Free Republic

Respectfully, the term “Catholic Church” is improperly used and understood today.

Faithful Catholics (traditional Catholics who follow all the true teachings of the Church that were extant prior to Vatican II—think SSPX) recognize that Pope Francis is the leader of the “visible” or “institutional” Church. It is often referred to as the “Conciliar Church” since it was established by and follows the teachings of the Second Vatican Council (Vatican II).

That institution must be distinguished from the true Church of Jesus Christ which is believed by faithful Catholics to be the “Mystical Body of Jesus Christ.”
Prior to Vatican II there was no distinction, but as the heresy of Modernism crept into the hearts of various bishops and popes after the death of St Pope Pius X, the leaders of the visible Church were led astray.

But, like any sinners, Those men have the opportunity to return to preaching the true faith and bring the visible Church back in line with the true Church founded by Jesus Christ under St. Peter and the Apostles (the first pope and bishops).

All that being said, faithful Catholics ignore the false teachings of these Modernist leaders in Rome and around the world by celebrating the Traditional Latin Mass and following all of the true teachings of the Church.

Sorry to single you out, as many of the other posters are implying the same thing which is absolutely wrong. Respectfully, the Catholic Church is NOT “a. Portal to hell,” nor has she done anything wrong—ever.

The Catholic Church is the Mystical Body Of Jesus Christ, and God can never be wrong. You are confusing the Catholic Church with the Modernist leaders of the Conciliar Church that was created by Vatican II. It is a “shadow church” much like the Deep State is a shadow government. Both are evil in the sight of God and alert men and women.

And while there are a number of traditional-minded churches that oppose the Conciliar church and the Modernist bishops in the Vatican today, the only priestly organization that completely rejects Vatican II and follows all the true teachings of the Church that were extant prior to Vatican II is the SSPX.

Thank you for your response although I was trying to learn what specific statements for actions E.Michael Jones engaged in to warrant his being labeled antisemitic—which he very well may be.

As for your labeling those who worship at an SSPX church “TradCaths,” I must respectfully respond and take issue. The priests of the SSPX and those who worship at their churches, are properly referred to as “Catholics.”

A Catholic is one who follows the immutable dogmas and doctrines of the Church as defined by the Magisterium. The Society does not deviate from even a single one of those teachings—which would include their refusal to bless homosexual unions, just the latest deviation from the faith by the very confused Modernist popes and bishops.

I don’t mean to argue with you, as I know little about E. Michael Jones. But if you say he’s antisemitic what do you base this conclusion on? If he has said he just doesn’t like Jews or holds some animus against them for historic purposes, I can well understand him being so labeled. But often you hear that opprobrium thrown around and there’s no basis for it. If this is not the case I’d like to know what you believe he did to deserve being so named.

Now I am an SSPX Catholic. I completely reject many of the teachings in Vatican II—especially Nostra Aetate. Does that make me an antisemite?
Also, there are many people who look askance at AIPAC and believe they are too influential on Capital Hill in their support for Israel. Pat Buchanan comes to mind in that regard. The media called him an antisemite for that. Was that deserved?
Indeed, some people genuinely believe that Israel was as wrong to drive the Palestinians out of the land they had occupied for centuries, much as England was wrong to drive the Catholics out of the North of Ireland 350 years ago. Are people who feel that way antisemites?
Again, I don’t mean to sound belligerent, but if E.Michael Jones is an antisemite it doesn’t say much for him as far as I’m concerned.
Perhaps you could share what you know about this man in that regard.

Roman War Criminal can speak for himself, but it sure doesn’t appear rhetorical to me. If Fr Altman can decide that the pope’s not the pope because he supports and promotes many sinful and even heretical beliefs, why can’t Roman War Criminal decide that any Catholic who clicks onto GP is not Catholic because they’re advancing the website of an open homosexual?

I’m sure he was being facetious, but his point is well taken. The only one who judges the pope is God. Pope Francis is not a good pope even if measured by the lowest of standards. Yet, as Catholics, Fr. Altman and the rest of us are bound by our faith to accept this terrible man as the pope.

Oh yeah, in case he hasn’t thought it completely through, when the reign of Pope Francis comes to a close, who does Fr. Altman think the next pope will be? Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano? Don’t think so.Almost certainly it will be someone that’s even far less faithful than Pope Francis. Is Fr. Altman going to be telling us that he’s not the pope either? Is he saying that’s the end off the Church?

I like Fr. Altman but he’s way off base. The Church is in serious trouble. You could bring back St. Pope Pius X and put him in as pope again and nothing will change. The fault lies with the bishops. Until they abandon Vatican II and the Novus Ordo Mass nothing will change.

The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass was never intended as a service for you or me to “understand” or to “get something out of” as is often said. Faithful Catholics witness the Mass because Jesus Christ commanded that we “do this in remembrance” of Him. We go to Mass to please God not so we can feel better when we leave.

This teaching was abandoned by the popes and bishops following the Second Vatican Council (Vatican II) some 60 years ago. Today’s Catholics (indoctrinated by both the secular media and the Modernists in Rome) believe that the leaders in Rome teach Catholicism. They do not. They are technically “Catholics” but they are promoting a counterfeit religion many call “Conciliarism,” created by the Modernist bishops of Vatican II. They are the “Deep State” of the Catholic Church.

Nevertheless, the true Catholic Church (which is the Mystical Body of Christ) will be with us until the end of time. That is an absolute. Her true teaching, which will also never change, include the Traditional Latin Mass. The SSPX celebrates only the TLM and it is the only priestly order that continues to absolutely adhere to all of the true teachings of the Church.

Tell it Right, whatever your problems are they are. But this post was clearly marked for Catholic Caucus members. It iis, therefore, closed to all others. Please respect that designation and delete your offensive post.

Tell it Right, whatever your problems are they are. But this post was clearly marked for Catholic Caucus members. It iis, therefore, closed to all others. Please respect that designation and delete your offensive post.

How does the following statement make any sense? I realize it’s dicta, but still, it just be wrong. The homosexual website designer would not be permitted to rely on any 1st Amendment right to refuse to fulfill the request of the anti-homosexual requester, so Colorado could force him to provide the design. Am I not correct on this? If not, where have I gone off the rails?

“Equally, the government could force a male website designer married to another man to design websites for an organization that advocates against same-sex marriage. ... As our precedents recognize, the First Amendment tolerates none of that.”

Cardinal Geroge’s successor is Cardinal Blase J. Cupich.
And while Cardinal George was right about the future prisons, he missed the part where Pope Francis and his appointees will be running those prisons.
The future imprisoned and martyred will be the faithful traditional Catholics.

I’m not sure it’s the exact opposite—at least as I read it. He seems to be saying that the Sacrifice is offered by the priest, alone, but the faithful have a role—but in their place—which is not at the same level as the priest. The people do this through uniting their “hearts in praise”, not by any physical act.

Vatican II places the “presider” on the same physical level as the faithful and is very likely moving toward having the extraordinary ministers physically offer the Sacrifice along with the priest. I’d be surprised if we don’t see that being permitted in the very near future. This is where they are going with it, and it has never been suggested in tradition.

Admittedly, the language is a bit murky on that issue, but he states that “this is a privilege “only for the minister.” We don’t know how involved Bugnini and Bea were when he wrote that encyclical, but I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that they were both very close by.

Respectfully (and most certainly not in defense of Roche), but whether intentional or not, Luisella Scrosati and Rorate Caeli mislead their readers by suggesting Vatican II was not a break from tradition on this issue. It must certainly was and Roche has no problem with making that point.

As to why Scrosati chooses to challenge him on this issue is unclear, but I suspect it is an effort to convince traditionalists to get on-board Vatican II.One must not lose sight of the fact tha neither Roche nor Scrosati are traditionalists.

Regardless, Pope Pius XII makes it quite clear that the priest, alone, offers the Sacrifice, and the faithful are mere witnesses. Any possible misreading of the earlier sections of the encyclical is cleared up in section 93 where Pope Pius states that when “speaking of the people offering with the priest,” the Church means only that the people “unite their hearts in praise, impetration, expiation and thanksgiving, with the prayers and intention of the priest, even of the High Priest Himself...”

If someone reads that section differently I would appreciate hearing from them.

Don’t know where you hold out, Roccus, but I was an altar boy in the early 40’s, had a very bumpy ride in the 70’s and 80’s, but found the smoothest spiritual road I’ve been on in decades after finding an SSPX church when we re-located to Florida a number of years ago. I haven’t looked back..

It’s been like a time-warp for my wife and I. Assisting at the TLM at the SSPX chapel we’ve been attending for a number of years is exactly like it was in the ‘40’s. The processions, the hymns, the Stations, the Gregorian chants , the High Masses, the incense, everything. Totally amazing.

Most importantly, we have never felt more close to God than we have in our 60 years of marriage. The SSPX chapels are all over the country (and they’ll never be shut down by Rome), but if you’re ever in FL, find an SSPX chapel (there’s about 6 of them here) and start your life over again.

Not the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ. She is perfect.

Do not confuse her with the current leaders of the Church. They embrace and condone homosexuality with all the enthusiasm you have suggested. Virtually all of them are very evil men who will all one day answer to God for their sinfulness.

Are not these two paragraphs at least inconsistent with each other? If not, what is the difference in a diocesan church and a parish/diocesan church?

“In no parish/diocesan church, may the old mass be celebrated.

In diocesan churches it may not be celebrated every Sunday according to the old rite.”

Still, I’m wondering what they’re shopping for? Better coffee and donuts?

Shortly after December 8, 1965 they started to move in that direction, but like most of Europe, went full bore immediately after November 30, 1969. America is finally catching up.

Abolish the USCCB? Sure, but it’s not a creation of Bernardino. It’s a creation of the Second Vatican Council. The USCCB is the manifestation of “Collegiality”—the core subject of Lumen Gentium.
So yes, by all means do away with it…but take the other 15 documents with it on the. Way out.

It’s not that law enforcement or anyone else invites these institutions to do their own internal investigation, this is always an effort on their own accord.
It must be assumed that most do so either to protect their own or to protect the institution, itself against subsequent lawsuits or simply injury to their reputation.

Money is fungible. Humanitarian aid is indistinguishable from military aid.