Sabitlenmiş Tweet
'Bread from their hands': Private revelation and Catholics today
Fr Reid Hennick sets out the proper place of private revelations in the life of Catholics:
wmreview.org/p/bread-from-t…
English
The WM Review
20.4K posts
The WM Review
@TheWMReview
Essays on the Catholic Church, theology, history and more. Posts do not necessarily represent the opinions of both editors.
England Katılım Haziran 2021
939 Takip Edilen5.3K Takipçiler
False Prophets – Seventh Sunday after Pentecost
Our Lord's warning requires his faithful to discern true teachers from false ones:
fathercoleridge.org/p/false-prophe…
English
The WM Review retweetledi
🚨🇺🇸TONIGHT: I will be interviewing Bishop Donald Sanborn from @MHTSeminary to discuss the heresy of Americanism, the US Founding, Liberal Catholicism, and more. Stay tuned.
English
This included the Dominican St John of Cologne, commemorated with the other martyrs today in the Dominican Little Office of the Blessed Virgin.
Robbert Leusink 🇳🇱@robbertleusink
On July 9th 1572, nineteen Catholic priests were hanged in a peat shed in the Netherlands. They were offered their lives if they denied the Eucharist. All nineteen refused. The ropes were too long to break their necks. They strangled slowly. The men who killed them founded the Dutch Republic. The country the world knows for tolerance began here.
English
Indeed, although NB the article below (published yesterday), which acknowledges the point also made by @PadrePalma. There's a similarity between what happened and what +GDL said, although the one on 1 July did occur in a way that looked like it was a mandate.
wmreview.org/p/mgr-guerard-…
English
The WM Review@TheWMReview
Interesting. M. Adrien Loubier, in his obituary for Mgr Guérard des Lauriers, wrote: "Let us not forget that the preliminary of the ceremony of the consecration of bishops is liturgically constituted by the reading of the Roman mandate. It is the beginning of the Pontifical. This prerequisite is obligatory, and if it is lacking, then, as Mgr Guérard des Lauriers did, it must be replaced by the exposition of the reasons for which one believed it necessary to proceed without it." wmreview.org/p/in-memoriam-…
QME
“Habetis mandatum apostolicum?” “Do you have the Apostolic Mandate?” Bishop De Galarreta rightly asks. The honest and truthful answer is simply “no”. Instead, Bishop Fellay remains silent, and someone else, gives the impression that, indeed, there is one, by reading with solemnity from a sort of a solemn declaration paper, not the Apostolic Mandate (because there was none) but something else. The visuals, the scenography hinted to having an Apostolic Mandate, but the reality is that, again, there was none. A lot of people, I hear, found that, honestly speaking, at the very least, misleading. One can understand the problem: if one accepts Leo XIV as a true pope, it is impossible to justify the consecration of bishops without his permission, without his approval, without his Apostolic Mandate. The SSPX has an unsolvable theological position.
Michael Haynes 🇻🇦@MLJHaynes
SSPX Consecrations: Asked if the four bishops have the apostolic mandate, the notary replies -- “It is the Catholic & Roman church, always faithful to the traditions received from the apostles, who in entirely exceptional circumstances demands that we provide for the upholding of these traditions, that is the deposit of faith & that we take the means necessary to transmit them faithfully to all men for the salvation of their souls. Since the Second Vatican Council up to the present day the authorities in the church have been animated by a spirit that is contrary to the faith & have been acting against holy tradition. They will no longer endure sound doctrine” Schreiber then makes the episcopal oath.
English
Mgr Guérard des Lauriers on SSPX excommunications
Shortly before his death in 1988, the French Dominican bishop reflected on the rumoured episcopal consecrations, which Archbishop Lefebvre conferred soon after.
Here is a survey of his comments:
wmreview.org/p/mgr-guerard-…
English
@TradCathSermons "I reserve the right to turn a deaf ear to you"
This is just slanderous. It said if you be specific, "the accusation will be considered." A vague accusation without any evidence or demonstration, why should that be considered?
English
God forbid I ever veer off from Church Teaching! But if I ever do, and you don't approach my tye way I want you to, I reserve the right to turn a deaf ear to you,
Thank you for your compliance.
The WM Review@TheWMReview
If someone wants to reproach us with denying Catholic dogma or defined doctrine, they should do so directly and specifically, and the accusation will be considered. Regarding the above topics, I don't think either of us have ever written anything on the latter two at all. On all topics, we submit to the magisterium of the Church. Our about page contains the following from St Teresa of Avila: "We submit everything on this site to what is taught by Our Mother, the Holy Roman Church. If there is anything in it contrary to this, it will be without our knowledge. Therefore, for the love of Our Lord, we beg learned men to look at it very carefully, and to draw our attention to any faults of this nature, as well as to any other faults which will no doubt find their way into it."
English
To be clear, @TradCathSermons' assertion – which appears to be an allegation, and if so one of the gravest possible – would require the following:
1. The offending statement
2. The dogma that it allegedly denies, and evidence of the theological note of the dogma in question.
3. Demonstration that (1) constitutes denial or doubt of (2).
If you think that you can provide that, then please do so. I wish to profess everything that the Church teaches.
But if you can't, the right thing to do would be to retract.
English
I'm trying (sometimes unsuccessfully) to stay out of the trad Twitter battles atm and so I don't want to get involved except to say...
Although I don't agree with all of their opinions, I think @TheWMReview and @StephenKokx are top-notch men. Men that we want on our side and men that we shouldn't demonize simply because they have a few opinions that differ from ours.
I'm completely against cancel culture unless it is regarding dogma or scandal or feeneyism.
Some ideas should be hashed out and some have been hidden from public discussion for decades. It's a fine line of what should be "allowed" to be discussed but the answer surely cannot be to just shut down opposing voices by any means. Especially when those "opposing voices" are good men.
Just my two cents.
English
If someone wants to reproach us with denying Catholic dogma or defined doctrine, they should do so directly and specifically, and the accusation will be considered.
Regarding the above topics, I don't think either of us have ever written anything on the latter two at all. On all topics, we submit to the magisterium of the Church. Our about page contains the following from St Teresa of Avila:
"We submit everything on this site to what is taught by Our Mother, the Holy Roman Church. If there is anything in it contrary to this, it will be without our knowledge. Therefore, for the love of Our Lord, we beg learned men to look at it very carefully, and to draw our attention to any faults of this nature, as well as to any other faults which will no doubt find their way into it."
English
@CathFamPodcast @TradCathSermons @TheWMReview @StephenKokx I think she means defined doctrine(s)
Slavery
Race
National Socialism
English
Proposal:
The limits of “The Truce of God” applied to online discourse.
Augusta Theodosia Drane (Mother Francis Raphael), biographer of Ss Dominic and Catherine, wrote:
"If the Church failed in putting an end to war, she did her best to mitigate its atrocities. By the Truce of God she did actually set limits to the violence of the age.Under this title was understood the law by which her councils forbade all men under the severest spiritual censures to carry on any hostilities public or private during certain specified seasons.
"These were, generally speaking,
- In every week from Wednesday evening to Monday morning
- From the beginning of Advent to the octave of the Epiphany, from the first day of Lent to the octave of Easter
- From the Rogation Days to the octave of Pentecost.
"A number of holy days differing in different parts were likewise included in the Truce, and during all these times it was forbidden not only to fight, but to lay waste lands and carry off cattle."
---
Positively, that means online fighting would only be permitted:
- From Monday morning until Wednesday evening
- Epiphanytide, Eastertide and the time after Pentecost, excluding the Octaves
- On days that aren’t high feast days.
---
Drane continues:
“Special officers with an armed force at their command were appointed to guard the observance of this sacred law, the infraction of which was regarded as an offence of the deepest dye, and those found bold enough to violate its prescriptions were held in universal reprobation."
This would be very positive too.
---
Drane concludes:
“Nothing, perhaps, is more extraordinary or more admirable in history than the fact that such a law should not only be promulgated throughout Christendom, but that on the whole it should have been observed, and it speaks volumes as to the beneficent influence exercised by religion in those wild and troublous times.”
If this was the case, people might be able to say, even amidst disputes: "See how they love one another."
wmreview.org/p/why-the-king…
English
@0remvs @CathFamPodcast What, if you don't have one, you don't see your follows?
English
@TheWMReview @CathFamPodcast I believe it is related to not having a blue check mark. Everything changed late last year.
English
@0remvs @CathFamPodcast Ok thank you. That latter part is interesting to know.
English
@TheWMReview @CathFamPodcast It was a general admonition of those recently speaking against Church teaching, not directed at you. Kevin just so happened to @ you in the tweet. I’m not aware of anything you’ve said, but then again the algorithm never shows you on my timeline anymore.
English
@CathFamPodcast @0remvs Thank you Kevin. If @0remvs has something in mind, it would be right to say what it is so that it can be considered properly.
English
@0remvs I have never seen WM or Kokx post something against Faith.
English
@0remvs @CathFamPodcast "If those opinions contradict Catholic teaching, then by all means those opinions should be condemned."
I agree. Please advise what you have in mind though?
English
@CathFamPodcast If those opinions contradict Catholic teaching, then by all means those opinions should be condemned.
If this were pre-Vatican II, none of this would be up for discussion. Civility and humility would go a long way, along with eliminating the 88 mentality.
English
@tlarosa9 Perhaps they're right. There might be other reasons why you would do this too of a practical or prudential nature. You could also look at Can. 151 (1917) as an analogous thing, although obviously it wasn't the Code at the time. Some points here: wmreview.org/p/by-what-title
English
But then how would you reconcile that Pope St. Celestine gave Nestorius 10 days to recant even though the former had already said that the latter had lost his power to excommunicate? The Sedeprivationists say that this case proves that there is a real distinction between spiritual authority and the legal office.
English
Abp. Lefebvre and the 'heretics can't excommunicate' argument
Just before the 1988 episcopal consecrations, Archbishop Lefebvre himself presented the argument which we have been proposing:
wmreview.org/p/abp-lefebvre…
English
@tlarosa9 Celestine. I hold that he did lose office. I'm not sure what Pope St Celestine held happened – beyond the fact that he lost the power to excommunicate.
English
@TheWMReview So do you hold that Pope St. Clement held that Nestorius lost his office from the moment he began preaching heresy?
English
@tlarosa9 Well, you could believe all that, or you could just take what the authorities say as detailed in the links above and the other stuff I've written.
English
Being "unjust" is not in itself a cause for an excommunication to be invalid. I concede. In the case of Nestorius, however, it may be that the object of his excommunications, that is, that they were directed at those who were opposing his heresy, is incompatible with the nature of excommunications, which in the case of heresy, is to return the excommunicates to the Faith. But they already had the Faith and it was Nestorius who was in heresy. Therefore, Nestorius' excommunications were invalid.
English
I think there are arguments for both sides regarding the idea or truly entering schsim for schismatic actions towards a man you wrongly think is Pope. I don't think it's clear cut. One might commit the sin of schism in such a case, but I'm less sure that results in the person being outside the Church (ie it rupturing the bond of charity)
English
@TheWMReview @StephenKokx I agree, but the SSPX believe Leo is pope, yet disobeys him. That is the fundamental problem that moves their position from invincible ignorance to schism. Obviously that statement infers a lot.
I believe you and I agree that we have no pope. That’s not the position of SSPX
English
It is a SCRUPLE to be concerned about censures from those whose teaching one openly states is heretical.
If there really is a problem with Fiducia Supplicans, Amoris Laetitia, the Abu Dhabi declaration, and all the rest of it, then one has no business scrupling over censures from those responsible for them. Such scruples contradict the clear light given to us by the Church.
- Can heretics excommunicate? Foundational canonical text says they cannot
wmreview.org/p/can-heretics…
- ‘Audivimus’, ‘Achatius’ and Causa XXIV: Heretics Excommunicating Catholics
wmreview.org/p/gratian-caus…
- Heretics REALLY can’t excommunicate: More clarifications in light of SSPX excommunications
wmreview.org/p/heretics-rea…
- Abp. Lefebvre and the 'heretics can't excommunicate' argument
wmreview.org/p/abp-lefebvre…
The good Lord wishes us to live in the light of reason, enlightened by faith and the teaching of the Church. It is not fitting for Christians to allow their lives to be governed by scruples and contradictory fears.
Tell your friends:
"Heretics, excommunicates, and those who preach heresy, are unable to excommunicate, or to declare automatic excommunications, or to condemn others as schismatics."
Deo gratias.
English