Catholicism


Pope Francis has deposed a bishop with no process while making no charges against him. Perhaps there is some secret explanation for this but there does not appear to be. This seems to be an almost insanely arbitrary use of ordinary universal jurisdiction.  

St Gregory the Great, pray for us!

“My honour is the honour of the whole Church. My honour is the steadfast strength of my brethren. Then do I receive true honour, when it is denied to none of those to whom honour is due.” St Gregory the Great, Ep. ad Eulog. Alexandrin. (Letter to Eulogius of Alexandria), VIII 29 (30) (MGH, Ep. 2, 31 28-30, PL 77, 933).

Can the Pope Just Fire a Bishop?

Canon 3

“It has come to the notice of the sacred synod that some of those enrolled in the clergy are, for sordid gain, acting as hired managers of other people’s property, and are involving themselves in worldly business, neglecting the service of God, frequenting the houses of worldly persons and taking over the handling of property out of avarice. So the sacred and great synod has decreed that in future no one, whether a bishop, a cleric or a monk, should either manage property or involve himself as an administrator of worldly business, unless he is legally and unavoidably summoned to take care of minors, or the local bishop appoints him to attend, out of fear of the Lord, to ecclesiastical business or to orphans and unprovided widows and persons in special need of ecclesiastical support. If in future anyone attempts to transgress these decrees, he must be subject to ecclesiastical penalties.”

Of the beliefs and practices whether generally accepted or publicly enjoined which are preserved in the Church some we possess derived from written teaching; others we have received delivered to us in a mystery by the tradition of the apostles; and both of these in relation to true religion have the same force. And these no one will gainsay — no one, at all events, who is even moderately versed in the institutions of the Church. For were we to attempt to reject such customs as have no written authority, on the ground that the importance they possess is small, we should unintentionally injure the Gospel in its very vitals; or, rather, should make our public definition a mere phrase and nothing more. For instance, to take the first and most general example, who is thence who has taught us in writing to sign with the sign of the cross those who have trusted in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ? What writing has taught us to turn to the East at the prayer? Which of the saints has left us in writing the words of the invocation at the displaying of the bread of the Eucharist and the cup of blessing? For we are not, as is well known, content with what the apostle or the Gospel has recorded, but both in preface and conclusion we add other words as being of great importance to the validity of the ministry, and these we derive from unwritten teaching.

Domine, Quo Vadis?, C. 1602' Giclee Print - Annibale Carracci | Art.com

But can the Roman Pontiff juridically abrogate the Usus Antiquior? The fullness of power (plenitudo potestatis) of the Roman Pontiff is the power necessary to defend and promote the doctrine and discipline of the Church. It is not “absolute power” which would include the power to change doctrine or to eradicate a liturgical discipline which has been alive in the Church since the time of Pope Gregory the Great and even earlier. The correct interpretation of Article 1 [of Traditionis custodes] cannot be the denial that the Usus Antiquior is an ever-vital expression of “the lex orandi of the Roman Rite.” Our Lord Who gave the wonderful gift of the Usus Antiquior will not permit it to be eradicated from the life of the Church. It must be remembered that, from a theological point of view, every valid celebration of a sacrament, by the very fact that it is a sacrament, is also, beyond any ecclesiastical legislation, an act of worship and, therefore, also a profession of faith. In that sense, it is not possible to exclude the Roman Missal, according to the Usus Antiquior, as a valid expression of the lex orandi and, therefore, of the lex credendi of the Church. It is a question of an objective reality of divine grace which cannot be changed by a mere act of the will of even the highest ecclesiastical authority.

https://www.cardinalburke.com/presentations/traditionis-custodes

Karl

Remember, O Lord, our most devout and faithful Emperor Charles, whom you have set to rule on the earth. Crown him with a weapon of truth, a weapon of good will; let your shadow fall upon his head in the day of war; strengthen his arm, exalt his right-hand, establish his empire; subdue beneath him all barbarous nations that desire to make war; grant him deep and enduring peace; speak good things to his heart for your Church and for all your people; so that by his tranquility we may lead quiet and peaceful lives, in all piety and purity.

In a passage in John Paul II’s Catechism entitled “The Necessity of Baptism” the CCC (1257) asserts “The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude”. It goes on the insist that “God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.” Nevertheless, the earlier statement is striking in its implications, implications which seem generally to be overlooked. If the Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude the fact that good could save people without baptism does not at all entitle us to teach that He will do so. When various saints have claimed that some persons are saved without baptism this must either be taken as pure speculation or one must take the CCC as rejecting their claims. Indeed, John 3:5 “Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” might very well be taken as asserting as a matter of fact no one dies in a state of grace who has not been sacramentally baptised. Perhaps this cannot be safely taught but can it be safely denied?

theflock

Through a large part of the world all public Masses have been cancelled. Why? Supermarkets are open. If absolutely necessary the civil authorities could have said that food could be delivered only. Instead it has been judged by the temporal power that the risks of people using supermarkets can be diminished and controlled. Man does not live by bread alone. Groceries are necessary. Surely the Bread of Life is more necessary than the bread which perishes. The ventilation of Churches could be investigated along with their safe maximum capacity while maintaining the necessary distance between individuals and households and parishioners could sign up for a fixed number of places. Priests can say three Masses a day in cases (such as this) of pastoral necessity. Why are bishops not doing this? Where is their zeal for souls?

For most clerics today the sign of peace, communion under both kinds, universal reception of  communion, concelebration and extraordinary ministers are not questionable novelties that ought to be phased out but are non-negotiable essential elements of the liturgy. If these practices were missing from the Mass it were better (for this generation) if Mass were not said at all. If particles of the Eucharist are not being scattered over the fitted carpets and cloths soaked in the Precious Blood are not being discarded in a bag in the sacristy, if men and women in habitual grave sin are not eating and drinking condemnation upon themselves then why are we here?

If these practices were eliminated and the liturgy still celebrated the laity might start getting funny ideas. They might question whether they really need to be be reintroduced. God might start pouring down graces upon the Church. Vocations, conversions, orthodoxy, sanctity might at any moment rise from their unquiet graves and trouble the clerical bureaucracy and start questioning its conduct or even its sincerity. If receiving the Eucharist were really that important then the faith might be certain and true and a proper basis for civil and social life and worth dying for (shudder). The joy and the hope, the fear and the anguish of the followers of Christ might not, after all, entirely overlap with the joy and the hope, the fear and the anguish of the men of our time after all.

So the churches must close, especially those which offer the actual Roman Rite instead of the manufactured fabrication, the banal on-the-spot product currently traded under that name. Once again holy obedience is demanded by the wolves and the hired men in order to destroy the faith of the little ones and extinguish the perpetual sacrifice. If possible confession should be banned.

“Take heed to yourselves and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the Church of God which he hath purchased with his own blood. I know that after my departure ravening wolves will enter in among you, not sparing the flock.” (Acts 20:28-29)

“I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd giveth his life for his sheep. But the hireling and he that is not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming and leaveth the sheep and flieth: and the wolf casteth and scattereth the sheep, And the hireling flieth, because he is a hireling: and he hath no care for the sheep. I am the good shepherd: and I know mine, and mine know me. As the Father knoweth me, and I know the Father: and I lay down my life for my sheep. ” (John 10:11-15)

Bede: The Life and Miracles of Saint Cuthbert, Bishop of Lindesfarne (721)

CHAPTER XXXIII

HOW, AT A TIME OF SICKNESS, HE RESTORED A DYING BOY IN HEALTH TO HIS MOTHER

AT the same time the plague made great ravages in those parts, so that there were scarcely any inhabitants left in villages and places which had been thickly populated, and some towns were wholly deserted. The holy father Cuthbert, therefore, went round his parish, most assiduously ministering the word of God, and comforting those few who were left. But being arrived at a certain village, and having there exhorted all whom he found there, he said to his attendant priest, ” Do you think that any one remains who has need that we should visit and converse with him? or have we now seen all here, and shall we go elsewhere? ” The priest looked about, and saw a woman standing afar off, one of whose sons had died but a little time before, and she was now supporting another at the point of death, whilst the tears trickling down her cheek bore witness to her past and present affliction. He pointed her out to the man of God, who immediately went to her, and, blessing the boy, kissed him, and said to his mother, ” Do not fear nor be sorrowful; for your child shall be healed and live, and no one else of your household shall die of this pestilence.” To the truth of which prophecy the mother and son, who lived a long time after that, bore witness.

Cardinal Allen describes the sinful compromises undertaken by English Catholics fearing the persecution of the Elizabethan government:

“…even many priests, after saying Mass in secret, publicly on the very same day, conducted the heretical services, thus in a most wicked way sharing the chalice of the Lord with the chalice of the devil. They did this because they falsely thought it was sufficient if they held to their faith by inward assent while obeying the government in outward actions.”

– T. F. Knox, Letters and Memorials of Cardinal Allen, 56.

Council-Florence

Nicaea I

Constantinople I

Ephesus

Chalcedon

Constantinople II

Constantinople III

Nicaea II

Constantinople IV

Lateran I

Lateran II

Lateran III

Lateran IV

Lyons I

Lyons II

Vienne

Constance

Florence

Lateran V

Trent

Vatican I

Vatican II

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Next Page »