Pages
Our Motto:
The Connecticut Catholic Corner Motto: Romans 14:16 "Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil."
All articles owned by Connecticut Catholic Corner
© 2007-2024 All articles owned by Connecticut Catholic Corner *except EWTN press releases(see sidebar)*
***FYI: Comments***
Due to continued problems with Disqus I have removed them from this blog- in doing so comments from 2018-2020 have disappeared from my blog posts.
Thursday, June 2, 2016
Shout out to Catholic bloggers
Just wanted to give a shout out to some great Catholic blogs (and a few non-Catholic ones too) that I love to read (and lurk on).
I know these are probably already very well known to most Catholic blog readers, but I hope if you don't yet already know these blogs/bloggers that you will check them out and be sure to drop them a comment.
It's always nice to "meet" other Catholic bloggers out there. So grab a cup of coffee (or if you're like me) tea and take a moment to visit these bloggers and see what they are sharing on their blogs today! :)
In no particular order...
1) The American Catholic (be sure to check out his Simcha Fisher/gorilla post)
2) Humblepiety
3) Diary of an Accidental Hermit
4) Clan Donaldson
5) Restore DC Catholicism
6) Shower of Roses
7) The Tenth Crusade
8) Team Whitaker
9) Catholic Cuisine (if you diet, this is not the blog for you) ;)
10) Mundabor's Blog
11) St. Corbinian's Bear
12) Vox Cantoris
13) A Blog by Maria Johnson
14) The Eponymous Flower
15) The Nun Blog
16) Creative Minority Report
17) Traditional Catholic Priest
18) Whispers in the Loggia
19) Battle Beads Blog
20) Kneeling Catholic
And I have to include a few non-Catholic blogs I enjoy visiting...
1) The Little People Project (this one reminds me of an oldie but a goodie My Milk Toof )
2) Lavender and Lovage
3) Rural Revolution
I could go on and on with many more (and I will), but I am saving some for another post on bloggers in the future.
Please share your blog or blogs you visit in the comments area. I am always interested in visiting new or new-to-me blogs. And let me know which of these blogs is new-to-you!
God bless!
In Christ,
Julie @ Connecticut Catholic Corner
Wednesday, June 1, 2016
What unity can the Catholic Church have with heresy?
How did we get from...
To this:
Christ's Holy Catholic Church, led currently by Pope Francis is calling for Catholics to "celebrate" an excommunicated heretic: Martin Luther on the 500th anniversary of the "reformation".
This anniversary should be a day of GREAT MOURNING for the Catholic Church, but no. We are now to celebrate the heretic Martin Luther for dividing the Church and leading (to date) millions upon millions of people out of Christ's Holy Catholic Church and into false religions that do not save souls. The Lutheran's are thrilled with this turn of events:
500th Anniversary of the Reformation from Concordia Publishing House (CPH) on Vimeo.
They still believe Martin Luther "saved" them from the errors of Christ's Catholic Church. They will continue to believe this because the Catholic Church no longer seems interested in converting them by telling the truth and pointing out the errors in their man-made religion. The Catholic Church today just wants to "dialogue" with everyone. This is not what Jesus commissioned his church to do.
Jesus said: "And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age." [Matthew 28:18-20]
Lutheran's don't "obey everything" Christ commanded or they'd be Catholic! How about Pope Francis and our Catholic bishops dialogue that with these Lutherans? How about we Catholics hand out copies of Pope Leo X's Exsurge Domine?
Will Pope Francis attempt to correct the errors these protestants cling to as our Church did with Martin Luther so long ago?
No!
He's already stated he has no desire to convert protestants to the Catholic faith, he's "not interested" in evangelizing these people. So what's the point of "dialogue" if you don't want to tell the Truth to people clinging to lies?
What "unity" can the Catholic Church have with heresy?
Why wouldn't our pope want all people to enter Christ's Holy Catholic Church? To share in Her Sacraments? To have all that Christ wants believers to have?
I truly do not understand this pope. He continues to disappoint me and I am angry that he doesn't want to actively TRY to convert people. He doesn't want to. I will never understand that. Never.
So once more, I find myself ticked off at my pope and other Catholic clergy. I'm angry on two accounts: 1) that my Church will be commemorating/celebrating a heretic; and 2) my pope not wanting to convert people from false religions into the One and only True Church that Jesus Christ created on earth.
My anger stems from once being one of those ignorant protestants who had no idea what I was missing. I didn't know all that the Catholic Church had to offer because of the heretic Martin Luther and the generations of protestants on my mother's side of the family who generation after generation passed on the false beliefs of people like Luther to ignorant people who didn't know what they were missing.
We were ignorant. We fell for heresy and false religions. Generations of my family were lost in lies and I can only hope that before their deaths SOMEONE reached out to them with the truth.
By the grace of God and some wonderful Catholics who crossed my path and took the time to argue the facts with me (that's the best way to get my attention), I (along with my children) became Catholic. Best thing that has ever happened to me or will ever happen to me! What a blessing and delight it is to be Catholic and have Christ's Church as my Church! To be inside rather than outside. Like the people on Noah's Ark compared to those outside the Ark.
If I said "thank you" every single day for the rest of my life to these people for sharing their faith and to God, it would NEVER be enough. I get so angry when I hear members of the Catholic Church- namely clergy who simply want to "dialogue" with protestants rather than reach out to them and share the knowledge they as Catholic have. How selfish you are! How will you answer God for keeping His gift of the Faith to you from others? You should be terrified of that day...for that day is coming. We will all answer for all we have done and for what we have not done, but should have done.
It absolutely boggles my mind that any member of Christ's Catholic Church (especially the clergy) would keep silent and not share the Catholic faith with people living outside the Church. It's cruel and heartless and selfish to do such a thing.
It's like seeing a dehydrated person in the desert who will soon perish and instead of share with them the water you have, you offer them an umbrella to keep the sun off them while they die.
We should not be celebrating or commemorating any heretic! If the pope wants "dialogue" we can dialogue with the facts of what Martin Luther did and the Truth found only in Christ's Holy Catholic Church. Let's dialogue about that!
When will our beloved Holy Catholic Church once more do what Her Lord commissioned Her to do?
In Christ,
Julie @ Connecticut Catholic Corner
******
Links:
EWTN: https://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/L10EXDOM.HTM
https://dispatchesfrombrian.com/2014/07/09/lunch-with-the-pope/
http://lutheranreformation.org/
http://www.ecumenicalnews.com/article/500th-reformation-anniversary-will-be-ecumenical-and-include-pope-francis/44650.htm
https://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/TRENT7.HTM
To this:
Christ's Holy Catholic Church, led currently by Pope Francis is calling for Catholics to "celebrate" an excommunicated heretic: Martin Luther on the 500th anniversary of the "reformation".
This anniversary should be a day of GREAT MOURNING for the Catholic Church, but no. We are now to celebrate the heretic Martin Luther for dividing the Church and leading (to date) millions upon millions of people out of Christ's Holy Catholic Church and into false religions that do not save souls. The Lutheran's are thrilled with this turn of events:
500th Anniversary of the Reformation from Concordia Publishing House (CPH) on Vimeo.
They still believe Martin Luther "saved" them from the errors of Christ's Catholic Church. They will continue to believe this because the Catholic Church no longer seems interested in converting them by telling the truth and pointing out the errors in their man-made religion. The Catholic Church today just wants to "dialogue" with everyone. This is not what Jesus commissioned his church to do.
Jesus said: "And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age." [Matthew 28:18-20]
Lutheran's don't "obey everything" Christ commanded or they'd be Catholic! How about Pope Francis and our Catholic bishops dialogue that with these Lutherans? How about we Catholics hand out copies of Pope Leo X's Exsurge Domine?
Bull issued June 15, 1520 Arise, O Lord, and judge your own cause. Remember your reproaches to those who are filled with foolishness all through the day. Listen to our prayers, for foxes have arisen seeking to destroy the vineyard whose winepress you alone have trod. When you were about to ascend to your Father, you committed the care, rule, and administration of the vineyard, an image of the triumphant church, to Peter, as the head and your vicar and his successors. The wild boar from the forest seeks to destroy it and every wild beast feeds upon it.Has any of this changed? Have the Lutheran's and other protestants finally rejected these errors?
Rise, Peter, and fulfill this pastoral office divinely entrusted to you as mentioned above.
Give heed to the cause of the holy Roman Church, mother of all churches and teacher of the faith, whom you by the order of God, have consecrated by your blood. Against the Roman Church, you warned, lying teachers are rising, introducing ruinous sects, and drawing upon themselves speedy doom. Their tongues are fire, a restless evil, full of deadly poison. They have bitter zeal, contention in their hearts, and boast and lie against the truth.
We beseech you also, Paul, to arise. It was you that enlightened and illuminated the Church by your doctrine and by a martyrdom like Peter's. For now a new Porphyry rises who, as the old once wrongfully assailed the holy apostles, now assails the holy pontiffs, our predecessors.
Rebuking them, in violation of your teaching, instead of imploring them, he is not ashamed to assail them, to tear at them, and when he despairs of his cause, to stoop to insults. He is like the heretics "whose last defense," as Jerome says, "is to start spewing out a serpent's venom with their tongue when they see that their causes are about to be condemned, and spring to insults when they see they are vanquished." For although you have said that there must be heresies to test the faithful, still they must be destroyed at their very birth by your intercession and help, so they do not grow or wax strong like your wolves. Finally, let the whole church of the saints and the rest of the universal church arise. Some, putting aside her true interpretation of Sacred Scripture, are blinded in mind by the father of lies. Wise in their own eyes, according to the ancient practice of heretics, they interpret these same Scriptures otherwise than the Holy Spirit demands, inspired only by their own sense of ambition, and for the sake of popular acclaim, as the Apostle declares. In fact, they twist and adulterate the Scriptures. As a result, according to Jerome, "It is no longer the Gospel of Christ, but a man's, or what is worse, the devil's."
Let all this holy Church of God, I say, arise, and with the blessed apostles intercede with almighty God to purge the errors of His sheep, to banish all heresies from the lands of the faithful, and be pleased to maintain the peace and unity of His holy Church.
For we can scarcely express, from distress and grief of mind, what has reached our ears for some time by the report of reliable men and general rumor; alas, we have even seen with our eyes and read the many diverse errors. Some of these have already been condemned by councils and the constitutions of our predecessors, and expressly contain even the heresy of the Greeks and Bohemians. Other errors are either heretical, false, scandalous, or offensive to pious ears, as seductive of simple minds, originating with false exponents of the faith who in their proud curiosity yearn for the world's glory, and contrary to the Apostle's teaching, wish to be wiser than they should be.
Their talkativeness, unsupported by the authority of the Scriptures, as Jerome says, would not win credence unless they appeared to support their perverse doctrine even with divine testimonies however badly interpreted. From their sight fear of God has now passed.
These errors have, at the suggestion of the human race, been revived and recently propagated among the more frivolous and the illustrious German nation. We grieve the more that this happened there because we and our predecessors have always held this nation in the bosom of our affection. For after the empire had been transferred by the Roman Church from the Greeks to these same Germans, our predecessors and we always took the Church's advocates and defenders from among them. Indeed it is certain that these Germans, truly germane to the Catholic faith, have always been the bitterest opponents of heresies, as witnessed by those commendable constitutions of the German emperors in behalf of the Church's independence, freedom, and the expulsion and extermination of all heretics from Germany. Those constitutions formerly issued, and then confirmed by our predecessors, were issued under the greatest penalties even of loss of lands and dominions against anyone sheltering or not expelling them. If they were observed today both we and they would obviously be free of this disturbance.
Witness to this is the condemnation and punishment in the Council of Constance of the infidelity of the Hussites and Wyclifites as well as Jerome of Prague. Witness to this is the blood of Germans shed so often in wars against the Bohemians. A final witness is the refutation, rejection, and condemnation—no less learned than true and holy—of the above errors, or many of them, by the universities of Cologne and Louvain, most devoted and religious cultivators of the Lord's field. We could allege many other facts too, which we have decided to omit, lest we appear to be composing a history.
In virtue of our pastoral office committed to us by the divine favor we can under no circumstances tolerate or overlook any longer the pernicious poison of the above errors without disgrace to the Christian religion and injury to orthodox faith. Some of these errors we have decided to include in the present document; their substance is as follows:
1. It is a heretical opinion, but a common one, that the sacraments of the New Law give pardoning grace to those who do not set up an obstacle.
2. To deny that in a child after baptism sin remains is to treat with contempt both Paul and Christ.
3. The inflammable sources of sin, even if there be no actual sin, delay a soul departing from the body from entrance into heaven.
4. To one on the point of death imperfect charity necessarily brings with it great fear, which in itself alone is enough to produce the punishment of purgatory, and impedes entrance into the kingdom.
5. That there are three parts to penance: contrition, confession, and satisfaction, has no foundation in Sacred Scripture nor in the ancient sacred Christian doctors.
6. Contrition, which is acquired through discussion, collection, and detestation of sins, by which one reflects upon his years in the bitterness of his soul, by pondering over the gravity of sins, their number, their baseness, the loss of eternal beatitude, and the acquisition of eternal damnation, this contrition makes him a hypocrite, indeed more a sinner.
7. It is a most truthful proverb and the doctrine concerning the contritions given thus far is the more remarkable: "Not to do so in the future is the highest penance; the best penance, a new life."
8. By no means may you presume to confess venial sins, nor even all mortal sins, because it is impossible that you know all mortal sins. Hence in the primitive Church only manifest mortal sins were confessed.
9. As long as we wish to confess all sins without exception, we are doing nothing else than to wish to leave nothing to God's mercy for pardon.
10. Sins are not forgiven to anyone, unless when the priest forgives them he believes they are forgiven; on the contrary the sin would remain unless he believed it was forgiven; for indeed the remission of sin and the granting of grace does not suffice, but it is necessary also to believe that there has been forgiveness.
11. By no means can you have reassurance of being absolved because of your contrition, but because of the word of Christ: "Whatsoever you shall loose, etc." Hence, I say, trust confidently, if you have obtained the absolution of the priest, and firmly believe yourself to have been absolved, and you will truly be absolved, whatever there may be of contrition.
12. If through an impossibility he who confessed was not contrite, or the priest did not absolve seriously, but in a jocose manner, if nevertheless he believes that he has been absolved, he is most truly absolved.
13. In the sacrament of penance and the remission of sin the pope or the bishop does no more than the lowest priest; indeed, where there is no priest, any Christian, even if a woman or child, may equally do as much.
14. No one ought to answer a priest that he is contrite, nor should the priest inquire.
15. Great is the error of those who approach the sacrament of the Eucharist relying on this, that they have confessed, that they are not conscious of any mortal sin, that they have sent their prayers on ahead and made preparations; all these eat and drink judgment to themselves. But if they believe and trust that they will attain grace, then this faith alone makes them pure and worthy.
16. It seems to have been decided that the Church in common Council established that the laity should communicate under both species; the Bohemians who communicate under both species are not heretics, but schismatics.
17. The treasures of the Church, from which the pope grants indulgences, are not the merits of Christ and of the saints.
18. Indulgences are pious frauds of the faithful, and remissions of good works; and they are among the number of those things which are allowed, and not of the number of those which are advantageous.
19. Indulgences are of no avail to those who truly gain them, for the remission of the penalty due to actual sin in the sight of divine justice.
20. They are seduced who believe that indulgences are salutary and useful for the fruit of the spirit.
21. Indulgences are necessary only for public crimes, and are properly conceded only to the harsh and impatient.
22. For six kinds of men indulgences are neither necessary nor useful; namely, for the dead and those about to die, the infirm, those legitimately hindered, and those who have not committed crimes, and those who have committed crimes, but not public ones, and those who devote themselves to better things.
23. Excommunications are only external penalties and they do not deprive man of the common spiritual prayers of the Church.
24. Christians must be taught to cherish excommunications rather than to fear them.
25. The Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter, is not the vicar of Christ over all the churches of the entire world, instituted by Christ Himself in blessed Peter.
26. The word of Christ to Peter: "Whatsoever you shall loose on earth," etc., is extended merely to those things bound by Peter himself.
27. It is certain that it is not in the power of the Church or the pope to decide upon the articles of faith, and much less concerning the laws for morals or for good works.
28. If the pope with a great part of the Church thought so and so, he would not err; still it is not a sin or heresy to think the contrary, especially in a matter not necessary for salvation, until one alternative is condemned and another approved by a general Council.
29. A way has been made for us for weakening the authority of councils, and for freely contradicting their actions, and judging their decrees, and boldly confessing whatever seems true, whether it has been approved or disapproved by any council whatsoever.
30. Some articles of John Hus, condemned in the Council of Constance, are most Christian, wholly true and evangelical; these the universal Church could not condemn.
31. In every good work the just man sins.
32. A good work done very well is a venial sin.
33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.
34. To go to war against the Turks is to resist God who punishes our iniquities through them.
35. No one is certain that he is not always sinning mortally, because of the most hidden vice of pride.
36. Free will after sin is a matter of title only; and as long as one does what is in him, one sins mortally.
37. Purgatory cannot be proved from Sacred Scripture which is in the canon.
38. The souls in purgatory are not sure of their salvation, at least not all; nor is it proved by any arguments or by the Scriptures that they are beyond the state of meriting or of increasing in charity.
39. The souls in purgatory sin without intermission, as long as they seek rest and abhor punishment.
40. The souls freed from purgatory by the suffrages of the living are less happy than if they had made satisfactions by themselves.
41. Ecclesiastical prelates and secular princes would not act badly if they destroyed all of the money bags of beggary.
No one of sound mind is ignorant how destructive, pernicious, scandalous, and seductive to pious and simple minds these various errors are, how opposed they are to all charity and reverence for the holy Roman Church who is the mother of all the faithful and teacher of the faith; how destructive they are of the vigor of ecclesiastical discipline, namely obedience. This virtue is the font and origin of all virtues and without it anyone is readily convicted of being unfaithful.
Therefore we, in this above enumeration, important as it is, wish to proceed with great care as is proper, and to cut off the advance of this plague and cancerous disease so it will not spread any further in the Lord's field as harmful thorn-bushes. We have therefore held a careful inquiry, scrutiny, discussion, strict examination, and mature deliberation with each of the brothers, the eminent cardinals of the holy Roman Church, as well as the priors and ministers general of the religious orders, besides many other professors and masters skilled in sacred theology and in civil and canon law. We have found that these errors or theses are not Catholic, as mentioned above, and are not to be taught, as such; but rather are against the doctrine and tradition of the Catholic Church, and against the true interpretation of the sacred Scriptures received from the Church. Now Augustine maintained that her authority had to be accepted so completely that he stated he would not have believed the Gospel unless the authority of the Catholic Church had vouched for it. For, according to these errors, or any one or several of them, it clearly follows that the Church which is guided by the Holy Spirit is in error and has always erred. This is against what Christ at his ascension promised to his disciples (as is read in the holy Gospel of Matthew): "I will be with you to the consummation of the world"; it is against the determinations of the holy Fathers, or the express ordinances and canons of the councils and the supreme pontiffs. Failure to comply with these canons, according to the testimony of Cyprian, will be the fuel and cause of all heresy and schism.
With the advice and consent of these our venerable brothers, with mature deliberation on each and every one of the above theses, and by the authority of almighty God, the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and our own authority, we condemn, reprobate, and reject completely each of these theses or errors as either heretical, scandalous, false, offensive to pious ears or seductive of simple minds, and against Catholic truth. By listing them, we decree and declare that all the faithful of both sexes must regard them as condemned, reprobated, and rejected….We restrain all in the virtue of holy obedience and under the penalty of an automatic major excommunication....
Moreover, because the preceding errors and many others are contained in the books or writings of Martin Luther, we likewise condemn, reprobate, and reject completely the books and all the writings and sermons of the said Martin, whether in Latin or any other language, containing the said errors or any one of them; and we wish them to be regarded as utterly condemned, reprobated, and rejected. We forbid each and every one of the faithful of either sex, in virtue of holy obedience and under the above penalties to be incurred automatically, to read, assert, preach, praise, print, publish, or defend them. They will incur these penalties if they presume to uphold them in any way, personally or through another or others, directly or indirectly, tacitly or explicitly, publicly or occultly, either in their own homes or in other public or private places.
Indeed immediately after the publication of this letter these works, wherever they may be, shall be sought out carefully by the ordinaries and others [ecclesiastics and regulars], and under each and every one of the above penalties shall be burned publicly and solemnly in the presence of the clerics and people.
As far as Martin himself is concerned, O good God, what have we overlooked or not done? What fatherly charity have we omitted that we might call him back from such errors? For after we had cited him, wishing to deal more kindly with him, we urged him through various conferences with our legate and through our personal letters to abandon these errors. We have even offered him safe conduct and the money necessary for the journey urging him to come without fear or any misgivings, which perfect charity should cast out, and to talk not secretly but openly and face to face after the example of our Savior and the Apostle Paul. If he had done this, we are certain he would have changed in heart, and he would have recognized his errors. He would not have found all these errors in the Roman Curia which he attacks so viciously, ascribing to it more than he should because of the empty rumors of wicked men. We would have shown him clearer than the light of day that the Roman pontiffs, our predecessors, whom he injuriously attacks beyond all decency, never erred in their canons or constitutions which he tries to assail. For, according to the prophet, neither is healing oil nor the doctor lacking in Galaad.
But he always refused to listen and, despising the previous citation and each and every one of the above overtures, disdained to come. To the present day he has been contumacious. With a hardened spirit he has continued under censure over a year.
What is worse, adding evil to evil, and on learning of the citation, he broke forth in a rash appeal to a future council. This to be sure was contrary to the constitution of Pius II and Julius II our predecessors that all appealing in this way are to be punished with the penalties of heretics. In vain does he implore the help of a council, since he openly admits that he does not believe in a council.
Therefore we can, without any further citation or delay, proceed against him to his condemnation and damnation as one whose faith is notoriously suspect and in fact a true heretic with the full severity of each and all of the above penalties and censures.
Yet, with the advice of our brothers, imitating the mercy of almighty God who does not wish the death of a sinner but rather that he be converted and live, and forgetting all the injuries inflicted on us and the Apostolic See, we have decided to use all the compassion we are capable of. It is our hope, so far as in us lies, that he will experience a change of heart by taking the road of mildness we have proposed, return, and turn away from his errors. We will receive him kindly as the prodigal son returning to the embrace of the Church.
Therefore let Martin himself and all those adhering to him, and those who shelter and support him, through the merciful heart of our God and the sprinkling of the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ by which and through whom the redemption of the human race and the upbuilding of holy mother Church was accomplished, know that from our heart we exhort and beseech that he cease to disturb the peace, unity, and truth of the Church for which the Savior prayed so earnestly to the Father. Let him abstain from his pernicious errors that he may come back to us. If they really will obey, and certify to us by legal documents that they have obeyed, they will find in us the affection of a father's love, the opening of the font of the effects of paternal charity, and opening of the font of mercy and clemency.
We enjoin, however, on Martin that in the meantime he cease from all preaching or the office of preacher...." [quote from EWTN link below]
Will Pope Francis attempt to correct the errors these protestants cling to as our Church did with Martin Luther so long ago?
No!
He's already stated he has no desire to convert protestants to the Catholic faith, he's "not interested" in evangelizing these people. So what's the point of "dialogue" if you don't want to tell the Truth to people clinging to lies?
What "unity" can the Catholic Church have with heresy?
Why wouldn't our pope want all people to enter Christ's Holy Catholic Church? To share in Her Sacraments? To have all that Christ wants believers to have?
I truly do not understand this pope. He continues to disappoint me and I am angry that he doesn't want to actively TRY to convert people. He doesn't want to. I will never understand that. Never.
So once more, I find myself ticked off at my pope and other Catholic clergy. I'm angry on two accounts: 1) that my Church will be commemorating/celebrating a heretic; and 2) my pope not wanting to convert people from false religions into the One and only True Church that Jesus Christ created on earth.
My anger stems from once being one of those ignorant protestants who had no idea what I was missing. I didn't know all that the Catholic Church had to offer because of the heretic Martin Luther and the generations of protestants on my mother's side of the family who generation after generation passed on the false beliefs of people like Luther to ignorant people who didn't know what they were missing.
We were ignorant. We fell for heresy and false religions. Generations of my family were lost in lies and I can only hope that before their deaths SOMEONE reached out to them with the truth.
By the grace of God and some wonderful Catholics who crossed my path and took the time to argue the facts with me (that's the best way to get my attention), I (along with my children) became Catholic. Best thing that has ever happened to me or will ever happen to me! What a blessing and delight it is to be Catholic and have Christ's Church as my Church! To be inside rather than outside. Like the people on Noah's Ark compared to those outside the Ark.
If I said "thank you" every single day for the rest of my life to these people for sharing their faith and to God, it would NEVER be enough. I get so angry when I hear members of the Catholic Church- namely clergy who simply want to "dialogue" with protestants rather than reach out to them and share the knowledge they as Catholic have. How selfish you are! How will you answer God for keeping His gift of the Faith to you from others? You should be terrified of that day...for that day is coming. We will all answer for all we have done and for what we have not done, but should have done.
It absolutely boggles my mind that any member of Christ's Catholic Church (especially the clergy) would keep silent and not share the Catholic faith with people living outside the Church. It's cruel and heartless and selfish to do such a thing.
It's like seeing a dehydrated person in the desert who will soon perish and instead of share with them the water you have, you offer them an umbrella to keep the sun off them while they die.
We should not be celebrating or commemorating any heretic! If the pope wants "dialogue" we can dialogue with the facts of what Martin Luther did and the Truth found only in Christ's Holy Catholic Church. Let's dialogue about that!
When will our beloved Holy Catholic Church once more do what Her Lord commissioned Her to do?
In Christ,
Julie @ Connecticut Catholic Corner
******
Links:
EWTN: https://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/L10EXDOM.HTM
https://dispatchesfrombrian.com/2014/07/09/lunch-with-the-pope/
http://lutheranreformation.org/
http://www.ecumenicalnews.com/article/500th-reformation-anniversary-will-be-ecumenical-and-include-pope-francis/44650.htm
https://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/TRENT7.HTM
Catholic surfing again...

My insomnia strikes again and I find myself randomly surfing the Internet and reading email that usually fills my spam file when I should be sleeping.
Realizing I haven't done a "Catholic surfing" post in nearly a year, I thought I'd put my annoying insomnia to use and write a post about the crap I find when I'm bored and online. Most of its terrible (perhaps this explains some of my insomnia?), but sometimes I find a gem among the rubble that sets things right again.
First up...the sad reality of a family who has decided to have a "non-first Holy Communion" celebration because the parents no longer believe in God, but don't want their child to feel left out of the celebration of all the children who are celebrating their First Holy Communion.
There is nothing "wonderful" about an "Irish granny" (or any granny) laughing that her grandchild is skipping First Holy Communion to go to an adventure park while his friends are celebrating their First Holy Communion with Jesus Christ, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in the Eucharist.
This is the First Holy Communion card that was altered to remove "God" and "Lord" by the "Irish Granny" and grandfather then sent to their grandchild...
This is a tragic story, but this media outlet and Facebook find it hilarious and "just wonderful". Idiots.
***
Now this IS "just wonderful"! An Irish girl uses her First Holy Communion money to feed the homeless...
For her full story go HERE.
***
God help me with this next story...
Pope Francis recently met with "influential Youtubers".
quote: "The conversation with Pope Francis... is the latest example of creators coming together to passionately advocate for issues they believe in, such as creating a more tolerant, empathetic and diverse web. During the meeting with the Pope, these creators raised topics they hope to continue exploring as YouTube role models, including how to counter online hate through tolerance, empathy and education."Here are a few of the "influential Youtubers" Pope Francis met with who are considered "role models" for youth...
![]() |
| me going insane |
This first video is not in English, but giving the finger is a universal language that I am sure even Pope Francis understands. Perhaps Pope Francis will explain how this guy is a "role model" for our youth?
This woman provides videos on how she takes a bath, moisturizes and applies make-up and dresses. Role-model for youth? "Cleanliness is next to Godliness" maybe?
and a couples first attempt at a music video entitled "Cheap Thrills"...
***
Moving on to Poland.
When a Catholic priest said he supported a ban on abortion (that is he actually believes Catholic teaching and mentions it in his homilies), Catholic women got up and walked out of Mass during the priests homily.
Guess they want their abortions more than they want Jesus. Thus, making abortion their god by placing it before God and breaking the First Commandment along with the 5th Commandment [thou shall not commit murder].
***
That's it for now, I need a refill of black English tea.

God bless and keep you.
In Christ and trying to sleep,
Julie @ Connecticut Catholic Corner
Sources:
http://www.dailyedge.ie/granny-non-first-holy-communion-card-2797243-May2016/
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/kindhearted-irish-angel-spends-communion-money-on-food-for-homeless-in-dublin-34760694.html
http://www.teenvogue.com/story/pope-youtube
http://crooksandliars.com/2016/05/polish-women-stage-walk-out-catholic-mass
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/command.htm
Saturday, May 14, 2016
Women deacons?
The Pope is once again causing confusion... HERE.
*sigh*
From the Vatican website:
*sigh*
From the Vatican website:
IV. The Ministry of Deaconesses
In the apostolic era different forms of diaconal assistance offered to the Apostles and communities by women seem to have been institutional. Thus Paul recommends to the community at Rome "our sister Phoebe, servant [he diakonos] of the Church at Cenchreae" (cf. Rom 16:1-4). Although the masculine form of diakonos is used here, it cannot therefore be concluded that the word is being used to designate the specific function of a "deacon"; firstly because in this context diakonos still signifies servant in a very general sense, and secondly because the word "servant" is not given a feminine suffix but preceded by a feminine article. What seems clear is that Phoebe exercised a recognised service in the community of Cenchreae, subordinate to the ministry of the Apostle. Elsewhere in Pauls writings the authorities of the world are themselves called diakonos (Rom 13:4), and in Second Corinthians 11:14-15 he refers to diakonoi of the devil.
Exegetes are divided on the subject of First Timothy 3:11. The mention of "women" following the reference to deacons may suggest women deacons (by parallel reference), or the deacons' wives who had been mentioned earlier. In this epistle, the functions of the deacon are not described, but only the conditions for admitting them. It is said that women must not teach or rule over men (1 Tim 2:8-15). But the functions of governance and teaching were in any case reserved to the bishop (1 Tim 3:5) and to priests (1 Tim 5:17), and not to deacons. Widows constituted a recognised group in the community, from whom they received assistance in exchange for their commitment to continence and prayer. First Timothy 5:3-16 stresses the conditions under which they may be inscribed on the list of widows receiving relief from the community, and says nothing more about any functions they might have. Later on they were officially "instituted" but "not ordained";58 they constituted an "order" in the Church,59 and would never have any other mission apart from good example and prayer.
At the beginning of the second century a letter from Pliny the Younger, governor of Bithynia, mentioned two women who were described by the Christians as ministrae, the probable equivalent of the Greek diakonoi (10, 96-97). It was not until the third century that the specific Christian termsdiaconissa or diacona appeared.
From the end of the third century onwards, in certain regions of the Church60 (and not all of them), a specific ecclesial ministry is attested to on the part of women called deaconesses.61 This was in Eastern Syria and Constantinople. Towards 240 there appeared a singular canonico-liturgical compilation, the Didascalia Apostolorum (DA), which was not official in character. It attributed to the bishop the features of an omnipotent biblical patriarch (cf. DA 2, 33-35, 3). He was at the head of a little community which he governed mainly with the help of deacons and deaconesses. This was the first time that deaconesses appeared in an ecclesiastical document. In a typology borrowed from Ignatius of Antioch, the bishop held the place of God the Father, the deacon the place of Christ, and the deaconess that of the Holy Spirit (the word for "Spirit" is feminine in Semitic languages), while the priests (who are seldom mentioned) represented the Apostles, and the widows, the altar (DA 2, 26, 4-7). There is no reference to the ordination of these ministers.
The Didascalia laid stress on the charitable role of the deacon and the deaconess. The ministry of the diaconate should appear as "one single soul in two bodies". Its model is the diakonia of Christ, who washed the feet of his disciples (DA 3, 13, 1-7). However, there was no strict parallelism between the two branches of the diaconate with regard to the functions they exercised. The deacons were chosen by the bishop to "concern themselves about many necessary things", and the deaconesses only "for the service of women" (DA 3, 12, 1). The hope was expressed that "the number of deacons may be proportionate to that of the assembly of the people of the Church" (DA 3, 13, l).62 The deacons administered the property of the community in the bishop's name. Like the bishop, they were maintained at its expense. Deacons are called the ear and mouth of the bishop (DA 2, 44, 3-4). Men from among the faithful should go through the deacons to have access to the bishop, as women should go through the deaconesses (DA 3, 12, 1-4). One deacon supervised the entries into the meeting place, while another attended the bishop for the Eucharistic offering (DA 2, 57, 6).
Deaconesses should carry out the anointing of women in the rite of baptism, instruct women neophytes, and visit the women faithful, especially the sick, in their homes. They were forbidden to confer baptism themselves, or to play a part in the Eucharistic offering (DA 3, 12, 1-4). The deaconesses had supplanted the widows. The bishop may still institute widows, but they should not either teach or administer baptism (to women), but only pray (DA 3, 5, 1-3, 6, 2).
The Constitutiones Apostolorum, which appeared in Syria towards 380, used and interpolated the Didascalia, the Didache and the Traditio Apostolica. The Constitutiones were to have a lasting influence on the discipline governing ordinations in the East, even though they were never considered to be an official canonical collection. The compiler envisaged the imposition of hands with the epiklesis of the Holy Spirit not only for bishops, priests and deacons, but also for the deaconesses, sub-deacons and lectors (cf. CA 8, 16-23).63The concept of kleros Was broadened to all those who exercised a liturgical ministry, who were maintained by the Church, and who benefited from the privileges in civil law allowed by the Empire to clerics, so that the deaconesses were counted as belonging to the clergy while the widows were excluded. Bishop and priests were paralleled with the high priest and the priests respectively of the Old Covenant, while to the Levites corresponded all the other ministries and states of life: "deacons, lectors, cantors, door-keepers, deaconesses, widows, virgins and orphans" (CA 2, 26, 3; CA 8, 1, 21). The deacon was placed "at the service of the bishop and the priests" and should not impinge on the functions of the latter.64 The deacon could proclaim the Gospel and conduct the prayer of the assembly (CA 2, 57, 18), but only the bishop and the priests exhorted (CA 2, 57, 7). Deaconesses took up their functions through an epithesis cheirôn or imposition of hands that conferred the Holy Spirit,65 as did the lectors (CA 8, 20, 22). The bishop pronounced the following prayer: "Eternal God, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, creator of man and woman, who filled Myriam, Deborah, Anne and Hulda with your spirit; who did not deem it unworthy for your Son, the Only-Begotten, to be born of a woman; who in the tent of witness and in the temple did institute women as guardians of your sacred doors, look now upon your servant before you, proposed for the diaconate: grant her the Holy Spirit and purify her of all defilement of flesh and spirit so that she may acquit herself worthily of the office which has been entrusted to her, for your glory and to the praise of your Christ, through whom be glory and adoration to you, in the Holy Spirit, world without end. Amen."66
The deaconesses were named before the sub-deacon who, in his turn, received a cheirotonia like the deacon (CA 8, 21), while the virgins and widows could not be "ordained" (8, 24-25). The Constitutiones insist that the deaconesses should have no liturgical function (3, 9, 1-2), but should devote themselves to their function in the community which was "service to the women" (CA 3, 16, 1) and as intermediaries between women and the bishop. It is still stated that they represent the Holy Spirit, but they "do nothing without the deacon" (CA 2, 26, 6). They should stand at the women's entrances in the assemblies (2, 57, 10). Their functions are summed up as follows: "The deaconess does not bless, and she does not fulfil any of the things that priests and deacons do, but she looks after the doors and attends the priests during the baptism of women, for the sake of decency" (CA 8, 28, 6).
This is echoed by the almost contemporary observation of Epiphanius of Salamis in his Panarion, in around 375: "There is certainly in the Church the order of deaconesses, but this does not exist to exercise the functions of a priest, nor are they to have any undertaking committed to them, but for the decency of the feminine sex at the time of baptism." 67A law of Theodosius of 21 June 390, revoked on 23 August of the same year, fixed the age for admission to the ministry of deaconesses at 60. The Council of Chalcedon (can. 15) reduced the age to 40, forbidding them subsequent marriage.68
Even in the fourth century the way of life of deaconesses was very similar to that of nuns. At that time the woman in charge of a monastic community of women was called a deaconess, as is testified by Gregory of Nyssa among others.69 Ordained abbesses of the monasteries of women, the deaconesses wore the maforion, or veil of perfection. Until the sixth century they still attended women in the baptismal pool and for the anointing. Although they did not serve at the altar, they could distribute communion to sick women. When the practice of anointing the whole body at baptism was abandoned, deaconesses were simply consecrated virgins who had taken the vow of chastity. They lived either in monasteries or at home. The condition for admission was virginity or widowhood and their activity consisted of charitable and health-related assistance to women.
At Constantinople the best-known of the fourth-century deaconesses was Olympias, the superior of a monastery of women, who was a protegee of Saint John Chrysostom and had put her property at the service of the Church. She was "ordained" (cheirotonein) deaconess with three of her companions by the patriarch. Canon 15 of the Council of Chalcedon (451) seems to confirm the fact that deaconesses really were "ordained" by the imposition of hands (cheirotonia). Their ministry was called leitourgia and after ordination they were not allowed to marry.
In eighth-century Byzantium, the bishop still imposed his hands on a deaconess, and conferred on her the orarion or stole (both ends of which were worn at the front, one over the other); he gave her the chalice, which she placed on the altar without giving communion to anyone. Deaconesses were ordained in the course of the Eucharistic liturgy, in the sanctuary, like deacons.70 Despite the similarities between the rites of ordination, deaconesses did not have access to the altar or to any liturgical ministry. These ordinations were intended mainly for the superiors of monasteries of women.
It should be pointed out that in the West there is no trace of any deaconesses for the first five centuries. The Statuta Ecclesiae antiqua laid down that the instruction of women catechumens and their preparation for baptism was to be entrusted to the widows and women religious "chosenad ministerium baptizandarum mulierum".71 Certain councils of the fourth and fifth centuries reject every ministerium feminae72 and forbid any ordination of deaconesses.73 According to the Ambrosiaster (composed at Rome at the end of the fourth century), the female diaconate was an adjunct of Montanist ("Cataphrygian") heretics.74 In the sixth century women admitted into the group of widows were sometimes referred to as deaconesses. To prevent any confusion the Council of Epaone forbade "the consecrations of widows who call themselves deaconesses".75 The Second Council of Orleans (533) decided to exclude from communion women who had "received the blessing for the diaconate despite the canons forbidding this and who had remarried".76 Abbesses, or the wives of deacons, were also called diaconissae, by analogy with presbyterissae or even episcopissae.77
The present historical overview shows that a ministry of deaconesses did indeed exist, and that this developed unevenly in the different parts of the Church. It seems clear that this ministry was not perceived as simply the feminine equivalent of the masculine diaconate. At the very least it was an ecclesial function, exercised by women, sometimes mentioned together with that of sub-deacon in the lists of Church ministries.78 Was this ministry conferred by an imposition of hands comparable to that by which the episcopate, the priesthood and the masculine diaconate were conferred? The text of the Constitutiones Apostolorum would seem to suggest this, but it is practically the only witness to this, and its proper interpretation is the subject of much debate.79 Should the imposition of hands on deaconesses be considered the same as that on deacons, or is it rather on the same level as the imposition of hands on sub-deacons and lectors? It is difficult to tackle the question on the basis of historical data alone. In the following chapters some elements will be clarified, and some questions will remain open. In particular, one chapter will be devoted to examining more closely how the Church through her theology and Magisterium has become more conscious of the sacramental reality of Holy Orders and its three grades. But first it is appropriate to examine the causes which led to the disappearance of the permanent diaconate in the life of the Church. [end quote]
Vatican link: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_pro_05072004_diaconate_en.html
No need for the Pope to tell the world he is going to get a commission together to look into this already looked into and defined subject. He is only causing confusion and discord once again.
God save us from Pope Francis.
In Christ,
Julie @ Connecticut Catholic Corner
Friday, May 6, 2016
Mother's Day and aborted babies part 2
Last year I wrote an article called "Mother's Day and aborted babies". The article was a follow up to an earlier article called "Two very different mothers".
I suggest reading "Two very different mothers" if you haven't already to better understand this post.
Assuming you have now read that article on the Salon's Jenny Kutner's very public abortion and the octopus mother (some of you are going 'WHAT? Octopus mother?' - told ya, ya gotta read the first article!), who was willing to give her own life for the lives of her offspring.
Jenny Kutner's abortion stuck with me and month's later when Mother's Day was coming up Kutner was on my mind a lot. I wondered how she would feel on this first Mother's Day since her abortion. Many women suffer great depression and self loathing. They bury it and tell people lies because they don't want to admit that what they did is haunting them and having an effect on them.
Abortion stays with a person their entire life. It does not go away.
So I wrote about that first Mother's Day since Kutner's abortion and as Mother's Day approaches again this year I got a few unexpected comments from Jenny Kutner's mother, Pam Kutner...
These are the automated email copies of the comments left on my blog because as Pam Kutner and I were discussing this, she decided to call me a "nut" and delete her previous (above) comments from the article page.
But now she's back again (see newest comments in the "Mother's Day and aborted babies" article) and now The Federalist has picked up the story as has dozens of Facebook pages.
So here I am, sharing the story of Jenny Kutner's abortion and Mother's Day once more.
In Christ,
Julie @ Connecticut Catholic Corner
Links:
Jenny Kutner from Salon: http://www.salon.com/2014/08/01/im_having_an_abortion_this_weekend/
My article from 2014 (Two Very Different Mothers): http://connecticutcatholiccorner.blogspot.com/2014/08/two-very-different-mothers.html
My article from 2015 (Mother's Day and aborted babies): http://connecticutcatholiccorner.blogspot.com/2015/05/mothers-day-and-aborted-babies.html
The Federalist: http://thefederalist.com/2016/05/06/mothers-day-is-not-the-time-to-justify-your-abortion/
I suggest reading "Two very different mothers" if you haven't already to better understand this post.
Assuming you have now read that article on the Salon's Jenny Kutner's very public abortion and the octopus mother (some of you are going 'WHAT? Octopus mother?' - told ya, ya gotta read the first article!), who was willing to give her own life for the lives of her offspring.
Jenny Kutner's abortion stuck with me and month's later when Mother's Day was coming up Kutner was on my mind a lot. I wondered how she would feel on this first Mother's Day since her abortion. Many women suffer great depression and self loathing. They bury it and tell people lies because they don't want to admit that what they did is haunting them and having an effect on them.
Abortion stays with a person their entire life. It does not go away.
So I wrote about that first Mother's Day since Kutner's abortion and as Mother's Day approaches again this year I got a few unexpected comments from Jenny Kutner's mother, Pam Kutner...
These are the automated email copies of the comments left on my blog because as Pam Kutner and I were discussing this, she decided to call me a "nut" and delete her previous (above) comments from the article page.
But now she's back again (see newest comments in the "Mother's Day and aborted babies" article) and now The Federalist has picked up the story as has dozens of Facebook pages.
So here I am, sharing the story of Jenny Kutner's abortion and Mother's Day once more.
In Christ,
Julie @ Connecticut Catholic Corner
Links:
Jenny Kutner from Salon: http://www.salon.com/2014/08/01/im_having_an_abortion_this_weekend/
My article from 2014 (Two Very Different Mothers): http://connecticutcatholiccorner.blogspot.com/2014/08/two-very-different-mothers.html
My article from 2015 (Mother's Day and aborted babies): http://connecticutcatholiccorner.blogspot.com/2015/05/mothers-day-and-aborted-babies.html
The Federalist: http://thefederalist.com/2016/05/06/mothers-day-is-not-the-time-to-justify-your-abortion/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)













