Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
My speech is imperfect.  Mea culpa.  I am just the messenger.  Go read the Ottaviani report (see below link), which was produced by the top theologians in rome in the 60s.  You can also add a positive doubt to the new mass which did not exist in the 60s - the doubt over the new ordination rites and the episcopal consecrations.  However, even if a new mass was said with no doubts, even if we could say with 100% certainty that it is valid, this does not mean one can attend.  The validity of the mass is separate from its licitness and its morality.  The new mass is illegal and immoral, therefore sinful.

It is illegal because it violates Quo Primum, which Pope Benedict said is still a valid law and this law does not allow any other missal to be used, except the 62 missal, under pain of sin to the pope.

It is immoral because of many, many reasons - most notably because its theology is anti-Trent and protestantized, as +Ottaviani points out.  It is also immoral due to communion in the hand, irreverent dress of the laity and the atmosphere in general, which is an occasion of sin to one's Faith.
Popes that came after Pope St. Pius V changed the Roman missal. With the Church being in crisis today, wouldn't it be best to go back to the Pope Pius V missal? It will remove all sources of confusion and conflict.  
General Discussion / Re: Francis Kneels down and kisses..!!!!
« Last post by poche on Yesterday at 11:11:29 PM »
Ha ha!

Actually, all he is doing is exemplifying the practice of the new religion, showing he has the full understanding of it wherein man is Deified.  
From 1st John 2:10-11;
10 Anyone who loves his brother remains in light and there is in him nothing to make him fall away.
11 But whoever hates his brother is in darkness and is walking about in darkness not knowing where he is going, because darkness has blinded him.
SSPX Resistance News / Re: Fr. Hewko officially leaves Fr. Pfeiffer OLMC - Letter
« Last post by X on Yesterday at 11:09:40 PM »
Someone was asking about Holy Oils.  I found this:

With the recent abdication of Fr. Hewko from OLMC this question becomes relevant.   I found the following:

Oils in an Emergency
ROME, MAY 22, 2012 ( Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

Q: Could a priest bless paraffin oil in hospitals for emergency baptism, confirmation and the sacrament for the sick? This is the type of non-animal oil that is normally found in hospitals easily. I believe it is distilled from petroleum. Will the three sacraments given with such oil be valid because the proper oil is unavailable in emergencies? Second, what if a simple blessing in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit is given for the oil because the blessing formulae were unavailable, will the three sacraments for the seriously sick be still valid? — J.T., Taiwan

A: There are several questions involved here.
First, what oils are we referring to? For the sacraments the Catholic Church blesses three separate oils during the Chrism Mass on Holy Thursday. The oil of catechumens is used for the non-essential complementary rites of baptism. The oil of the sick constitutes the matter of the sacrament of anointing of the sick. And then there is chrism, which is the essential matter of the sacrament of confirmation and is also used during the complementary rites of baptism, priestly ordination and some other rites such as the dedication of a Church or altar.

The basic ingredient of the first two oils is olive oil; only the formula of blessing distinguishes one from the other. Chrism is a mixture of olive oil and balsam.
Of these three, only in the case of the oil of the sick is there foreseen the possibility of another oil being used and of the priest's blessing the oil in case of emergency. Pope Paul VI brought about this possibility in the 1972 apostolic constitution Sacram Unctione Infirmorum. Referring to the matter of the sacrament the Holy Father established:
"Further, since olive oil, which hitherto had been prescribed for the valid administration of the sacrament, is unobtainable or difficult to obtain in some parts of the world, we decreed, at the request of numerous bishops, that in the future, according to the circumstances, oil of another sort could also be used, provided it were obtained from plants, inasmuch as this more closely resembles the matter indicated in Holy Scripture."

He also permitted that priests could bless this oil in case of emergency. This norm was later incorporated into Canon 999 of the Code of Canon Law which determines who may bless the oil:

"In addition to a bishop, the following can bless the oil to be used in the anointing of the sick: 1) those equivalent to a diocesan bishop by law; 2) any presbyter in a case of necessity, but only in the actual celebration of the sacrament.

"Canon 1000 §1. The anointings with the words, order, and manner prescribed in the liturgical books are to be performed carefully. In a case of necessity, however, a single anointing on the forehead or even on some other part of the body is sufficient, while the entire formula is said."

In those cases where the priest has blessed the oil himself for a particular situation, No. 22 of the Order for the Pastoral Care of the sick stipulates, "If any of the oil is left after the celebration of the sacrament, it should be absorbed in cotton (cotton wool) and burned."

Unlike the case of the sacrament of the sick, Canon 880 §2 states, "The chrism to be used in the sacrament of confirmation must be consecrated by a bishop even if a presbyter administers the sacrament."

There are less-specific norms regarding the oil of catechumens because this oil is not essential to the sacrament and in an emergency it is sufficient to baptize with water using the Trinitarian formula. At the same time, the ritual foresees the possibility of carrying out all the rites in an abbreviated form.
If a person who receives an emergency baptism survives, the post-baptismal complementary rites (anointing with chrism, the white garment, and baptismal candle) are usually carried out at a convenient date in a church or oratory.

Therefore, to answer the specific questions of our reader:

— Paraffin oil is not suitable as valid material for any sacrament. If olive oil is unavailable for anointing the sick, another vegetable oil may be used. Chrism and the oil of catechumens must be that blessed by the bishop. It is thus incumbent on the parish priest and hospital chaplain to make sure that he has all three oils readily available.
— Only the oil of the sick may be blessed by a priest in emergency cases. One of the three formulas for blessing this oil must be used as appropriate in order to assure validity. The third formula, for exceptional circumstances, is the briefest: "Bless + Lord, your gift of oil and our brother/sister N., that it may bring him/her relief." It would not be sufficient to make a generic blessing with no mention of the context of the sacrament of the sick.

* * *
Follow-up: Oils in an Emergency [6-5-2012]
In the wake of our comments on blessing of holy oils by a priest (see May 22), an attentive reader called my attention to an oversight on my part regarding the blessing of the oil of catechumens. To wit:

"Regarding the Oil of Catechumens, the general 'Rite of Blessing of Oils, Rite of Consecrating the Chrism,' found in an appendix in the previous English Sacramentary, in No. 7 of the introduction does mention the possibility of a priest blessing the Oil of Catechumens for 'pastoral reasons.' This permission is also found in the RCIA, at No. 101 in the U.S. English edition (or No. 129 of the Latin original)."

The text of the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults says, "The oil used for this rite is to be the oil blessed by the bishop at the chrism Mass, but for pastoral reasons a priest celebrant may bless oil for the rite immediately before the anointing."
Another reader asked about the mixing of blessed and unblessed oil for the sacraments. We addressed this question in an earlier response and follow-up on Jan. 30 and Feb. 13, 2007.[/font][/size]

The use of vegetable oil for Extreme Unction (or its diluted counterpart, "Anointing of the Sick" in the conciliar religion) would almost certainly be invalidating.

In fact, I feel guilty adding in the "almost."

St. Thomas Aquinas explains that the sacrament was instituted by Christ Himself, and that oil properly speaking is exclusively olive oil (i.e., Everything else we call oil is so-called merely for its likeness to [olive] oil, but is not truly oil."

It would be analogous to attempting to confect the Eucharist with Sake (i.e., Japanese rice "wine"): Rice "wine" is not really any wine at all, which is exclusively derived from the grape, but is merely called "wine" because of its likeness to it.

Here is St. Thomas (Be sure to read at least article 3-4):
What decisions are being made, other than following canon law, which says that you may not attend doubtful masses and sacraments?  
If the top theologians in rome say the new mass can be positively doubtful, then what other facts are there to include?  I'll be happy to read, if you provide.
Did not the top theologians like Cardinal Ottaviani and Cardinal Bacci who co-wrote the Ottaviani-Bacci intervention stay back in Rome? Though we face a crisis in the Church today, does the treatise of these top theologians give the laity permission to subjectively make decisions on ecclesiastical matters?
General Discussion / Re: Were the Jews forgiven on Good Friday?
« Last post by poche on Yesterday at 11:04:22 PM »
Jesus was talking about the Romans, not the Jews, when He said "forgive them father for they know not what they do". The Romans were manipulated by the Jews to crucify Christ. The Romans involved in the crucifixion still needed to repent of the sin in order to be forgiven, and this was already explained earlier in the thread. The Jews knew exactly what they were doing. They rejected and conspired against Christ to have him crucified by the Romans whom they manipulated to do it. He dwelt among them in the flesh, but they still rejected Him because He didn't fit their worldly, vain, exclusive clique of Jewish race, messiah. They rejected the Truth and willed it among themselves to not know Him, even after He ministered to them and showed Himself to be the true Messiah. As a result, the Jews became cursed and they pass down the curse to every subsequent generation as long as they continue to reject Him and not become baptized.
He was talking about everybody. If the Jews had realized who he really was they would never have crucified him. But even then Jesus would still have given his life.
SSPX Resistance News / Re: Fr. Pfeiffer's Moran excommunicates fr. Hewko
« Last post by psalter on Yesterday at 11:00:36 PM »
Quote from: St Paul on Thu April 11, 2019, 08:28:46 AM »
These are all violations of canon law. 

Good thing i am neither a canon lawyer nor a bishop!
This is why priests must have superiors, to help guide them to stay on the straight and narrow.  
 Wait, what??  ???
Crisis in the Church / Re: Cum ex apostolatus officio
« Last post by Pax Vobis on Yesterday at 11:00:11 PM »
But I'm pretty sure Pius X and Pius XII changed the conclave rules.  I've also heard that this was brought up as a challenge to Vatican I on papal infallibility.

TBH I don't see how a bull like this is practically enforceable.  Like even if a heretic actually does (like in the eyes of God) automatically lose office, who gets to decide that he's lost his office?
Fantastic points!

Also, those who love to quote Cum Ex fail to take into account that the use of the term “heretic” is canon law’s definition, which means pernicious heresy, which can only be decided by Church officials, after a rebuke/trial process.  In other words, once the Church determines that person A is a heretic, then Cum Ex could possibly apply.  But too many people erroneously think that THEY can determine who is or isn’t a heretic!  Ridiculous!

Any catholic can judge what another says or believes as heretical statements or heretical ideals, but we don’t have the authority to label them a heretic formally.  

The necessity of an ecclesiastical process and 2 public rebukes (per St Paul’s instructions), is shown by the current “Dubia” letter sent to +Francis.  This is also how St Bellarmine outlined his theories on if a pope could be deposed.  Noting could happen without first being a declaration of heresy.  This declaration cannot be determined privately, or personally.  That’s Protestantism.  
Health and Nutrition / Re: Cutting Avocados can cause permanent damage to hand
« Last post by Nadir on Yesterday at 10:51:12 PM »
A delicious way to eat an avo is to halve it, scoop out the seed, place a spoon of sugar in the hole then sqeeze lemon juice into it and mash a little with your spoon. Better still use percolated coffee instead of lemon. Yum yum!
That’s the way I see it, but it’s just my opinion.  If the pope holds the material office, he can still appoint bishops and change the human aspects of Church law, since this is part of the governing papal powers. 
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10