Tradicat

While not specifically about infallibility, this post is related to some of Fr. Cekada's work referenced in earlier issues of this series. I recently was challenged on another forum to "Please thoroughly read Fr. Cekada's 'Frankenchurch' article which link is provided in his post above, and then get back to me... " This was related to a question that I had asked Fr. Cekada, namely: What defide doctrines of the Church have the post-V2 Pontiffs explicitly? Father's response was: "Credo in unam ecclesiam," for one, because they profess the Frankenchurch heresy. For an explanation, see: Resisting the Pope, Sedevacantism and Frankenchurch, section II.B In my earlier review of this thesis ( part 1 , part 2 ) I had decided against writing a point by point review of the noted section because I concluded that it wasn't worth the effort since: "... Much of the remainder of the Fr. Cekada's assertions are of the same vein. He eit

What is the Faith? I'm currently studying some topics for a longer article and thought I would add this here as a good point of reference.

What is meant by the 'Rule of Faith'? In summary, it means the de fide teachings that the Church proposes for belief by Catholics.

While researching another topic I came across an article on Baptism in the Catholic Encyclopedia on Newadvent.org. For future reference I have added a pared down copy of it below. Source

When I posted the article on the  Members of the Church Militant II  quoting Dr. Ott, I was struck by the phrase: By the fulfillment of these three conditions one subjects oneself to the threefold office of the Church. the sacerdotal office (Baptism), the teaching office (Confession of Faith), and the pastoral office (obedience to the Church authority). Some Catholics, have issues with the faithful who rely upon the SSPX for the sacraments because of the phrase " obedience to the Church authority".  For example, why do I insist upon going to the SSPX Mass Centre when there is an diocesan Parish that also offers the Tridentine Mass?

There is some question as to whether the Pope can be in actual schism as per the Cardinal Torquemada: Citing the doctrine of Pope Innocent III, Torquemada further teaches:  "Thus it is that Pope Innocent III states [De Consuetudine] that, it is necessary to obey the Pope in all things as long as he, himself, does not go against the universal customs of the Church, but should he go against the universal customs of the Church, 'he need not be followed' . . . " [Cited from A Theological Vindication of Roman Catholic Traditionalism, Father Paul Kramer, B.Ph., S.T.D., M. Div. (2nd edition, St. Francis Press, India) p. 29. The full quotation from Cardinal Torquemada reads, "By disobedience, the Pope can separate himself from Christ despite the fact that he is head of the Church, for above all, the unity of the Church is dependent on its relationship with Christ. The Pope can separate himself from Christ either by disobeying the law of Christ, or by commanding som

As a follow up to some of the items discussed in Part 1 and Part 2 of this series - I wanted to add the following: With regard to the doctrinal teaching of the Church it must be well noted that not all the assertions of the Teaching Authority of the Church on questions of Faith and morals are infallible and consequently irrevocable. Only those are infallible which emanate from General Councils representing the whole episcopate, and the Papal Decisions Ex Cathedra (c£ D 1839). The ordinary and usual form of the Papal teaching activity is not infallible. Further, the decisions of the Roman Congregations (Holy Office, Bible Commission) are not infallible. Nevertheless normally they are to be accepted with an inner assent which is based on the high supernatural authority of the Holy See (assensus internus supernaturalis, assensus religiosus). The so-called "silentium obiequiosum." that is " reverent silence" does not generally suffice. By way of exception. the obli

I came across this article on Catholicapologetics.info and realized that it would mesh nicely with part 1 of this topic. I also have included the full text of the letter to Archbishop Cushing. The doctrine 'Outside the Church There is No Salvation' - is usually misunderstood by both Modern and Traditional Catholics. These two references provide a good overview of the Church teaching on this matter.

For my own reference!

The following was my reason for starting this blog: The first goal of this blog is to provide a venue to post and discuss different approaches to help the Church to emerge from this crisis. I want to discuss and develop ways to move forward, hence the title of the blog. I had thought that the bulk of the work  / discussion would focus on helping 'Modern Catholics' to adjust to a Church that they haven't known.  Hence the series on the ' Wedge ' focusing on some core elements of Catholic Culture that have been forgotten or worse suppressed since the Second Vatican Council. That was before I became heavily involved in discussions (read: arguments) with people who have separated themselves from the SSPX because of the willingness to obey a legitimate command of the Vicar of Christ when such a command is given.

I've been aware for sometime that the originator of the 'Big Bang Theory' was a Catholic priest.  I was not aware that his accepted theory supports the conclusion that " time, space and matter actually did begin at a moment of creation, and that The Universe will end".

A friend passed this on to me and as usual I place it here for your edification as much as my own! Demon, your name is “laziness” and “distaste” for hard work. By the joyful mysteries of the Lord’s Life, be gone. Demon your name “refusal of any suffering” and an “resentment at the cross.” By the sorrowful mysteries of our Lord’s life, be gone. Demon your name is “forgetfulness of heaven” and “obsession with the passing world.” By the glorious mysteries of Lord’s life and our Lady’s too, be gone. Pope Leo XIII encyclical on the Rosary Perhaps something to be said before each mystery to help meditation?

Well the timing of the discussion could not have been more appropriate.  An official english translation has been published. While I have yet to read the official english translation (what took so long?) in its entirety,  I have looked at Article 5.2: §2  Celebration according to the Missal of Blessed  John XXIII  can take place on weekdays; on Sundays and feast days, however, such a celebration may also take place. So what do we find?  The word 'one' does not appear in the translation. In its place we have the word 'a', although I'm certain some will read this as 'only one'. Additional Thought: What does the first article state? Art 1.  The Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the lex orandi (rule of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite.  The Roman Missal promulgated by Saint Pius V and revised by Blessed John XXIII is nonetheless to be considered an extraordinary expression of the same lex orandi o

Introduction After reviewing Summorum Pontificum in part 1 , the only issue with Summorum Pontificum that I wanted to explore further was article 5.2: Art. 5. § 2 Celebration in accordance with the Missal of Bl. John XXIII may take place on working days; while on Sundays and feast days one such celebration may also be held. Since this appears to be a restriction, I wanted to know how this fit into the law of the Church and why there is an apparent contravening of this law by the FSSP and Canons of St. John Cantius. In other words is this really a restriction on the priest or is it something else within the juridical structure of the Church.

On one web forum the following argument was put forth as a reason for not attending the Masses offered by the SSPX. The SSPX is officially willing to make a canonical agreement without a doctrinal resolution, so long as Rome gives the SSPX the right to teach the Faith and condemn the errors of Vatican II against the same Faith. However, the SSPX does not demand from Rome the same as part of the agreement. This position contains an implicit but necessary admission that Rome has the right to teach those errors it currently holds; this position reduces the Faith to opinions; this position is a non-Catholic variant of ecumenism/religious liberty. The SSPX leaders and the priests who consent to this position, either explicitly or by their silence, are hence co-operating in objective grave sin, at least on the level of principle.