Tuesday, January 15, 2019

Frank Sheed and Fr. Feeney

Frank Sheed has become a Catholic hero among many conservative Catholics with good reason. He taught the Faith clearly and succinctly

Frank Sheed, Fr. Feeney's former publisher, opined in his autobiography, The Church and I, that Fr. Feeney "was condemned but not answered."

Boston was in the headlines again when the scandals of sexual predator priests surfaced majorly there.

This called another popular Catholic writer to revisit the city of Boston.
Catholic World News editor Philip F. Lawler described the case of Father Leonard Feeney as the first of several times the archbishops of Boston would compromise the Catholic faith for the sake of good politics and cordial relations with the secular powers that be in his 2008 book "The Faithful Departed: The Collapse of Boston's Catholic Culture",.he wrote :

Is the Vatican's recent agreement with China, heretical?

While it is not clear what was totally agreed to with China, it is getting close to serious error.

Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Chapter 3. On the power and character of the primacy of the Roman pontiff #7:
"And therefore we condemn and reject the opinions of those who hold that
this communication of the supreme head with pastors and flocks may be lawfully obstructed; or that
it should be dependent on the civil power, which leads them to maintain that what is determined by the apostolic see or by its authority concerning the government of the church, has no force or effect unless it is confirmed by the agreement of the civil authority."

Monday, January 14, 2019

St. Benedict Center--Sanctioned

Pope Francis and his lackeys are going too far.They are going to lose this battle. Fr. Feeney was never given an official hearing. Because he had dogma on his side. We don't think these clerics really understand the teachings of the Church. It may take some time, but the Modernists will lose this one.

Thursday, January 3, 2019

Guidelines for the Reception of Communion



Guidelines for the Reception  of  Communion [From  Novus Ordo Missalette]

".... A person  who is conscious of grave sin is not to receive the Body and Blood  of the Lord without sacramental confession [editor: now comes the slight of hand, saying the complete opposite] except for  a grave reason where there is no opportunity for confession. In this case, the person is to be mindful of the obligation to make a perfect act of contrition, including the intention of confessing as soon as possible (Code of Canon Law, canon 916). ..."

Here is the canon:

"Can.  916 A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition which includes the resolution of confessing as soon as possible."

This is strange wording: "A PERSON who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass"
What does this mean "a PERSON,"?   Does it mean a lay faithful, who is in grave sin MAY NOT go to Mass? Or is it speaking of a priest saying Mass? It seems like it would mean a priest, but that is NOT what it is making clear. Law should be clear, the above makes no distinction  between priests and the ordinary faithful.


Canon 807 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law stipulated:

    "A PRIEST conscious of having committed a mortal sin, even though he considers himself to have true contrition, may not celebrate Holy Mass without first availing himself of sacramental confession; if, in the absence of a confessor and [simultaneously] in a case of necessity, and after having made a perfect act of contrition, he has indeed celebrated, he will go to sacramental confession as soon as possible."
But even the 1917 Code though making a distinction between Lay Faithful and priest, has a separate canon for the Layman:

In canon 856 of the 1917 Canon Law:

    "Anyone having a mortal sin weighing on his conscience must not receive Holy Communion without first having recourse to sacramental confession, even though he considers himself to have true contrition; in the case of necessity and in the absence of a confessor, he must first make a perfect act of contrition."

There were debates even as far back as 1917 of lay people of necessity receiving communion. Some speculated that a layman may have to protect from profanation of the Eucharist.

But both the code of canon law of 1917 and 1983 seem at odds with a de fide proclamation of the council or Trent, that lay people never have a necessity to receive the Eucharist in the state of Mortal Sin.



 SESSION THE THIRTEENTH, Pope Julius III., October,11,  1551,

DECREE CONCERNING THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST




CHAPTER VII.

    On the preparation to be given that one may worthily receive the sacred Eucharist.

        If it is unbeseeming for any one to approach to any of the sacred functions, unless he approach holily; assuredly, the more the holiness and divinity of this heavenly sacrament are understood by a Christian, the more diligently ought he to give heed that he approach not to receive it but with great reverence and holiness, especially as we read in the Apostle those WORDS FULL OF TERROR; He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself. Wherefore, he who would communicate, ought to recall to mind the precept of the Apostle; Let a man prove himself. Now ecclesiastical usage declares that necessary proof to be, that NO ONE, conscious to himself  of mortal sin, HOW CONTRITE SOEVER HE MAY SEEM TO HIMSELF, ought to approach to the sacred Eucharist WITHOUT PREVIOUS SACRAMENTAL CONFESSION. This the holy Synod hath decreed is to be invariably observed by all Christians, even by those priests on whom it may be incumbent by their office to celebrate, provided the opportunity of a confessor do not fail them; but if, in an urgent necessity, a priest should celebrate without previous confession, let him confess as soon as possible.




CANON XI.-

        lf any one saith, that faith alone is a sufficient preparation for receiving the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist; let him be anathema.

        And for fear lest so great a sacrament may be received unworthily, and so unto death and condemnation, this holy Synod ordains and declares, that sacramental confession, when a confessor may be had, is of necessity to be made beforehand, by those whose conscience is burdened with mortal sin, HOW CONTRITE EVEN SOEVER THEY MAY THINK THEMSELVES. But if any one shall presume to teach, preach, or obstinately to assert, or even in public disputation to defend the contrary, he shall be thereupon excommunicated.

Both Canon Laws , 1917 and 1983 but make exceptions for those who are contriete but Trent says no exceptions for laymen:

    "Let a man prove himself. Now ecclesiastical usage declares that necessary proof to be, that NO ONE, conscious to himself  of mortal sin, HOW CONTRITE SOEVER HE MAY SEEM TO HIMSELF, ought to approach to the sacred Eucharist WITHOUT PREVIOUS SACRAMENTAL CONFESSION."


The ONLY exception Trent gives,  was for a priests, of URGENT necessity, who has a mortal sin and cannot get to confession and who must say Mass.  That is it. No Layman has the need to receive in mortal sin, according to Trent.







Friday, December 21, 2018

Bishop Barron denies the Faith



Bishop Barron is  a heretic. He doesn't even try to hide it anymore.

He says that an atheist  can be saved , as an atheist.

No an atheist nor a Jew can be saved where they are they need to accept Jesus and Baptism.

Lets us re-post

Vatican II and EENS

Many use Vatican II to say that non-Catholics can be saved. When we say non-Catholics we will limited it for now for the sake of argument to the non-sacramentally-baptized and/or without explicit Faith in Jesus as Lord and Savior.

Let us look at the full paragraph of Vatican II :

Tuesday, November 20, 2018

Russian Catholic Converts

Here is an interesting new You Tube channel: The Russian Catholic Insider. Some Russians have been converting to the Catholic Church. They are Byzantine Catholics.
it won't let me embed the video so I will but a link to their channel.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLNdwKdtgX0&fbclid=IwAR39sq0yxMbVQo7wwBKBo_dHEitD0A0mztAF6wqRalOWDbBmlZDK8ZCySTU

Sunday, September 16, 2018

Orphans of Orthodoxy (what is a Trad ?) ~ Faith, Family and Friends in the Age of Apostasy ~



By CHRISTOPHER GAWLEY
If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
- Luke 14:26
It is a difficult day to be alive.
Just a few generations ago, the Catholic touchstones of the three “F’s” (friendship, family and faith) were the three “C’s” (convergence, consistency and constancy). We lived a shared heritage in which we were born, lived, married, celebrated, mourned and died together. Catholicism provided a consistent framework for both knowledge and behaviour — for ethics and morality. The expectations of how to live and how others expected us to live was clear and constant. In other words, our relationships — with God, our kin and our friends and acquaintances — converged with an intimacy that only a shared culture can provide.

As any Catholic with eyes and ears can testify, we live in a very different time. The common culture that defined the lives of Catholics is gone; tragically so. Those souls who seek today to keep alive the vestiges of that once glorious Catholic culture have been orphaned — orphaned by the very leaders of the Catholic Church and by almost all other baptised Catholics, including, most painfully, their own families. The restoration is not without its terrible crosses.

Catholics and the Culture of Old
It was not that long ago when the Catholics understood what was expected of them. These expectations were underscored by positive and negative obligations. We were affirmatively expected, for example: to marry in Holy Mother Church; to baptise, raise, and educate our children in the Faith; to support the Church financially, socially and politically; and to take part personally in the sacramental life of the Church. In sum, we were expected to show a commitment to the teachings of Jesus Christ by being faithful to the Catholic Church. We enjoyed what was then a mutually symbiotic relationship: we supported, loved and venerated Holy Mother Church and, in turn, she jealously guarded us, her flock.

EXPOSED! Vatican II & the ViganĂ² Effect

We at Catholicvox have wanted to stay focused on the doctrinal problems in the Church, but this fiasco, needs comment. While we at Catholicvox are not technically Trads. We have always been sympathetic to the Trads.

For the Neo-Catholics to call Trads, "Rad-Trads" (ie. Radical Traditionalist), always made us bristle. How could being just Catholic as all the Church was before Vatican II be considered, RADICAL?

While we don't see a return, to the Traditional Tridentine Mass, (TLM--Tradition Latin Mass) any time soon, since we have fallen away from the norm of Sacred Tradition so much. We do hope for a "Latinization" of the Novus Ordo.

We also bristle, at calling the TLM, the "Extraordinary Form." Why ? Because this is a ploy to distance  the norm of tradition from the TLM. It also changed the name of the Novus Ordo to "Ordinary Form." Why? Because the term Novus Ordo is very close to the Masonic, "Novus Ordo Seclorum,"-- The New World Order. This is not by chance imho.

The Church had a hostel takeover at Vatican II. We still think God can use this mess for good, but let's be honest-- it is a mess.

We know many good men who wouldn't dare to enter seminary for fear of not being allowed to preach the dogmas of the Faith, or fear of being raped. 


Tuesday, September 11, 2018

The Fruits of Baptism of Desire ?

[editor- Because of the recent scandals, many priests are trying to convince people not leave. Among them, is Bishop Barron, who has a weak argument. But since he thinks  de facto: "all are save"-- why not leave? If you are saved any faith and it doesn't matter what you believe. ? Barron's argument is to stay Catholic because it is "nice." But let's consider the problems with BoD. We take this from a forum on the topic https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/ladislaus-drew-subborn-please-proof-read/ ]



Baptism of desire (BOD) denies the necessity of the sacrament of baptism for salvation.

BOD mocks the sacrament of baptism because it is not a sacrament. It is not an outward sign instituted by Christ. It is not a gateway to the other sacraments, does not impart the baptismal character, all things the church teaches are part of justification and necessary for salvation, and which are the very characteristics of true baptism.

BOD promotes the Protestant heresy that faith alone saves.

BOD leads many Catholics to believe abortion is a source of hope for infants since infants are not guilty of actual sin.

BOD contradicts the Catholic teaching: One Lord, one faith, one baptism, since, BOD, by definition, is not the same as baptism, but something entirely different.

Advocates admit BOD does not make anyone a member of the Church. Since the church teaches that there is no salvation outside the Church, BOD cannot save.

BOD promotes laxity and indifferentism because many Catholics often rest in a person's desire for heaven rather than do the work to help get the person baptized.

BOD is nothing like baptism because the grace is not assured.

BOD is not true baptism because the water and words are missing.