Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => The Sacred: Catholic Liturgy, Chant, Prayers => Topic started by: Matthew on September 01, 2022, 09:06:17 AM
-
From Mt St Michael's in Spokane WA twitter:
Faithful parishioner Mrs. Myrna Migala passed away at 82 yrs of age on Wed, 8/17. She was fortified with all the Last Rites of the Church. Please pray for the repose of her soul. Funeral is Mon, 8/22, at 9:30am (Rosary at 9am). RIP
https://www.cathinfo.com/profile/MyrnaM/
-
Sending Prayers.
-
:pray:
-
:pray: Eternal rest grant unto her oh Lord and let perpetual light shine upon her. May she rest in peace. Amen.
-
:(:'(:'(:'(
(https://i.imgur.com/pSIlTDG.png)
:'(:'((https://i.imgur.com/3yAl2eC.png)
"He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned." - Mark 16:16
-
Eternal rest grant unto her O Lord. A good example of forum kindness and Catholic charity that we would all be wise to follow.
-
"He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned." - Mark 16:16
Myrna and I had many arguments over a BOD and sedeism but we remained friends because she was that kind of lady. The OP said she had the Last Rites (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-library/extreme-unction-(the-anointing-of-the-dying)-great-indeed-are-it's-effects/), which is a very special gift given directly from God to her, to me this all means that she died as one who believeth, one of the faithful departed, one of the lucky ones for having received the sacrament of the dying. Please pray for the repose of her soul.
-
:pray:
-
The EOs receive last rites too.
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “So, with every reason for doubting removed, can it be lawful for anyone to reject any of those truths without thereby sending himself headlong into open heresy? without thereby separating himself from the Church and in one sweeping act repudiating the entirety of Christian doctrine?... he who dissents in even one point from divinely received truths has most truly cast off the faith completely, since he refuses to revere God as the supreme truth and proper motive of faith.”
Yes, but EOs have been formally declared schismatics and heretics by the Church. Trad groups would at worst be undeclared heretics, and at that, only condemned by other trad groups, such as MHFM.
We don't have any knowledge of her eternal state here. She died as she lived.
-
Undeclared heretics go to hell too.
Yes, but, you were implying that the Last Rites here are the same as those given by declared heretics and schismatics.
-
Augustineeens, please do not take this the wrong way. At all.
But why did you spark up a debate on an obituary? It just feels a little slimy. Not an assessment of your character at all, just an observation about the situation.
-
Augustineeens, please do not take this the wrong way. At all.
But why did you spark up a debate on an obituary? It just feels a little slimy. Not an assessment of your character at all, just an observation about the situation.
Because it should be said in charity and to avoid scandal, that heretics should not be prayed for after death.
(https://i.imgur.com/DzCxNmM.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/ufoJlnG.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/XoNsBdf.jpg)
It's the charitable thing to do in the hope of waking up the heretics who are on the same path by pertinaciously rejecting the true Faith. It is a grave scandal and rejection of the Faith to pray for a heretic after death.
-
They are still the same valid sacraments, yes.
Yes. But, one is coming from men who have been formally condemned by the Church. The other coming from men only condemned by MHFM. So to base your assumption of her eternal state off of that doesn't seem prudent.
Especially since there's clearly a distinction between the BOD of the theologians and that of the Modernists, of which Myrna here appears to have held to the former. So unless Ss. Thomas, Alphonsus and Bellarmine are all presumed lost. I would say its best to avoid coming to that conclusion without any other information.
-
Trent:
"But it is consonant to the divine authority, that this reservation of cases have effect, not merely in external polity, but also in God's sight. Nevertheless, for fear lest any may perish on this account, it has always been very piously observed in the said Church of God, that there be no reservation at the point of death, and that therefore all priests may absolve all penitents whatsoever from every kind of sins and censures whatever: and as, save at that point of death, priests have no power in reserved cases, let this alone be their endeavour, to persuade penitents to repair to superior and lawful judges for the benefit of absolution."
God established the sacrament of Extreme Unction for a reason, don't underestimate the power of that sacrament.
Eternal rest grant unto Myrna Oh Lord and let perpetual light shine upon her.
-
Rest in peace Myrna, I'll miss you. :pray:
-
There are not a few persons on CathInfo that might wish all their CI posts never existed, when it comes time to be judged by God.
In other words, there are many members who, if they died, many posts could be quoted with little crying "smilies" posted above them (implying a serious cause for worry about their salvation).
Myrna is not one of them. On the contrary! She showed herself quite charitable and an excellent example of how to behave toward fellow Catholics -- even those with whom you have minor disagreements -- during this epic Crisis in the Church.
-
Myrna has blessed CathInfo one more time, this time AFTER departing this life, by indirectly causing an enemy of God (AugustineEens) to rage and expose himself as a piece of trash that needed to be taken out, as it were.
And now CathInfo is a little better place -- thanks to Myrna's life and example.
I've been moderating CathInfo a long time, but the posts of AugustineEens in this thread are one of the lowest things I've seen in my years on CathInfo.
"AugustineEens" is a sorry excuse for a Catholic, and is no doubt a huge follower of the Dimond Brothers -- one of the biggest black eyes in the Traditional Movement.
Beware groups like MHFM (Dimond Brothers) who are classic Pharisees who get so caught up in "doctrinal purity" they start condemning others and completely forget about charity, or the fact that there is a Crisis in the Church. Or who forget that some things are defined dogma, and other things are matters for debate. Also the classic Dogma vs. Opinion distinction. MHFM gets all of those things wrong.
I'm sorry, but having read all of AugustineEens's posts in this thread, I do NOT see Christ there. Whatever religion he is selling, whatever he is pushing, I want NO part of.
P.S. I'm dead-serious: this AugustineEens character, if he had been a Jєω in 33 AD, he would have condemned Our Lord for healing on the Sabbath, etc. I'm not just name-calling here. I'm saying I detect the same pride, bitter zeal, legalism, coldness, extinguishing of charity that the Pharisees were guilty of.
-
Myrna has blessed CathInfo one more time, this time AFTER departing this life, by indirectly causing an enemy of God (AugustineEens) to rage and expose himself as a piece of trash that needed to be taken out, as it were.
And now CathInfo is a little better place -- thanks to Myrna's life and example.
I've been moderating CathInfo a long time, but the posts of AugustineEens in this thread are one of the lowest things I've seen in my years on CathInfo.
"AugustineEens" is a sorry excuse for a Catholic, and is no doubt a huge follower of the Dimond Brothers -- one of the biggest black eyes in the Traditional Movement.
Beware groups like MHFM (Dimond Brothers) who are classic Pharisees who get so caught up in "doctrinal purity" they start condemning others and completely forget about charity, or the fact that there is a Crisis in the Church. Or who forget that some things are defined dogma, and other things are matters for debate. Also the classic Dogma vs. Opinion distinction. MHFM gets all of those things wrong.
I'm sorry, but having read all of AugustineEens's posts in this thread, I do NOT see Christ there. Whatever religion he is selling, whatever he is pushing, I want NO part of.
Good. I'm appalled.
RIP Myrna.
-
Myrna will be missed... She was a sweet lady and I enjoyed conversing with her.
Requiescat in pace! :pray::pray::pray:
-
It was incredibly shady to use an obituary to "discuss Trent".
-
augusteens is anything but a "sorry excuse for a Catholic". He's a pious, zealous soul who isn't given over to human respect. I obviously don't agree with him on everything, but to go that far is pure emotionalism.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/MNS0Uoi.png)
Myrna Ann Migala
May 18, 1940 ~ August 17, 2022 (age 82)
-
augusteens is anything but a "sorry excuse for a Catholic". He's a pious, zealous soul who isn't given over to human respect. I obviously don't agree with him on everything, but to go that far is pure emotionalism.
DL....his post was totally inappropriate when discussing the death of a former Catholic member.
-
:pray: :pray: :pray:
-
DL....his post was totally inappropriate when discussing the death of a former Catholic member.
Exactly. If he were at someone's wake and pulled the same stunt, he'd be shown the door or worse. You don't get to do that and think it's doing anyone any good.
-
Goodbye for now, truly valiant woman, Myrna. May your dear soul rest in peace.
-
Myrna was so lovely and kind. Will miss her.:pray:
-
(https://i.imgur.com/3mZyhNd.png)
-
May Myrna Rest In Peace.
I will miss her.
-
:pray::pray::pray:
Prayers for the Faithful Departed (https://catholicharboroffaithandmorals.com/All Souls Day.html)
-
Thank you for posting the lovely picture Miseremini, I assume you pulled it from the funeral home web site. I was hoping there would have been more of an obituary, but just the service information is given.
Myrna was such a lovely and kind person, as others have said. As I recall, she had her challenges caring for family members and her own health issues, but always had uplifting and faith affirming input here.
I hope to visit Spokane later this month (I’m about 130 miles south) and will try to visit her grave at The Mount (I presume she was buried at the cemetery there).
-
(https://i.imgur.com/MNS0Uoi.png)
Myrna Ann Migala
May 18, 1940 ~ August 17, 2022 (age 82)
Thank you for posting. May she rest in peace.
-
augusteens is anything but a "sorry excuse for a Catholic". He's a pious, zealous soul who isn't given over to human respect. I obviously don't agree with him on everything, but to go that far is pure emotionalism.
I agree with DL. I don't know much about augusteens but I don't think his misguided and unfortunate comments conclusively show he is a bad Catholic.
I assume he posted this in spite of himself being compelled by what he assumed was his duty.
I hope augusteens that you won't be cold to others so that God will not be cold to you.
Follow the advice of St. Augustine: “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.”
And I also pray you aren't driven to bitterness for being harshly reprimanded by others but reflect upon yourself and be grateful that "for once they have told the truth about me", as St. Francis said always when he was abused and derided.
-
:pray::pray::pray:
-
Rest In Peace :pray:.
-
RIP Myrna. I have very fond memories of reading your posts over many years, and always found you to carry yourself with the Love of Christ in your heart and on your lips. May He reward you for that and overlook your iniquities.
Matthew, thank you for keeping order in the thread and making it clear what the right standard of conduct is for these types of threads.
-
Such a great loss. Farewell Myrna.
:pray::pray::pray:
-
From Mt St Michael's in Spokane WA twitter:
Faithful parishioner Mrs. Myrna Migala passed away at 82 yrs of age on Wed, 8/17. She was fortified with all the Last Rites of the Church. Please pray for the repose of her soul. Funeral is Mon, 8/22, at 9:30am (Rosary at 9am). RIP
https://www.cathinfo.com/profile/MyrnaM/
Interestingly, one of her last posts says that she knew her time was short.
-
:pray: Rest in Peace.
-
I agree with DL. I don't know much about augusteens but I don't think his misguided and unfortunate comments conclusively show he is a bad Catholic.
I assume he posted this in spite of himself being compelled by what he assumed was his duty.
I hope augusteens that you won't be cold to others so that God will not be cold to you.
Follow the advice of St. Augustine: “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.”
And I also pray you aren't driven to bitterness for being harshly reprimanded by others but reflect upon yourself and be grateful that "for once they have told the truth about me", as St. Francis said always when he was abused and derided.
I accidentally upvoted this. Oh well
but this isn’t “non essential”
-
May her soul Rest In Peace. :incense::pray:
-
:pray::incense::pray:
R.I.P. Thankful to have known you, Myrna, even if only online.
-
augusteens is anything but a "sorry excuse for a Catholic". He's a pious, zealous soul who isn't given over to human respect. I obviously don't agree with him on everything, but to go that far is pure emotionalism.
MyrnaM only ever defended BoD citing Church sources, as it clearly showed in the post augusteens quoted. It's absolutely clear that her only wish was to conform to the Church's teaching and even if you believe her understanding of it (which she shares with many saints and 99% of Catholic clergy, even Trads, even pre-V2) is erroneous, it's impossible to be a heretic while if you believe you're just following Church teaching.
It's simply calumny and slander to call someone a heretic for that.
-
MyrnaM only ever defended BoD citing Church sources, as it clearly showed in the post augusteens quoted. It's absolutely clear that her only wish was to conform to the Church's teaching and even if you believe her understanding of it (which she shares with many saints and 99% of Catholic clergy, even Trads, even pre-V2) is erroneous, it's impossible to be a heretic while if you believe you're just following Church teaching.
It's simply calumny and slander to call someone a heretic for that.
I'm going on Father Hesse's opinion on the subject of Baptism(s).
He said this issue will not be decided until a future Pope speaks dogmatically on the subject.
It's safe to say ALL Catholics on Cathinfo agree that one has to be Baptized to enter Heaven.
But we don't all agree on the method of receiving the Sacrament.
Lady Myrna had her own opinions on it. Matthew and Sean Johnson have their views too.
I don't see where one opinion or the other is heretical?
Matthew may throw us in the Feeneyite ghetto for believing in EENS and One Baptism, but that just his moderator's opinion.
We can all safely pray for Lady Myrna and when we meet in Heaven, laugh about it... so I hope.
-
:pray:
Eternal Rest Grant unto Lady Myrna Oh Lord.
-
Requiem æternam dona ei, Domine, et lux perpetua luceat eis. Requiescat in pace.
-
I understand what AugustineEENS was doing. Based on his PREMISES (which I hold to be faulty), he wasn't acting inconsistently. It's like a syllogism that is correct, but the conclusion fails since one of the premises is faulty.
So let's imagine that some Protestant or non-Catholic has passed away, and Catholics who perhaps like the individual on a natural level start singing his praises and publicly praying for the repose of his soul. That should in fact be corrected, as it's a grave contradiction of Church teaching. Or of someone has committed ѕυιcιdє, and people start expressing good hope for his salvation and being in a better place (as the Conciliar Church do), that too should be corrected, tactfully, rather than allowing emotions like compassion or sympathy to take over to the point of doing harm to the Church's moral teaching. Or if Mel Gibson were to pass away seemingly unrepentant of mortal sin. We don't start minimizing the evil of adultery or ѕυιcιdє, or of heresy, for emotional reasons or for risk of sounding "insensitive". And this is what DL was saying in his comment that got numerous downthumbs.
We had that to a lesser extent, say, when Rush Limbaugh passed away. Some were talking about praying for Limbaugh and were singing his praises, but there's a real danger to faith there if people believe that Limbaugh could have been saved barring some miraculous and unknown deathbed conversion.
So his problem was equating Myrna's errors (and they were indeed errors) as formal heresy that excluded her from the Church, i.e. putting her into the same category as some Protestant who had passed away. Indeed, some of the opinions she had expressed here were in fact gravely erroneous, and we should not whitewash them for emotional reasons now that she's passed away.
But, whether a person be alive or deceased, that is in fact the grave error made by the Dimonds. Someone can have the formal motive of faith while nevertheless having succuмbed to error. Given the grave confusion of these times, where even otherwise orthodox Catholics have misfired on the EENS question and on ecclesiology (including SVs and especially the CMRI, to which she belonged), how could someone hold a layperson with little theological training accountable for formal heresy that would exclude her from the Church? Archbishop Lefebvre himself put into print an opinion that is objectively heretical and contradicts the Church's dogmatic teaching on EENS. Myrna kept regularly referring to things she had been taught by nuns growing up and things that appeared in various catechisms.
But if someone can't see the difference between this and a Protestant, there's a real problem with their thinking.
So, if we accept as our rule of faith the Church's teaching regarding the faith, we do in fact have the formal motive of faith, and therefore remain formally Catholic, even if we materially hold an erroneous, even heretical opinion. Catholics who are in error and who BELIEVE that the Church teaches something that is actually an error, still nevertheless believe the wrong thing for the right reasons. Unless the error be so grave as to undermine the very status of the Church's teaching authority (whereby they implicitly reject the Church's teaching authority), this would constitute material error, and is the very definition of material error. St. Augustine puts forward the litmus test, that a material heretic would immediately correct the opinion upon being informed that it's contrary to the Church's teaching. So, for instance, when I was ill catechized by the Novus Ordo, I had a heretical understanding of the Immaculate Conception. But when someone pointed out that the Church teaches otherwise, my response was, "oh, sorry" and I immediately accepted the correct understanding. Similarly, if we had a certainly legitimate Traditional Pope, and if he came out and condemned Baptism of Desire as heresy, I have no doubt but that she would accept that and submit to it. Unfortunately, I fear that if this same legitimate Traditional Pope came along and taught BoD as dogma, the Dimonds would reject it and hold the See to be vacant.
So, this is in fact the definition of "formal" heresy. That is why it is said that if you reject one dogma, you reject them all. If you reject a dogma that the Church clearly teaches, then you reject the authority behind all dogmas, and therefore exhibit that you lack the formal motive of faith, and the remaining dogmas you continue to believe are merely your opinion and not founded on the formal rule of faith. This is not to be confused with "sincerity". Someone could be very sincere, but if they do not believe based on the formal motive of faith, then they have no faith. This is clearly taught by St. Thomas. So in theory, you could have a Prot believe every single dogma taught by the Church (except, say, papal infallibility), but if he happened to base it on his own reading of Sacred Scripture rather than on the authority of the Church, he would be materially correct on every dogma, but still would lack the formal motive of faith.
When Catholics are arguing about WHAT the Church teaches, that's prima facie evidence that the Church's teaching is what ultimately matters. It's when you get to the point of, "I know what the Church teaches, but I don't care, and I believe otherwise anyway" that one slides into formal heresy.
In any case, Myrna knows the whole truth now better than any of us does. But we cannot either judge her outside the Church based on her errors, nor whitewash them and pretend that she was completely orthodox on every point.
So I think that the "malice" attributed to augustineeens is also overstated. He too is mistaken about some of his premises, but he was not acting inconsistently with them.
May God rest Myrna's soul.
-
She was always a good and peaceful poster.
Rest in peace ol girl.
For anyone else out there on their opinions of her immortal soul, it's just that, your opinion.
And a dedication or thread on the celebration of her life is not the forum for your opinion on this matter.
Completely socially unacceptable.
Also, always remember........."De mortuis nil nisi bonum"
-
I understand what AugustineEENS was doing. Based on his PREMISES (which I hold to be faulty), he wasn't acting inconsistently. It's like a syllogism that is correct, but the conclusion fails since one of the premises is faulty.
So let's imagine that some Protestant or non-Catholic has passed away, and Catholics who perhaps like the individual on a natural level start singing his praises and publicly praying for the repose of his soul. That should in fact be corrected, as it's a grave contradiction of Church teaching. Or of someone has committed ѕυιcιdє, and people start expressing good hope for his salvation and being in a better place (as the Conciliar Church do), that too should be corrected, tactfully, rather than allowing emotions like compassion or sympathy to take over to the point of doing harm to the Church's moral teaching. Or if Mel Gibson were to pass away seemingly unrepentant of mortal sin. We don't start minimizing the evil of adultery or ѕυιcιdє, or of heresy, for emotional reasons or for risk of sounding "insensitive". And this is what DL was saying in his comment that got numerous downthumbs.
We had that to a lesser extent, say, when Rush Limbaugh passed away. Some were talking about praying for Limbaugh and were singing his praises, but there's a real danger to faith there if people believe that Limbaugh could have been saved barring some miraculous and unknown deathbed conversion.
So his problem was equating Myrna's errors (and they were indeed errors) as formal heresy that excluded her from the Church, i.e. putting her into the same category as some Protestant who had passed away. Indeed, some of the opinions she had expressed here were in fact gravely erroneous, and we should not whitewash them for emotional reasons now that she's passed away.
But, whether a person be alive or deceased, that is in fact the grave error made by the Dimonds. Someone can have the formal motive of faith while nevertheless having succuмbed to error. Given the grave confusion of these times, where even otherwise orthodox Catholics have misfired on the EENS question and on ecclesiology (including SVs and especially the CMRI, to which she belonged), how could someone hold a layperson with little theological training accountable for formal heresy that would exclude her from the Church? Archbishop Lefebvre himself put into print an opinion that is objectively heretical and contradicts the Church's dogmatic teaching on EENS. Myrna kept regularly referring to things she had been taught by nuns growing up and things that appeared in various catechisms.
But if someone can't see the difference between this and a Protestant, there's a real problem with their thinking.
So, if we accept as our rule of faith the Church's teaching regarding the faith, we do in fact have the formal motive of faith, and therefore remain formally Catholic, even if we materially hold an erroneous, even heretical opinion. Catholics who are in error and who BELIEVE that the Church teaches something that is actually an error, still nevertheless believe the wrong thing for the right reasons. Unless the error be so grave as to undermine the very status of the Church's teaching authority (whereby they implicitly reject the Church's teaching authority), this would constitute material error, and is the very definition of material error. St. Augustine puts forward the litmus test, that a material heretic would immediately correct the opinion upon being informed that it's contrary to the Church's teaching. So, for instance, when I was ill catechized by the Novus Ordo, I had a heretical understanding of the Immaculate Conception. But when someone pointed out that the Church teaches otherwise, my response was, "oh, sorry" and I immediately accepted the correct understanding. Similarly, if we had a certainly legitimate Traditional Pope, and if he came out and condemned Baptism of Desire as heresy, I have no doubt but that she would accept that and submit to it. Unfortunately, I fear that if this same legitimate Traditional Pope came along and taught BoD as dogma, the Dimonds would reject it and hold the See to be vacant.
So, this is in fact the definition of "formal" heresy. That is why it is said that if you reject one dogma, you reject them all. If you reject a dogma that the Church clearly teaches, then you reject the authority behind all dogmas, and therefore exhibit that you lack the formal motive of faith, and the remaining dogmas you continue to believe are merely your opinion and not founded on the formal rule of faith. This is not to be confused with "sincerity". Someone could be very sincere, but if they do not believe based on the formal motive of faith, then they have no faith. This is clearly taught by St. Thomas. So in theory, you could have a Prot believe every single dogma taught by the Church (except, say, papal infallibility), but if he happened to base it on his own reading of Sacred Scripture rather than on the authority of the Church, he would be materially correct on every dogma, but still would lack the formal motive of faith.
When Catholics are arguing about WHAT the Church teaches, that's prima facie evidence that the Church's teaching is what ultimately matters. It's when you get to the point of, "I know what the Church teaches, but I don't care, and I believe otherwise anyway" that one slides into formal heresy.
In any case, Myrna knows the whole truth now better than any of us does. But we cannot either judge her outside the Church based on her errors, nor whitewash them and pretend that she was completely orthodox on every point.
So I think that the "malice" attributed to augustineeens is also overstated. He too is mistaken about some of his premises, but he was not acting inconsistently with them.
May God rest Myrna's soul.
So when my Jєωιѕн mother passes away and I post about it, it would be fine if he yelled from the rooftops that she's in Hell. Got it. Sorry. You just don't do that in this situation no matter what. If he wanted to create a new thread and make a general post about praying for non-Catholics after death, that would be different.
Now I pray daily that she converts and gets baptized prior to her death but I would like to think that fellow Cahtolics would have the sense not to pontificate in her obituary thread.
He should have kept his mouth shut. Full stop.
-
I understand what AugustineEENS was doing. Based on his PREMISES (which I hold to be faulty), he wasn't acting inconsistently. [...]
It was very disrespectful and the act of a scuмbag to do that on MyrnaM's "obituary" on this forum. He should've simply started another thread on the issue after some time has passed.
MyrnaM, you are now the Church Triumphant. Please pray for me and all of us here at CI.
-
I have many fond memories of Myrna and appreciated her kindness. We shared an interest in old movies (from a time when they supported rather than attacked the Faith) and I had many hours of pleasure watching her recommendations.
Thanks for posting this news, Matthew. Although I am no longer active on the forum, I still check in occasionally for the personal connections. Although I am happier to learn about births than deaths, I am grateful for the opportunity to pray for the souls of the dead.
-
Could you people please learn how to read? I never said it was fine, appropriate, or that it wasn't disrespectful. I was simply trying to put the best charitable spin on AugustineEENS comments ... instead of immediately denouncing him as a degenerate (as the rest of you appear to have done). Charity should also be extended toward him. It is not appropriate call out that a person (who's not a Catholic) "is in hell" almost as if gloating about it, but if some non-Catholic did pass away, and Trad Catholics were on a thread speaking about the individual as if there were good hope of his or her salvation, then it would not be inappropriate to make a correction, as one can never compromise Catholic doctrine even for emotional reasons.
I went to great lengths to explain why he was wrong, but simply explained his likely thinking on that matter so that charity would also be extended toward him.
-
It was very disrespectful and the act of a scuмbag to do that on MyrnaM's "obituary" on this forum. He should've simply started another thread on the issue after some time has passed.
MyrnaM, you are now the Church Triumphant. Please pray for me and all of us here at CI.
Speaking of posts that require correction, I present Exhibit A above ^^^. I find it shocking that this received two upthumbs. You have no earthly idea bout whether Myrna is now among the Church Triumphant, and to declare this and to canonize her is to do her a great disservice. This second sentence is pure unadulterated Novus Ordo trash. You should have just rolled out the white vestments, clowns, and the balloons.
I recall how when JP2 died, the Modernist (material heretic) Fr. Benedict Groeschel was canonizing JP2 and at one point actually said, "I'm praying for him, but not too hard." If JP2 was saved somehow, that does a grave disservice. This is a LACK of charity masquerading as charity. Frankly, if I pass way, I would much prefer that people think I was a total degenerate and on that account offer more prayers for me than to offer "nice words" about me and neglect prayer due to categorizing me among the "Church Triumphant". Those "nice words" do me zero good at that point.
Even for AugustineEENS, charity requires that we put the best possible construction on his motives instead of denouncing him as a degenerate "scuмbag". I don't know him, and have gotten into arguments with him here, but it crossed a line to denounce him as a "scuмbag". This represents the same hypocrisy I see when people uncharitably deride the Dimond Brothers ... on account of their "lack of charity". We are required to show charity even for the uncharitable, as Our Lord required it of His disciples to forgive and to pray for their enemies.
-
Of course, sram is Croix, and he could actually be trolling there, as I'm pretty sure he's gone on record with some extremely derogatory mysoginistic comments about the departed (that on one occasion got him banned) ... but I'm more perplexed about two upthumbs for his declaration that Myrna is part of the Church triumphant ... unless that too comes from sram's other alter-ego accounts (he was just caught praising himself effusively on another thread).
-
I understand what AugustineEENS was doing. Based on his PREMISES (which I hold to be faulty), he wasn't acting inconsistently. It's like a syllogism that is correct, but the conclusion fails since one of the premises is faulty.
So let's imagine that some Protestant or non-Catholic has passed away, and Catholics who perhaps like the individual on a natural level start singing his praises and publicly praying for the repose of his soul. That should in fact be corrected, as it's a grave contradiction of Church teaching. Or of someone has committed ѕυιcιdє, and people start expressing good hope for his salvation and being in a better place (as the Conciliar Church do), that too should be corrected, tactfully, rather than allowing emotions like compassion or sympathy to take over to the point of doing harm to the Church's moral teaching. Or if Mel Gibson were to pass away seemingly unrepentant of mortal sin. We don't start minimizing the evil of adultery or ѕυιcιdє, or of heresy, for emotional reasons or for risk of sounding "insensitive". And this is what DL was saying in his comment that got numerous downthumbs.
We had that to a lesser extent, say, when Rush Limbaugh passed away. Some were talking about praying for Limbaugh and were singing his praises, but there's a real danger to faith there if people believe that Limbaugh could have been saved barring some miraculous and unknown deathbed conversion.
So his problem was equating Myrna's errors (and they were indeed errors) as formal heresy that excluded her from the Church, i.e. putting her into the same category as some Protestant who had passed away. Indeed, some of the opinions she had expressed here were in fact gravely erroneous, and we should not whitewash them for emotional reasons now that she's passed away.
But, whether a person be alive or deceased, that is in fact the grave error made by the Dimonds. Someone can have the formal motive of faith while nevertheless having succuмbed to error. Given the grave confusion of these times, where even otherwise orthodox Catholics have misfired on the EENS question and on ecclesiology (including SVs and especially the CMRI, to which she belonged), how could someone hold a layperson with little theological training accountable for formal heresy that would exclude her from the Church? Archbishop Lefebvre himself put into print an opinion that is objectively heretical and contradicts the Church's dogmatic teaching on EENS. Myrna kept regularly referring to things she had been taught by nuns growing up and things that appeared in various catechisms.
But if someone can't see the difference between this and a Protestant, there's a real problem with their thinking.
So, if we accept as our rule of faith the Church's teaching regarding the faith, we do in fact have the formal motive of faith, and therefore remain formally Catholic, even if we materially hold an erroneous, even heretical opinion. Catholics who are in error and who BELIEVE that the Church teaches something that is actually an error, still nevertheless believe the wrong thing for the right reasons. Unless the error be so grave as to undermine the very status of the Church's teaching authority (whereby they implicitly reject the Church's teaching authority), this would constitute material error, and is the very definition of material error. St. Augustine puts forward the litmus test, that a material heretic would immediately correct the opinion upon being informed that it's contrary to the Church's teaching. So, for instance, when I was ill catechized by the Novus Ordo, I had a heretical understanding of the Immaculate Conception. But when someone pointed out that the Church teaches otherwise, my response was, "oh, sorry" and I immediately accepted the correct understanding. Similarly, if we had a certainly legitimate Traditional Pope, and if he came out and condemned Baptism of Desire as heresy, I have no doubt but that she would accept that and submit to it. Unfortunately, I fear that if this same legitimate Traditional Pope came along and taught BoD as dogma, the Dimonds would reject it and hold the See to be vacant.
So, this is in fact the definition of "formal" heresy. That is why it is said that if you reject one dogma, you reject them all. If you reject a dogma that the Church clearly teaches, then you reject the authority behind all dogmas, and therefore exhibit that you lack the formal motive of faith, and the remaining dogmas you continue to believe are merely your opinion and not founded on the formal rule of faith. This is not to be confused with "sincerity". Someone could be very sincere, but if they do not believe based on the formal motive of faith, then they have no faith. This is clearly taught by St. Thomas. So in theory, you could have a Prot believe every single dogma taught by the Church (except, say, papal infallibility), but if he happened to base it on his own reading of Sacred Scripture rather than on the authority of the Church, he would be materially correct on every dogma, but still would lack the formal motive of faith.
When Catholics are arguing about WHAT the Church teaches, that's prima facie evidence that the Church's teaching is what ultimately matters. It's when you get to the point of, "I know what the Church teaches, but I don't care, and I believe otherwise anyway" that one slides into formal heresy.
In any case, Myrna knows the whole truth now better than any of us does. But we cannot either judge her outside the Church based on her errors, nor whitewash them and pretend that she was completely orthodox on every point.
So I think that the "malice" attributed to augustineeens is also overstated. He too is mistaken about some of his premises, but he was not acting inconsistently with them.
May God rest Myrna's soul.
I get that this is a kinda side point, but if Mel confessed/received last rites right before dying would
that be enough to pray for him/consider it not scandalous to pray for him publically?
-
I get that this is a kinda side point, but if Mel confessed/received last rites right before dying would
that be enough to pray for him/consider it not scandalous to pray for him publically?
Of course. I was speaking about if he were to die of a sudden heart attack without having shown any public sign of repentance. Church would refuse Christian burial in that case. We could still of course pray that God perhaps gave him a sudden grace of repentance, but it's a fine line to walk between realizing that God CAN intervene in a way that's unknown to us and then giving the impression that there's good hope of salvation for someone who dies in public sin. I think it was St. John Vianney who had the famous case of a ѕυιcιdє where he said that in the moment of time between when the person jumped and when he hit the water, had had time to make a perfect act of contrition. Mind you, in those situations, the contrition would have to be perfect, and not just motivated by attrition or fear. God can even suspend time and speak to the interior of the soul, or the entire conversation between God and the soul could happen in a mere instant of time. AND it's even possible for a departed infidel that God could enlighten the soul in the last moments, and even send an angel to baptize the person. Nothing is impossible for God, and we all know that. But I think it's important not to project those types of things that would be a major exception into some sense that there's good hope of salvation. Otherwise, that could lead to complacency for people to remain in grave sin. St. Alphonsus said that those types of cases are one in a million.
-
Speaking of posts that require correction, I present Exhibit A above ^^^. I find it shocking that this received two upthumbs. You have no earthly idea bout whether Myrna is now among the Church Triumphant, and to declare this and to canonize her is to do her a great disservice. This second sentence is pure unadulterated Novus Ordo trash. You should have just rolled out the white vestments, clowns, and the balloons.
The bolded is incredibly ironic considering she lived through Vatican II firsthand. It goes against everything the Faith stands for and is pure Protestantism. Speaking of JP2, it reminds me of when they shouted "Santo Subito" and wanted him canonized the moment news of his passing broke. It's very bad.
-
Of course. I was speaking about if he were to die of a sudden heart attack without having shown any public sign of repentance. Church would refuse Christian burial in that case. We could still of course pray that God perhaps gave him a sudden grace of repentance, but it's a fine line to walk between realizing that God CAN intervene in a way that's unknown to us and then giving the impression that there's good hope of salvation for someone who dies in public sin. I think it was St. John Vianney who had the famous case of a ѕυιcιdє where he said that in the moment of time between when the person jumped and when he hit the water, had had time to make a perfect act of contrition. Mind you, in those situations, the contrition would have to be perfect, and not just motivated by attrition or fear. God can even suspend time and speak to the interior of the soul, or the entire conversation between God and the soul could happen in a mere instant of time. AND it's even possible for a departed infidel that God could enlighten the soul in the last moments, and even send an angel to baptize the person. Nothing is impossible for God, and we all know that. But I think it's important not to project those types of things that would be a major exception into some sense that there's good hope of salvation. Otherwise, that could lead to complacency for people to remain in grave sin. St. Alphonsus said that those types of cases are one in a million.
It think it would be decent of you to start another thread for these pontifications and leave this thread for those who want to remember Myrna in peace and prayer. 🙏
-
I started a thread where people can talk about this thread rather than Myrna herself:https://www.cathinfo.com/catholic-living-in-the-modern-world/appropriate-responses-to-learning-that-someone-has-died/ (https://www.cathinfo.com/catholic-living-in-the-modern-world/appropriate-responses-to-learning-that-someone-has-died/)
I spent some time reading through her old posts yesterday and appreciated it. If anyone wants to do that, here is a link to her profile: https://www.cathinfo.com/profile/MyrnaM/ (https://www.cathinfo.com/profile/MyrnaM/). (Matthew also included it in the OP.) Just click on that and then click "show posts".
-
Always pray for the faithful departed, including MyrnaM.
MyrnaM frequently went to Mass and recieved the Sacraments, and she received the Last Rites. We know her by her fruits, which were good here on CathInfo and from testimonies of people who personally knew her. She was a solid Catholic and a holy woman. Of course she's of the Church Triumphant. But even if she's in purgatory, she can still pray for us here. To deny these facts is to deny the Faith.
-
Always pray for the faithful departed, including MyrnaM.
MyrnaM frequently went to Mass and recieved the Sacraments, and she received the Last Rites. We know her by her fruits, which were good here on CathInfo and from testimonies of people who personally knew her. She was a solid Catholic and a holy woman. Of course she's of the Church Triumphant. But even if she's in purgatory, she can still pray for us here. To deny these facts is to deny the Faith.
You registered aug 7. How can you declare such about myrna?
-
Always pray for the faithful departed, including MyrnaM.
MyrnaM frequently went to Mass and recieved the Sacraments, and she received the Last Rites. We know her by her fruits, which were good here on CathInfo and from testimonies of people who personally knew her. She was a solid Catholic and a holy woman. Of course she's of the Church Triumphant. But even if she's in purgatory, she can still pray for us here. To deny these facts is to deny the Faith.
Your sentiments are correct, sram, but your terminology is wrong.
The Church has three components
1. the Church Militant (that's us)
2. the Church Suffering (that's the souls in purgatory)
3. the Church Triumphant (that's those who are in God's presence)
Yes, indeed. The prayers of the Church Suffering are most powerful.
-
Your sentiments are correct, sram, but your terminology is wrong.
The Church has three components
1. the Church Militant (that's us)
2. the Church Suffering (that's the souls in purgatory)
3. the Church Triumphant (that's those who are in God's presence)
Yes, indeed. The prayers of the Church Suffering are most powerful.
Thanks, Nadir, for your input.
Yes, I already knew that if she wasn't in Heaven but rather in purgatory, she would not yet be of the Church Triumphant, but she can still pray for us in purgatory. I believe she is in Heaven and among the Church Triumphant but I still pray for her soul because I don't take salvation for granted.
-
Thanks, Nadir, for your input.
Yes, I already knew that if she wasn't in Heaven but rather in purgatory, she would not yet be of the Church Triumphant, but she can still pray for us in purgatory. I believe she is in Heaven and among the Church Triumphant but I still pray for her soul because I don't take salvation for granted.
I've never heard of this^^. I could be wrong I guess but as far as I always heard, the souls in purgatory cannot pray for us, they are helpless to do anything for themselves or for us. But, if you help them get to heaven through your prayers and penance etc., once they are in heaven THEN they will not cease to do all they can to get you to heaven.
-
I've never heard of this^^. I could be wrong I guess but as far as I always heard, the souls in purgatory cannot pray for us, they are helpless to do anything for themselves or for us. But, if you help them get to heaven through your prayers and penance etc., once they are in heaven THEN they will not cease to do all they can to get you to heaven.
Souls in purgatory can pray for the Church Militant, but they can't pray for their own souls. This is why they need our prayers so much.
-
Souls in purgatory can pray for the Church Militant, but they can't pray for their own souls. This is why they need our prayers so much.
Yes, this was what I thought was the case.
-
:pray:
I got a kick out of Myrna. I remember thinking her children were lucky. For some reason I recall her answers to some questions in the anonymous section way back:
Quote from: Guest
1. When you were a teenager were kids as mean as they are today? Was there a kid in your class with really bad acne who the girls would make fun of?
2. When you were a kid were candy bars and sweets better than today?
3. When you were a kid was Frank Sinatra the biggest musical star?
4. When you were a kid did you ever imagine what America might be like in the future? If so, what did you imagine it would be like?
5. What was your favorite movie that you saw in the fifties?
6. Is your favorite color purple or green?
Roscoe, I didn't see the question, so how could I answer.
1. I always seemed to side with the underdog, even as a teen, and yes some were mean but not to the point of killing each other.
2. Candy bars were bigger than today, even 5 years ago they were bigger.
They were always good and you could buy one for a nickle when I was about the age of 10.
3. I was never into stars that much, but mine was Jimmy Dean, and yes, Frank Sinatra was big, my mother and her lady friends always talked about him.
4. My favorite T.V. show was Flash Gordon, so that is what I imagined.
5. In the fifties, my favorite movie was Wizard of Oz because it started out black and white and turned into color, I loved that part. I Love Lucy, (T.V,)
6. Actually my favorite color is peach, I know that because whenever I have a choice of colors and one is peach, that is what I choose.
-
I finally was able to make a trip to Spokane today from the Tri-Cities. After visiting family plots at Holy Cross (where my own space is) I went up to Mount St. Michaels and visited their cemetery.
Since 1915 The Mount had been the Scholasticate for the Oregon Province of the Society of Jesus, and subsequently was acquired by the CMRI. My father's cousin was the rector there in the late 1950's - early 1960's. Adjacent to the grounds is the Jesuit cemetery (distinct from the CMRI chapel cemetery) and I was able to say a prayer of thanksgiving at the grave of Father Francis X. Bisciglia, SJ, who baptized me on July 29, 1951 at St. Joseph's in Seattle.
I was also able to visit the Lourdes Grotto there https://www.stmichaels.org/chapel-grounds/lourdes-grotto (https://www.stmichaels.org/chapel-grounds/lourdes-grotto/)
(the patroness of the Diocese of Spokane) and the book and religious articles shop, which is very nice. I need to visit their museum on a subsequent trip. If anyone is ever in the Spokane area a visit to The Mount is worthwhile, regardless of one's "position on the state of the Church".
I laid some flowers at this grave on behalf of the Catholic Info community.
(https://i.imgur.com/t10vojG.jpg)
-
Class act Moneil. Thanks, and God Bless.
-
Does anyone know when the Magisterium first stated that the Church Suffering may pray for others, but not for themselves? I recall the distinction from grammar school, but was not at the time curious about the details.
-
Thank you, Moniel for this very kind gesture.
I remember when Myrna was caring for her husband, Dennis, and when he died. It is very moving to see where their bodies lie, as they await their resurrection from the grave.
-
Does anyone know when the Magisterium first stated that the Church Suffering may pray for others, but not for themselves? I recall the distinction from grammar school, but was not at the time curious about the details.
I know of no teaching of the Magisterium along those lines; I believe that this is just the theological consensus.
-
Does anyone know when the Magisterium first stated that the Church Suffering may pray for others, but not for themselves? I recall the distinction from grammar school, but was not at the time curious about the details.
I know of no teaching of the Magisterium along those lines; I believe that this is just the theological consensus.
While not setting out to deal specifically with your question, Mark, Fr. Fenton offers an explanation as to why the Holy Souls cannot pray for themselves:
https://archive.org/details/sim_american-ecclesiastical-review_1936-11_95_5/page/n8/mode/1up