However, who really cares about the ersatz "Latin Mass" which in most cases is offered by invalidly ordained "priests" anyway? These clergy are in actual union with Bergoglio and promote Vatican II as well, and their services should never be attended. The reason I bring this up is because I always said that what is Modernist and what is (even remotely) Catholic cannot coexist. "For what participation hath justice with injustice? Or what fellowship hath light with darkness?" (2 Corinthians 6:14).
Bergoglio is a "Modernist's Modernist," who makes Alfred Loisy and George Tyrell seem like pillars of orthodoxy by comparison. In his letter that accompanied Traditionis Custodes, Bergoglio made the following admission:
I take the firm decision to abrogate all the norms, instructions, permissions and customs that precede the present Motu proprio, and declare that the liturgical books promulgated by the saintly Pontiffs Paul VI and John Paul II, in conformity with the decrees of Vatican Council II, constitute the unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite.
The lex orandi is roughly translated as "the law of prayer." The Catholic axiom of old states, "Lex orandi, lex credendi"---"the law of what is prayed [is] the law of what is believed." The Novus Bogus bread and wine service perfectly expresses the Modernism of Vatican II. Even the part-Traditional, part-Modernized "Latin Mass" had vestiges of anti-Modernism, and as such could not be tolerated. It could not be treated as "equal" to or an "alternative" to the Novus Bogus. It could not remain as the "Extraordinary Rite" while the Vatican II service is the "Ordinary Rite," because they do not express the same faith. Even the very idea that both express the same faith is insane.
According to Ratzinger's own document, Summorum Pontificum, the "Latin Mass" (in which he first deemed it the "Extraordinary Form"), and the Novus Bogus ("Ordinary Form") are "two uses of the one Roman Rite" (SP, para. #1). This means that members of the Vatican II sect are schizophrenic. The anthropomorphic Novus Bogus with it's focus on the Assembly ("People of God") and Words of Consecration recited in an "Institution Narrative" is just another use of the God-centered Traditional Mass. Bergoglio realizes that it's time for all to "fall in line" and purge any vestiges of the Roman Catholic Faith from his man-made sect.
The same stark differences hold true for everything pre- and post-Vatican II; or most accurately, between the True Catholic Church and the counterfeit "Catholicism" of the Vatican II sect. This post will focus on the Sacrament of Penance, replaced by "Reconciliation" in the sect. I will demonstrate yet another area where the Rites and their accompanying theologies are mutually exclusive.
Sin v. Mutual Problems To Resolve
(N.B. Information regarding Penance taken from theologian Pohle, Dogmatic Theology [1943], Vol. III---Introibo).
Catholic Penance
The very name Penance is significant. It implies voluntary self-punishment taken upon oneself as a sign of repentance for having done one or more bad things in thought, word, or deed. The person accepts the fact that he/she alone has done wrong against an All-Good, All-Just God. We are all sinners to one degree or another, and the penitent realizes they are nothing in the sight of God (in this statement I do not include Christ or His Blessed Mother). Being frail and sinful, the penitent will implore the forgiveness of the All-Merciful God. However, the penitents keep in mind that God's mercy must not be presumed. If God's Mercy kept everyone from Hell, God's Justice would keep everyone out of Heaven, since no one deserves eternity with God.
The Rite. The penitent enters the confessional where he cannot be seen. The priest is bound by the seal of the confessional; he can never tell anyone what someone said in confession. The penitent says, "Bless me father, for I have sinned. The time since my last Confession was (say the amount of time lapsed). Since that time..." The penitent will now recite the number and kinds of sins committed since he last confessed. The priest may give guidance on how to avoid sins in the future, and then imposes a penance, i.e., some prayers and/or good works the penitent must perform in order to show sorrow for his sins and make some minute reparation for said sins.
The penitent then recites the Act of Contrition, the Traditional Form of which reads as follows:
O my God, I am heartily sorry for having offended Thee, and I detest all my sins because I dread the loss of heaven and the pains of hell, but most of all because they offend Thee, my God, who art all good and deserving of all my love. I firmly resolve, with the help of Thy grace, to confess my sins, to do penance, amend my life. Amen.
Then the priest extends his right hand and says:
Misereatur tui ominipotens Deus, et dimissis peccatis tuis, perducat te ad vitam aeternam. Amen.
Indulgentiam, absolutionem, et remissionem peccatorum tuorum tribuat tibi omnipotens, et misericors Dominus. Amen.
Dominus noster Jesus Christus te absolvat; et ego auctoritate ipsius te absolvo ab omni vinculo excommunicationis, sespensionis, et interdicti in quantum possum et tu indiges. Deinde ego te abslovo a peccatis tuis in nomine Patris, (+) et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen.
English:
May the almighty God have mercy on thee, forgive thee thy sins, and lead thee unto life everlasting. Amen. May the almighty and merciful Lord grant thee pardon, absolution, and remission of thy sins. Amen.
May our Lord Jesus Christ absolve thee; and by His very authority do I absolve thee from every bond of excommunication, suspension, and interdict, in so far as lies within my power and thou hast need of it. Furthermore, I absolve thee from thy sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, (+) and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.
Traditional Catholic Theology.
The penitent must supply the matter of the Sacrament which consists in three components: Contrition, Confession, and Satisfaction.
1. CONTRITION.
Contrition is sorrow of the soul and aversion for past sins with the firm resolution not to sin again. Contrition is further divided into Perfect Contrition, which occurs when the penitent is motivated by the love of God and for His Own sake to repent; and imperfect contrition (aka attrition) which occurs when the penitent has the Fear of God and His just punishments both in this world and in Hell hereafter. Perfect Contrition justifies the sinner apart from the Sacrament of Penance as long as the desire to receive Confession is at least implicitly present. Attrition can only suffice for justification within the Sacrament of Penance.
The Contrition or Attrition must be (a) true, and not pretended, (b)supernatural, i.e. inspired by Grace and have a supernatural motive, (c) supreme, i.e., the penitent must regard sin as the greatest evil, and (d) universal, i.e., it must extend to at least all mortal sins. There must be also present a purpose of amendment. This intent must be firm (at least when made), efficacious (i.e., the penitent must avoid the occasions of sin through both caution and prayer), and universal (i.e., resolving to avoid all mortal sins).
2. CONFESSION.
You must go and confess to a priest as described above.
3. SATISFACTION.
You must carry out the priest's penance in a reasonable time. Even though anything we can do is not enough to make up for a mortal sin which offends an infinitely Good God, He nevertheless accepts our meager penance to regain sanctifying grace.
Vatican II Sect Reconciliation
The name reconciliation implies a mutual restoration of friendly relationships after the persons come to a resolution over a problem. Therefore, there is a "problem" between you and God which requires a mutual resolution. The responsibility for the "problem" is on both parties, so the very name carries a heretical notion that God causes sin. This is a form of Calvinism, in which God positively Wills people to eternal damnation. There is no personal responsibility. Montini (Paul VI) introduced this novel idea with his new Rite "promulgated" on December 2, 1973 (See Reconciliationem inter Deum et Homines).
The alleged "best way" to "celebrate the Sacrament" is by a "communal celebration" whereby everyone in the Assembly will make a sort of general admission of having done wrong, followed by individual reconciliation. (I won't even discuss the so-called "general absolution" nonsense that passes for a "Sacrament"). Sin is negative theology in the Vatican II sect. All wrongs are somehow connected, not to God, but to others first and foremost. This heretical Modernist idea permeates the sect.
The Rite.
The judicial and private confessional is replaced with a "face-to-face" Reconciliation Room. (Some churches kept the confessionals, but that is changing). The "priest" is told to greet the person (only rarely called a penitent) with warm and welcoming words. There is then a Bible reading by the Vatican II sect minister. The person recites their sins as best they can along with difficulties in leading a Christian life.
The "priest" will impose a penance, and ask the person to recite an Act of Contrition (now called The Prayer of the Penitent) which admits of no less than eleven (11) options which include:
Wash me from my guilt and cleanse me from my sin. I acknowledge my offense; my sin is before me always.
Lord Jesus, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.
Remember, Lord, Your compassion and mercy which You showed long ago. Do not recall the sins and failings of my youth. In Your mercy remember me, Lord, because of Your Goodness.
The priest then extends his right hand and says:
God the Father of mercies, through the death and resurrection of His Son has reconciled the world to Himself and sent the Holy Spirit among us for the forgiveness of sins; through the ministry of the Church, may God give you pardon and peace, and I absolve you from your sins, in the name of the Father, (+) and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
Modernist Theology.
The differences are stark between Catholic Penance and Vatican II sect Reconciliation:
- Personal responsibility in a judicial context; accusing yourself before the priest as a sinner wanting to be forgiven, is abolished. It is a "mending of fences" between the person and God. It carries with it the implicit and blasphemous idea that God is in some way to blame for sin.
- The seriousness of sin is downplayed with "warm and welcoming words," reading Scripture, and discussing "difficulties" in leading a Christian life. The priest is no longer in persona Christi as Judge, but some ersatz social worker. Sin is "communal" and we all "make mistakes." Let's have a communal "I'm sorry" for being human and failing.
- Montini's Rite replaces mortal sin with the term "grave sin." For those not well-versed in theology, they may not recognize it as being a "mortal injury" (i.e., causing the death of the soul through the loss of sanctifying grace and thereby making one deserving of Hell)
- The Rite of Reconciliation has changed the name Act of Contrition to Prayer of the Penitent having no less than eleven different forms. The problem should be manifest. A penitent (one of the few times the old word is used) can pray many prayers, but need not have either Contrition or Attrition. Most of the options leave out any reference to a supernatural motive for sorrow, such as the love of God, "the loss of Heaven and the pains of Hell." Thus, showing the evil of sin is avoided
- The mercy of God is stressed, while His Justice is omitted
- The words, "May the almighty God have mercy on thee, forgive thee thy sins, and lead thee unto life everlasting. Amen. May the almighty and merciful Lord grant thee pardon, absolution, and remission of thy sins. Amen." are taken directly from the Mass pre-Vatican II. There is a definite link between being in the state of Grace and receiving Communion in Penance. Reconciliation severs this reminder
- The form of the Sacrament is substantially unchanged. The immediate wording around it is troubling. Saying that God "reconciled the world to Himself" through Christ is used by Protestants to preach their "once saved, always saved" heresy. God reconciled the world, so now just believe in Christ and be "saved." Also, by adding "through the ministry of the Church," the priest's role as an alter Christus is lessened when granting absolution
Conclusion
I have had many people ask me if Confessions to an old priest (validly ordained pre-1968) in the Vatican II sect would be valid also since there would be a proper administer of the Sacrament, using the correct form, and having a correct intention. While so far that's true, the false theology around the Rite of Reconciliation is not without devastating consequences. All the Modernist claptrap about mercy and love, while ignoring justice and the supernatural motives of repentence, can lead members of the Vatican II sect to believe sin is "no big deal." Indeed, this is what has happened as almost no one goes to Reconciliation, yet everyone receives "communion" (Deo gratias, it's invalid). If someone confesses and adheres to the Modernist theology, they most likely will fail to have even Attrition for sin and lack a firm resolve to amend their lives. In this case, the confession is null and void even with a valid priest because the penitent lacks the necessary matter of the sacrament.
Just as Penance and Reconciliation cannot both express Catholic theology, so too, the Mass and the Novus Bogus cannot both be Catholic. Bergoglio is better than Ratzinger. You read that last sentence correctly. In Summorum Pontificum, Ratzinger lied that the Mass and the Novus Bogus are "two uses of the one Roman Rite." They are mutually exclusive. Bergoglio realizes that "two Rites make a wrong," and Traditionis Custodes is intellectually honest in declaring that only the Masonic, Bugnini-created, and Montini-approved bread and wine service "constitute[s] the unique expression of the lex orandi of the [Vatican II sect] Rite." And with that "law of prayer" comes the "law of Modernist belief" which is pushing the world to the brink of Hell.
I have experienced both rites and the differences are obvious. In the Novus Ordo rite, we gather in the church, we meet the "priest" face to face behind a screen (although there are confessionals) and we tell him our sins, and he sometimes gives a penance to accomplish. When I met a Sedevacantist priest it was not at church, although I had suggested that he do so in my parish church but he refused, not feeling at home in this church ( and that could have been problematic if modernists of the parish had seen us). And everything went as you describe.
ReplyDeletePeople don't realize that nothing is the same since V2. They think it is the same religion with the same rites but simplified and adapted to modern times. This is the great deception of the devil and many have been deceived.
Simon,
DeleteWhat you wrote: "They think it is the same religion with the same rites but simplified and adapted to modern times." is exactly why I write posts such as this one. I can't tell you how many people think the "Latin Mass" is little more than the Novus Bogus recited in Latin, so why the fuss? I'm reminded all the time of Hosea 4:6, "My people are destroyed from lack of knowledge."
God Bless,
---Introibo
It must also be said that the ordinary Catholic knows almost nothing, if not absolutely nothing, of the doctrine of the Church. He knows the Rosary, the Pater, the Ave Maria, but nothing about the teachings of the Popes, Doctors of the Church and saints. Otherwise, the V2 revolution might never have happened. That's why I go every day to excellent sedevacantist websites like yours or Novus Ordo Watch. "Saint" John 23 wanted to warn against the prophets of doom who announce the end of the world for soon ... Well yes, it is imminent and it is good to learn about the last ends to know how to recognize the wolves disguised as sheep.
DeleteI must confess (not my sins) but a story that somewhat ties into this article. I was at a restaurant a couple weeks ago and after finishing my meal, I went to pay and asked the hostess/cashier what happened to a specific fish that was no longer on the menu. She told me they discontinued it, but that they still had the other types of fish. As she named them she said, I know my fish so well because I'm Catholic. I said, so am I. She then asked what Church I went to because she wasn't familiar with who I was since I wasn't from around there. I told her I went to a Traditional Mass that was a good distance from that location. She said I love the old Mass and wish I could get married to my fiance with that Mass, but it's hard to find a priest that would do that. Before I could respond she added, "it doesn't matter because Jesus is present in the Eucharist in either Mass and both Masses are Catholic." Normally I would have started challenging such a person, but the occasion was not the right time for she was busy and had to work.
ReplyDeleteNothing disgusts me more, than the confusion that so many have been led to.
Lee
Lee,
DeleteThis is the Great Deception--Modernism is "Catholicism" and we must follow the "pope." Maybe you'll have a chance to run into that woman again someday and speak to her further.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Frankie is spot on with his latest motu proprio. The two rites express two different faiths. Ad multos annos Frankie.
ReplyDeleteTom,
DeleteHe may not be Catholic, but he's honest about it! Now will others wake up?
God Bless,
---Introibo
Great article. I think the "sespensionis" is left out unless he is hearing the Confession of another priest. Also, as my may know, after the absolution, there was a final prayer offered by the priest asking the intercession of the BVM and all the saints if I remember correctly. Also the people would start with the confiteor the "mea culpa, mea culpa, mea culpa" before "bless me Father" and what follows, adding "I am sorry for these and all the sins of my past life, especially (some past mortal sin, if you have any) and I beg pardon of God and absolution of you my father" then continues with the confiteor - "ideo precor...".
ReplyDeleteJohn Gregory,
DeleteThe "suspension" can be omitted if the penitent is not a priest--you are correct. You are also correct that there is a prayer by the priest after absolution imploring the BVM and the saints to help the penitent (usually recited in the secret voice so it escapes many people's notice).
According to theologian Halligan, the Confiteor which you describe is a pious custom which MAY be used, but it is not required. (See "The Administration of the Sacraments" [1962], pg. 177). I have been going to Penance since 1981 when I converted, and never once used it, but it is very beautiful and holy to use.
Thank you for your excellent comment!
God Bless,
---Introibo
Thank you for the awesome response. I admire you and your work very much.
DeleteJohn Gregory,
DeleteThankyou for the kind words! They keep me writing!
---Introibo
The priest who says Mass at our Trad chapel always says the Misereatur during the penitent's recitation of the Act of Contrition, rather than afterward.
ReplyDeleteI have understood that to be incorrect.
Is it an unimportant issue? There is always a long line of penitents waiting to go to confession which is only available before the one weekly Sunday Mass, and Father's time is very limited, so I guess he is simply trying to move things along.
Also, is the "general absolution" given from the Gospel side of the altar before communion meant to absolve the congregation from venial sin?
Thank you, Intro.
-Jannie
Jannie,
DeleteAccording to theologian Halligan the Misereatur and Indulgentium can be omitted "for any good reason." (See "The Administration of the Sacraments" [1962], pg. 176). I think that good priest is trying to retain all the prayers while moving things along, as you stated.
The absolution during Mass from the Gospel side of the altar is not a Sacrament but a sacramental blessing. If the people are positively disposed, it can remit (in whole or in part) venial sins. Unlike a Sacrament, the efficacy depends on the subjective disposition of each member of the congregation.
God Bless,
---Introibo
For your consideration, I provide a sampling of 'confessionals' from Novus Ordo parishes:
ReplyDeletehttps://stmarysholliston.com/wp-content/uploads/Confession.png
https://www.pinterest.it/kevinmannara/reconciliation-rooms/?lp=true
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/25/Confessional_Modern.jpg
...no comment.
Sincerely,
A Simple Man
The church I attended during my Novus Ordo years was built around 1950-51. It contains beautiful confessionals. There is another nearby, built in 1917, with beautiful confessionals as well. There is also a 40 year old monastery. I stayed there in 2017, when I was not yet Sedevacantist. There are no confessionals like we see in older churches. You meet the "priest" face to face in a small room with a padded door. We won't see this traditional style again in the future. Modern churches do not look like Catholic churches so interior furnishings will not look more like that of traditional churches.
DeleteSimon,
DeleteAs we both know modern churches don't look Catholic for one excellent reason; they are Modernist and NOT Catholic!
---Introibo
A Simple Man,
ReplyDeleteThank you for bringing the point home...one picture is indeed worth a thousand words! No comment is necessary.
God Bless you my firend,
---Introibo
In my Novus ordo parish, they heard confessions during the bogus ordo invalid happy meal mess.
ReplyDelete@anon6:04
DeleteHow can they have "full, conscious, active" participation of the Assembly of the People of God at both? Lol Another V2 demonstration of the degree of stupidity that accompanies their heresies.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Sadly, that's my experience as well. I know I hated it back then because the noise of the bread and wine service was so distracting that it was practically imposiible to pray, compose yourself beforehand, and actually confess in this clamor.
DeleteGod Bless,
Joanna S.
The concept of dogma is entirely absent from the newchurch. One cannot be Catholic without a belief in immutable truth (To be fair, they are all misled). Their beliefs are almost entirely mutable at this point, as if it doesn't really matter to them.
ReplyDeleteCaisahr_stjoseph,
DeleteBeliefs really DON'T matter--esp. to the clergy. As long as you "believe in a higher power" and are a "loving person" you "go to Heaven." Welcome to Masonry with a different name. Pope St. Pius X taught that Modernism will culminate in atheism. They are atheists in the practical order and Bergoglio even teaches, "Atheists can go to Heaven."
God Bless,
---Introibo
In the NO parish of my youth, I made my “First Communion” in 1973 and “First Confession” in 1974. A spiritual crime of the highest degree.
ReplyDeletePriests were probably still valid back then.
Delete@anon11:36
DeleteThe same for me before my conversion at age 16 in 1981. Even though the "communion" was invalid, it teaches that purity of soul is not that big of a deal for the recption of the Eucharist.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Yes, he was, as I found his obituary and saw he was ordained in 1962. I assume the First Communion priest was as well, as he was born in 1928, but I remember he left the priesthood in the 70’s to marry a nun. It was a big scandal. I found his obituary and saw he got a full NO funeral in 2012, and the obituary makes no mention of his priesthood. Very very sad.
DeleteWe were not taught purity of soul. It was not until I was an exchange student in high school in a Latin American country in the mid 80’s that I learned one must be in a state of grace to receive Holy Communion. I was standing in line for what I thought was Holy Communion, and first I noticed some people didn’t go but stayed in the pews which I thought odd because “back home”, the whole church gets in line! So I am in line, and a little girl tugs at my skirt, and she says in Spanish, my Granma wants to know if you went to confession. I did not have a clue what the connection was! Is that not tragic? Twelve years of supposed Catholic education! I just said, si si, and went to Communion, but later, and I mean many years later, that hit me like a ton of bricks! That little girl was an angel no doubt! And I felt extremely ashamed...thanks be to Almighty God!
DeleteThe priest may have been valid at that time.
ReplyDeleteJohn Gregory,
DeleteYes, probably as the new and invalid Rite of ordination had only come out in 1968. It's the lesson that it teaches which is perverse. I converted at age 16to the true Church. In 1972 I made First "Communion" (Deo Gratias, it was invalid) and in 1973 my First "Confession." Here's the reason that was given to my parents: small children can't commit mortal sin, MOST PEOPLE DON'T COMMIT MORTAL SIN EVEN WHEN OLDER EXCEPT ON RARE OCCASION. Therefore, confessing before communion is not imperative. Pure evil teachings!
---Introibo
Has a moral theologian said how often the average person mortally sins?
Delete@anon8:11
DeleteNot to the best of my knowledge and belief--none of the dozen or so moral theologians I've read mention it and it is something (aside from a private revelation) that could not be known. How could any theologian know the knowledge and consent of the will necessary in each person to sin mortally? This is a question only God could answer.
God Bless,
---Introibo
I like it when the priest waits until you say the act of contrition and then gives the absolution and all the surrounding prayers out loud. Priests vary, some just give the absolution (without the surrounding prayers) in a whisper as you are praying.
ReplyDeleteJohn Gregory,
DeleteI agree!
---Introibo
Question, this booklet (https://web.archive.org/web/20170329234251/http://www.pamphlets.org.au/docs/cts/australia/html/acts1325.html) which was endorsed here: https://novusordowatch.org/2017/11/perfect-contrition-key-to-heaven/ says that an act of perfect charity suffices to forgive mortal sins. I thought an act of perfect contrition itself is necessary (outside confession)?
ReplyDelete@anon6:25
DeleteSee Joanna's response below. An Act of Perfect Contrition suffices ("does the job") of remitting mortal sin when accompanied by the explicit or implicit desire and resolve to go to Confession as soon as it is available to you. Basically, NOW is saying the same as you. An act of perfect charity is (in most cases) the same as an act of Perfect Contrition. However, for example, giving up one's life for Christ when asked to deny Him or die (as in times of persecution) is an act of perfect Charity that forgives all sins--even if unbaptized catechumen (Baptism of Blood). "...for charity covereth a multitude of sins." (1 Peter 4:8).
God Bless,
---Introibo
Anon@6:25 AM,
DeleteAside from what others have said, this is also a case where terms are further clarified. Elsewhere, the author states that Perfect Contrition is also called the "Contrition of Charity."
Likewise, per McHugh, O.P. and Callan, O.P.'s Moral Theology of 1958 (asterisks are my emphasis):
"2730. The Two Kinds of Contrition.—(a) **Perfect contrition is that which is caused by charity, or the love of benevolence or of friendship (1109, 1110) towards God.** This love is had, whether the object of one's affection is the divine being or persons, the divine and infinite perfections, or a single attribute; for all of these are really God Himself. This contrition justifies the sinner at once, for it includes charity and the will (at least implicit) to do what God wishes, and God takes up His abode with those who love Him (John, xiv. 23). Perfect contrition is necessary, both as a means and as a divine precept, whenever the duty of repentance or of the Sacrament of Penance obliges with a like necessity, and there is no opportunity of receiving the Sacrament; for it is then the only way of recovering grace."
Elsewhere, in paragraph 1602 section (b), the same mention that an act of perfect contrition "includes an act of love of God."
Thus, perfect contrition and the supernatural virtue of charity are inextricably linked.
Sincerely,
A Simple Man
Hello,
DeleteI understand that perfect contrition always includes perfect charity, but what the priest says in the booklet is that even acts of charity like "Our Father, Who art in heaven, hallowed by Thy Name," "Thy Kingdom come," and "Thy Will be done on earth as it is in heaven" is able to cancel every mortal sin, which I have not heard before. Is that what theologians unanimously teach?
Dear Anon,
DeleteI believe you refer to the following words found in chapter III: Is it difficult to make an act of perfect contrition?:
"(...) Often, very often, without even thinking of it, you have Perfect Contrition for your sins. For example, when you hear Mass devoutly or make the Stations of the Cross properly; when you reflect before your crucifix or an image of the Sacred Heart. What is more, every time you say the “Our Father,” in the first three petitions you make three acts of perfect charity, each of which is sufficient to cancel every sin from your soul.
Very often, a few words suffice to express the most ardent love and the most profound sorrow — for instance, the little ejaculations, “My Jesus, mercy,” “My God and my All,” “My God, I love You above all things,” “My God, have mercy on me, a poor sinner.” Aided by the grace of God (and God has promised to give to all who ask), it is by no means difficult to make an Act of Contrition."
***end of quote***
In this case, it is not the very words you say that matter but the very disposition of your soul, filled with love for God, for Our Lord crucified for your sins that elicits perfect contrition. As the author of that booklet implies, any loving aspiration towards God, regardless of the exact words used, is capable of remitting sin.
The author then gives the example of King David, guilty of adultery and murder, who with just a few words, namely "Peccavi Domino" (I have sinned against the Lord) was assured by the Prophet Nathan that his sins were forgiven.
Deep and true sorrow for sin out of love for God can be expressed by any pious words, or no words at all, as it was the case with Mary Magdalen, weeping at the feet of Our Lord. However, I believe it is most prudent to train ourselves in making a perfect act of contrition with the means of this traditional form, lest we fall into a very dangerous presumption that to be perfectly contrite is no big deal at all:
O my God! I am heartily sorry for having offended Thee; and I detest all my sins, because I dread the loss of heaven and the pains of hell, but most of all because they offend Thee, my God, Who art all good, and deserving of all my love. I firmly resolve, with the help of Thy grace, to confess my sins, to do penance, and to amend my life. Amen.
(retrieved from NOW: https://novusordowatch.org/2017/11/perfect-contrition-key-to-heaven/)
If we make sure that we desire to love God throughout our entire lives, and act like it (keeping the commandments, doing the will of God, and bearing our crosses patiently) we can reasonably hope that we shall be able to make an act of perfect contrition when most in need.
Also, a true and faithful devotion to Our Lady is most helpful, according to the pious opinion of many saints (St. John Vianney, St. Louis de Montfort, St. Alphonsus de Liguori, St. Bernard of Clairvoux).
God Bless,
Joanna S.
Joanna,
DeleteThank you explaining it so well! I need to add nothing more.
---Introibo
Thanks.
DeleteThe very essence of perfect contrition lies in perfect charity towards God. In order to be perfectly contrite for your sins, you need to detest these sins out of love for God as the supreme Good, who Himself alone deserves all of our love.
ReplyDeleteGod Bless,
Joanna S.
Joanna,
DeleteWell-stated!
God Bless,
---Introibo
“it's OK to be intolerant towards the very "self-absorbed, Promethean, neo-Pelagians"”
ReplyDeleteI think Bergolio must either be stupid or what he says is gaslighting.
Bergolio is nothing if not self absorbed, he refuses to kneel, and everything he does seems to be for a photo-op.
Prometheus in mythology was the lightbringer, the man who stole fire from the gods and gave it to man so that man could rise up to the level of the Gods. It is essentially the Hellenized myth of the garden of eden and mans fall from grace into original sin. Freemasonry has co-opted this myth to teach that there is a secret doctrine which is to be passed down through freemasonry so that freemasonry (the occult) can lead mankind into being like God.
That is exactly Bergolio’s humanistic theology
The Oxford dictionary (I googled the definition) defines Pelagianism as:
“the theological doctrine of Pelagius and his followers, in particular the denial of the doctrines of original sin and predestination, and the defense of innate human goodness and free will.“
Again this is Bergolio, Jorge practically does everything to deny original sin, and certainly believes people are inherently good.
When Bergolio preaches intolerance to self absorbed, promethean, neo-Pelagians he is preaching intolerance to himself!
Ryan,
DeleteTrue! Very good insight!
---Introibo
Went to an old Rite Priest for confession a few yrs ago and printed out the traditional absolution.
ReplyDeleteWithout hesitation he did it for me.
Now in 2021 with all of the hoopla surrounding 'Latin Mass' thanks you to YouTube,I'm betting any old Rite Priest would not do that for fear of getting into trouble.
God bless -A
Andrew,
DeleteAny Vatican II sect, validly ordained elderly priest will not forfeit his pension and benefits to be thrown out on the streets. Any such priest should have been brave enough to leave and not break their Anti-Modernist Oath.
I knew one such priest here in NY. He tried to be as "orthodox" as possible: He refused to use altar girls, he used a paten and made communicants kneel and receive on the tongue, and he refused to marry "cohabitating couples" (shacking up) as his "bishop" required.
What happened? When he was 82 and became very ill, they put him, not in the retirement home with the other priests, but in an abandoned convent with a nurse to visit once a day leaving him to die all alone. The given reason was "he was too argumentative to be with other retired priests." Wretched, evil men.
God Bless,
---Introibo
I had to go searching for a pre-Vatican II Priest for confession when I found tradition as there were no TLM Churches in my area. I go to him monthly for confession. He is a 90 yr old Priest and he has helped me greatly. I thank God for him every day.
DeleteJoAnn
Joann,
DeleteYou are lucky to be near that priest!
God Bless,
---Introibo
Found a "Priest" "Ord" Jan 1969 but it was the "New Rite."
DeleteI didn't go but talked w him for a moment.
He said yes the old Rite was optional until April 4 1969 but after
Aug 15 1968 the new Rite was the overwhelming majority of ceremonies.
He also said there are a scant few Bishops consecrated in old Rite late 1968 and throughout 1969 but you'd have to ask them if you ever met one.
Just a heads up in case anyone meets a cleric who received Orders in this time frame.
God bless -Andrew
That poor Priest what a slap in the face.
DeleteWould he be the type to embrace that kind of death to make reparation for his Sins?
-Andrew
Andrew,
DeleteHe would be that kind of priest. he passed a few years ago, alone and treated poorly to the end.
---Introibo
God rest his Soul.
Delete-Andrew
If you like old movies I would recommend "I Confess", directed by the "Master of Suspense" himself, starring Montgomery Clift. It is a "Hays Code" movie, produced in the 1950s and gives the real Catholic view of the Sacrament of Penance placed in the story of the trial of a Priest accused of a capital crime.
ReplyDeleteWorth viewing!
-Jannie
Jannie,
DeleteI will have to give it a watch when I have some downtime! Thank you for sharing this movie!
God Bless,
---Introibo
Also set in very Catholic Quebec of the 1950s. A place I can only dream of seeing.
Delete"The Mission" (1986) is a movie which has positive Catholic scenery such as Eucharistic processions etc...
DeleteIt's not disrespectful.
-Andrew
Jannie,
ReplyDeletethanks much for this reminder! I've been meaning to watch it for some time now.
BTW, there's an 80s neo-nor crime movie "True Confessions" with Robert De Niro and Robert Duvall set in the 50s or so but I haven;t seen it and can't tell you if it's a "clean" picture.
How I wish there would still be a National League of Decency Movie Guide these days!
Fun fact: De Niro got so absorbed into his role (played a Catholic priest) that he would go "blessing" everyone on the set, lol!
P.S. I'd just finished writing this comment when I came across a scene from "True Confessions" on youtube - I won't recommend the movie after all. The priest (De Niro) uttering an obscene wword, right after he was done putting off his garments after Mass. I'm done with modern movies...
God Bless,
Joanna S.
Introibo,
ReplyDeleteIs the denial of moral truth: "Artificial contraception is forbidden" is heresy or merely a mortal sin? Is a person who allows contraception a Catholic or not?
God bless,
Paweł
Pawel,
DeleteIn my opinion, artificial contraception is forbidden with the same force as abortion. To deny that contraception is sinful is analogous to denying abortion is murder. In 1851 The Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office declared unnatural forms of onanism "contrary to the Natural Law." Such is also the case with abortion. As such one is without excuse for denying it to be illicit and it would qualify as infallible by the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium, making the denial of contraception being sinful heretical. I would never consider someone who denies that abortion is murder to be a Catholic--and the same as to contraception.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Introibo,
DeleteThank you for your reply - so denying the immorality of contraception is heretical.
I also have a question. My cousin (Novus Ordo altar boy) with whom I was discussing theological matters stated that "the Church allows artificial contraception in the case of infectious diseases". He said he heard this from the catechist who taught his family life education class. I responded that contraception in marriage is wrong per se, regardless of intent. Was my answer correct? To my mind, it follows from the teaching of Pope Pius XI and the textbooks of approved theologians including Halligan ("even outside the intention" - p. 530). Incidentally, to arguments from the teachings of the pope and theologians, he responded "there were other times then."
I also talked to him about John Paul II and his heresy in "Catechesi Tradendae." He just said: "John Paul II is the Polish Pope. Respect him.", "There is nothing wrong with this teaching. The earlier teaching of the Church was wrong. Christ is the means of salvation, not the Catholic Church." What arguments would you use?
God bless,
Paweł
Paweł,
DeleteRegarding "there were other times then": Advise your cousin that there is a difference between customs, practices and certain disciplines (which are and have been subject to change)...as compared to faith and morals (which cannot change; a sin is a sin whether it happened in 33 A.D., 1000 A.D., or 2021 A.D.).
Regarding "Polish Pope": his nationality has nothing to do with the matter. The most important part is determining whether JP2 was in fact the Pope or not; his own heresies undermine that particular claim. Whatever impacts he may have had on the geopolitical landscape have nothing to do with whether or not he was a heretic. (After all, there have been numerous men throughout history who had immense geopolitical impact and who may have had other natural virtues that were nonetheless heretics.)
With regards to "Christ is the means of salvation, not the Catholic Church": this is a confusion of terms. A 'means' is a method, tool, or system by which a certain result is brought about. Christ is indeed our Savior, but He has instituted particular means by which the message of salvation was to be brought from the Jews to the Gentiles, indeed the whole world: not by direct action as a conquering king would, but through the institution of an organization that is both natural and supernatural, founded upon His chosen Apostles with Peter as their chief and head. It was His charge to *them* to spread the Gospel, to baptize, and evangelize the world. So it is per Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition itself that shows that Christ founded the Catholic Church to be the means of our salvation (with the understanding that all such graces necessary to help facilitate that great work are thanks to God).
I would then ask your cousin this question: "you say that the Church's prior teaching regarding salvation was wrong. However, Christ Himself stated in the last chapter of Matthew's Gospel that He would be with His Church 'all days, even to the consummation of the world.' A common interpretation of this passage based on various approved commentaries is that Christ's Church will never depart from the Faith that He imparted unto it. However, if you truly believe the Church's official teaching on salvation was wrong at one point, then you implicitly deny that the Catholic Church was the one that Christ founded, for how could His Church ever teach so grievous an error when it comes to the Faith (as you assert)? If that is the case, then you're not even in Christ's Church; why are you even a Catholic to begin with?" Does that make sense?
Sincerely,
A Simple Man
A Simple Man,
DeleteThank you very much for your reply. I will use your suggestions in a future discussion.
Unfortunately for many Poles, the fact that John Paul II was Polish and contributed to the overthrow of communism is the biggest argument for the validity of anything associated with him. He was elected in 1978, when the People's Republic of Poland was in bankruptcy and decline. My countrymen at the time saw in Wojtyla's election hope for Poland. They loved his personality, his cream cakes (kremówki) from Wadowice about which he used to talk. This is still present in the generation of my grandparents and parents. My generation (I was born in 2003) is already deprived of this influence of John Paul II, some leftists of my generation even insult and ridicule him.
Many Poles do not even listen to "our Pope" in moral matters. John Paul II repeatedly condemned abortion and contraception. Meanwhile, they don't listen to him themselves. My friends (who consider themselves Catholic, attend Novus Ordo "Masses" and catechesis) think that sodomy is normal, that it should be recognised by state law. They believe that contraception is acceptable, some who already have intercourse use it themselves. They claim that abortion should be permitted by the state. So much is left from the teaching of John Paul II in Poland... He destroyed the Catholic faith - Catholic morality itself was destroyed.
God bless,
Paweł
Pawel,
DeleteI wish to add something in addition to the great response of A Simple Man.
When you're cousin says, "The earlier teaching of the Church was wrong":
1. Ask, "How can we be sure ANYTHING the Church teaches is correct?" If he says, "Infallible pronouncements only" then point out the infallibility of the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium taught de fide at the Vatican Council of 1870 and if he rejects such, he is a heretic and is like the Feeneyites that do the same.
2. If he denies infallibility per se, then ask him what else is the Church wrong about, and how can anyone know for certain what to believe. What kind of teaching authority (Magisterium) can't teach?
Finally point out CONDEMNED ERROR #59 of the Modernists from Pope St. Pius X (Lamentibili Sane):
59. Christ did not teach a determined body of doctrine applicable to all times and all men, but rather inaugurated a religious movement adapted or to be adapted to different times and places.
---Introibo
Introibo,
DeleteThank you very much for your reply. I will use all your hints in the discussion.
According to you, against the teaching of Vatican II should be argued from the infallibility or indefectibility of the Church?
For example: Vatican II (in the Vatican II sect - the "highest form" of the ordinary Magisterium) teaches that non-Catholic religions are means of salvation. Therefore, must Novus Ordo Catholics believe by supernatural divine and Catholic faith that non-Catholic religions are means of salvation? Does the Second Vatican Council teach infallibly that non-Catholic religions are means of salvation? If so then the argument must be made in relation to the infallibility of the ordinary and universal Magisterium.
On the other hand, against John Paul II's teaching in Catechesi Tradendae, it seems to me that one should argue through the indefectibility of the Church, since it constitutes the authentic papal magisterium (and thus is not infallible).
Is my reasoning correct?
God bless,
Paweł
Pawel,
DeleteIt's even more simple than that. It hinges upon two considerations--one on epistemology and the other regarding eccesiology.
1. Do you believe that Christ founded One True Church to teach us all we need to believe and do? If he answers "No" you can end the debate right there as he is not Catholic. Why are you Catholic? What good is the Church?
2. If he answers "yes," Christ founded a Church to teach us, then HOW can we know when something is taught correctly? There are three possible answers:
(a) When something is infallibly proposed. You can show the disconnect between the UOM and the teachings of Vatican II and Wojtyla.
(b) Whatever the current pope says is true. You can respond by asking, if the Assumption were true when Pope Pius XII decreed it, and Wojtyla said it was wrong, does that mean Mary is not in Heaven body and soul? What if "John Paul III" another Polish man comes after Francis and reasserts the Assumption. Was she taken up with her body to Heaven? Either it happened or it didn't, and we can never be sure because we have a teaching authority that can't teach.
3. We can never be certain. Then Christ gave us a worthless teaching authority. It reminds me of Protestants who claim infallibility for the Bible, but their private interpretations render it moot and cause many new sects to spring up. There are Old v. Young Earthers, those who believe Christ is somehow present in the Eucharist, and others who claim it's just a memorial service, etc. They will claim, "Well, none of that really matters as long as you believe Christ is your personal Lord and Savior. Therefore, God gave them a Bible of 66 Books (they leave out seven inspired books), and virtually all of what is written is either useless or extraneous information because you only need to believe one or two basic beliefs.
I hope this clarifiedthings for you!
---Introibo
Paweł,
DeleteRegarding whether Vatican II taught infallibly or not, I recommend the following article from the traditionalist John Daly, wherein he argues that Vatican II did in fact meet the conditions of being an infallible expression of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium...provided, of course, that Paul VI was a true Pope: https://romeward.com/articles/239752967/did-vatican-ii-teach-infallibly
Sincerely,
A Simple Man
You cannot do evil that good may come.
ReplyDeleteBut can you permit evil, or something that will likely be evil, that good may come?
Delete@anon8:09
DeleteYou are talking about the Principle of the Double Effect. According to theologians McHugh and Callan, "It is lawful to perform an action from which an evil effect is foreseen when the following conditions are present:
(a) the action must be morally good or at least indifferent...
(b)a good effect must also follow from the act, and it must not follow through the evil effect; for the end does not justify the means...
(c) the agent must only intend the good effect...
(d) the agent must have a reason, sufficiently weighty, for permitting the evil result...
(See "Moral Theology" [1929] 1:36).
The classic example of this in practice is the pregnant woman who has a cancerous uterus and she will die if it is not removed immediately.
a)The operation to save a woman's life is a moral GOOD
b)The good effect follows from this operation, and is not the result of the bad effect (the death of the unborn)
(c) The life of the woman is directly willed, not the death of the unborn
(d)Saving the woman's life is sufficiently weighty to permit the evil, indirect abortion.
What John Gregory said remains true--the means does not justify the ends.
God Bless,
---Introibo
are anglican baptisms presumed valid?
ReplyDelete@anon8:38
DeletePre-Vatican II yes. Today, you'd be wise to repeat it.
God Bless,
---Introibo
What's even worse is apologists like Fr James Martin, SJ, proclaiming how things are not going fast enough to get rid of the last vestiges of traditionalism. Evidentially, it's traditionalism that decided people, not modernism.
ReplyDeleteThere's no fixed form for confession? Sins are the only absolutely necessary ones the penitent needs to say?
ReplyDelete@anon9:50
DeleteThe form was not given to the Church in specific form, as Christ did with Baptism and the Eucharist. According to theologian Halligan, the words "I absolve thee from thy sins" is sufficient to ensure a valid absolution. Halligan adds that "Absolution imparted IMPARTED IN AN EQUIVALENT FORM WOULD BE GRAVELY UNLAWFUL BUT VALID." (See "The Administration of the Sacraments" [1962], pgs. 175-176; Emphasis mine).
The form of the sacrament is spoken by the priest ONLY. If he were to say "I remit your sins" it would be valid but the priest commits mortal sin. The Penitent supplies the Matter which is expressed by some sign of CONTRITION (or ATTRITION), CONFESSION OF SINS, and PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT (which includes satisfaction of the priest's penance imposed). No exact formulary is required (Ibid, pgs. 212-225).
God Bless,
---Introibo