Welcome, Guest |
You have to register before you can post on our site.
|
Online Users |
There are currently 410 online users. » 0 Member(s) | 408 Guest(s) Bing, Google
|
Latest Threads |
Fr. Ruiz's Sermons: Last ...
Forum: Fr. Ruiz's Sermons November 2024
Last Post: Stone
7 hours ago
» Replies: 0
» Views: 28
|
The Simulacrum: The False...
Forum: Sedevacantism
Last Post: Stone
7 hours ago
» Replies: 0
» Views: 41
|
Fr. Ruiz: Renewal of the ...
Forum: Rev. Father Hugo Ruiz Vallejo
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 04:56 AM
» Replies: 15
» Views: 1,215
|
Interview with the Editor...
Forum: The Recusant
Last Post: Stone
11-24-2024, 07:15 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 125
|
Purgatory Explained by th...
Forum: Resources Online
Last Post: Stone
11-24-2024, 09:03 AM
» Replies: 37
» Views: 3,741
|
Last Sunday after Penteco...
Forum: Pentecost
Last Post: Stone
11-24-2024, 08:57 AM
» Replies: 5
» Views: 11,657
|
Fr. Hewko's Sermons: Twen...
Forum: November 2024
Last Post: Stone
11-23-2024, 10:30 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 94
|
Fr. Hewko's Sermons: Feas...
Forum: November 2024
Last Post: Stone
11-23-2024, 10:27 PM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 122
|
The Catholic Trumpet: Whe...
Forum: Articles by Catholic authors
Last Post: Stone
11-23-2024, 07:06 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 102
|
Bishop appointed by Commu...
Forum: Socialism & Communism
Last Post: Stone
11-22-2024, 04:57 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 106
|
|
|
Pope Leo XIII: Quamquam pluries - On Devotion to St. Joseph |
Posted by: Stone - 03-19-2021, 02:57 PM - Forum: Encyclicals
- No Replies
|
|
Quamquam pluries
Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII on Devotion to St. Joseph
To Our Venerable Brethren the Patriarchs, Primates,
Archbishops, and other Ordinaries, in Peace and Union with Holy See.
Although We have already many times ordered special prayers to be offered up in the whole world, that the interests of Catholicism might be insistently recommended to God, none will deem it matter for surprise that We consider the present moment an opportune one for again inculcating the same duty. During periods of stress and trial – chiefly when every lawlessness of act seems permitted to the powers of darkness – it has been the custom in the Church to plead with special fervour and perseverance to God, her author and protector, by recourse to the intercession of the saints – and chiefly of the Blessed Virgin, Mother of God – whose patronage has ever been the most efficacious. The fruit of these pious prayers and of the confidence reposed in the Divine goodness, has always, sooner or later, been made apparent. Now, Venerable Brethren, you know the times in which we live; they are scarcely less deplorable for the Christian religion than the worst days, which in time past were most full of misery to the Church. We see faith, the root of all the Christian virtues, lessening in many souls; we see charity growing cold; the young generation daily growing in depravity of morals and views; the Church of Jesus Christ attacked on every side by open force or by craft; a relentless war waged against the Sovereign Pontiff; and the very foundations of religion undermined with a boldness which waxes daily in intensity. These things are, indeed, so much a matter of notoriety that it is needless for Us to expatiate on the depths to which society has sunk in these days, or on the designs which now agitate the minds of men. In circumstances so unhappy and troublous, human remedies are insufficient, and it becomes necessary, as a sole resource, to beg for assistance from the Divine power.
2. This is the reason why We have considered it necessary to turn to the Christian people and urge them to implore, with increased zeal and constancy, the aid of Almighty God. At this proximity of the month of October, which We have already consecrated to the Virgin Mary, under the title of Our Lady of the Rosary, We earnestly exhort the faithful to perform the exercises of this month with, if possible, even more piety and constancy than heretofore. We know that there is sure help in the maternal goodness of the Virgin, and We are very certain that We shall never vainly place Our trust in her. If, on innumerable occasions, she has displayed her power in aid of the Christian world, why should We doubt that she will now renew the assistance of her power and favour, if humble and constant prayers are offered up on all sides to her? Nay, We rather believe that her intervention will be the more marvellous as she has permitted Us to pray to her, for so long a time, with special appeals. But We entertain another object, which, according to your wont, Venerable Brethren, you will advance with fervour. That God may be more favourable to Our prayers, and that He may come with bounty and promptitude to the aid of His Church, We judge it of deep utility for the Christian people, continually to invoke with great piety and trust, together with the Virgin-Mother of God, her chaste Spouse, the Blessed Joseph; and We regard it as most certain that this will be most pleasing to the Virgin herself. On the subject of this devotion, of which We speak publicly for the first time to-day, We know without doubt that not only is the people inclined to it, but that it is already established, and is advancing to full growth. We have seen the devotion to St. Joseph, which in past times the Roman Pontiffs have developed and gradually increased, grow into greater proportions in Our time, particularly after Pius IX., of happy memory, Our predecessor, proclaimed, yielding to the request of a large number of bishops, this holy patriarch the patron of the Catholic Church. And as, moreover, it is of high importance that the devotion to St. Joseph should engraft itself upon the daily pious practices of Catholics, We desire that the Christian people should be urged to it above all by Our words and authority.
3. The special motives for which St. Joseph has been proclaimed Patron of the Church, and from which the Church looks for singular benefit from his patronage and protection, are that Joseph was the spouse of Mary and that he was reputed the Father of Jesus Christ. From these sources have sprung his dignity, his holiness, his glory. In truth, the dignity of the Mother of God is so lofty that naught created can rank above it. But as Joseph has been united to the Blessed Virgin by the ties of marriage, it may not be doubted that he approached nearer than any to the eminent dignity by which the Mother of God surpasses so nobly all created natures. For marriage is the most intimate of all unions which from its essence imparts a community of gifts between those that by it are joined together. Thus in giving Joseph the Blessed Virgin as spouse, God appointed him to be not only her life’s companion, the witness of her maidenhood, the protector of her honour, but also, by virtue of the conjugal tie, a participator in her sublime dignity. And Joseph shines among all mankind by the most august dignity, since by divine will, he was the guardian of the Son of God and reputed as His father among men. Hence it came about that the Word of God was humbly subject to Joseph, that He obeyed him, and that He rendered to him all those offices that children are bound to render to their parents. From this two-fold dignity flowed the obligation which nature lays upon the head of families, so that Joseph became the guardian, the administrator, and the legal defender of the divine house whose chief he was. And during the whole course of his life he fulfilled those charges and those duties. He set himself to protect with a mighty love and a daily solicitude his spouse and the Divine Infant; regularly by his work he earned what was necessary for the one and the other for nourishment and clothing; he guarded from death the Child threatened by a monarch’s jealousy, and found for Him a refuge; in the miseries of the journey and in the bitternesses of exile he was ever the companion, the assistance, and the upholder of the Virgin and of Jesus. Now the divine house which Joseph ruled with the authority of a father, contained within its limits the scarce-born Church. From the same fact that the most holy Virgin is the mother of Jesus Christ is she the mother of all Christians whom she bore on Mount Calvary amid the supreme throes of the Redemption; Jesus Christ is, in a manner, the first-born of Christians, who by the adoption and Redemption are his brothers. And for such reasons the Blessed Patriarch looks upon the multitude of Christians who make up the Church as confided specially to his trust – this limitless family spread over the earth, over which, because he is the spouse of Mary and the Father of Jesus Christ he holds, as it were, a paternal authority. It is, then, natural and worthy that as the Blessed Joseph ministered to all the needs of the family at Nazareth and girt it about with his protection, he should now cover with the cloak of his heavenly patronage and defend the Church of Jesus Christ.
4. You well understand, Venerable Brethren, that these considerations are confirmed by the ,opinion held by a large number of the Fathers, to which the sacred liturgy gives its sanction, that the Joseph of ancient times, son of the patriarch Jacob, was the type of St. Joseph, and the former by his glory prefigured the greatness of the future guardian of the Holy Family. And in truth, beyond the fact that the same name-a point the significance of which has never been denied-was given to each, you well know the points of likeness that exist between them; namely, that the first Joseph won the favour and especial goodwill of his master, and that through Joseph’s administration his household came to prosperity and wealth; that (still more important) he presided over the kingdom with great power, and, in a time when the harvests failed, he provided for all the needs of the Egyptians with so much wisdom that the King decreed to him the title “Saviour of the world.” Thus it is that We may prefigure the new in the old patriarch. And as the first caused the prosperity of his master’s domestic interests and at the same time rendered great services to the whole kingdom, so the second, destined to be the guardian of the Christian religion, should be regarded as the protector and defender of the Church, which is truly the house of the Lord and the kingdom of God on earth. These are the reasons why men of every rank and country should fly to the trust and guard of the blessed Joseph. Fathers of families find in Joseph the best personification of paternal solicitude and vigilance; spouses a perfect example of love, of peace, and of conjugal fidelity; virgins at the same time find in him the model and protector of virginal integrity. The noble of birth will earn of Joseph how to guard their dignity even in misfortune; the rich will understand, by his lessons, what are the goods most to be desired and won at the price of their labour. As to workmen, artisans, and persons of lesser degree, their recourse to Joseph is a special right, and his example is for their particular imitation. For Joseph, of royal blood, united by marriage to the greatest and holiest of women, reputed the father of the Son of God, passed his life in labour, and won by the toil of the artisan the needful support of his family. It is, then, true that the condition of the lowly has nothing shameful in it, and the work of the labourer is not only not dishonouring, but can, if virtue be joined to it, be singularly ennobled. Joseph, content with his slight possessions, bore the trials consequent on a fortune so slender, with greatness of soul, in imitation of his Son, who having put on the form of a slave, being the Lord of life, subjected himself of his own free-will to the spoliation and loss of everything.
5. Through these considerations, the poor and those who live by the labour of their hands should be of good heart and learn to be just. If they win the right of emerging from poverty and obtaining a better rank by lawful means, reason and justice uphold them in changing the order established, in the first instance, for them by the Providence of God. But recourse to force and struggles by seditious paths to obtain such ends are madnesses which only aggravate the evil which they aim to suppress. Let the poor, then, if they would be wise, trust not to the promises of seditious men, but rather to the example and patronage of the Blessed Joseph, and to the maternal charity of the Church, which each day takes an increasing compassion on their lot.
6. This is the reason why – trusting much to your zeal and episcopal authority, Venerable Brethren, and not doubting that the good and pious faithful will run beyond the mere letter of the law – We prescribe that during the whole month of October, at the recitation of the Rosary, for which We have already legislated, a prayer to St. Joseph be added, the formula of which will be sent with this letter, and that this custom should be repeated every year. To those who recite this prayer, We grant for each time an indulgence of seven years and seven Lents. It is a salutary practice and very praiseworthy, already established in some countries, to consecrate the month of March to the honour of the holy Patriarch by daily exercises of piety. Where this custom cannot be easily established, it is as least desirable, that before the feast-day, in the principal church of each parish, a triduo of prayer be celebrated. In those lands where the 19th of March – the Feast of St. Joseph – is not a Festival of Obligation, We exhort the faithful to sanctify it as far as possible by private pious practices, in honour of their heavenly patron, as though it were a day of Obligation.
7. And in token of heavenly favours, and in witness of Our good-will, We grant most lovingly in the Lord, to you, Venerable Brethren, to your clergy and to your people, the Apostolic blessing.
Given from the Vatican, August 15th, 1889, the 11th year of Our Pontificate.
|
|
|
The New Mass: Article recommended by Archbp. Lefebvre |
Posted by: Stone - 03-19-2021, 01:33 PM - Forum: In Defense of Tradition
- No Replies
|
|
The Angelus - October 1982
The New Mass
by Canon René Berthod
The article which follows was written by the former Rector of the Society of St. Pius X Seminary at Ecône, Switzerland.
It was originally published in the French youth review, Savoir et Servir, and was recommended by Archbishop Lefebvre to his seminarians.
We hope our readers will benefit from this re-statement of differences between the Mass of All Time
and that which the ecumenists and Modernists have foisted upon the Catholic world!
The Church of Christ was founded for a double mission: a mission of faith and a mission of sanctification of those redeemed by the Blood of the Saviour. She must bring to men faith and grace: the faith by her teaching and grace by the sacraments, which were confided to her by Christ the Lord.
Her mission of faith consists in transmitting to men the revelation of spiritual and supernatural realities made by God to the world, and to safeguard this revelation without change through the passing centuries. The Catholic Church is, first of all, the faith which does not change; she is, as St. Paul says, "the Pillar of truth" (I Tim. 4, 15), which travels through the ages, always faithful to herself, an inflexible witness of God in a world of perpetual change and contradiction.
Through the course of the centuries, the Catholic Church has taught and defended her faith on the basis of one sole criterion: "That which she has always believed and taught." All the heresies which the Church has faced have been judged and repudiated in the name of their non-conformity to this principle. The "first reflex principle" of the hierarchy of the Church and especially of the Roman Church, has been to maintain without change the truth received from the Apostles and Our Lord. The doctrine of the holy sacrifice of the Mass belongs to the Church's treasure of truth. And if today, in this particular domain, there appears to be some kind of break with the Church's past, then such a novelty should alert every Catholic conscience, as in the times of the great heresies, and should provoke univocally a confrontation with the Church's faith which does not change.
What is the New Mass?
We know, of course, that the ancient Mass was not given to us ready made. It has kept the essential rituals performed by the Apostles at Christ's command; and new prayers, praises and precisions have been added to it in a slow elaboration so as to make more explicit the Eucharistic mystery and to preserve it from the denials of the heretics.
The Mass was thus progressively elaborated, fashioned around the primitive kernel bequeathed by the Apostles, the witnesses of Christ's institution. Like a case containing a precious stone or the treasure confided to the Church, it was thought about, adjusted, adorned as a piece of music. The best was retained, just as in the construction of a cathedral. What the Mass explicitly contains in its mystery was carefully made more explicit. Just like the mustard seed, it spread forth its branches, but everything was already contained in the seed.
This progressive elaboration, or explicitation, was achieved according to the essentials by the time of Pope St. Gregory the Great in the sixth century. Only a few secondary additions were made in later years. This work accomplished during the first centuries of Christianity has brought forth a basis for our faith in order to impress upon the human intelligence the institution of Christ in its recognized truth.
Thus the Mass is the unfolding or explicitation of the Eucharistic mystery and its celebration.
The Catholic Doctrine Defined
In reaction to Luther's negations, the Council of Trent recalled and defined the unchanged doctrine of the Catholic Church concerning the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, essentially in the following three points of doctrine:
1) in the Eucharist, the Presence of Christ is real;
2) the Mass is a true sacrifice: in its substance it is the sacrifice of the cross renewed, a true sacrifice of propitiation or expiation for the forgiveness of sins, and not just a sacrifice of praise or thanksgiving;
3) the role of the priest in offering the Holy Sacrifice is essential and exclusive: the priest, and he alone, has received by the Sacrament of Orders the power to consecrate the Body and Blood of Christ.
The ancient millennial Mass, Latin and Roman, expresses most clearly the complete profundity of this doctrine, without detracting in the slightest from the mystery.
What is the Situation with the New Mass?
It is a fact that the New Mass was imposed on the Catholic world in order to fulfill the needs of ecumenism: the ancient Mass was the major obstacle to the reconstruction of unity with the reformers of the seventeenth century. Without the slightest room for doubt, the Tridentine Mass affirmed precisely the Catholic Faith denied by the Protestants, especially concerning the three essential points of doctrine, namely:
- the reality of the Real Presence,
- the reality of the Sacrifice,
- the reality of the power of the priest.
The New Mass, quite simply, was to turn a deaf ear to this Catholic Faith. Once introduced and having become indifferent to all dogma, the new rite would be able to suit a purely Protestant faith. It would be used as a meeting-point of ecumenical unity for the world, for a single celebration where the contested dogmas would have been prudently veiled, and where the only gestures, expressions and attitudes to be retained would be those open to an interpretation according to the faith of the individual.
Can the evidence of the facts be denied?
The changes wrought by the New Mass bear precisely on the points of doctrine disputed by Luther.
I. THE NEW MASS AND THE REAL PRESENCE
In the New Mass, the Real Presence no longer plays the central role which was highlighted by the ancient eucharistic liturgy.
All reference, even indirect, to the Real Presence has been eliminated.
One recognizes with amazement that the gestures and signs which spontaneously expressed our Faith in the Real Presence have been either abolished or seriously changed.
Thus the genuflexions—the most expressive signs of the Catholic Faith—have been suppressed as such. And if the genuflexion after the elevation has been maintained as an exception, one must recognize unfortunately that it has lost its precise meaning of adoring the Real Presence.
In the ancient Mass, the priest makes the first genuflexion immediately after the words of consecration; this signifies, without any possible ambiguity, that Christ is really present on the altar by virtue of the very words of consecration pronounced by the priest. He genuflects a second time after the elevation: this genuflexion has the same meaning as the first and re-enforces it.
In the New Mass, the first genuflexion has been suppressed. The second genuflexion, on the other hand, has been kept. This is where the trap is for those minds not sufficiently acquainted with the wiles of Modernism: in fact, this second genuflexion, isolated from the first, can now receive a Protestant interpretation. If the Protestant faith does not admit the Real Physical Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, it does nevertheless recognize a certain spiritual presence of Our Lord on account of the faith of the believers. Thus, in the New Mass, the celebrant does not firstly adore the Host which he has just consecrated, but he elevates it, presenting it to the assembly of the faithful which engages its faith in Christ, and this faith renders Christ spiritually present; one kneels and adores, and this can be done simply in the Protestant sense of a presence purely spiritual.
The exterior ceremonial can thus be adapted to fit a purely subjective faith, and even a denial of the Catholic doctrine of the Real Presence. The genuflexion retained after the elevation of the Host and Chalice has become capable, in effect, of a Protestant interpretation. It has taken on a meaning which can be adapted to the faith of the individual, and which is therefore ambiguous. A rite such as this is no longer the clear expression of the Catholic Faith.
Other changes made to the ancient rite—even if they are less serious than those touching the very heart of the Mass—all nevertheless point to a decreasing respect for the Real Presence. Under this heading mention must be made of the following suppressions which, when taken in isolation, may seem unimportant, but when considered as a whole, are no less indicative of the spirit which prevailed in the reforms. The following have been suppressed:
- the purification of the priest's fingers over the chalice and into the chalice;
- the obligation for the priest to keep joined together those fingers which have touched the Host after the consecration, in order to avoid all contact with the profane;
- the pall protecting the chalice;
- the obligatory gilding of the inside of the sacred vessels;
- the consecration of the altar if it is fixed;
- the altar stone and the relics placed in the altar if it is movable;
- the number of altar cloths reduced from three to one;
- the prescriptions concerning the case where a consecrated Host falls on the ground.
All these suppressions represent a decrease in the expression of respect due to the Real Presence; to them can be added the posture of those present, which again tends in the same direction, and which has been practically imposed on the faithful:
- Communion received standing and often in the hand;
- thanksgiving after Communion, which, although extremely brief, one is urged to make sitting down;
- standing after the consecration.
These changes, made worse by the removal of the tabernacle, which is often relegated to a corner of the sanctuary, all converge in the same direction—away from the doctrine of the Real Presence.
These observations can be applied to the Novus Ordo Missae as a whole, whatever Canon is chosen, and even if the New Mass is said with the so-called Roman Canon.
II. THE NEW MASS AND EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE
Apart from the dogma of the Real Presence, the Council of Trent also defined the reality of the Sacrifice of the Mass, which is the renewal of the sacrifice of Calvary, the saving fruits of which are applied to us for the forgiveness of sins and for our reconciliation with God.
The Mass is, therefore, a sacrifice. It is also a communion, but a communion at a sacrifice previously celebrated: a meal, where the immolated victim of the sacrifice is eaten. The Mass is first and foremost, then, a sacrifice, and secondly a communion or meal.
But the whole structure of the New Mass is geared to the meal aspect of the celebration, to the detriment of the sacrifice. Again, and more seriously, this is in the direction of the Protestant heresy.
The substitution of the table facing the people in the place of the altar of sacrifice bears witness already to a specific orientation. For if the Mass is a meal, it is in conformity with custom to gather round a table, whereas an altar raised against the cross of Calvary is quite out of place.
The Liturgy of the Word has been developed to the point where it now occupies the greater part of the time-space of the new celebration, and diminishes in the same proportion, the attention due to the eucharistic mystery and sacrifice.
Essentially, one must note the suppression of the Offertory of the victim of the sacrifice, and its replacement by the offering of the gifts. This substitution is truly grotesque, and tends toward the farcical: for what do they mean by this offering of a few bread crumbs and drops of wine—"fruit of the earth and work of human hands"—that they dare to present before the Sovereign Lord? The pagans did much better—they offered to their divinity not just bread crumbs, but something a bit more substantial: a bull, or some other animal whose immolation was a real sacrifice for them. Luther railed very violently against the presence of the sacrificial Offertory in the Catholic Mass. And in fact, he was not mistaken in the way he looked at it: the simple presence of an offering of the victim is the undeniable affirmation that there really is a sacrifice involved, and indeed a sacrifice of expiation for the forgiveness of sins.
Thus the Offertory of the Catholic Mass was an obstacle to ecumenism. There was no hesitation to make it look ridiculous and here again to undermine the Catholic Faith. The old Offertory specified the oblation of the actual sacrifice of Christ:
"Receive, O holy Father . . . this spotless host . . ." (hanc immaculatam hostiam),
"We offer unto Thee, O Lord, the chalice of salvation . . ." (calicem salutaris).
It was neither the bread nor the wine which was offered to God, but already the spotless Host, the chalice of salvation, within the perspective of the approaching consecration.
Certain liturgists, too preoccupied with the letter of the rite, had held that this was an anticipation. But this opinion is quite wrong. The intention of the Church, expressed by the priest, is in fact to offer the actual victim of the sacrifice (and not bread and wine at all). In the Sacrifice of the Mass, everything takes place at the precise moment of Consecration, in which the priest operates in persona Christi and where the bread and wine are transubstantiated into the Body and Blood of Christ. However, given the impossibility of saying everything at once about the spiritual riches of the mystery of the Eucharist, the liturgy of the Mass begins to make an exposition of these riches at the Offertory. It is therefore not a matter of anticipation, but of perspective.
In the New Mass, the Offertory of the sacrificial victim has therefore been suppressed, as well as the signs of the cross over the oblations, which were a constant reference to the Cross of Calvary.
And thus in this cumulative manner the prime reality of the Mass as the renewal of the Sacrifice of Calvary is de-emphasized in its concrete expressions. This is the case right up to the central moment of the celebration. The actual words of Consecration in the new rite, are in fact pronounced by the priest as a narrative, as if it were simply the recital of an event in the past; it is no longer pronounced in the intimate tone of a Consecration made in the present and profferred in the Name of Him in Whose person the priest is acting.
This is extremely serious.
What could be the intention of the priest-celebrant in this new perspective?—the intention, which, according to the Council of Trent's reminder, is one of the conditions for the validity of the celebration. This intention is no longer signified by the ceremonial of the rite. The priest-celebrant can of course supply it by his own will and the Mass can then be valid. But what about the progressive priests, who are concerned above all else with breaking with ancient tradition? In this case doubt becomes legitimate. And there is nothing else then, it seems, to distinguish the New Mass in its general structure from the Protestant Communion Service.
They say that they have kept the Roman Canon. At first glance at the new rite, it is offered to the choice of the celebrant, along with three other Eucharistic Prayers.
What is the meaning of this choice?
The Roman Canon they have kept is no longer the former Canon. It has in fact been mutilated in many different ways: it has been mutilated in the very act of the Consecration as we have just seen; it has been mutilated by the suppression of the repeated signs of the cross; it has been mutilated by the suppression of the genuflections which were an expression of belief in the Real Presence; it is no longer presignified by the sacrificial Offertory.
In the official vernacular versions, which, in practice are the only ones used, it has been translated in a tendentious fashion, brushing away the rigorous expression of the Catholic Faith.
Moreover, it has lost its proper character as "Canon," that is as a fixed prayer, as unchangeable as the very rock of the faith. It has become interchangeable. It can be replaced, according to each individual whim or belief, with one of the other Eucharistic prayers. And this, obviously, is the supreme trickery of the new ecumenism.
Officially, there are three new "Preces" offered as choices to the celebrant. But, in fact, the door is open to all kinds of innovations and it has become impossible to list all the different Eucharistic prayers introduced and practiced in the various dioceses.
We need not stop here to consider these "wildcat" liturgies, which, although unofficial, still blow in all directions in the same wind of reform, or rather revolution. We will just give a brief analysis of the three new Eucharistic Prayers, introduced with the New Mass.
The second prayer, presented as the Canon of St. Hippolytus, older than the Roman Canon, is in fact the canon of the anti-pope Hippolytus at the time of his revolt before the martyrdom which merited his return to the unity of the Church. This Canon has probably never been in use in the pontifical Church of Rome and has only come down to us in a few verbal souvenirs recorded by the recension of Hippolytus. It has in no way been retained by the Tradition of the Church. In this extremely short Canon which—apart from the recital of the Last Supper—contains only a few prayers of sanctifying the offerings, of thanksgiving and of eternal salvation, there is absolutely no mention of sacrifice.
In the third Eucharistic Prayer, there is a mention made of sacrifice, but in the explicit sense of a sacrifice of thanksgiving and praise. No mention is made of the expiatory sacrifice renewed in the present sacramental reality, which can win us the forgiveness of sins.
The fourth Prayer is a history of the benefits of the Redemption wrought by Christ. But here again, the propitiatory sacrifice—actually renewed—is not explicitated more than elsewhere.
Thus in the three new texts proposed the Catholic doctrine on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, a doctrine defined by the Council of Trent is in fact left in the shadow, and, being no longer affirmed in the very act of celebrating the Mass, this doctrine is in fact abandoned and, with such a significant omission, denied.
III. THE NEW MASS AND THE ROLE OF THE PRIEST
The exclusive role of the priest as instrument of Christ in offering the sacrifice is a third point of Catholic doctrine defined by the Council of Trent. This role of the priest in offering the sacrifice disappears in the new celebration, along with the sacrifice itself. The priest appears as the president of the assembly.
The laity invade the sanctuary and attribute to themselves the clerical functions, readings, distribution of Communion, sometimes preaching.
One must not be surprised by certain former terms still in use, as they are now capable of having a different meaning. Thus, as we have already observed, the word "offertory" is maintained, but no longer in the sense of an oblation of the sacrificial victim, just as the word "sacrifice" is retained here and there, but no longer necessarily in the sense of the renewed sacrifice of Our Saviour. It is capable of signifying nothing more than thanksgiving or praise, according to the faith of the believer.
Concluding this brief analysis of the new rites, we can only remark—in the light of the facts—that the New Mass has been totally conceived and elaborated in the direction of ecumenism, adaptable to the various faiths of the various churches.
This is what the Protestants of Taizé recognized immediately, declaring that it was now theologically possible for Protestant communities to celebrate the communion service with the same prayers as the Catholic Church. The Protestant Church of Alsace spoke out in the same vein of thought:
Quote:"There is no longer anything in the Mass as it is now renewed to upset the evangelical Christian."
And an important Protestant paper has said:
Quote:"The new Catholic Eucharistic prayers have dropped the false perspective of a sacrifice offered to God."
Already the presence of six Protestant theologians, duly authorized to participate in the elaboration of the new texts, had been a significant presence.
This ecumenical Mass is therefore no longer the expression of the Catholic Faith. In their entreaty to Pope Paul VI, Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci were not afraid to make the following observation, and no one today can contest its rigor:
Quote:"The Novus Ordo Missae departs in an impressive fashion, both as a whole and in its details, from the Catholic theology of the Holy Mass."
|
|
|
The New Mass: Article recommended by Archbp. Lefebvre |
Posted by: Stone - 03-19-2021, 01:33 PM - Forum: New Rite Sacraments
- Replies (1)
|
|
The Angelus - October 1982
The New Mass
by Canon René Berthod
The article which follows was written by the former Rector of the Society of St. Pius X Seminary at Ecône, Switzerland.
It was originally published in the French youth review, Savoir et Servir, and was recommended by Archbishop Lefebvre to his seminarians.
We hope our readers will benefit from this re-statement of differences between the Mass of All Time
and that which the ecumenists and Modernists have foisted upon the Catholic world!
The Church of Christ was founded for a double mission: a mission of faith and a mission of sanctification of those redeemed by the Blood of the Saviour. She must bring to men faith and grace: the faith by her teaching and grace by the sacraments, which were confided to her by Christ the Lord.
Her mission of faith consists in transmitting to men the revelation of spiritual and supernatural realities made by God to the world, and to safeguard this revelation without change through the passing centuries. The Catholic Church is, first of all, the faith which does not change; she is, as St. Paul says, "the Pillar of truth" (I Tim. 4, 15), which travels through the ages, always faithful to herself, an inflexible witness of God in a world of perpetual change and contradiction.
Through the course of the centuries, the Catholic Church has taught and defended her faith on the basis of one sole criterion: "That which she has always believed and taught." All the heresies which the Church has faced have been judged and repudiated in the name of their non-conformity to this principle. The "first reflex principle" of the hierarchy of the Church and especially of the Roman Church, has been to maintain without change the truth received from the Apostles and Our Lord. The doctrine of the holy sacrifice of the Mass belongs to the Church's treasure of truth. And if today, in this particular domain, there appears to be some kind of break with the Church's past, then such a novelty should alert every Catholic conscience, as in the times of the great heresies, and should provoke univocally a confrontation with the Church's faith which does not change.
What is the New Mass?
We know, of course, that the ancient Mass was not given to us ready made. It has kept the essential rituals performed by the Apostles at Christ's command; and new prayers, praises and precisions have been added to it in a slow elaboration so as to make more explicit the Eucharistic mystery and to preserve it from the denials of the heretics.
The Mass was thus progressively elaborated, fashioned around the primitive kernel bequeathed by the Apostles, the witnesses of Christ's institution. Like a case containing a precious stone or the treasure confided to the Church, it was thought about, adjusted, adorned as a piece of music. The best was retained, just as in the construction of a cathedral. What the Mass explicitly contains in its mystery was carefully made more explicit. Just like the mustard seed, it spread forth its branches, but everything was already contained in the seed.
This progressive elaboration, or explicitation, was achieved according to the essentials by the time of Pope St. Gregory the Great in the sixth century. Only a few secondary additions were made in later years. This work accomplished during the first centuries of Christianity has brought forth a basis for our faith in order to impress upon the human intelligence the institution of Christ in its recognized truth.
Thus the Mass is the unfolding or explicitation of the Eucharistic mystery and its celebration.
The Catholic Doctrine Defined
In reaction to Luther's negations, the Council of Trent recalled and defined the unchanged doctrine of the Catholic Church concerning the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, essentially in the following three points of doctrine:
1) in the Eucharist, the Presence of Christ is real;
2) the Mass is a true sacrifice: in its substance it is the sacrifice of the cross renewed, a true sacrifice of propitiation or expiation for the forgiveness of sins, and not just a sacrifice of praise or thanksgiving;
3) the role of the priest in offering the Holy Sacrifice is essential and exclusive: the priest, and he alone, has received by the Sacrament of Orders the power to consecrate the Body and Blood of Christ.
The ancient millennial Mass, Latin and Roman, expresses most clearly the complete profundity of this doctrine, without detracting in the slightest from the mystery.
What is the Situation with the New Mass?
It is a fact that the New Mass was imposed on the Catholic world in order to fulfill the needs of ecumenism: the ancient Mass was the major obstacle to the reconstruction of unity with the reformers of the seventeenth century. Without the slightest room for doubt, the Tridentine Mass affirmed precisely the Catholic Faith denied by the Protestants, especially concerning the three essential points of doctrine, namely:
- the reality of the Real Presence,
- the reality of the Sacrifice,
- the reality of the power of the priest.
The New Mass, quite simply, was to turn a deaf ear to this Catholic Faith. Once introduced and having become indifferent to all dogma, the new rite would be able to suit a purely Protestant faith. It would be used as a meeting-point of ecumenical unity for the world, for a single celebration where the contested dogmas would have been prudently veiled, and where the only gestures, expressions and attitudes to be retained would be those open to an interpretation according to the faith of the individual.
Can the evidence of the facts be denied?
The changes wrought by the New Mass bear precisely on the points of doctrine disputed by Luther.
I. THE NEW MASS AND THE REAL PRESENCE
In the New Mass, the Real Presence no longer plays the central role which was highlighted by the ancient eucharistic liturgy.
All reference, even indirect, to the Real Presence has been eliminated.
One recognizes with amazement that the gestures and signs which spontaneously expressed our Faith in the Real Presence have been either abolished or seriously changed.
Thus the genuflexions—the most expressive signs of the Catholic Faith—have been suppressed as such. And if the genuflexion after the elevation has been maintained as an exception, one must recognize unfortunately that it has lost its precise meaning of adoring the Real Presence.
In the ancient Mass, the priest makes the first genuflexion immediately after the words of consecration; this signifies, without any possible ambiguity, that Christ is really present on the altar by virtue of the very words of consecration pronounced by the priest. He genuflects a second time after the elevation: this genuflexion has the same meaning as the first and re-enforces it.
In the New Mass, the first genuflexion has been suppressed. The second genuflexion, on the other hand, has been kept. This is where the trap is for those minds not sufficiently acquainted with the wiles of Modernism: in fact, this second genuflexion, isolated from the first, can now receive a Protestant interpretation. If the Protestant faith does not admit the Real Physical Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, it does nevertheless recognize a certain spiritual presence of Our Lord on account of the faith of the believers. Thus, in the New Mass, the celebrant does not firstly adore the Host which he has just consecrated, but he elevates it, presenting it to the assembly of the faithful which engages its faith in Christ, and this faith renders Christ spiritually present; one kneels and adores, and this can be done simply in the Protestant sense of a presence purely spiritual.
The exterior ceremonial can thus be adapted to fit a purely subjective faith, and even a denial of the Catholic doctrine of the Real Presence. The genuflexion retained after the elevation of the Host and Chalice has become capable, in effect, of a Protestant interpretation. It has taken on a meaning which can be adapted to the faith of the individual, and which is therefore ambiguous. A rite such as this is no longer the clear expression of the Catholic Faith.
Other changes made to the ancient rite—even if they are less serious than those touching the very heart of the Mass—all nevertheless point to a decreasing respect for the Real Presence. Under this heading mention must be made of the following suppressions which, when taken in isolation, may seem unimportant, but when considered as a whole, are no less indicative of the spirit which prevailed in the reforms. The following have been suppressed:
- the purification of the priest's fingers over the chalice and into the chalice;
- the obligation for the priest to keep joined together those fingers which have touched the Host after the consecration, in order to avoid all contact with the profane;
- the pall protecting the chalice;
- the obligatory gilding of the inside of the sacred vessels;
- the consecration of the altar if it is fixed;
- the altar stone and the relics placed in the altar if it is movable;
- the number of altar cloths reduced from three to one;
- the prescriptions concerning the case where a consecrated Host falls on the ground.
All these suppressions represent a decrease in the expression of respect due to the Real Presence; to them can be added the posture of those present, which again tends in the same direction, and which has been practically imposed on the faithful:
- Communion received standing and often in the hand;
- thanksgiving after Communion, which, although extremely brief, one is urged to make sitting down;
- standing after the consecration.
These changes, made worse by the removal of the tabernacle, which is often relegated to a corner of the sanctuary, all converge in the same direction—away from the doctrine of the Real Presence.
These observations can be applied to the Novus Ordo Missae as a whole, whatever Canon is chosen, and even if the New Mass is said with the so-called Roman Canon.
II. THE NEW MASS AND EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE
Apart from the dogma of the Real Presence, the Council of Trent also defined the reality of the Sacrifice of the Mass, which is the renewal of the sacrifice of Calvary, the saving fruits of which are applied to us for the forgiveness of sins and for our reconciliation with God.
The Mass is, therefore, a sacrifice. It is also a communion, but a communion at a sacrifice previously celebrated: a meal, where the immolated victim of the sacrifice is eaten. The Mass is first and foremost, then, a sacrifice, and secondly a communion or meal.
But the whole structure of the New Mass is geared to the meal aspect of the celebration, to the detriment of the sacrifice. Again, and more seriously, this is in the direction of the Protestant heresy.
The substitution of the table facing the people in the place of the altar of sacrifice bears witness already to a specific orientation. For if the Mass is a meal, it is in conformity with custom to gather round a table, whereas an altar raised against the cross of Calvary is quite out of place.
The Liturgy of the Word has been developed to the point where it now occupies the greater part of the time-space of the new celebration, and diminishes in the same proportion, the attention due to the eucharistic mystery and sacrifice.
Essentially, one must note the suppression of the Offertory of the victim of the sacrifice, and its replacement by the offering of the gifts. This substitution is truly grotesque, and tends toward the farcical: for what do they mean by this offering of a few bread crumbs and drops of wine—"fruit of the earth and work of human hands"—that they dare to present before the Sovereign Lord? The pagans did much better—they offered to their divinity not just bread crumbs, but something a bit more substantial: a bull, or some other animal whose immolation was a real sacrifice for them. Luther railed very violently against the presence of the sacrificial Offertory in the Catholic Mass. And in fact, he was not mistaken in the way he looked at it: the simple presence of an offering of the victim is the undeniable affirmation that there really is a sacrifice involved, and indeed a sacrifice of expiation for the forgiveness of sins.
Thus the Offertory of the Catholic Mass was an obstacle to ecumenism. There was no hesitation to make it look ridiculous and here again to undermine the Catholic Faith. The old Offertory specified the oblation of the actual sacrifice of Christ:
"Receive, O holy Father . . . this spotless host . . ." (hanc immaculatam hostiam),
"We offer unto Thee, O Lord, the chalice of salvation . . ." (calicem salutaris).
It was neither the bread nor the wine which was offered to God, but already the spotless Host, the chalice of salvation, within the perspective of the approaching consecration.
Certain liturgists, too preoccupied with the letter of the rite, had held that this was an anticipation. But this opinion is quite wrong. The intention of the Church, expressed by the priest, is in fact to offer the actual victim of the sacrifice (and not bread and wine at all). In the Sacrifice of the Mass, everything takes place at the precise moment of Consecration, in which the priest operates in persona Christi and where the bread and wine are transubstantiated into the Body and Blood of Christ. However, given the impossibility of saying everything at once about the spiritual riches of the mystery of the Eucharist, the liturgy of the Mass begins to make an exposition of these riches at the Offertory. It is therefore not a matter of anticipation, but of perspective.
In the New Mass, the Offertory of the sacrificial victim has therefore been suppressed, as well as the signs of the cross over the oblations, which were a constant reference to the Cross of Calvary.
And thus in this cumulative manner the prime reality of the Mass as the renewal of the Sacrifice of Calvary is de-emphasized in its concrete expressions. This is the case right up to the central moment of the celebration. The actual words of Consecration in the new rite, are in fact pronounced by the priest as a narrative, as if it were simply the recital of an event in the past; it is no longer pronounced in the intimate tone of a Consecration made in the present and profferred in the Name of Him in Whose person the priest is acting.
This is extremely serious.
What could be the intention of the priest-celebrant in this new perspective?—the intention, which, according to the Council of Trent's reminder, is one of the conditions for the validity of the celebration. This intention is no longer signified by the ceremonial of the rite. The priest-celebrant can of course supply it by his own will and the Mass can then be valid. But what about the progressive priests, who are concerned above all else with breaking with ancient tradition? In this case doubt becomes legitimate. And there is nothing else then, it seems, to distinguish the New Mass in its general structure from the Protestant Communion Service.
They say that they have kept the Roman Canon. At first glance at the new rite, it is offered to the choice of the celebrant, along with three other Eucharistic Prayers.
What is the meaning of this choice?
The Roman Canon they have kept is no longer the former Canon. It has in fact been mutilated in many different ways: it has been mutilated in the very act of the Consecration as we have just seen; it has been mutilated by the suppression of the repeated signs of the cross; it has been mutilated by the suppression of the genuflections which were an expression of belief in the Real Presence; it is no longer presignified by the sacrificial Offertory.
In the official vernacular versions, which, in practice are the only ones used, it has been translated in a tendentious fashion, brushing away the rigorous expression of the Catholic Faith.
Moreover, it has lost its proper character as "Canon," that is as a fixed prayer, as unchangeable as the very rock of the faith. It has become interchangeable. It can be replaced, according to each individual whim or belief, with one of the other Eucharistic prayers. And this, obviously, is the supreme trickery of the new ecumenism.
Officially, there are three new "Preces" offered as choices to the celebrant. But, in fact, the door is open to all kinds of innovations and it has become impossible to list all the different Eucharistic prayers introduced and practiced in the various dioceses.
We need not stop here to consider these "wildcat" liturgies, which, although unofficial, still blow in all directions in the same wind of reform, or rather revolution. We will just give a brief analysis of the three new Eucharistic Prayers, introduced with the New Mass.
The second prayer, presented as the Canon of St. Hippolytus, older than the Roman Canon, is in fact the canon of the anti-pope Hippolytus at the time of his revolt before the martyrdom which merited his return to the unity of the Church. This Canon has probably never been in use in the pontifical Church of Rome and has only come down to us in a few verbal souvenirs recorded by the recension of Hippolytus. It has in no way been retained by the Tradition of the Church. In this extremely short Canon which—apart from the recital of the Last Supper—contains only a few prayers of sanctifying the offerings, of thanksgiving and of eternal salvation, there is absolutely no mention of sacrifice.
In the third Eucharistic Prayer, there is a mention made of sacrifice, but in the explicit sense of a sacrifice of thanksgiving and praise. No mention is made of the expiatory sacrifice renewed in the present sacramental reality, which can win us the forgiveness of sins.
The fourth Prayer is a history of the benefits of the Redemption wrought by Christ. But here again, the propitiatory sacrifice—actually renewed—is not explicitated more than elsewhere.
Thus in the three new texts proposed the Catholic doctrine on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, a doctrine defined by the Council of Trent is in fact left in the shadow, and, being no longer affirmed in the very act of celebrating the Mass, this doctrine is in fact abandoned and, with such a significant omission, denied.
III. THE NEW MASS AND THE ROLE OF THE PRIEST
The exclusive role of the priest as instrument of Christ in offering the sacrifice is a third point of Catholic doctrine defined by the Council of Trent. This role of the priest in offering the sacrifice disappears in the new celebration, along with the sacrifice itself. The priest appears as the president of the assembly.
The laity invade the sanctuary and attribute to themselves the clerical functions, readings, distribution of Communion, sometimes preaching.
One must not be surprised by certain former terms still in use, as they are now capable of having a different meaning. Thus, as we have already observed, the word "offertory" is maintained, but no longer in the sense of an oblation of the sacrificial victim, just as the word "sacrifice" is retained here and there, but no longer necessarily in the sense of the renewed sacrifice of Our Saviour. It is capable of signifying nothing more than thanksgiving or praise, according to the faith of the believer.
Concluding this brief analysis of the new rites, we can only remark—in the light of the facts—that the New Mass has been totally conceived and elaborated in the direction of ecumenism, adaptable to the various faiths of the various churches.
This is what the Protestants of Taizé recognized immediately, declaring that it was now theologically possible for Protestant communities to celebrate the communion service with the same prayers as the Catholic Church. The Protestant Church of Alsace spoke out in the same vein of thought:
Quote:"There is no longer anything in the Mass as it is now renewed to upset the evangelical Christian."
And an important Protestant paper has said:
Quote:"The new Catholic Eucharistic prayers have dropped the false perspective of a sacrifice offered to God."
Already the presence of six Protestant theologians, duly authorized to participate in the elaboration of the new texts, had been a significant presence.
This ecumenical Mass is therefore no longer the expression of the Catholic Faith. In their entreaty to Pope Paul VI, Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci were not afraid to make the following observation, and no one today can contest its rigor:
Quote:"The Novus Ordo Missae departs in an impressive fashion, both as a whole and in its details, from the Catholic theology of the Holy Mass."
|
|
|
Tanzania President John Magufuli Passes Away! A Lockdown Rebel. |
Posted by: Deus Vult - 03-19-2021, 11:37 AM - Forum: Pandemic 2020 [Secular]
- Replies (1)
|
|
Tanzania President John Magufuli Passes Away! A Lockdown Rebel.
"There is something happening. I said before we should not accept that every aid is meant to be good for this nation." Magufuli said adding that the kits should be investigated.
Tanzanian President John Magufuli swabbed a papaya fruit, a goat, a (type of) Pheasant, and some engine oil, called them human names like "Elizabeth - age 26" sent them off to the W.H.O.
|
|
|
A Sinner's Prayer and for Past Ingratitude by St. Alphonsus Liguori |
Posted by: Hildegard of Bingen - 03-18-2021, 10:45 PM - Forum: Prayers and Devotionals
- No Replies
|
|
PRAYERS BY ST. ALPHONSUS LIGUORI
A Sinner's Prayer
O my most sweet Mother, how shall I die, poor sinner that I am? Even now the thought of that important moment when I must expire, and appear before the judgment-seat of God, and the remembrance that I have myself so often written my condemnation by consenting to sin, makes me tremble. I am confounded, and fear much for my eternal salvation. O Mary, in the blood of Jesus, and in thy intercession, is all my hope. Thou art the Queen of Heaven, the mistress of the universe; in short, thou art the Mother of God. Thou art great, but thy greatness does not prevent, nay, even it inclines thee to greater compassion towards us in our miseries. Worldly friends when raised to dignity disdain to notice their former friends who may have fallen into distress. Thy noble and loving heart does not act thus, for the greater the miseries it beholds the greater are its efforts to relieve. Thou, when called upon, dost immediately assist; nay, more, thou dost anticipate our prayers by thy favors; thou consolest us in our afflictions; thou dissipatest the storms by which we are tossed about; thou overcomest all enemies; thou, in fine, never losest an occasion to promote our welfare. May that Divine hand which has united in thee such majesty and such tenderness, such greatness and so much love, be forever blessed! I thank my Lord for it, and congratulate myself in having so great an advantage; for truly in thy felicity do I place my own, and I consider thy lot as mine. O comfortress of the afflicted, console a poor creature who recommends himself to thee. The remorse of a conscience overburdened with sins fills me with affliction. I am in doubt as to whether I have sufficiently grieved for them. I see that all my actions are sullied and defective; Hell awaits my death in order to accuse me; the outraged justice of God demands satisfaction. My Mother, what will become of me? If thou dost not help me, I am lost. What sayest thou, wilt thou assist me? O compassionate Virgin, console me; obtain for me true sorrow for my sins; obtain for me strength to amend, and to be faithful to God during the rest of my life. And finally, when I am in the last agonies of death, O Mary, my hope, abandon me not; then, more than ever, help and encourage me, that I may not despair at the sight of my sins, which the evil one will then place before me. My Lady, forgive my temerity; come thyself to comfort me with thy presence in that last struggle. This favor thou hast granted to many, grant it also to me. If my boldness is great, thy goodness is greater; for it goes in search of the most miserable to console them. On this I rely. For thy eternal glory, let it be said that thou hast snatched a wretched creature from Hell, to which he was already condemned, and that thou hast led him to thy kingdom. Oh, yes. sweet Mother, I hope to have the consolation of remaining always at thy feet in heaven. thanking and blessing and loving thee eternally. O Mary, I shall expect thee at my last hour; deprive me not of this consolation. Amen.
Prayer for Past Ingratitude
O compassionate Mother, most sacred Virgin, behold at thy feet the traitor, who, by paying with ingratitude the graces received from God through thy means, has betrayed both thee and Him. But I must tell thee, O most blessed Lady, that my misery, far from taking away my confidence, increases it; for I see that thy compassion is great in proportion to the greatness of my misery. Show thyself, O Mary, full of liberality towards me; for thus thou art towards all who invoke thy aid. All that I ask is that thou shouldst cast thine eyes of compassion on me, and pity me. If thy heart is thus far moved, it cannot do otherwise than protect me; and if thou protectest me, what can I fear? No, I fear nothing, I do not fear my sins, for thou canst provide a remedy; I do not fear devils, for thou art more powerful than the whole of Hell; I do not even fear thy Son, though justly irritated against me, for at a word of thine He will be appeased. 1 only fear lest, in my temptations, and by my own fault, I may cease to recommend myself to thee, and thus be lost. But I now promise thee that I will always have recourse to thee; oh, help me to fulfill my promise. Lose not the opportunity which now presents itself of gratifying thy ardent desire to succor such poor wretches as myself. In thee, O Mother of God, I have unbounded confidence. From thee I hope for grace to bewail my sins as I ought, and from thee I hope for strength never again to fall into them. If I am sick, thou, O heavenly physician, canst heal me. If my sins have weakened me, thy help will strengthen me. O Mary, I hope all from thee; for thou art all-powerful with God. Amen.
|
|
|
Litany of St. Alphonsus Liguori - Doctor of the Church |
Posted by: Hildegard of Bingen - 03-18-2021, 10:38 PM - Forum: Litanies
- No Replies
|
|
The Litany of St. Alphonsus Liguori
Doctor of the Church
Lord have mercy on us. Christ have mercy on us.
Lord have mercy on us. Christ, hear us. Christ, graciously hear us.
God, the Father of Heaven, have mercy on us.
God the Son, Redeemer of the world, have mercy on us.
God the Holy Ghost, have mercy on us.
Holy Trinity, One God, have mercy on us.
Holy Mary, Virgin Immaculate, pray for us.
St. Alphonsus, model of piety from tenderest youth, pray for us.
St. Alphonsus, scourge of heresies, pray for us.
St. Alphonsus, defender of the Catholic Faith, pray for us.
St. Alphonsus, always occupied in evangelizing the poor, pray for us.
St. Alphonsus, tender comforter of the afflicted, pray for us.
St. Alphonsus, instructed in the Divine art of converting sinners, pray for us.
St. Alphonsus, enlightened guide in the path of perfection, pray for us.
St. Alphonsus, who became all things to all men, to gain all for Christ, pray for us.
St. Alphonsus, new ornament of the Religious state, pray for us.
St. Alphonsus, bold champion of ecclesiastical discipline, pray for us.
St. Alphonsus, model of submission and devotion to the Sovereign Pontiff, pray for us.
St. Alphonsus, who didst watch unceasingly over the flock committed to thee, pray for us.
St. Alphonsus, full of solicitude for the common good of the Church, pray for us.
St. Alphonsus, glory of the Priesthood and of the Episcopate, pray for us.
St. Alphonsus, shining mirror of all virtues, pray for us.
St. Alphonsus, full of tenderest love for the infant Jesus, pray for us.
St. Alphonsus, inflamed with Divine love whilst offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, pray for us.
St. Alphonsus, fervent adorer of Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist, pray for us.
St. Alphonsus, penetrated with lively compassion while meditating on the sufferings of our Divine Savior, pray for us.
St. Alphonsus, specially devoted to the Blessed Virgin Mary, pray for us.
St. Alphonsus, favored by apparitions of the Mother of God, pray for us.
St. Alphonsus, leading an angelic life, pray for us.
St. Alphonsus, a true Patriarch in thy paternal solicitude for the people of God, pray for us.
St. Alphonsus, endowed with the gift of prophecy and miracles, pray for us.
St. Alphonsus, an Apostle by the extent and fruit of thy labors, pray for us.
St. Alphonsus, a Martyr by thy austerities, pray for us.
St. Alphonsus, a Confessor by thy writings full of the Spirit of God, pray for us.
St. Alphonsus, a Virgin by thy purity of soul and body, pray for us.
St. Alphonsus, a model of Missionaries, pray for us.
St. Alphonsus, founder of the Order of the Most Holy Redeemer, pray for us.
St. Alphonsus, our tender father and powerful protector, pray for us.
Lamb of God, Who takest away the sins of the world, Spare us, O Lord.
Lamb of God, Who takest away the sins of the world, Graciously hear us, O Lord.
Lamb of God, Who takest away the sins of the world, Have mercy on us.
V. Pray for us, St. Alphonsus,
R. That we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ.
Let us pray.
O God, Who by the Blessed Alphonsus Maria, Thy Confessor and Bishop, inflamed with zeal for souls, has enriched Thy Church with a new progeny: we beseech Thee, that taught by his saving counsels, and strengthened by his example, we may happily come to Thee. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.
|
|
|
April 21st - St. Anselm |
Posted by: Elizabeth - 03-18-2021, 08:32 PM - Forum: April
- Replies (2)
|
|
Saint Anselm
Archbishop of Canterbury
(1034-1109)
Saint Anselm was a native of Piedmont. When as a boy of fifteen he was forbidden to enter religion after the death of his good Christian mother, for a time he lost the fervor she had imparted to him. He left home and went to study in various schools in France; at length his vocation revived, and he became a monk at Bec in Normandy, where he had been studying under the renowned Abbot Lanfranc.
The fame of his sanctity in this cloister led King William Rufus of England, when dangerously ill, to take him for his confessor and afterwards to name him to the vacant see of Canterbury to replace his own former master, Lanfranc, who had been appointed there before him. He was consecrated in December, 1093. Then began the strife which characterized Saint Anselm's episcopate. The king, when restored to health, lapsed into his former sins, continued to plunder the Church lands, scorned the archbishop's rebukes, and forbade him to go to Rome for the pallium.
Finally the king sent envoys to Rome for the pallium; a legate returned with them to England, bearing it. The Archbishop received the pallium not from the king's hand, as William would have required, but from that of the papal legate. For Saint Anselm's defense of the Pope's supremacy in a Council at Rockingham, called in March of 1095, the worldly prelates did not scruple to call him a traitor. The Saint rose, and with calm dignity exclaimed, If any man pretends that I violate my faith to my king because I will not reject the authority of the Holy See of Rome, let him stand, and in the name of God I will answer him as I ought. No one took up the challenge; and to the disappointment of the king, the barons sided with the Saint, for they respected his courage and saw that his cause was their own. During a time he spent in Rome and France, canons were passed in Rome against the practice of lay investiture, and a decree of excommunication was issued against offenders.
When William Rufus died, another strife began with William's successor, Henry I. This sovereign claimed the right of investing prelates with the ring and crozier, symbols of the spiritual jurisdiction which belongs to the Church alone. Rather than yield, the archbishop went into exile, until at last the king was obliged to submit to the aging but inflexible prelate.
In the midst of his harassing cares, Saint Anselm found time for writings which have made him celebrated as the father of scholastic theology, while in metaphysics and in science he had few equals. He is yet more famous for his devotion to our Blessed Mother, whose Feast of the Immaculate Conception he was the first to establish in the West. He died in 1109.
|
|
|
Famous Theologians Concur: The Faithful Must Resist Bad Shepherds |
Posted by: Stone - 03-18-2021, 06:53 PM - Forum: Church Doctrine & Teaching
- No Replies
|
|
Famous Theologians Concur: The Faithful Must Resist Bad Shepherds
TIA | April 16, 2011
In response to the great interest our readers are showing for the foundation of our position of resistance against the progressivist authority,
we bring more famous authors who counsel Catholics to respectfully resist the bad religious authority.
Fr. Francisco Suarez, S.J.
“If [the Pope] gives an order contrary to good customs, he should not be obeyed; if he attempts to do something manifestly opposed to justice and the common good, it will be licit to resist him; if he attacks by force, by force he can be repelled, with a moderation appropriate to a just defense” (De Fide, disp. X, sec. VI, n.16, in Opera omnia, Paris: Vivès, 1958, vol. 12, p. 321).
Fr. Cornelius a Lapide, S.J.
The renowned Jesuit shows that St. Augustine, St. Ambrose, St. Bede, St. Anselm and other Fathers teach that St. Paul resisted St. Peter publicly “so that the public scandal given by St. Peter was amended by a likewise public reprehension” (Commentaria in Scripturam Sacram, Ad Galatas 2:11, Paris: Ludovicus Vivès, 1876, vol. 18, p. 528).
Later on, a Lapide argues that “superiors can be reprehended, with humble charity, by their inferiors in the defense of truth; that is what St. Augustine (Epistula 19), St. Cyprian, St. Gregory, St. Thomas and others cited above declare about this passage (Gal 2:11). They clearly teach that St. Peter, being a superior, was reprehended by St. Paul. ... With good reason, therefore, St. Gregory said: ‘Peter kept quiet so that, being first in the Apostolic Hierarchy, he would also be first in humility’ (Homilia 18 in Ezechielem).
"And St. Augustine wrote: ‘By teaching that superiors should not refuse to be reprehended by inferiors, St. Peter gave posterity a rarer and holier example than that of St. Paul as he taught that, in the defense of truth and with charity, inferiors may have the audacity to resist superiors without fear’ (Epistula 19 ad Hieronyrnum).”
Dom Prosper Guéranger, Abbot of Solesmes
“When the shepherd turns into a wolf, it falls to the flock first to defend itself. Doctrine normally flows from the Bishops down to the faithful people, and subjects should not judge their chiefs. But, in the treasure of Revelation, there are certain points that every Christian necessarily knows and must obligatorily defend” (L’année liturgique - Le temps de la septuagesime, Tours: Maison Mame, 1932, pp. 340-341).
Frs. Francisco Wernz S.J. & Pedro Vidal, S.J.
These famous theologians at the beginning of the 20th century, citing Suarez, admit the licitness of resisting a bad Pope: “The just means to be employed against a bad Pope are, according to Suarez (Defensio Fidei Catholicae, lib. IV, cap. 6, nn. 17-18), a more abundant assistance of the grace of God, the special protection of one’s Guardian Angel, the prayer of the Universal Church, admonishment or fraternal correction in private or even in public, as well as the legitimate self-defense against aggression, whether physical or moral” (Ius canonicum, Rome: Aedes Universitatis Gregorianae, 1927, vol. II. p. 436).
Fr. Antonio Peinador, C.M.F.
This known pre-Vatican II Spanish theologian adopts the sentences of those who preceded him: “‘Also a subject may be obliged to fraternally correct his superior’ (Summa Theologiae, II-II, q.33, a.4). For also a superior can be spiritually indigent, and nothing prevents him from being liberated from such indigence by his subjects. Nevertheless, ‘in the correction in which subjects reprehend their Prelates, they must act in a proper manner, that is, without insolence and harshness but with meekness and reverence’ (ad 2)” (Cursus brevior Theologiae Moralis, Madrid: Coculsa, 1946, vol. I, p. 287).
|
|
|
Fr. Denis Fahey: Extracts from Papal Documents on the Duties of Catholics |
Posted by: Stone - 03-18-2021, 06:51 PM - Forum: Church Doctrine & Teaching
- No Replies
|
|
Taken from The Kingship of Christ According to the Principles of St. Thomas Aquinas
By Rev. Fr. Denis Fahey 1931
SOME EXTRACTS FROM PAPAL DOCUMENTS ON THE DUTIES OF CATHOLICS
THE necessity of the two virtues of courage and prudence is insisted upon by Pope Leo XIII:
Quote:"This is not now the time and place to inquire whether and how far the inertness and internal dissensions of Catholics have contributed to the present condition of things; but it is certain at least that the perverse-minded would exhibit less boldness, and would not have brought about such an accumulation of ills, if the faith, which worketh by charity (Gal. v. 6) had been generally more energetic and lively in the souls of men, and had there not been so universal a drifting away from the Divinely established rule of morality throughout Christianity. ... As to those who mean to take part in public affairs they should avoid with the very utmost care two criminal excesses: so-called prudence and false courage.
Some there are, indeed, who maintain that it is not opportune boldly to attack evil-doing in its might and when in the ascendant, lest, as they say, opposition should exasperate minds already hostile. These make it a matter of guess-work as to whether they are for the Church or against her; since, on the one hand, they give themselves out as professing the Catholic Faith, and yet wish that the Church should allow certain opinions, at variance with her teaching, to be spread abroad with impunity. They moan over the loss of faith and the perversion of morals, yet do not trouble themselves to bring any remedy; nay, not seldom, even add to the intensity of the mischief through too much forbearance or harmful dissembling. ... The prudence of men of this cast is of that kind which is termed by the Apostle Paul wisdom of the flesh and death of the soul, because it is not subject to the law of God, neither can it be (Rom. viii. 6, 7). Nothing is less calculated to amend such ills than prudence of this kind. . . . On the other hand, not a few, impelled by a false zeal, or -----what is more blameworthy still-----affecting sentiments which their conduct belies, take upon themselves to act a part which does not belong to them. They would fain see the Church's mode of action influenced by their ideas and their judgment to such an extent that everything done otherwise they take ill or accept with repugnance. . . .
"Honour then to those who do not shrink from entering the arena as often as need calls. ... But men of this high character maintain without wavering the love of obedience, nor are they wont to undertake anything upon their own authority. Now, since a like resolve to obey, combined with constancy and sturdy courage, is needful, so that whatever trials the pressure of events may bring about, they may be deficient in nothing (James i. 4), We greatly desire to fix deep in the mind of each one that which St. Paul calls the wisdom of the spirit (Rom. viii. 6), for in controlling human actions this wisdom follows the excellent rule of moderation, with the happy result that no one either timidly despairs through lack of courage or presumes overmuch from want of prudence" (Encyclical Letter "Sapientiae Christianae").
Pope Pius X insisted in most appealing fashion upon the courage necessary for Catholic Action in the discourse he pronounced on the 13th December, 1908, at the Beatification of Joan of Arc. To St. Joan's mind the coronation and anointing of the King of France were ever present, because that anointing did homage to the universal Kingship of Christ and linked up political power with the government of Jesus. She was the Saint sent to remind the world of the Supernatural Political Guidance of God and of that Catholic organization of Europe which was the glory of the Middle Ages. The saintly Pope spoke of the heroism of St. Joan and contrasted it with the timidity of so many Catholics in our day:
Quote:"In our time more than ever before, the chief strength of the wicked lies in the cowardice and weakness of good men. ... All the strength of Satan's reign is due to the easy-going weakness of Catholics. Oh! if I might ask the Divine Redeemer, as the prophet Zachary did in spirit: What are these wounds in the midst of Thy hands? The answer would not be doubtful: With these was I wounded in the house of them that loved Me. I was wounded by My friends, who did nothing to defend Me, and who, on every occasion, made themselves the accomplices of My adversaries. And to this reproach, which can be levelled at the weak and timid Catholics of all countries, a great number of French Catholics lay themselves open."
In the Encyclical Letter "Quas Primas," Pope Pius XI deplores the revolt of society from Our Lord which has as result that
Quote:"the religion of Christ was put on a footing with false religions, and placed ignominiously in the same category with them." He then adds: "We earnestly hope that the Feast of the Kingship of Christ, which, in future, will be yearly observed, may hasten the return of society to Our Loving Saviour. It would be the duty of Catholics to do all they can to bring about this happy result.
. . . While nations insult the sweet Name of Our Redeemer by suppressing all mention of it in their conferences and parliaments, we ought all the more loudly to proclaim it, and all the more universally affirm the privileges of His royal dignity and power. . . . The very celebration of the Feast, too, by its annual recurrence, will serve to remind nations that not only private individuals but State officials and rulers are bound by the obligation of worshipping Christ publicly and rendering Him obedience. They will thus be led to reflect on the Last Judgment, in which Christ, Who has been cast out of public life, despised, neglected and ignored, will severely avenge such insults; for His kingly dignity demands that the Constitution of the whole State should conform to the Divine Commandments and Christian principles."
In the Encyclical Letter "Longinque Oceani" of 6th January, 1895, on Catholicity in the United States, Pope Leo XIII dwells upon the charitable attitude towards non-Catholics which is becoming in Catholics:
Quote:"Our thoughts now turn to those who dissent from us in matters of Christian faith; and who shall deny that, with not a few of them, dissent is a matter rather of inheritance that of will? How solicitous we are for their salvation, with what ardour of soul we wish that they should be at length restored to the embrace of the Church, the common mother of all, our Apostolic Epistle Praeclara has in very recent times declared. Nor are we destitute of all hope, for He is present and hath a care Whom all things obey and Who laid down His life that He might 'gather together in one the children of God who were dispersed' (John xi. 52).
Surely we ought not to desert them nor leave them to their fancies; but with mildness and charity draw them to us, using every means of persuasion to induce them to examine closely every part of the Catholic doctrine, and to free themselves from preconceived notions. In this matter, if the first place belongs to the Bishops and the clergy, the second belongs to the laity; who have it in their power to aid the apostolic efforts of the clergy by the probity of their morals and the integrity of their lives. Great is the force of example, particularly with those who are earnestly seeking the truth, and who, from a certain inborn virtuous disposition, are striving to live an honourable and upright life."
On the other hand, he insists in his Letter to the Italian people, 8th December, 1892, that efforts to overthrow the supernatural and propagate Naturalism must be strenuously combated:
Quote:"Societies not subject to the influence of religion and, as such, easily exposed to be more or less directed and dominated by Masons, must, in general, be looked on with suspicion and avoided. Those also must be avoided which not only lend their aid to Masonry but constitute a nursery therefore and a factory for the training of apprentices. All should avoid any liaison, any familiarity with persons suspected of being Freemasons or of belonging to affiliated societies. ... Familiar intercourse should be cut off, not only with the openly wicked, but with those who hide their real character under the mask of universal toleration, of respect for all religions, of the mania of reconciling the maxims of the Gospel with those of the Revolution, Christ with Belial, the Church of God with the State without God. . . . Besides, as we have to deal with a sect like Freemasonry, which has penetrated everywhere, it is not enough to remain on the defensive, we must enter the arena and fight face to face. This you shall do, dear sons, by opposing publications to publications, schools to schools, associations to associations, congresses to congresses, action to action. ... Freemasonry multiplies its lodges. Do you also multiply Catholic circles and parochial committees."
Those who think that Catholics can do good by assisting at Rotary Club dinners, etc., would do well to meditate upon those instructions of Pope Leo XIII.
With regard to the method or line of conduct to be followed by all Catholics in their efforts for the return to right order the guiding principle was laid down by Pope Leo XIII in the Encyclical Letter "Immortale Dei":
Quote:"It is the duty of all Catholics worthy, of the name ... to endeavour to bring back all civil society to the pattern and form of Christianity which We have described. It is not an easy matter to lay down any fixed method by which such purposes are to be attained, because the means adopted must suit places and times widely differing from one another. Nevertheless, above all things, unity of aim must be preserved, and similarity in all plans of action must be sought. Both these objects will be carried into effect without fail, if all will follow the guidance of the Apostolic See as their rule of life and obey the Bishops whom the Holy Ghost has placed to rule the Church of God" (Acts xx. 28).
Pope Pius XI again and again returns to the necessity of Catholics being banded together for Catholic Action under the direction of the Hierarchy.
Quote: "This Catholic Action does not belong to the temporal order but to the spiritual; it is not terrestrial but Divine, not political but religious," we read in the Letter of Pope Pius XI to Cardinal Bertram, 13th November, 1928.
Catholics, therefore, must be united whenever the interests of the Church are at stake, even though they may differ on matters of secondary importance.
Quote:"But in matters merely political, as, for instance, the best form of government, and this or that system of administration, a difference of opinion is lawful" (Pope Leo XIII, "Immortale Dei," On the Christian Constitution of States November 1st, 1885).
Again, Pope Leo XIII points out that
Quote:"the Church does not condemn those who, if it can be done without violation of justice, wish to make their country independent of any foreign or despotic power" (Encyclical Letter, On Human Liberty).
Yet, too great stress cannot be laid on the words of Pope Benedict XV concerning the present-day movement for a World-Republic. Unwary Catholics may be made the instruments of schemes of which they have no suspicion, and the success of which they would view with horror when too late. In his Motu Proprio "Bonum Sane, " July 25th, 1920, on the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of the Declaration, by Pius IX, of St. Joseph as Patron of the Universal Church, Pope Benedict XV, after having spoken of "Naturalism, that awful pest of our epoch," went on to say:
Quote:"The advent of a Universal Republic, which is longed for by all the worst elements of disorder, and confidently expected by them, is an idea which is now ripe for execution. From this republic, based on the principles of absolute equality of men and community of possessions, would be banished all national distinctions, nor in it would the authority of the father over his children, or of the public power over the citizens, or of God over human society, be any longer acknowledged. If these ideas are put into practice, there will inevitably follow a reign of unheard-of terror. Already, even now, a large portion of Europe is going through that doleful experience and We see that it is sought to extend that awful state of affairs to other regions."
Lenin wrote in No. 40 of the Russian organ, the Social Democrat, in 1915:
Quote:"The United States of the World (and not only of Europe), that is the State formula of the union ... until the day when the complete victory of Communism will bring about the definite disappearance of every State, even purely democratic."
To proclaim that to follow Lenin's principles is to work for the independence of Ireland is in reality a flagrant attempt to deceive innocent people. Lenin was consciously working, not for the independence of Ireland, but for the disappearance of Ireland as an independent State.
[Emphasis mine.]
|
|
|
The hidden poison in the Vatican’s statement against blessing homosexual unions |
Posted by: Stone - 03-18-2021, 10:18 AM - Forum: Pope Francis
- Replies (1)
|
|
Opinion [adapted]:
The hidden poison in the Vatican’s statement against blessing homosexual unions
Monday saw big news from Rome with the release of a Vatican document forbidding the blessing of homosexual unions.
March 17, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — How is it that Pope Francis’ Vatican has released a document forbidding the blessing of homosexual unions?
Isn’t this the same Pope who famously said:
Quote:“If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?”
Isn’t this the same Pope who approved of civil unions for homosexual couples both in Argentina while bishop there, and just recently as Pope in a film?
Isn’t this the same Pope who while in America in 2015 welcomed his student’s gay lover in a meeting and embraced him? Isn’t this the same Pope who boasted on the papal plane in 2016 that he had welcomed a transgender couple to the Vatican, got photographed with them, and described the couple as married and happy? Isn’t this the same Pope who has met with “LGBT Catholic” groups who themselves push for recognition of homosexual relationships in the Church?
Isn’t this the same Pope who met with Fr. James Martin, the most noted LGBT-promoting priest in the Church? Didn’t the Pope also appoint Martin to speak at the Vatican’s world meeting of families and appoint Martin to the Vatican’s secretariat for communications? Isn’t this the same Pope who made Blase Cupich a cardinal, after Cupich endorsed giving Holy Communion to homosexual couples?
So how could Pope Francis’ Vatican do this?
There was big news Monday from Rome with the release of a Vatican document forbidding the blessing of homosexual unions. From what I said in my intro it’s not surprising that the world was shocked at the statement, which for Catholics was nothing more than more evidence of the sad reality that such a statement was actually needed in the first place.
The famed homosexual musician Elton John was quick to tweet about the Vatican’s hypocrisy. “How can the Vatican refuse to bless gay marriages because they ‘are sin’, yet happily make a profit from investing millions in ‘Rocketman’ — a film which celebrates my finding happiness from my marriage to David?? #hypocrisy.”
The intrepid Catholic commentator Matt Archbold had sympathy for Elton’s charge over at his blog Creative Minority Report. Archbold recalled how the Vatican “had taken money that had been donated for the poor and invested in other ventures, including Hollywood movies such as Rocketman.” Quoting from a newspaper, he noted that “the Vatican’s Secretariat of State reportedly contributed £850,000 toward the biopic, which is roughly 3% of the film’s budget.”
I have to admit that I’m a little suspicious when I see something good coming out of the Vatican these days. But I always remain hopeful for signs of conversion from Pope Francis for which I pray each and every day. So, when the document forbidding blessings on homosexual relationships came out, I read it very carefully.
One line caught my eye that made me uncomfortable. It was this line speaking about homosexual relationships:
Quote: “The presence in such relationships of positive elements, which are in themselves to be valued and appreciated, cannot justify these relationships and render them legitimate objects of an ecclesial blessing, since the positive elements exist within the context of a union not ordered to the Creator’s plan.”
What can be positive about these relationships when they ultimately lead to hell? While the overall statement was good and praiseworthy, this line could be dangerous, I thought — and I have to admit, I suspected an agenda.
It’s not without reason. I recall vividly the mid-term report of the extraordinary synod on the family in Rome in 2014 which contained similar language saying,
Quote:“Homosexuals have gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community.”
It then asked:
Quote:“Are our communities capable of providing [them a welcoming home], accepting and valuing their sexual orientation, without compromising Catholic doctrine on the family and matrimony?”
At the Vatican press conference when the document was released, Michael Voris of Church Militant challenged the wording, asking, “Are the synod fathers proposing that ‘gifts and qualities’ flow from the sexual orientation of homosexuality?” he asked. “Is the synod proposing that there is something innate in the homosexual orientation that transcends and uplifts the Catholic Church, the Christian community, and if so, what would those particular gifts be?”
So, could this new Vatican document which is seemingly so good and accepted by so many of the good in the Church be a trojan horse bringing with it the eventual destruction of the very teaching it seems to uphold?
There is definitely precedent for that in Pope Francis’ history. Do you remember when Pope Francis in one of his public remarks totally contradicted the Church’s teaching against contraception, and then it was confirmed as such by the Vatican Press Office? It is an incident which could be important to consider with this new Vatican document.
As he was seemingly overturning the Church’s teaching on contraception, Pope Francis did it in the midst of his strongest ever condemnation of abortion. He said abortion is a crime and compared abortionists to the mafia. “Abortion is not the lesser of two evils. It is a crime. It is to throw someone out in order to save another. That’s what the Mafia does. It is a crime, an absolute evil.” Wow.
The statement was praised by pro-life groups everywhere. But in that very same answer he threw the teaching of the Church against contraception under the bus. He said contraception was the lesser of evils and could be used in cases where there was a risk of zika virus transmission. And the Vatican press secretary confirmed that the Pope was indeed approving of the use of “the possibility of taking recourse to contraception or condoms in cases of emergency or special situations.”
And finally, there is now some evidence that the Vatican document was a trojan horse, as the soldiers for the anti-Church most pushing the LGBT and leftist agenda are working on that very phrase. The vanguard of the ecclesial left is in Germany and officially called the Synodal Path. An email communication to the group, which was sent to LifeSiteNews, notes that they will be studying the new Vatican document carefully.
Bishop Helmut Dieser is quoted as highlighting the positive assessment of homosexuality by the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith.
Quote:“On the one hand, it is assumed and thus recognized that there are homosexual couple relationships,” he said. “On the other hand, it is said that there are positive elements in them that are to be valued and emphasized, so that they must be treated with respect and tact.”
“Oh, come now,” you might say, “how could a document specifically forbidding the blessing of homosexual unions be used to infiltrate the church with the eventual aim of allowing for such blessings?” In exactly the same way that the laws were changed to allow for same-sex “marriage”. Remember Biden and Obama, when they were promoting same-sex civil unions and being all against homosexual “marriage” and all about marriage between a man and a woman? It was the thin edge of the sword. It was the trojan horse that brought in homosexual “marriage,” and now it’s enforcement.
|
|
|
|