O tried and true, O Latin Mass, I will always be beside You.
O Christmas Tree, O Christ's Mass, I never take away my eyes from you.
My Latin Mass, My Latin True, O how Very Extraordinary art You!
O Latin Mass, O Latin Mass, make me happy any day Low or High too.
From More's Bridge, to Campion's Tower - to Iona and up to Crocanaffrin. O Latin MASS, Yes Latin Mass, how Gregorian art you.
I am never nervous near you, no novus disorder turns me round,
For O Latin Mass, O Latin Mass, it's because I trust your Tridentine Smile.
And so now I promise you, O Latin Mass, O My Sweetest Latin Mass, I will always be faithful.
Learn Thy Mass!
http://www.lulu.com/content/2740010

O tried and true, O Latin Mass, I will always be beside You.
O Christmas Tree, O Christ's Mass, I never take away my eyes from you.
My Latin Mass, My Latin True, O how Very Extraordinary art You!
O Latin Mass, O Latin Mass, make me happy any day Low or High too.
From More's Bridge, to Campion's Tower - to Iona and up to Crocanaffrin. O Latin MASS, Yes Latin Mass, how Gregorian art you.
I am never nervous near you, no novus disorder turns me round,
For O Latin Mass, O Latin Mass, it's because I trust your Tridentine Smile.
And so now I promise you, O Latin Mass, O My Sweetest Latin Mass, I will always be faithful.
Learn Thy Mass!
http://www.lulu.com/content/2740010

Vis a vis the Orthodox church not in union with the Holy Father, the appointed successor and sole representative of and by Jesus Christ. Although the sacraments and priesthood of eastern orthodoxy are valid each and every orthodox priest, metropolitan & Patriarch is in schism and has been for well nigh 1000 years.The issues . the pope is the supreme head of and final word in the Christian world--Orthodox attitude is he but one (first) amoung equals. Filioque the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. These are but a few of the mindsets of the Orthodox that keep them in Schism, please bear in mind it was and is the words of Sacred Scriture itself that says, Unto you Peter are given the Keys of Heaven, what you loost on Earth will be loost in Heaven and what is loost in heaven will also be on Earth. So to this writer there is but one head of Christ's Church and that is the Supreme Pontiff, the Pope in Rome. In the first 300 yrs of Christianity Greek primarily was the language of the liturgy after that Latin predominated right up to the disaster called Vatican 2. So agaIN TO OUR SCHISMATIC EASTERN ORTHODOX FRIENDS GET OVER IT, THE PREDOMINANCE OF LATIN THAT IS. The Tridentine Liturgy (the most beautiful thing this side of Heaven)is the Mass of All Ages the Bugnini service called the Novus ordo missae of Paul 6 is a pale travesty by comparison So to our schismatic Eastern Orthodox friends get over the liturgical linguistics, filioque and your multitude of popes aka Patriarch's and really become Orthodox and return to union with the Church established for eternity, the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and the Holy Father who at this time is Pope Benedict 16 and adjure youe schisms. Shalom

Anyone who wants to know more about the Tridentine Mass can find out at the Latin Mass Society of Ireland, where they can download an audio version of the Mass for free.

Esau,
Thank you very much the information and for providing a link.
I wonder if this will be posted before or after my earlier comment?
Have a blessed All Hallows's Eve!
No problem! ;^)
I suggest that folks study in greater detail elements in the Synaxis, the Trisagion, the Anaphora, the epiklesis, etc. of the ancient canons before they assault our Catholic Church.
In fact, I believe Vagaggini was attempting to do a "reform of the reform" to try and restore parts of the rite of mass which have been lost through the accidents of history.
As I've mentioned, Vaggagini was sort of like what GARRIGOU-LAGRANGE was for the Dominicans, Vagaggini was for the Benedictines, who was their senior patriarchal leader.
God bless!

John,
If only you had the authority and power you want so badly.
I hope you at least finally looked up the definition of impeccable.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Esau,
Thank you very much the information and for providing a link.
I wonder if this will be posted before or after my earlier comment?
Have a blessed All Hallows's Eve!
St. Wolfgang pray for us!
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

...the ancient liturgy has a pedigree going back to the time of the Apostles...
...this was one more wedge in the division of East and West...
etc. etc. etc.
John (jtnova),
The Commission formed by Pope Paul VI was headed up by the brilliant and utterly Orthodox Benedictine Theologian named Fr. Cipriano Vagaggini. Vagaggini was a Commodelese Monk who had taught at Sant'Anselmo for decades. Not just an intellectual, but a real mystic and a great historian. He was also the one who delved into the traditions of the early church and not just the East and the West but looking at the Liturgy of St. Mark and other things too, showing how the Church can be enriched by this legitimate plurality of options (e.g., the Eucharistic Prayers). Furthermore, there were actually other canons which existed at the time of Trent that were recognized by the Catholic Church. In fact, Canon 6 in the 22nd session of Trent deals with not only the Roman canon (which is used in the Tridentine Mass) but other canons as well. This was issued in 1563. The canon that overrode all other canons was not issued until 1571. The Tridentin rite was imposed on the whole west years later.
About your claim that the Novus Ordo missae has created a greater division between East and West, you do know that there were serious defects even in the Roman canon used in the Tridentine mass, don't you, and had greatly differed with the ancient canons? I shall list them for your convenience so that you may see for yourself. Although, as I've mentioned, I wouldn't hesitate attending the Tridentine Mass over the Novus Ordo, you, again, have presented matters with such gloss and prejudice, these need to be addressed:
1) The impression given of an agglomeration of features with no apparent unity.
This is the first and most serious defect that is immediately evident when it is compared with the anaphoras of Hippolytus or the Eastern Churches, especially with those of the Antioch type. The modern canon stands out as a patchwork of a number of prayers put into some sort of order, but it is an order where unity and logical connections are not easily found, even by specialists. This impression is heightened by the four occurrences of ‘Per Christum Dominum nostrum.’ ‘Amen’, not to mention that at the end of the ‘Nobis quoque,’ which indicate the apparently independent prayers they conclude. [1]
2) The lack of a logical connection of ideas.
This follows from the first fault. The connection of the te igatur with either what comes before or what follows is anything but clear. The Sanctus is finished by Pleni sunt...Benedictus... Hosanna in excelsis, and then follows Te Igitur rogamus acceptimus ut accepta habeas et benedicas haec dona... For the ideas to follow logically it would be necessary for the Sanctus, for at least the preface, to make some mention of the offering of the gifts or of the fact that God blesses and sanctifies.... In the anaphoras of other traditions the passage from the Sanctus to what follows is a great deal clearer. After the Sanctus they refer back to what has just been said and continued the idea:” Truly you are holy, who...” (Thus the Antiochene tradition, as well as the Gallican and Palaeo-Hispanic) The transition from the Memento of the living to the Communicantes presents another well-known difficulty in the Roman canon. In the present text the participle Communicates is suspended in mid-air, since it is not at all clear to what it refers. [2]
3) An exaggerated emphasis on the idea of the offering and acceptance of the gifts.
The Roman Mass, particularly the Roman canon insists on it in an exaggerated and disorderly manner, with much useless repetition....
It is difficult to avoid the impression that this same idea of offering gifts underlies the first part of the Supplices te rogamus (iube haec perferri per manus sancti angeli tui). Here again there is the idea of commercium: we offer the gifts to God;...
Finally, the idea is once more implied, at least in the present practice of the Roman rite (Remember, this is speaking of the Tridentine canon, prior to the Pauline Rite Mass canons, not the three new canons in use), by the saying of the Per quem haec omnia at every Mass, even though there is no longer any food present to be blessed. The haec omnia that God creates vivifies, sanctifies and gives us are obviously the oblata as well.
As the canon stands, therefore, a theme that in itself is excellent has been rendered clumsy and unwieldy; the result is anything but a model of liturgical composition....
The disordered insistence upon the idea of the offering of the oblata obscures the idea that what we offer above all in the Mass is Christ our Lord himself, and ourselves with him. We lose sight of the fact that the real and primary offering of the Mass takes place after the institution with the Unde et memores. I do not say that there is no such idea in the canon; on the contrary, it is an underlying one throughout, but it is given no prominence and is therefore not easily seen, notwithstanding its primary importance. Convincing proof of this lies in the well-known fact that our people have sadly lost the essential idea of the offertory. [3]
4) The lack of a theology of the part played by the Holy Spirit in the Eucharist.
In spite of the numerous fragments in the Roman canon that follow the pattern of an epiclesis, there is absolutely no theology of the part proper to the Holy Spirit in the Eucharist. And this theology is of prime importance. One need only reflect on the biblical and traditional character of this doctrine to realize immediately that this is a serious deficiency. [4]
5) Deficiencies in the Institution narrative
a) The greatest defect is that Hoc est enim corpus meum stands alone; no attempt is made to follow it up with any of the phrases: quod Pro vobis tradetur, given in 1 Cor. 11:24 by the Vulgate;... After Hoc est enim corpus meum, all of the Eastern liturgies continue with the Pauline or Lucan sequel in one of the variant readings. This is done in the Palaeo-Hispanic rite too. [5]
6. The lack of an overall presentation of the history of salvation
This is a failing of the Roman canon and of the whole anaphora tradition in the West. Quite apart from the defects already mentioned, when looked at from this point of view the Roman canon inevitably appears at a disadvantage if compared with the anaphoras of the East. Certainly there are the movable prefaces, with all their merits, but when put side by side with the Eastern anaphoras (those of Antioch, for instance) the present canon is found wanting. [8]
If you should like more information:
http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/palm.html

UNIVERSAL INDULT dahhh humbug, the ancient liturgy has a pedigree going back to the time of the Apostles,This liturgy commonly referred to as the Tridentine or "latin Mass" was codified in the 16th century by the council of Trent and eternally protected by the Bull "Quo Primum".So whats with this universal indult baloney. Pope Paul 6 said "the smoke of Satan has entered the church" after the disaster called vatican 2 and did he do anything about it,he sure did, he introducted a venacular service concocted by a freemason called Archbishop Bugnini and to salt the insult used at least six known protestant clerics to give the Catholic Church a heretical protestant mass called the mass of paul 6 aka novus ordo missae. This banal irreverant service diminished belief in the Real Presence making the Sacred Mass into a protestant meal. Thanks to the revisionism of Vatican 2 and it's aftermath as millions left the church and prelates systematically FORBID the Ancient Latin Mass to please "our protestant brethren".Even the Orthodox churches look at the so-called new mass with suspicion and see it as a protestant service, and this was one more wedge in the division of East and West.When the Tabernacle is front and center and the sanctuary lamp burning in every Roman Catholic Church,When the Ancient Liturgy is available in every Catholic church worldwide, when pedophilic/embezzeling.homosexual cardinals, bishops and priests, nuns and monks are excorcized from the Catholic church, when the oath against the heresy of modernity is taken again by every priest including the Pope, when the syllibus of errors is again respected, when the triple crown again rests on the head of the Supreme Pontiff, then just maybe the restoration of Christs Church will commence and the 40 post vatican 2 years in the wilderness will be but a memory.

John,
"St. Vincent of Lerins in the 5th century gave as a standard for the orthodoxy of doctrine that which has been believed everywhere (ubique), always (semper), and by all (omnia).
Here is some more suggested reading for you;St. Vincent of Lerins from The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XV
St. Isaac Jogues , St. John de Brebeuf & North American Martyrs pray for us!
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

John,
"You are incorrect as Papal infallibility was not even defined until Vatican I"
So you are choosing to ignore Unam Sanctum?
Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
Pope Boniface XIII was quoting, you better sit down, St. Thomas Aquinas!
Contra Errores
Graecorum: Ostenditur etiam quod subesse Romano Pontifici sit de
necessitate salutis [23] ("It is also shown that to be subject to the Roman Pontiff is necessary for salvation.")-St. Thomas Aquinas
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

"You are incorrect as when Jesus roamed the earth-there was no Catholic church as he was a Jew"
John, what Church do you think Jesus established?
When Jesus said in Matthew 18:17 "And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican", what Church was this that he was referring to?
When Jesus said in Matthew 16:18 "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it", what Church was this that he was referring to?
But, most importantly, when do you think the Catholic Church was born?
Certainly, the Greek word Katholikos (which later became the Latin 'Caholicus') was not used originally to refer to the Church Christ had established until we see in Ignatius of Antioch's letter to the Smyrneans in 107 AD, where he states in Paragraph 8, "Where the Bishop appears, there let the people be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."; but, rest assured, it is the same Church Christ established!
The paradigm of 1st Cen. Christianity was a Visible & Authoratative Church established as a Gift by Jesus Christ, Commisioned with Divine Authority: To Preach, Teach & Guard the Truth of Scripture. It is seen both from Scripture and Tradition (from the Earliest Christians, in fact; see the Writings of the Early Fathers) that all Christians were bound to adhere to this Visible & Authoratative Church with the consequences of condemnation for refusal to submit.
St. Iraneaus, Against Heresies, Bk 3, Par 4 150 AD
“What if there should be a dispute amongst some matter of moderate importance? Should we not turn to the oldest churches where the Apostles themselves were known and found out from them the clear and certain answer to the problem now being raised? Even if the Apostles had not left their writings to us, are we not to follow the rule of Tradition which they handed down to those to whom they committed the Churches? “
Further, as previously mentioned in another post, take notice of the typology:
In Matthew 18:16-17
Mt:18:16: But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
Mt:18:17: And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
This has parallels with the Old Israel living authority in Dt 17:6, 8-12 and, in fact, the same language in Mt 18:16-17 is used Dt 17:6, 8-12:
6 By the mouth of two or three witnesses shall he die that is to be slain. Let no man be
put to death, when only one beareth witness against him.
7 The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him to kill him, and afterwards the hands
of the rest of the people: that thou mayst take away the evil out of the midst of thee.
8 ¶ If thou perceive that there be among you a hard and doubtful matter in judgment
between blood and blood, cause and cause, leprosy and leprosy: and thou see that the
words of the judges within thy gates do vary: arise, and go up to the place, which the
Lord thy God shall choose.
9 And thou shalt come to the priests of the Levitical race, and to the judge, that shall be
at that time: and thou shalt ask of them, and they shall shew thee the truth of the
judgment.
10 And thou shalt do whatsoever they shall say, that preside in the place, which the Lord
shall choose, and what they shall teach thee,
11 According to his law; and thou shalt follow their sentence: neither shalt thou decline
to the right hand nor to the left hand.
12 But he that will be proud, and refuse to obey the commandment of the priest, who
ministereth at that time to the Lord thy God, and the decree of the judge, that man shall
die, and thou shalt take away the evil from Israel:
Notice the Parallel:
If there’s a dispute, you must take 2 or 3 witness with you; that on the mouth of 2 or 3 witnesses, every word may stand; and you must take it to that appointed priest or judge that God has appointed for that time and if the individuals refuse to hear and obey the judgment of the priest and judge, they are to be put to death.
Hence, the Church is the New Israel, and, accordingly, it becomes truly fitting that the New Testament fulfillment has a living authority here on earth for the people of God, which is the Church, 'the pillar and ground of the Truth' (1 Tm 3:15) just as in the old testament “type”, there was a living authority to guide the Old Testament people of God.
By the way, concerning bible translations, one thing I learned from good Protestant friends who truly study the bible, is not always to trust the English translation.
I tend to rely on the original text as much as possible with the help of folks who know the original Greek and Hebrew.
If you'd like, I can submit to you the original texts of the passages that I've mentioned for your review, would that suffice?

"Wow. Powerful stuff, thank you for pointing out the word used and the link to the other passage in Sacred Scriptures. Off to add these notes to my Holy Bible!"
Thanks Inocencio!
Actually, please note a correction here -- when I say:
The Greek word used for the word “hearing” in Mt 18:17 is parakouo.
The "hearing" I'm referring to is in reference to the 'not hear' in the passage: if he will 'not hear' the church...
Again, it seems very significant, at least to me, that the Greek word used here is one and the same that was used for Adam's disobedience, which caused the Fall of Man. That just goes to show all the more just how severe it is to disobey the Church for the Gospel writer to have specifically selected this particular word instead of the other Greek word that could have been used just as well.

In the decades prior to Vatican I, the popes repeatedly condemned liberal Catholicism and parallel efforts aimed at bringing the Church's thinking into line with the modern world - Pope Pius IX summarized these censures in his Syllabus of Errors. Those who came under such strictures attempted to defend themselves by claiming that their attitudes had never been formerly condemned by the teaching magisterium and that such documents only represented the private opinion of the Pontiffs.
Such a claim placed the infallibility of the Pope in doubt. During Vatican I furious debates were waged on the subject. The liberals were perfectly aware of the fact that if they voted for the definition of infallibility they would condemn themselves, but that if they voted against it, they would be denying a doctrine of the Church. Every conceivable objection capable of preventing, or of at least postponing the definition, was put forth and strongly supported by those who labeled themselves as 'inopportunists'. One orthodox bishop, Anthony Claret - later canonized - was so distressed by these attempts that he died of a heart attack during the Conciliar debate.
The cases of Popes Liberius, Honorius I, Paschal II, Sixtus V and others were brought forth in an attempt to influence the Fathers against defining something the liberals claimed was both unnecessary and insane. Needless to say, they were supported in this by the secular press, by world leaders, and even by governments.
It is of interest to note that the Freemasons held a simultaneous 'anti-Council' in Naples which proclaimed several principles as essential to the dignity of man - principles which later were incorporated into the documents of Vatican II.
So actually Vatican I and papal infallibility later worked against those who were trying in stablize the church and ward off the modernists , secularists and freemasons who later got their wish at Vatican II
Novus Ordo worship service was written in the 1960s by a Freemason (Archbishop Annibale Bugnini ) and six Protestant ministers. In 1970 a photograph was published showing Paul VI posing with the Protestant ministers that had worked with Anibale Bugnini, head of the Consilium ad Exsequendam Constitutionem de Sacra Liturgia [Council to Carry out the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy], to draft the Novus Ordo worship service.
Not only were these six individuals heretics personally, but they were there acting in their official capacity as such. The six were Dr. George, Canon Jasper, Dr. Shepherd, Dr. Kunneth, Dr. Smith, and Brother Max Thurian, representing respectively the World Council of Churches, the Anglican and Lutheran communions, and the French Protestant Taize community.
After the Consilium had met and finished its work of suppressing the Traditional Latin Mass and replacing it with the New Order worship service, Dr. Smith, the Lutheran representative, publicly boasted, "We have finished the work that Martin Luther began."
Brother Thurian had been the subprior at Taize from its foundation in the late 1940s. In 1969 he expressed his satisfaction with the Novus Ordo Missae by stating that Protestants could now celebrate the "Lord's Supper" with the same prayers as Catholics. On May 12, 1988, the French daily Le Monde announced that Max Thurian had not only become a Catholic, but had been ordained to the Catholic priesthood by Cardinal Ursi of Naples, without being received into the Church, without the Profession of Faith, etc., a known scandal in Rome at the time.
On July 24, 1996, Fr. Thurian, now a member of the International Theological Commission, published in L'Osservatore Romano an article highly critical of the Novus Ordo, including the statement that "the great problem of contemporary liturgical life (apathy towards worship, boredom, lack of vitality and participation) stems from the fact that the celebration has sometimes lost its character as mystery, which fosters the spirit of adoration."
Anibale Bugnini, the architect of the Novus Ordo, was Secretary of the Consilium (1964-1970). Bugnini stated publicly that his aim in designing the "New Mass" was "to create a worship service that any Hindu, Buddhist, or Protestant could attend and feel perfectly at home with."
Tito Casini, Italy's leading Catholic writer, made public in April 1976 that "the reform (of the liturgy) has been conducted by this Bugnini who has been unmasked at last; he is indeed what we have long suspected a Freemason
Rome's Grand Mason wrote a public letter praising Bugnini's work. At a meeting on June 19, 1975, Cardinal Seper and eighteen other cardinals called for Bugnini's dismissal, which occurred on July 9, 1975, on the grounds that he had been responsible for the proliferation of messes sauvages [wild masses], that is, of unauthorized Eucharistic Prayers. By 1971, only one year after the Novus Ordo became mandatory, there were two hundred of these published and in use.
Because of the scandal Bugnini was banished from Rome by Paul VI in January 1976 to be pro-Nuncio in Iran, where in 1980 he betrayed American hostage secrets to the Iranian ayatollahs. Bugnini died at the age of 70 in 1982.
What the Freemason Bugnini and the six Protestants wrote is the Novus Ordo that is still in force in the post conciliar Church. Paul VI made no change in it, except a small change in the introduction, when Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani pointed to the heretical nature of the new definition of the Mass.
Indeed, many Cardinals, Archbishops, etc., both in the Vatican itself and elsewhere, are known to be so. (There is said to have been a bishop in Minnesota who wore his Masonic ring publicly.) A sensation was caused when a list of Masonic Italian Cardinals was published in the 1970's.
One must look at the church today and pray for her clergy and hold fast to the faith as handed down by the Apostles and the great martyrs of yesterday

Can we say the same today?
Absolutely. This is part of what it means to be Catholic.

"Incorrect, Bill". All you are doing is parading your ignorance. I leave you to your version of reality. Good-bye.

Incorrect Bill
To believe otherwise, to answer yes to the church having promoted error would be to imply that the Catholic Church has failed in its purpose, that the Church of Christ is not infallible and indefectible, that the Pope is not the rock upon which Christ founded His Church, that the promise of Christ to be with His Church “all days even to the consummation of the world” and that the special assistance of the Holy Ghost, have failed the Church — conclusions which no traditional Catholic could ever maintain.
Consider the following quote from Vatican Council I (1870):
“For the fathers of the Fourth Council of Constantinople, following closely in the footsteps of their predecessors, made this solemn profession: ‘The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true Faith. For it is impossible that the words of our Lord Jesus Christ Who said, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church” (Matt. 16:18), should not be verified. And their truth has been proved by the course of history, for in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept unsullied, and its teaching kept holy.’ ...for they fully realized that this See of St. Peter always remains untainted by any error, according to the divine promise of our Lord and Savior made to the prince of his disciples, ‘I have prayed for thee, that thy faith may not fail; and do thou, when once thou has turned again, strengthen thy brethren’ (Luke 22:32).”
Can we say the same today?

Papal infallibility existed from the beginning of the Church. It was solemnly defined at Vatican I. Doctrines are not solemnly defined until they are challenged.

Inocencio
You once again miss what Vatican II has done-it has reinvented past church teachings and redefined them to suit the liberal modernist and even masonic influence of the church (ecumenism is a form of secularism which masons teach)
St. Vincent of Lerins in the 5th century gave as a standard for the orthodoxy of doctrine that which has been believed everywhere (ubique), always (semper), and by all (omnia). But, as Cardinal Ratzinger points out, the Council Fathers of Vatican II rejected this hallowed definition: “Vatican II’s refusal of the proposal to adopt the text of Lerins, familiar to, and, as it were, sanctified by two Church Councils, shows once more how Trent and Vatican I were left behind, how their texts were continually reinterpreted... Vatican II had a new idea of how historical identity and continuity were to be brought about.” This new idea was nothing other than to create a pseudo-tradition from the “common consciousness” of the Council Fathers.

Esau
You are incorrect as when Jesus roamed the earth-there was no Catholic church as he was a Jew
Please go back and read your Bible unless you are reading from the NAB 4th translation after VaticanII which basically took the Bible and translated as it felt it should to install the premise of Vatican II and political correctness

Inocencio
You are incorrect as Papal infallibility was not even defined until Vatican I
You still do not follow the logic

Esau,
The Greek word used for the word “hearing” in Mt 18:17 is parakouo. This means to “disobey”; it is from this word we get parakoe which is the same word used for Adam's disobedience in Rom 5:19.
Wow. Powerful stuff, thank you for pointing out the word used and the link to the other passage in Sacred Scriptures. Off to add these notes to my Holy Bible!
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

John, as had been mentioned in a previous post --
Please take a look at Matthew 18:17 in the Bible:
17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.
In order to communicate the severity of disobedience to the Church, Christ used the strongest language possible:
The Greek word used for the word “hearing” in Mt 18:17 is parakouo. This means to “disobey”; it is from this word we get parakoe which is the same word used for Adam's disobedience in Rom 5:19. This is quite significant since there's another word which could have been used instead for disobedience and this is the Greek word: apeitheia.
Furthermore, Jesus compares those who disobey the Church with two worst groups of people that the Jews despised at the time. He says he who rejects the Church is to be treated as a heathen or a publican (other translations say a gentile or a tax collector). Hence, "Excommunication". This means that if one does not accept the teaching or the proclamation of the Church, this person ought to be 'excommunicated'.
Choice of these terms suggests a policy of non-association with those who are disciplined by Church leaders (cf 1 Cor 5: 9-13, 2 Cor 6:14-15 in reference to the man guilty of incense).
The consequences mean that if one does not accept the teachings or the proclamation of the Church, he is to be excommunicated (i.e., separated from communion with the Church and the Sacraments); if one is excommunicated, there is a “spiritual death” since one is outside the divine life flow that comes through the sacraments and the Church.
How then could you justify that your actions are in accordance with the mind of the universal Church when they conflict with it at its very core?
As had been pointed out to you, you seem to hold your own authority above that of even the Pope's when, in fact, his authority can be traced back through a long line of succession, all the way back to St. Peter, to whom Christ had established his authority in Matthew 16:18.

John,
impeccable means able to sin
Sorry, you got that backwards impeccalbe means: Incapable of sin or wrongdoing
The pope does has a fallen nature just like you but his authority comes directly from God as the Catechism of Trent makes clear or do you chose not to accept that.
We are called to be subject to that authority, again, as the Catechism of Trent makes clear. Unless of course you chose to know better.
When you claim the pope is in heresy you seek an authority you do not have. That is the issue it always comes down to authority.
The fact is that you have convinced yourself that you know the pope is wrong and therefore chose to be no longer subject to him. You are placing yourself in a postition to judge the pope. You have no authority to do so. Questions and complain all you want (in charity of course), but the moment you chose to pretend you have an authority above the pope and lead others to believe they are not subject to him you commit grave error.
Unam Sanctam His Holiness Pope Boniface VIII
November 18, 1302
This authority, however, (though it has been given to man and is exercised by man), is not human but rather divine, granted to Peter by a divine word and reaffirmed to him (Peter) and his successors by the One Whom Peter confessed, the Lord saying to Peter himself, "Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in Heaven" etc., [Mt 16:19]. Therefore whoever resists this power thus ordained by God, resists the ordinance of God [Rom 13:2], unless he invent like Manicheus two beginnings, which is false and judged by us heretical, since according to the testimony of Moses, it is not in the beginnings but in the beginning that God created heaven and earth [Gen 1:1]. Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
What doesn't make sense to me is if you think you can chose if you are subject to the pope why would anyone decided that they were?
If you think that you have the authority to chose what is true then why would our Blessed Lord even need to establish His Church?
If you don't accept the God-given authority of the Church you are acting just like Luther and making the same choice he did.
Heresy Latin haeresis, from the Greek hairesis, a taking, choice
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

John, it's not self-evident that the New Mass "promotes error and harms souls."
I know some very pious young people who have only known the "New Mass," so you can't say that the 1970 Missal "promotes error and harms souls."

Inocencio
The answer is simple. Yes the Pope is but he is still human (impeccable means able to sin).
As Catholics, though, we know that the Church’s infallibility is not limited merely to ex cathedra pronouncements, but also extends to universal laws, specifically, to her rites. It is impossible for the Church to give a law or approve a rite which promotes error or harms souls.
The problem then is on one hand, it is self-evident to us that the New Mass does promote error and harm souls. On the other, because of infallibility, a law or rite approved by the authority of Church cannot promote error or harm souls.
Therefore, one must face a choice. Either: the Church authority no longer enjoys infallibility — impossible, due to Christ’s promise; or The men who promulgated the laws or rites which promote error and harm souls, did not truly possess authority of the Church.
This is possible because Heresy or public defection from faith means automatic loss of office, because heresy puts you outside the Church.
This principle applies to anyone who holds authority or an office in church — a diocesan bishop, archbishop, pastor of parish, even a pope. Now I am not saying the pope is a heretic, but by past definitions and standards, such as a public proclamation that Moslems should be revered and the kissing of the Koran-that could lead you out of the church into the border of heresy or apostasy at the least
When elected to the papacy, you don’t lose your free will. You can choose to do evil things. You can also lose the faith, and embrace error as private person. When your defection from faith becomes publicly manifest, you automatically lose your office.
This is not just something invented by traditionalists. It is the teaching of major theologians and canonists. Even a pope (Paul IV) said such a situation was possible.
A Catholic, therefore, would owe no obedience to someone who does not truly possess the Church’s authority or teaches error. Condemnations from the V-2 hierarchy shouldn’t worry those that hold fast tothe faith anymore than one would worry about being condemned by local Anglican or Lutheran bishop
At the same time, I’m not the pope, and I don’t require that someone who feels as traditionalists do try and figure all of these things out, as we dont even discuss such things, but we know what is being sold as "Catholic" is not.
It’s just that, having heard many explanations for the post-Vatican II mess, this seems to be the only one which makes sense in terms of the Church’s problems of today that the Pope is not a good Pope and if one promotes error one not need to follow it

John,
Again, my question:
Does the authority of the pope come from you or God?
Answer:
The Pope
Above all these, the Catholic Church has always placed the Supreme Pontiff of Rome, whom Cyril of Alexandria, in the Council of Ephesus, named the Chief Bishop, Father and Patriarch of the whole world. He sits in that chair of Peter in which beyond every shadow of doubt the Prince of the Apostles sat to the end of his days, and hence it is that in him the Church recognises the highest degree of dignity, and a universality of jurisdiction derived, not from the decrees of men or Councils, but from God Himself. Wherefore he is the Father and guide of all the faithful, of all the Bishops, and of all the prelates, no matter how high their power and office; and as successor of St. Peter, as true and lawful Vicar of Christ our Lord, he governs the universal Church..-The Catechism of Trent
Are we called to honor and obey the pope, bishops and priest?
Answer:
The Honour Due To Bishops And Priests
The Apostle also teaches that they are entitled to obedience: Obey your prelates, and be subject to them; for they watch as being to render an account of your souls. Nay, more. Christ the Lord commands obedience even to wicked pastors: Upon the chair of Moses have sitten the scribes and Pharisees: all things, therefore, whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do; but according to their works do ye not, for they say and do not.-The Catechism of Trent
As Mary Kay suggested you have some reading to do.
St. Luke the Apostle pray for us!
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

"You need to do a little bit of reading and learn what is happening to our beloved church."
John, you need to take your own advice.
You've given no indication of what you find so amusing that you "still chuckle about it that the Pope actually needed to write this to Catholics." I mean, other than convey that you deem yourself so highly exalted, so above the fray, that you don't have to deal with what the rest of us mere mortals contend with.
Please give a specific example of "those little loopholes" that you claim. Ten to one, you won't. You can't - because specific examples will disprove your allegations.
In one sense, your posts remind me very much of discussions with Protestants. They always made me very glad to be in the Catholic Church, in a church as true today as it was in Jesus' day.

Traditionalists only worship in the way the church has done for centuries, if it is wrong now then it was wrong then-And we know the church cant be wrong-Correct?
As far as my hypothetical question you compare this analogy to the Pope worshiping satan-Now that is a stretch-Just as millions felt when the Protestants and Bugnini (a KNOWN mason) formulated a new Mass and a POPE in Paul VI took away the staple of the church in her form of worship of God and replaced it with a mass that was formulated by a Mason, Protestants, and liberal theologians (can the ICEL ever get even a translation correct???).
The question I posed is exactly that-we introduced Protesantism into our Mass in the name of ECUMANIA-why not start to worship Mecca? We already allow Hindu and Moslem worship to take place in our church's in Europe as a sign of good will to these faiths, putting pagan idols right next to the blessed sacrament. You need to do a little bit of reading and learn what is happening to our beloved church

"If tomorrow Pope Benedict told all Catholics worldwide that after his meetings with these Moslem clerics he has decided in a gesture of "Ecumenism" to introduce worship to "Allah" and Mohammed into our Mass and we are to pray 6 times a day, etc etc"
John,
You are posing a question here that in no way reflects reality. This scenario you pose above is just as ridiculous as suggesting a scenario where 'what if the Pope asked us to worship Satan'? Obviously, of course not.
In the history of the Catholic Church, even in the pontificates of some of the most unscrupulous popes, did we ever accomodate such radical divergence from the True Faith in the Catholic Church.
Further, you say "many are holding fast to Tradition as St Paul told us to". Yet, keep in mind that, if anything, the majority of these then were Greek Christians. Most likely, their Liturgy was in Greek rather than Latin.
Don't get me wrong. I, myself, have the highest respect for the Tridentine Mass (although I have not attended it for so long due to its rarity here in our parts) since in that Liturgy, one can truly experience and exhibit a reverence for God that some may find incredibly lacking in the Novus Ordo Mass -- my opinion here becomes more pronounced especially in the case when the music played in Mass becomes not so much for the worship of God but, more so, for entertainment it seems.
However, I believe, most importantly, that you may be neglecting your own 'faithfulness' to the Catholic Church that you seem to profess so dearly your actual allegiance to but, in fact, may be rendering harm to Christ's own Church.

John,
May I also ask your opinion of Dietrich von Hildebrand?
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Stay away? Right. I fail to see how you don't perceive it as schismatic to "stay away" from the Catholic Church.

"We do not think we know more than the pope, but we do know something is very wrong and will stay away until it is fixed"
Why did you write this statement as if you're a member of the Borg Collective?

We do not think we know more than the pope, but we do know something is very wrong and will stay away until it is fixed.
Rather than try to help fix it? That seems a very un-Catholic attitude, rather like the servant who chose to bury his talents.

"We do not think we know more than the pope, but we do know something is very wrong and will stay away until it is fixed"
Okay.
I'd rather stay and try to help fix it.

John,
It is a simple question? Why won't you answer.
St. Ignatius of Antioch pray for us!
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Craig
God bless you
Inocencio
As far as what God wants or how one should worship him let me pose a simple question to all here to think that the so called "Traditionalists" think they are God
If tomorrow Pope Benedict told all Catholics worldwide that after his meetings with these Moslem clerics he has decided in a gesture of "Ecumenism" to introduce worship to "Allah" and Mohammed into our Mass and we are to pray 6 times a day, etc etc
What would you as the so called "Vatican II" Catholics do? Would you follow this order (Note that the liturgy is NOT infallible). You know that it is wrong to worship as a Moslem and though there is a bit of Catholicism here and there-it seems Ok-but should you do it????
This is the dilemna those that are Traditional and those that were brought up in the church after Vatican II, started to read a bit, learn, investigate, see all kinds of crazy things taking place at Mass and worse yet the catechism-and you KNEW something was wrong. We are being told to be Protestants with a bit of Catholicism mixed in but many are holding fast to Tradition as St Paul told us to. We do not think we know more than the pope, but we do know something is very wrong and will stay away until it is fixed

"Realist said:
They are taught that the Almighty will send them to hell if they don’t attend Mass and they die before they can confess it
Tim J responded:
Wrong again. For a Catholic, your ignorance of the Faith is breathtaking. You are also, apparently, way out of touch with current catechetical trends."
Okay, I see I need to clarify.
Realist's post concerned what Catholics "are taught". How many current parish Catechetical programs do you know of that stress the fact that missing mass is a mortal sin requiring confession? They should, but they don't.
This is what I meant by current trends in catechesis. It does not mean that I *approve* of these trends. This fellow was arguing that Catholics go to mass BECAUSE they are afraid of going to hell if they miss it, which I certainly believe is bunk. I go to mass because Christ is there, and I expect and hope that this is why most other Catholics go, as well.
Realist's post also failed to point out that missing mass for good reason is NOT a sin. Others have mentioned that he failed to take into account the possibility of true repentance afterward.
In other words, this Fr. Doyle was making a ham fisted attempt to imply that all Catholics are frightened little sheep, scared to death by the tall tales told by the clergy, running out to weekly mass because of their fear of a vindictive God.
My point was that one could hardly accuse the clergy (nowadays) of trying to scare Catholics into attending mass, or into anything. More the opposite... God is your buddy, Jesus is your pal.
Also, IMHO, one who chooses mortal sin chooses hell over God's kingdom, and can't blame The Almighty for going there.

This was a great help to me in understanding the Mass with all the variations that have come along. In no way should the Mass divide; man divides, not God. So, we have break-away groups, in-house fighting and all the rest, some of which has gone on for centuries. I decided to find out how Christ ‘said the first Mass.’ To do so, I simply went to the writings of Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich who was beatified by Pope John Paul II the Great on October 3, 2004. Sister Anne Catherine stated: “If the Church is true, all in her is true; he, who admits not the one, believes not the other.”
Institution of the Holy Eucharist
"By command of our Lord, the major-domo [Head Waiter/Butler] had again laid out the table, which he had raised a little; then, having placed it once more in the middle of the room, he stood one urn filled with wine, and another with water underneath it. Peter and John went into the part of the room near the hearth, to get the chalice which they had brought from Seraphia's house, and which was still wrapped up in its covering. They carried it between them as if they had been carrying a tabernacle, and placed it on the table before Jesus. An oval plate stood there, with three fine white azymous [unleavened] loaves, placed on a piece of linen, by the side of the half loaf which Jesus had set aside during the Paschal meal, also a jar containing wine and water, and three boxes, one filled with thick oil, a second with liquid oil, and the third empty.
In earlier times, it had been the practice for all at table to eat of the same loaf and drink of the same cup at the end of the meal, thereby to express their friendship and brotherly love, and to welcome and bid farewell to each other. I think Scripture must contain something upon this subject.
On the day of the Last Supper, Jesus raised this custom (which had hitherto been no more than a symbolical and figurative rite) to the dignity of the holiest of sacraments. One of the charges brought before Caiphas, on occasion of the treason of Judas, was, that Jesus had introduced a novelty into the Paschal ceremonies, but Nicodemus proved from Scripture that it was an ancient practice.
Jesus was seated between Peter and John, the doors were closed, and everything was done in the most mysterious and imposing manner. When the chalice was taken out of its covering, Jesus prayed, and spoke to his Apostles with the utmost solemnity. I saw him giving them an explanation of the Supper, and of the entire ceremony, and I was forcibly reminded of a priest teaching others to say Mass.
He then drew a species of shelf with grooves from the board on which the jars stood, and taking a piece of white linen with which the chalice was covered, spread it over the board and shelf. I then saw him lift a round plate, which he placed on this same shelf, off the top of the chalice. He next took the azymous loaves from beneath the linen with which they were covered, and placed them before him on the board; then he took out of the chalice a smaller vase, and arranged the six little glasses on each side of it. Then he blessed the bread and also the oil, to the best of my belief, after which he lifted up the paten with the loaves upon it, in his two hands, raised his eyes, prayed offered, and replaced the paten on the table, covering it up again. He then took the chalice, had some wine poured into it by Peter, and some water, which he first blessed, by John, adding to it a little more water, which he poured into a small spoon, and after this he blessed the chalice, raised it up with a prayer, made the oblation, and replaced it on the table. John and Peter poured some water on his hands, which he held over the plate on which the azymous loaves had been placed; then he took a little of the water which had been poured on his hands, in the spoon that he had taken out of the lower part of the chalice, and poured it on theirs. After this, the vase was passed round the table, and all the Apostles washed their hands in it. I do not remember whether this was the precise order in which these ceremonies were performed; all I know is that they reminded me in a striking manner of the holy sacrifice of the Mass.
Meanwhile, our Divine Lord became more and more tender and loving in his demeanor; he told his Apostles that he was about to give them all that he had, namely, his entire self, and he looked as though perfectly transformed by love. I saw him becoming transparent, until he resembled a luminous shadow. He broke the bread into several pieces, which he laid together on the paten, and then took a corner of the first piece and dropped it into the chalice. At the moment when he was doing this, I seemed to see the Blessed Virgin receiving the Holy Sacrament in a spiritual manner, although she was not present in the supper-room. I do not know how it was done, but I thought I saw her enter without touching the ground, and come before our Lord to receive the Holy Eucharist; after which I saw her no more. Jesus had told her in the morning, at Bethania, that he would keep the Pasch with her spiritually, and he had named the hour at which she was to betake herself to prayer, in order to receive it in spirit.
Again he prayed and taught; his words came forth from his lips like fire and light, and entered into each of the Apostles, with the exception of Judas. He took the paten with the pieces of bread (I do not know whether he had placed it on the chalice) and said: 'Take and eat; this is my Body which is given for you.' He stretched forth his right hand as if to bless, and, whilst he did so, a brilliant light came from him, his words were luminous, the bread entered the mouths of the Apostles as a brilliant substance, and light seemed to penetrate and surround them all, Judas alone remaining dark. Jesus presented the bread first to Peter, next to John and then he made a sign to Judas to approach. Judas was thus the third who received the Adorable Sacrament, but the words of our Lord appeared to turn aside from the mouth of the traitor, and come back to their Divine Author. So perturbed was I in spirit at this sight, that my feelings cannot be described. Jesus said to him: 'That which thou dost, do quick1y.' He then administered the Blessed Sacrament to the other Apostles, who approached two and two.
Jesus raised the chalice by its two handles to a level with his face, and pronounced the words of consecration. Whilst doing so, he appeared wholly transfigured, as it were transparent, and as though entirely passing into what he was going to give his Apostles. He made Peter and John drink from the chalice which he held in his hand, and then placed it again on the table. John poured the Divine Blood from the chalice into the smaller glasses, and Peter presented them to the Apostles, two of whom drank together out of the same cup. I think, but am not quite certain, that Judas also partook of the chalice; he did not return to his place, but immediately left the supper-room, and the other Apostles thought that Jesus had given him some commission to do. He left without praying or making any thanksgiving, and hence you may perceive how sinful it is to neglect returning thanks either after receiving our daily food, or after partaking of the Life-Giving Bread of Angels. During the entire meal, I had seen a frightful little figure, with one foot like a dried bone, remaining close to Judas, but when he had reached the door, I beheld three devils pressing round him; one entered into his mouth, the second urged him on, and the third preceded him. It was night, and they seemed to be lighting him, whilst he hurried onward like a madman.
She was not certain that the Blessed Sacrament was administered in the order given above, for on another occasion she had seen John the last to receive.
Our Lord poured a few drops of the Precious Blood remaining in the chalice into the little vase of which I have already spoken, and then placed his fingers over the chalice, while Peter and John poured water and wine upon them. This done, he caused them to drink again from the chalice, and what remained of its contents was poured into the smaller glasses, and distributed to the other Apostles. Then Jesus wiped the chalice, put into it the little vase containing the remainder of the Divine Blood, and placed over it the paten with the fragments of the consecrated bread, after which he again put on the cover, wrapped up the chalice, and stood it in the midst of the six small cups. I saw the Apostles receive in communion these remains of the Adorable Sacrament, after the Resurrection. I do not remember seeing our Lord himself eat and drink of the consecrated elements; neither did I see Melchisedech, when offering the bread and wine, taste of them himself. It was made known to me why priests partake of them, although Jesus did not."
Here Sister Emmerich looked suddenly up, and appeared to be listening. Some explanation was given her on this subject, but the following words were all that she could repeat to us: 'If the office of distributing it had been given to angels, they would not have partaken, but if priests did not partake, the Blessed Eucharist would be lost---it is through their participation that it is preserved.'
"There was an indescribable solemnity and order in all the actions of Jesus during the institution of the Holy Eucharist, and his every movement was most majestic. I saw the Apostles noting things down in the little rolls of parchment which they carried on their persons. Several times during the ceremonies I remarked that they bowed to each other, in the same way that our priests do.
Jesus gave his Apostles some private instructions; he told them how they were to preserve the Blessed Sacrament in memory of him, even to the end of the world; he taught them the necessary forms for making use of and communicating it, and in what manner they were, by degrees, to teach and publish this mystery; finally he told them when they were to receive what remained of the consecrated Elements, when to give some to the Blessed Virgin, and how to consecrate, themselves, after he should have sent them the Divine Comforter. He then spoke concerning the priesthood, the sacred unction, and the preparation of the Chrism and Holy Oils.* He had there three boxes, two of which contained a mixture of oil and balm. He taught them how to make this mixture, what parts of the body were to be anointed with them, and upon what occasions. I remember, among other things, that he mentioned a case in which the Holy Eucharist could not be administered; perhaps what he said had reference to Extreme Unction, for my recollections on this point are not very clear. He spoke of different kinds of anointing, and in particular of that of kings, and he said that even wicked kings who were anointed, derived from it especial powers. He put ointment and oil in the empty box, and mixed them together, but I cannot say for certain whether it was at this moment, or at the time of the consecration of the bread, that he blessed the oil.
I then saw Jesus anoint Peter and John, on whose hands he had already poured the water which had flowed on his own, and to whom he had given to drink out of the chalice. Then he laid his hands on their shoulders and heads, while they, on their part, joined their hands and crossed their thumbs, bowing down profoundly before him---I am not sure whether they did not even kneel. He anointed the thumb and fore-finger of each of their hands, and marked across on their heads with Chrism. He said also that this would remain with them unto the end of the world.
James the Less, Andrew, James the Greater, and Bartholomew, were also consecrated. I saw likewise that on Peter's bosom he crossed a sort of stole worn round the neck, whilst on the others he simply placed it crosswise, from the right shoulder to the left side. I do not know whether this was done at the time of the institution of the Blessed Sacrament, or only for the anointing.
I understood that Jesus communicated to them by this unction something essential and supernatural, beyond my power to describe. He told them that when they should have received the Holy Spirit they were to consecrate the bread and wine, and anoint the other Apostles. It was made known to me then that, on the day of Pentecost, Peter and John imposed their hands upon the other Apostles, and a week later upon several of the disciples. After the Resurrection, John gave the Adorable Sacrament for the first time to the Blessed Virgin. This event was solemnized as a festival among the Apostles. It is a festival no longer kept in the Church on earth, but I see it celebrated in the Church triumphant. For the first few days after Pentecost I saw only Peter and John consecrate the Blessed Eucharist, but after that the others also consecrated. Our Lord next proceeded to bless fire in a brass vessel and care was taken that it should not go out, but it was kept near the spot where the Blessed Sacrament had been deposited, in one division of the ancient Paschal hearth, and fire was always taken from it when needed for spiritual purposes.
All that Jesus did upon this occasion was done in private, and taught equally in private. The Church has retained all that was essential of these secret instructions and, under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, developed and adapted them to all her requirements. Whether Peter and John were both consecrated bishops, or Peter alone as bishop and John as priest, or to what dignity the other four Apostles were raised, I cannot pretend to say. But the different ways in which our Lord arranged the Apostles' stoles appear to indicate different degrees of consecration.
When these holy ceremonies were concluded, the chalice (near which the blessed Chrism also stood) was recovered, and the Adorable Sacrament carried by Peter and John into the back part of the room, which was divided off by a curtain, and from thenceforth became the Sanctuary. The spot where the Blessed Sacrament was deposited was not very far above the Paschal stove. Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus took care of the Sanctuary and of the supper-room during the absence of the Apostles.
Jesus again instructed his Apostles for a considerable length of time, and also prayed several times. He frequently appeared to be conversing with his Heavenly Father, and to be over flowing with enthusiasm and love. The Apostles also were full of joy and zeal, and asked him various questions which he forthwith answered. The scriptures must contain much of this last discourse and conversation. He told Peter and John different things to be made known later to the other Apostles, who in their turn were to communicate them to the disciples and holy women, according to the capacity of each for such knowledge. He had a private conversation with John, whom he told that his life would be longer than the lives of the others. He spoke to him also concerning seven Churches, some crowns and angels, and instructed him in the meaning of certain mysterious figures, which signified, to the best of my belief, different epochs. The other Apostles were slightly jealous of this confidential communication being made to John.

John,
What you are doing is worse than picking and chosing what YOU believe.
You are telling others that the Church that was Divinely instituted to authoritatively teach, preach and interpret is doing so falsely.
I repeat my simple question.
Does the pope's authority come from you or God?
St. Gerard Majella pray for us!
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

John,
Let's get one thing straight. You may be a lot of things, but one of them is most certainly not a traditional Catholic.

Any reintroduction of the Mass of the Saints, the Most Beautiful Thing This Side of Heaven, will bring incredible graces.
By simply having it available, as a viable alternative for the faithful, the modern rite would probably gain more of a sense of beauty and silence.
I dare say Traditionalists kept out in the woods for so long will be SHOCKED and HORRIFIED at the state of the liturgical Church today.
May Almighty God call back His faithful, charging them with taking out the garbage.
Pax tecum,
+Craig Kelso

Inocencio
I am not picking and chosing what to believe, as that is what Luther, Calvin and Bucer did-Traditional Catholics just adhere to what was Catholic for centuries BEFORE the Vatican II Reformation
As far as the church not changing after Vatican II-what planet are you living on?
And Mary-you asked me if I have read anything from JPII and yes I have read some of his most proclaimed "Theology of the Body" and I still chuckle about it that the Pope actually needed to write this to Catholics as he once again was "Modernizing" past church teachings and leaving those little loopholes as he did with his new code of canon law and new catchism.
Here is the explanation and summary of "Theology of the Body" right from its very website as the Pope is talking about "Love" and "sexuality".
"The 'Theology of the Body' is Pope John Paul II's integrated vision of the human person - body, soul, and spirit. As he explains, the physical human body has a specific meaning and is capable of revealing answers regarding fundamental questions about us and our lives:
Is there a real purpose to life and if so, what is it?
Why were we created male and female? Does it really matter if we are one sex or another?
Why were man and woman called to communion from the beginning? What does the marital union of a man and woman say to us about God and his plan for our lives?
What is the purpose of the married and celibate vocations?
What exactly is "Love"?
Is it truly possible to be pure of heart?
All of these questions and many more are answered in Pope John Paul II's 129 Wednesday audiences, which were given between the years 1979 and 1984. His reflections are based on Scripture (especially the Gospels, St. Paul and the Book of Genesis), and contain a vision of the human person truly worthy of man. John Paul II discusses who man was in the beginning, who he is now (after original sin), and who he will be in the age to come. He then applies this message to the vocations of marriage and celibacy, in preparation for the Kingdom of Heaven.
Lastly, this website is dedicated to the promotion of the Pope's revolutionary and life-transforming message of hope that counteracts societal trends which urge us to view the body as an object of pleasure or as a machine for manipulation. John Paul II portrays a beautiful vision of sexuality in his Theology of the Body and other earlier works including Love and Responsibility. He encourages a true reverence for the gift of our sexuality and challenges us to live it in a way worthy of our great dignity as human persons. His theology is not only for young adults or married couples, but for all ages and vocations since it sums up the true meaning of the human person."
The Popes "Beautiful vision of Sexuality"-It sounds perverse as JPII was a humanist which was denounced by Pope after Pope
And the former asks-If the church DID not change after Vatican II, then why did it need :
-A new mass
-(4) New retranslations of the New American Bible
-All new sacraments,-changing both mater and form in many and all
-New Canon Law
-New Catechism
-New forms of dress, fasting, receiving our Lord, worship, etc
It is essentially a new church that itself has changed-It has more in common with Luther in picking and chosing what was "Catholic" than Lefebvre or any Traditionalist ever did
As far as the gates of hell-It is clear Our Lord that the faithful would be few and there would be many false prophets and that heresy would reign supreme-but those that strictly adhere to the faith would be the ones saved. A false pope would emerge leading many into sin and the fires of hell
The safe road is always to follow the tried and true teachings of the church-if St Anathasius had followed the Pope and Bishops of the 4th century we would not be a church today
Archibishop Lefebvre will be found to be along with Cardinal Ottavani in the same light as the great Saint who saved the church from heresy. This of course will never take place in our lifetime as the world and the church itself are to compromised at this point "A Pope proclaiming hold Moslems in high esteem???". We can only pray for the church

John,
"In such a situation they are obliged to disobey those who falsely speak in Peter's name."
Very convenient to be able to pick and choose who speaks falsely.
Does the pope's authority come from you or God?
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

"Having said that, a pope is not immune from heretical beliefs, heretical writings, and even immoral instructions to the faithful (so long as it is not an "ex cathedra" declaration)."
The Catholic Church has never claimed that every word of Catechesis or Theology that comes from the Pope’s mouth is infallible. It just hadn’t. If anyone is trying to force that standard on us, then that person is creating what in logic is known as a straw man. He’s changing the Church’s actual position, which is that Popes are protected from speaking error in very limited circumstances. The fact that it has to do with Faith and Morals is only one of them.
There are multiple other circumstances that have to be fulfilled and so merely the fact that a pope at some time in history says something about theology that is wrong does not violate the idea of Papal Infallibility in the slightest because the Church’s claim regarding Papal Infallibility is not that Popes can’t do that. They can – at least, as far as the Church is concerned. The Church has not said otherwise. And you look back in history and there are some popes who have said things that were wrong. But so what? If someone is trying to force a card on us so that we must accept the premise that in order for papal infallibility to be true, it must be true that every pope has never said anything about theology that was wrong; then he is creating a straw man and we should not buy that premise. That is not what the Church teaches and, consequently, it is simply erroneous of people to attempt to hold the Church to a standard that the Church does not claim for itself.

Interesting articles.
Catholic schismatics see return to Roman fold soon
Lefebvrists ready to seek reconciliation?
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

"They are taught that the Almighty will send them to hell if they don’t attend Mass and they die before they can confess it."
"An act of perfect contrition will be enough if one cannot posssibly receive the sacrament before dying."
What Theologians call an ‘Act of Perfect Contrition’ is a turning away from sin based on the love of God, where one recognizes that God is infinitely good, and, therefore, his will is infinitely good, and that one needs to repent of what one has done and bring one's will into line with God's, and fulfill it. If a person does that, then that person is reconciled with God, even before they’re able to go to the Sacrament of Confession.

Realist said:
They are taught that the Almighty will send them to hell if they don’t attend Mass and they die before they can confess it
Tim J responded:
Wrong again. For a Catholic, your ignorance of the Faith is breathtaking. You are also, apparently, way out of touch with current catechetical trends.
Matt (aka blank, oops) responded with clarifying citations from the catechism itself.
David B interjects:
It is not Church teaching that, without the sacrament of confession, it is impossible to be saved when one is in grave sin. An act of perfect contrition will be enough if one cannot posssibly receive the sacrament before dying.
Now, if we understand the word "confess" used by Realist to mean "repent", the his statement is true, if we understand "confess" to mean sacramental confession, then it is wrong. In neither case does Tim's response "out of touch with current catechetical trends" address the ambiguity, but only adds dangerous levels of additional ambiguity. Which is why, I responded from the catechism.
Mary Kay, Cadfael:
John Paul II "watering down catechesis"
While it may not be a fair accusation to say that JPII watered down catechesis, it is fair to say that catechesis was extensively watered down during his pontificate, perhaps less so after the promulgation of the CCC, but nonetheless there have been huge problems that were not resolved. The bottom line is that discipline has not yet been restored to any level consistent with a universal Catholic faith. It seems Pope Benedict XVI is quickening this restoration, the confusion about "trends in catechesis" has already been clarified by the Compendium issued by Benedict XVI, which is much more precise than the CCC issued by JPII.. I think the universal indult, and whatever else we might find in the upcoming "Motu Proprio" may be another step in that direction.
John,
To obey modernist and heretical "popes" is to declare that they are "one hierarchical person" with our Lord and hence that Christ teaches falsely - quod absit!
Can you tell me where in Unam Sanctum it says only be subject to popes that aren't modernist or heretical?
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15126a.htm
I just can't find this exception.
Having said that, a pope is not immune from heretical beliefs, heretical writings, and even immoral instructions to the faithful (so long as it is not an "ex cathedra" declaration). If the pope gives an instruction to the faithful that is contrary to the faith, they are obliged to not obey, but they still must be subject to that pope, and if he subsequently issues instructions which are not contrary to the faith, they are bound to obey. The point here is that we must love the pope despite any failings he may have.
God Bless,
Matt

"You might want to read the previously listed references pertaining to Father Doyle and his views that also covered other problems with our Church."
Catholic is as Catholic does, Realist.
The views you continually push in your comments are neither Catholic nor Christian.
Missing mass without sufficient reason is a mortal sin, but Fr. Doyle postulated specifically that THIS is why most Catholics go to mass, which is complete conjecture and fantasy, not to mention condescending in the extreme. Fr. Doyle sounds like an elitist.
What a surprise.
I won't comment further on this, because it is far off topic. This WAS about the universal indult, remember? Please stop the sniping about priest abuse unless there is a relevant thread.

"what is abundantly clear is, that after V2 the Catholic religion has been changed."
Funny how most Catholics don't think this is clear, much less abundantly so.
Sounds like most Protestant scritural exegesis which starts with "Clearly the Roman Catholic Church is wrong because Scripture clearly states that... (praying to Mary is idolatry/call no man Father/Jesus had brothers/the Vatican is the whore of Babylon, etc).
The gates have held. The Church is still the Church, the Pope still Pope, Truth still Truth. Maybe a little humility is in order, instead of thinking one person (or a group of persons) knows better than the Church, led by the Holy Spirit.