Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Interests
    Peace, Baseball, Beer, Joy, War, Boxing, Tolstoy, Wine, Church, Tennis, Family, Monastics, Economics, Politics, Scotland, Oceans, Prayer, Heaven, Flowers, Space, Bobby Darin, Time, Dracula, Rivers, Fire, Angels, Aquinas, Real Estate, Maureen O'Hara, Fish, Wind, Honey, Motion, The First Lady of Song, Lava, Stomach Acid, Merging, Jumping, Water Softeners, Barbecue, Bone, Bananas, Skin, American Football, Olivia de Havilland, and Michaelangelo.

Recent Profile Visitors

4,846 profile views

3DOP's Achievements

Grand Master

Grand Master (14/14)

  • Reacting Well Rare
  • Very Popular Rare
  • Dedicated Rare
  • First Post
  • Posting Machine Rare

Recent Badges



  1. No worries about delay. I believe whatever the Roman Catholic Church teaches, but I do not think the criteria of infallibility is well established in Roman Catholicism. It was not until 1870 that after so many centuries since St. Peter's reign, we learned definitively that a pope can speak infallibly. We are instructed that it happens when a pope speaks "ex cathedra", from the chair of Peter. But what does that mean? THAT is undefined. Where is it defined that all the words of every ecumenical council in communion with the pope is necessarily infallible? THAT too, is undefined. This leaves, in my opinion, liberty for a faithful Catholic to speculate. According to my lights, I speculate that popes and bishops are speaking fallibly if they insist on adherence to Vatican II. The era in which I am living my Catholic faith makes me think that I don't always know what the Church teaches infallibly, but I am confident that Holy Mother Church allows me to doubt whether Pope Francis has the authority to legislate the Mass of All Times out of existence because of the authority of Vatican II. The thought of such folly is unbelievable. In the last year I read a work written by an English priest around the turn of the last century, before these controversies had arisen, who examined the sources of the Roman liturgy of Pope St. Pius V and concluded as follows: "So our Mass goes back, without essential change, to the age when it developed out of the oldest liturgy of all. It is still redolent of that liturgy, of the days when Caesar ruled the world and thought he could stamp out the faith of Christ, when our fathers met together before dawn and sang a hymn to Christ as to a God. The final result of our enquiry is that, in spite of unsolved problems, in spite of later changes, there is not in Christendom another rite so venerable as ours." ---Fr. Adrian Fortescue, The Mass, A Study of the Roman Liturgy, Longmans, Green, and Co., first printed in 1912, p. 213 Why would any friend of the Catholic Church try to achieve unity by separating the faithful from the Mass which they love and revere, and has sustained faithful Roman Catholics for as far back as we can observe, unto our very own times? Nobody writes about the wonder, beauty and genius of the Novus Ordo. I have a sixteen volume life's work of a Benedictine monk/abbot that I share here from time to time, expounding the beauty and truth of the Mass that Fr. Fortescue claimed as being as venerable as any in Christendom. Nobody loves the New Mass! Some hate the Old Mass because it takes them back, back, back to the days when Caesars ruled the world, and Christian soldiers would die rather than betray the Catholic faith. Vatican II, and the New Mass, strips the Christian of that necessary militant spirit, and makes of him or her, not a soldier, nor a crusader, but a crippled conformist to the spirit of an age as rotten as those our forefathers beheld. -------------- I have made some mere assertions and the usual ramblings to be sure. I do not imagine to have proved all of my points. But I will defend my assertions about Francis' opposition to the Traditional Mass with anyone who is interested enough to continue the conversation. I am hoping I have somewhat clarified my views about infallibility to your satisfaction as an Eastern Orthodox, Spammer. I believe whatever the Church teaches about it. But I cannot believe that the Church teaches that I have to believe today what popes of the recent past condemned. That is what acceptance of Vatican II entails. This is why I accept what Paul VI said about the limited authority of Vatican II. How can they insist that we who oppose the Council, conform to it when their own pope, who promulgated it, and who they canonize, says it is fallible? Anyway, a blessed goodnight to all my friends here, and you especially Spammer, and your wife and family. May our good God truly bring us all, LDS now, Orthodox now, Catholic now, Protestant now, and Poptart(!) now, into a unity of faith and love and good will to all, praising God always, in a blessed and happy forever. Thanks for your post. Rory
  2. I agree that Jesus made His followers responsible for the poor. Indeed, even if because of our state of life, we are unable to give all that we have to the poor, we are to be "poor in spirit". It is interesting that you speak of "entitlement". It seems to me that there are voices out there that attempt to rip society apart by making the poor hate the rich, or even those who can merely pay their bills? And why? Because they have not shared their wealth adequately. In our day, we have poor people who are "rich in spirit", as much so as anybody because if the right gov't is elected, they are led to think they will get what they think they deserve. Francis Bergoglio is one of those voices who encourages the idea that Caesar (the gov't) can effectively eliminate poverty. You are not old enough to remember Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" with its "War on Poverty". Of course, it was a miserable failure. We cannot create character by giving away money for nothing. There are many great Catholic saints, who came from great, entitled, and wealthy families, who sometimes to the chagrin of their "rich in spirit" family members, gave all of their goods away to feed the poor, both to save their own souls and to feed and clothe the hungry. St. Francis was wealthy and gave it ALL away. This is the only true spirit of Christianity. This is the only "War on Poverty", that changes lives for the better, that makes those who receive material benefit, recognize that wealth in this world is truly a snare. The way of Francis makes those who are materially poor, remain as they should, "poor in spirit". When government gets involved it merely excites the imagination of the poor to bitterness against fictional or factual injustices. Either way, it destroys the "poverty in spirit" which is necessary if one would be conformed to the message of the Gospel. I grant that the Church with the family is inadequate to eradicate poverty. But our task as Christians cannot be to eradicate poverty, especially by getting Caesar involved, when our King and Captain said that "the poor you have with you always". I think this is why many Christians despair, and rightly so, of government programs to aid the poor.
  3. Busy weekend. Wedding (nuptial mass) at 11, reception of the bride and groom at 4, baptism...totally separate...of a new grandbaby at 4:30...Father coming over for dinner, (also totally separate) house blessing at 6. Thank you all for the replies! God bless you and God love you. 3DOP
  4. Who do you think, Mark, should care for the poor? You? Us? A true religion? Caesar (the State)? Thanx. 3.
  5. Hello Poptart, I had written a reply a few days ago, and was disappointed that when I pressed to submit, I got Error 407. Not saved or backed up. Its okay. This will probably be a different reply, er...question, and hopefully, for the better. Who do you think has primary responsibility for the poor? Thanks, Rory.
  6. You will let me know if I have missed your point. We had Trivia Night down at the auditorium this evening. We made third place out of over forty teams. What a hoot! Mrs. 3DOP is amazing. She carried us. But we were encouraged to support our church's young people's group that was sponsoring the event by consuming food and beverages at a cost above what would be ordinary. Well, I obeyed. Especially when it came to gins and tonic. I was eager to get home and see what transpired here, and hope what follows reflects less gin and more tonic. As for the Fathers and St. Basil, I thought it was a consensus of the Fathers, (not necessarily unanimity), that brings weight to the apostolicity of a position. Next week beginning tomorrow morning will be a little crazy. Mrs. 3DOP of trivia fame will be babysitting the grandchildren of our oldest daughter while her sixth baby is induced tomorrow. After that, she will be probably holding the latest grandchild a lot for a few days. In the meantime, I am supposed to feed cats, water the plants, work my usual ten hours, feed myself, become 65 years old on Wednesday, and bear many other associated crosses with joy during this period when I am left without my beloved helpmate. I may be less responsive than I would like in the next few days. Heh. Anyway, here goes late on Sunday night. ------ Facing east can be apostolic without being dogmatic. Facing God seems to me to be apostolic AND dogmatic. The problem isn't that the Novus Ordo priest is facing west, or north, or south, but that in whatever direction the Tabernacle is located, the priest turns away from God towards the people. I am not defending silence as apostolic. I defend audio silence as well as the Eastern screening of any visible actions of the priest as appropriate and well-advised, and a venerable accepted practice, while those who oppose the Old Rite insist that the silence in the West shows that the Roman Rite Church has for generation after generation despised the priesthood of all believers in favor of the ordained clergy. These Western haters of Tradition haven't even realized in their ecumenical zeal, that the East has been much worse, (if one accepts that the people need to hear and see everything), in its displays of disdain for the people. I think there should be a desire to face east, where and when it is practical. I think there should be a desire to baptize by immersion, where and when it is practical. The Church has never taught that these ideals must always be met for a valid Sacrament. To the rising sun in the east is practically ideal, but not dogmatically necessary. In the place where I currently worship, that is considered by many to be crazy radical in its insistence on Tradition, we face south. The church burned down. We meet in the old refectory and east doesn't work there. We are deliberately facing east as we build the New Immaculata. We adhere to what is symbolically ideal without insisting that it is dogmatic. Surely, the bishops and pope in communion meeting in an ecumenical council would oridnarily trump the opinion of 3DOP. But we have had hints from heaven (latter-day prophesy) that have foretold that the faithful might need to be prepared in our times for a Catholic hierarchy that is "diabolically disoriented". It is not merely my opinion, which gives me confidence that it is okay to pity the current apparent pope and his creepy prelates in their sad anti-Catholicism. It is the Church of the first 250 plus popes who never had the faithless fantasies of the current apparent successor of St. Peter which give me confidence that Jorge Bergoglio, who I assume to be Pope Francis, cannot be on the right track. If Francis could be right, the Church was still wrong as late as when people who are still living were born, like me, during the reign of Pope Pius XII. Prayers, regards, and always good to see you Spammer. Rory
  7. Hi Spammer, good to see you with your two dollars (inflation). If Vatican II is supposed to be infallibly true, Joseph Smith was right about the Catholic Church in 1830 which was at that time proclaiming from the housetops that the ideas promulgated by that Council were already false according to Catholic doctrine. The Catholic Church and especially the Roman Pontiffs were imperatively denying key doctrines that Vatican II accepted. Especially in regard to true religious liberty and ecumenism. Last week was the feast of St. Henry. He is just one of many good patrons and matrons of the Church who in their status as king and queen, supported the rights of the Catholic Church against heresies. How does one say that this is okay if the Apostles would have disapproved of them, as the Vatican II on religious liberty implies? It would demonstrate apostasy. This is what LDS claims have done for me and why this thread could have potential interest to the LDS. The Catholic cannot admit such gross discontinuity between the present and past without the Restorationist coming along and showing them their problems. Any well informed LDS could shred claims of any Vatican II Catholic that the Catholic Church is the one true church...in my opinion. Maybe that doesn't answer your question? I don't admit that Trent and Vatican II are both infallible. Sorry to not clean this up a little better. I have to run. Rory
  8. I think I will begin with an examination of the explanation given in the "Rome Reports" shared with us by Poptart. Beginning at about the 26 second mark the narrator mentions three characteristics of the Traditional Latin Mass as she observes it: 1) The priest speaks quietly. In the Eastern Rite churches, the priest goes behind a screen when he enters the true holy of holies to mediate for the assembly as did the Jewish high priest who entered alone behind the veil on behalf of the people. The Roman Rite is a little less dramatic, but equally effective gestures, postures, and words demonstrate that the priest is praying those prayers silently, which he alone as a priest, is ordained to pray with authority, the very words of the Son of God. The Church has always wanted to show that the Old Covenant is analogous to the New Covenant. The silence, or use of a screen helps us to remember that from the beginning, God's plan has involved a priestly hierarchy and the faithful ought to lovingly embrace God's economy of salvation. After the singing or saying of the threefold Sanctus there is an abrupt silence, which signals that something new and mysterious is coming soon. Heaven is coming to earth, God is descending for us and the angels observe with loving awe, the goodness of their God to man. While silence reigns for not more than two minutes, we hear a single bell rung. Almost immediately we see Father bent over the altar. We know he is now not speaking as a man, but by the will of God, the words that Christ spoke in the upper room, before His agony. We know what will happen next. The priest will adoringly genuflect before our God and Saviour, under the humble appearance of bread, and then raise Him high for all of us to see, and likewise adore, while the bell rings three more times. Catholic churches have been doing this for nearly two thousand years. It has only been in the last sixty years that some try to make it seem like an insult to the faithful that these words are said in silence. It is such a gross misunderstanding of the reasons why the liturgies both in the East and the West have developed as they have over the centuries. And yet this heavenly hush that invites one to greater attention to the mystery at hand, is cited often, as a reason to get rid of that nasty, people-hating Mass of the bad old days! Those Catholics who think they hate the Traditional Mass, are usually those who do not even understand it. They have been taught to misunderstand it by the reasons put forth for the reforms of the New Rite. Many want to impose a Protestant-like liturgy that diminishes the grandeur of the ordained priesthood and magnifies the priesthood of all believers. The consecration of the Holy Eucharist is a terribly inappropriate moment to diminish the ordained priesthood. But this is what the New Mass (Novus Ordo) does. Through word and act, the New Mass makes it seem like the faithful are essential to a valid Mass. By the action of the priest and faithful in the liturgy, the Church teaches her doctrine. It is subtle, but I would suggest that the New Mass teaches false doctrine by making this "reform" that makes the priest say the words of Christ aloud and eliminating these poignant moments of silence. It contributes to a loss of appreciation for the ordained priesthood. It makes Catholics forget that Holy Mother Church has nurtured souls from cradle to grave as the centuries have rolled on, and to make it seem like she hadn't been solicitous for her children, and merely wanted to elevate the priests and prelates at the expense of the dignity of the faithful. It is scandalous. 2) The priest wears gloves? In the clip provided by Rome Reports, the narrator notices bishops ordaining priests and wearing gloves while he carries his mitre and apparently assumes that all priests wear gloves while celebrating Mass! She should have done a little more homework. A bishop wears his gloves only when celebrating what is called, a pontifical Mass. There is a ceremony before the Sacrifice begins where the priest or bishop washes their hands with water as a token of the knowledge of his own personal unworthiness to act as it were, as another Christ, when saying the words of consecration. This act of humility requires bishops to remove their gloves as explained here: "Liturgical gloves (chirothecœ, called also at an earlier date manicœ, wanti,) are a liturgical adornment reserved for bishops and cardinals. Other ecclesiastics, including abbots, cannot use them without a special papal privilege. They are worn only at a pontifical Mass, never at any other function, and then only to the washing of the hands before the Sacrifice." ---https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06589a.htm 3) The priest faces away from the assembly. Once again, this makes it seem like the priest is disdaining the people. That is not the case at all. In the New Mass, the priest has to face the assembly, instead of His Creator, present behind the priest in the Tabernacle. Who is the priest praying to in this scenario, God or the people? It is wildly inappropriate for the priest to be praying with his back turned to the One to whom he is supposedly praying. I suggest that this liturgical defect in the New Mass contributes to a misunderstanding of what the Catholic Church teaches about the Real Presence of Christ in consecrated hosts after Mass. Polls show as well as actions that Catholics are losing their faith in the Real Presence. My son was told by a priest to stop genuflecting so much when he was a Novus Ordo altar server. This priest preferred a quick and cursory bob of the head, when passing the altar, instead of the traditional custom of taking a knee (genuflecting) before our King. It is well known that Pope Francis never genuflects. This could be attributed to health issues of course. But for me, I have wondered about it ever since I saw a video of the pope, falling to his knees and kissing the feet of about a half dozen politicians to whom he must have been favorably impressed. It seemed excessive. I don't know the circumstances. But if we should kiss the feet of worldly leaders, maybe Catholics would do well to at least merely genuflect before Christ, who we say is really physically present, and in near proximity? Given what we say we believe, is genuflecting excessive for those enjoying the good health to do so? This is the first pope ordained a priest with the new liturgy. He has never known the Traditional Latin Mass. We Traditionalists need to remember that we have in Francis, a Catholic whose very formation had been distorted as he prepared for his ordination. We might have expected this. This is the fruit of the New Mass. A pope who kisses politician's feet, and walks past the Tabernacle where Christ is present, without bending his knee. Thanks for your interest, 3DOP
  9. Poptart, Given the interest shown by some and even argument in favor of your thread here, I feel comfortable discussing it now. If someone wishes that we do not do so, they should take it to the moderators for final decision. We get more traffic here which is why I would rather it be here if it is within the parameters of the forum according to the moderators. For now, I will assume that it is. More to come...🙂
  10. I had hoped to discuss this, but it does not seem appropriate for this forum. Poptart...Hi. Ask it be moved to the "In The News" forum. By the way, that Mass that you posted from the SSPX is being held in the former refectory of the Jesuits who once had a seminary there. It looks okay on video, but the acoustics are terrible, and the low ceiling has a floor above it. Occasionally, during the school year, you can hear footsteps up there on weekday Masses. It has been only a tolerable and "temporary" home since a fire devastated the church in the 70's. Sunday sung masses are no longer held in the refectory/chapel. It only holds about 500 people. We are now in the auditorium until the new church can be built. It is going up fast and we are told that we will celebrate our last Holy Week without a real church building in 2022. You can see the progress being made here: https://www.anewimmaculata.org/watch We live three houses to the west of that white house in the background. Heh. Great times. Anyway, I'll save discussion of the subject matter until we get the thread moved or an assurance that it is okay in here. Thanks for putting this out there! Rory
  11. Without discussion as requested by Rain, and without dismissing the question asked by Scott, I can answer without disrupting the spirit of the thread: Seldom.
  12. 1) What do you like about this board? I have been here since 2004. It would seem fair to assume that I like this board. I am not on any other boards except this one. I am unashamed of it, and used to trumpet here that I had been kicked off of Catholic Answers Forum. I look in every day to see if someone is commenting about my religion. If comments that relate to Catholicism ever went away from this board, I suspect I would also. But I don't think I can really explain my lasting presence here. It is a habit that I enjoy, that seems innocuous at worst. 2) What do you want from the board? Wasn't it President Kennedy who suggested that we ask not what my board can do for me, but what I can do for my board?
  13. James White, for the record, takes a pretty strong position against the Catholic Church as well. He is a prolific author who has written several books against the Catholic Church. I am not aware of public demonstrations though. Congratulations to you guys for being perhaps his most despised enemy! After his older sister converted to the Catholic faith around twenty years ago, he was naturally unhappy about it. It became public when she explained a journey that was in many respects similar to mine, going from Baptist to Catholic. I suppose that in part she was welcomed by Catholic media because or her brother's rabid opposition to the Church. But she also seemed genuinely joyful, intellectually capable, and desirous to share what she had learned along the way with fellow Catholics who like to hear conversion stories. I thought he became unnecessarily ugly to his sister after this. It came to the place that he refused to use her first name in public, but continually referred to his sister by her husband's last name, Mrs. Bonds. I hope I am wrong, but it seemed like a way of him saying that he was putting her out of his life. I hadn't really thought of either of them for many years now. Now that the relatively short public furor is long passed, I hope she is still doing well and that her brother has softened towards her.
  14. An oily substance might refer to hair. Whether or not one uses brylcreem (a little dab 'l do ya'), the hair is substantial; it does not become something else because of the presence or absence of oil. A change from oily to dry hair would represent to Aquinas a change that is not substantial; it is accidental to the substance. I thought that with the sole exception of Eucharistic theology, one identifies every other substance by how it appears. The Church teaches that there is no physical change. By every observable way, there is no change to the consecrated bread. To say that what appears to be bread is not substantially bread anymore can only be an act of faith. The Church insists that those who would receive Christ in Holy Communion put aside what their senses are telling them. We are permitted of course to believe in the reality of the bread, but after consecration the Eucharistic species is essentially the Body and Blood of Christ, and only accidentally bread. We know the words of consecration by an ordained priest are the "trigger" that cause the change, but that is no explanation for the mechanics of how this can happen. Knowing that it is a mystery beyond reason, the Church has never even tried to explain how it happens. It would be as if someone tried to argue that what was growing out of a young man's scalp in the 60's could become substantially Brylcreem and only hair as the accident. Of course, we would, like many of the Lord's disciples, be skeptical. It would be a "hard saying", like the Eucharist. Scholastic terminology is obviously unnecessary since we know it didn't come into use until the 12th or 13th Century. But at a time when the Real Presence was coming under attack, and even from Catholic priests, it was a good way of making crystal clear that Catholics accept the words of Jesus in John 6, in the same sense as did the disciples who heard Him, some lacking faith, others not understanding, but staying with Jesus. Catholics believe "the hard saying" of John 6 without asking how this can be and without comprehensive understanding. There are other ways of asserting the Real Presence aside from scholastic terminology. But the faithful Catholic who would rather explain it a different way does not have the liberty to say that the way Aquinas explains it is false. If Bp. Barron is saying that the change only takes place for the believer, it would weaken what the Church has always taught. Our belief or unbelief cannot be an effective agent in favor of or against the change. It is the words of Christ spoken by an ordained priest: "This is My Body." The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist would be exterior to the believer and the unbeliever alike, according to my understanding of what the Church teaches. This is why it is okay for kids to play "Mass". Only an ordained priest can consecrate Okay. I understand. I see. That makes sense. It is more credible. The hard saying has become easier. I am just saying that this isn't what the Catholic Church teaches. I don't mean to say that I can show that you are wrong or Bp. Barron is wrong. All I am saying it is incompatible with Catholic Sacramental theology. One might ask why, if it is the belief of the faithful that makes the change significant, we cannot effect this change in the absence of a priest? I think there is a probably a good, reasonable answer that I am not thinking of at this moment. ------------------------------ Mark hi. I think you should not find much to disagree with in my assessment. I wish I were wrong and that there was a way to adapt your philosophy to the Catholic faith as well as it seems to do with the faith you have chosen. I respect your evangelical spirit and that you would like to expand your worldview to include religions other than LDS if possible. I think you want the best for all people and would like to help them be less vulnerable to religious criticism and more open to religious claims. Thanks for your efforts so far with the religion you had as a young man. I will still be looking to see if you make a breakthrough! I wish you the best in that. Maybe MiserereNobis could help? He understands you better than I do. I would be interested, as I am sure you would, if he thought such a project could find success. Regards, Rory
  15. Hey Damien... What harm is there if the Council of Nicea WAS determining the Scriptural canon? (It wasn't on the menu). I have never heard of anyone that is Catholic making an official definition on the Canon before the 16th Century (Trent). Unofficially at Cartgage long after our good emperor was gone. I think this is big for non-Catholics because they have this idea that the Scripture alone is adequate to resolve doctrinal controversy. It was back burner for Catholics for most of the life of the Church. We don't rely on Jn. 6 for our doctrine on the Eucharist, except that it is compatible with Apostolic Tradition. The Protestors come along, and okay let's settle this. But nobody cared much for over 15 centuries of Christianity. I don't care what the Church teaches. My care is to believe what the Church teaches, even if Constantine agreed! It is enough to believe whatever the Church teaches in every era, knowing that in the future, the Church might teach something contrary to what we currently tend to believe by our own lights. The canon is settled at Trent. Constantine as standardizing the canon? I have not heard that one! Is Francis a pope? How should I know? I'll wait for the Church to say. Whatever the Church teaches. The canon took a while. A definition on that question about Francis might take a while too. Many Saints have gained heaven in ignorance of this teaching or that because the Church had not yet spoken. We don't need to know everything to be saved. We need to submit, and believe if and when the Church makes boundaries. God bless, Rory
  • Create New...