Posted on 07/13/2016 12:29:26 PM PDT by ebb tide
In 2015, Archbishop Gomez was selected to represent the United States Catholic Bishops to represent them at the World Meeting of Families and the Synod of Bishops on “The Vocation and Mission of the Family in the Church and in the Contemporary World.”
The infiltration by the pedophile priests was the first salvo which paved the way for this, the destruction of the Church from within. De-moralize and destroy. Jesus said “Not my will, but Thine be done.” The gays want to kick out God and impose their own will.
This is so advanced in sin, it is terrible.
All of the Bibles?
Yep!
Excellent post. Thank you.
The next schism isn’t down the road somewhere. It is already here. The proponents are lined up in a serious face-off, their team shirts emblazoned “Pre-Vatican II” and “Post-Vatican II.”
The “Pre” folks are the all Latin, all the time minority, solemnly preferring Bach during liturgy. The “Post” people comprise the rest of us, dutifully singing St. Louis Jesuits’ songs and even (gasp!) exchanging handshakes at the kiss of peace.
Meanwhile, older church professionals who adjusted to vernacular liturgies and who incorporate mercy into their understandings of justice are retiring daily. They are being replaced, where they are replaced, by people whose theological education is complemented by self-appointed Internet theo-bloggers whose opinions grow from the conviction that anything that happened since 1965 is anathema.
Disgraceful!
The next schism isn’t down the road somewhere. It is already here. The proponents are lined up in a serious face-off, their team shirts emblazoned “Pre-Vatican II” and “Post-Vatican II.”
The “Pre” folks are the all Latin, all the time minority, solemnly preferring Bach during liturgy. The “Post” people comprise the rest of us, dutifully singing St. Louis Jesuits’ songs and even (gasp!) exchanging handshakes at the kiss of peace.
Meanwhile, older church professionals who adjusted to vernacular liturgies and who incorporate mercy into their understandings of justice are retiring daily. They are being replaced, where they are replaced, by people whose theological education is complemented by self-appointed Internet theo-bloggers whose opinions grow from the conviction that anything that happened since 1965 is anathema.
Disgraceful!
Thank you. And may our Blessed Lord watch over you and your loved ones.
“The solution is for Catholics to live Catholicism”
You say to live Catholicism, but with the changes listed below seems to me that no one really knows what “Catholicism” really is. For a church that claims beginnings and traditions from Peter I would have to say that your first pope must have forgot to tell you a few really important things.
1 . Prayers for the dead . …………-—————————……300 A.D.
2. Making the sign of the cross ………………………… …300 A.D.
3. Veneration of angels & dead saints …………-————…….375 A.D.
4. Use of images in worship………………………………… . 375 A.D.
5. The Mass as a daily celebration……………………………… 394 A.D.
6 Beginning of the exaltation of Mary; the term, “Mother of God” applied a Council of Ephesus……………. .-———————————————————— 431 A.D.
7 Extreme Unction (Last Rites)……………………………… ..526 A.D.
8. Doctrine of Purgatory-Gregory 1…………………………… .593 A.D..
9. Prayers to Mary & dead saints ……………………………… .600 A.D.
10. Worship of cross, images & relics ……………………… … 786 A.D.
11 Canonization of dead saints ………………………………… ..995 A.D.
12. Celibacy of priesthood …………………………………… …1079 A.D.
13. The Rosary ……………………………………………… … 1090 A.D.
14. Indulgences ……………………………………………… …..1190 A.D.
15. Transubstantiation-Innocent III …………………………… 1215 A.D.
16. Auricular Confession of sins to a priest …………………… 1215 A.D.
17. Adoration of the wafer (Host)…………………………… .. 1220 A.D.
18. Cup forbidden to the people at communion …………………..1414 A.D.
19. Purgatory proclaimed as a dogma……………………………..1439 A.D.
20. The doctrine of the Seven Sacraments confirmed …………….1439 A.D.
21 Tradition declared of equal authority with Bible by Council of Trent…………………………………………————————… 1545 A.D.
22. Apocryphal books added to Bible ………——————……….1546 A.D.
23. Immaculate Conception of Mary……………………………….1854 A.D.
24, Infallibility of the pope in matters of faith and morals, proclaimed by the Vatican Council ……………… 1870 A.D.
25. Assumption of the Virgin Mary (bodily ascension into heaven shortly after her death) ……………………………-—————————————————……1950 A.D.
26. Mary proclaimed Mother of the Church……………………… 1965 A.D.
The short answer is that there is a difference between innovation, and development of doctrine. Development is legitimate, and involves the logical and reasonable application of doctrine to new situations, to answer new questions or settle new disputes. The Bible is chock-full of the "development" of doctrine, from cover to cover.
A reliable guide to Catholic doctrine is theCatechism of the Catholic Church (LINK). It is online and easily searchable.
Many a misunderstanding of Catholic doctrine could be avoided by taking 3 minutes to look up the topic in the Catechism.
But now: where did you get your information?
I do wish to refute a few of the more egregious errors.
You claim that the "apocryphal" books of Scripture were added by the Roman Catholic Church in 1546 (apparently at the Counter-Reformation Council of Trent?).
First, they are books of the Bible and not apocrypha. Second the present Catholic Canon of the Bible was declared by Pope Damasus who was pope from 366 to 384 AD, a tad earlier than 1546.
Second, Pope Damasus's Canon of the Bible was also repeated in identical form in a letter to a bishop in 405 by Pope Innocent I.
The honest and non-denominational answer to the controversy you are trying to raise is that there were TWO canons of the Old Testament among Jews (these were THEIR books, after all) one from the Sanhedrin at Jerusalem and the other from Biblical scholars at Alexandria. Surprisingly, I learned this from a Lutheran pastor and scholar after asking him what his reaction would be if Luther had simply dumped those OT books which had some content that Luther found disagreeable. He had no immediate answer but got back to me the next week with the news that Luther's preferences in theology had little to do with the canon he had chosen.
The Roman Catholic Church, at a time when NO ONE had declared which books were and were not to be included, ruled that all Old Testament books (including those that were later labeled "apocrypha") were to be included and that various questionable or outright ridiculous books (The Gospel of Jesus, The Gospel of Mary, The [original] Gospel of Thomas [not the one discovered in Egypt in the 1960s], etc.) largely promoted by Gnostic heretics were to e rejected. Someone had to take out the trash an Rome did.
There has never been genuine controversy over the New Testament, although Luther was not at all a fan of the Epistle of James. Luther did, as to the Old Testament, insist that the shorter Jewish Canon was to be what he believed in. So the innovation within Christianity was Luther's not Rome's and he, at least, had historical reasons for his position as did Rome have for its position.
Next, the celibacy of priests, required only in the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church in the West is NOT DOCTRINAL. All the other rites in communion with Rome allow married priests. In the Roman rite alone, this is a matter of long-standing discipline but it has NEVER been doctrinal.
Next, the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary was long held by the Faithful but never formalized as doctrine until 1854 after Mary's apparition at Lourdes describing herself as "the immaculate conception." Catholics believe in this dogma that Mary, alone of all women in the human race (her Son being the only male exception), having been created by God to be the perfect (sinless) vessel through whom Jesus would be incarnated and enter into this world was not subject to the consequences of original sin committed by Adam and Eve. She was not subject to death which is a wage of original sin. As a woman, she was not subject to the pangs of childbirth, a wage of the original sin of Eve visited on all of her female descendants other than Mary.
Next, the Assumption of Mary is just that and not an ascension. Jesus Christ ascended to heaven on his own power. Mary had no such power. She was taken body and soul to heaven by angels upon God's command to the angels.
Mary never died. In the Eastern Orthodox Churches (which despite some differences are closer to us than any other Church in ways that count like Apostolic Succession, valid sacraments, transubstantiation, valid Masses, etc.) they speak of the Dormition of Mary (her falling asleep literally and not metaphorically). Does it not surprise you that we know and still have the actual house in which the Apostle John and Mary lived until the end of her days on Earth (my then Protestant wife and her Protestant mother visited this house in the interior of Turkey in the mid-1970s) but no one claims to know ANYTHING about Mary's death or as to where she might have been buried. I would think that she was an important figure to early Christians (Catholics) and her death, if any, and burial would have been important enough to notice and remember. No????
Next, the rosary was given to St. Dominic in 1214 in a Marian vision.
Next, indulgences are essentially Biblical from the Peter passage: What you shall bind on Earth shall be bound in heaven. WHAT YOU SHALL LOOSE ON EARTH SHALL BE LOOSED IN HEAVEN. I give you the keys to the kingdom. If you are talking about SALE of indulgences such would not be efficacious and is, in fact, the very serious sin of simony. Unless Jesus Christ and Simon bar-Jonah who became Peter were among the living on Earth in 1190 AD, indulgences had a much earlier and quite Biblical origin.
I could spend a week researching the rest of your list but the foregoing should suffice. We serious Catholics do generally have a very good idea of what we believe. You may disagree with what I have written as I disagree with you. That's one of the things that makes the USA such a great country.
God bless you and yours!
John XXIII was no star. His short papacy was a disaster although he personally seemed reasonably orthodox in his beliefs. He was also a hero in saving Jews from the Holocaust. Paul VI was no star and did little to impede the horror that was Vatican II. He DID give us Humanae Vitae and thereafter seemed to turn to a very insular life of introspection and regret. Before he died ending twenty years of almost uninterrupted Catholic decline, emptying of the pews, vanishing vocations, the Sacrament of Penance becoming an endangered species, vanishing practical fertility of "Catholic" parents, the rise of heretical trash like Walter Cardinal Kaspar (Bergolio's godfather in ecclesiastical destruction) and many like-minded menaces through the ranks, Paul VI conceded and observed: "The smoke of satan surrounds our altars." God relieved his misery and called him home in 1978 and then gave us three quite Catholic popes in John Paul I, St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI.
I don't ever prefer Bach in Church or out. At the Oratory where I worship through the generosity and pastoral goodness of our diocesan bishops, we tend to prefer Palestrina and Mozart. In secular music (outside of Church) I think of classical music as Buddy Holly, Elvis, Five Satins, Doo Wop generally, Rockabilly, etc.
My team shirt reads Pre-Vatican II as is the case with many old enough to remember the Catholic Church of Pope Pius XII, Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani, Amleto Cardinal Cicognani (Apostolic Delegate to the US from 1933 to 1958 with a HEAVY say so in the appointment of US bishops), Francis Cardinal Spellman, Samuel Cardinal Stritch, John Cardinal Carberry, James Cardinal McIntyre, Archbishop Fulton Sheen and vastly prefer it to the disaster of Archbishop Jadot, Joseph Cardinal Bernardin, Roger Cardinal McPhony, and so many, many others or the coming disaster of a class of trash headed up by Chicago's new curse: Archbishop Blase Cupich who thinks that homosexual perversion is peachy keen but disciplined pro-lifers in Spokane before being inflicted on Chicago. Though he is 67 or 68, he appears to be in unfortunately good health. OTOH, thanks to Paul VI, he will have to submit his resignation 1t 75. Hopefully an actually CATHOLIC pope (by then) will be eagerly awaiting it and will immediately accept it and declare a jubilee for Chicago while immediately appointing a forty-year old successor to the right of Raymond Cardinal Burke to the vacancy to cleanse what will surely be Cupich's Augean stable of Chicago. .
On Eagles' Wings???? St. Louis Jesuits? Kumbaya? Really? I'll take Gregorian Chant which makes Mozart look like a toddler. You give Bergoglio FAR too much credit if you are accusing him of appointing actual CATHOLICS as bishops.
What is really disgraceful is a couple of generations of intentionally poorly catechized "Catholics" who are so ill-prepared to defend the Faith against worldly influences.
So, let's amend your formula for what you think actual Catholics believe. Most of us readily accept the validity of Novus Ordo Mass and sacraments but they, compared to the traditional renditions of each are low rent, low class, uninspiring and a major (but by no means only) reason for empty pews. Ditto pop environmentalism, globaloney "warming"ism, anti-military, anti-police, open borders, etc.. posing as themes for encyclicals or sermons. We aren't listening and we won't. In these respects it is STILL Mater Si, Magister No and EVER WILL BE.
Therefore, MUCH of what has happened since 1985 is anathema as it should be but John Paul I, St. John Paul II and Benedict gave us 35 years of blessed relief even if they were not perfect. This reflects my actually CATHOLIC upbringing and education from the Jesuits soooooo long ago that the Jebbies were still Catholic.
I see by your reply that you are very well informed regarding matters such as this - and I do agree with much of what you posted.
One example : “What is really disgraceful is a couple of generations of intentionally poorly catechized “Catholics” who are so ill-prepared to defend the Faith against worldly influences.”
On the other hand, your criticisms of John XXIII and Paul VI seemed to me to be unduly harsh. In my estimation, they were both honorable and Holy Pontiffs; who did their best under very difficult circumstances.
Have a blessed day. Dominus vobiscum.
Post #14 ~ Re: tagline ~ Oscar Wilde (although during most of his life he lived as a demented and unrepentant homosexual) eventually believed in; and asked for, Divine Mercy ~ was above all else a brilliant poet.
My favorite quote of his was this, “Women are meant to be loved, not understood.” I’ll bet Mr. Don-o will agree!
May you and yours have a blessed day...
What went forward during the papacies of John XXIII and Paul VI came within a fraction of a centimeter of driving me from the Church during the last year of Paul VI. I came close to becoming a member of the Russian Orthodox Church in America, a quite conservative and anti-communist church founded to distinguish itself from the Russian Orthodox Church in Russia whose leaders were chosen by the soviets.
I told a friend of my intentions and of the fact that I believed doctrinally in traditional Catholicism in ever controversy with the Eastern Orthodox such as papal supremacy, and the need for central governance of the worldwide Church. I neither understood nor cared about the filioque. However God chose to do it, it was above my pay grade to disagree. At least they had reverent and valid Masses.
The friend told me to read the Wanderer for a year, provided me with a subscription, and I did. By the end of that year, Paul VI was gone and St. John Paul II was pope.
I do not doubt that John XXIII was a good and decent man. What he did under Pius XII to save Bulgarian Jews alone would qualify him for sainthood. He was tooooo old when he became pope and his idea of aggiornamento was a disaster. Paul VI lacked wisdom. He was made Archbishop of Milan so as to get him out of the Secretariat of State where he served as an undersecretary or sostituto and, according to Malachi Martin to keep him out of contention for the papacy. Pius XII left them a major league hammer to crush dissent but neither was up to it.
God bless you and yours!
“A reliable guide to Catholic doctrine is the Catechism of the Catholic Church (LINK). It is online and easily searchable.
A reliable guide to a personal relationship with Jesus Christ is the Bible. Any other doctrine whether by Angel or anyone else is from the pits of Hell.
Galatians 1:7-9 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
7 Which is not another, only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.
9 As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.
Looking at your CCC I find a prime example just how flawed your doctrine truly is. #841 Tells me that you and Muslims worship the same god. What have we learned so far is that you can’t leave Scripture because you end up dancing with the Devil and that will never end well.
“First, they are books of the Bible and not apocrypha. Second the present Catholic Canon of the Bible was declared by Pope Damasus who was pope from 366 to 384 AD, a tad earlier than 1546.”
So let’s go with your dates and say I’m off, but you are still agreeing that major changes happened to your current religion and that it isn’t the original tradition from your so called first pope. You can say all day long that they had the belief, but in some cases it took 1500 years to make it official and you really believe that? Yeah lets just play like church and all of a sudden oh yeah lets make it all official, I call bs.
As to your other ramblings you still couldn’t give Scriptural reference, so it still falls under Galatians 1:8 you have been fooled.
Yes we are all entitled to our beliefs per our God, but there is only one truth and that is Jesus Christ.
“you cannot imagine what we went through under those two popes.”
The Holy Spirit is trying to wake you up and save your soul, but you will make the ultimate choice.
“You may disagree with what I have written as I disagree with you.”
I’m not disagreeing with you, but the Scripture is disagreeing with you. Since the ccc and Holy Scripture disagree with each other you have chosen the ccc (tradition) and thus have chose where your soul will reside for eternity. If you can live with a document (ccc) that had changed many times over the years compared to the Bible that hasn’t changed then good luck because that’s all you have on your side.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.