- This topic has 1 reply, 5 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 10 months ago by Anonymous.
November 1, 2011 at 7:23 pm #2077AnonymousInactive
I understand there are 3 Magisteriums. Are there 3; the Solemn, the Universal, and the Ordinary?
My question is about the Ordinary Magisterium which is fallible. I understand that teachings must be obeyed, unless they are contrary to the faith or harmful – then they must be resisted or ignored. Examples would be the Pope praying with Muslims, use of Eucharist Ministers, altar girls, or any Papal support for the anti-Christian United Nations.
Is this a legitimate site? I purports to be, but is rather conservative. It would appear to be legitimate, but the name of the site tells me to be concerned. Is it an anti-Papal site?November 1, 2011 at 10:56 pm #10158AnonymousInactive
Fisheaters has much good information. However as you have suspected they are Sede Vacantists. Sede Vecante or the Chair is Vacant is authentically the period between the death (or in rare instances resignation) of one Pope and the election of the next. There are several Sede groups around, Fish Eaters is one who do not believe there has been a Pope since the death of Pope Pius XII.
Each group has it’s own conspiracy theory, some of the groups have even elected there own Pope. Among these anti-Popes are a former Auto Mechanic in France, a man who was expelled from a couple of seminaries and lives on his parents farm wearing his white cassock in Nebraska, (Fr. Lucian Pulvermacher, OFM Cap) who lived in Montana and decided that since there was no Pope, and no Cardinals that the laypeople who supported him could elect him Pope. The first “conclave” they had elected a teenage boy, he nullified it and held a second “conclave” via telephone and fax, then announced that he was elected as Pope. There is a fellow in Australia who calls himself the Little Pebble, who is waiting for a sign to announce his Papacy.
While there have been times when more than one man claimed to be Pope in the history of the Church, it was sorted out, and the one man who was in fact Pope was able to reign. Unlike today when there is one legitimate Pope, (Benedict XVI) and dozens of false or anti-Popes claiming the office.
Jon our webmaster, and moderator makes sure that authentically Catholic discussions take place here. There are a few other sites that are authentically Catholic the one run by Karl Keating of Catholic Answers and Fr. Z at What does the prayer really say, are also good and faithful to the Magesterium. What I like about this board, even though it is not as active as others is it’s small size. Sometimes the other boards can get so busy that it’s hard to really follow.November 1, 2011 at 11:13 pm #10159AnonymousInactive
With regard to the Ordinary Magesterium, and what we must believe. Things like the Assisi gathering are a bit hard for many, myself included to swallow. It is also hard to tell what is real and what is spin at such events. For example. It is not sinful to gather with people of any faith and agree to pray together for peace, and justice. One can attend non-catholic services for a good reason if one does not participate in an active manner. Examples of this would be to attend the wedding of a family or friend, or some other event that honors someone we know. So participating in a Sept. 11th Memorial even though it was not conducted by Catholic clergy would also be appropriate. If a non-Catholic minister leads a prayer, it is fine to bow your head and offer a silent prayer for the repose of the souls of those who died, and that their family would be comforted.
We do not know fully what the intents of Pope John Paul II were in attending the Assisi events or those of Pope Benedict. While the leaders of different groups do hold public services, I have never seen any evidence that the Pope acutally took part in them aside from being an observer. It is also a way of opening up the truth of the Catholic Faith to others. Here is a link to an article which discusses that the Pope was not going to participate in the prayers offered by leaders from other religions. [url:wyvfgkck]http://news.yahoo.com/pope-wont-part-common-prayers-112812125.html[/url:wyvfgkck] A bit of a different spin than that of FishEaters, and others.
Pope John Paul and Pope Benedict have been very clear that while other religions do contain some truth that the fullness of the truth is held by the Catholic Church, and that the unity of all Christians with the Successor of Peter is should be our ultimate goal. Unless the Pope came out and said, “All religions are equal, and you can believe whatever you want to.” We would do better to pray for the Pope that God would make him a good example and leader of the Church on earth, rather than try to second guess him as some of these websites and groups do. A good prayer for the Pope is…
[quote:wyvfgkck]Lord, source of eternal life and truth,
give to Your shepherd, the Pope,
a spirit of courage and right judgement,
a spirit of knowledge and love.
By governing with fidelity those entrusted to his care may he,
as successor to the apostle Peter and vicar of Christ,
build Your church into a sacrament of unity,
love, and peace for all the world.
We ask this through our Lord Jesus Christ, Your Son,
Who lives and reigns with You and the Holy Spirit, one God,
forever and ever.
Amen[/quote:wyvfgkck]November 2, 2011 at 12:32 am #10160AnonymousInactive
First, Thank you for taking so much time to answer and provide the the information on two other sites. The first may be too active for me, and navigation is a bit confusing but I registered. I also found what I believe is the answer to my marriage on the site already — it will likey require an annulment.
As to the other site, Fr. Z., I am waiting to hear if I am accepted.
I posted those examples from “fisheaters” only as examples of what they say should be avoided. I do not know what was in the Pope’s heart when he entered a Mosque so I really am in no position to judge whether or not he violated Church teaching on participation in other religious ceremonies.
I will admit however, that I do not understand altar girls and Eucharist Ministers — remember I grew up in a time when even I could not touch the Host. And, IMHO, no religion is a democracy. Though we have equal rights for women here in this country, I see no concurrent obligation on the part of the Church to allow women to serve on the altar or to become priests — and I find no contradiction. Personally, I have always had a problem with the United Nations — but again, I cannot know what is in the Vatican’s heart by supporting the U.N., or having an emissary to the U.N., though I do not for secular reasons.
However, I do have one question that I think falls under the Ordinary Magisterium. When Pope Benedict XVI opened up the use of condoms in order to prevent a greater sin — the passing on of deadly disease, I assume he was not speaking Ex Cathedra and this falls under Ordinary Magisterium. Yes? No?
Now use of condoms has long been prohibited and is Church teaching. Would a site like “fisheaters” believe that the Pope was in error and violating Church teaching — even if they do not accept Benedict as the current Pope (putting that aside for the moment)? It is my understanding that the lessening of the prohibition applies to prostitution — both male and female, which [prostitution] is also against Church teaching.
You see, I’m conflicted. This disease spreads in Africa at an alarming rate where some shaman teach that rape is the cure. On the other hand, the opening of usage of condoms might lead to that slippery slope whereby people will begin to see condom use as acceptable, misinterpreting the Pope’s intent. On the other hand, I do agree that passing on a deadly disease is a greater sin, as the Pope said. As I second guessing too?
If this is not a proper question, I will remove it. However, thank you for taking so much time and providing me with more links.
Are sites like “fisheaters” to be avoided? I do accept Benedit XVI as the Pope of the Church, so I am not swayed by pretenders or those who might claim that the Church has no legitimate Head.November 2, 2011 at 12:56 am #10161AnonymousInactive
I wanted to add that it’s obvious that I am a very confused Roman Catholic trying to find her way, so I appreciate the help.
I know I am in need of reconciliation.November 2, 2011 at 1:31 am #10162About Catholics TeamKeymaster"LARobert":3k1e8a96 wrote:Fisheaters has much good information. However as you have suspected they are Sede Vacantists. Sede Vecante or the Chair is Vacant is authentically the period between the death (or in rare instances resignation) of one Pope and the election of the next. There are several Sede groups around, Fish Eaters is one who do not believe there has been a Pope since the death of Pope Pius XII.[/quote:3k1e8a96]
LARobert, I almost wrote this exact same thing, but then deleted it because I read the following on their website:"http://www.fisheaters.com/contact.html#faith":3k1e8a96 wrote:I believe Vatican II was a valid, pastoral Ecumenical Council convoked and approbated by true Popes. I believe the documents from the Council were badly and ambiguously written and that said documents need to be interpreted only in light of tradition instead of — as is all too often the case now — by the media and those with a revolutionary agenda.
I believe that Benedict XVI is the true Pope and that we must pray for him and his Bishops every day.[/quote:3k1e8a96]
I thought it used to be one of those sede-vacantist sites, but maybe something changed. It seems that Fisheaters advocates for a return to Traditional Catholicism, but accepts Vatican II and the pope, etc.November 2, 2011 at 5:11 am #10163AnonymousInactive
I’ll have to see what they are currently posting there, it’s been a few months since I read their site, they sound as if they are in somewhat the same position as the SSPX, ie they claim that the Pope is the Head of the Church, but are very selective about how and when they listen to him. Many Ultra Trads claim Vatican II was simply a Pastoral Council and did not define Dogma and with a wink and nudge they mean that it can be disregarded.
As to the Condom question. When Condoms were first marketed, they were sold to prevent the spread of disease. Later when they were marketed as a form of artificial birth control, the Church banned their use for such purposes. There is a similar issue with the Birth Control Pill. It was first developed and marketed for women who have very painful periods, to regulate and lessen the pain and hormonal surges. The Church still allows the use of the pill for women who have such severe problems.
From what I have read of the Pope’s pronouncement vs the news reports, he is saying that as a form or prevention of transmission of diseases most of all deadly diseases, the use of a condom may be justified. He does not condone extramarital sex or their use as birth control. Sadly his rationale for allowing their use is probably being ignored by many, as are his more numerous calls for chastity and monogomy.
A similar thing happened when Pope Paul VI relaxed the requirements for abstaining from meat on Fridays. He enouraged those who could maintain the old practice to do so, but for those who could not he commuted the abstaining from meat to some other act of mortification of the individuals choice to commemorate the great act of our Lord on Good Friday.November 2, 2011 at 3:36 pm #10165AnonymousInactive
Yes, they do seem to have many posts about SSPX.
If not SSPX, some have found a home there. A few are still critical of the NO Catholics, but most posts seems to be questions.
The site does list all the Popes to Benedict XVI. I did see some articles — or linked to articles on Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.November 2, 2011 at 6:11 pm #10166AnonymousInactive
LARobert[quote:xit04quw]A similar thing happened when Pope Paul VI relaxed the requirements for abstaining from meat on Fridays. He enouraged those who could maintain the old practice to do so, but for those who could not he commuted the abstaining from meat to some other act of mortification of the individuals choice to commemorate the great act of our Lord on Good Friday.[/quote:xit04quw]
I’m glad you brought this up. I’m amazed at how misunderstood this is. I know tons of Catholics who just say that “Oh, we can eat meat on Fridays” and stop there. When I explain to them that ALL Fridays are days of penance and the norm is to abstain from meat, but we can substitute some other form of penance but [b:xit04quw]are required [/b:xit04quw]to do something, they just blow it off and turn a deaf ear.
My son many years back was attending a Catholic school and when I asked if they served fish on Fridays, he said no. I quickly wrote a letter to the principal and quoted Canon Law and in two weeks they were serving fish.
I find a lack of this rule being preached from the pulpit. I only hear about it during Lent. And even at then it is never mentioned that we are to abstain from meat every Friday of the year not just Lent, but have the option of substituting some other form of penance.
My family still observes the meatless Fridays. I have mentioned it to many of my relatives and even one who is a deacon, but in one ear and other the other. :rolleyes:November 2, 2011 at 11:18 pm #10167About Catholics TeamKeymaster
As TCWITPAFOT1T315 said I am not sure this is even taught or known by many Catholics these days. I certainly don’t recall learning it.March 2, 2012 at 7:57 pm #10333AnonymousInactive
I posted those examples from “fisheaters” only as examples of what they say should be avoided. I do not know what was in the Pope’s heart when he entered a Mosque so I really am in no position to judge whether or not he violated Church teaching on participation in other religious ceremonies.[/quote:3kxdpghk]
You have to reach a common ground to evangelize and til you show respect for their beliefs, they will not listen.
‘ Muslims believe in the ONE God,’
Paul never went into a community extorting fire and brimstone.. he looked, he studied and then try to find common ground.
He used what they had to Capitvate their thoughts toward Christ, i.e. The Unknown God.
Act 17:16 Now while Paul was waiting for them at Athens, his spirit was provoked within him as he saw that the city was full of idols.
Act 17:18 Some also of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers met him. And some said, “What would this babbler say?” Others said, “He seems to be a preacher of foreign divinities”–because he preached Jesus and the resurrection.
Act 17:23 For as I passed along, and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, ‘To an unknown god.’ What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you.
If they refuse to listen you can’t preach Jesus. By visiting the mosque, the Pope showed respect for their beliefs, and a hope in gaining an ear to understanding Christ.
[quote:3kxdpghk][u:3kxdpghk]Leegal,[/u:3kxdpghk] “I will admit however, that I do not understand altar girls and Eucharist Ministers — remember I grew up in a time when even I could not touch the Host. And, IMHO, no religion is a democracy. Though we have equal rights for women here in this country, I see no concurrentobligation on the part of the Church to allow women to serve on the altar or to become priests — and I find no contradiction. Personally, I have always had a problem with the United Nations — but again,[/quote:3kxdpghk]
I served as an altar boy @ the Latin Mass during Vatican II.
How about Mary and Martha? Back in biblical times there were no official places of Worship, and many met in peoples homes, of course mothers and their daughter helped out. Why not let young girls participate and help @ the Mass. It’s all good! Why keep the children from serving the Lord?
As far as Women priests, that’s going too far. The whole Bible is Patriarchal.
Presenting the Eucharist and placing in hand is nothing new, Whenever Christ broke bread he handed it to others.
Later the Church went with the Eucharist was not to handled except by the ordained 13th century.
Communion in hand crops up in the 9th century
Kneeling and receiving on the tongue is a deep sign of adoration and reverence.
The Apostles knelt before the Lord, are we any better?
It is the attitude in which we receive the Eucharist that matters!
Personally I feel we lost something removing the altar rails, in which whole families would kneel and receive together.
Also the use of E.M’s is abused, often i see several ministers @ a small gathering in which the priest could have easily handled dispensing the Eucharist. (And I’m also an E.M.)
[quote:3kxdpghk]The document authorizing the introduction of extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist is an Instruction of the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship, issued on 29 January 1973, and entitled Immensae caritatis.
It authorizes the use of extraordinary ministers in “cases of genuine necessity.” These are listed as whenever:
(a) there is no pries, deacon, oracolyte;
(b) these are prevented from administering Holy Communion because of another pastoral ministry or because of ill health or advanced age;
(c) [u:3kxdpghk]the number[/u:3kxdpghk] of the faithful requesting Holy Communion is such that [b:3kxdpghk]the celebration of Mass [/b:3kxdpghk]or the distribution of the Eucharist outside Mass [b:3kxdpghk]would be unduly prolonged.[/b:3kxdpghk][/quote:3kxdpghk]
[b:3kxdpghk]St. Cyril of Jerusalem[/b:3kxdpghk] in the fourth century offered a powerful catechesis on the mode of[b:3kxdpghk] receiving communion in the hand [/b:3kxdpghk]that is still applicable today: “When you approach, do not go stretching out your open hands or having your fingers spread out, but make the left hand into a throne for the right which shall receive the King, and then cup your open hand and the Body of Christ, reciting the ‘Amen.’ Then sanctify with all care your eyes by touching the Sacred Body, and receive it. But be careful that no particles fall, for what you lose would be to you as if you had lost some of your members. Tell me, if anybody had given you gold dust, would you not hold fast to it with all care, and watch lest some of it fall and be lost to you? Must you not then be even more careful with that which is more precious than gold and diamonds, so that no particles are lost?”
[quote:3kxdpghk]By Msgr. M. Francis Mannion – OSV Newsweekly, 2/12/2012
Communion in the hand was the norm in Catholicism until the ninth century. It was discontinued due to excessive reverence of the Eucharist (that is a reverence that eventually caused people to avoid Communion altogether).
again personally I myself finding standing while receiving less reverant than kneeling. When Pope Benedict first took office, a filipino priest @ EWTN was explaining The Pope’s feelings on receiving… He had said it is more reverent to kneel, “and if you know a thing to be true and not act on it, than it is wrong”
So from that day, something inside me stirred, I a can not help but to kneel. When I kneel I reach up left hand in right palm and receive the Eucharist… and its a world of difference for me.
For awhile I was wrestling with the idea that I would only kneel before a priest or deacon, and not a Eucharist minister. But then I had to kick myself in the head and remind myself, ‘It is in and the receiving’ The Presence of Christ that I am showing adoration for, and not any minister.
and then there is this: [URL below]
part (9) “To touch the sacred species, and to distribute them with their own hands, is a privilege of the ordained … “ Pope John Paul II
Saint Thomas Aquinas, 1225-1274:
“The dispensing of Christ’s Body belongs to the priest for three reasons. First, because he consecrates in the person of Christ. But as Christ consecrated His Body at the Supper, so also He gave It to others to be partaken of by them. Accordingly, as the consecration of Christ’s Body belongs to the priest, so likewise does the dispensing belong to him. Secondly, because the priest is the appointed intermediary between God and the people, hence as it belongs to him to offer the people’s gifts to God, so it belongs to him to deliver the consecrated gifts to the people. Thirdly, because out of reverence towards this Sacrament, nothing touches It but what is consecrated, and likewise the priest’s hands for touching this Sacrament. Hence, it is not lawful for anyone else to touch It, except from necessity, for instance, if It were to fall upon the ground or else in some other case of urgency.”
Note: (Before I get bombarded with straw-man arguments, I’ll point out that this isn’t Dogmatized, its just food for thought.)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.