I don’t know why the last posting ended up in Italics…25/4/12 #2 Necessity Canon Law 1321:  Here are the relevant paragraphs of canon law,  invoking the “Case of necessity”,  with my commentary:  Can. 1321 §1. *No one is punished unless* the external violation of a law or precept, committed by the person, is gravely imputable by reason of *malice or negligence.*  [MOF: which was certainly not the case with Mgr Lefebvre. No-one has seriously suggested that Mgr Lefebvre was ever negligent, or that he was motivated by malice.] §2. [MOF: n/a here] Can. 1323 The following are not subject to a penalty when they have violated a law or precept: 4/ *a person who acted coerced by grave fear,* even if only relatively grave, *or due to necessity* or grave inconvenience unless the act is intrinsically evil or tends to the harm of souls; [MOF:  Mgr Lefebvre acted out of grave fear for the future of the Church, seeing the wholesale invasion of heretical ideas into all other seminaries.  He had tried to tell these things to Pope Paul VI but the latter did not appear to see the dangers. Yet as an archbishop Mgr Lefebvre was not free to wash his hands of the situation.  In acting as he did he was but following in the steps of S. Athanasius in the 4th Century.]

[contd]  5/ a person who acted with due moderation *against an unjust aggressor* for the sake of legitimate self defense or defense of another;  [MOF: The sanctions imposed on Mgr Lefebvre, and the order to close his seminary in the middle of the year, along with the illegal blocking of his right to appeal, given that at no time ever was the seminary or the SSPX accused of heretical teaching – this at a time when it had become the norm in other seminaries – certainly support the claim of ‘unjust aggression’ from the Modernist bishops who had the Pope’s ear.]

[contd]  7/ a person who without negligence thought that one of the circumstances mentioned in nn. 4 or 5 was present. [MOF: Note well.  this canon lays down that, if Mgr Lefebvre *thought* that the situation was one of emergency, even if he was *wrong*, he was protected from any penalty.  Please note well that this marks a critical change from the previous Code of Canon Law. Previously, the sanction would be applied automatically following an external act contravening the Law.  The accused could then appeal the case. The onus would be on the accused to plead extenuating circumstances, which could then be weighed and judged by the tribunal.  But the New Code of Canon Law, promulgated by Pope Paul II in 1983, makes the imposition of the penalty contingent on the state of mind of the accused.  Now the onus is on the accuser to show that the accused *did not think he was exempt.*  Compare traffic laws.  It is illegal to break the speed limit.  A driver exceeding the limit is liable to the penalty.  He is free to dispute it in court (speedometer was not working; he was driving his child to hospital with an emergency illness) – which could be judged by the courts.  But the New Code, if applied to speeding, would mean that the driver was subject to the penalty *only* if he didn’t think it necessary to be going that fast!  The onus is now on the accuser to *prove* that the driver knew – or thought – he had no excuse.  It is the majority opinion of expert Canonists that this law is unworkable: firstly because it makes the law dependent on the mental state of the accused, and secondly because the loopholes are so wide that it becomes practically impossible to convict anyone at all.]

[contd]    [Be it noted that Mgr Lefebvre opposed the New Code of Canon Law when it was being mooted!  But once it was promulgated he accepted the Pope’s decision!  The subsequent attempt to apply a double standard – huge leniency towards Liberals who taught contraception, abortion, homosexuality, divorce, married or women priests, dismissal of scripture, etc etc, while attempting to ‘throw the book’ at the Traditionalists who were doing nothing except what the Church had always done – simply lacked credibility.] Can. 1324 §1. The perpetrator of a violation is not exempt from a penalty, but the penalty established by law or precept must be tempered or a penance employed in its place if the delict was committed: 5/ by a person who was coerced by grave fear, even if only relatively grave, or due to necessity or grave inconvenience if the delict is intrinsically evil or tends to the harm of souls;  [MOF:  As we have seen, Mgr Lefebvre acted out of grave fear for the future of the Church, seeing the wholesale invasion of heretical ideas into all other seminaries. It cannot be maintained with credibility that Mgr Lefebvre’s actions were either intrinsically evil or tending to the harm of souls, unless we say the same about St Athanasius, which nobody has ever done]
6/ by a person who acted without due moderation against an unjust aggressor for the sake of legitimate self defense or defense of another; [MOF: As we have seen, Mgr Lefebvre still acted circumspectly.  He did not usurp anybody else’s authority.  He did not ordain priests for another bishop’s diocese, far less did he declare another bishop deposed and consecrate another in his place, *as did S. Athanasius and S. Eusebius during the Arian Crisis.*  He carried out his duties as a bishop].  Sorry, David Kaiser & others who deny these things because they do not fit in with your ideas:  the historical eveidence is overwhelming, and was compiled long before the present controversy.

[contd]    7/ against someone who gravely and unjustly provokes the person; [MOF: Since no good reason has ever been offered why Mgr Lefebvre should have abandoned his priests, seminarians and laypeople to the prevalent chaos, the provocation could rightly be said to be grave and unjust.]  8/ by a person who thought in culpable error that one of the circumstances mentioned in can. 1323, nn. 4 or 5 was present; [MOF:  this becomes laughable.  Notice that the actual Law of the Church has now bent over so far backwards in favour of the accused that the latter is exempted from excommunication – though liable to a lesser penalty – if he thought *wrongly that the situation was one of necessity, or that he was being unjustly treated, even if it was his own fault that he did not know better.*]  §3. *In the circumstances mentioned in §1, the accused is not bound by a latae sententiae penalty.* [MOF:  It is crystal clear that these canons can in no way justify the latae sententiae (i.e. automatic) excommunication published by Cdl Gantin in the italian newspaper l’Osservatore Romane.  The very promulgation is invalid, as it lacked a vatican Protocol number.  Consider Traffic Laws again.  If a Traffic Warden writes me out a ticket, I am legally obliged to pay the fine.  But if I get a scribbled note on a scrap of note-paper, or see it only in the “Personal “ column of the local newspaper, no court would be able to enforce it.]  This is why the alleged excommunication was never accepted either by senior canonists or by the majority of Mgr Lefebvre’s followers – and I suggest, with respect, that it is why it was quietly dropped by Pope Benedict.

My new good friend Michael O, the CC can claim the right to anything. My salvation is between me and the Man of Sorrows, the Christ. The CC makes all kinds of great swelling claims. But what does it do? It burns bible believers. Is this the work of the Holy Ghost? Food for thought…. the CC isnt gods church

Michael O’‘
You keep making the same methodological error over and over again. We Catholics have the word of the supreme authority in the Church on the status of Lefebvre and the SSPX. It doesn’t matter what others think since they are not the supreme authority. Do you understand what supreme means? These other people just have their opinions and the faithful are not bound by them. I do not believe you when you say Cardinals have contradicted the legality of the excommunications. This would be quite a story! One I’ve never heard of outside SSPX propaganda.
You need to go back and look at Vatican Council 1. It states that the Pope is the principle of Faith and Unity in the Church, that his Faith is guaranteed not to fail, that all who would claim to be Catholic must share the same Faith with him, that he is to be obeyed in ALL matters concerning the Faith, Government and Discipline of the Church. Certainly, the SSPX has called into question this dogma. They believe the Pope and Conciliar Church has defected and that it is their job to hold out till the Holy See goes back to Tradition and orthodoxy. This is Protestantism. Frankly, I do not see how the Vatican can deal with these people. They have a warped understanding of the Church, as Pope Paul VI personally told Lefebvre, and as long as they do not understand that they are not the ultimate judges of orthodoxy no mending will take place.

It is sad what has happened. I love the Tridentine Mass, and I am very grateful to SSPX for keeping the importance of the Immemorial Mass ever before our eyes.  But, it saddens me that now it appears there will be no reconciliation.  And, with all due respect, it’s not because the Holy See hasn’t tried.

Friends, i was unsaved once upon a time, and i fell for almost anything.Yes, i know what supreme means. its just a word.Actions speak louder than words. heads being tossed over the jerusalem walls speaks plenty about the Popes armies.Once you are born again, all these false ideas will go away. I wish i had a nickel for every religion that claims to be supreme.But if i was a PR man for the CC, i wouldnt yell so loud right now, what with a clergy steeped in wickedness. Jesus is the answer. Not a wafer in a gold trinket.

4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:
Nothing could be more accurate

Posted by wayne on Tuesday, Apr 24, 2012 10:18 PM (EST):

The historians were surprised that certain books did not figure in the Congregation’s records at all.

“We looked everywhere for a mention of Charles Darwin, for example. There was nothing,” said Wolf, referring to the British scientist who proposed the theory of evolution and enraged those who believe literally in the biblical story of creation.
MOF:  that is because the literalist interpretation of Genesis is not mandated by the Catholic Church.  I don’t think we are allowed to post links on this webpage, but in fact three different possible interpretations are allowed.  Darwin’s book was a bombshell to the Fundamentalist Protestants, but went almost un-noticed by the Catholic world, partly because its publication coincided with Our Lady’s Apparitions at Lourdes.

Adolf Hitler’s hate-filled ideology, “Mein Kampf”, was also never put on the Index, though Wolf and his team did discover evidence that the censors considered what to do about Hitler, with discussions in the office going on for years and a decision constantly postponed.
MOF:  The Index was mainly concerned with heresy, not particular issues.  As G.K.Chesterton wrote, ‘A heresy is worse than a sin, because a heresy begets sins for centuries’. Actually, it would have done the West a power of good if they’d actually read Mein Kampf instead of ignoring the situation in Germany.
In the end, the examination of Mein Kampf was simply terminated. So far the historians are not sure why.
MOF: But they did discover that Karl Marx (and Hitler)had sold his soul to the devil.  The future Pope Pius XII found that he started as a committed Catholic, beloning to the Sodality of the Sacred Heart, then joined a cult group that ended up in the explicit worship of Satan, as they so often ended up doing.  Marx wrote this (an extract from a longer poem):  /Till I go mad, and my heart is utterly changed;/See this sword:the Prince of Darkness handed it to me”.  The wars of the 20th Century were straighforward battles between Satan’s Army and christ’s - and it is the Will of the Father that Our Lady be in the forefront, as revealed at Fatima and elsewhere.

wayne wrote on Tuesday, Apr 24, 2012 10:27 PM (EST): Michael O, its time to learn what your church teaches “Canon 14. We prohibit also that the laity should not [MOF: some confusion here??] be permitted to have the books of the Old or New Testament; we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books.”- The Church Council of Toulouse 1229 ADSource: Heresy and Authority in Medieval Europe,Scolar Press, London,[etc] The Council of Tarragona of 1234, in its second canon, ruled that:  “No one may possess the books of the Old and New Testaments, and if anyone possesses them he must turn them over to the local bishop within eight days, so that they may be burned…”- The Church Council of Tarragona 1234 AD; 2nd Cannon - Source : D. Lortsch, Historie de la Bible en France, 1910, p.14.  MOF:  Fair point, Wayne.  But :Point of Order.  this is not “What your Church teaches” - it is what the local Church in Hispaniola enacted in the 13th Century, in response to a mortal threat. To claim from this that the Catholic Church everywhere and always prhibited the Bible is a simple lie, against not only history but all common sense, as we have treid to point out.  In Hispaniola The Moslems had invaded Spain, through the treachery of one man, and it took 700 years to expel them.  Meanwhile, the Jewish community there were wreaking havoc by their systematic undermining of the Law of the Land, notably their usury, and many were deceitfully letting themselves be baptised as Catholics while continuing their subversion. And the Albigensian heresy was at its height.  As the barbarian dialects gradually eveoled into national languages, the Scriptures began to be written down in these vernaculars, as had happened without the slightest difficulty in the very earliest centuries.  But from the very earliest ages, heretical groups had been producing bibles mistranslated to favour their own ideas.  It was the duty of the Church to stop this in what way it could.  Unfortunately, the quoting of isolated texts out of their proper context is a hallmark of the Protestant mentality.

Posted by wayne on Wednesday, Apr 25, 2012 7:29 AM (EST):

Ah, i see what objections catholics have with this SSPX. I went to a Vaticancatholic site and heard the rundown. So the SSPX says people of any religion or no religion can get to heaven. Ooouuuweee, that must enrage the faithful catholics. We all know that heaven is the exclusive domain of the catholic church.MOF:  andso it is, Wayne.  there is “One Faith, one baptism”.  I applaud the sspx among other things for reminding us of the infallible Catholic teaching:  Any valid Baptism is baptism into the Catholic Church.  If you were validly baptised at all, Wayne, you were baptised as a Catholic.  Those consciously followint the Catholic Church are in the Body and Soul fo the Church, which is the Mystical Body of Christ.  those baptised and of good will, but who have been fed lies about the Catholic church and who therefore reject the figment they take for the church, are still in the Catholic church.  those never baptised, but who truly seek God, may, in God’s wise and secret Providence, br granted Bapticm of Desire.  that is the true, immemorial teaching of the Catholic Church, ratified by the Council of Tren.

Posted by wayne on Wednesday, Apr 25, 2012 8:48 PM (EST):

My new good friend Michael O,
MOF:  Thank you, Wayne, I concur.  When I left a certain nominally Catholic School, my best (teacher) friend was a Hindu.  When he shook my hand in parting, he said, ‘You and I ... we love God’. I was touched, and I agreed - for him, anyway.  For me, ‘sometimes’ I try ...If I may say so, it is clear that so do you.  This is not flattery but a plain statement of fact. wayne:  the CC can claim the right to anything. MOF:  Not true.  We cannot contradict Christ, whose servants we are. wayne: My salvation is between me and the Man of Sorrows, the Christ. The CC makes all kinds of great swelling claims. But what does it do? It burns bible believers. Is this the work of the Holy Ghost? Food for thought…. MOF:  It burned them, not for believing the bible, but for ssubverting the bible. And do not judge them too rashly. In 500 years, you - and I - and they - will all still be alive.  And 500 years is a mere nothing compared with eternity.  If I saw somebody leading ‘mental children’ away from their eternal destiny, I would try to stop this happening.  Whether or not we of the 21st century agree with their methods, this is what they were actually trying to achieve.  But that isn’t all that the Church does.  S. Paul writes:  ‘We bear a treasure in earthen vessels’.  We are the vessels, Wayne: the CC isnt gods church MOF:  But He gave us Judas as a warning.  He said, ‘I have chosen you, have I not? And one of you is a devil’.  Whenever I contemplate the bad things done by publicly-proffessed CAtholics, I think, ‘Well, I’ll have to show the world how to do it better’. At the Last Judgment, I won’t be asked about their behaviour, but about my own.

Posted by Sister Terese Peter on Wednesday, Apr 25, 2012 1:34 PM (EST):  Oh, also, I meant to add that some in SSPX claim that Novus Ordo Catholics cannot get to heaven either. It seems they have an exclusive line to God…  MOF: Sister, I do earnestly hope that this did not come from the SSPX priests themselves, but from the self-elected lay experts who infest the back porch after so many Masses. G.K.Chestarton wrote, ‘the biggest final obstacle to the convert is the over-zealous layman.’  The claim you quote is emphatically no part of the SSPX teaching. This can be checked by reading the SSPX webpage on Sedevacantism - or from any SSPX priest [I hope - if not, please report him].

David Kaiser wroteon Wednesday, Apr 25, 2012:  I do not believe you when you say Cardinals have contradicted the legality of the excommunications.  MOF: You don’t have to believe ME. These facts are on the public record.  To help you, and others, I will post S. Thomas Aquinas’ words on Law, Obedisnce and Authority.  Just to remind you, the Pope has rescinded the decree of excommunication of the SSPX. That means they are ‘in communion’ with Peter and the Church.  Pope Benedict reminded us that the SSPX at present have no canonical standing.  That is fine with the SSPX: they have never claimed anything other than an emergency role.  They have never stepped beyond the boundaries and usurped the juridistiction of the other bishops or of the pope.  In fact, I am amazed at their restraint and clear thinking.

Thanks Michael O, ill digest what youve written.

As someone trying hard to find the truth, I stumbled across SSPX. I find myself leaning toward their beliefs. It just seems to me the Church has become far too “modern” and far too socialist for me. I had an acquaintance point out to me that Catholics believe the same thing Protestants do. And I haven’t found anything to disprove that. Most agree with Protestants on the social issues. Abortion, gay marriage, embryonic stem cell research, and of course the oppression of women. I’m definitely no where near as knowledgable as MOF, but I love to read his posts. I’m not a theologian but I can’t see what SSPX is saying is so wrong. Can someone point out what they’re wrong about? And can someone tell me what happened to Fr. Corapi? I loved to listen to him also, but can’t seem to get an answer as to why he’s no longer on EWTN.

Michael O’,
Please document where any Cardinal or any other high official in good standing in the Church has contradicted the legality of the excommunications of 1988.
I understand that the Pope has rescinded the excommunications of 1988. Those excommunications did not create the division between Rome and the SSPX, the rejection of Church authority on the part of the SSPX did that. Pope Paul VI told Lefebvre way back in the 1970’s that his warped understanding of the Church would lead him into schism. Schism can exist without an official declaration. The SSPX now is under suspension which means they are forbidden from offering the sacraments and performing all other priestly faculties. They disobey. How is this if they are in communion with Rome? You say this is fine with the SSPX? This is a schismatic attitude. They cannot claim an emergency role in the Church when the Supreme authority in the Church has forbidden them from their priestly duties due to their disobedience and rejection of Church teaching. The SSPX ignores and rejects the jurisdiction of the Pope and Bishops united with him. To say otherwise is foolishness.

David Kaiser wrote on Saturday, Apr 28, 2012 8:42 PM (EST):  Michael O’,  Please document where any Cardinal or any other high official in good standing in the Church has contradicted the legality of the excommunications of 1988.  MOF:  The following Roman canonists, among others,  who hold some of the highest positions in the Church, have publicly declared their finding that the decree of excommunication of the SSPX bishops was always null and void under Canon Law: Castillo Cardinal Lara, J.C.D., President of the Pontifical Commission for Authentic Interpretation of Canon Law:  Edward Idris Cardinal Cassidy, President of the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity;  Alfons Cardinal Stickler, former Prefect of the Vatican Archives and Library;  Fr. Patrick Valdini, J.C.D., Dean of the Faculty of Canon Law ;  Fr. Rudolf Kaschewski of Germany;  Count Neri Capponi, D.Cn.L., Ll.D, Professor of Canon Law;  Professor Geringer, J.C.D.    Pope Benedict got a very heavy dose of the kind of treatment the SSPX have been enduring when he withdrew the decree of excommunication on the SSPX bishops. Remember his anguished letter at the time?  Pope Benedict wrote:–  “Some groups, on the other hand, openly accused the Pope ... an avalanche of protests was unleashed, whose bitterness laid bare wounds deeper than those of the present moment.  I was saddened by the fact that even Catholics who, after all, might have had a better knowledge of the situation, thought they had to attack me with open hostility. That the quiet gesture of extending a hand gave rise to a huge uproar, and thus became exactly the opposite of a gesture of reconciliation, is a fact which we must accept. But I ask now: Was it, and is it, truly wrong in this case to meet half-way the brother who ‘has something against you’ and to seek reconciliation?  And should we not admit that some unpleasant things have also emerged in Church circles? At times one gets the impression that our society needs to have at least one group to which no tolerance may be shown; which one can easily attack and hate. And should someone dare to approach them - in this case the Pope - he too loses any right to tolerance; he too can be treated hatefully, without misgiving or restraint.” .... Mr Kaiser, I hauled this off my hard disc.  I will try to find the actual quotes of these ‘Eminentissimi’.

About The State of Emergency The SSPX claim exemption from the Laws of the Church because there is “A State of Emergency”.  What right have they to say this if the Pope does not say it? I reply: By definition, a State of Emergency exists when a person is denied access to something which is essential to him, but which however he has has no hope of obtaining by ‘regular’ means.  Our Lord quoted with approval the episode in Scripture where King David and his men entered the temple and ate the ‘Showbread’ that it is not lawful to eat, because they were in danger of fainting from hunger.  The Law of self-preservation over-rode the Temple Law that the bread was reserved for Temple use.  Now the only way to get around Mgr Lefebvre’s invocation of the “Emergency” canons 1323, 1324 +1321 is to deny that there was a state of Emergency in 1988 [actually, the phrase is ‘Case of Necessity’ which is activated when there is a State of Emergency’].  In actual fact, even this would not nullify the SSPX case - the canons specifically state that the person is exempt from censure even if he is wrong – even if he ought to have known better – and even if it is his own fault that he did not know better.  Look it up yourself].  Some will argue that only the Pope can declare a State of Emergency.  But If a State of Emergency exists, it does not need the Pope to proclaim it. Compare the situation in a city. If transport, water and electricity break down, the Mayor may declare a State of emergency.  But if he does not do so, it still remains the case that the breakdown has happened, and the city dwellers must still take emergency measures to survive.  Consider also:– [1] Each one of us individually might encounter a State of emergency.  “I” as a layman and father cannot speak for the whole Church, but I can recognise it if my children are being denied a Catholic formation in my own town.  If my attempts to provide these things are being blocked by the very members of the local Church, then I am entitled under Divine Law to make emergency arrangements.  This is a dangerous line of action:  of course it is.  That is why it is an emergency. [2] What if the Emergency includes the Pope himself?  Our Lord’s promise to Peter by no means excluded this as a possibility “But after you have turned, confirm thy bretheren”.  The history of the Arian crisis shows that it has already happened at least once before.  During the Arian crisis of the 4th century Athanasius and Bp Eusebius didn’t say “things are bad, but God is in charge:  we will stay at home, obey the Pope and say our prayers”  …. they went into other dioceses ordaining sound men as Catholic priests over the heads of the (Arian-leaning) diocesan bishops.  In this, they went further than Mgr Lefebvre ever did. When Athanasius was excommunicated, he simply ignored it and went on with his work.  This example makes no comment on the inner thoughts of the Pope, but only on the external effects.  It does not prove that Mgr Lefebvre was right in his own case, but it does prove that these things are not only possible, but are in line with established principles of the Catholic Church.

) David Kaiser wrote on Wednesday, Apr 25, 2012:  It doesn’t matter what others think since they are not the supreme authority. Do you understand what supreme means? These other people just have their opinions and the faithful are not bound by them.  MOF:  That would certainly be true if we were dealing with opinions, but we are not. An ancient Roman philosopher – I think it was Cicero – made an observation which passed into proverb:  ‘Against a Fact there is no argument’.  There are ambiguities in the documents of Vatican Council II that have been systematically used after the Council to repudiate infallible dogmas previously defined.  This is all in black and white - even from the Vatican website – not just from ‘SSPX propagandists’.  to date, the SSPX are the only religious body who have had the fortitude to insist that these things must be clarified and rectified.  Yet Vatican I endorsed, and defined as infallible, the famous dictum of S. Vincent of Lérins (5th Century): “what all men have at all times and everywhere believed must be regarded as true”.  This is an objective test, not a question of opinion.  The statement in Vatican II’s Document of Religious Liberty – Dignitatis Humanae – is by far the most blatant.  See next posting.

I cannot adequately debate this issue as some have been and are doing.  I admire their ability to write (and speak) so eloquently and succinctly the positions of each of them. I wish I could do so. All I know is that I love the Catholic Church and her Founder, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. He has been my Spouse since I was 5 years old when I knew I wanted to belong entirely to Him. I turned away from Him for a number of years. In coming back to Him, I realized the pearl of great worth. Never again would I leave His side. My heart aches for the Holy Father and for the rest of the Church over this division. I don’t know what the answer(s) is/are. All I know is that I must trust in His words. I do not have the ability to judge which opinion is the correct one. So, I leave my heart and soul in His merciful Hands. While I am walking this earth, I will continue to be obedient to my vows and humbly submit my will to His in the person of our Holy Father.  I will be praying very hard for a quick and peaceful resolution to this sad division.

(3) A note on Vatican II’s Dignitatis Humanae – On Religious Liberty.  This document replaced the original schema, which was called, ‘On Religious Tolerance’.  The immemorial teaching of the Church has been that, in a community, false religions may be tolerated for the greater good, which is the stability of that society:  that individuals have a duty to follow their conscience in the Private forum, provided it was formed with diligence and good will; but that nobody can claim the *right* to practise a false religion in the Public forum.  Now this is contradicted word for word in the Vatican II document Dignitatis Humanae (see below) . § Truth-seeking Catholic:  Are we then saying there is no way to establish Christianity except by force?  § MOF:  Certainly not.  But the State does have a duty to maintain good order for the Common or public good.  In the promotion of the common good, because of the effects of Original Sin, prudent force is not only permitted, but sometimes mandated, to the Rulers of a nation.  It takes almost supernatural wisdom to get the balance right.  That is why we are urged to pray earnestly and regularly, for our leaders, religious and temporal.  * Because of the concupiscence following Original sin, our intellect is clouded and our will is weakened.  That is why the State must impose public laws and provide sanctions including physical force at particular times and circumstances.  We do need public laws to strengthen our weakness.  Why is wilful murder a public crime as well as a mortal sin?  “Surely”, one could say, “we all know this is wrong and we must not do it”.  Therefore we will not impose laws or punishments over and above the private remorse the murderer must feel”. Yet to try to run a civilisation on this alone would be to give way to foolish vanity: being based on fantasy instead of reality, such a State will not endure.  The popes and saints have warned ever more urgently against the consequences of this erroneous thinking, since it became enthroned at the French Revolution.  But now it is explicitly promoted – or at least insinuated - in Dignitatis Humanae.  Here is a direct quotation:– Dignitatis Humanae:  The truth cannot impose itself except by virtue of its own truth, as it makes its entrance into the mind at once quietly and with power.  It follows that he [man] is not to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his conscience. Nor, on the other hand, is he to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience, especially in matters religious.  In consequence, the right to their immunity continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligations of seeking the truth and adhering to it.  Religious communities also have the right not to be hindered in their public teaching and witness to their faith, whether by the spoken or written word… is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed; thus it is to become a civil act.ˆ  ¶MOF:  All this is a complete reversal of the immemorial Catholic teaching, which all Catholics had assumed to be infallible.  Instead, it is a straightforward compilation of the Modernist heresies on this topic, which had been repeatedly and explicitly condemned by previous popes. In contrast to all previous ecumenical councils, however, which scrupulously quoted every single previous authoritative document on the topic under discussion, none of these criticisms are so much as mentioned in Dignitatis humanae, or indeed anywhere else in the Vatican II documents.  Notice that the authors seem to consider only the Western European?/North American Middle class in their analysis.

David Kaiser wrote on Wednesday, Apr 25, 2012 11:01 PM (EST): Michael O’: You keep making the same methodological error…  MOF:  Mr Kaiser, it is the other way round.  I will prove your argument is wrong by the method of ‘Redúctio ad Absúrdum’.  Note the following quotes from ‘Quo Primum’ (1570) which established the ‘Tridentine Missal’ as the ‘default’ liturgy until the end of the World:  “Now therefore, in order that all everywhere may adopt and observe what has been delivered to them by the Holy Roman Church,  Mother and Mistress of the other churches, it shall be unlawful henceforth and forever throughout the Christian world to sing or to read Masses according to any formula other than that of this Missal published by Us; ... saving only those in which the practice of saying Mass differently was granted over 200 years ago…  ... and by this present Constitution, which shall have the force of law in perpetuity. We order and enjoin under pain of Our displeasure that nothing be added to Our newly published Missal, nothing omitted therefrom, and nothing whatsoever altered therein.  .. and not to presume, while celebrating Mass, to introduce any ceremonies or recite any prayers other than those contained in this Missal.  Furthermore, by these presents and by virtue of Our Apostolic authority We give and grant in perpetuity [“until the End of the World”] that for the singing or reading of Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal may be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment or censure, and may be freely and lawfully used.  Nor shall bishops, administrators,  canons, chaplains, and other secular priests, or religious of whatsoever Order or by whatsoever title designated, be obliged to celebrate Mass otherwise than enjoined by Us.  We likewise order and declare that no one whosoever shall be forced or coerced into altering this Missal and that this present Constitution can never be revoked or modified, but shall for ever remain valid and have the force of law … Accordingly, no one whosoever is permitted to infringe or rashly contravene this [decree] … Should any person venture to do so, let him understand that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles Peter and   Paul.”  MOF:  Strong words, are they not?  Certain sedevacs quote this document to prove that the 1969 Missal of Pope Paul VI is illegal, invalid – even that it proves that he was not a valid Pope.  Notice that Pope s. Pius V wrote” no one whosoever”, not “no one whosoever except one of my possible successors”.  If one were to latch onto this document alone, it would be impossible to resolve the dilemma.  This is what you are doing with your insistence on the one document from Vatican I.  Just as Quo Primum does not explicitly mention the possibility of a successor making a judgment on the different conditions of the future, the document you quote does not explicitly mention the possibility of a Pope making an erroneous statement of fact, or of otherwise abusing his authority.

Sister Terese Peter wrote on Sunday, Apr 29, 2012 4:04 PM (EST): ... I love the Catholic Church and her Founder, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. He has been my Spouse since I was 5 years old when I knew I wanted to belong entirely to Him…. While I am walking this earth, I will continue to be obedient to my vows and humbly submit my will to His in the person of our Holy Father. MOF:  With respect, Sister, ‘you have chosen the better part’.  The religious life, for those able for it, is by far the most direct route to Him.  I have always believed that the response of the Religious to the current State of the church is different from that of us laypeople.  You have voluntarily ‘offered up’ your priceless gifts - notably your will - to that of your Superior, who stands in the place of Christ.  If (s)he is in culpable error, all the blame will fall on him/her.  The Religious will be exceedingly pleasing to God by his/her obedience.  Yet that is why the vow of obedience goes with the vow of celibacy.  We fathers have no such luxuries.  As the primary educators of our children, it will be no answer at the Judgment to plead that we were told such-and-such by the priest/bishop/Pope - if it is against the Faith.  For a Religious in a Community, it is literally not their concern what is the status of the SSPX or anybody else.  All that matters is their own Community. Yet if the community (which God forbid) begins to depart from the Way, it may be their duty to declare, ‘I must obey God before Man’.

MOF:  Thank you for your lovely commentary. It is indeed a privilege and a great grace to be a consecrated religious and spouse of Our Lord Jesus Christ. There are only two of us at present. We had to leave our original community for exactly the reasons you describe. We are now praying for a new start. We wear a traditional habit, live a traditional religious life, and are still bound by our vows. We are in the process right now of developing our constitutions as a new foundation under the guidance and direction of a very holy priest and canonist.  We are also privileged to be able to teach in a traditional Catholic school. We are only one month old in our new foundation. Please keep us in your prayers as the road we have chosen is sure to be laidened with many obstacles. “The servant is never greater than his Master.”

Sister Terese Peter:  ‘Well done, thou good and faithful servant’.  I will pray earnestly for the success and flourishing of your new community, and I will commend your intentions to my son and my daughter who are in Religion.  The latter has a heavy burden: her greatest cross is that she can no longer live the communal life, owing to a brain tumor and very severe multiple sclerosis. (The ‘bad luck’ of two such severe illnesses striking the same person astonish the medics, but we know perfectly well that it is her Gift from her Spouse). She has lost her memory, including the sweet day of her profession, but remains totally dedicated to her Spouse.  Her name in religion, Sister, is Sr Cecilia Pia of the Five Wounds.  Her order was established by S. Padre Pio.

To keep this debate in its context, note the following…
http://wvgazette.com/News/201204190268

For those doubting the objective State of Emergency, please visit   The Baseball Confirmation of Phoenix, Arizona, 1998 https://sites.google.com/site/catholictopics/home/direct-attacks-on-the-church-and-blasphemy-in-the-public-forum/the-baseball-confirmation-of-phoenix-arizona-1998

MOF:  I will indeed keep Sister Cecilia of the Five Wounds in my/our prayers. I have a great devotion to our Lady of Lourdes and I place all of my health concerns and those for whom I love in her hands.  There is the most beautiful and unusual statue of Our Lady in the Church we attend and I lit a candle for some other special intentions today. I will include your daughter and son in those intentions as well.  Indeed, we live in trying times.Yet, we also live in an important time for our Church. Although there has been much suffering in the Church, I believe that this suffering is a special privilege given to us for the greater glory of God.  As a Benedictine, we keep always before our eyes the words of our Holy Father St. Benedict “Ut in omnipotent glorificateur Deus” (“That in all things, God may be glorified.) It is so important to remain anchored in Christ, His Churcch, and His Holy Mother. May our merciful God grant you all the graces and blessing you and your family need to attain Heaven!

Michael O’,
Your latest post concerning Quo Primum, the decree in 1570 by Pius V codifying the Roman Rite,  shows again how you and other traditionalists distort Church documents and fall into error. Quo Primum did not bind future Popes from making changes to the Roman Rite. Pope Clement VIII, Pope Urban VIII, Pope Leo XIII, Pope Pius X , etc all made changes to the Roman Rite.  This alone disproves your contention that Pius V could bind the authority of future Popes. All Popes exercise the same authority. It is for to them to decide in their own times and circumstances how the Church will be governed and sanctified. Their decisions are final and must be obeyed. A faithful Catholic does not pit a dead Pope against the present day Pope.  The language in Quo Primum about it being valid forever or in perpetuity doesn’t mean it cannot be changed. This language is used when the law is meant to extend for an indefinite time into the future rather than a fixed period. Pius V had no idea how long it would be before one of his successors would need to make changes so the perpetuity language was used. This is the same language used by John Paul II when he issued the New Code of Canon Law. This does not mean it can never be changed.
Concerning the state of necessity or emergency which the SSPX uses to excuse themselves from censure, there is none. You say it exists when someone is denied access to something essential and cannot get it through regular means. Well, the Mass and Sacraments are available to all on a regular basis in the present day Church. They are the very same Sacraments which the Old Rites produce, so, nothing essential is being denied.  Also, escaping culpability for their lawlessness on account of ignorance or error will not work since the SSPX was forewarned of their errors and told of the consequences of their behavior! Their disobedience to legitimate authority confirmed their schismatic attitude.
Michael O’, neither you nor anyone in the SSPX exercise Church authority. Your decisions or opinions carry no more weight than that of a Protestant who opposes the Pope and the authority of the Church to teach and govern. Your tactic of opposing dead Popes to living Popes or dead Saints to the same show you are a pick and choose believer like most Protestants.  This is not Catholic. You would be more consistent if you gave up Christianity and went back to Judaism. Now there’s Tradition!

Joseph M, ill give you a rundown on Corapi. I liked to watch him myself, not because he was catholic, but because he was funny. he really thinks Mary answers prayers. Goes to show how Jesus blinds the eyes of the unsaved. Anyhow, Corapiwas making money selling books and what have you, he had a girlfriend, who was a stripper or something, he had vacation homes and boats and expensive cars and was drinking and doing drugs(cocaine and weed most likely).A regular guy. But the catholic church wants their priests to sit with their hands folded praying to a non existant mary.We all know what catholic priests do , and its not folding their hands. But at least Corapi didnt like little boys. The catholic org wanted him to give them his money and sit in a little room at some convent.The CC has never been known for being realistic. Corapi is keeping his stripper, his money, his cars his homes and said bye bye to that useless organization.I hope this explains it a little

David kaiser, you and other catholics say protestants oppose the catholic church and the Popes and their authority. I dont claim to be protestant, but you consider me to be one. We dont oppose the Popes.We just know its just alot of bunk. Its funny to watch though. Grown men and women actually thinking the Pope and all the other costumed holymen are actually special. Protestants arent under the burden catholicism lays on mens shoulders.Just look at the frenzied comments here. Jesus burden is easy and his yoke is light. Jesus leads me to still waters, not to the turbulence of fighting over rituals.Sheep are stupid. They will go into rivers that are moving and get swept away, like what we are witnessing here. The good shepherd leads his sheep to still waters where they can drink and splash around in safety.

Mr Kaiser:  My apologies if my last posting was not clear enough for you.  Yes, of course Quo Primum has been ‘derogated from’ – i.e. added to on the dates you mention.  Each of these additional documents is duly included in every printed edition of the Tridentine Missal, so that the Charter is on the Altar with the Missal every time a priest says Mass.  And I thought I was distancing the SSPX from the sedevacantists who use this document to deny the legitimacy of the current popes.  You use the later additions as the proof that the words of Quo Primum do not mean what they seem to do on their face value.  Exactly!  I was making the point that the document you cite from Vatican I must also be taken in the context of the whole understanding of The Faith.  Therefore, I ask you again:  Do you accept, as a theoretical possibility (and ignoring for the moment the whole SSPX situation) that the Pope can sometimes order something which is beyond his jurisdiction, or which is against the Divine Law?

Hi Wayne: The Blessed Virgin said, “Behold, from henceforth all ages will call me blessed”.  The Catholic Church fulfils this prophecy.  Any comments?

Thank you, Sister Terese Peter. My son is ‘Bro. Gerardo of the Hours’ in a Redemptorist community who have applied to the Pope under the terms of his Motu Proprio ‘Summórum Pontíficum’ to continue their following of the original Rule of S. Alphonsus, complete with the Traditional Liturgical books.  Bro. G. is very taken by the Redemptorist ideal:  no amount of eloquence will make an effective preacher is he himself is not holy.  therefore the R. priest spends 6 month purifying himslef with penances (supported by the Brothers) and the next 6 monthstravelling the world preaching.  (I might add that the ‘Modernist’ Redemptorists appear to have long forgotten all this)

Wayne writes;  Grown men and women actually thinking the Pope and all the other costumed holymen are actually special. MOF:  Our Lord said, ‘Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah!  For flesh and blood have not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in Heaven’ (etc).  Catholics have always believed that this declaration of Christ tells us that Peter, and his successors, enjoy Divine Guidance.  And it makes perfect sense.  Would God the Father be so incompetent as to send His only Son to die on the Cross for us, and then let His people flounder without guidance from then on until the End of the World?

Wayne: The story is as old as creation: for those who believe no explanation is necessary, for those who do not, no explanation will suffice. Faith is a gift—one that you must want and for which one must be open. It is clear that many, many, MANY people are not open to it.  Yet, they have faith in the gurus of the world; they have faith in science which is often inconclusive, they have faith in the powers of the world, and in those who possess the most power, money and prestige. We look around us in amazement as to what man has accomplished, yet we are not amazed by the simplest of things—which are usually the most profound of all. You scoff and deride those who have belief in God and in a Church that is over 2000 years old. You believe only in yourself, your opinions, and those whom agree with you.  How sad…

To Mouse, David Kaiser and all others of like mind:  Thank you for your good wishes, which I assure you are reciprocated.  We are in an unprecedented crisis of Faith and Authority.  I did love the Traditional liturgy before ‘The Changes’ but we were told it was for the good of the Church, and a means of reconciling Protestants and even non-Christians to the Catholic Church.  I ‘obediently’ went along with one change after another.  After about ten years of what Pope Paul VI himself called ‘the auto-demolition of the Church’ it was time to take stock. The matter gained further urgency when our first child was born.  I remember saying to my dear wife:  ‘The future is not an abstraction – the Future is upstairs crying in her cot!’  We sat down together with a copy of Fr Flannery’s edition of the documents of Vatican II, highlighter in hand.  It was a very unpleasant surprise.  Time after time, at the end of paragraphs of fine-sounding rhetoric, there would be a loophole at the end that you could drive a coach and horses through. ... such as ‘However, the Local Ordinary (ie the bishop) may make alternate local arrangements’.  So the document as a whole meant nothing at all.  About that time parents everywhere were discovering that their teenage children were drifting away from the Faith, and they didn’t understand why.  And the smaller children were no longer learning their catechism. Far from attracting the Protestants, the churches themselves were emptying, the seminaries and convents were closing at an incredible rate – there were blatant irreverences being perpetrated in the churches – yet it was impossible to get anybody in authority to listen.  At least until 1983, nobody would say anything except that ‘The Renewal’ was a brilliant success – in the teeth of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.  Not that there were no good fruits at all, my friends: but they were a drop in the ocean of destruction.  The first ‘Indult’ of 1984 – allowing the Traditional rite of Mass under special conditions -  was the first glimmer of hope for us.  I write this partly as a background to the next posting, on the infamous ‘Baseball confirmation’ of Phoenix, Arizona.  It will show you what we are up against.

The Baseball Confirmation of Phoenix, Arizona, 1998.  The following true account is “compiled from various sources”. Let the reader be aware that some of these sources were Diocesan magazines up and down the USA, who reported the incident with approval.  In June 1998 the bishop in Phoenix, Arizona had all of that year’s candidates for confirmation come to the new baseball stadium to all be confirmed on the same day. He gave every priest in the diocese faculties to confirm during the “service.” He invited all attendees (including a special invitation to non-Catholics) to come to the ballpark wearing red shirts for the Holy Spirit. They then sang some stupid song to the Holy Spirit to the tune of “Take me out to the Ballpark,” an American folksong sung by Barney the dinosaur to name one advocate of the song. During the Mass, many people were seen eating hot dogs and popcorn. The candidates for confirmation poured out of the bleacher seats to any priest anywhere and were confirmed. How could anyone know who was eligible for confirmation or to receive the Eucharist?  After the “event,” two boxes arrived at the rectory of a local church to a truly devout priest. A delivery man plopped the boxes on the counter and said, “These are for you. They are the consecrated hosts that weren’t used at the ballpark.” He opened the boxes and to his horror he found two large food service containers, generally used to hold about 10 gallons of ice cream, filled with consecrated hosts. The second box didn’t even have these. It was lined with butcher paper and thousands of consecrated hosts were tossed into the box. He immediately took the boxes to the sacristy and started to reserve the Blessed Sacrament in every ciborium and chalice he could find. He then scoured each container and box for Crumbs to consume. He counted 5000 hosts.  It continues. The associate pastor decided that it wouldn’t be “proper” to store the hosts for too long, yet the parish could never distribute 5000. What to do? Without telling my priest friend, he began to fill the ciboriums that were being used in the offertory procession of the succeeding Novus Ordo Masses with already consecrated hosts. So during the next Mass the priest was consecrating previously consecrated hosts - which is a formal sacrilege!  How did this bishop over-consecrate 5000 hosts? Or was it more? Did another parish receive a similar shipment? Who can imagine a more blatant or public statement that this bishop and whoever is under him does not believe in the Real Presence. He may speak the orthodox line when his back is to the wall, but in practice he preaches heresy. Catholics in his diocese are released from any obligation to obey him as these are most certainly, as canon law demands, times of crisis.  The faithful of Arizona have two choices in 1998. They can take their child to the SSPX chapel where he will be confirmed according to the rites of the Catholic Church, specifically and infallibly ‘canonised’ at the Council of Trent and by Pope S. Pius V in perpetuity. ... ... Or they can take them to the Ballpark. What would you do?  See https://sites.google.com/site/catholictopics/home/direct-attacks-on-the-church-and-blasphemy-in-the-public-forum/the-baseball-confirmation-of-phoenix-arizona-1998

The following Roman canonists, among others,  who hold some of the highest positions in the Church, have publicly declared their finding that the decree of excommunication of the SSPX bishops was always null and void under Canon Law: CARDINAL CASTILLO LARA, J.C.D.  President of the Pontifical Comniission for the Authentic Interpretation of Canon Law, explained that, “The act of consecrating a bishop (without the Pope’s permission) is not in itself a schismatic act” and so no excommunication applies. (La Repubblica, October 7, 1988).  COUNT NERI CAPPONI, D.Cn. L., LLD.  The retired Professor of Canon Law at the University of Florence, well-known in Vatican Iegal circles and accredited to argue cases before Rome’s highest juridical body, the Apostolic Signatura, explains that for a schismatic act, it is not enough to merely consecrate a bishop without papal permission. “He must do something more. For instance, had he set up a hierarchy of his own, then it would have been a schismatic act. The fact is that Msgr Lefebvre simply said:  ‘I am creating bishops in order that my priestly order can continue.  They do not take the place of other bishops. I am not creating a parallel church.’  Therefore this act was not, per se, schismatic” and so he is not excommunicated. (Latin Mass Magazine, May-June 1993)  CARDINAL ALFONS STICKLER former Prefect of the Vatican Archives and Library, served as an expert to four Vatican II commissions. Now living at the Vatican, he says: “Pope John Paul II, in 1986, asked a commission of nine cardinals two questions. Firstly, did Pope Paul VI, or any other competent authority, legally forbid the widespread celebration of the Tridentine [Latin] Mass in the present day? The answer given by eight of the cardinals in ‘86 was that, no, the Mass of Saint Pius V has never been suppressed.  [MOF: the ninth abstained from the vote].  I can say this, I was one of the cardinals. There was another question, very interesting. ‘Can any bishop forbid any priest in good standing from celebrating a Tridentine Mass again?’ The nine cardinals unanimously agreed that no bishop may forbid a Catholic priest from saying the Triidentine Mass. We have no official prohibition *** and I think that the Pope would never establish an official prohibition ... because of the words of Pius V, who said this was a Mass forever.” *** (Latin Mass Magazine, May 5,1995)  PROFESSOR GERINGER, J.C.D.  Canon lawyer at the University of Munich:  “With the episcopal consecrations, Archbishop Lefebvre was by no means creating a schism.”  FR. PATRICK VALDINI, J.C.D.  Dean of the Faculty of Canon Law at the Catholic Institute of Paris explained that Archbishop Lefebvre did not commit a schismatic act by the consecrations, for he didn’t deny the Pope’s primacy. “It is not the consecration of a bishop which creates the schism. What makes the schism is to give the bishop an apostolic mission.” Which is something Archbishop Lefebvre never did (Question de Droit ou de confiance, L’Homme Nouveau, Feb.17, 1988).  FR. T. GLOVER, an Oratorain Canonist, who worked for the Vatican for many years, did not mince his words when he commented on this: “… catapulting a mere ‘act of disobedience’ into a “schismatic act” involves a “large and unjustified mental leap”, the result of muddled thinking.”

Michael O’,
Here is what Cardinal Castillo Lara actually believes about the excommunications. You bring to my attention a matter of importance,” Cardinal Castillo Lara responded. “You asked if I could tell you what exactly I said in the interview of 10th July, 1988. The substance of what I said is as follows: ‘In the case of Lefebvre and the four priests consecrated bishops by him, there are two offenses, canonically speaking, that they have committed. The fundamental offense is that of schism: that is, refusing submission to the Roman Pontiff and breaking communion with the Church. This offense they had already previously committed. Only that, now, the second offence, that of consecrating bishops, formalizes, in a certain sense, and concretizes the first and makes it explicit. Schism is a delict which can be personal. It does not require having a number of people. Individuals can do it on their own. Lefebvre and his followers, inasmuch as they refused submission to the Pope, were already, by that fact itself, in schism. The intent of the act of consecrating bishops is already to create a church with its own hierarchy. In this sense, the consecration of bishops becomes an act of schism. One should keep in mind, however, that the act of consecrating bishops is not in itself a schismatic act. In fact, in the Code, where offenses are treated, these two are treated in two distinct headings. There are delicts against religion and the unity of the Church. And these are apostasy (i.e. renouncing the faith), schism, and heresy. Consecrating a bishop without pontifical mandate is, on the other hand, an offense against the proper exercise of one’s ministry. For example, there was an excommunication of the Vietnamese Archbishop, Ngo Dinh Thuc in ‘76 and ‘83, for an episcopal consecration, but it was not considered a schismatic act because there was no intent to break with the Church. Ngo Dinh Thuc represents a pitiable situation, as there is some mental imbalance.
With regard to Econe, Lefebvre and the four priests, they are under two excommunications: one for the offense of schism; the other, reserved to the Apostolic See, for the offense of consecrating a bishop without a pontifical mandate. I hope that this is helpful to you” (letter to John Beaumont, dated 26th May 1993).
Sadly, the SSPX and its defenders cannot be trusted to tell us the truth in these matters.

Michael O, yes Mary is blessed. So is anyone who has not seen but believes. It doesnt mean we answer prayer.
Sister Terese, i have never scoffed at people who believe in god. I laugh at people who chase behind costume holymen.
Yes , god gave us the holy spirit to guide us after Jesus left the earth. Catholics seem to think that their org dispenses god and no where else can god be found. So do Mormons.So do Jehovas. Once you are born again the spirit will take you out of religion and put you in green pastures.Its there for the asking.

David Kaiser on Tuesday, May 1, 2012 wrote:  Michael O’,  Here is what Cardinal Castillo Lara actually believes about the excommunications…. MOF:  Thank you, Mr Kaiser.  a good quote.  The SSPX ought not to have quoted him out of context.  I am glad of that clarification.  Can you help us with the other quotes?  I guarantee that they are not all as Cdl Lara.  Similarly, it is important to see the context of Bp Thuc and the innumerable ‘bishops’ he consecrated without papal mandate.  Actually, he was excommunicated twice and both times the excommunications were lifted.  In this case i tseems that Cdl Lara was being misleading.  As the first excommunication was issued immediately after the first consecrations, it would be strange if Cdl Lara did not know about it.  Given the open scandals occurring all through the 1970s, Ngo Dinh Thuc became convinced that Pope Paul was being held prisoner in the Vatican and an imposter was taking his place.  While this does show a mental imbalance, it would be unfair not to recall the context:  the innumerable abuses that were rampaging unchecked.  The real reason is more pedestrian:  Pope Paul, unfortunately, was caught in the Liberal mindset. [Please note:  this word has a much sharper meaning in French, Spanish, Italian etc than it does in English.  It denotes a definite rejection of the concept of immutable, objective truth, and a rejection of the concept of Divinely-instituted hierarchy].  At the beginning of his pontificate Paul VI was imprudently naive; many safeguards were dismantled.  One was the set of regulations designed to keep homosexuality out of seminaries; another was the strict monitoring of Catholic Education bodies.  Another was the authentic translation of the Missal into vernacular languages.  Another was the de facto suppression of the Traditional liturgy, which as we have seen was forbidden to happen.  Then, in the later period of his pontificate, instead of asserting his ample authority, he continued to try to use persuasion on those who were in open defiance of Church teaching.  Thus, as I wrote previously, certain souls effectively exclaimed,  “Look what’s happening! Omygod he can’t be the pope!”  But instead of being carried away by wild conspiracy theories, Mgr Lefebvre wrote:  ‘To destroy the Church it is not necessary to have a heretical pope:  one needs only a Liberal one.’  Meanwhile…(I quote now from http://www.tboyle.net/Catholicism/Thuc_Consecrations.html) ... Throughout the 1970s many traditionalist clergy and laity in Europe and America were expressing impatience over Msgr. Lefebvre’s then reluctance to consecrate traditionalist bishops.  ... But, right after the lifting of his excommunication, Archbishop Ngo was again back to consecrating independent bishops. This time, the consecrations were for a wide variety of groups, including sedevacantists loosely grouped under the name Tridentine Latin Rite Church.  Finally, some years before his death, Msgr. Ngo agreed also to perform consecrations for a wide assortment of splinter groups, some of them not even Roman Catholic. Excommunicated a second time for these later consecrations, Msgr. Ngo moved to Rochester, NY, where for a few years he lived with an independent bishop (who had been consecrated by one of those bishops whom Msgr. Ngo had earlier consecrated for the Tridentine Latin Rite Church). ... Upon his death, the Vatican released a statement saying that [Mgr Ngo]  had recently asked for, and had received, John Paul II’s forgiveness.  Msgr. Ngo’s lineage includes the broadest conceivable spectrum of theologies likely ever to be held by men all claiming to possess valid “Catholic” priestly and episcopal orders that are derived from a single prelate alive in their lifetimes. The spectrum ranges from the head of a French Satanist sect all the way to the strictest of Traditional Roman Catholics. Needless to say, there are critics of both the liceity and validity of the various “Thuc lineage” episcopal consecrations. Click [here] for a web site comprising arguments favoring and opposing the validity of the Thuc consecrations and another web site posting a recent essay denying validity. Also of interest is “Document sur la mort de Mgr Thuc”.  MOF:  These Thuc lineages are now scattered all over the world; each seems to consist of a small band (some dozens) none of whom are on speaking terms with each other:  the very definition of schism.  In contrast, the SSPX have pursued a path of minimalist Emergency action with quiet dignity.  Just the same, the writer of the pamphlet I read ought not to have misquoted Cdl Lara.

Michael O’,
Virtually everyone you cite above as questioning the excommunications or schism of Lefebvre and the SSPX was misquoted or taken out of context. This would surprise no one familiar with SSPX propaganda. I found an article online which confirms this. Google: Prescription Against Traditionalism, part 2. It is really difficult to deal with people who cannot face facts.

Mr Kaiser, Your blanket condemnation will not do.  Unfortunately, people on both sides of this very painful controversy do get hot-headed and go beyond the facts, or else cite only those that support their own arguments.  I have just mentioned your quotation of Cdl Lara, where he states that Bp Thuc was not excommunicated, when in fact he was.  So the SSPX or the trads do not seem to have a monopoly.  Let us consider [for this posting] one passage from the website you have quoted:  III - Analyzing the Hawaii 6 Incident and Cardinal Ratzinger’s Decision:  [SSPX papmphlet]:  This was recently shown to be the case in Hawaii, where Bishop Ferrario decided to excommunicate, on May 1, 1991, some followers of the Society of Saint Pius X, for supporting the Society and attending its Masses. Rome declared that the decision “lacks foundation and hence validity.” Bishop Ferrario’s attempted excommunication of Society followers was overturned by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on June 28, 1993. “From the examination of the case, conducted on the basis of the Law of the Church, it did not result that the facts referred to in the above-mentioned Decree, are formal schismatic acts in the strict sense, as they do not constitute the offence of schism; and therefore the Congregation holds that the Decree of 1 May 1991, lacks foundation and hence validity.” (Apostolic Nunciature, Washington D.C.) [Anti-SSPX website] - Cardinal Ratzinger’s decision in no way lends credence to the SSPX’s assertions. (Nor did it have any bearing whatsoever on their canonical status.) The excommunication of “the Hawaii 6” was over a radio program that the attendees had set up which was anti Vatican II, and anti — Revised Missal (Pauline or Novus Ordo Mass), critical of the local ordinary, and other aspects. The exact parameters were not precisely known to this author… in December of 2000, the information was still somewhat fuzzy so it was again passed over.. [MOF]:  I do know personally some of those involved in the Hawaii Case, and I can vouch for the following background information which this website ‘passed over’. There was nothing fuzzy about it. The Hawaii radio had been running a radio series, identified as a Catholic Programme,  which was supporting homosexuality. The programme was given the backing of the local bishop.  Complaints to him had the same result as 99.9% of all other complaints – they were ignored.  In addition, the usual abuses in the Church and in schools were running unchecked.  Unable to obtain any satisfaction from their bishop, a group of Catholic laypeople in Hawaii contacted Fr Daniel Couture, SSPX, Superior General of the SSPX in Asia, and requested a priest.  One was flown over once a month for the Tridentine Mass and actual Catholic sermons.  Actuated (who can doubt it?) by tender pastoral concern, the Bishop in Hawaii declared them excommunicated.  For schism.  They appealed to the Competent Authority – in this case the then Cdl Ratzinger – who overturned the excommunication on the grounds that their action was not schismatic. I wonder why the website you cite did not mention this background, nor did it mention whether the bishop was corrected.  As usual, the Mainstream Church gets away with murder, and the SSPX are blamed when laypeople turn to them in desperation.

Wayne writes:  Yes, god gave us the holy spirit to guide us after Jesus left the earth. Catholics seem to think that their org dispenses god and no where else can god be found. So do Mormons.So do Jehovas. Once you are born again the spirit will take you out of religion and put you in green pastures.Its there for the asking.  MOF: There are two problems with this idea, Wayne.  The first is,  “Granted this ‘Bibe-Only, No Hierarchy’ makes me feel secure, is this what Christ actually mandated?”  A cradle Catholic, I asked myself this kind of question in my early 20s and it led me to a study of history to try to find out, as far as could be done, what really happened. I found conclusive historical evidence that the Catholic Church is in complete continuity with the Apostolic Church of the New Testament.  OK, so various groups (Catholics, Mormons, Moslems, JWs etc)  claim a special authority to interpret and pass on the teachings of God.  The obvious thing to do is not simply to jettison the lot without examination, but to look at their various credentials.  The Mormons deserve only our pity.  The cock-and-bull story of how they got their ‘extra-scriptural books’  is so childish it is sad.  The Jehovah’s Witnesses fail on several points - notably that they are actually organised as a money-making racket, directed from New York, not carrying out any charitable or even constructive work, but willing to parasitise on the rest of us.  Whereas the Catholic Church is not remotely like this in its organisation.  What the JWs accuse the Catholics of is what they themselves are doing.  Just the same, refuting them from the Bible is not as easy as it sounds:  it proves the dangers of ‘Bible-only’ interpretation.  Most, if not all, of their mistranslations are actually permitted by the Greek language.  It is only the tradition of the Church - the unbroken memory of what actually happened - that can adjudicate these things.  The Protestants are driven to a literal interpretation, because if they admitted for one moment that there are truly different possible interpretations, they would have to answer why their own interpretation can outrank the others.  They seem to react to this by simply denying that there is more than one interpretation - by which they do but advertise their ignorance.

The second problem is:  The attempt to jettison all ‘tradition’ and restrict oneself to the Bible Only, as practised since the 16th century by various dissenting individuals and groups, is seen to be patently inconsistent.  Not only do they follow various traditions not in the Bible (such as worshipping on Sundays instead of Saturdays), but they accept only some passages literally, taking others as a mere figure of speech.  The most glaring is their refusal to accept the plain words of Christ: “This is My Body”.  The real reason they do not accept His plain word is that they would have to admit the reality of the Sacramental priesthood.  They therefore refuse to acknowledge the entire 6th chapter of S. John’s Gospel.  Consider:  Jn 6:48 – I am that bread of life.
Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died.  This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die.  I am the living bread that came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.  The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?  [RSV commentary:  A natural question to ask.  Jesus answers, not by explaining it away, but by re-emphasising the reality, though not, of course, in the crude sense implied in their question.]  Then Jesus said to them, Amen, Amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you will have no life in you.  Whoever eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, has eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.  For my flesh is real food, and my blood is real drink.  He that eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, abides in me, and I in him.  As the living Father has sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eats me, he shall live by me.  This is that bread that came down from heaven: not as your fathers ate manna, and are dead: he that eats of this bread shall live for ever.  These things He said in the synagogue, as He taught in Capernaum.  MOF:  Beware, Wayne: “Amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you will have no life in you.”

Mr Kaiser, are you going to reply to my quesion of 30 April… “Therefore, I ask you again:  Do you accept, as a theoretical possibility (and ignoring for the moment the whole SSPX situation) that the Pope can sometimes order something which is beyond his jurisdiction, or which is against the Divine Law?”  And would you (or anyone) like to comment on the ‘Baseball Confirmation’ in Arizona? I hope that the debate can be continued in this way, otherwise it might be appropriate to recall the words of your last posting:  ‘It is really difficult to deal with people who cannot face facts.’

Michael O’,
The people who cannot face facts are those who quote Church authorities out of context and falsify facts. I did not mean you even though you rely too heavily on SSPX propaganda.
I completely agree with you that often things get very messy in the Church. This happens when people pursue their own agenda’s or follow currents which are at variance with sound doctrine. No fair minded person can overlook the damage the Church has suffered post Vat2 due to the toleration of sloppy teaching and discipline on the part of the Bishops. Especially in the West. The big question is what to do about it. I don’t believe bad behavior is cured by more bad behavior, or, bad behavior is excused by other bad behavior.  Both the Modernists and Traditionalists have their own agendas and reject legitimate authority. This tears at the unity of the Church. The Modernists are quiet about it while the Traditionalist are very open about it. Neither side benefits the Church when they refuse to be guided by the judgement of the Pope.
Regarding your question of the Pope ordering something beyond his jurisdiction or against Divine Law. I do not believe this is possible when he acts in his official capacity as head of the Church. This would include acts of teaching , legislating and judging. This is because Christ promised he would be with His Church and protect it from error. He left the Pope in charge declaring whatsoever you bind on earth is bound in heaven. So, how could he lead us astray?

Mr Kaiser,  thank you for your fair response.  May I take your comments in turn.  DK:  The people who cannot face facts are those who quote Church authorities out of context and falsify facts.  MOF:  Unfortunately, as we have seen already in this discussion, this is a fault to be found across the board, up to and including Cardinals ‘in good standing’.  In ‘normal’ times the layperson ought not to have to bother about such things.  But at present, I put it to you that this is impossible. As in Gethsemane, ‘I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered’.  In the chain of hierarchy – instituted by Christ Himself – one frequently finds a priest or bishop, who is being disobedient to Church doctrine or discipline, still expecting ‘obedience’ from those below him.  But this, as S. Thomas Aquinas points out, cannot be exacted from them.  I suspect that the Irish fall for this worse than many other nations.  For centuries, there was a kind of Clan Loyalty to the priest, who was often the only bulwark between the peasantry and the hostile, anti-Catholic Occupying Power.  Access to reasoned theological discussion was extremely limited.  In contrast, the French have been highly intellectual, a divided nation with no one faction overcoming all the others, and with an unbroken tradition of intellectual debate, even in the middle of violent conflict. I have never been surprised that the Traditionalist movement has been strongest in France.  In 1990 I heard of a parish priest in the North of France – in a ‘regular’ parish - who organised a bus for his parishoners to attend the SSPX Ordinations at Econe, Switzerland!  That would have been inconceivable anywhere in the British Isles.  In the same year, there were French Bishops imposing a commemoration of Karl Marx as a Feast Day.  All through the 80s (and possibly later for all I know) French parishioners were being told that they would fulfil their Sunday Obligation either through ‘a representative’ (ie another member of the family while they stayed at home) or by attending a ‘Eucharistic Service’ presided over by a layman or laywoman – while being told that they would not fulfil the Sunday Obligation by attending a Tridentine Mass from the SSPX – which is in complete contradiction with Canon Law, which states that if no other Mass is available, one may as anemergency Measure attend a Byzantine Rite, even where the celebrant is in formal schism with Rome.  When the false translation of ‘pro multis’ was being pushed in the 70s, I read in a booklet ‘in good standing’ with the diocese that this was acceptable because in Aramaic there was no distinction between ‘all’ and ‘many’.  This is a straightforward falsehood. Not to mention that the definitive text is either the Greek manuscripts or the Latin Vulgate, which are unequivocal – we do not base our doctrine on a guess at what we think He ‘really’ said in Aramaic – a true foundation on quicksand.  The real reason was the underhand promotion of the false doctrine of Universal Salvation, although this was never admitted openly.

David Kaiser wrote on Wednesday, May 2, 2012 9:14pm:  I completely agree with you that often things get very messy in the Church. This happens when people pursue their own agendas or follow currents which are at variance with sound doctrine.  MOF: I agree 100%.  One problem with trying to get to the bottom of the present crisis is that those who go to the trouble of publishing a book or a website have to have had a motive for going to the trouble.  Once they have come to a conclusion about an issue, it is very difficult for them to continue to present both sides of an argument fairly.  In that sense, we all have an agenda.  Newcomers to this conflict might already have been upset to discover that in actual fact, there is no unified Voice coming from the Vatican in the present time:  Cardinals actually are at each other’s throats over fundamental issues.  The Italians are far more at ease with these things than those further away - they know most of these men as individuals. They know who has a mistress on the side, & who does not. Alas, they have a proverb: ‘Canon Law is followed everywhere but in Rome’.  The wise seeker after truth will be on his guard. In particular, (s)he will look at what our enemies are saying, as well as our friends - because the enemy often tells us a ruthless truth.  When I was investigating the ‘Bible Only’ form of Christianity I did not look only at Catholic commentaries, but looked at their own websites.  This did confirm the Catholic criticisms, e.g. that they simply guess at the organisation of the first Christian communities from the very meagre hints in the New Testament, refuse to read the sub-Apostolic documents, and show no evidence that they have even heard of the ‘Disciplina Arcani’ by which the earliest Christians (i.e. Catholics) rigidly forbade their prayers and rituals to be written down for many centures.  Likewise, I respectfully suggest that very few websites on the SSPX or Traditional Catholicism in general, are free from some agenda of the author:  if you wish to find the truth you have no option but to look at websites and books both pro- and con-.  We cannot simply switch off our brains and listen to the nearest Authority Figure.  Mr Kaiser, as regards sound doctrine, please see the following posting. 

David Kaiser wrote on Wednesday, May 2, 2012 9:14pm:  Regarding your question of the Pope ordering something beyond his jurisdiction or against Divine Law. I do not believe this is possible when he acts in his official capacity as head of the Church. This would include acts of teaching , legislating and judging. This is because Christ promised he would be with His Church and protect it from error. He left the Pope in charge declaring whatsoever you bind on earth is bound in heaven. So, how could he lead us astray?  MOF:  This is indeed the crux of the issue.  It is in our time that these things will become far more clearly seen, through the very conflict with the trads.  The Argument you present is very plausible on the face of it, and it was the very issue that was dealt with in 1825 (from memory) at Vatican I.  After very thorough review of the history of the Church, the decision of the Council was that the statements of the Pontiff were infallible only when he made a specific pronouncement, ex cathedra (ie in his official capacity as the Vicar of Christ) and declared it binding on the whole Church.  However persuasive it may be to suggest “Christ promised he would be with His Church and protect it from error. He left the Pope in charge declaring whatsoever you bind on earth is bound in heaven. So, how could he lead us astray?”  this is contradicted by the actual historical record.  There are actually many instances where a ‘prudential’ directive of a pope was summarily rejected.  I have already cited the case of Bp Grosseteste, (1175-1253) Bp. Of Lincoln.  Among many other accomplishments for which he was famous, he was well known for his robust defence of ‘The Plenitude of Papal Power’.  His addresses on this subject are still in existence.  Yet when   Pope Innocent IV attempted to abuse his power by trying to use his office to instal an unworthy relative to a lucrative position in the church, Bp Grosseteste was adamant that he would not comply.  This documented incident proves conclusively that God’s promise to Peter did not extend to each and evey attempted exercise of his authority. Similarly, there are two recorded cases in history where a pope has taught heresy, and one where the pope issued an official statement that was ambiguous enough to give ‘comfort’ to the heretics (as the lawyers would say).  Pope Vigilius wrote in support of the Monophysite heresy (that Christ was not truly Man);  Pope Honorius wrote in favour of the Monothelite heresy (claiming that Christ had only one Will, not two wills: one as God and one as Man); and Pope Liberius issued an ambiguous doctrine that gave ‘comfort’ to the ‘Homoiousion’ wing of the Arian heresy:  that the substance of Christ was ‘like’ the Father (whereas Catholic teaching is that it is ‘the same’ as that of the Father).  These incidents are not SSPX propaganda – they were discussed very thoroughly indeed at Vatican I, 100 years before Lefebvre; and they convinced the Council Fathers that the promise of Christ to Peter & his successors did not encompass each and every pronouncement.  Therefore, the current movement to accept each and every statement issuing from the Vatican, or even from the person of the Pope, is categorically against infallible Catholic teaching.

Awesome post Michael O from Ireland,never had i heard it put cleaner and clearer and the liberal revisionist will throw up and hate you for that. The socialist “Catholics” have done their dirty work in that thischurch is in a severe state of crisis, the “liberal-progressives” self named, have done more damage to the Catholic Church in 40 years than the communists in Russian did to the Orthodox Church in 75 years Shalom

Ive bee out of town and away from the computer. So i see you all are still chasing your own tails.There is no division in Christs church. The saved are in agreement on the central issue….they all have met Jesus. Some might be per trib and some post trib believers.But when the trump sounds, we are all gone no matter what we think. Friends, ask Jesus to make you born again, nothing wavering. Then you wont need the SSPX and all the other bells and whistles

Hi Wayne, I’ve been away as well.  If you will take my advice and read the history of the sub-apostolic church you will see proof that Christ established the Catholic church pretty much as we know it today.  Scripture lover, I reminded you of John 6: ‘If you do not eat the Flesh of the Son of God, and drink His Blood, you will have no life in you’.  Beware.  ‘Not everyone wyo says ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the Kingdom, but he who does the will of My Father’.  (Mt 8)  And at the Last supper He said,  ‘When you do this, do this directed to my Memory’ (Not: ‘perform a memorial, but do the same thing in light of your recalling what I have said to you to do’ –‘ eis emou anamnesein’).  You are in danger.  We are trying to warn you.

Wayne, the computer treacherously scrambled my last message, and deleted this comment about eating the Flesh of the Son of God, identified by Christ as a condition of Salvation:  ‘Wayne, you are not doing this. And since entering this discussion, at the Judgment you will not be able to plead ignorance if you refuse to investigate further.’ I will post a couple of links.

I will return, Deus volénte,  to the issue of the meaning of ‘schism’ in a later posting.  This has had a clear and constant meaning down all these centuries.  It is only by *re-defining* the word – i.e. changing the meaning of the word – that Mgr Lefebvre can be accused of schism.  This, however, is a completely illegitimate way to do business.  It is as if I had parked my car in my front garden, and got a Parking Ticket on the grounds that the street was a No-Parking Zone and the Police have just decided that the Offence of ‘Parking on a Restricted Street’ had now been extended to Front Gardens.  Cf. Savonarola, a would-be reformer of the Church in the generation before Luther.  [He was eventually burned at the stake by the rampaging mob – and not, as is falsely claimed, ‘by the Church’ – similarly to S. Joan of Arc].  Unfortunately, he seems to have gone beyond the legitimate bounds, although his basic message was sound:  There is a sword hanging over the Church, and if we do not reform, it will fall upon us.  Eventually he was excommunicated.  The papal legate read out the Decree to him. When he read ‘and we hereby cast you from the Church on Earth’...  he continued to listen submissively.  But when the legate added ‘... and from Heaven’, Savonarola interrupted politely, ‘You can’t do that’.

On the broader issue of Obedience, note the following from Lefebvre’s ‘ An Open Letter to Confused Catholics’ (published around 1980)  Chapter 18. True and False Obedience.  “ Indiscipline is everywhere in the Church.  Committees of priests send demands to their bishops, bishops disregard pontifical exhortations, even the recommendations and decisions of the Council are not respected and yet one never hears uttered the word “disobedience,” except as applied to Catholics who wish to remain faithful to Tradition and just to simply keep the Faith.  Obedience is a serious matter; to remain united to the Church’s Magisterium and particularly to the Supreme Pontiff is one of the conditions of salvation. We are deeply aware of this and nobody is more attached to the present reigning successor of Peter, or has been more attached to his predecessors, than we are. I am speaking here of myself and of the many faithful driven out of the churches, and also of the priests who are obliged to celebrate Mass in barns as in the French Revolution, and to organize alternative catechism classes in town and country. We are attached to the Pope for as long as he echoes the apostolic traditions and the teachings of all his predecessors. It is the very definition of the successor of Peter that he is the keeper of this deposit. Pius IX teaches us in Pastor Aeternus: “The Holy Ghost has not in fact been promised to the successors of Peter to permit them to proclaim new doctrine according to His revelations, but to keep strictly and to expound faithfully, with His help, the revelations transmitted by the Apostles, in other words the Deposit of Faith.”  The authority delegated by Our Lord to the Pope, the Bishops and the priesthood in general is for the service of faith. [He cannot]  make use of law,  institutions and authority to annihilate the Catholic Faith and no longer to transmit life.”

The Sub-Apostolic Church https://sites.google.com/site/catholictopics/history/the-sub-apostolic-church At the very end of the First Century, the Church in Corinth deposed their presbyters and elected new ones.  Although St John, ‘the Disciple whom Jesus loved’, was still alive [MOF: Note well!], it was Clement of Rome, third bishop of Rome after St Peter, who sent two envoys to ensure the original presbyters were re-instated.  His Epistle was read in many Churches as part of Holy Scripture for several centuries.  The Christians were organised from the beginning as ‘cells’ - small communities under an ‘episcopos’ (bishop) who was often chosen by election, but always received his office through the Laying on of Hands by one who had been similarly consecrated.  By the Second Century this three-tier hierarchy of bishop, priest and deacon was firmly established.  The bishop was assisted by ‘presbyteroi’ (from which we have the word ‘priest’)  and ‘diaconoi’ (deacons).    A definite body of teaching was handed down as coming from the Apostles.  The organisation was prepared to expel any member who refused to follow the Rule of Faith. From the beginning of the Second Century this organisation was known as The Catholic Church.  Saint Ignatius wrote in the year 110: “Wheresoever the bishop shall appear, there let the people be, even as where Jesus may be, there is the Catholic Church.”  *St. Ignatius of Antioch*: St Ignatius lived through the second half of the First Century and into the second.  Ignatius was also called Theophorus (ho Theophoros); born in Syria, around the year 50; died at Rome between 98 and 117. He was said to be none other than the child mentioned in St Mark chapter 9: 35 And he sat down, and called the twelve, and saith unto them, If any man desire to be first, the same shall be last of all, and servant of all.  36 And he took a child, and set him in the midst of them: and when he had taken him in his arms, he said unto them,  37 Whosoever shall receive one of such children in my name, receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me, receiveth not me, but him that sent me.”  He and St Polycarp heard the preaching of St John the Apostle with their own ears.  Ignatius was appointed the third bishop of Antioch by St Peter himself.  Antioch was at that time the most important Christian city, and indeed the place where the word ‘Christian’ was first used.  If we include St. Peter, Ignatius was the immediate successor of Evodius and the third Bishop of Antioch (Eusebius, “Hist. Eccl.”, II, iii, 22).  Ignatius was appointed to the See of Antioch by St. Peter himself.  [Theodoret (“Dial. Immutab.”, I, iv, 33a, Paris, 1642)]  St. John Chrysostom lays special emphasis on the honor conferred upon the martyred Ignatius in receiving his episcopal consecration at the hands of the Apostles themselves   (“Hom. in St. Ig.”, IV. 587). Natalis Alexander quotes Theodoret to the same effect (III, xii, art. xvi, p. 53).  We still possess seven of St Ignatius’ epistles.  He wrote them all whilst on his way to martyrdom in Rome.  They were originally collected by St Polycarp and circulated to many Churches.  They are: [1] to the Ephesians, [2] to the Magnesians, [3] to the Trallians,  [4] to the Romans,  [5] to the Philadelphians,  [6] to the Smyrnaeans,  [7] to Polycarp.  One can hardly exaggerate the importance of these epistles in the light they shed on the very earliest days of the Faith.  St Ignatius constitutes a most important link between the Apostles and the Fathers of the early Church.  He received from the apostles by actual word of mouth and personal acquaintance,  not only the facts revealed by Christ,  but also their own inspired interpretation of it.  We can say that he dwelt at the very fountain-head of Gospel truth, such that his testimony must necessarily carry with it the greatest weight and demand the most serious consideration. Cardinal Newman did not exaggerate the matter when he said “the whole system of Catholic doctrine may be discovered, at least in outline, not to say in parts filled up, in the course of his seven epistles”.

The Epistle of Clement [MOF:  Partly taken from]  <https://sites.google.com/site/catholictopics/history/from-the-early-church>  and <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04012c.htm>  S. Clement was the third Bishop of Rome after S. Peter.  As it is recalled in the Canon of the (Tridentine) Mass:  ‘Linus, Cletus, Clement’.  St. Irenæus (III, iii) tells us that Clement “saw the blessed Apostles and conversed with them, and had yet ringing in his ears the preaching of the Apostles and had their tradition before his eyes, and not he only; for many were then surviving who had been taught by the Apostles”.  During the First and Second centuries the Church spread quietly.  The Persecutions could be trerribly cruel but they were surprisingly haphazard.  From the Pagan point of view, the Christians were exposing the Empire to the anger of the gods. What could be wrong with sacrificing to the other gods as well, like everybody else? Paul wrote, “We bear a treasure in earthen vessels”.  Human Nature was uplifted by the Gospel, but the Christians were still all too human.  In 96AD, a faction of the Corinthians expelled their priests [our English word “priest” is simply a worn down version of the Greek “presbyteros”, which became “prestre”, “preost” then “priest”] and installed their own candidates.  Although the Apostle John was still alive on the island of Patmos, the other Corinthians appealed to Rome, to Clement, fourth in line from Peter. Clement wrote an epistle to the Corinthians, firstly actually apologising for his delay in responding, hinting at the Persecutions:  “Owing to the successive disturbances that have troubled us, we have, we admit, been slow in turning our attention to this matter”.  He then immediately launches into a blistering attack on “the detestable schism with has been referred to us”. He praises the Corinthians for their past glories. He then condemns those who had flouted rightful authority,  speaks at length of the necessity for right order, directs them to re-instate the lawful priests, and remarks that he is sending two trusted delegates, Claudius Ephebus and Valerius Bito, to ensure that all is done, and to report back “speedily” to Rome:  “that they may the sooner announce to us the peace and harmony we so earnestly desire and long for [among you], and that we may the more quickly rejoice over the good order re-established among you. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you …”  Although written within the very lifetime of the Apostle John, the authoritative tone of the fourth Pope is unmistakable.  MOF:  This letter was known from a fragment (bound into an ancient ‘codex’ or book of the Scriptures, but with the last pages missing) and the complete document was only re-discovered in the 19th century.  ‘Bible-Only Christians’ take note:  The Bishop of Rome, in the year 96AD, very definitely considers it his duty to intervene over a dispute in the Church in Corinth. He takes a tone to them very definitely as of one in authority.  It would have been intolerable from an equal who had not business to interfere.  There is no sense of a loose collection of individuals, all ‘saved’ and independently following the Scriptures (which at this stage emphatically had never been bound into a single ‘codex’, because these had not yet been invented, and of which a definitive list of contents had not even been complied yet). Those who think the SSPX are in schism:  Notice that the Corinthians had actually deposed their presbyters/priests and elected others without the Apostolic succession.  That is exactly what the SSPX did NOT do.

Hi Michael O. Im out of town again but now i have internet. Eat Jesus flesh and drink his blood? How are you sure i havent done that and am doing it? In your last post you mention tradition. I rarely bring catholics to task on that one. But i have gone my rounds with the best and most educated of catholics and they dont go any further than say the word tradition, but they strongly imply that bowing to graven images and mary worship is this tradition taught by Jesus after he rose again. They didnt expressly say it because it would open them up to direct conflict with scripture, which catholics dont believe anyway but give lip service. If bowing to graven images is something Jesus taught , why didnt he mention it during his minestry, or why wasnt it documented that he bowed to them and why didnt he pray to his earthly mother or ask her for favors? What he did do was rebuke someone for blessing his mother. Michael, you should rethink what you believe and ask Jesus yourself for him to show you all things. Why go to costume holymen? Why not ask the author of all things? Good to hear from you.

Wayne wrote on Wednesday, May 9)  Hi Michael O. Im out of town again but now i have internet. Eat Jesus flesh and drink his blood? How are you sure i havent done that and am doing it?  MOF:  This power was given to the apostles and their successors, who passed it on by the Laying on of Hands, as is noted in the epistles and abundantly confirmed by the sub-apostolic literature, which is meagre but unanimous.  The apostolic succession was ruptured at the Reformation. No post-Reformation minister has this power.  The Greek Orthodox do have the apostolic Succession, therefore their Eucharist is indeed valid.  No post-Reformation group maintained belief in the transubstantiation of the bread & wine into Christ Himself.  The only way to regain the sacramental power is to return to the Apostolic succession.  From your comments I have assumed you are in a ‘Bible-Only’ community, or else are a non-denominational Christian who does not attend organised services.  Am I wrong?  Wayne:  In your last post you mention tradition. I rarely bring catholics to task on that one. But i have gone my rounds with the best and most educated of catholics and they dont go any further than say the word tradition, but they strongly imply that bowing to graven images and mary worship is this tradition taught by Jesus after he rose again.  MOF: I don’t know whether He said it in so many words or not, at any time before or after His Resurrection.  The Jewish total ban on ‘graven images’ is unscriptural, is it not?  In my wallet I have a photo of my wife on her wedding day.  Sometimes I look at it.  If I were abroad and writing a letter to her I might well have a photo of her at hand.  I would not be writing to the photo, but to the person depicted.  I also have in my wallet a photo of the Face of Christ from the Shroud of Turin, and a painting of Our Lady.  I have statues of both of these at home.  When I pray to them I am not praying to the statues but to the real people depicted by them.  Because of human nature, the pictures & the statues help to focus my thoughts.  Even if they are not strictly accurate, this doesn’t really matter.  My grandchild in America has never actually seen me, but when she writes to me she must have some kind of mental image.  Even if it is inaccurate, that is still not the most important point.  She is writing to Gramps-in-Ireland.  Wayne: mary worship.  MOF:  I can’t speak for the people you mention, but I can tell you Catholic teaching.  Latin & Greek have a more precise vocabulary than English for these things.  The worship of God is in Latin ‘látria’.  Hence ‘ido-latry’ is Latinised English for ‘giving to idols the worship due to God’.  The word for the veneration we give to saints, as human beings who have been ‘weighed in the balance and found worthy’, and refined ‘yet so as by fire’ – is ‘dúlia’.  Our Lady is given the special veneration as the mother of God, and hence the veneration we give her is called ‘hyper-dúlia’.  (not ‘látria’ anything). I have heard the Catholics accused by a Baptist minister as guilty of ‘Mariolatry’.  He would have done well to check his facts.  What we give her is ‘Mario-dúlia’ or more precisely, ‘Mario-hyper-dúlia’.  We do NOT worship her as a God, neither do we worship statues.  We do not bow to statues as such, but to the person depicted.  We do these things because, not being angels but a hybrid of flesh and spirit, bodily posture does affect our mental state.  That is why we dress up or dress down, stand to attention, and so on, in the secular world.  Any schoolteacher will tell you the difference these things make.

Wayne:  They didnt expressly say it because it would open them up to direct conflict with scripture, which catholics dont believe anyway but give lip service. MOF:  I can’t speak for these people, but I do believe the scriptures.  Wayne: If bowing to graven images is something Jesus taught , why didnt he mention it during his minestry, or why wasnt it documented that he bowed to them ?  MOF:  for the same reason that if my grand-daughter ever comes to visit and is in the same room with me, she will (however distasteful the experience most be for her) look at me directly instead of talking to some photo of me in her hand.  There are many things that we all do that are not specifically recorded in the Gospel.  And, because of the Disciplina Arcani, the details of actual worship were forbidden to be written down for many centuries.  I can cite the documentary evidence for this.  To repeat, ‘sola scriptura’ is inconsistent and unhistorical, although it had an emotional appeal in the heated atmosphere of the 16th century.  Wayne:  and why didnt he pray to his earthly mother or ask her for favors?  MOF:  that’s what WE do, not Him.  But at the Wedding Feast of Cana, to our way of speaking, he changed his mind at her gentle pressure.  And note her answer; ‘do whatever HE tells you’.  Wayne:  What he did do was rebuke someone for blessing his mother. MOF:  That is because that person was blessing her for her bloodline, which was not the important issue.  Also, at the time, that person did not realise that He was God.  Your argument ‘proves too much’.  When the Rich Young Man said to Him, “Good Master, what must I do to live?” He rebuked HIM as well - “Why do you call me good?  No-opne is good but God alone”.  In a Sci-fi book by Philip José Farmer I have seen this text used to support the assertion that Christ said he was evil.  Likewise, St Bernadette is not a saiant because she saw Our Lady in the Grotto, but because of the holiness of her personal life.  Wayne: Michael, you should rethink what you believe MOF:  well, I try to meditate on these things each day.  Wayne:  and ask Jesus yourself for him to show you all things. Why go to costume holymen?  MOF:  I do this, Wayne, because I believe that these are the ones He appointed. “He who receives you receives Me ... and the One who sent Me” etc etc.  This was said to the apostles, not to every believer - although indeed it is applicable in a particular way. And a Catholic will not confuse the dignity of the office with the holiness of the person.  In Ireland, when somebody’s relative became a bishop, they would comment: ‘Now he’ll never miss a meal, and never hear the truth’.  But they would still starve before giving in to the blackmail during the Famine – to get your bowl of soup (boiled American corn) you had to ask for it in English, and renounce the Catholic Faith.  In their thousands they crawled back home and lay down and died.  Wayne:  Why not ask the author of all things? MOF: ah, but I do.  Wayne: Good to hear from you.  MOF: tnx ditto.

hi Michael O. Say, the ...i have a photo of mom, therefor its OK to bow befor graven images….is shabby. Lets see if i can get the blinders off you for one second. When i remind people of the second commandment, they say….i dont worship the statue, therfor its a wonderful thing that i bow to statues. Even my religion insists i bow befor them…..Read it again….thou shall not bow thyself to any graven image….....but the catholic anser is the same. “i dont worship the statue”. Read it again..with you eyes, not with your religion…...Thou ahall not bow thyself down before any graven image. The commandment doesnt care what is going on in your mind. But god is clear that bowing IS a act of worship, like it or not. .....Oh, but my religion says its OK…..Michael, do you know what its like to be burned to death? Its unimaginable. But the CC had that as a policy for bible believers. It might be time for you to re-think belonging to a religion that does these things.

Thanks, Wayne.  Your mistake is to take the King James English Version, complete with punctuation, as the definitive text, whereas it is not.  And secondly, to ignore the warning in 2Peter15, which was specifically directed towards S. Paul’s epistles, but which lays down the general principle:  ‘there are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures’ (RSV translation).  The numbering of the Commandments in King James is not in the original Hebrew text, which did not even have verse numbering.  It ignores the structure of the Hebrew language, which does not tie things up as neatly as our European languages.  The prohibition is against worshipping graven images, not making them at all.  The Protestants made two separate commandments out of one.  I can prove this from two passages of the Old Testament.  Do you know what they are, or shall this bible-hating Papist point them out for you?  I am sorry you are slipping back into the error of saying that the Catholic Church burned people for believing the Bible.  They did punish those who mistranslated the Bible and then passed it off as God’s Word.  Stand back a moment.  Could anything be a worse blasphemy against God?  And it is true that in Spain at one particulat moment of crisis they issued an edict forbidding the reading fo the bible under pain of death.  That is because so much false info was circulating, not to mention full-scale war against both Moslems and Albigensians, together with systematic sedition by Jews, that it was impossible in the interim to track everything down before people were misled and directed their lives based on falsehood.  Then the church could get back to its 1300-year-old practice of lovingly copying out the Words of Life for all men of goodwill.

On re-reading your post, Wayne, with respect, are you actually trying to say that you think the commandment is specifically against the posture of bowing down?  Without any reference to what is going on in one’s mind or soul?  Truly, this is a glaring example of the Sola Scriptura mistake of “Switch off your mind and look up the answer in the back of the book”.  More scripturally, remember Our Lord’s frequent warnings to follow the spirit of the Law, which gives life.“Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees”.  The disciples said to one another, “It is because we have no bread”.  And He gave them a bit of a wrist-slapping for this.  And elsewhere the same message was driven home.  And to repeat my previous comment:  beware of translations from one language to another, especially over thousands of years.  Things simply don’t always mean in one language or culture as they seem to do in others.  For example, in the West of Ireland 50 years ago it was commonplace to say, “Don’t rear up!”  as a way of saying:  ‘don’t get too indignant!”  And in the Book of Kings remember when King David ate the honey ‘and his eye brightened’.  And he said to his men, “Did you notice how my eye brightened?”  Do I have to spell it out?  Less sophisticated people will often use a physical expression rather than an abstract one. King David (presumably) didn’t have a powder compact to check the brightness of his eye.  Likewise, the Catholic Church would strictly forbid anybody under pain of mortal sin from worshipping a statue as an idol (as if anybody in the civilised world has done that for the last 1000 years) but, if anybody asked, would say that the 2nd Commandment was a prohibition against idolatry.  To argue for the merely physical posture is to make the same mistake as the Pharisees with their phylactaries, castigated by Our Lord in His last great oration in the temple.  They had been told to keep the word of God in their minds, so they put little slips of parchment inscribed with the Law in leather pouches about their bodies, while all the time ‘their hearts are far from Me’.  In my example of the photos in the wallet I was trying to appeal to common sense.

Erratum: “...would say that the 2nd Commandment was a prohibition against idolatry.”  I meant, of course, the 1st Commandment, which is given in Exodus 20: 2-6 inclusive.

Hi Michael O, as always a pleasure to talk to you. You go into depth to explain. OK, lets say that the second commandment was misdone in the King James. But all through the old testament god is down on graven images, and he says so many times. He ran the jews out of judea because of graven images. Its gonna be hard to say that all those passages were misquotes. Yes, i go to a non denominal gathering. Just Christ and him crucified is preached. You say obedience to the pope and majisterium is one of the conditions for salvation. Gee, thats gonna be hard to find in the scriptures. So, the CC is just a religion, supposedly gods religion. What gives a religion the right to kill you over religious differences? Muslims show their true stripes by their violence to other faiths.What makes the CC any better than Muslims? Who would you say is the master of a group of people who kill because they dont follow their decrees? What if the Boy Scouts decided to kill people who dont walk little old ladies across the street? It makes them evil. Brother michael O, a well doesnt bring forth bitter and sweet water. Anyway, there are no requirements for salvation. Jesus says…come to me all ye who labor. Its there for the asking. False religions(which means all religions) throw requirements in the way. Counterfeit mediators, saints Popes, these the sheep do not follow. Another Christ…that is the meaning of Vicar of Christ. He is not Christ, and the sheep dont follow him, or Jesse Duplantis or Creflow Dollar or Benny Hinn. At least the last 3 mentioned named people do try to lead people to Christ, not to golden trinkets and graven images, but they semselfs are not saved, god uses them. Beware Michael, of the leven of the pharisees, because they put requirements befor you and salvation. The thief on the cross needed no Pope or magisterium…he just asked to be remembered.

What does the SSPX say on gay rights? Just now, after posting in here i checked my email to find this article in New Advent. A catholic school allowed a gay student to recieve an award for some gay organization
“A compromise has been reached between the Diocese of Davenport and an openly gay Catholic high school student in Clinton honored with an award by a gay advocacy group.”
“Amos had said “long-standing” policy would not allow an appearance by Eychaner officials because “we cannot allow anyone or any organization which promotes a position that is contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church to present at a diocesan institution,” according to a statement earlier in the week.”
Excuse me, isnt hypocrisy a no no? The CC claims to be against homosexuality….Really now.! Uh,arent most of the CCs holymen gay? .....how does the bible quote go?...oh yeah….“speaking lies in hypocrisy” Well, just more bitter water from that bitter fountain.

Wayne wrote:  Saturday, May 12, 2012 5:33 PM (EST):The thief on the cross needed no Pope or magisterium…he just asked to be remembered.  MOF: Let it be noted that the number of people certified in Scripture as definitely achieving Eternal Life can probably be numbered on one hand: and one of these was a self-confessed lifelong delinquent deserving of the horrifying death of crucifixion.  Note that he actually did three things: he confessed his sins to Christ; he ‘acknowledged Him before men’ (‘He who acknowledges Me before men, him shall I acknowlege before My Father’); and he threw himself on Christ’s mercy.  In Catholic teaching, he carried out an ‘Act of Perfect Contrition’ which is ALWAYS efficacious.  But the visible membership of the Catholic Church makes everything easy - except, of course, the giving up of one’s sins.  Wayne, the truth is that all your questions do find an answer in the True Catholic Faith.

Wayne wrote: Gee, thats gonna be hard to find in the scriptures.  MOF:  So: Every Article of Faith must be found explicitly in the Scriptures?  Then, obviously, we must be able to find the following Article of Faith in the Scriptures:  “Every Article of Faith must be found explicitly in the Scriptures”.  Where is it?

Wayne writes on Saturday, May 12, 2012 5:57 PM (EST): What does the SSPX say on gay rights? Just now, after posting in here i checked my email to find this article in New Advent. A catholic school allowed a gay student to recieve an award for some gay organization
“A compromise has been reached between the Diocese of Davenport and an openly gay Catholic high school student in Clinton honored with an award by a gay advocacy group.”
“Amos had said “long-standing” policy would not allow an appearance by Eychaner officials because “we cannot allow anyone or any organization which promotes a position that is contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church to present at a diocesan institution,” according to a statement earlier in the week.”
Excuse me, isnt hypocrisy a no no? The CC claims to be against homosexuality….Really now.! Uh,arent most of the CCs holymen gay? .....how does the bible quote go?...oh yeah….“speaking lies in hypocrisy” Well, just more bitter water from that bitter fountain.  MOF: Wayne, the SSPX teach that a homosexual orientation constitutes a temptation, but that ‘No man is tempted beyond his strength’. Theology tells us that homosexuality is a grave perversion of God’sNatural Law and is a most serious blasphemy against Him.  Scripture abounds with its condemnation.  The SSPX point out that the ‘mainstream’ Catholic church has abandoned the principles of its Founder for those of its enemies, and that it frequently invokes the documents of Vatican II, or more often, the ‘Spirit of Vatican II’ justify its apostacy.  The SSPX point out that the documents of Vatican II, unique in the history of the Church, are so loaded with ambiguities that it is actually possible to promote heresy by selectively quoting from Vatican II. (Any dissenters:  I challenge you right now to justify a condmened heresy by quotations from the Council of Trent- or any of the 18 others).  This is an important reason why I suport the SSPX.  They are telling the truth when nobody else can or will.  They are raining on the ‘Renewal’ parade.  God keep them.

Wayne writes on Saturday, May 12, 2012 5:57 PM (EST): What does the SSPX say on gay rights? Just now, after posting in here i checked my email to find this article in New Advent. A catholic school allowed a gay student to recieve an award for some gay organization
“A compromise has been reached between the Diocese of Davenport and an openly gay Catholic high school student in Clinton honored with an award by a gay advocacy group.”
“Amos had said “long-standing” policy would not allow an appearance by Eychaner officials because “we cannot allow anyone or any organization which promotes a position that is contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church to present at a diocesan institution,” according to a statement earlier in the week.”
Excuse me, isnt hypocrisy a no no? The CC claims to be against homosexuality….Really now.! Uh,arent most of the CCs holymen gay? .....how does the bible quote go?...oh yeah….“speaking lies in hypocrisy” Well, just more bitter water from that bitter fountain.  MOF: Wayne, the SSPX teach that a homosexual orientation constitutes a temptation, but that ‘No man is tempted beyond his strength’. Homosexual behaviour is condemned by the Natural Law as a serious perversion of the Reproductive Drive , and Scripture abounds with censure in the most explicit terms, of this perversion, which is a most direct affront to the Creator of the Natural Law.  The SSPX point out that the ‘mainstream’ Catholic church has abandoned the principles of its Founder for those of its enemies, and frequently invokes the documents of Vatican II, or more often, the ‘Spirit of Vatican II’ to justify its apostacy.  The SSPX point out that the documents of Vatican II, unique in the history of the Church, are so loaded with ambiguities that it is actually possible to promote heresy by selectively quoting from Vatican II. (Any dissenters:  I challenge you right now to justify a condemned heresy by quotations from the Council of Trent- or any of the 18 others).  This is an important reason why I support the SSPX.  They are telling the truth when nobody else can or will.  They are raining on the ‘Renewal’ parade.  God keep them.

Wayne:  What gives a religion the right to kill you over religious differences?  MOF: Catholic teaching is that no individual has the right to kill for the purpose of some imagined future ‘greater good’, but that the Ruler of a nation, on the contrary, actually has the DUTY to protect the Common Good, even to the Capital Punishment of particular individuals if required - subject always to the Divine Law. I confess I find it very hard to justify the position that it is WRONG to shoot abortion clinic owners down in the street, as also those who (as we know) kill homeless street children and sell their organs.  It is n
Natural Justice, and directed towards the Common Good, to execute these people.  Their actions ought in justice to be a capital offence.  If the legitimate government fails to do so, this puts the Common Man in a quandary.  The same is happening, on a spiritual level, in the Church today.  That, (at the risk of becoming repetitious) is why I have supported the SSPX.  They are not afraid to say these things.

Wayne:  Really now.! Uh,arent most of the CCs holymen gay? MOF:  Well actually no. In fact, the figures show that abuse of layfolk by the clergy (in the USA anyway) is ten times higher among Protestant sects than among the Catholic clergy.  This is a researched and documented fact¬ - not that you would ever find a hint of it in the ‘Bought’ mainstream media of Ireland.  The seminaries up until the 1960s had stringent rules designed to prevent homosexuality. The only seminary, so far as I know, that resolutely refused these novelties was MRE’s – and this was one of the few that is still attracting novices. Tho as I said: this is not for the half-hearted.

Hi Michael, i enjoy your posts, they are honest and well thought out. You say all that i hold dead is in catholic teaching…true. The CC teaches morality…..but its leaders dont practice it. It just came to my attention that Pope Johnpaul used to be a zyclone B/ cyanide salesman to the deathcamp administrators. Plus he worked at IG Farben making cyanide.I heard a preacher say it just minutes ago. You can search it on the web….keywords Johnpaul sells cyanide… or you can be creative and think of your own keywords. Im still reeling from this. I dont know what to say.

correction…what i hold dear .....is what i wanted to say.Breaking News….the Vatican has been moving closer to ties with Islam. No news to some catholics with Johnpaul kissing the Koran. The USA has purchased 30,000 guillotines, the standard method of Islams killing and no stranger to the CC. ....And i saw those who were beheaded for the testimony of Christ….Revelations. Seems like the world is getting ready to persecute christians again.

Wayne:  The world isn’t “getting ready” to persecute Christians, and in particular, Catholics, it is ALREADY doing that and has been for a long time now.  Do you believe evrything you hear or read?  Just because it comes from a protestant preacher’s mouth does not make it so. Have you done any real research on JPII’s alleged conspiracy with the nazis? Have you checked out the website “snopes”?  Try it.  Zyclon B was developed and manufactured by the nazis for no other purpose than to exterminate the Jews. They would never reveal their evil discoveries to anyone outside of a faithful nazi, let alone a Catholic pole.  Get real…  Oh, by the way, the second largest group of people that the nazis hated and exterminated was Catholics, then gypsies, and then anyone else they didn’t seem to like. It seems to me that you have another purpose here and that is not to discuss the real issue.

Posted by wayne on Saturday, May 12, 2012 10:56 PM (EST):

Hi Michael, i enjoy your posts, they are honest and well thought out. You say all that i hold dead is in catholic teaching…true. The CC teaches morality…..but its leaders dont practice it. It just came to my attention that Pope Johnpaul used to be a zyclone B/ cyanide salesman to the deathcamp administrators. Plus he worked at IG Farben making cyanide.I heard a preacher say it just minutes ago. You can search it on the web….keywords Johnpaul sells cyanide… or you can be creative and think of your own keywords. Im still reeling from this. I dont know what to say.  MOF:  A very debatable point.  And at the risk of starting up a red herring, I teach chemistry (among other things) and I can say this definitely:  I don’t know what happened in the Nazi camps, but they did not gas and burn 6,000,000 prisoners.  The official version we have been given is scientifically impossible.  The cyanide fumes would have killed the Nazi commanders who tried to remove the bodies.  And have you ever tried to burn a large dog on a bonfire?  Well neither have I - but think - how much fuel it would take.  The aerial photos of the camps do not support the idea.  Where are the tall chimneys to disperse the fumes?  where are the stockpiles of fuel for the bonfires?  Actually, on the web you can ger jpg images of the actual records of these places.  They were labour camps.  They made their prisoners live in dreadful conditions, so that there were epidemics of typhus, which killed many.  Not that they didn’t try.  they did experiment with gas chambers, but decided they were impracticable. I have been told the name of the firm that manufactured the chambers, by a Catholic with more Jewish relatives than otherwise, but I am not willing to publish it.

Posted by wayne on Saturday, May 12, 2012 11:08 PM (EST):

.Breaking News….the Vatican has been moving closer to ties with Islam. No news to some catholics with Johnpaul kissing the Koran. The USA has purchased 30,000 guillotines, the standard method of Islams killing and no stranger to the CC. ....And i saw those who were beheaded for the testimony of Christ….Revelations. Seems like the world is getting ready to persecute christians again.    MOF:  Correct.  That, Wayne, is why I support the SSPX, who warn against these things.

Back to the Graven images. The original Commandment was well understood:  it was against idolatry, not any images at all.  Later on this became confused in the popular mind. I quote from the KIng James Version:  Exodus 25 (the Ark of the Covenant) :  16 And thou shalt put into the ark the testimony which I shall give thee. 17 And thou shalt make a mercy seat of pure gold: two cubits and a half shall be the length thereof, and a cubit and a half the breadth thereof. 18 And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them, in the two ends of the mercy seat.  19 And make one cherub on the one end, and the other cherub on the other end: even of the mercy seat shall ye make the cherubims on the two ends thereof. 20 And the cherubims shall stretch forth their wings on high, covering the mercy seat with their wings, and their faces shall look one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubims be.  21 And thou shalt put the mercy seat above upon the ark; and in the ark thou shalt put the testimony that I shall give thee.  22 And there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubims which are upon the ark of the testimony, of all things which I will give thee in commandment unto the children of Israel.    Exodus 37:  7 And he made two cherubims of gold, beaten out of one piece made he them, on the two ends of the mercy seat;  8 One cherub on the end on this side, and another cherub on the other end on that side: out of the mercy seat made he the cherubims on the two ends thereof.  9 And the cherubims spread out their wings on high, and covered with their wings over the mercy seat, with their faces one to another; even to the mercy seatward were the faces of the cherubims.      I Kings 6 (Solomon’s Temple)  21 So Solomon overlaid the house within with pure gold: and he made a partition by the chains of gold before the oracle; and he overlaid it with gold.  22 And the whole house he overlaid with gold, until he had finished all the house: also the whole altar that was by the oracle he overlaid with gold.  23 And within the oracle he made two cherubims of olive tree, each ten cubits high.  24 And five cubits was the one wing of the cherub, and five cubits the other wing of the cherub: from the uttermost part of the one wing unto the uttermost part of the other were ten cubits.  25 And the other cherub was ten cubits: both the cherubims were of one measure and one size.  26 The height of the one cherub was ten cubits, and so was it of the other cherub.  27 And he set the cherubims within the inner house: and they stretched forth the wings of the cherubims, so that the wing of the one touched the one wall, and the wing of the other cherub touched the other wall; and their wings touched one another in the midst of the house.  28 And he overlaid the cherubims with gold.  29 And he carved all the walls of the house round about with carved figures of cherubims and palm trees and open flowers, within and without.  MOF:  My case rests.  If you like to look up ‘The iconoclast Heresy’ you will see there was a big fuss about this issue in about the 6th century, centred on the Eastern (Byzantine) empire; but that the theological issue was hopelessly mixed up with personalities, power and politics - as indeed they all were, including Luther’s rebellion.

Hello Michael and Sister Teresa. I saw one of the docs that has the evidense of Johnpaul being a salesman for cyanide. Doesnt mean its real. Im aware of that. Michael doesnt seem to believe the numbers killed by the nazis. You alluded to the fact that they were all killed by gas. Not a fact. The Einsatzgrouppen did alot of killing out in the woods. Anyway, the capos and inmates operated the gas chambers. The poor workers had a tough time burning the bodies. Ive studied this extensively. But anyway, the SSPX makes no bones about punishing heretics? Good for them. Catholics with a backbone. The wishy washy catholics who say leave the heretics alone arent good catholics. Oh, Sister, if catholics are persecuted, turn around is fair play.Im not for harming any man, personally. Ive been ordered to be as harmless as a dove.Michael, thanks much for the refresher on the Ark. God had the Ark built with two cherubs on it. Therfor we scratch the 2nd command. Wait a min….Say Michael, dont people bow and scrape and kiss the catholic graven images? And adorn them with fine clothes and put crowns on their heads(serving them)? Is that true? Hold on there a min…did the hebrew population file by the ark and kiss it and adorn it and touch it and what not? AYE, wait a min…if memoery serves me rite, no one could even go in the room it was in except the high priest, just once in a while, or they would drop dead. Thats rite, you died if you even came into the room, let alone look at it. So using the Ark as a reason to make billions of graven images and bow to them and serve them is shabby. You forgot to mention that Brother Michael. Ill save you the trouble of bring up the bronze sepent that catholic rely on to justify graven images. Kings 2 18;4 i believe…god had Hezekiah break up the bronze serpent because the people were VENERATING it. They even named it Nehushtan. God hates using objects for religious purposes. He is invisible and wants his people to worship in spirit and truth, not images and icons and golden cups and purple and scarlet clad clergy. I hope i make some sense here. By the way, the guillotines will be used after the rapture on those who become christian after the saved are taken away. I hope you guys are gone with me. All the pastors and religious leaders and priests and bishops will have some explaining to do as to why they are still here and their followers are still here.

Wayne:  I have studied WWII, the nazis and the Holocaust at length, too. My dad was a WWII vet.  Of course the nazis weren’t particular about the way they exterminated non-Germans. One only has to look at Mengele to see the barbarics to which the nazis stooped to solve their “problem”.  You know, I’d like to mention that much of what goes on during the Catholic Mass (particularly the Tridentine Mass) comes from Jewish worship.  Even the vestments that the priest wears go back to Jewish worship. When you gaze upon a picture of a loved one, your heart fills with sentiments of love, care, and appreciation, no?  Well, that is what Catholics do when they gaze upon a statue of Jesus, His Mother, or other saints. To worship or love a piece of paper is stupid.  We have symbols all over our lives—not just in religion.  The Cross/Crucifix is a symbol of the great Sacrifice Christ made for us…are we to spurn that?  Is that idol worship?  I think sometimes there are other things that are far more dangerous to worship/venerate than a statue or picture—how about money? another person? things? alcohol? drugs? sex? our own wills?  Those would seem to be far more dangerous than sentimental feelings when one gazes upon a picture or statue of the One she/he loves.

Hi Michael. So, when you look at a graven image of Mary, seeing her makes you venerate her better. By the way, i am into chemistry too. Lab Tech.Pre med. Amateur physicist.So, is that a image of Mary? If i put a statue of Cookie Monster in a catholic church and hung a sign that said Mary on it, you could look at is and pray deeper to Mary? Lets face the reality here my friend, those statues dont come close to what Mary looked like. No one knows what she looked like but you can bank on her not looking like the white Miss America that the statues portray. Mary was most likely short, withe arabic features and cutly black hair and a big nose.The old test says Jesus was unattractive in looks that no one should desire him. What im saying is….thats not Marys likeness. If some street hooker posed for a particular Mary statue, thats who you are venerating(a cover phrase for worship).Its not Mary, so it might as well be Cookie Monster, or Sara Palin. Sorry to break this to you.

Wayne wrote: Breaking News….the Vatican has been moving closer to ties with Islam. No news to some catholics with Johnpaul kissing the Koran. The USA has purchased 30,000 guillotines, the standard method of Islams killing and no stranger to the CC. ....And i saw those who were beheaded for the testimony of Christ….Revelations. Seems like the world is getting ready to persecute christians again.  MOF:[Original posting]  Correct.  That, Wayne, is why I support the SSPX, who warn against these things.  MIF [today’s posting] Oops!  I sent the reply to your comment, Wayne, before reading it to the end (I was under pressure to surrender the laptop) then when I tried to dash off a correction the gremlins/atheists/Masons/IMF cut off the internet access—mass-produced guillotines for the Jihad?? Really, Wayne.  Yes, the Mainstream Catholic church is on a catastrophic course of trying to appease her sworn enemies, when she should be converting them.  It’s all because they haven’t obeyed Our Lady of Fatima ...  but there’s an awful lot of disinformation on the web(to put it kindly) ...

Wayne wrote:  Is that true? Hold on there a min…did the hebrew population file by the ark and kiss it and adorn it and touch it and what not? AYE, wait a min…if memoery serves me rite, no one could even go in the room it was in except the high priest, just once in a while, or they would drop dead. Thats rite, you died if you even came into the room, let alone look at it. So using the Ark as a reason to make billions of graven images and bow to them and serve them is shabby.  MOF:  My main point here was to establish that the making of images per se is not forbidden or wrong.  It was always the worship of such things that is wrong.  Yes, the Ancient Hebrews needed a very unsubtle lesson on these things.  ‘The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom’. This was before the incarnation.  Jesus looked unattractive in Isaiah, the suffering Servant?  That was during the scourging.  Our Lady looking Jewish?  Well it doesn’t exactly matter, but the evidence is that the Caucasian type was found much further east than it is now.  Look at the Greek statues.  the inhabitants of North Africa were red-haired.  Yes, we know the images are only approximate.  when S. Bernadette was asked did the statue of Our Lady of Lourdes resemble Our Lady (whom she saw) Bernadette replied, ‘Not in the slightest’.  More later.

Wayne:  By the way, i am into chemistry too. Lab Tech.Pre med. Amateur physicist.  MOF:  In that case, I hope you will be interested in the Shroud of Turin.  The following seems to be an excellent website.  http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/Iannone-refl.pdf

Wayne: If some street hooker posed for a particular Mary statue, thats who you are venerating(a cover phrase for worship)MOF:Wayne wrote: venerating(a cover phrase for worship)MOF: Do you mean you think I was lying when I explained about the difference, and that the Catholic Church teaches it is a Mortal sin to give Divine Worship to creatures? [ii] But we are not venerating the image, but the person behind the image.  I have a dim recollection that we have explained this a couple of times before… also, since you mention it, the street hooker is in good company ... St Mary Magdalen, for instance, she who is venerated in the Catholic Church in two categories:  Penitent, and the Apostle to the Apostles - it is she who told them He had Risen.  In the ‘Divine Office’ (liturgical prayers) for her Feastday she is given some of the Office reserved for the Apostles.  And if I ever see a street hooker, I do well to remind myself; “She might go to Heaven, and I might go to Hell”.  Anyone who is invited to believe NOW that they are CERTAIN to go to Heaven AT SOME LATER DATE, is not only unscriptural (see S. Paul quoted previously) but is being invited to commit the Material Mortal Sin of Presumption.  And if I may make the comment, I would advise to be very careful about offering direct insults to Our Lady.  The devils in exorcism reply to the interrogation of the Catholic priest, who has the power and authority to do so.  I know a priest who as a young man was present at one, and the things the possessed person (a teenaged girl) was shouting out made him vomit on the spot. (Yes, the exorcism was successful.) The devils regularly curse the priest, the onlookers, and Christ Himself in the most obscene ways, but it is a matter of record that they have never been known to insult Our Lady.  Christ clearly says to them:  ‘Have your day for now, but you’re going to leave My Mother out of it’.  Some pupils I taught in a school told me that in their native language, used by their fathers, there is a common curse which insults Our Lady.  I told them ‘Those men are saying things that even the devils dare not say.  Let them beware’.