Author Topic: Question (Read 2061 times)

Alexandria · « **on:** June 22, 2019, 10:51:59 AM »

Is it true that we have the assurance that the Church can never lead us astray, which is why novus ordo Catholics say they can safely stay where they are?

Mega-fin · « **Reply #1 on:** June 22, 2019, 11:04:05 AM »

It is true that the Church can never lead us astray! Absolutely. The Church is both infallible, that it can never teach error, and indefectible, that it’s teaching can never change.

So then, if what the Novus Ordo believe and teach, if it differs from what the Church has always taught, cannot be a teaching of the Catholic faith. Religious liberty has been condemned: it cannot be Catholic teaching. Impossible. The Novus Ordo are largely ignorant of Catholic teaching, as they’ve never been taught Catholicism. There are many who don’t want to look, who just don’t care. But someone who stumbles across truth must pursue it. It is a sin against the Holy Ghost to resist the known truth. For those who are ignorant, ignorance excuses guilt, but it cannot make the action good. Do most NO pew sitters know what they are doing is wrong? I would say probably not. They don’t know any different. But that doesn’t make it ok just because they don’t know.

Of course, in the early days it was a matter of “obedience” to the bishops who said that we HAD to go along with the changes. False obedience! We cannot obey bad orders that lead us to sin! So the Novus Ordo use good Catholic thinking in the wrong scenario. Should Catholics obey the Popes and bishops? Absolutely! When they ask us to join their new religion? We must resist!

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #2 on:** June 22, 2019, 11:06:26 AM »

Official Church doctrine can never be wrong. The Church hierarchy can lead us astray, as Christ told us multiple times to beware of “wolves in sheep’s clothing”.

Alexandria · « **Reply #3 on:** June 22, 2019, 11:13:16 AM »

Quote from: Mega-fin on June 22, 2019, 11:04:05 AM

It is true that the Church can never lead us astray! Absolutely. The Church is both infallible, that it can never teach error, and indefectible, that it’s teaching can never change.

So then, if what the Novus Ordo believe and teach, if it differs from what the Church has always taught, cannot be a teaching of the Catholic faith. Religious liberty has been condemned: it cannot be Catholic teaching. Impossible. The Novus Ordo are largely ignorant of Catholic teaching, as they’ve never been taught Catholicism. There are many who don’t want to look, who just don’t care. But someone who stumbles across truth must pursue it. It is a sin against the Holy Ghost to resist the known truth. For those who are ignorant, ignorance excuses guilt, but it cannot make the action good. Do most NO pew sitters know what they are doing is wrong? I would say probably not. They don’t know any different. But that doesn’t make it ok just because they don’t know.

Of course, in the early days it was a matter of “obedience” to the bishops who said that we HAD to go along with the changes. False obedience! We cannot obey bad orders that lead us to sin! So the Novus Ordo use good Catholic thinking in the wrong scenario. Should Catholics obey the Popes and bishops? Absolutely! When they ask us to join their new religion? We must resist!

Thank you. That is what I thought. My memory is getting really bad. I used to know all of these things at the drop of a hat, but lately I am able to recall less and less. Don't get old. :)
What you have written is why I am having such a hard time with the canonizations of JPII (I lived through his entire pontificate - God forgive me, but I couldn't wait until he died so he wouldn't be able to do any more harm to the Church) and, most especially, Paul VI, and am also having a hard time with the change in doctrine (it's no evolution of doctrine - it's the opposite).
And if the visible organization that calls itself the Catholic Church is no longer trustworthy to give you Catholic truth, then where is the Church? I thought we had been assured that the Church could never lead us astray? But it has. Then what?
Have patience with me, please, while I work through this. It has become very confusing in my brain lately.

Incredulous · « **Reply #4 on:** June 22, 2019, 11:16:53 AM »

The traditional Catholic Church will not lead us astray.
The consiliar catholic church is a schism, inside the true Church... has obviously led many Baptized Catholics astray.

Our Lady of LaSalette warned the Church would be hidden or "eclipsed" and the Seat even becoming that of the anti-christ.

An excerpt from Pope Leo XIII's original, full version St. Michael's prayer warns:

“These most crafty enemies have filled and inebriated with gall and bitterness the Church, the spouse of the immaculate Lamb, and have laid impious hands on her most sacred possessions. In the Holy Place itself, where the See of Holy Peter and the Chair of Truth has been set up as the light of the world, they have raised the throne of their abominable impiety, with the iniquitous design that when the Pastor has been struck, the sheep may be scattered.
Link

And below, Father Hesse elaborates on the visible, schismatic church's condition.

Alexandria · « **Reply #5 on:** June 22, 2019, 11:19:57 AM »

Inc, thank you.

I like Fr Hesse very much. God rest his soul.

What do you think of him?

TKGS · « **Reply #6 on:** June 22, 2019, 12:14:43 PM »

Quote from: Alexandria on June 22, 2019, 10:51:59 AM

Is it true that we have the assurance that the Church can never lead us astray, which is why novus ordo Catholics say they can safely stay where they are?

Because they are not Catholic.

Incredulous · « **Reply #7 on:** June 22, 2019, 12:50:11 PM »

Quote from: Alexandria on June 22, 2019, 11:19:57 AM

Inc, thank you.

I like Fr Hesse very much. God rest his soul.

What do you think of him?

Eccentric, prudent and Holy

A unique scholar priest for our confused times.

I agree with you Alexandria... Eternal rest grant unto him O' Lord.

Incredulous · « **Reply #8 on:** June 23, 2019, 06:27:59 PM »

Not to belabor the point Alexandria, but here's a recent Jєωel from the Dominicans of Avrille, discussing the nature of the consiliar schism. It's a good reference for apologetics: Link

What is schism?

Schism, says Cardinal Billot, opposes the unity of communion. […] It is incurred in two ways :

— First, if one directly refuses obedience to the supreme pontiff, not accepting what he commands, not precisely from the point of view of what is commanded (for that would amount to mere disobedience), but from the point of view of the authority that commands, that is, refusing to recognize the pope as head and superior.

— Secondly, if one separates directly from the communion of the Catholic faithful, for example by behaving like a separate group.^²
At first sight, traditionalists seem to be schismatic in two ways:

— the absence of an effective link of dependence suggests that they do not recognize the authority of the pope;

— and they seem to form a sort of “little church” and are called “lefebvrists” or “integrists” while refusing to mingle with other faithful.

The bond of faith is first

However, Pope Leo XIII, in the encyclical Satis Cognitum, speaking on the unity of the Church, says this:

« Agreement and union of minds is the necessary foundation of this perfect concord amongst men, from which concurrence of wills and similarity of action are the natural results. Wherefore, in His divine wisdom, He ordained in His Church Unity of Faith; a virtue which is the first of those bonds which unite men to God, and whence we receive the name of the faithful. »
A few years later, in his magisterial encyclical condemning the false ecuмenism, Mortalium Animos, Pius XI will resume the same idea:

« Since charity is based on a complete and sincere faith, the disciples of Christ must be united principally by the bond of one faith. »

It emerges from these Pontifical teachings that there is in the Church a more fundamental unity than the unity of communion: it is the unity of faith. And for the unity of communion to be true, it is absolutely necessary for it to have the unity of faith. Hence, it is clear that the first schismatics are the heretics: “Heresy,“ says Cardinal Billot, “is a schism, for it directly opposes the unity of faith.” One can oppose the unity of communion without opposing the unity of faith, but one can not oppose the unity of faith without opposing the unity of communion, since the first is the foundation of the second.

It is those who deviate from the faith that commit schism

When we consider the situation of the Church since the Second Vatican Council, we see that people who occupy positions of authority are imbued with liberalism and modernism. They have imposed reforms that destroy the Church because they oppose traditional faith and worship. Thus, they broke with the Tradition of many centuries, that is to say, definitively, they broke with the unity of faith; and the unity of communion they are trying to achieve is only a pseudo-unity, because it has lost its true foundation. The modernist hierarchy, so long as it is modernist, is heretical: it opposes the unity of faith by preaching its errors and, consequently, to the unity of communion. In other words, it is the conciliar Church that is schismatic because it seeks to achieve a unity that is no longer the Catholic unity.

Archbishop Lefebvre said clearly:

« The conciliar Church is practically schismatic. [….] It is a virtually excommunicated church, because it is a modernist church. The pope wants to create unity without that of faith. It’s a communion. A communion to whom? to what? in what? It is no longer unity. This can only be done in the unity of faith. » ^³

And the pope?

As Cardinal Journet explains, in The Church of the Incarnate Word, ^⁴ the pope himself can sin against ecclesiastical communion by breaking the unity of direction, which would happen if he did not fulfill his duty. and refused to the Church the orientation it is entitled to expect from him, in the name of one greater than him, Christ, its founder and invisible leader. And it is unfortunately the painful situation in which we have found since the Council. If Archbishop Lefebvre was to stay away from the modernist hierarchy and the conciliar Church, it was by fidelity to Tradition, refusing to commit schism and break with the unity of faith, as it has always been done in the Church. « The Church, Father Calmel O.P. said, is not the mystical body of the pope, but of Christ ». ^⁵ If, therefore, the pope fails in his office to the point of promoting heresy and schism, then it is better to obey Christ. and remain faithful to the Church of all time, even if it means enduring the wrath of the authorities in power. Archbishop Lefebvre preferred to stay away from this hierarchy and this false communion:

« To leave, therefore, from the official Church? To a certain extent, yes, of course. If the bishops are in heresy, it is necessary to leave the midst of the bishops if one does not wish to lose one’s soul. If we get away from these people, it’s absolutely the same as with people who have AIDS. We do not want to catch it. But they have spiritual AIDS, these contagious diseases. If we want to keep health, we must not go with them. » ^⁶

Origin of our attitude

In practice, the Catholic must not desire and can not be in communion with a hierarchy that favors modernism, liberalism, and ecuмenism which are condemned by the popes and direct the faithful in ways foreign to Tradition. It would be better to endure the persecutions, criticisms, epithets of “schismatics” and “excommunicated,” than to collaborate in the undertakings of this hierarchy and the loss of souls.

1 — Fideliter 70, p. 6.
2 — Cardinal BILLOT, L’Eglise, volume II, Publications of the Courrier de Rome, 2010, p. 69-70.
3 — Fideliter 70, p. 8.
4 — Cardinal JOURNET, L’Eglise du Verbe Incarné, Desclée de Brouwer, Fribourg, 1962, vol. II, p. 839 sq.
5 — Père Roger-Thomas CALMEL O.P., « De l’Église et du pape», in Itinéraires 173, May 1973, p. 28.
6 — Conference in Ecône, 9 September 1988, cited in Fideliter 66, p. 28.

JezusDeKoning · « **Reply #9 on:** June 23, 2019, 07:39:30 PM »

Quote from: TKGS on June 22, 2019, 12:14:43 PM

Because they are not Catholic.

Some aren't, and some are making a decent effort to be Catholic. A lot of us might know people who attend the NO but are genuinely Catholic.

Those that are trying will be rewarded by God.

Most are hook, line and sinker for it, though.

poche · « **Reply #10 on:** June 24, 2019, 09:02:10 AM »

Quote from: Alexandria on June 22, 2019, 10:51:59 AM

Is it true that we have the assurance that the Church can never lead us astray, which is why novus ordo Catholics say they can safely stay where they are?

"Behold thou art Peter and it is to you that I give the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. And the gates of Hell shall not prevail."
- Jesus.

Alexandria · « **Reply #11 on:** June 24, 2019, 11:38:02 AM »

How about traditional Catholic teaching on ѕυιcιdє?

When I was growing up before VII, if anyone committed ѕυιcιdє (which rarely happened - it wasn't a fashionable thing to do back then and only became so when the stigma of doing it was removed - kind of like having a baby out of wedlock), or if a baby died without baptism, they were buried in an unconsecrated section in the Catholic cemetery. I don't think there was a funeral Mass either. Only some prayers said at graveside.

But I received a flyer in the mail the other day from the Marian priests in Stockbridge, Massachusetts, and in advertising a certain book ("After ѕυιcιdє") it said "The Catholic Church does not teach that someone who commits ѕυιcιdє automatically goes to hell" but I am almost certain that I was taught that they did because it was a mortal sin, and if you died with only one on your soul, you went to hell.

Alexandria · « **Reply #12 on:** June 24, 2019, 11:38:40 AM »

Double post

ByzCat3000 · « **Reply #13 on:** June 24, 2019, 02:48:41 PM »

Quote from: Alexandria on June 24, 2019, 11:38:02 AM

How about traditional Catholic teaching on ѕυιcιdє?

When I was growing up before VII, if anyone committed ѕυιcιdє (which rarely happened - it wasn't a fashionable thing to do back then and only became so when the stigma of doing it was removed - kind of like having a baby out of wedlock), or if a baby died without baptism, they were buried in an unconsecrated section in the Catholic cemetery. I don't think there was a funeral Mass either. Only some prayers said at graveside.

But I received a flyer in the mail the other day from the Marian priests in Stockbridge, Massachusetts, and in advertising a certain book ("After ѕυιcιdє") it said "The Catholic Church does not teach that someone who commits ѕυιcιdє automatically goes to hell" but I am almost certain that I was taught that they did because it was a mortal sin, and if you died with only one on your soul, you went to hell.

As far as I know there are three conditions for mortal sin. The gravity of the matter is one of them, and certainly applies, but the other two, full knowledge, and full consent of the will, are subjective to the person and only known for sure by God (and perhaps the sinner.)

Furthermore, we don't know for sure that a person couldn't make an act of perfect contrition between the moment they chose to kill themselves, and the moment they actually died.

Of course, saying some prayers at the person's graveside seems to indicate some level of lacking certainty. That doesn't mean you can commit ѕυιcιdє safely, just that in the end only God knows for sure a particular soul's level of subjective culpability and the judge of all the earth will do right/

2Vermont · « **Reply #14 on:** June 24, 2019, 03:07:00 PM »

Quote from: Alexandria on June 24, 2019, 11:38:02 AM

How about traditional Catholic teaching on ѕυιcιdє?

When I was growing up before VII, if anyone committed ѕυιcιdє (which rarely happened - it wasn't a fashionable thing to do back then and only became so when the stigma of doing it was removed - kind of like having a baby out of wedlock), or if a baby died without baptism, they were buried in an unconsecrated section in the Catholic cemetery. I don't think there was a funeral Mass either. Only some prayers said at graveside.

But I received a flyer in the mail the other day from the Marian priests in Stockbridge, Massachusetts, and in advertising a certain book ("After ѕυιcιdє") it said "The Catholic Church does not teach that someone who commits ѕυιcιdє automatically goes to hell" but I am almost certain that I was taught that they did because it was a mortal sin, and if you died with only one on your soul, you went to hell.

The confusion is the result of considering the Novus Ordo the same as the Catholic Church.

Author Topic: Question (Read 2061 times)

Alexandria

Question

Mega-fin

Re: Question

Pax Vobis

Re: Question

Alexandria

Re: Question

Incredulous

Re: Question

Alexandria

Re: Question

TKGS

Re: Question

Incredulous

Re: Question

Incredulous

Re: Question

JezusDeKoning

Re: Question

poche

Re: Question

Alexandria

Re: Question

Alexandria

Re: Question

ByzCat3000

Re: Question

2Vermont

Re: Question