Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 20
1
SSPX Resistance News / Re: Universal doubtful intention
« Last post by Pax Vobis on Today at 05:42:53 AM »
Great points, Stubborn.

Boru, for the 4th time, could a future pope reverse Pius XiIs decision on the dogma of the Assumption?
2
SSPX Resistance News / Re: Universal doubtful intention
« Last post by Stubborn on Today at 05:38:10 AM »
You make a valid point. Yes, St. James was around the time of St. Peter. However, as I have outlined to Angelus, the earliest form of confirmation - before oils were introduced - was the laying of hands. It was the Church - the Apostles - who decided that chrism would be used as the "matter" instead.
Well, we are talking about the Last Rites re the link you provided on the new sacrament of anointing of the sick, not confirmation. You are trying to tie two different sacraments to the same exception. I opine that if the Church still had the Apostles as bishops instead of just their successors, then the imposition of hands would still be the matter.

But you have to realize that when the Church spoke is when the Council of Florence decreed the matter to be olive oil, then the matter is olive oil for all time. When that same council decreed if olive oil is lacking that the sacrament is not effected, then without olive oil the sacrament is not effected for all time. This stands forever, nobody can modify or in any way change this. Any more than anyone can change the matter of chrism in Confirmation, or water in baptism.   

The Church does not change the matter of her sacraments, the new church does this. We had our Pentecost, that was when the Church was born, the birthday of the Church. The conciliar church had their Pentecost at V2, that's when their church was born. The conciliar church is built on change, the Catholic Church is built on a rock - it don't change for nuthin' or nobody.     
  
3
Anσnymσus Posts Allowed / Re: SSPX Fake Priests
« Last post by Pax Vobis on Today at 05:02:56 AM »
Not so fast. That was taken ad verbatim from the May 5, 1988 Protocol signed between Archbishop Lefebvre and Cardinal Ratzinger, which was then rescinded because the Archbishop felt Rome couldn't be trusted on the issue of setting a date for the consecration of bishops, not because he disagreed with the Protocol. These can all be found in Marcel Lefebvre: The Biography by Bishop Tissier de Mallerais.
So what?  ABL isn’t infallible.  If the FORM of new rites are so ambiguous and poorly worded that they require a MENTAL intention of the minister, then that’s pathetic.  And dangerous.  And highly doubtful.  
4
Nice!
Maybe you can download and add  this talk from 1974 given by Fr. Altenbach on Quo Primum. I think it would be a great addition to your collection.
5
Anσnymσus Posts Allowed / Re: SSPX Fake Priests
« Last post by Änσnymσus on Today at 04:29:42 AM »
Also, +Lefebvre's position isn't that of God either, as it's well known that he vacillated somewhat, especially on issues like this.

In addition, the Mr. Stark episode took place during at time when +Lefebvre had swung to the left, was trying to reach a +Fellay-ite practical agreement with Rome, begging them to let him make the "experiment of Tradition" within the Conciliar pantheon.  He went left on quite a few issues in the early 1980s.  But then by 1985 or so, he swung back to the other direction.

After about the mid-1980s until several years into the +Fellay era, I have not heard of a single priest who was allowed to work with SSPX who had not received conditional ordination.  There were a couple suspects, but then when someone did a bit of digging, aka asked Bishop Williamson, in every case I know of +Williamson affirmed that a conditional had been performed.  I don't know of any cases where the presider REFUSED it either, but then much of that happened behind closed doors we'll never know, and we can't prove a negative.  HAD some priest refused in, say, the late 1980s through about the year 2000, I'm certain that the SSPX would have just said, thanks but no thanks, and go find somewhere else to exercise your ministry ... if for no other reason than they didn't want to deal with backlash from the faithful.

Bishop Williamson, for instance, felt the NO Rites were valid, but he nevertheless believed the faithful could not-unreasonably come to a different conclusion and that the had a right to be at peace about the validity of the Sacraments.  In other words, he did not have the hubris to impose his conclusion on the consciences of others like neo-SSPX are doing todya.
Was there not a case of two brothers, both ordained in the new rite, who joined the SSPX sometime in the 1980s?  Both were offered conditional ordination by  +ABL one accepted and the other refused.
6
I’ve been told by a priest that gelatin used for medication, like capsules, liquid, or chewable does not break abstinence or fast including Eucharistic fast if taking it cannot be delayed. In these cases, it is a vehicle to convey medication to the body, not a food or drink. Nobody eats a Z-pack of Zithromycin, drinks Mucinex, or eats omeprazole gel tabs for GERD!
 
What about those taking vitamins? Assuming it's not for medicinal reasons.
7
I’ve been told by a priest that gelatin used for medication, like capsules, liquid, or chewable does not break abstinence or fast including Eucharistic fast if taking it cannot be delayed. In these cases, it is a vehicle to convey medication to the body, not a food or drink. Nobody eats a Z-pack of Zithromycin, drinks Mucinex, or eats omeprazole gel tabs for GERD!
 
8
Health and Nutrition / Re: CDC lawsuit
« Last post by Seraphina on Today at 12:36:03 AM »
I’m happy to see Dr. Paul Thomas listed as among those suing. He wrote an excellent book regarding pediatric vaccination scheduling in 2016 which ultimately resulted in him losing his medical license, his well-established pediatric practice, loss of income resulting in bankruptcy and loss of his house. His wife then divorced him.  
His YouTube channel mysteriously just disappeared around 2018. This 🐮💩 has been going on for a long while, pre-dating covid. The C-sickness and 💉just brought it to a head. 
9
Computers, Technology, Websites / Re: Out of Work
« Last post by Seraphina on Today at 12:20:00 AM »
THIS ^^^  :pray:
^^Same here!^^ Still praying! :pray: My sister got a promotion to road test coordinator at her driving school. The strange thing is that she has worked for this school with a breaks for two years of college and two years of having babies in some capacity since she was 18. Her college was totally useless and she flunked out just before the end of her second (of four) years. She was supposedly majoring in business management, but in reality, majored in socializing!  She only went because our parents thought a college degree was a guarantee to “a steady, well-paying job.” They forced her to go and ended up repaying the loan.
Parents! If your child isn’t interested in college, do not force the matter! It’s no longer 1985!  
She went to a “Catholic” school and it was more liberal and the students partied harder and crazier than at my state school. 
10
Politics and World Leaders / Re: Fuentes cucks on abortion
« Last post by Mark 79 on Today at 12:07:25 AM »
Frankly, I have been click-baited into watched the beginnings of a couple of his videos. I never got more than a few minutes into any of them. When Fuentes's faults reach the level of a Netanyahu, Soros, or Rothschild, let me know. Is Fuentes really worth all the fuss? Why not hunt "bigger game"?
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 20