Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
Anonymous Posts Allowed / Re: Mass with no server
« Last post by Ladislaus on Yesterday at 07:44:58 PM »
I disagree with the practice of allowing women to say the responses during Mass ... even if it is outside the sanctuary.  I consider this a grave abuse.  It's in line with the Novus Ordo's re-casting of the responses at Mass as simply an act of popular participation rather than a public act of the Church.

Now, I also disagree with allowing lay altar servers say the responses.  I believe that these should be uttered by someone in the clerical state.  I believe that the original intent of the Minor Orders needs to be re-established and that all those in the Sanctuary should have received at least Minor Orders.
General Discussion / Re: How to infiltrate a forum
« Last post by claudel on Yesterday at 06:30:02 PM »
Were it not for the usual metus Judaeorum, the OP of the article might have called these disinformation and misdirection devices what they truly are: hasbara trolling techniques. But in American politics, truth is a weapon that is invariably lethal to the career and often even the livelihood of those who employ it.

There is effectively no limit to what Jews and those in their pay will do or say to subvert the truth or prevent its discovery.

I hope it's okay to post a couple of good quotes from the SAJM newsletter. It's easy to see the integrity and goodwill with which of Bp. Faure describes the seminary, as well as the description of the reality of the situation with the SSPX, which he mentions without enmity or rancor toward the SSPX. 

These two paragraphs come from the section titled..."The Seminary of hope for many:"

"If the work of the seminary and SAJM is to resist the modernist torrent, it is first and foremost to train priests in the spirit of Archbishop Lefebvre and Catholic Tradition. Far be it from us to train embittered or resentful priests, but on the contrary, proud and happy priests to carry the message of salvation to the four corners of the earth and to save as many souls as God wills through their ministry.

But this seminary of hope requires a great energy. It took the courage of Archbishop Lefebvre to save tradition. Today it is our turn to continue this work without weakening."
In order to clear my mind of the borderline heresy Atila is expressing, I looked for a simple explanation of Acquinas and found this article by Father Basil Cole, OP. Some of this is over my head, but I can understand enough to see that Mr. Guimarães is not only wrong, but is deliberately misleading his followers by his misuse of St. Thomas.
 Aquinas' Contribution to the Question of Chastity O.P. Marriage - Part ll
 Aquinas' Supplementum
     It is when the reader becomes familiar with Thomas's teaching on marriage in the Supplementum, (a compilation of his earlier writings by his secretary, Blessed Reginald Piperno, perhaps other secretaries and perhaps other disciples,) that he can discover more about the range of the virtue of chastity.
 How Is the Marriage Act Not Sinful?
     . . . If we suppose the corporeal nature to be created by the good God, we cannot hold that those things which pertain to the preservation of the corporeal nature and to which nature inclines are universally evil; wherefore, since the inclination to beget an offspring whereby the specific nature is preserved is from nature, it is impossible to maintain that the act of begetting children is universally unlawful, so that it be impossible to find the mean of virtue therein; unless we suppose, as some are mad enough to assert, that corruptible things were created by an evil god... wherefore this is a most wicked heresy (ST, vol. 3). . .
 Why Can the Marital Act be Meritorious?
     When the Supplementum speaks about a marriage act being meritorious, it gives further light on the character of a chaste marital act. Before reading the reply to question 41a.4, the fifth objection is important to note:
     Further, that which cannot be done without venial sin is never meritorious, for a man cannot both merit and demerit at the same time. Now there is always a venial sin in the marriage act, since even the first movement in such like pleasures is a venial sin. Therefore the aforesaid act cannot be meritorious.
     The Supplementum begins its argument in the two sed contras: any act is meritorious if done from charity, and quotes Paul, saying ''let the Husband render the debt to his wife''; and since every act of virtue is meritorious when prompted by charity, rendering the debt is an act of justice. The reply gives further nuances:
     Since no act proceeding from a deliberate will is indifferent..., the marriage act is always either sinful or meritorious in one who is in the state of grace. For if the motive for the marriage act be a virtue, whether of justice that they may render the debt, or of religion, that they may beget children for the worship of God, it is meritorious. But if the motive be lust, yet not excluding the marriage blessings, namely that he would by no means be willing to go to another woman, it is a venial sin, while if he exclude the marriage blessing, so as to be disposed to act in like manner with any woman, it is a mortal sin. And nature cannot move without being either directed by reason, and thus it will be an act of virtue, or not so directed, and then it will be an act of lust.
     Someone who is simply inclined by the desire of pleasure alone and does not direct it to a good end, may be sinning venially, as long as his or her intention is not contrary to the goods of marriage. Any partner may be committing a mortal sin, however, if the act is done simply and exclusively from a love of pleasure as an end in itself as if the spouse were solely a ''pleasure machine.''
     The first movements of sexual arousal mentioned in the fifth objection can be the occasion of virtue or vice depending on what a person does with these movements as is the case with any temptation against any virtue.
     Of themselves, the first movements of any sin are called in many places in the Summa ''venial sins,'' but analogously so, not univocally because they do not yet engage the consent of the will but are in some sense disorderly due to original sin and frequently the residue of past personal sin. So they can be turned to virtue or sin by the intellect and will.
 The Goods of Marriage as Motivators
     In question 49, article 4, the Supplementum explains more what they mean by the goods of marriage. It begins with a very pertinent objection, which is the first one:
     It would seem that the marriage act cannot be altogether entirely without sin by the aforesaid goods of marriage [Here understood as offspring, fidelity and sacrament]. For whoever allows himself to lose a greater good for the sake of a lesser good sins because he allows it inordinately. Now the good of reason which is prejudiced in the marriage act is greater than the three marriage goods. Therefore the aforesaid goods do not suffice to excuse marital intercourse.
     Objection three offers another hurdle to overcome in order to appreciate marital chastity:
     Further, wherever there is immoderate passion there is moral vice. Now the marriage goods cannot prevent the pleasure in that act from being immoderate. Therefore they cannot excuse it from being a sin.
     The reply is a lesson in fundamental moral theology, the second half of which shows what a signified act is:
      ...Now a human act is said to be good in two ways. In one way by goodness of virtue, and thus an act derives its goodness from those things which place it in the mean. This is what ''fidelity'' and ''offspring'' do in the marriage act... In another way, by goodness of the ''sacrament,'' in which way an act is said to be not only good, but also holy, and the marriage act derives this goodness from indissolubility of the union, in respect of which it signifies union of Christ with the Church. Thus it is clear that the aforesaid goods suffice to render the marriage act innocent.
 Father Cole, O.P., is associate professor at the Dominican House of Studies in Washington, D.C., and is the author of The Hidden Enemies of the Priesthood
The OP is from TIA, and approved by Atila. Atila then goes on to misrepresent St. Thomas Aquinas in an attempt to justify his own odd attitudes regarding the marital act. He says:

  • In the human body the organs that are the most shameful are those that are used to discharge the filth produced by the body; they are the penis, the vagina and the anus. The last is more shameful than the first two because it discharges solid detritus, while the others discharge liquid detritus, but these organs also are disgusting and shameful. Now then, the male and female sexual functions are put into practice by these shameful organs. Therefore, it is undeniable that they share something of the same disgusting character of their other function.
  • Even though the function of reproduction is much nobler than the function of eliminating the impurities of the body, there is a universally accepted association of those functions and, consequently, a natural psychological repulsion to view these organs.
  • The repugnance for the exposition of these organs – either when they are in action or not – is universal among civilized people. Even among primitive and pagan people these organs are normally covered by clothing. To reach the point of boldly exhibiting these organs in public, a person or a group needs to have reached a great degree of moral degradation by losing any reserve of pudor or shame.
  • The fact that the sexual organs trigger the process of concupiscence and as such become greatly attractive – either in marriage or outside of it – does not nullify the normal repulsion they raise. So then, reactions of both shame and attraction are present regarding these organs.
  • As it is known, regarding sexual activity outside of marriage, the Church has two Commandments – 6th and 9th – that oblige Catholics not to engage in it, either in thought or deed. Regarding the licit sexual activity inside marriage, there are also precise rules to control concupiscence and avoid lust.
  • Reinforcing this general moral, psychological and hygienic reserve regarding the sexual organs, the Church has always recommended modesty in dress, prohibiting even the remote exhibition of these organs, which she wisely calls pudenda pars (shameful parts). Morally speaking, the pudenda pars include the three mentioned organs plus the female breasts, whose exposition also ignite concupiscence in men and induce them to lust.
  • Therefore, we see that the sexual organs are tainted with the shame proper to the function of eliminating human waste, which is another function they have parallel to that of procreation. Consequently, the marital act shares an analogous repulsion.
6. The marital act produces an impression of dishonor
  • Confirming the general sentiment of shame regarding the sexual act – either inside or outside of marriage – here, I offer the reader an in-depth explanation of the first instinctive reactions of dishonor and indignity that man has to the marital act, which invite him to refrain from it and, collaterally, oblige it to take place in the secrecy of the private life.
« Last post by confederate catholic on Yesterday at 04:44:58 PM »
Poche has overstepped common sense. How can you argue with the Fathers of the church on truth and be Catholic
How exactly is an opinion article "usurping authority over a man"? When your wife makes a suggestion or tells you an interesting fact she heard, do you start screeching about her "teaching" you an "usurping authority over a man"? The verse refers to women actually being adult men's tutors or leaders, etc.
You are a feminist brother if you can't see that article as an attempt to teach
« Last post by Nadir on Yesterday at 04:26:43 PM »

pretty sure St Basil didn't say traditional Catholic
He certainly did not. These are words of Poche, 
One mortal sin committed by the soul of a traditional Catholic, a chosen soul who should know who Jesus is an should love Jesus above all else, causes more pain to Jesus than the outrages of the infidels who don't know Him. 

...against the words of St Basil the great
I find the monitoring of CI incredibly creepy.
We are at war :boxer:with the principalities and their human minions. We monitor them; they monitor us. :)
Tread carefully, pray heartily and constantly for one another. :incense:
Praise the Lord, pray the Rosary and pass the ammunition, and we'll all be free! :cowboy:
Anonymous Posts Allowed / Re: Mass with no server
« Last post by Nadir on Yesterday at 04:17:11 PM »
Bells are not an essential part of the Mass, but a trimming (for want of a better word). He could have somebody in the church answer the responses or he could say them himself.
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]