You're right, Sg, there was no clear connection! I guess my reaction was based on my acknowledgement that what you say about Modernists is true, but then jumping to the question of what can I do for those who are confused. Minister to their hearts (via what I suggested) first; then when their hearts are reassured by the Love of Christ, speak to their minds. I don't necessarily think rushing in to clarify correct doctrine is the best first step in a one-to-one relationship. Orthodox homilies or good books can help address the doctrinal confusion. Safe in the Refuge of the Sacred Heart!
"St. Pius X was the first to clearly identify Modernism, that subversive rebellion against fixed moral norms and religious belief, as the synthesis of all heresies and as the hidden enemy within the Church. Though he unmasked Modernism, with his Encyclical Pascendi, he failed to uproot it and, like the cockle (43) in the field, it continued growing and developing ideals, doctrines and goals that were quite alien, if not diametrically opposed to the Catholic Church. Thus, Modernism, remaining within the Catholic Church, has metastasised into the anti-Church. It is self-evident that the Catholic Church and the anti-Church currently co-exist in the same sacramental, liturgical and juridical space. The latter, having grown stronger, is now attempting to pass itself off as the true Church, all the better to induct, or coerce, the faithful into becoming adherents, promoters and defenders of a secular ideology (44). Should the anti-Church succeed in commandeering all the space of the true Church, the rights of man will supplant the rights of God through the desecration of the sacraments, the sacrilege of the sanctuary, and the abuse of apostolic power. Thus, politicians who vote for abortion and same-sex “marriage” will be welcome at the Communion rails; husbands and wives who have abandoned their spouses and children and entered into adulterous relationships will be admitted to the sacraments; priests and theologians who publicly reject Catholic doctrines and morals will be at liberty to exercise ministry and to spread dissent, while faithful Catholics will be marginalised, maligned and discredited at every turn. Thus, the anti-Church would succeed in achieving its goal of dethroning God as Creator, Saviour and Sanctifier and replacing Him with man the self-creator, the self-saviour and the self-sanctifier" https://voiceofthefamily.com/the-ca...e-sacramental-liturgical-and-juridical-space/ +
Maybe you should create a thread. We are back to square one where Padraig said we do not have to obey wicked pastors on questions of Faith and morals. This article upholds that.
Your quote is from a speech given at a conference in Rome several years back. It is the opinion of the speaker. It is dangerous to say that now there is the 'Catholic Church" and the "Anti-Church." It implies one can tell the difference by relying on one's own judgement, and that one is not obligated to follow any rulings of the "Anti-Church." That seems very Protestant to me. "Every man a Pope..."
It’s very dangerous. I have posted several warnings before on this forum about being very careful what we choose to read and believe. People are now believing the opinions of others and not Catholic Truth. We can find anything online to substantiate how we feel. And then we believe it and spread it to others. And then we grow frustrated when we cannot seem to make other people believe the way we do. It’s a never ending circle. Thank you, Christy, for bringing this to light. It is Protestant.
I find it interesting that St. Cyprian, of all Saints, was cited. Now St. Cyprian himself said Union with the Chair of St. Peter was the defining mark of Catholic Unity, and that secession from that same Chair was the certain mark of schism. "If he abandon the Chair of Peter, on which the Church is founded, can he be confident that he is still in the Church?". And so the right way to avoid schism is to have the firm conviction that the Church, by the Will and Word of God, is founded on St. Peter and his Successors, and that we cannot and must not ever separate from them if we wish to remain in the Unity of the Catholic Church against all schism. St. Cyprian was a great Saint, but he made one mistake; he believed in re-baptism, and denied the validity of baptism administered outside the Church. The Donatists in fact, who arose after St. Cyprian's death, made use of St. Cyprian's writings, when they fell into schism by separating from the Chair of Peter. As Wiki notes, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donatism Donatists were condemned by Pope Miltiades, but they schismatically persisted, insisting that they were the "true Church". Finally, St. Augustine and St. Optatus, who also heavily emphasized the absolute necessity of union with the Successor of St. Peter, largely ended the Donatist schism. We must avoid ALL grave sin: especially heresy, schism, apostasy, which sever us from the Church Herself. All other ordinary mortal sins do not do that, but we must of course avoid them too. Let's love and support our good orthodox Catholic Bishops and Cardinals who are fighting the good fight and pray for the erring ones to correct themselves or be corrected by the Lord in His good time. Our Lady in Quito promised us "the Prelate who would restore the Spirit of Her Priests" after this crisis ends.
St Cyprian himself actually rejected the accusation that he believed in re-baptism, because he considered only the baptism within the church to be a valid or true baptism. When Stephen, Bishop of Rome, Had by His Letters Condemned the Decrees of the African Council on the Baptism of Heretics, Cyprian lost no time in Holding Another Council at Carthage with a Greater Number of Bishops. Having Therefore Summoned Eighty-Seven Bishops from Africa, Numidia, and Mauritania, Who Assembled at Carthage in the Kalends of September, a.d. 258, This Third Council on the Same Matter of Baptism Was Then Celebrated; At the Beginning of Which, After, the Letters on Either Side Had Been Read, Cyprian, by Implication, Condemns the Assumption of Stephen. The following are some quotes from the bishops: Crescens of Cirta said: In such an assembly of most holy fellow priests, as the letters of our most beloved Cyprian to Jubaianus and also to Stephen have been read, containing in them so much of the holy testimonies which descend from the divinely made Scriptures, that with reason we ought, all being made one by the grace of God, to consent to them; I judge that all heretics and schismatics who wish to come to the Catholic Church, shall not be allowed to enter without they have first been exorcised and baptized; with the exception of those indeed who may previously have been baptized in the CatholicChurch, and these in such a way that they may be reconciled to the penitence of the Church by the imposition of hands. Adelphius of Thasvalte said: Certain persons without reason impugn the truth by false and envious words, in saying that we rebaptize, when the Church does not rebaptize heretics, but baptizes them. Sattius of Sicilibba said: If to heretics in baptism their sins are remitted, they come to the Church without reason. Ahymnus of Ausvaga said: We have received one baptism, and that same we maintain and practise. But he who says that heretics also may lawfully baptize, makes two baptisms. Saturninus of Victoriana said: If heretics may baptize, they who do unlawful things are excused and defended; nor do I see why either Christ should have called them adversaries, or the apostle should have called them Antichrists. Julianus of Telepte said: It is written, No man can receive anything unless it have been given him from heaven. If heresy is from heaven, it can also give baptism. Faustus of Timida Regia said: Let not them who are in favour of heretics flatter themselves. He who interferes with the baptism of the Church on behalf of heretics, makes them Christians, and us heretics. Rogatianus of Nova said: Christ instituted the Church; the devil, heresy. How can the synagogue of Satan have the baptism of Christ? Another Saturninus of Avitini said: If Antichrist can give to any one the grace of Christ, heretics also are able to baptize, for they are called antichrists. Also another Aurelius of Chullabi said: John the apostle laid it down in his epistle, saying: If any one come unto you, and have not the doctrine of Christ, receive him not into your house, and say not to him, Hail. For he that says to him, Hail, partakes with his evil deeds. How can such be rashly admitted into God's house, who are prohibited from being admitted into our private dwelling? Or how can we hold communion with them without the Church's baptism, to whom, if we should only say Hail, we are partakers of their evil deeds? https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0508.htm +
As I replied Padraig, the context of what Jesus said about obeying what the Pharisees preach but do not practise themselves is that the Pharisees were actually preaching the truth and the laws. If 'wicked pastors' preach what has been handed down from Jesus through the Apostles, then yes, we obey them even if they fall into grievous sin themselves. But if they are preaching against the Gospel of Christ, are they still pastors? Or wolves? Minions of the devil? +
Yes, that speaker was Fr Linus Clovis. And I agree with what he said. That there is a Catholic Church and Anti-Church co-existing is very obvious to me. If you don't agree, so be it. +
We must be obedient in all things lawful. It seems to me mostly a matter of common sense. God never intended simple Obedience to be like a complicated exercise in Quantum Physics. God does simple. It is the devil who dies complicated. I am concerned that there is a Bad Spirit at work here.
Galatians 1 No Other Gospel 6 I wonder that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ, unto another gospel. 7Which is not another, only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 8But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. 9As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema. 10For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? If I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ. +
You know, Sg, Martin Luther was absolutely correct in his criticisms of the church in his day. But his breaking with the church led to disaster. I do not have much sympathy for those who proudly proclaim they can no longer tolerate the church and must go to form a purer church. They come to the same end as Luther. .
Padraig, what is complicated about what I have said? Please point it out. Does not St Paul say that anyone who preaches a Gospel contrary to what he has preached should be anathema? How can a man, be it a pope, cardinal, bishop or priest, who preaches against the Gospel of Christ, still have lawful authority, when that authority was conferred solely to preach Christ's Gospel and shepherd His sheep? +
You must have not read St Cyprian's treatise. It is not I nor the rest of the faithful who have left the Church, but those who preach a Gospel different from that of Christ's. You keep labelling me a Protestant. Then what do you call those in the Church who worship Pachamama? +
No one in the Church worships Pacamama. That is not part of our liturgy, nor is is part of tradition, faith and morals. Some idiot put them out to show unity with indigenous people or some other stupidity. It was a ghastly mistake, and the Pope should apologize. Again, Donatism. You must not have read St. Augustine. Are you at the point where you think Francis is a false pope? .
I didn't say innocent, Sg. But this is not the point of this thread. How far removed are you from the Catholic Church? As far as I can tell, you are arguing the Donatist point of view. That is not good. Where do you stand on Pope Francis--valid pope or not? .
