|
From an Internet Discussion
List
Ubi Papa? Just Where Is He When We Need Him? From:
M_Eulogius_OF@yahoo.com
Date: Friday, April 27, 2007 5:05 PM
To: webmonk@bellsouth.net
Subject: My Angelqueen post on Pope Benedict XVI's encyclical on love.
Dear Father: I
wrote the attached material in response to a post on the Angelqueen forum
http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12309 and would appreciate your
making it available to our readers. The list of
suspicious changes in the Mass and Sacraments may be of value as many
modern Catholics try to consider the modernist changes one at a time and
fail to take the big picture into account. in
XTO,
M_Eulogius
M_Eulogius
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 120
|
 Posted:
Sat Feb 03, 2007 8:01 pm
Post subject: Pope's love letter is a hit |
|
|
First
Saturday of Our Lady - Saint Blaise, Bishop & Martyr
| TonydeNewYork
wrote: |
Its
sad the lack of RESPECT for the pope from some of the
members of this forum.
Where is Peter there is the Church. |
Ubi Petus ibi ecclesia --so
just where is the Pope? Ubi Papa?
That is precisely the problem in the Modernist Church. Oh, the
Pope is around plenty to apologize for things he did not do, and
on behalf of those for whom he cannot speak. He is around to make
ridiculous pronouncements about a variety of things about which he
has no special competence—and seems to have little normal
competence. He flits around the world making appearances like a
rock star.
But where is he when his clowns are raping the altar boys? Or
dipping their rather large hands into the collection basket? When
they are selling dope? When they collaborate with the Communists?
You must be aware that such offenses are punished only when they
violate civil laws. And, indeed, the Novus
Ordo Popes have been clearly involved in covering up the
offenses and rewarding the facilitators. Cardinal Law was
sentenced to live in a castle on a nice pension. Stanislaw Wielgus
was made Archbishop of Warsaw.
Where, indeed, has been the Pope as virtually every element of the
Faith has been changed? Everything from the Mass and Holy Orders
down to the Stations of the Cross and the Rosary has been played
with! Sometimes just for the sake of changing; sometimes with
invalidating intent. Generally, the Pope has been right there—as
the perpetrator!
Where indeed, has the movement from “relativism” been—the
movement about which the current Pope spoke so convincingly on the
eve of his election?
Respect is earned. While one must have respect for the Vicar of
Christ, it is clear that the Vatican II Popes have earned
disrespect by their actions against the Mystical Body of Christ.
Pray for the conversion of the Pope! That he becomes
one of those "who cherish the Catholic and Apostolic
Faith."
in XTO
M_Eulogius
PS: Pope Benedict’s “Love letter” was as incomprehensible as
anything Pope John Paul II ever wrote! |
|
M_Eulogius
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 120
|
| Posted:
Tue Feb 06, 2007 5:02 pm
Post subject: Pope's Love Letter |
|
|
Popes Love Letter
................Saint
Titus, Bishop & Confessor
Thank you for your analysis of my post. I am not sure how to
manipulate your post to interleave the answers, to I’ve
numbered your points and my replies to them.
| Londiniensis
wrote: |
| M_Eulogius
wrote: |
| ...
He is around to make ridiculous pronouncements
about a variety of things about which he has no
special competence ... |
(1) Such as?
| M_Eulogius
wrote: |
| Stanislaw
Wielgus was made Archbishop of Warsaw. |
(2) I don't think that you are very up-to-date on Church
news.
| M_Eulogius
wrote: |
| ...
virtually every element of the Faith has been
changed ... |
(3) The Creed was still there last time I looked. If you
don't like collegiality, or ecumenism, or to be told
that a sincere and ignorant Hottentot will be
encompassed by the mercy of God, then say so.
| M_Eulogius
wrote: |
| ...
sometimes with invalidating intent ... |
(4) Now this is really new and interesting and important
- please do share your evidence with us.
| M_Eulogius
wrote: |
| ...
it is clear that the Vatican II Popes have
earned disrespect by their actions against the
Mystical Body of Christ ... |
(5) Err, clear to whom?
| M_Eulogius
wrote: |
| ...
Pope Benedict’s “Love letter” was as
incomprehensible as anything Pope John Paul II
ever wrote! |
(6) I sympathise if you need to look up long words or
philosophical references in reference books - no such
problem, obviously, with St Augustine or St Thomas
Aquinas.
| St
Matthew 16:18 wrote: |
| (7)
And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon
this rock I will build my church, and the gates
of hell shall not prevail against it. |
|
(1) See any encyclical of the Vatican II Popes on economics.
Pope Paul’s Humanæ vitæ,
in which he inverts the ends of marriage. Pope John Paul II’s
ideas on dialogue with Animists, Voodoo worshippers. Luther as a
“religious genius.” Pope Paul VI’s endorsement of Pierre
Teilhard de Chardin as scientific! Pope John Paul’s
endorsement of evolution as scientific. Awarding a Papal
Knighthood to St. Lucia's Foreign Minister, Julian Hunte, a pro
abortion, non-Catholic. Pope Benedict XVI’s waffling on Islam.
Any papal speech at the United Nations. Crossing
the Threshold of Hope: Preaching the Gospel jointly with
heretics, evangelization through tourism to shrines; need for
population control through “responsible” parenthood, “a
necessary condition for authentic conjugal love”; “"The
Gospel . . . is a grand affirmation of the world and of man”;
the reality of Hell and its probable emptiness. Veritatis
splendor: To perfect himself in his specific order, the
person must [in addition to some real things] ... refine and
develop the riches of the material world, cultivate social life,
seek truth, practice good and contemplate beauty. Ut
unum sint, in which Pope John Paul II put up for
discussion a number of essential Catholic dogmas: 1) the
relationship between Sacred Scripture and Tradition ... as the
highest authority in matters of faith 2) the Eucharist, as the
Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ; 3) Ordination as a
Sacrament; 4) the Magisterium of the Church, entrusted to the
Pope and the Bishops; 5) the Virgin Mary, as Mother of God and
Icon of the Church; 6) the Papacy itself! I don’t have the
patience to keep up with them, but there have been a good number
of pronouncements of things like sports, water quality, and the
music of Bob Dylan,.
(2) In spite of knowing his record as a collaborator, Pope
Benedict appointed Wielgus as Archbishop, tried to get the
people to accept them, and backed down only when Wielgus
realized that the popular attitude was against him. He would be
archbishop today if the faithful had not opposed the Holy
Father’s choice. A number of other collaborators have
surfaced, with more to be named soon, including some bishops.
Pope Benedict XVI rewarded Cardinal Claudio Hummes, a proponent
of “liberation theology” making him prefect of the
Congregation of the Clergy. Recall that while many heroic
priests and bishops in Communist countries did hard time (or
worse) for speaking the truth, others were free to flit about
the globe, speaking with whomever they wished about whatever
they wished.
(3) The Creed has been in use by Protestants for centuries. Its
words may have been unchanged, but every manner of disbelief is
tolerated in practice. In practice, many modernist Catholics
interpret the words of the Creed as describing “the Christ of
faith, and not the Christ of History.”
Does anyone think that having ladies in blue jeans and T-shirts
distribute Holy Communion (or any of the other Eucharistic
irreverences) encourages belief in the real presence among the
young or the old?—if they have ever heard of the real
presence, and have not been told “we are the body of
Christ”—the hosts swept out from under the pews suggest
disbelief.
Authentic Catholicism believes sodomy to be a “sin which cries
out to God for vengeance.” In the Old Testament it was
punishable by death, and even though Christianity is generally
more merciful with sinners, the death penalty for sodomites was
upheld at least as recently as the pontificate of Saint Pius V.
Whatever the proper penalty, it is an horrendous sin. But today
the Church is infected with sodomite priests and bishops and the
Vatican does nothing unless they are caught and convicted by the
civil authorities. The “whistleblowers” are punished while
the sodomites live well on the donations of the faithful.
Ecumenism is another sin punished with death in the Old
Testament—more than death actually, for those who tempted
God’s people to false worship were stoned, and then their
cities were destroyed. Again, Christianity is generally more
merciful, but the Church had heretics put to death for many
centuries. Today we have spectacles like the worship of the
Buddha on top of the tabernacle at Assisi; Popes pouring out of
libations to the snake god, kissing of the Koran, and praying in
mosques and synagogues.
Pope Pius IX articulated the Church’s position on Hottentots
and others invincibly ignorant. Simultaneously he indicated that
the Catholic Church is the only vehicle of salvation. Salvation
is not through false systems of belief, even though they may
contain substantial amounts of truth. If non-Catholics are
saved, it is not because they are Protestants or Jews or
whatever, but only if they have somehow become incorporated or
associated with the Mystical Body of Christ—which does not
just “subsist in” but is
the Catholic Church. In Mortalium
animos, (para 2, 4) Pope Pius XI quite accurately
described the ecumenical movement, saying: “Not only are those
who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in
distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little
by little, turn aside to naturalism and atheism, as it is
called; from which it clearly follows that one who supports
those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is
altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion.” “But
in reality beneath these enticing words and blandishments lies
hid a most grave error, by which the foundations of the Catholic
faith are completely destroyed.”
(4) Nothing new at all! From Rome we have not a word about the
invalid baptisms in Australia (“Creator, Sustainer,
Redeemer”) or the Butt-baptisms in the US. Not a word about
the simulated celebration of the Novus
Ordo by Bishop Fernando Rifan.
But the track record of the Conciliar Church making invalidating
or dubious changes speaks for itself. There is, of course, no
“litmus test” for validity but the Church has determined
certain minima for validity in terms of intention, minister,
matter, and form. The moral theologians are unanimous in saying
that one must never confect a Sacrament in an invalid or even
dubious manner—surely not when the means to certain validity
are available. Yet, the Conciliar Church tampered with all of
the Sacraments in a dubious way:
... 1967 the vernacular canon was introduced. At roughly the
same time, the same
heretical mistranslation of the words of consecration of the
wine was introduced in most of the European languages, and
approved by the Holy See (and used by the Popes themselves) in
spite of a clear explanation of the Catholic doctrine on the
matter in The Catechism of
Trent. Invalidating? Perhaps. Dubious for sure. Sacrilegious
in putting heretical words in the mouth of Christ. Would you
prefer a valid sacrilege or an invalid sacrilege?
... 1968 Pope Paul VI changed the rite of priestly ordination
significantly, and that of episcopal consecration radically.
In my personal opinion (some will say I am liberal in this) the
rite for priestly ordination would be valid if used in Catholic
circumstances; with the intention to ordain sacrificing priests.
The elimination of some of the adjunct rites—like replacing,
in the tradition of instruments, “Receive the power to offer
sacrifice to God and to celebrate Mass for the living as well as
for the dead in the name of the Lord.”—with— “Accept
from the holy people of God the gifts to be offered to him. Know
what you are doing, and imitate the mystery you celebrate: model
your life on the mystery of the Lord’s cross.”—suggests
that the framers of Pope Paul’s rite intended a more
Protestant conception of the priesthood.
The rite for episcopal consecration eliminated the essential
form prescribed by Pope Pius XII, replacing it with a single
phrase taken from the ordinal attributed to the anti-Pope
Hippolytus. Pope Paul VI, taking the phrase out of context and
making it the essential form of the Sacrament very likely
invalidated it, for now the “essential form” fails to
mention the conferral of the
fullness of the priesthood—something declared
invalidating in both Pope Leo XIII’s Apostolicæ
curæ and in Pope Pius XII’s Sacramentum
ordinis. Paradoxically, the rite might be valid if the
consecrator announced the conscious intention of contradicting
Pope Paul’s decree in Pontificalis
Romani and stated that he intended to use it in its
historical context instead, adding the other words of the rite
to Pope Paul’s defective “form” as though the form was the
entire rite—a convoluted intention at best!
Walter Cardinal Kasper, the president of the Pontifical Council
for Promoting Christian Unity, a member of the Roman Curia, has
publicly declared an understanding of Holy Orders entirely
different from the Catholic position, suggesting a forthcoming
reexamination of Apostolicæ
curæ. Pope Benedict says otherwise, but the last time I
looked Apostolicæ curæ
had gone down “the memory hole” as far as the Vatican
website was concerned. I believe Kasper remains in the Curia.
...1969 Pope Paul VI introduced his Novus
Ordo. The vernacular versions maintained the error in the
form of consecration. Although probably not invalidating, the
removal of the offertory prayers does suggest a repudiation of
the sacrificial nature of the Mass, as do the Papally approved
translations of “Eucharistic Prayer I” You will look in vain
for “Thy holy people, offer unto Thy supreme majesty, of the
gifts bestowed upon us, the pure + Victim, the holy + Victim,
the all-perfect + Victim” in the ICEL translation of Prex I.
The offertory prayers have been replaced with Jewish table
graces—here again the Vatican approved translations are
lacking: The “bread (wine) which we offer” in Latin become
the “bread (wine) we have to offer” in ICEL’s version,
with no mention of actually offering it. Often overlooked is the
erroneous notion that the words of our Lord spoken over the
bread and wine are a mere “narrative of the institution”!
Narration tells what happened—to validly consecrate the priest
must do what Christ did, not narrate. This error is found both
in the GIRM and in the CCC, which suggest that it is to be held
both by Novus Ordo
priests and by all priests “in full communion” no matter
what rite they use for Mass.
At about the same time it became much the “in thing” to
celebrate “mass” with invalid matter. In more radical
quarters the priests wore clown suits and “consecrated”
Coca-Cola and potato chips. Far more widespread was the use of
home made “breads”—big black crumbly hosts containing
molasses, sugar, butter, and what have you. According to The
Angelus (July 1990) corn wine and cakes made of cassava
root are used in Novus Ordo
Africa with papal permission!
... 1 July 1969 introduced the new rite for Matrimony. It is
consistent with the inversion of the ends of matrimony found in
Vatican II and later papal documents: the “the unitive meaning
and the procreative meaning” as Pope Paul said in Humanæ
vitæ, (12), which became “the well-being of the
spouses and ... the procreation and upbringing of children” (in
that order) in Pope John Paul’s 1983 Code (n.c.1055).
While the new form of the Sacrament seems reasonable, the
inversion of emphasis might be construed as an impediment to
valid consent.
... 1969 also saw a new rite for baptism promulgated on
September 8th. It maintains the essential matter and form
(although we have seen some deviations in practice!). Curiously,
it has taken the promises previously made by the sponsors on
behalf of the child, now making them a renewal of the
sponsors’ promises and not promises on behalf of the child.
Probably not invalidating, but it does give some “wiggle
room” for the person who wants to repudiate his Baptism later
on, and for those who insist with the Protestants that
Confirmation is the ratification of promises made earlier by
someone else.
... 3 December 1970, the matter for the various Holy Oils may
now be “any vegetable oil.” An unheard of departure from the
use of olive oil. Blue Bonnet?
... 30 November 1972, Extreme Unction, already called the
Anointing of the Sick no longer brings about the forgiveness of
sins in the essential form, neither as “I forgive you,” nor
as “May the Lord forgive you.” The new form is “Through
this holy anointing may the Lord in his love and mercy help you
with the grace of the Holy Spirit. May the Lord who frees you
from sin save you and raise you up.” It says that God forgives
sins, but does not ask Him to do so. It seems to have been
reduced to a deprecatory blessing.
... 1 January 1973 brought the new rite of Confirmation. It is
rather deficient as to Sacramental form: “Be sealed with the
gift of the Holy Spirit” doesn’t really say what is going
on. I’ve been told that this is another “Eastern form” but
that begs the question, for the Easterners rarely expect a
certain short phrase to stand for or even replace the entire
ceremony as Westerners do in the concept of “essential
form.”
... 2 December 1973 ushered in the new rite for
“Reconciliation.” If anyone actually goes to Confession
anymore, this one is probably valid: “I absolve you from your
sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, + and of the
Holy Spirit.” There is no mention, though, of censures or
interdicts. The major complaint with this one was the
introduction of “Community Reconciliation” which often
became general absolution, and “priest Confession” becoming
rare. My Novus Ordo
friend relates that someone in the local parish wanted to go to
Confession, but the priest couldn’t find the key to the
reconciliation room.
... 20 July 2001. The Assyrian debacle. I
am not making this one up, although it seems like an
April Fool’s letter from the Vatican. When they feel it
necessary, Chaldean Catholics are now authorized to attend Mass
in the (non-Catholic) Assyrian Church Of The East. They
may also receive “Communion” even though there are no words
of Consecration at all in the Assyrian Liturgy. This is
not some argument about how a few words are translated—there
are no words of Consecration at all!
Again, there is no “litmus test” for validity. (Except,
perhaps for consecrating cookies, or the Assyrian thing!) Many
of the post-Vatican II changes are awfully suspect, though. They
often seem to be purposefully hanging right on the edge, so that
older people will still see the Sacraments, and coming
generations will see something quite different; so that it is
difficult or impossible to nail them down as valid or invalid.
They fit the description of Modernist writing given by Pope
Saint Pius X in Pascendi
(18): “in their books you find some things which might well be
expressed by a Catholic, but in the next page you find other
things which might have been dictated by a rationalist.” But
again, there is no excuse for Sacraments that are
doubtful—particularly when a certain Sacrament is available.
(5) I don’t mean to be offensive in this, but the actions of
the post Vatican II popes should be clear to anyone who knows
the authentic Catholic Faith and has taken the time to read the
news and the documents which have come out of the Vatican.
Perhaps that is not the average person, but I would expect it to
be many of the people on Angelqueen. Perhaps obscurity might
also arise from misplaced loyalty (the Pope above all else); the
notion that the Pope is continuously infallible in all he does
and says (papalotry or its opposite, which may not be discussed
on Angelqueen); or the belief that the Pope is a prisoner, a
clone, a double, or somehow otherwise not the author of his own
writings, and not able to do anything about any of the myriad
abuses in his Church.
(6) Saints Augustine and Aquinas can also be difficult, as they
examine the Catholic faith in great depth, and it is difficult
to read one part of their works without having other parts for
background. Archaic translations can also hinder reading of the
Fathers and Doctors.
Pope John Paul II’s writings are difficult for several
different reasons. They are far more verbose than most papal
writings—he wrote books, where most other Popes wrote
pamphlets—they say Slavic authors are paid by the pound.
Far more important, Pope John Paul’s thinking was governed by
a philosophy that is alien to the Catholic Faith. Authors like
Augustine, and particularly Aquinas, conceived of reality as
being fixed the way it is in the mind of God—“the Father of
Lights, in Whom there is no shadow of change nor
alteration”—a reality in which doctrinal truth and human
morality never changed. Pope John Paul II was bound by no such
fixed system of truth. He was an existentialist—a system not
cast in stone in the mind of God, but rather one cast in the
runny Jell-O of human opinion and consensus. John Paul was the
man of “dialogue,” a Hegellian process in which opinions
keep colliding and producing new opinions temporarily designated
as “truths” until the next collision with a new opinion.
This philosophy was condemned as recently as the encyclical Humani
generis of Pope Pius XII in 1950.
Catholic philosophy places God in the transcendent and man in
the immanent—man is important because God loves him. The
nominalism of the late part of the second millennium leaned
toward making man a trivial part of the faith. Modernism is an
over reaction to nominalism, making “man the measure of all
things” (actually an old idea borrowed from the ancient Greek,
Protagoras). It is as if man were now transcendent and God
immanent!
To understand the problem with Pope John Paul II’s writing it
is necessary to read a few of the traditional Popes’ writings
like Æterni Patris of
Leo XIII, Pascendi of
Saint Pius X, and Humani
generis of Pius XII, and then to read a few of John
Paul’s writings like Veritatis
splendor and Ut unum
sint. In Veritatis
splendor you get a taste of the “acting person”
forming his own essence through “authentic” behavior. In Ut
unum sint there are some frightening passages about
“dialogue” on essential points of doctrine, as though
doctrinal issues will go away if we but talk about them long
enough. A survey course in philosophy covering both scholastic
and modern philosophy would be helpful.
(6) “And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this
rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not
prevail against it.” Absolutely
correct! It has to be, for it is revealed by God “in
Whom there is no shadow of alteration.” The Church of God does
not just “subsist” in the Catholic Church and the Rock of
Peter, it “is”
the Catholic Church and the Rock of Peter. But that does not
mean that all of Peter’s successors will be good and holy men,
willing to defend the Faith above all else.
The first Pope not to be called “Saint” was Liberius, who
failed to stand strong against the Arians around AD 360. There
was Honorius I around 630, who was soft on the Monothelite
heresy, which denied the human will of Christ. There was the
scandal of the women Theodora and her daughter Marozia, who put
boys and men on and off the papal throne—mother or mistress to
some of them in the early tenth century. Catholic historians
agree that John XII died in flagrante
delicto, and that while living, according to Philip
Hughes, he and his friends would drink to the health of the
devil. Pope at the end of the fifteenth century, Alexander
VI’s surname “Borgia,” will ever be associated with
immorality. It is not quite a joke to say that the Catholic
Church’s survival in spite of
Her leaders is proof of Her divine protection.
Popes John XII and Alexander VI serve very well to illustrate
the current problem Both John XII and Alexander VI were truly
Popes. Not even their harshest critics challenge the validity of
their Papacies. Now, put yourself in the position of an
attractive woman invited to dinner with either of them in the
Vatican. She is seated at table with the Vicar of Christ, a man
whom she knows with deep conviction of faith to be infallible,
not only in matters of faith, but also
in matters of morals. At the end of the evening she is
invited by the Pope himself to the papal bedroom. Is she obliged
to obey the Pope’s
command? Is she disobedient
or disrespectful if she
tells him “no” in very certain terms? Is she disrespectful
if she warns all of her pretty friends against fraternizing with
him? The answer to all three questions is “no.” And, indeed,
her actions will earn her praise in heaven, where the moral law
originates.
The questions of disobedience
and disrespect are no
different when the Pope “sins between the ears rather than
between the sheets” and we are considering matters of faith
rather than morals.
Father Brian Houghton’s book Mitre
and Crook describes an encounter between Pope Alexander
VI and a Dominican mystic named Colomba. For twenty minutes the
nun berated the Pope: “You are the Vicar of Christ and act as
the vicar of Satan! You hold the Keys of the Kingdom but only
unlock brothels! ...” Everyone in the room was afraid for the
poor woman should Alexander’s temper flare. But humbly he
acknowledged: “Her spirit is from God since everything she
says is true.” In the present, the fictional Bishop Forester
says: “I could go on for well over twenty minutes. What I
doubt is whether the sixth Paul has the humility of the sixth
Alexander. Admittedly it is far more difficult to be humble if
one sins between the ears than if one sins between the sheets.
Anyway the point is perfectly clear: Colomba
was in opposition to the person of the Pope precisely out of
loyalty to the institution of the Papacy.”
The “institution of the Papacy” is that Rock upon which
Christ founded the Catholic Church. She is above the frail men
who lead Her, and it is in no way disobedient
or disrespectful or disloyal
to speak out against them when they fail in their duty of making
sure that the “gates of hell shall not prevail.” “Hell
shall not prevail” no matter what they do, but many souls may
be lost in the process if no one “resists them to their
faces.”
in XTO,
M_Eulogius |
|
M_Eulogius
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 120
|
| Posted:
Fri Feb 09, 2007 1:50 pm
Post subject: |
|
|
Saint
Cyril of Alexandria, Bishop & Doctor of the Church
| Londiniensis
wrote: |
| M_Eulogius,
Thank you for your very full response to my questions.
I have been busy the last two days and have not had
time to pen an adequate reply - I'll try as aoon as I
can. |
Believe me, I understand!! I suspect the problems of the past
half century can go unsolved for a few more days.
in XTO,
M_Eulogius |
|
Thanks go to Frater Eulogius for permission to reprint his comments!
|
