* Church laws on fasting and abstinence :
=============================================== FASTS AND FEASTS THROUGHOUT THE YEAR FOR FAITHFUL CATHOLICS ================================================FASTING AND ABSTINENCE DAYS. The Church's law of Fast and Abstinence: ======================================== 1. On days of Full Abstinence, no meat or meat-soup or gravy may be taken. 2. On days of Partial Abstinence, meat and soup or gravy made from meat may be taken -Once A Day-, at the main meal, even by those who are not obliged to fast. 3. On Fasting days, only one full meal is allowed. Two other meat-less meals may be taken according to one's needs; but together may not equal another full meal. All Catholics seven years old and over are obliged to abstain. All Catholics from the completion of their twenty-first to the beginning of their sixtieth year, unless lawfully excused, are bound to fast. * Days of Abstinence: Every Friday. * Days of Fasting and Abstinence: Fridays of Lent; Ember Friday; Ash Wednesday; 7-Th of Dec, 24-th of December. * Days of Fast & Partial Abstinence: Ember Wednesday, Ember Saturday, Vigil of Pentecost. * Days of Fasting only: All weekdays of Lent incl. Holy Saturday, except for days of Fast & Abstinence mentioned above. Note: The Church has relaxed the above Disciplinary Laws of Fast and Abstinence in recent times. Fast and Abstinence, under pain of mortal sin, is now only two days in the year: Ash Wednesday and Good Friday. - On Fridays during Lent you must do other penances if you omit the former Fast and Abstinence penance. - A Catholic may, if he so wishes, observe the present regulations without fault or sin. It is recommended that all Catholic's follow traditional practices, and voluntarily observe the Laws of Fast and Abstinence above, in a spirit of penance, mortification and reparation. Our Lady of Fatima urges us all to penance. We all need to do penance for our sins and for the Church and to save our souls.
THE EUCHARIST (HOLY COMMUNION) FAST. It is obligatory to Fast from Midnight before receiving Holy Communion. This means, not to eat or drink anything, until after you have received Holy Communion. To take even water would break the Communion Fast. If one is in danger of death that person does not have to observe the fast. In cases of emergency, where it becomes necessary to save the Most Blessed Sacrament from irreverence or desecration, the fast is not observed The Fast for Midnight Mass is: not to eat or drink anything for the previous six hours. By the Apostolic Constitution Christus Dominus (6 January 1953) Pope Pius XII made certain relaxations in the rule of fasting before receiving Holy Communion. The mind of the Church in making these concessions (as with the permission granted to diocesan Bishops to allow Mass to be said and Holy Communion to be distributed on certain evenings in the week) is that the faithful may find it easier to communicate more frequently and with greater fruit. In the course of the years that followed, these relaxations have been extended and simplified. At present the following rules apply at whatever time of the day Holy communion is received, whether in the evening or at midnight or in the morning. 1. Water may be taken at any time. 2. Solid food may be taken up to three hours. before Holy Communion. 3. Alocholic drinks may be taken, with or without food, up to three hours before Holy Communion. 4. Non-alocholic drinks may be taken up to one hour before Holy Communion. 5. The sick (not necessarily bed-ridden) may take genuine medicines, solid or liquid, as well as non-alcoholic drinks, at anytime before Holy Communion. The Holy Father fervently exhorts the faithful who are able to do so, to observe the old form of Eucharistic Fast before Holy Communion, though there is no obligation to do so.
* Do Traditional Catholic Priests Have Jurisdiction ?
Jurisdiction is required for the validity of the Sacraments of penance and matrimony. It is true that most traditional priests do not have this permission from their local bishops. However, the Church provides for what is called supplied jurisdiction, [Canon 144]. This applies to many situations such as: * When a priest inadvertently continues to hear confessions once his faculties have expired [canon 142]. * When the penitent is in danger of death (here even if the priest is laicised or an apostate jurisdiction is supplied) [Canon 976] Many priests cannot in conscience operate under the local ordinaries, since this would prevent them from offering the Tridentine Mass or force them to say the Novus Ordo. Now when the faithful feel that they cannot go to a priest with ordinary jurisdiction for Confession becasue they cannot trust his advice or judgement, a case of -moral impossibility- arises. In such a case, the jurisdiction is supplied by the Church [Canon 144]. Canon 1335 grants this to even a suspended priest. Regarding marriage, Canon 1116 states that if the parties can't go to their parish priest without serious inconvenience (i.e-- having the Novus Ordo Mass for the wedding or erroneous moral teachings on marriage), and if this circumstance lasts for at least a month, they can marry before another priest. Given the current crisis, and the fact that the salvation of souls is the supreme law [Canon 1752] ; Holy Mother Church -supplies- this jurisdiction for the priest. It is different from ordinary jurisdiction, but the results are the same. No penalty is incurred by the faithful when acting from a state of necessity, and the Sacraments are certainly valid. Therefore traditional priests, not under local bishops, certainly do have jurisdiction, as Canon Law clearly states.* What Are We To Think Of "Charismatic" Catholics ?
The movement is related to the heresy called Messalianism, which the Church has condemnded centuries ago. The Charismatic movement actualy developed from the early part of the 20th century and refers to a desire on the part of some to recapture the miracles of Pentecost and the book of Acts. Many sects have grown out of the Pentecostal movement. Examples are the Assemblies of God and the Church of God. The "Charismatic" movement is of more recent origin and refers to the ecumenical tongues-speaking phenomenon which has spread through non-Pentecostal denominations, including the Catholic Church. While there remains some difference between the Pentecostal and Charismatic, the differences are rapidly being blurred. The mainstream Pentecostal denominations have imbibed of the worldly, ecumenical charismatic spirit. "Charles F. Parham (1873-1929) has been called `the father of the modern Pentecostal movement.' He established the Bethel Healing Home (1898) and the Bethel Bible College (1900) in Topeka, Kansas. (1) In the Pentecostal-Charismatic movement religious experience is the primary basis of its unity, while doctrinal beliefs are downplayed. This is why charismatics can have ecumenical relationships even with Roman Catholics. They disregard doctrine and exalt experience. (like Modernists) (2) The Charismatic movement ignores biblical instructions concerning spirituality and spiritual gifts. For example, tongues speaking is upheld as the evidence of "baptism in the spirit". According to the Charismatics, tongue speaking is something every Christian should and can have, yet the N.T. says every Christian did not receive tongues (1 Co.12:7-11,28-30). (3) The Charismatic movement promotes "slaying in the Spirit," or "coming under the power." Many key charismatic leaders practice this by laying hands on their followers who then slump down, unconscious or semi-conscious. There is nothing like this in the Bible. The Apostles certainly did not practice such a thing. Some attempt to use Jn. 18:6 to justify the practice, but those who fell in this instance were unsaved people who were coming to arrest the Son of God! "Spirit slaying" is akin to hypnotism and occultism. The Bible warns the faithful to be in control of themselves at all times. We are not to release ourselves to the influence of some foreign power. "Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour" (1 Pe. 5:8). That Charismatics are growing cozy with Rome is evident on every hand and is readily admitted by ecumenical leaders; Card. Suenens was one of the main leaders of this most un-orthodox phenomena. Catholics should have nothing to do with this movement; they risk losing their souls.* Private Revelation : Apparitions and other "seers, visionaries" which have not been approved by the Church .
Catholics must be extremly cautious about private revelations not approved by the Church. Everything neccesary for our salvation is contained in Public Revelation which ended with the death of St. John the Evangelist. The Church, has authority only to teach from the sacred Deposit of Faith; that is Scripture and Tradition which constitue public revelation. Pope Benedict XIV tells us : "Even though many of these revelations have been approved, we cannot and we ought not to give them the assent of divine faith, but only that of human faith, according to the dictates of prudence whenever these dictates enable us to decide that they are worth of pious credence." "St. John of the cross asserts that the desire for revelations deprives faith of its purity, develops a dangerous curiosity that becomes a source of illusions, fills the mind with vain fancies, and often proves the want of humility, and of submission to Our Lord, Who, through His public revelation, has given all that is needed for salvation". When private revelations have been approved by the Church, this only means that they do not contain anything contrary to faith and morals and that there is sufficient evidence to justify belief in their authenticity; She does not and can not, impose belief in a private revelation and its contents, either on an individual or on the faithful at large. There are many Catholics who do not know the basic teachings of the Church as well as they should; let them concentrate on learning and practicing their faith instead of chasing after various apparitions. "Stay away from visions, apparitions, and miracles as much as you can. Be careful of visions, even when they are authentic." -St. John of the Cross (1542-1591) "We must suspect those apparitions that lack dignity or proper reserve, and above all, those that are ridiculous. This last charcteristic is a mark of human or diabolical machination." -St. John of the Cross (1542-1591) Catholics should avoid private revelations which have not been approved by the Church ; these include Medjugorje, Bayside and many other false revelations.* Communion By Hand
St. Sixtus I (circa 115) : `` The Sacred Vessels are not to be handled by others than those consecrated to the Lord . " The Council of Saragossa (380) : Ex-Communicated anyone who dared continue recieving Holy Communion by hand. This was confirmed by the Synod of Toledo. The Synod of Rouen (650) : "Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layman but only in their mouths." The Sixth Ecumenical Council, at Constantinople (680-681): Forbade the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand, threatening transgressors with Ex-Communication. St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) : "Out of reverence towards this sacrament [the Holy Eucharist], nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest's hands, for touching this sacrament." (Summa Theologica, Pars III, Q. 82, Art. 3 The Council of Trent (1545-1565) : "The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition." Pope Paul VI (1963-1978) : "This method [on the tongue] must be retained." ("Memoriale Domini") Pope John Paul II (1978-) : "To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained. (Dominicae Cenae) "It is not permitted that the faithful should themselves pick up the consecrated bread and the sacred chalice, still less that they should hand them from one to another." (Inaestimabile Donum)* What Are We To Think Of The Sede-Vacantists ?
In the face of the scandal of a Pope who can sign Dignitatis Humanae, radically change the liturgy of the Mass, codify a new ecclesiology, or make himself the protagonist for an aberrant ecumenism, etc., some have concluded that the last Popes cannot have been true Popes, or else that they have lost the pontificate because of such scandals. They refer to the discussions of the great counter-Reformation theologians on the loss of the pontificate (through abdication, insanity, heresy, etc.) and argue thus: * He who is not a member of the Church can't be its head. * but a heretic is not a member of the Church, * now, Pope John XXIII, Pope Paul VI, Pope John Paul I and Pope John Paul II are heretics, * therefore, they are neither members nor head of the Church, * and so all their acts are to be completely ignored. But then again, the argument continues, the same scandals are true of all the world's diocesan bishops, who are also consequently non-members without authority; and the Catholic Church must be identified only with those who have not compromised the Faith and who refuse communion with these "Popes" or "Bishops." A minority of these will elect their own "Pope." The argument's strength is in the real scandal of the conciliar authorities' impetus given to the Church's "new direction"; its weakness is in not being able to prove that any of these authorities are formal heretics. * You are a "material" heretic without knowing it if you objectively contradict what God has said but through no fault of your own; * you are a "formal" heretic if you do pertinaciously contradict what God has said, i.e., knowing that you're denying what God has said and wanting to do this anyway. Now, the ordinary way for the Church to ascertain pertinacity and enforce the consequences of one's heresy by either excommunication and/or loss of office, is through authoritative monitions to the delinquent which he spurns (1983 Code of Canon Law, canon 2314, 1). But nobody can authoritatively admonish the Pope (canon 1556), and the Bishops can only be admonished by their superior, the Pope (canon 1557), who has not done so. Therefore, pertinacity, and so formal heresy, cannot be proven. But could pertinacity not be presumed from the insistence of these Popes on the new ways, and this in the face of all tradition and its present-day witnesses? Perhaps; but not socially i.e., as regards loss of office, etc., which must not be presumed but proven, otherwise societies would collapse. The argument does not prove its point, and becomes less probable when you consider that there are other explanations for the "material heretic" Pope [a)-see below], and it becomes quite improbable when you consider its dangers b) or consequences c). a) The liberal mind-set of a Pope Paul VI or a Pope John Paul II can be an explanation of their wanting to be Catholics and their simultaneous betrayal in practice of Catholicism. They accept contradictions; with a subjective and evolutive mentality, this is to be expected. But such a frame of mind can be convinced of heresy only by way of authority.... (b) The Church is indefectible not only in her faith and means of sanctification, but also in her monarchical constitution comprising governing power i.e., jurisdiction, hence Vatican I's profession that Peter will have perpetual successors. Now, we can understand a break in the line of Popes from the death of one to the election of the next, and that it may drag on. But is indefectibility preserved if there is no Pope since 1962 or if there is no one with ordinary jurisdiction whom the sedevacantists can point out as such? The Church is Visible and not just a society composed of those who are joined by interior bonds (state of grace, same faith,...). A society is recognized and maintained as such by its authority (its efficient cause). c) If the Church has not had a Pope since the days of Vatican II, then there are no more Cardinals legitimately created. But then how is the Church to get a Pope again, as the current discipline grants only to Cardinals the power to elect a Pope? The Church could have ordained that non-Cardinal "electors of the Pope" be capable of doing it, but we cannot go by any other way than the current discipline which ordains that Cardinals elect him. A few sedevacantists hold that he has been or will be directly designated by private revelation from heaven. There are spiritual consequences of sedevacantism: * Sedevacantism is a theological opinion, and not a certitude. To treat it as a certitude leads to condemning with temerity traditional Catholics who disagree; and invariably it leads to one's recognizing no spiritual superiors on earth. Each becomes, in practice, his own little "pope," the rule of faith and orthodoxy, the judge of the validity of sacraments. This being so, we ought not to associate with, or, receive the sacraments from them, most especially if they set up sedevacantism as a certitude which all have to accept.* What Are We To Think Of Ecumenism ?
Today's ecumenical movement as it exists today owes its origin to a conference of Protestant missionaries at Edinburgh in 1910. Its original purpose was among Protestant missionaries of different denominations to promote a spirit of collaboration in order to "evangelize" the pagan world. Doctrinal differences were to be played down... unity of action and what was held in common by all was to be exalted. It was during this time that Charles Brent, an American Episcopal Bishop of the Phillippines conceived the idea of assembling a great conference of delegates from all Christian confessions. A second conference was formed shortly after by Brent called the "Conference on Faith and Order." ln 1919, the Holy See being invited to send delegates, politely declined. Pope Benedict XV explained that although his earnest desire was one fold and one shepherd, it would be impossible for the Catholic Church to join with others in search of unity. As for the Church of Christ, it is already one and could not give the appearance of searching for itself or for its own unity. It is reported that the Holy Father did not disapprove of the movement as something outside the Catholic Church, but by his own words it is obvious he knew it was not only futile, but dangerous and even scandalous to the Catholic Faithful to participate in seeking unity in such a manner. Pope Pius XI, issued the Encyclical "Mortalium Animos" in 1928 in response to the growing 'ecumenical movement' . Here are some excerpts from this Encyclical with comments added in brackets: [ Below, Pius XI speaks of those who would unite on the basis of certain common beliefs. He states that this would be erroneous as unity based on *some* common beliefs would mean denying certain others] " A similar object is aimed at by some, in those matters which concern the New Law promulgated by Christ our Lord. For since they hold it for certain that men destitute of all religious sense are very rarely to be found, they seem to have founded on that belief a hope that the nations, although they differ among themselves in certain religious matters, will without much difficulty come to agree as brethren in professing certain doctrines, which form as it were a common basis of the spiritual life... For which reason conventions, meetings and addresses are frequently arranged by these persons, at which a large number of listeners are present, and at which all without distinction are invited to join in the discussion, both infidels of every kind, and Christians, even those who have unhappily fallen away from Christ or who with obstinacy and pertinacity deny His divine nature and mission... It even takes possession of the minds of very many Catholics and allures them with the hope of bringing about such a union as would be agreeable to the desires of Holy Mother Church, who has indeed nothing more at heart than to recall her erring sons and to lead them back to her bosom. But in reality beneath these enticing words and blandishments lies hid a most grave error, by which the foundations of the Catholic faith are completely destroyed." [ He next states that it is not lawful to support such attempts at unity as Truth cannot be compromised. ] "This being so, it is clear that the Apostolic See cannot on any terms take part in their assemblies, nor is it anyway lawful for Catholics either to support or to work for such enterprises; for if they do so they will be giving countenance to a false Christianity, quite alien to the one Church of Christ. Shall We suffer, what would indeed be iniquitous, the truth, and a truth divinely revealed, to be made a subject for compromise? For here there is question of defending revealed truth. " [ The following paragraph condems the false view that all religions are good,and states that such a view would lead to a complete rejection of the One True Faith-- an error we see in our times ] "Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule. Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little turn aside to naturalism and atheism, as it is called; from which it clearly follows that one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion. " [ Here, Pius XI warns agains a false notion of charity in uniting the churches] " These pan-Christians who turn their minds to uniting the churches seem, indeed, to pursue the noblest of ideas in promoting charity among all Christians: nevertheless how does it happen that this charity tends to injure faith? Everyone knows that John himself, the Apostle of love, who seems to reveal in his Gospel the secrets of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and who never ceased to impress on the memories of his followers the new commandment "Love one another," altogether forbade any intercourse with those who professed a mutilated and corrupt version of Christ's teaching: "If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him: God speed you." [ Below, the pope speaks of a false unity in which each person has his own private opinion on matters of faith. He warns against a "Christian Federation" which would embrace contrary doctrinces ] "For which reason, since charity is based on a complete and sincere faith, the disciples of Christ must be united principally by the bond of one faith. Who then can conceive a Christian Federation, the members of which retain each his own opinions and private judgment, even in matters which concern the object of faith, even though they be repugnant to the opinions of the rest? And in what manner, We ask, can men who follow contrary opinions, belong to one and the same Federation of the faithful? " [ Some common errors of our own times are given as examples : the denial of Sacred Tradition, the Eucharist as a mere memorial, etc. ] "For example, those who affirm, and those who deny that sacred Tradition is a true fount of divine Revelation; those who hold that an ecclesiastical hierarchy, made up of bishops, priests and ministers, has been divinely constituted, and those who assert that it has been brought in little by little in accordance with the conditions of the time; those who adore Christ really present in the Most Holy Eucharist through that marvelous conversion of the bread and wine, which is called transubstantiation, and those who affirm that Christ is present only by faith or by the signification and virtue of the Sacrament; those who in the Eucharist recognize the nature both of a sacrament and of a sacrifice, and those who say that it is nothing more than the memorial or commemoration of the Lord's Supper..." [ The pope now states the true nature of unity, warns against the indifferentism, relativism and modernism which we see today ] "How so great a variety of opinions can make the way clear to effect the unity of the Church We know not; that unity can only arise from one teaching authority, one law of belief and one faith of Christians. But We do know that from this it is an easy step to the neglect of religion or indifferentism and to modernism, as they call it. Those, who are unhappily infected with these errors, hold that dogmatic truth is not absolute but relative, that is, it agrees with the varying necessities of time and place and with the varying tendencies of the mind, since it is not contained in immutable revelation, but is capable of being accommodated to human life." [ The pope reiterates that true unity can be reached only when non-Catholics return to the Church ] " So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics: for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it. "
* What Is Schism ?
One becomes a schismatic when he voluntarily, knowingly and deliberately separates himself from the unity of the Church. The word schism comes from the greek word for 'split'; and refers to the grave sin of breaking off from the unity of the Church. But what is this unity ? The Church is Visible and maintained as such by its authority, her unity is based on her members' profession of the same faith, the same essential form of worship,Sacraments, and one central visible authority-- the pope. Those who refuse to recognize the authority of the pope become guilty of schism. However, an act of disobedience to the pope does not amount to schism. Schism requires that one not recognize the authority of the pope to command; disobedience consists in not obeying a command, whilst still acknowledging the authority of the one commanding. "The child who says 'I won't!' to his mother does not deny that she is his mother." In other words, there is a difference between recognising John-Paul II as pope while disobeying him; and stating that he is not the pope. This is an important distinguishment-- recognition of the authority to command, versus not obeying a command while acknowleding the authority of the one commanding. A command to do an act known to be sinful may never be obeyed, however high the authority may be, even if obedience is due by a vow (e.g. from a religious). Let's examine some cases of how traditional Catholics can fall into schism : * By denying that John-Paul II is the the Pope. This position, held by the sede-vacantists amounts to *at least* material schism. * By refusing to recognize the authority of the Vicar of Christ. * By stating that the Church has not the power to annul invalid marriages. (Although annulments are so easily granted by the Novus Ordo, the authority to declare that a marriage-bond never existed belongs to the Church). * By interpreting Scripture and Tradition according to our own whims. There is a particular tendency among many traditional Catholics who are left without clear guidance to interpret the teachings of the Church on their own. An example which comes to mind is the recent posts we had regarding the definition of the dogma "Outside the Church there is no salvation". All doctrine must be believed and understood as the Church understands it, and we are not the interpretors of what Tradition is or is not. Again, in order for the above to be schismatic acts they must be done voluntarily, knowingly and deliberately. I have pointed out some of the dangers to which traditional Catholics can be prone to. It is best to take the middle road, not heading too much to the left nor to the right; for the truth is usualy found somewhere in the middle-- not in the left nor in the right. And to close, I will quote the Angelic Doctor himself : "It is not for man, but for Him who searcheth the reins and heart, to sit in judgment on the guilt which attaches to an heretical conscience."* WHAT ARE WE TO THINK OF THE NEW CATECHISM ?
This question illustrates the fundamental differences between the so-called "conservatives" and Taditionalists. These Conservatives are often seen defending both the traditional Latin Mass and the "new" Catechism but not openly attacking either the Novus Ordo Missae or Vatican II. Traditionalists, on the other hand, defend the traditional catechisms and therefore the traditional Latin Mass, and so attack the Novus Ordo Missae, Vatican II and the "new" Catechism, all of which more or less undermine our unchangeable Catholic faith. Conservatives defend the Catechism of the Catholic Church for its re-affirmation of teachings silenced or denied by outrightly modernist catechisms; Traditionalists reject it though because it is an attempt to formalize and propagate the teachings of Vatican II. Pope John Paul II agrees with this: "The Catechism was also indispensable, in order that all the richness of the teaching of the Church following the Second Vatican Council could be preserved in a new synthesis and be given a new direction." One need but consider the 806 citations from Vatican II, a number which amounts on average to one citation every three-and-a-half paragraphs throughout the 2,865 paragraphs of the Catechism. In particular, the novelties of Vatican II appear in the following paragraphs: * an infatuation with the dignity of man ( 225; 369; 1700; 1929...), o such that we may hope for the salvation of all the baptized ( 1682ff), o even non-Catholics ( 818), o or those who commit suicide ( 2283), o and of all the unbaptised, whether adults ( 847), o or infants ( 1261); o which is the basis of all rights ( 1738; 1930; 1935) including that of religious liberty ( 2106ff), o and the motive of all morality ( 1706; 1881; 2354; 2402; 2407, etc.), * a commitment to ecumenism ( 820f; 1399; 1401) because all religions are instruments of salvation ( 819; 838-843; 2104), * collegiality ( 879-885), * over-emphasis on the priesthood of the faithful ( 873; 1547; 1140ff, etc.). Now, just as he who denies but one article of Faith loses the Faith (cf., Principle 7), so a teacher who errs on one point alone proves himself fallible, and, renders all he teaches questionable. Just as the Second Vatican Council is not an authority to quote even where it propounds Catholic teaching (it does not do so infallibly and clearly), so this Catechism is not an authority of Catholic belief because of the modern deviations which it encompasses. Those who defend this catechism are supporting the innovations of Vatican II.* Is There Salvation Outside The Church?
This is one of the most mis-understood doctrines of the Catholic Church. "We are bound by divine and Catholic faith to believe all those things which are contained in the word of God, whether it be Scripture or Tradition, and are proposed by the Church to be believed as divinely revealed, not only through solemn judgment but also through the ordinary and universal teaching office (Denzinger, n. 1792). Now, among those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach is contained also that infallible statement by which we are taught that there is no salvation outside the Church. However, this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church. Now, in the first place, the Church teaches that in this matter there is question of a most strict command of Jesus Christ. For He explicitly enjoined on His apostles to teach all nations to observe all things whatsoever He Himself had commanded (Matt. 28: 19-20). Now, among the commandments of Christ, that one holds not the least place by which we are commanded to be incorporated by baptism into the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church, and to remain united to Christ and to His Vicar, through whom He Himself in a visible manner governs the Church on earth. Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth. Not only did the Savior command that all nations should enter the Church, but He also decreed the Church to be a means of salvation without which no one can enter the kingdom of eternal glory. In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of penance (
Martyrdom is to suffer death for Christ, as when the Holy
Innocents were put to death for Him. As Our Lord said "He that shall lose
his life for me shall find it" (Matt. 10:39). One proof of this doctrine
is that the Church has observed the feast of the Holy Innocents since the
earliest times.
In addition, the Fathers of the Church affirm "baptism of blood" clearly:
St. Cyril of Jerusalem writes that "... in time of peace men might be saved
by water [of Sacramental Baptism], and in time of persecution by their own
blood" . (Catech. 3, n.10). St. Cyprian writes: "Can the power of baptism
be greater or stronger than the confession a man makes by confessing Christ
before men, and being baptised in his own blood?" (Ep. ad Jubaian.,n.21).
The martyrs have passed through tremendous persecutions, and have
washed their stoles and made them white in the Blood of the Lamb. Their reward
shall not be denied them.
Pope St. Pius V. condemned the following view:
"A catechumen lives justly and rightly and holily, and observes
the commandments of God, and fulfills the law through charity
which is onlyy received in the laver of baptism, before
the remission of sins
has been obtained."
(Condemned) --Denzinger 1033
* Is Mary Co-Redemptress of Mankind ?
A group of laity, "Vox Populi Mariae Mediatrici" have been petitioning the Holy See to define Mary as Co-Redemptress. This has caused much confusion amongst the faithful. Let us examine the proper teaching of the Church in this matter: Mary is considered to be Co-Redemptress. However, this must be understood correctly. She is Co-Remptress in as much as she assisted in her Son's redemptive work. "For when she presented herself to God as a handmaid for the role of Mother, or when she totally dedicated herself with her Son in the temple, from each of these facts she was already then a sharer in the laborious expiation for the human race. Hence we cannot doubt that she greatly grieved in soul in the most harsh anguishes and torments of her Son. Further, that divine sacrifice had to be completed with her present and looking on, for which she had generously nourished the victim from herself. Finally this is more tearfully observed in the same mysteries: There stood by the Cross of Jesus, Mary His Mother... of her own accord she offered her Son to the divine justice, dying with Him in her heart, transfixed with the sword of sorrow." (Pope Leo XIII) This does not mean than we place Mary on the same level as her Son. Her very ability to do anything came from Him. However, she is the most exalted of all creation, because her Son has chosen her to be. "None greater under God can be thought of, and no one but God can comprehend it" writes Pope Pius IX. Her role as Co-Redemptress can be seen in her obedience to the will of God-- from when she gave her 'fiat' at the Annunciation until she stood by the foot of the Cross. This is better understood when we see that without Mary's fiat, and her full obedience to the will of God, there would have been no Incarnation or Redemption. In this sense, and in-as-much as she suffered with her Son, she is considered Co-Redemptress.A CATHOLIC LIVING WILL
As many hospitals now permit suicide, it is important to have a "living will" directing how your healthcare should be managed if you are unable to direct it yourself. It is -never- permissable to commit an act which directly hastens or causes death. It is required that life be maintained by ordinary means, and one is not obliged to use extra-ordinary means to maintain life. Extraordinary means include such things as cardiopulmonary resuscitation, major surgery, chemotherapy, and even ventilators.. They do not include such things as fluids, I.V liquids, simple medications and such (To further complicate matters,such means may differ from person to person). Life-sustaining devices may not be withdrawn from the patient with the direct intention of causing death; they may be withdrawn in certain conditions if they offer no reasonable hope of preserving the patient's life; and imposing a great risk or burden. The following is a sample living will. Due to legal complexities, you should check this with your attorney. LIVING WILL I direct my health care provider to make health care decisions consistent with my general desire for the use of medical treatment that would preserve my life, as well as for the use of medical treatment that can cure, improve, or reduce/prevent deterioration in any physical or mental condition. I direct my health-care provider to provide me with food and fluids orally, intravenously, by tube, or by other means to the full extent necessary to preserve my life and to assure the best health possible. I direct that medication be administered, including pain-killers, provided that such medication is not used to cause my death. I also direct that cardiopulmonary resuscitation and all other necessary medical and surgical procedures be used to the full extent necessary to correct, reverse or alleviate life threatening or health imapiring conditions, or complications arising from those conditions. I reject any treatments that use an organ or tissue of another person obtained in a manner that causes, contributes to, or hastens that persons death. I also reject any treatments that use an unborn or newborn child, who has been subject to induced abortion. I request and direct that medical treatment and care be provided to me to preserve my life without discrimination based on my age or physical or mental disability or the "quality" of my life. I reject any action or omission inspired by such considerations that is intended to cause or hasten my death. I direct that the above mentioned directions be strictly followed even if I am considered to be incompetent, or even if suicide is alleged to be attempted. If a reasonable, prudent physician, knowledgeable of my case, and of the treatment possibilites, considers that even with maximal treatment I have less that three months probable of life expectancy due to an incurable illness or injury, I direct that I be treated as terminally ill. In such a case, I directthat extraordinary meansnot be used to artificialy prolong life. Extraordinary means include such procedures as C.P.R, major surgery, and chemotherapy, but DO NOT INCLUDE such things as fluids, nourishment and simple medications such as most antibiotics. If in doubt on whether or not a means is extraordinary, either myself or my agent ; if I am incompetant, must be consulted.* Should Women Cover Their Heads In Church ?
The practice of women wearing head-covering in church is based on Scripture and included in the traditional Code of Canon Law. St. Paul teaches that women must have their heads covered in church: "Every man praying or prophesying with his head covered, disgraces his head. But every woman praying or prophesying with her head uncovered disgraces her head." (I Cor. 11:4-5) Canon 1262.2 of the traditional Canon Law of the Church states: "Men should be with head uncovered in church or outside of church, when they assist at the sacred rites, unless the approved customs of the people or additional particulars of the circumstances call for something else; women, however, should be with head covered and modestly dressed, particularly when they approach the Lord's table." The Bl. Mother, always humble, should be the example of all women. She did not wish to attract attention to herself and we can be certain that she dressed in a modest manner. Women would do well to not only have their hair covered in church, but to approach the altar with the same inward humility which the veils signify.* What Is Limbo ?
While not an official doctrine or dogma, it is the common view of theologians and the logical conclusion of Church doctrine, that infants dying with original sin only have as their final destination Limbo. The Council of Florence, states that "the souls of those who depart from this life, either in actual or in original sin only, go down at once into hell, there however to suffer disparate penalties". Limbo is considered to be a lower part of Hell in which these children who are excluded from the beatific vision, suffer no other punishment but are in a state of natural happiness. This is based on the solid theology of the likes of St. Gregory of Nazianzus and St. Thomas.M e n u
Catholic
Traditional E-Mail List
Library of Files
Back To Main Page
The Survey
Please Fill
Out!