Saturday, August 24, 2013

ODDS & ENDS

For there is good news yet to hear ... Chesterton

Editor's Note: As we await delivery through an interlibrary loan of Palazzini-De Jorio's Casus Conscientiae, we thought a short update on two topics might be in order for a busy end-of-August weekend. (You'll recall from our August 4 post that the Blunderer's transcription of a short passage from their book was rendered so untrustworthy by his mistakes that we couldn't comment on the content until we had a chance to consult the original book.)

UPDATE 1:

In Bonehead's Botch Revisited, we posted two additional independent translations as part of our effort to prove that nobody except the Latin-challenged Blunderer reads Pius's Latin words eamque unam as "one and the same." Today we add two more instances, sent to us by correspondents from Europe and Latin America, for a total, at present, of nine. The first is from the German translation of Denzinger* :

[D]ie Materie der Heiligen Weihen des Diakonates, Presbyterates und Episkopates - und zwar die einzige - ist die Auflegung der Hände... 
(Literally: The matter of the Holy Orders of the Diaconate, Presbyterate and Episcopate - and that is the only one - is the imposition of hands...)
The second is from the 1963 Herder edition of Denzinger translated into Spanish by the authoritative Ruiz Bueno**:
... la materia única de las sagradas órdenes del diaconado, presbiterado y episcopado es la imposición de las manos...
(Literally: ...the only matter of the sacred orders of the diaconate, priesthood, and episcopate is the imposition of hands...)
Don't all of you out there in cyberspace believe by now that the Blunderer's monograph might just represent the only time the phrase "one and the same" has appeared in print in any civilized language as a translation of Pius's eamque unam? Who else could have come up with such a stupidly outré rendering? And to think that Wee Dan bet the farm on such idiocy when all he had to do was to petition for conditional orders before his 1993 consecration. Twenty years of doubt and insinuation, for Pete's sake! How could he bear it? Surely, there is no one who will still defend Tony Baloney, not even the most warped, spittle-stained zombie-cultist in captivity -- or even Dannie and the rest of the lumpen clergy.

UPDATE 2

On August 11, we reported on "One Hand's" surprise announcement that the Rev. Mr. Nkamuke will be ordained in Florida and not at the SW Ohio industrial-park & cult center. At the time, we didn't know whether Dannie or the rector was going to ordain in the swampland. Since then, several correspondents have told us that the ordaining bishop will be the rector himself. The alleged reason for the change of venue and bishop is that the Rev. Mr. Nkamuke will return to his homeland after ordination and thus will not indenture himself as one of Dannie's clerical flunkies at the cult's creepy head quarters. Therefore, there was no need for "One Hand" to ordain (even though, LOL, supposedly, a November ordination is a long-standing "tradition" during the Butler County cult follies).

If these reports are true, then the reason for the change sounds to us like a lot of face-saving hogwash. The last time we checked SGGResources.org, Dannie's digital begging bowl, it said (right under the prominent "DONATE") that the St. Gertrude's Bishop's Apostolate "[s]upports Bp. Dolan's episcopal work in America, Mexico, France, and Nigeria."

Given that, according to his own website, "One-Hand" has an apostolate in Nigeria, wouldn't it, then, make the most sense for him, not the rector, to ordain the Rev. Mr. Nkamuke, a son of Nigeria? Wouldn't that seal the bond between prelate and people more than anything else? Wouldn't the people want their new priest to receive his sacerdotal orders from the hands of their very own episcopal worker bee and apostle?

Of course, the answer to all three questions would be yes, yes, and yes ... unless, perhaps, there were doubts. Is it possible that the rector has realized he was right to have signed the 1990 ad cautelam letter to "One Hand"? In a few months we'll know for sure -- maybe even sooner. 

Could it be that we just might be seeing the end of "One Hand's" role at the pesthouse if he does not submit to conditional orders? What seminarian in his right mind would consent to have a cloud of doubt loom over his own orders for the rest of his life just to keep "One Hand's" feelings from being wounded? Why doesn't "One Hand" just ask the ol' rector to fix him and then exercise his orders in peace? (To be sure, the rector may not be willing to oblige under the circumstances: what goes around, comes around, doesn't it?)

*Denzinger-Hünermann, 43rd edition, 2010, Herder, Freiburg im Breisgau, Imprimatur: Freiburg im Breisgau, 18th February 1997. No. 3859, p. 1002.

**https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B9XFGc_BZfpPZ3RMT1NNdnB6Tk0/edit?pli=1

22 comments:

  1. The author of this blog is a man who has not received the Sacraments in years. The glory of God is obviously not one of his priorities, otherwise he would practice the Catholic Faith. One wonders what his real motive in publishing this blog is, and why he is so concerned about the validity of Sacraments that he himself doesn't even receive.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous [is it you, Tony?], what relevance does your comment have? None. What sacraments one receives (or DOESN’T receive) has absolutely NO BEARING WHATSOEVER on the veracity or accuracy of one’s statements. Where did you take your course in logic, dimwit? You’re embarrassing yourself again. If you can’t come up with any criticism more substantial than that, then shut up and go home.

      Delete
    2. I want to know what his motives are, and I think it's a legitimate question. This man obviously doesn't care about loving God. So why is he so concerned about these obscure theological questions?

      People generally act in a logical manner, or at least according to reasons that seem logical to them. Usually people who don't practice the Catholic Faith just sleep in on Sunday, or at least don't go to Mass at all. That's logical behavior, even if it's perverse. So if someone doesn't practice the Faith or receive the Sacraments, yet seems very interested in theological questions that pertain to the validity of the Sacraments, one has to wonder what his interest in these questions are. It's obviously not a concern about the glory of God or the salvation of souls. It must be some other reason, not as noble as the above. And if he is following some other motive in discussing these questions of theology, one might well ask if he is slanting his argument towards a preconceived conclusion that he wants people to arrive at, and excluding from his arguments any evidence against that same conclusion.

      So, what is his interest in this debate? It's obviously not because he wants to receive valid Sacraments. Why is he involved?

      Delete
  2. Yeah, this guy attended Bp. Dolan's Mass regularly for years, as well as the Masses of priests ordained by him. If he really believed his Orders were doubtful, that means he put himself in the position of knowing attending a doubtful Mass almost every Sunday for years, which is objectively a mortal sin. I would personally rather sleep in on Sunday morning than go to Church

    It's also strange that this blog only came into being after the author had a disagreement with Bp. Dolan.

    Something doesn't add up here, and we would like an explanation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm the same guy as the above. Wanted to complete my sentence in that first paragraph....

      "I would personally rather sleep in on Sunday morning than go to Church attending a Mass in which I thought I might be adoring a piece of bread."

      Sorry for the confusion. Have a great weekend, everybody!

      P.S. Craig, if the priest is hearing confessions at your chapel tomorrow morning, you might want to drop in. Just saying ...

      Delete
  3. Anon at 323: I feel there is a logical explanation to your question. He was drinking the "Kool-Aid" so readily offered by Dolan and Cekada during the 90's that he ignored the evidence that confronted him. It was far too comfortable to do otherwise. After a really jarring smackdown of a conflict with Dolan and the loss of everything that mattered to him spiritually speaking he had a road to Damascus like experience.

    Now he comments with greater clarity about the problems within Dolan's empire than anyone else. I myself had the same thoughts he did in 92-93 that something was rotten in the state of Denmark. He is doing God's work because he is attempting to save sheep from men who are clearly and since 2009 unmistakably hirelings.

    His lack of presence at a Sunday Mass for years is sad but understandable given the confusion that exists within the Trad world at large. I attend the FSSP but I don't like it. Years of brainwashing from the hirelings (insert any sede priest's name) have made me wary. But I will get over it just like any phobia or irrational fear. Mr Toth may not be in the same place I'm at though so I understand his reluctance to make a jump. We both have one point in common, both of us were the victims of spiritual child abuse in the sede world.

    Finally I read your comments at 323 and thought you intelligent. The snarky aside at 328 disappointed me. You're better than that

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Anon at 323: I feel there is a logical explanation to your question. He was drinking the "Kool-Aid" so readily offered by Dolan and Cekada during the 90's that he ignored the evidence that confronted him."

      This might explain why he attended the Masses of Bp. Dolan and his priests, but it doesn't explain why he attended without receiving the Sacraments, or why he is so interested in these questions if he lives a life of sin.

      "After a really jarring smackdown of a conflict with Dolan and the loss of everything that mattered to him spiritually speaking he had a road to Damascus like experience."

      Now we're getting somewhere. He started questioning Bp. Dolan's orders after "jarring smackdown of a conflict" with him. Doesn't that make you wonder about his motives? Does that put him in a good position to be objective about Bp. Dolan's Orders?

      "the loss of everything that mattered to him spiritually speaking"

      WHAT MATTERS TO HIM SPIRITUALLY SPEAKING?? THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING. That is exactly my question! What matters to him in the spiritual realm? Apparently it's not the Sacraments. It's not the Mass. It's not Sanctifying Grace. WHAT IS IT?!!

      "Now he comments with greater clarity about the problems within Dolan's empire than anyone else."

      This is a bit circular. It's clear to you because you agree with him. His commentary is not clear to me because, as you just said, he has personal reasons that make it difficult for him to be unbiased.

      "His lack of presence at a Sunday Mass for years is sad but understandable given the confusion that exists within the Trad world at large."

      I didn't say he doesn't attend Mass. He does. Every Sunday. But he doesn't receive the Sacraments. Why is that? And how is that logical? And no, it's not understandable to break the third commandment because of a conflict with a priest, even if it's a "jarring and smackdown" one. That doesn't dispense one from the duty to worship God in the holy sacrifice of the Mass.

      "I attend the FSSP but I don't like it."

      I'm sorry to hear that. If you think Bp. Dolan's Sacraments are doubtful, just wait till you hear about what has been written about the new Holy Orders of the New Church ...

      "Years of brainwashing from the hirelings (insert any sede priest's name)"

      Would you care to tell us a bit about that? I have had good experiences with sedevacantist priests on the whole. How are they hirelings?

      "both of us were the victims of spiritual child abuse in the sede world."

      This is disgusting. You have a dirty mind.

      Delete
  4. Judged, Jurist,and Executed and all on Conjecture. WOW! What kind of Catholic teaching permits anyone of you, to decide anything on the Author of this Blog, based upon his receiving, or not receiving of the Sacraments? What Catechism are you studying from? Certainly not mine! As long as you are keeping score, I too do not go to the Rail of Denial, administered by these untrustworthy priests who make it up as they go. Obviously you who have judged publicly, do not know the BIBLE and what will befall you for doing so.

    GOOD LUCK you are going to need it.

    I personally apologize to the Author of this excellent site on behalf of my fellow Catholics who have forgotten what Our Beautiful Faith is all about, and especially the duty entailed on being a good practicing Catholic, and not just for public viewing at the Altar Rail on Sunday.

    May God Bless and Keep you close to His Most Sacred Heart.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Judged, Jurist,and Executed and all on Conjecture."

      No, this isn't conjecture. It's a public fact that the author of this blog hasn't received the Sacraments in many years.

      "WOW! What kind of Catholic teaching permits anyone of you, to decide anything on the Author of this Blog, based upon his receiving, or not receiving of the Sacraments?"

      You're kidding, right? You've never heard of the Easter duty?

      "What Catechism are you studying from? Certainly not mine!"

      You must have a Novus Ordo catechism that doesn't mention the Easter duty. By the way, the Church refuses ecclesiastical burial to people who neglect their Easter duty, in case you didn't know.

      "Obviously you who have judged publicly, do not know the BIBLE and what will befall you for doing so."

      My Bible says: "AMEN, AMEN I SAY UNTO YOU: EXCEPT YOU EAT THE FLESH OF THE SON OF MAN, AND DRINK HIS BLOOD, YOU SHALL NOT HAVE LIFE IN YOU." — John 6:54

      I guess you have a Novus Ordo Bible too, so your mileage may vary.

      Delete
  5. How about "JUDGE NOT LEST YE BE JUDGED"!. My Bible is the D. R.(Family Bible, dated late 1800's). So I "GUESS" you had better go back to the guessing game, for neither a good practicing Catholic, or Sherlock Holmes are you.
    In that Parable Christ was talking to His Apostles, who would later pass it down to us.
    You are not Christ! Just make sure you heed what Christ said, and "Follow HIM" in ALL things, and not pick and choose what you want.

    Either way, whatever Bible you are reading, your Catholic Religion forbids you to do what you did against the AUTHOR on this public BLOG. Therefore, whatever you are practicing, it is not Catholic, and YOU are in grave danger of a serious sin. And that is not a guess!

    ReplyDelete
  6. We didn't want to enter this unseemly conversation, but we felt we must because many of the vulgar piety-police and clergy here seem to be missing an important point (as is to be expected):

    What makes anyone think that the chapel everyone apparently has in mind is the only place at which a Catholic may communicate and that the chapel possesses the only priest whom a Catholic may approach for the sacrament of penance?

    The cultmasters and their willing (or clueless) agents have so many financial problems that we're certain they cannot invest in the sophisticated surveillance technology required to keep track of all the comings and goings of Catholics. And as everyone knows, there are more valid priests and bishops in America than are dreamt of in Traddies' impoverished imaginations.

    The best of these independent, principled clergy will have nothing to do with cultish behavior. Penitents are assured of the seal of confession and of duly receiving absolution without the confessor's applying extraneous criteria, and communicants may expect to receive the Eucharist without having to guess about what may or may not please the celebrant that day.

    As to the other comments, we merely cite the fact that Sedevacantism itself supposes the suspension of all positive, disciplinary laws.





    ReplyDelete
  7. "What makes anyone think that the chapel everyone apparently has in mind is the only place at which a Catholic may communicate and that the chapel possesses the only priest whom a Catholic may approach for the sacrament of penance?

    I don't know what makes anyone think that chapel is the only place anyone can go to confession. By the way, who thinks that anyway?

    "The cultmasters and their willing (or clueless) agents have so many financial problems that we're certain they cannot invest in the sophisticated surveillance technology required to keep track of all the comings and goings of Catholics."

    I'm not sure about that. I have been to several chapels that had retinal scanners, video cameras with facial-recognition technology aimed at the people throughout Mass, and guys in black suits and sunglasses in the parking lots attaching electronic devices to the undersides of people's vehicles during Mass. And I'm not sure what that little blinking red light in the confessional was, either. It was too dark to see more than a vague black outline in the wall socket ...

    "And as everyone knows, there are more valid priests and bishops in America than are dreamt of in Traddies' impoverished imaginations."

    So what?

    "The best of these independent, principled clergy will have nothing to do with cultish behavior. Penitents are assured of the seal of confession and of duly receiving absolution without the confessor's applying extraneous criteria, and communicants may expect to receive the Eucharist without having to guess about what may or may not please the celebrant that day."

    It seems like you're trying to make us believe you attended one chapel for years every Sunday, at which you neglected the Sacraments for many years. You did this despite having — as you say — access to so many other places where you could have received the Sacraments freely. Then, for reasons known only to yourself, you snuck over to some other chapel during the week in Easter time and fulfilled your obligations over there. After that, you returned to your regular chapel until next Easter time rolled around, and did this process for many years.

    Is that what you're asking us to believe?

    "As to the other comments, we merely cite the fact that Sedevacantism itself supposes the suspension of all positive, disciplinary laws."

    No it doesn't. Sedevacantist chapels publicly announce the obligations of the Church from the pulpit AND in the bulletin, including the Lenten fast, the Ember days, and the EASTER DUTY.

    ReplyDelete
  8. No one is trying to make you believe anything. We merely point out a flaw in your conclusions. You're the one inventing scenarios and reporting your eyewitness account of other chapels' sophisticated surveillance efforts.

    Besides, all this nonsense is a ham-fisted attempt to draw attention away from the problem we have raised about one-handed orders.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "No one is trying to make you believe anything. We merely point out a flaw in your conclusions."

      Yes you are trying to make us believe something if you want us to think someone attended a chapel for many years without receiving the Sacraments and is somehow not a public sinner. There is no flaw in that conclusion; actually it's common sense.

      "You're the one inventing scenarios and reporting your eyewitness account of other chapels' sophisticated surveillance efforts."

      I was being sarcastic. Your suggestion that sedevacantist clergy would even think about employing expensive surveillance equipment to keep track of who comes and goes was so bizarre that you clearly have lost all touch with reality.

      "Besides, all this nonsense is a ham-fisted attempt to draw attention away from the problem we have raised about one-handed orders."

      No, I don't think so. Someone's motives are relevant in a discussion. You hate Fr. Cekada and Bp. Dolan. It's obvious that you are doing everything you can to keep people away from their Sacraments, even to the point of the absurdity of contradicting every theologian who spoke on this question. So, a reader could well wonder whether you would really give an unbiased argument in this discussion.

      Delete
  9. You should worry more about the possibility of doubtful sacraments from "One-Hand" and from all those priests he's ordained. How many are floating around out there? What is it, ten? Maybe more.

    Our arguments speak for themselves. Indeed, we could imagine an educated CLOD raising the same substantive objections and offering the same fundamental critique, albeit with somewhat different expository approach.

    It all boils down to this: The Blunderer's monograph is error-filled rubbish and has no place in the debate. There does exist doubt about one-handed conferral of priestly orders. That doubt can be cured by conditional ordination. It should have been cured back in the early '90s.

    This weekend we'll have more to say about those theologians you reference.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "You should worry more about the possibility of doubtful sacraments from "One-Hand" and from all those priests he's ordained. How many are floating around out there? What is it, ten? Maybe more."

      I'm not worried about that, in case I haven't made that clear. You should be more worried about dying without having fulfilled your Easter duty in so many years. What is it, ten years? Maybe more ...

      "Our arguments speak for themselves."

      They sure do! They rest on the authority of a nobody. They are worth nothing. Nabuco, Cappello, Palazzini, de Jorio, Aertnys-Damen, and Regatillo are all aware of all the arguments you mentioned, and rejected all of them! You have yet to mention even EVEN A SINGLE THEOLOGIAN who agrees with your position. That is your MISSING LINK. WHERE IS HE?

      "Indeed, we could imagine an educated CLOD raising the same substantive objections and offering the same fundamental critique, albeit with somewhat different expository approach."

      Whatever. Right back at ya, buddy.

      "It all boils down to this: The Blunderer's monograph is error-filled rubbish and has no place in the debate."

      I don't care what Fr. Cekada wrote. I care what the above-mentioned theologians wrote on this question. I wonder why you're so obsessed with Fr. Cekada, anyway? Why do you care so much about what he wrote? And why do you not care at all about what REAL theologians wrote on this question? Can you please answer that?

      "There does exist doubt about one-handed conferral of priestly orders."

      No, there doesn't. Real doubt comes from real theologians, which you're not. Just because you have a "doubt" doesn't mean there is objectively a doubt. It takes an educated theologian to introduce a doubt about a sacrament, and obviously you're not one.

      "That doubt can be cured by conditional ordination. It should have been cured back in the early '90s."

      It never needed to be cured. See above.

      "This weekend we'll have more to say about those theologians you reference."

      I didn't reference any theologians. I wonder where you get these idea anyway. Have a nice Labor Day weekend!

      Delete
  10. "I'm not worried about that, in case I haven't made that clear. You should be more worried about dying without having fulfilled your Easter duty in so many years. What is it, ten years? Maybe more ..."

    Why are you so concerned about the Author's dying, and his PRIVATE EASTER DUTY? Are you exempt from Death? Worry about your own soul, and YOUR own private Easter Duty, and private confession. Oh, and by the way, you DO NOT determine where "A" Catholic gets buried, the Church does. Again, don't play Christ, you as a layman have no determination whether or not the Church will bury "one" on Hallowed Ground. Just make sure YOU have the MONEY to bury yourself, and let the church decide where that will be.

    YOU are trying to turn the Author into a Public sinner with your sick scenarios. What gives your the right to JUDGE ANY ONE?

    Quite honestly if you are trying to defend Fr. Cekada as the expert in theology, I don't think he would appreciate your argument against the Author based on your account of the Author's lack of attendance at "A" Communion rail, and HIS Easter DUTY. If he did, it would not speak to highly of Father Cekada, and his pathetic lack of knowledge on what the Church teaches under Her 6 Precepts.

    Again study your religion so you can spend more time in Knowing and Loving and Serving GOD, and this is not the way, through GOSSIP.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Oh, and by the way, you DO NOT determine where "A" Catholic gets buried, the Church does."

      Yes, and that is what it determines. Fr. Heribert Jone, section 396.1 says, "If someone has not made his Easter duty for a long time, and this be publicly known, he is thereby a public sinner who loses his right to ecclesiastical burial."

      "YOU are trying to turn the Author into a Public sinner with your sick scenarios."

      I'm not turning him into one, he IS one. Someone who doesn't make his Easter duty is a public sinner.

      "Quite honestly if you are trying to defend Fr. Cekada as the expert in theology, I don't think he would appreciate your argument against the Author based on your account of the Author's lack of attendance at "A" Communion rail, and HIS Easter DUTY. If he did, it would not speak to highly of Father Cekada, and his pathetic lack of knowledge on what the Church teaches under Her 6 Precepts."

      Sheesh, can't you people read? Didn't I just say last time I don't care what he wrote? I care about what theologians have said about one-handed ordination. You people have some kind of weird obsession with Fr. Cekada.

      "Again study your religion so you can spend more time in Knowing and Loving and Serving GOD, and this is not the way, through GOSSIP."

      This blog does nothing but spread gossip, and I don't hear you complaining about that. You're only against "gossip" about your friends.

      Let me explain why I am bringing up the fact that the author is a public sinner. Someone living a sinful life does not have the honor of God at heart. If he is writing about theological questions, he must have some other motive, less noble, and probably personal. Someone pursuing a personal agenda in a theological argument is likely to twist the facts or even cover up evidence that goes against his position, and therefore is an unreliable source of theological opinion.

      As I said before, the author's purpose in this blog isn't the glory of God. What is it? And how do we know he is arguing sincerely?

      Delete
  11. "If someone has not made his Easter duty for a long time, and this be publicly known, he is thereby a public sinner who loses his right to ecclesiastical burial."

    There you go again!

    "IF, someone..." There is that IF factor again, and the conjecture of which YOU base your whole argument on. ONE's Easter Duty is a private matter, and not for You to decide if the Author has done it or not. That is where God, his priest, and his private confession come into play, NOT YOU.

    I personally know of a particular situation where a person went to Mass every Sunday, and never received Holy Communion. Why? YOU might ask, but nobody else did. However, to prove there are circumstances out there, I will disclose. The reason was that she attended Mass twice on Sunday, and received her sacraments from her brother who was a priest, and visited every week for thirty years, and said the Family Mass in the home.

    Now the parishioners in her parish, never knew that, however they never judged her, or asked why. Guess What? She had a beautiful Church Burial, and most parishioners were in attendance, along with the Pastor, her brother, and the Bishop.

    That is why a Judgment against your neighbor will be dealt with severely on Judgment Day. Gossip is evil! Gossip based on conjecture is diabolical.

    I personally would defend anybody that was condemned by another based on a BIASED "IF" Factor, or one trying to play GOD!

    I sincerely pray that you find another cause, by not reading this Author anymore. Based on your argument, your soul is in danger by reading this Author as YOU have declared him a public sinner, and therefore, YOU should avoid the NEAR OCCASSION of SIN. YOU should run don't walk to Confession, lest YOU be declared a Public Sinner by reading his works, and perhaps denied a Catholic Burial.

    I on the other hand will continue to learn, read, and ask this Author my many questions. I trust, and respect him as being one of the best, and last vestiges of a formal and scholarly Catholic education. He was fortunate to have been educated by the best, and kind enough to share it with us.

    No, I do not doubt his intentions.

    ReplyDelete
  12. For the "Easter Duty Police," you need to start learning about the principles of the Sacred Canons before you go around thumping the Codex for the greater glory of the mitred cultists.

    Canon law requires Catholics to receive the Sacraments from their proper Parish. It never was the practice of the Church to have the reception of Holy Communion from acephalous and vagrant clerics count as the fulfillment of the Easter duty.

    Since no one cleric in Sedelandia has a Canonical office and mission, nor incardinated in a Canonically erected Parish, no one sedevacantist has therefore fulfilled their Easter duty since they decided to attend independent Mass-centres, which are not even Chapels according to Canon Law.

    So, before you thump around the Codex, please call to mind the old saying, "Don't throw Codices in a glass-house" - the shards thereof may come back and cut you up.

    P.S. This is the most pathetic attempt on the part of the Trio against the objections raised to their ideological platforms. Once again, the coin-operated sedes are profaning the Sacraments by using them as tools in their little political games.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not going to quibble about Canon Law (although I do disagree with your point about that) because the main idea is this: Catholics who practice the Faith want to receive holy communion as much as they can. If you go to a traditional chapel on Sunday, you will see that almost everyone receives communion. So for someone not to receive communion for many years, it is obvious that they have some impediment in their soul which they are not willing to remove. I understand that in any given case people generally might not know what that impediment is, but it's obvious that it's there.

      So, however you want to slice-and-dice Canon Law, it's an obvious fact that the author of this blog doesn't practice his Catholic Faith. So, why is he so interested in whether the Sacraments are valid? What personal agenda is he following that is clouding his judgment, and causing him to continue to make this claim despite having no proof for it from any recognized authority, and in direct contradiction of the real authorities in theology who have spoken on this matter?

      By the way, ask any traditional priest if he would give someone an ecclesiastical burial to someone who hadn't received the sacraments in years. I doubt you could find a single one who would say yes.

      Delete