyone else here has of not accepting/opining against the Novus Ordo/Vatican II. If a Catholic can do that, then they can also not accept the conciliar "saints".
Quote from: Baylee on March 31, 2024, 07:26:25 AMQuote from: awkward customer on March 31, 2024, 06:28:46 AMWhat authority does any Catholic need in order to state an opinion?
In my opinion, the conciliar church is not the Catholic Church and the conciliar 'popes' are not Popes. Therefore, whatever heresy comes out of the latter is not binding on me and imposes no obligations on me.
This is my opinion. What authority do I need to state it?
The same authority everyone else here has of not accepting/opining against the Novus Ordo/Vatican II. If a Catholic can do that, then they can also not accept the conciliar "saints".
Bishop Williamson made a similar point about "we don't have the authority to declare" in a recent Eleison Comments which someone emailed to me. He was referring to whether or not Bergoglio is Pope or not.
The reason I raised this is because Miriam made the same assertion above in discussing the 'sainthood' of JPII.
QuoteNevertheless, a tangent on canonizations themselves: My Catholic understanding about them is that, lacking proof ourselves, and lacking the authority to dogmatically state who is and who is not in Heaven, a Catholic should "accept" on a basic level --i.e., suspending disbelief as a matter of compliance-- what the Church says in real time about canonizations until the contrary may be known. But that is true, actually, of even previous canonizations.
Of course Miriam is quite right about accepting what the Church says, when it is the Church saying it. And Bishop Williamson would be quite right too.
But when it is the Conciliar Church saying it, that's a different matter and the same conditions cannot apply, because IMO, the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church and Catholics have don't need any authority at all to discount every heresy that comes out of the treacherous mouths of the Conciliarists.
Quote from: awkward customer on March 31, 2024, 11:29:31 AMQuote from: Baylee on March 31, 2024, 07:26:25 AMQuote from: awkward customer on March 31, 2024, 06:28:46 AMWhat authority does any Catholic need in order to state an opinion?
In my opinion, the conciliar church is not the Catholic Church and the conciliar 'popes' are not Popes. Therefore, whatever heresy comes out of the latter is not binding on me and imposes no obligations on me.
This is my opinion. What authority do I need to state it?
The same authority everyone else here has of not accepting/opining against the Novus Ordo/Vatican II. If a Catholic can do that, then they can also not accept the conciliar "saints".
Bishop Williamson made a similar point about "we don't have the authority to declare" in a recent Eleison Comments which someone emailed to me. He was referring to whether or not Bergoglio is Pope or not.
The reason I raised this is because Miriam made the same assertion above in discussing the 'sainthood' of JPII.
QuoteNevertheless, a tangent on canonizations themselves: My Catholic understanding about them is that, lacking proof ourselves, and lacking the authority to dogmatically state who is and who is not in Heaven, a Catholic should "accept" on a basic level --i.e., suspending disbelief as a matter of compliance-- what the Church says in real time about canonizations until the contrary may be known. But that is true, actually, of even previous canonizations.
Of course Miriam is quite right about accepting what the Church says, when it is the Church saying it. And Bishop Williamson would be quite right too.
But when it is the Conciliar Church saying it, that's a different matter and the same conditions cannot apply, because IMO, the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church and Catholics have don't need any authority at all to discount every heresy that comes out of the treacherous mouths of the Conciliarists.
I totally understood what you were saying. My point is that there are those who believe the Conciliar church IS the Catholic Church. They do not accept Vatican II. But they also believe that one has to accept the Vatican II Saints as true canonized saints. If one does not have the authority to denounce/not accept Vatican II saints, one also does not have the authority to denounce/not accept Vatican II.
btw, Happy Easter AC!
Quote from: Baylee on March 31, 2024, 02:50:48 PMQuote from: awkward customer on March 31, 2024, 11:29:31 AMQuote from: Baylee on March 31, 2024, 07:26:25 AMQuote from: awkward customer on March 31, 2024, 06:28:46 AMWhat authority does any Catholic need in order to state an opinion?
In my opinion, the conciliar church is not the Catholic Church and the conciliar 'popes' are not Popes. Therefore, whatever heresy comes out of the latter is not binding on me and imposes no obligations on me.
This is my opinion. What authority do I need to state it?
The same authority everyone else here has of not accepting/opining against the Novus Ordo/Vatican II. If a Catholic can do that, then they can also not accept the conciliar "saints".
Bishop Williamson made a similar point about "we don't have the authority to declare" in a recent Eleison Comments which someone emailed to me. He was referring to whether or not Bergoglio is Pope or not.
The reason I raised this is because Miriam made the same assertion above in discussing the 'sainthood' of JPII.
QuoteNevertheless, a tangent on canonizations themselves: My Catholic understanding about them is that, lacking proof ourselves, and lacking the authority to dogmatically state who is and who is not in Heaven, a Catholic should "accept" on a basic level --i.e., suspending disbelief as a matter of compliance-- what the Church says in real time about canonizations until the contrary may be known. But that is true, actually, of even previous canonizations.
Of course Miriam is quite right about accepting what the Church says, when it is the Church saying it. And Bishop Williamson would be quite right too.
But when it is the Conciliar Church saying it, that's a different matter and the same conditions cannot apply, because IMO, the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church and Catholics have don't need any authority at all to discount every heresy that comes out of the treacherous mouths of the Conciliarists.
I totally understood what you were saying. My point is that there are those who believe the Conciliar church IS the Catholic Church. They do not accept Vatican II. But they also believe that one has to accept the Vatican II Saints as true canonized saints. If one does not have the authority to denounce/not accept Vatican II saints, one also does not have the authority to denounce/not accept Vatican II.
btw, Happy Easter AC!
Happy Easter Baylee.
I still don't understand what authority a Catholic needs to have in order to denounce Vatican II. It's not dogma. It's just an opinion.
As for rejecting Vatican II but accepting Vatican II saints - I don't know what to say unless it's down to the argument that because Vatican II is unacceptable, it doesn't mean that those who forced it onto the Church were necessarily bad men They could still be saints, despite their heresies having destroyed the faith of millions.
A.C.
QuoteAs for rejecting Vatican II but accepting Vatican II saints - I don't know what to say unless it's down to the argument that because Vatican II is unacceptable, it doesn't mean that those who forced it onto the Church were necessarily bad men They could still be saints, despite their heresies having destroyed the faith of millions.
That is the demarcation line; if the men who did so much harm to the faith of millions of Catholics are truly Popes and bishops, then the Catholic Church is not the unique means of salvation instituted by Our Lord Himself, but only one of a million false sects of perdition. Therefore the saint that they canonize can or cannot be true saints, as the "Church" that canonized them is not the true Church.
Quote from: awkward customer on March 31, 2024, 06:28:46 AMWhat authority does any Catholic need in order to state an opinion?
In my opinion, the conciliar church is not the Catholic Church and the conciliar 'popes' are not Popes. Therefore, whatever heresy comes out of the latter is not binding on me and imposes no obligations on me.
This is my opinion. What authority do I need to state it?
Sorry if I miscommunicated. What I meant was that it is not up to the laity to "decide" or "conclude" that a soul is (or is not) in Heaven, definitively. If in particular we do the latter, we are guilty of rash judgment, as we know nothing of final impenitence of even the most apparently hardened, wayward, or defiant soul.
I certainly agree that every Catholic has a right to wonder/doubt about the ultimate destination any man or woman of any lay or ecclesiastical status when that person has visibly wandered from the faith. But it's another step for us to claim certainty about it. And I again reiterate that we have no obligation to venerate any deceased soul that the Church has canonized, including titular popes.
For me personally, "venerating" JP2 has never squared with my
Sensus Catholicus, and for the life of me I do not understand the bordering-on-idolatry influence the man seems to have had, alive and dead, over millions of Catholics. It defies reason and reveals an impoverished Catholic upbringing on the part of those lay people, imho. Even setting aside any controversies about him, political and otherwise, there are far more previous, true saints of compelling spirituality than JP2.
I don't know; maybe it's a generational thing. There's a subset of Catholics who claim they were "formed" by him --sigh. That is, they came of age during his reign, and he "represents" Catholicism to them. I'm pretty sure that lots of them pray to him today.
Quote from: Miriam_M on March 31, 2024, 10:35:31 PMQuote from: awkward customer on March 31, 2024, 06:28:46 AMWhat authority does any Catholic need in order to state an opinion?
In my opinion, the conciliar church is not the Catholic Church and the conciliar 'popes' are not Popes. Therefore, whatever heresy comes out of the latter is not binding on me and imposes no obligations on me.
This is my opinion. What authority do I need to state it?
Sorry if I miscommunicated. What I meant was that it is not up to the laity to "decide" or "conclude" that a soul is (or is not) in Heaven, definitively. If in particular we do the latter, we are guilty of rash judgment, as we know nothing of final impenitence of even the most apparently hardened, wayward, or defiant soul.
I certainly agree that every Catholic has a right to wonder/doubt about the ultimate destination any man or woman of any lay or ecclesiastical status when that person has visibly wandered from the faith. But it's another step for us to claim certainty about it. And I again reiterate that we have no obligation to venerate any deceased soul that the Church has canonized, including titular popes.
For me personally, "venerating" JP2 has never squared with my Sensus Catholicus, and for the life of me I do not understand the bordering-on-idolatry influence the man seems to have had, alive and dead, over millions of Catholics. It defies reason and reveals an impoverished Catholic upbringing on the part of those lay people, imho. Even setting aside any controversies about him, political and otherwise, there are far more previous, true saints of compelling spirituality than JP2.
I don't know; maybe it's a generational thing. There's a subset of Catholics who claim they were "formed" by him --sigh. That is, they came of age during his reign, and he "represents" Catholicism to them. I'm pretty sure that lots of them pray to him today.
Okay, but do you believe that JPII is a Saint? You may not have an obligation to venerate him, as you state above, but is he a Saint?
The Conciliar Church says he is. What say you?
Here is the formula Bergoglio used to declare and define JXXIII and JPII Canonized Saints in Heaven and decreeing that the whole church venerate them as such:
For the honour of the Blessed Trinity, the exaltation of the Catholic faith and the increase of the Christian life, by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, and our own, after due deliberation and frequent prayer for divine assistance, and having sought the counsel of many of our brother Bishops, we declare and define Blessed John XXIII and John Paul II to be Saints and we enroll them among the Saints, decreeing that they are to be venerated as such by the whole Church. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen
If Bergoglio is a true pope and his church is the Catholic Church, Catholics must consider them Canonized Saints and venerate them as such.
Quote from: Baylee on April 01, 2024, 05:13:05 AMIf Bergoglio is a true pope and his church is the Catholic Church, Catholics must consider them Canonized Saints and venerate them as such.
This is a false dilemma.
Kwasniewski's book is helpful.
Quote from: ChairmanJoeAintMyPrez on April 01, 2024, 07:18:28 AMQuote from: Baylee on April 01, 2024, 05:13:05 AMIf Bergoglio is a true pope and his church is the Catholic Church, Catholics must consider them Canonized Saints and venerate them as such.
This is a false dilemma.
Kwasniewski's book is helpful.
Does he explain how a Catholic can ignore the papal definition I quoted above?
Mr. Kwasniewski in his blog "One Peter Five", has attempted to minimize or even deny the necessity of faithful Catholics to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. He even has a thread on "Rethinking the Papacy" i.e. rethinking the traditional teaching of the Church on the Papacy.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on April 01, 2024, 09:14:17 AMMr. Kwasniewski in his blog "One Peter Five", has attempted to minimize or even deny the necessity of faithful Catholics to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. He even has a thread on "Rethinking the Papacy" i.e. rethinking the traditional teaching of the Church on the Papacy.
Here is Novus Ordo Watch's response (and follow-up response) to his "Rethinking the Papacy" piece:
https://novusordowatch.org/2023/01/rethinking-peter-kwasniewski/
https://novusordowatch.org/2023/02/against-new-papacy-peter-kwasniewski/
Insisting that a heretic can be Pope is already rethinking the Papacy, and that's without writing books and articles to justify the rethinking.
Quote from: Baylee on April 01, 2024, 07:31:03 AMQuote from: ChairmanJoeAintMyPrez on April 01, 2024, 07:18:28 AMQuote from: Baylee on April 01, 2024, 05:13:05 AMIf Bergoglio is a true pope and his church is the Catholic Church, Catholics must consider them Canonized Saints and venerate them as such.
This is a false dilemma.
Kwasniewski's book is helpful.
Does he explain how a Catholic can ignore the papal definition I quoted above?
It is a collection of essays from actual Catholic theologians. I would not expect to see these essays address your post specifically, since many of them are based on sources that are hundreds of years old.