Posted on 08/08/2005 2:41:43 AM PDT by bornacatholic
Dear Friend of Catholic Answers:
"Does the Novus Ordo Mass Fulfill Our Sunday Obligation?" That is the topic of an upcoming debate between Bob Sungenis and Gerry Matatics.
The debate is scheduled for October 1 at a yet-to-be-announced location in Southern California. If the venue has not yet been decided, that can't be said for the divvying up of roles. Sungenis will argue that the Novus Ordo (the vernacular Mass attended by almost all Catholics nowadays) fulfills one's Sunday obligation, and Matatics will say that it does not.
The very prospect of the debate has generated controversy in Traditionalist circles, with many people saying it will be a lose-lose event for their movement. Nothing good can come, they say, from having a prominent Traditionalist argue that the Novus Ordo is so defective that it does not even qualify as a legitimate Mass.
Is Matatics taking the negative in the debate merely as a courtesy? Apparently not.
A few months ago he began a lecture tour focusing on the vernacular Mass and the post-Vatican II revision of the rite of ordination. At his web site he refers to "the strong stand I've taken in my April talks against the New Mass and related issues--e.g., the new (post-1968) ordination rites."
At those talks he is reported to have argued that the Novus Ordo Mass is so defective (he calls it "a monstrosity") that it is invalid and that the 1968 revisions to the rite of ordination render that rite invalid as well.
FOLLOWING THE LOGIC
Lenin famously remarked, "Who says A must say B." If you accept certain premises, certain consequences follow. If Socrates is a man and all men are mortal, then Socrates is mortal. You can't escape that conclusion, even if you wish to.
An invalid rite cannot confer a valid sacrament, no matter how much one might wish it could. If the revised rite of ordination is invalid, then any man who attempts to be ordained a priest under it is not ordained validly. He comes out of the ordination ceremony as he came in: as a layman.
This means that, if the revised ordination rite is invalid, only men ordained prior to its introduction in 1968 are real priests. Only their ordinations "took." All the ordinations conducted since that time have failed to "take."
From what I can gather, this conforms to what Matatics has said in his public remarks. The implications are great.
For one thing, an invalid rite of ordination implies that it would be hard to find a real priest younger than about 60. The priest shortage would be immensely more extensive than it generally is understood to be. If the priest at your parish was ordained after 1968, then in fact you have no priest at all.
If the ordination of a priest under the revised rite is invalid, so too is the ordination (consecration) of a bishop.
A bishop, after all, is a man who has been given the fullness of priestly ordination and who, because of that fullness, has certain powers that a priest does not have. A bishop, for example, can ordain other men. A priest cannot. A bishop enjoys jurisdiction, while a priest does not. And so on.
A HYPOTHETICAL
Consider now a hypothetical example. Let's say that a man was ordained a priest in 1951. He would have been ordained under the old rite, and, according to Matatics, that ordination would have been valid. So far, so good.
Now let's say that the same man was ordained a bishop in 1977. That would have been under the new rite, so, if we follow Matatics's logic, that second ordination would have been invalid. In reality the man still would be a priest; he would not have been elevated to the episcopacy.
Let's take the hypothetical one step further and imagine that this man, who was ordained a priest but not a bishop, is elected pope. What happens?
By definition the pope is the bishop of Rome, not the priest or layman of Rome. No man can be pope unless he is a bishop, just as no man is married unless he has a wife. If our hypothetical man is not made a bishop, either before or just after his election, he cannot be a real pope. There is no such thing as a layman pope or a priest pope. The bishop of Rome must be a bishop.
Now let's bring this hypothetical into the real world.
Joseph Ratzinger was ordained to the priesthood in 1951. He was ordained archbishop of Munich-Freising in 1977. He was elected pope in 2005. If his priestly ordination was valid but his episcopal ordination was not, then he is not a true pope. He is an anti-pope, a pretender, an imposter.
He may be called the pope. He may be addressed as "Holy Father." He may wear papal white. He may live in the Apostolic Palace. He may preside at Vatican events. But, according to this logic, he is not the pope.
This is the inevitable implication of the position that Matatics is now said to promote. If the Catholic Church has not had a valid rite of ordination since 1968, then today it cannot have a true pope. This is sedevacantism.
TALKS FOR TRADITIONALIST GROUPS CANCELED
At his web site (www.gerrymatatics.org), Matatics writes:
"Many of you have inquired about my summer speaking schedule, since, until today, my web site had only listed engagements up through April 16! Here's the scoop: due to the strong stand I've taken in my April talks against the New Mass and related issues--e.g., the new (post-1968) ordination rites (about which I'll be writing in my next essay, which I hope to post here next week)--all but one of my 2005 speaking engagements have been canceled, including:
"1) the Chartres pilgrimage in May I was to have once again (as in the previous 9 years) joined 'The Remnant' for,
"2) the Dietrich von Hildebrand Institute in Lake Gardone, Italy, in June [actually, June 30 through July 10] for which I was to deliver several lectures on the doctrinal controversies in the early Church and the formation of the New Testament canon,
"3) the annual St. Benedict Center Conference in Fitchburg MA in July (at which I've also spoke for nearly ten years now),
"as well as ALL my other summer speaking engagements."
In an e-mail to me, Michael Matt, editor of "The Remnant," confirmed that Matatics withdrew from participation in this year's pilgrimage because he doubted that priests associated with it, including those in the Vatican-sanctioned Fraternity of St. Pter, had been ordained validly.
I did not reach Prof. John Rao, who oversees the Dietrich von Hildebrand Institute conference, because the conference was underway in Italy just this last week.
I telephoned the St. Benedict Center and spoke with a representative who confirmed that Matatics was not invited to speak at the group's conference this year precisely because of talks he had given in March and April, talks in which he denied the validity of the vernacular Mass and the present rite of ordination.
Matatics goes on to say in his online letter:
"Although these cancellations (more about which I will write in my next 'Gerry's Word' essay) entail a devastating loss of income (so donations to help us through these next several weeks will be gratefully appreciated!), I refuse to compromise, or to be intellectually dishonest, on these issues. I will be giving a full defense of my positions on these matters, quoting the authoritative teachings of the Catholic Church, in my next essay."
That essay has not yet appeared.
CATHOLICI SEMPER IDEM
This brings me to something mentioned in my E-Letter of last week. Matatics says that "all but one of my 2005 speaking engagements have been canceled." The one that has not seems to be the "Australia-New Zealand speaking tour" that is listed in the "Upcoming Events" section of his web site.
But something else is mentioned there too: "CSI (Catholici Semper Idem) conference in France."
I was not familiar with an organization by that name, so I did a Google search on "Catholici Semper Idem." The search turned up several hits.
Some were to the French site I mentioned in last week's E-Letter. That is the site of "Pope Peter II," an elderly Frenchman who imagines he is the real pope. The site is titled "Catholici Semper Idem" ("Catholics Always the Same") and includes a long essay arguing that John Paul II was not a real pope and another saying that men ordained by the Catholic Church since 1968 remain just laymen.
Is this the group putting on the conference that Matatics will attend? I suspect not. Although his argument about the revised ordination rite leads to the conclusion that Benedict XVI is not a real pope, I find it hard to believe that Matatics would give credence to the claims of "Peter II," even if the latter has published arguments that Matatics finds congenial.
No, I suspect the conference is being sponsored by a different though like-thinking group. This one is called Les Amis du Christ Roi de France (The Friends of Christ King of France) and uses as its subtitle "Catholici Semper Idem," the same phrase used by "Peter II." In fact, arguments on the ACRF site are made use of at the "Peter II" site.
The ACRF site (www.a-c-r-f.com) is more extensive and, seemingly, more serious-minded than the other site, but both rely on the argument that Matatics has taken up: The revised ordination rite is so flawed that today we have no valid ordinations.
ACRF claims that the recent conclave contained no real bishops, since all the voting cardinals were ordained to the episcopacy under the post-1968 ordination rite. All the attendees were either priests or laymen: "Fr. Ratzinger, ordained in the new rite of [Giovanni Battista] Montini [Pope Paul VI, who authorized the 1968 revision], is not a Catholic bishop." If true, this means that Benedict XVI is not a real pope.
The October debate is to be about the Novus Ordo Mass, not about the revised rite of ordination. But the two go together, because if there are no valid priests, it makes no difference whether the Novus Ordo Mass fulfills one's Sunday obligation. A Mass celebrated by a non-priest is a non-Mass.
Vatican I: Schema on the Church of Christ
"Furthermore, it is a dogma of faith that no one can be saved outside the Church. Nevertheless, those who are invincibly ignorant of Christ and the Church are not to be judged worthy of eternal punishment because of this ignorance. For they are innocent in the eyes of the Lord of any fault in this matter. God wishes all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth; and if one does what he can, God does not withhold the grace for him to obtain eternal life. But no one obtains eternal life if he dies separated from the unity of faith or from communion with the Church through his own fault." (Schema on the Church of Christ: Chapter 7, presented to the Fathers of the Council on April 24, 1870).
(Chapter 1: The Dignity of the Human Person)
All this holds true not only for Christians, but for all men of good will in whose hearts grace works in an unseen way.(31) For, since Christ died for all men,(32) and since the ultimate vocation of man is in fact one, and divine, we ought to believe that the Holy Spirit in a manner known only to God offers to every man the possibility of being associated with this paschal mystery (Gaudium et Spes, no. 22).
(Chapter 1: Principles of Doctrine)
Therefore those men cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it."(17) Therefore though God in ways known to Himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel to find that faith without which it is impossible to please Him (Heb. 11:6), yet a necessity lies upon the Church (1 Cor. 9:16), and at the same time a sacred duty, to preach the Gospel. And hence missionary activity today as always retains its power and necessity (Ad Gentes, no. 7).
The Credo of the People of God
Recognizing also the existence, outside the organism of the Church of Christ of numerous elements of truth and sanctification which belong to her as her own and tend to Catholic unity,[31] and believing in the action of the Holy Spirit who stirs up in the heart of the disciples of Christ love of this unity,[32] we entertain the hope that the Christians who are not yet in the full communion of the one only Church will one day be reunited in one flock with one only shepherd.
We believe that the Church is necessary for salvation, because Christ, who is the sole mediator and way of salvation, renders Himself present for us in His body which is the Church.[33] But the divine design of salvation embraces all men, and those who without fault on their part do not know the Gospel of Christ and His Church, but seek God sincerely, and under the influence of grace endeavor to do His will as recognized through the promptings of their conscience, they, in a number known only to God, can obtain salvation.
Pope John Paul II:
“The universality of salvation means that it is granted not only to those who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the Church
“The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved 25 June last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church's faith and of Catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, Apostolic Tradition and the Church's Magisterium. I declare it to be a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion and a sure norm for teaching the faith.”
The citation is irrelevant.
Oh no it isn't, because this is what you are doing:
Thus, there can be no greater crime, no more hideous stain than to stand up against Christ, than to divide the Church engendered and purchased by His blood, than to forget evangelical love and to combat with the furor of hostile discord the harmony of the people of God
"It's teaching is not infallible; but it holds a place between approved catechism and what is "de fide"."
It's a good Catechism probably the best of them all. But it's not perfect and you've latched right onto the errors. I'm sure you wouldn't think that the prohibition against ordaining a physically deformed man from the priesthood because his shocking appearance would distract the people is de fide. Or the reference to priests as "gods" is anything but metaphorical.
The Catechism is a part of the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church. The examples of "errors" (if they are such) you cite are disciplinary and literary. Baptism of Desire is doctrinal. The Ordinary Magisterium does not err in doctrine that is repeated for millenia and taught to the faithful as de fide.
You are right. That was easy.
Can you cite a single person who believed Fr. Feeney's doctrine prior to him (no BOD or BOB)? I can't.
Hermann,
I had pretty much decided to ignore you because of your absolute calumny against Charles Coulombe. Your obviously green with envy to such an extent that you have to lie and calumniate the man because he has credentials that you will never have. Dealing with someone who does the evil you do tells me one thing. You'll stoop to whatever level it takes to try to "win". Truth means nothing to you.
But the absolute stupidity of most of your answers will force my hand on some points that I'll have to deal with after I deal with the other obsessed one's 1001 pointless posts.
The Ordinary Magisterium contains both the Ordinary Authentic and the Ordinary Infallible magisterial quality.
The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium does not err. The Authentic is quite capable of error.
But it's obvious you can't tell the difference. No Catechism is infallible and the equal footing given to the dogma of the absolute necessity of Baptism with water and the speculative theology of Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood is one of the errors most commonly published.
You'll notice in all the citing of the earliest Fathers who may "speculate" on Baptism of Blood and Desire that they are actually speculating and not handing on the Tradition of the Church.
You probably don't know this, but the Fathers of the Church don't produce doctrine.
So on the one hand, you claim that the Fathers state that they are speculating and not handing on the Tradition of the Church. On the other hand, those same Fathers themselves state: "We have indeed, likewise, a second font ... concerning which the Lord said", "Let men of this kind, who are aiders and favourers of heretics, know therefore ... that they certainly are not deprived of the sacrament ... concerning which the Lord also said ... The Lord is able by His mercy to give indulgence", and "as you are not ignorant ... as is contained in the Acts ... as Peter also subsequently most abundantly taught us ... there will be no doubt ... Thy thinking him to have perished will be opposed by the sentence of the Lord ... let us come to the proof of the statement proposed, that we may not appear to have done this of our own judgment and with rashness ... Assuredly both in water, and none the less in their own blood, and then especially in the Holy Spirit, men may be baptized."
We have indeed, likewise, a second font, (itself withal one with the former,) of blood, to wit; concerning which the Lord said, "I have to be baptized with a baptism," when He had been baptized already. For He had come "by means of water and blood," just as John has written; that He might be baptized by the water, glorified by the blood; to make us, in like manner, called by water, chosen by blood. These two baptisms He sent out from the wound in His pierced side, in order that they who believed in His blood might be bathed with the water; they who had been bathed in the water might likewise drink the blood. This is the baptism which both stands in place of the laver when not received and restores it when lost. (Tertullian, De Baptismo, 16)
On which place [St. John 3.5] some, as if by human reasoning they were able to make void the truth of the Gospel declaration, object to us the case of catechumens; asking if any one of these, before he is baptized in the Church, should be apprehended and slain on confession of the name, whether he would lose the hope of salvation and the reward of confession, because he had not previously been born again of water? Let men of this kind, who are aiders and favourers of heretics, know therefore, first, that those catechumens hold the sound faith and truth of the Church, and advance from the divine camp to do battle with the devil, with a full and sincere acknowledgment of God the Father, and of Christ, and of the Holy Ghost; then, that they certainly are not deprived of the sacrament of baptism who are baptized with the most glorious and greatest baptism of blood, concerning which the Lord also said, that He had "another baptism to be baptized with." ...But some one says, "What, then, shall become of those who in past times, coming from heresy to the Church, were received without baptism?" The Lord is able by His mercy to give indulgence, and not to separate from the gifts of His Church those who by simplicity were admitted into the Church, and in the Church have fallen asleep. (St. Cyprian, Letter 72:22-23)
And further, as you are not ignorant, the Holy Spirit is found to have been given to men who believe, by the Lord without baptism of water, as is contained in the Acts of the Apostles ... Even as Peter also subsequently most abundantly taught us about the same Gentiles, saying: "And He put no difference between us and them, their hearts being purified by faith." And there will be no doubt that men may be baptized with the Holy Ghost without water,--as thou observest that these were baptized before they were baptized with water; that the announcements of both John and of our Lord Himself were satisfied,--forasmuch as they received the grace of the promise both without the imposition of the apostle's hands and without the laver, which they attained afterwards. And their hearts being purified, God bestowed upon them at the same time, in virtue of their faith, remission of sins; so that the subsequent baptism conferred upon them this benefit alone, that they received also the invocation of the name of Jesus Christ, that nothing might appear to be wanting to the integrity of their service and faith. ...And what wilt thou determine against the person of him who hears the word, and haply taken up in the name of Christ, has at once confessed, and has been punished before it has been granted him to be baptized with water? Wilt thou declare him to have perished because he has not been baptized with water? Or, indeed, wilt thou think that there may be something from without that helps him to salvation, although he is not baptized with water? Thy thinking him to have perished will be opposed by the sentence of the Lord, who says, "Whosoever shall confess me before men, him will I also confess before my Father which is in heaven; " because it is no matter whether he who confesses for the Lord is a hearer of the word or a believer, so long as he confesses that same Christ whom he ought to confess; because the Lord, by confessing him, in turn Himself graces His confessor before his Father with the glory of his martyrdom, as He promised. ...
And it was fitting that both these kinds should first of all be initiated and sanctified by our Lord Himself, so that either one of the two or both kinds might afford to us this one twofold saving and glorifying baptism; and certain ways of the one baptism might so be laid open to us, that at times some one of them might be wanting without mischief, even as in the case of martyrs that hear the word, the baptism of water is wanting without evil; and yet we are certain that these, if they had any indulgence, would also be used to be baptized with water. And also to those who are made lawful believers, the baptism of their own blood is wanting without mischief, because, being baptized in the name of Christ, they have been redeemed with the most precious blood of the Lord; ...
And since we seem to have divided all spiritual baptism in a threefold manner, let us come also to the proof of the statement proposed, that we may not appear to have done this of our own judgment, and with rashness. For John says of our Lord in his epistle, teaching us: "This is He who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood: and it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. For three bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three are one;" --that we may gather from these words both that water is wont to confer the Spirit, and that men's own blood is wont to confer the Spirit, and that the Spirit Himself also is wont to confer the Spirit. For since water is poured forth even as blood, the Spirit also was poured out by the Lord upon all who believed. Assuredly both in water, and none the less in their own blood, and then especially in the Holy Spirit, men may be baptized. ... Which Spirit also filled John the Baptist even from his mother's womb; and it fell upon those who were with Cornelius the centurion before they were baptized with water. Thus, cleaving to the baptism of men, the Holy Spirit either goes before or follows it; or failing the baptism of water, it falls upon those who believe. We are counselled that either we ought duly to maintain the integrity of baptism, or if by chance baptism is given by any one in the name of Jesus Christ, we ought to supplement it, guarding the most holy invocation of the name of Jesus Christ, as we have most abundantly set forth; guarding, moreover, the custom and authority which so much claim our veneration for so long a time and for such great men. (Anonymous Treatise Against Rebaptism, 5, 11, 14-15)
Oops! Sorry about the double post.
So, innumerable references to obvious Tradition, contained in simple declarative sentences, is reframed by the heretic as speculation." And it makes no difference how MANY of those simple declarative statements are posted. All are "irrelevant" of "not applicable" or do not really mean what they obviously mean to the Faithful who think with the mind of the Church.
The unspoken assumption operative behind these acts is the heretic expects the ones opposing the heresy will actually concede authority to the defender of Heresy. It is both a remarkable, not to mention insane, and bizarre thing to behold. The Magisterium is denied its God-given authority while heresy and its defenders supplant the God-given authority as legitimate explicators of controversial points of doctrine.
The Church? Why bring a dipsute to the Church and let it decide? That is worse than a waste of time. The Church established by Jesus is deemed untrustworthy to the heretic. The Church established by Jesus teaches error. The REAL truth about Doctrine is held by those the Church has excommunicated.
It is a very easy process to witness. But, to witness the process actually being honored and defended can only be explained by referencing Mysterium Iniquitatis.
Calumny? Obviously, you do not know the lush.
Your obviously green with envy to such an extent that you have to lie and calumniate the man because he has credentials that you will never have.
God save me from ever having the credentials of being a friend and defender of occultists and occultist schismatics, a writer for occult publications like Gnosis and Fate, and a creator of Catholicized magical superstition.
I would not want his credentials.
No Catechism is infallible
If the Holy See cannot publish a Catechism without teaching doctrinal errors where the Catechism is purporting to teach authentic doctrine, of what purpose is the infallibility of Rome? You make infallibility into a new Delphic Oracle, rather than a girdle of doctrinal chastity when teaching.
You probably don't know this, but the Fathers of the Church don't produce doctrine.
No, they are evidence for doctrine, and their unanimity on this point (BOD/BOB), along with the evidence of the Liturgy, of the Doctors, of the Theologians, and of the Popes and Councils, is strong evidence of its truth. There is not a Father who broaches the topic who does not carve out these alternatives in extremis for the necessity of Baptism as a means of salvation, most especially the universally repeated example of a Catechumen baptised in their own blood.
Perhaps you missed this that Gerard posted?
LOS ANGELES, April 21,[2004] Christian Wire Service/ -- ,b.Author, Papal historian, and Church lecturer Charles Coulombe, K.C.S.S. is an expert of things Catholic. By order of Pope John Paul II, he was recently created a Knight Commander of the Order of St. Sylvester for his services rendered to the Holy See. His encyclopedic knowledge, shrewd observations, and witty anecdotes on the Papacy provide singular and engaging commentary....,
How many medals have you been awarded by the pope, Herman? Just curious.
No, I didn't miss that.
How many medals have you been awarded by the pope, Herman? Just curious.
None.
Perhaps you missed these sort of comments about who Messer Coulombe really is, from his own mouth. A life of dissolution, drink, and contempt for regular people.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4457
"The huge libraries and architecture that feed my soul?"
"As you might have guessed, food is important to me, and the dizzying varieties of ethnic fare, as well as haute cuisine, available in areas carried by Kerry are just what I need."
"Where else could I take in a Japanese tea ceremony or a Russian festival? If you have such a thing out in the country, it is because that is the single ethnic group that settled the town, and such customs are generally indulged in one or twice a year; the rest of the time it is strictly “hee-haw” season."
"I love Bohemia as well. Where in Paducah will you find the company of writers, actors, and intellectuals, pseudo or otherwise? Long chats about the craft they ply, regardless of whether or not they are any good at it, often conducted on the floor of someone’s run-down apartment and washed down with plenty of cheap red are simply not to be savored in rural areas."
No wonder his proudest achievement is a little piece of embossed paper you are holding in such wonderment.
Point: red state politics, blue state tastes
May 1st, 2005
I was born in Manhattan and raised in Hollywood. Those two facts, plus my Catholic religion, my severely-mixed-but-primarily-Francophone ethnicity, my parents’ theatrical background, my father’s love of books and history, and the odd circumstances of the 1960s have, together, produced my predicament --- I call it “Red-Blue Syndrome.”
Here are its basic symptoms: on the one hand, my politics are firmly fixed on the right. So far as I am concerned, abortion is murder, gay marriage is an exercise in insanity, government supervision of my every move is dictatorship, and taxes are just too bloody high. Gun control is simply a way of disarming the citizenry, and the declining birth-rate will destroy social security and beggar us all. So too, on a more a-political plane, I prefer the Tridentine Mass to the new one, and wish women wore hats to church. So --- perhaps I should move to Kansas or Texas?
By no means! Because while my convictions might land me in the rural Midwest or South, my aesthetic tastes keep me firmly bound to the liberal enclaves of the West Coast and the North-East. Where in Odessa, Texas or Manhattan, Kansas would I find the Thai restaurants, Korean barbecues or Shabu-Shabu houses I crave? The theater, and opera? The huge libraries and architecture that feed my soul?
Even my religious needs are better served in cities than in the country: most large cities (save Los Angeles) have at least one “liturgical parish,” where Tridentine Masses are offered, or at least Gregorian Chant, Polyphony, and/or orchestral Masses are served up. Even in the L.A. area, I can still take in a weekly Tridentine Mass, or else a liturgy from one of the innumerable Eastern Rites established here (Coptic, Melkite, Maronite, Ukrainian, Ruthenian, and many, many more). In the great Red Zone, you are stuck with whatever the local priest gives you, and however conservative the feelings of the communicants may be, they will have to make do, often enough, with clown Masses and altar girls.
Oh yeah, now I see why you calumniate him as a heretic. The pope says otherwise. Are dissenting from the pope? You should repent! =D
You're pathetic for taking these quotes out of context in this light-hearted article of his in order to justify calling this man a heretic. May God forgive you. I'm shaking the dust from my feet and moving on.
He obviously has no experience of the America of small towns and country to make statements like this. Every irreverant Mass I've ever seen has been in a large city or a "blue" college town, and ditto for faggot priests. OTOH, the people I've seen in small cities, towns, and villages from upstate NY, in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, New Jersey, North and South Carolina, Florida, Indiana, South Dakota, and elsewhere was piously said and absent the abovementioned nonsense. Many times, I even saw many of the congregation remain afterwards to pray, something I never saw in NYC or San Francisco or Boston. And frequently, the Mass had some Latin Chant and otherwise well done hymnody with organ accompaniment (and no, it wasn't "On Eagles Wings" and that type of tripe).
The piece of full of fear, hatred, and loathing of people he obviously does not know, but whom his social peers have influenced him to such an extent as to calumniate as he did in that article.
Oh yeah, now I see why you calumniate him as a heretic.
I say he promotes heresy for rejecting Baptism of Desire as salvific, which is a de fide doctrine ennunciated at Trent.
The pope says otherwise.
The piece of full of fear, hatred, and loathing of people he obviously does not know,
Sounds like you are describing almost every post you've made on this thread.
projection the attribution of one's own ideas, feelings, or attitudes to other people or to objects; especially : the externalization of blame, guilt, or responsibility as a defense against anxiety
I had no idea you had suddenly become such a fan of the late pope's appointments. What do you think of the bishops appointed by JP II, or, say, Fr. Raymond Brown, S.S., appointed to the Pontifical Biblical Commission by JP II in 1996?
Do you really have to defend anyone who claims to be a "traditionalist"? The fact is that Baptism of Desire is an infallible dogma of Trent.
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.