Barack and Bergoglio, two peas in a pod

WASHINGTON – When a White House speechwriter turned in a draft of a major speech on economic policy this month, President Obama sent it back with an unusual instruction: Add a reference to the pope.The final version of the speech quoted directly from Pope Francis’ recent letter to the faithful: “How can it be that it is not a news item when an elderly homeless person dies of exposure, but it is news when the stock market loses 2 points?” he said.

The citation marked a notable development in Obama’s complex and sometimes confrontational relationship with the Roman Catholic Church: After several years of high-profile clashes with U.S. bishops, Obama is seizing the chance to highlight common ground with the bishop of Rome.

Quoting the pope isn’t likely to yield direct electoral dividends for Obama’s party — the once-vaunted “Catholic vote” largely disappeared long ago. But in a string of effusive praise, the president has made clear he sees the pope as a like-minded thinker and potentially useful ally in a crucial battle of ideas, particularly on the importance of shrinking the gulf between rich and poor, a subject Obama has pushed repeatedly but with limited success.

White House officials described the president’s praise of the pope as merely a happy coincidence with no political motives. Obama, who has never spoken to Francis, simply found the pontiff’s recent statements impressive, they said.

“It’s something that is very much on the president’s mind,” said Cecilia Muñoz, chief domestic policy advisor to the president. “And, happily for us, it’s something that’s also on the pope’s mind.

Be Sociable, Share!

    Comments: 130

    1. sienna March 14, 2014 at 11:46 am

      Barac and Begoglio sounds like something you might have for breakfast!

    2. Don the Kiwi March 14, 2014 at 1:03 pm

      "<i> – the once-vaunted Catholic vote largely disappeared long ago." </i>

      Not correct. It was the catholic voters – who conflatee the teaching of the Church on poverty and social justice as socialism – who got Obama into the White House in the first place and also were the deciding factor on his disastrous Obamacare health care.

      You know, all those "good faithful practicing Catholics" like Kathleen Sebelius, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi and a myriad of prominent catholics in the USA who have sold out their faith. Even a large number of bishops are at fault.

      Obama and his advisers are well practiced at manipulation and deceit. This is a deliberate distortion of what Poep Francis said, having been taken out of context.

    3. Teresina March 14, 2014 at 11:23 pm

      My thoughts on Francis are well summed up by Fr Hunwicke:


      3 March 2014

      How to read him and how to write him?


      So a year has passed! What a different Pontificate; how different a Pontiff! I find different reactions in my own mind are unavoidable.

      I found Benedict so exquisite a theologian and writer, that I found it hard to imagine myself disagreeing with him … even when he was writing well outside the Magisterium. His addresses seemed to take us to the world of the Fathers … one didn't feel sure quite which Father, or even occasionally whether Western or Eastern, but one felt that somewhere or other one ought to be able to find the text in Migne. And he seemed so gentle, so vulnerable, that I felt protective; apprehensive that the Wolves, as he called them in his Inauguration Homily, might be able to hurt him. As, God punish them and God forgive them, they did.

      Now we have a Bishop of Rome who is less consummate a theologian, and is a man naturally given to coarse and combative expression. And, despite the journalists and the spin-doctors, he is in fact very distinctly less humble than his predecessor. This does not make him any less estimable as a Sovereign Pontiff (I wonder how S Peter expressed himself when some fool tore the nets … and we know what Amos said about Fat Cows). It does not in any way diminish the fulness of the Magisterium which he possesses. But Things have Consequences. When a man expresses himself with a knock-about vulgarity, even if that man is the Vicar of S Peter, it seems to me that the structure of the exchange makes it congruous for people to respond to him in the way invited by his own chosen style of dialogue. Hence, I do not in the least disapprove of Fr Zed producing and marketing coffee mugs … ah, the purest Spirit of Colonial Capitalism! … in order to ridicule Francis' silly talk about Promethean Neo-Pelagians and all the other nonsense. Nearer home, where bloggers are smoother, some mock-pedantic elucidations or collections of the current papal argot have much amused us. Even if you are a pope, you must expect to get what you ask for. Butterflies, Nature may teach you, can bite."


    4. Teresina March 15, 2014 at 12:38 am

      I also agree with what Fr Hunwicke says:

      "We need to clear out of the way the fawning superstition that faithful, obedient Catholics, episcopal, clerical, and lay, are supposed to regard the bishop of Rome as some sort of god-like superman who never makes mistakes and is above criticism (until he dies or abdicates … when, of course, the vermin all emerge from the bilge of the Barque of S Peter). "

    5. Rubyshine March 15, 2014 at 7:52 am

      I've always believed that my behaviour is a reflection of my behaviour. If I'm being rude and obnoxious towards someone then that says nothing about the other person, and only that I am being rude and obnoxious.

      If I cannot present an argument without resorting to abuse or ridicule then there's a flaw in my argument, my manners, or both.

      If people are unhappy with how Pope Francis presents or expresses himself, then expressing oneself in equally, vulgar ways does not prove your point, it makes you a hypocrite.

    6. Werahiko March 15, 2014 at 2:41 pm

      Fr Hunwicke is wrong. Butterflies cannot bite.

    7. Teresina March 15, 2014 at 5:56 pm

      Rubyshine, I agree with Fr Hunwicke that the way a person behaves does have an impact on others.  I have seen it in the workforce and I have seen it in daily life. If a person wants to be respected then they need to set the standard.  Especially so the vicar of Christ.  The buck stops with him.   If Queen Elizabeth, for example, conducted herself in a vulger manner then quite quickly the whole court would become vulgar as was seen in Henry VIII's time.  Luke 12:48: "The lord of that servant will come in the day that he hopeth not, and at the hour that he knoweth not, and shall separate him, and shall appoint him his portion with unbelievers. [47] And that servant who knew the will of his lord, and prepared not himself, and did not according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. [48] But he that knew not, and did things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. And unto whomsoever much is given, of him much shall be required: and to whom they have committed much, of him they will demand the more. "

    8. Teresina March 15, 2014 at 6:15 pm

      Werahiko, I suggest you take that up with Fr Hunwicke, he may know something that you don't.

    9. bamac March 15, 2014 at 6:23 pm

      I found this episode of the Vortex interesting  when we come to think about Pope Francis

      Mrs Mac


    10. Teresina March 15, 2014 at 6:27 pm

      More from Fr Hunwicke on butterflies and what to read into Benedict XVI – food for thought – but you'll need to read it carefully to see what he's saying:


      Narcissistic butterflies Episode the Second


      Yes; I tricked you there. You thought I would turn left inside the entrance to the Ashmolean Museum and, half way down the Howard Marbles, stop at the bust of Menander (By the way, I am confident that anyone who reads Wodehouse and Ovid will share my conviction that Menander is the Greatest of the Greek Playwrights). But no. Up the stairs I went, pausing only twice for breath, and along the corridor on the first floor to the room at the end, where there is fine series of busts of Renaissance popes, by a gifted but unknown sculptor. I set my folding chair down in front of Papa Lambertini, Benedict XIV, and looked at him. I find that, if I do this for long enough, he talks to me and answers all my questions. I ignored the Attendant who kept asking me if I was Sure that I was All Right.

      After some twenty or so minutes, there was the very slightest movement … not quite a wink … in the Holy Father's left eye. Using my Fr Melrose walking stick to sweep aside the Attendant (he fled, bleating), I put my question.
      "Beatissime Pater, who is right … about the narcissistic butterflies … Fr Finegan or I?"
      "Rectius tu, fili, iudicasti." 
      "Thank you, Sanctitas!! But … in that case, wasn't your successor Benedict XVI a … well … a bit of a butterfly himself? The way he sent Good Marini to rummage endlessly through the cupboards of the Vatican and the Roman basilicas … all those splendid sets of vestments, the mitres, the fanons, that he wore? Every time he appeared on Vatican Player he seemed to be wearing something unseen for decades … or even for centuries … isn't that … butterflyish?"
      "Minime minime: now … you think of yourself as knowledgeable in matters Heraldic; I remember you looking with particular interest at my coat of arms embroidered here on my stole. Did you never notice, as you watched Vatican Player, the arms embroidered on those vestments worn by St Benedict XVI (mehercle; I shouldn't have given away his canonisation)? If you had kept your eyes open, you would have spotted who had ordered each of them to be made."
      "Well … erm … "
      "Some of the vestments were made by order of his recent predecessors; some of Paul VI; some of the Pontiffs of the first part of the last century; some of St Pius IX … quid dicendum restat?"
      "You mean …"
      "Of course I do. As Fr Finegan (a ten times better man than you, by the way) would point out on his admirable blog, it was all Hermeneutic of Continuity. St Benedict XVI was expressing, by the vestments he wore, the fact that, in an unruptured succession of Roman Pontiffs, he was successor of Paul VI no less than of St Pius X; of St Pius IX no less than of Blessed John XXIII. Vixere fortes ante Agamemnona … vel, si fas est dicere, ante Concilium. Istius autem Francisci vestimenta, nihil loqui videntur nisi Me Me Me."
      "But … but … but … what about Benedict's red slippers?"

      At this point the Pontiff's marble brow very slightly contracted, almost as if in anger.
      To be continued

    11. Teresina March 15, 2014 at 7:06 pm

      Mrs Mac, thanks for the link which I looked at but found an answer to here:

      "What troubles me about Voris's piece on the 'left and the right' is that everyone is to blame – those on the 'left' and those on the 'right' – everyone that is, but the personality at the centre of the confusion and the war that hinges on the Pope.

      Meanwhile, if a Catholic remains silent when turmoil and tumult erupts following the latest Papal interview that suggests the Church could get along with same-sex civil unions, you've been a 'good and faithful Catholic', even though if a Cardinal or Bishop says the same, and you remain silent, you are 'siding with the enemy'.

      If the Pope says something weird that appears to be in contradiction to the Magisterium and thus draws anger and confusion from Catholics, because it seems to be an obfuscation of the message of the Gospel, then why would Catholics who respectfully suggest the Pope, the Shepherd, has said something or done something that appears in contradiction to the Gospel be to blame for the loss of souls?

      There is also some historical inaccuracy in Michael Voris's presentation. Martin Luther seemed concerned about corruption in the Church for a while, at the start but it turned out that his real war was on the Catholic Faith that he sought to 'reform' – hence his dogma that faith alone saved and decision to view himself, and not the Catholic Church, as the final arbiter of Sacred Scripture. 

      With all that said, now that Michael Voris has made me feel terrible for raising concerns about the direction of the pontificate of Pope Francis, if you are Catholic and are tempted to go to the SSPX, for the sake of your soul, do not leave, stay, offer up your sufferings and pray for Pope Francis and for the Lord's One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. "

    12. Teresina March 15, 2014 at 7:23 pm

      Mrs Mac, this may solve the Michael Voris riddle – something I was told when Michael Voris came to Auckland and now confirmed: 

      "Voris is the front man for Marc Brammer who owns him and holds his leash. Marc Brammer is a member of Opus Dei and works in the financial arena where he has made his money."

    13. bamac March 15, 2014 at 7:35 pm

      You may believe that if you choose to … I don't believe it  and will still stick with Michael Voris ,

      God Bless,

      Mrs Mac

    14. Rubyshine March 15, 2014 at 9:06 pm

      Teresina, I agree that a person in authority sets the tone. However, there is a difference between the thoughtless masses who unwittingly absorb and mimic a style of behaviour vs those who have a strong belief on appropriate behaviour, criticise those who do not measure up, and then resort to that behaviour themselves.

      I believe certain language is not appropriate in the workplace. If my boss started cursing left, right and centre, I wouldn't copy her because my view of appropriate behaviour remains unchanged.

      As to the initial article, I just don't believe there were no political motives. If Obama thought it was damaging, to his image, to link his ideas to the Pope's, then he wouldn't quote him. I don't know if this speaks to the catholic vote as much as it does to the general popularity of Pope Francis.

    15. Teresina March 15, 2014 at 9:14 pm

      Yes, Mrs Mac, Michael Voris is very good at speaking out against the Church of Nice but the point being made is that he is only singling out certain people, such as Cardinal Dolan, but glossing over Pope Francis' comments.  Some have said that they think it may be because he has come under such a lot of flak for taking the forthright stance he has and that he would be put in a very invidious situation if he criticised Pope Francis.  I have to say, though, I am disappointed in him because I thought he was not afraid to call anyone out when the Faith was at stake.  The comment about Marc Brammer being the money behind Church Militant is on several blogs, including wikipedia, but it would explain why he can't or won't speak out.

    16. Teresina March 15, 2014 at 9:21 pm

      Rubyshine, it would be a wonderful world if everyone thought like you, but as you know it's not like that.  We used to live in a much more decent society than we have now.  If the boss is lax the majority of the staff will become so – one or two won't because they have integrity but most people follow the lead and if they sense laxity they are all too willing to join in.  That is Fr Hunwicke's point.  If the Pope is going around and calling people all sorts of names then that is not pope-like, is it?  I mean seriously over the last year in the prior 35 years I have never heard Popes John Paul or Benedict speak in this kind of language.  The serenity is gone.

    17. Don the Kiwi March 15, 2014 at 9:36 pm

      Am I missing something here?

      Is this a criticism of Pope Francis for something he may have said – or is this following  the false theme – expounded by the website Maria Divine Mercy – that Francis is not  a genuine pope? 

    18. Teresina March 15, 2014 at 9:48 pm

      Don, this is criticism of Pope Francis for some of the comments he has made over the past year.  One recent comment for example is Pope Francis referring to a Pentecostal "bishop" as "My brother bishop" when this particular man has not had and does not believe in Holy Orders being a self-appointed bishop similar to John Tamaki of Destiny Church.  

    19. Don the Kiwi March 15, 2014 at 10:25 pm


      I had not heard of this before, so I googled it. I came to Fr. Dwight Longlecker's blog where he has a video clip of Pope Francis. His talk spoke of treating all as brothers – the man he was referring to was "Bishop" Palmer from a breakwaway anglican pentecostal group. The man was called Bishop Palmer, so I have no problem with what the pope said – he was not implying that he was a bishop, equivalent with holy order as a Catholic bishop is. Our bishops call the bishops in the Anglican church "Bishop" although they do not have valid orders. In the essential meaning of bishop, it means an overseer – so in that context, the pope is correct.

      Apparently a few weeks ago during an address to some bishops, he used what has been reported as an obscenity – not once, but three times. This apparnetly made headlines as …."the pope dropped the 'F'bomb…" It was a misunderstanding by the Italian press, I am told.. The Spanish word and the Italian word sound very similar but have different meanings – the secular press took the meaning they wished to ascribe to the word – as they would.

      I do belive this is a good pope – even if he makes some gaffes which are widely reported in the most sensationist terms. He is not unique. The wonderful Pope St. Pius X used to use some pretty blunt, course and abrasive language as well  – didn't prevent him from being canonised.

    20. Teresina March 15, 2014 at 10:31 pm

      Here is a comment from someone seeking the Church and what he finds in the Church now:

      "I might be considered one of “those who are sincerely seeking the one true faith.” Having become fed up with the emotionalistic (is that a word?) qualities of many Protestant denominations, a couple years ago I started making tentative steps towards exploring whether it would be right to “cross the Tiber.” I was deeply moved by reading some of Evelyn Waugh’s books such as Brideshead Revisited, and by some of the works of the Catholic Church during the Middle Ages. Also, the emphasis on intellect and some other qualities drew me towards Catholicism.

      But the combination of Pope Francis, his “conservative” admirers, American bishops such as Dolan and the prevalence of “The Church of Nice” in Catholicism has stopped me dead in my tracks. No more movement towards the Tiber for me, at least for the forseeable future. One of the main sticking points for me seems to be the very heavy emphasis on authority in Catholicism. I can see how authority has its value, but there have been some huge negative ramifications of it, not just with following bad popes but clearly in the sex abuse scandals. And I have read and heard so many Catholics tie themselves into knots lately, justifying the comments and actions of Francis, and justifying Vatican II, which, it seems clear to me, has almost destroyed Roman Catholicism. Yes, there are the admirable traditionalist groups, but they seem very far from the mainstream in the Church. Even Michael Voris, who I long watched and admired, believes that the Pope is off limits to criticism.


      I feel for and pray for Catholics who are troubled by what is going on, and who “just want to be Catholic” as someone else mentioned somewhere (maybe at Mundabor’s Blog). I’m grateful for Mr. Verrechio’s unflinching commentary, and will continue to listen to or read what he says.""

    21. Teresina March 15, 2014 at 11:03 pm

      Don, I listened to the video with English translation and Pope Francis does refer to him as "mio fratello vescovo", "my brother bishop" just as he addresses bishops of the Catholic Church.   If you read what Fr Longacre has to say he said this man is from some breakaway group from the Anglicans and is not listed anywhere.  So what sort of message does that send out?  By contrast, Benedict XVI said that even the Anglican communion is not entitled to be called a "church" because they have no ordained priesthood.  Only the Orthodox and SSPX can properly be called bishops.  Unfortunately, Pope Francis in his off-the-cuff sermons go much further than "gaffes" and are confusing for the laity and I am tired of hearing explanation of what he really means. For crying out loud, this is the Pope not a lay person who might be forgiven for not knowing their faith or getting things muddled up.  He has done this solidly for a year now and there are no more excuses.  I believe what he says he believes and his comments are not gaffes at all.  

    22. Teresina March 15, 2014 at 11:23 pm

      Pope Francis, Evangelii Gaudium, n.247: "We hold the Jewish people in special regard because their covenant with God has never been revoked"

      A statement completely against the Church's teaching (and in fact regarded as heresy) and no way can it be misconstrued or corrected nor has it been.

    23. Werahiko March 16, 2014 at 12:08 am

      Teresina, you should take this up with Pope Francis. Possibly he knows something you do not. 

    24. Teresina March 16, 2014 at 12:14 am

      Werahiko, originality is obviously not your forte!

    25. Teresina March 16, 2014 at 12:29 am

      At last I've found something from Pope Francis that I totally agree with:

      "The Second Vatican Council states that to the Bishops "is fully entrusted the pastoral office, that is the habitual and daily care of their flock" (Lumen Gentium, 27). We must dwell more on these two descriptions of the care of the flock:habitual and daily. In our time assiduity and habituality are often associated with daily routine and boredom. So often we try to escape to a permanent "elsewhere". This is a temptation for Shepherds, for all pastors! The spiritual fathers must explain it well, so that we understand it and will not fall. Even in the Church, unfortunately, we are not exempt from this risk. Therefore, it is important to reiterate that the mission of the Bishop requires habituality and daily dedication. I think that in this age of meetings and conferences the decree of the Council of Trent on residency is so up-to-date: it is so up-to-date and it would be nice if the Congregation for Bishops wrote something about this. The flock need to find space in the heart of the Shepherd. If he is not firmly anchored within himself, in Christ and in his Church, he will be constantly buffeted by the waves in search of ephemeral compensation and will not offer any shelter to the flock.


      Address to the Congregation for Bishops (Italian)

      26, 2014

    26. Don the Kiwi March 16, 2014 at 11:12 am


      your 11.23 pm.

      …….a statement completely against the Church's teaching (and in fact regarded as heresy)……….

      As far as I am aware, that statement is quite correct. God never takes back His promises. Perhaps you can give us a reference to shoe that the pope is wrong?

    27. bamac March 16, 2014 at 11:21 am

      Teresina ,

      am sure that Pope Francis will be relieved to learn about that statement of yours:-

       "At last I've found something from Pope Francis that I totally agree with:"

      Shalom ,

      Mrs Mac

    28. John Jensen March 16, 2014 at 11:45 am


      839 "Those who have not yet received the Gospel are related to the People of God in various ways."325

      The relationship of the Church with the Jewish People. When she delves into her own mystery, the Church, the People of God in the New Covenant, discovers her link with the Jewish People,326 "the first to hear the Word of God."327 The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God's revelation in the Old Covenant. To the Jews "belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ",328 "for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable."329

      840 And when one considers the future, God's People of the Old Covenant and the new People of God tend towards similar goals: expectation of the coming (or the return) of the Messiah. But one awaits the return of the Messiah who died and rose from the dead and is recognized as Lord and Son of God; the other awaits the coming of a Messiah, whose features remain hidden till the end of time; and the latter waiting is accompanied by the drama of not knowing or of misunderstanding Christ Jesus.

      And I believe many Popes have confirmed what Pope Francis says.


    29. Teresina March 16, 2014 at 2:24 pm

      Pope Francis, Evangelii Gaudium, n.247: "We hold the Jewish people in special regard because their covenant with God has never been revoked"

      From the Vatican II document Nostra Aetate:

      "Thus the Church of Christ acknowledges that, according to God's saving design, the beginnings of her faith and her election are found already among the Patriarchs, Moses and the prophets. She professes that all who believe in Christ-Abraham's sons according to faith (6)-are included in the same Patriarch's call, and likewise that the salvation of the Church is mysteriously foreshadowed by the chosen people's exodus from the land of bondage. The Church, therefore, cannot forget that she received the revelation of the Old Testament through the people with whom God in His inexpressible mercy *concluded the Ancient Covenant*. Nor can she forget that she draws sustenance from the root of that well-cultivated olive tree onto which have been grafted the wild shoots, the Gentiles.(7) Indeed, the Church believes that by His cross Christ, Our Peace, reconciled Jews and Gentiles. making both one in Himself.(8)"

      Note the clear teaching that the Mosaic Covenant was "concluded".

      In Second Corinthians Paul refers to the “old covenant” as the “dispensation of death,” which has “faded away.” In Romans he speaks of Christ as “the end of the Law,” apparently meaning its termination, its goal, or both. The Mosaic Law ceases to bind once its objective has been attained. The new dispensation may be called the “law of Christ” (1 Corinthians 9:21; Galatians 6:2) or the “law of the Spirit” (Romans 8:2). The Letter to the Hebrews contains in chapters seven to ten a lengthy discussion of the two covenants based on the two priesthoods, that of Levi and that of Christ, the Mediator of the New Covenant. The Old Law, with its priesthood and Temple sacrifices, has been superseded and abolished by the coming of the New."

      So, in conclusion, the status of the Jews as a people special to God does not change.  Paul, furthermore, taught that they will one day be "grafted on to the tree"; i.e., they will accept Christ as a people and come into communion with the Church.

      However, to teach that the Mosaic Covenant is still binding, and still offers through it salvation, is clearly contrary to the constant teachings of the Church."

    30. Teresina March 16, 2014 at 2:59 pm

      Mrs Mac,

      "Finally, it is very disappointing that someone who has been criticised in a very charitable way should accuse his opponents of outright malice.

      Firstly, it is not clear why the same accusation could not be made to the same person when he criticises, say, Cardinal Dolan. Secondly, it has no basis in logic.

      I do not accuse anyone of, say, not criticising the Pope because, say, his sponsors and donors – like, say, the Opus Dei - would stop giving money to him. I understand the thinking could simply be aligned. Similia similibus solvuntur. But I am rather grated when one who takes contributions to defend a certain line – contributions out of which his own livelihood is paid – accuses of ulterior motives many bloggers – and getting more numerous – who criticise the Pope out of sincere love for Christ and His Church; after working hours and sacrificing their own free time; and without any hope of monetary reward for their effort. Gratis et amore Dei.

      It is astonishing, and utterly devoid of any logic, that one who is criticised for telling the Truth about anyone but the Pope should move the same accusations to those who do the same as he does, but with more coherence, and following 2,000 years of Church history from St Paul down.

      I go as far to say that when such a malicious criticism is levelled, a breach of trust has occurred.

      Avoid Michael Voris' channel.



    31. John Jensen March 16, 2014 at 3:07 pm

      Note the clear teaching that the Mosaic Covenant was "concluded".

      'Concluded' here cannot mean 'shut down' or 'abandoned' since the sentence (in the English translation you have quoted; I would like to see the Latin) is referring to the 'conclusion' of the Ancient Covenant in the Old Testament.  It is always dangerous to take a word out of context, a word that is a translation from another language, and then assume that its meaning is that of one of its modern meanings.  The English verb 'to conclude' has many meanings, only some of which mean 'finish off, stop.'  Examples from the Oxford English Dictionary are:

      To include, comprehend, comprise, sum up.

      To shut up or comprehend within definite limits; to restrict, confine

      To confine, or shut up to

      To shut up from a course of action, etc.; to preclude, debar, restrain, ‘estop’.

      To shut up to a course of action, etc.; to bind, oblige. 

      And so forth.  One may 'conclude an agreement' – which doesn't mean to end it; it means to bring it to its established form.

      To my understanding, neither Pope Francis nor any other Pope has ever taught that Jews are saved through the Mosaic Covenant, and nor do I think the phrase quoted above implies that.  He said God has never abrogated that Covenant – and He has not.  That Covenant was never meant for salvation.  Salvation is through Christ and only through Him – and through the Church and only through the Church.

      Nevertheless, it is possible – as the Catechism in the section I quoted part of above – that men may be saved without consciously realising that it is through Christ and the Church.


    32. John Jensen March 16, 2014 at 3:11 pm

      PS – I have been reading lately an excellent book by Ralph Martin on this subject, called Will Many Be Saved.  It is about precisely the hyper-optimism that you, Teresina, may be concerned about – and which should concern all.  Here is an excellent article on the subject, with a bit of a review of Martin's book.

      There have been some who have taught that Jews can be saved without Christ, or outside of the Church.  I do not believe Pope Francis is one of them.


    33. bamac March 16, 2014 at 3:14 pm


       You stated above,  in one of your comments, that you were disappointed in Michael Voris not speaking out about Our Holy Father … maybe he just doesn't happen to agree with your interpretations!    You also seem to infer that Michael is, as it were , under the thumb of someone who , it is claimed , backs St Michael's Media … you know it must be true because you have read it on other blog sites  and that , you seem to feel, is proof of its veracity … really ?

      God Bless ,

      Mrs Mac


    34. Teresina March 16, 2014 at 3:23 pm

      Mrs Mac, I suggest you look at the following video and see what has caused a falling out  between Michael Voris and others who have supported him.

    35. Teresina March 16, 2014 at 3:40 pm

      As regards your comment Mrs Mac those who are saying that Michael Voris is backed by Marc Brammer a member of Opus Dei is being stated by those who know him – those who have been involved with him – so it is public knowledge who and what is backing Church Militent.  Therefore that this backer Marc Brammer gives him the green light to attack Cardinal Dolan (quite rightly) and others but not allowed to speak out against Pope Francis.  In the above video a clip of Michael Voris is given where he condemns Obama (quite rightly) and points out the errors of Islam and says it is a lie to say that the Koran does not contain violence and then cuts to a clip of Pope Francis saying there is no violence and to them to hold fast to the Koran.  

      What is being said is that Michael Voris is whipping people up via The Vortex, pointing out the errors that are taking place in the Church and, because he is then getting emails from people saying why isn't he criticising Pope Francis who is stating the very same errors that Voris has pointed out,  he has now turned around and put the blame for his actions on the vortex on other Catholic bloggers.  Accordingly they are asking for an apology from him.

    36. Teresina March 16, 2014 at 3:51 pm

      Mrs Mac, just to point that this information is public knowledge here is a run down of Church Militent and an item from USA Today.  I am not against Micahel Voris but I feel that he has bitten the hand that feeds him::

      " (formerly is a website that ostensibly promotes the more extreme right wing views of the Roman Catholic faith. The main goal of the site is to wipe out heterodoxy and to solidify the power of their version of orthodox Catholicism.

      The Archdiocese of Detroit has denied since 2008 that any Real Catholic TV entity has ecclesiastical consent required under Canon 216 to use the word "Catholic" in any endeavors[1] (Code of Canon Law 216). The site changed its name in 2012.


      Obscure driving force

      The site is the brainchild of "Emmy-Award winning journalist"[2] Michael Vorbis Voris S.T.B.[3] (RCTV main spokesperson and co-owner with Marc Brammer) who has claimed he was incensed by what he considered the lies told about Catholicism in the book and movie,The Da Vinci Code.[4]

      HOWEVER, it has been uncovered by bloggers like Mark Shea and "the Curious Catholic" that Voris is more puppet than entrepreneur and Opus Dei member Marc Brammer is the money and driving force. Together, Voris and Brammer created a web of for-profit and non-profit entities under which RCTV operates. (see: What is Real Catholic TV?) Shea's Patheos blog Catholic and Enjoying It! exposed Brammer as also being the money behind E. Michael Jones' "Culture Wars," as well. Religion, Politics and Culture carried this interview with Brammer presenting his is version of ties to Voris.

      and from USA today:

      Voris' efforts are financed by Marc Brammer, a business developer for Moody's who lives in South Bend, Ind., and is a member of Opus Dei, a somewhat controversial group known for its traditional views.

      Voris started and owns a media company, St. Michael's Media, which Brammer contracts to produce Real Catholic TV.

      Like Voris, Brammer is concerned about what he feels is the liberal shift of the Catholic church. They both criticize what they call "Americanism," a term they use to describe a post-1960s culture that they say has influenced Catholics negatively.

      "Our Catholic church is infected with Americanism that has gone wrong," Brammer said. "Not that America is wrong. But America's best days are not today; it was in the past, just like the Catholic church."

      While in Madrid, Voris bemoaned the American Catholics who attended, saying they were dressed immodestly.

      "It made you downright cringe to see so many Americanized Catholics standing there at Mass half-naked," he said in a video.

      Voris and his backers are committed to forging ahead on a mission to save the Catholic church and the United States.

      Many current church leaders are "namby-pamby," Voris said. "It's all about 'love your neighbor.' "

      What's needed instead, he said, is a muscular Catholicism that isn't afraid to encourage battle and sacrifice.

      "Sometimes, you have to provocative," Brammer said.


    37. Teresina March 16, 2014 at 4:51 pm

      JJ, thanks for your link which is good and I agree with.

      Just to add to the discussion, after Pope Francis makes that statement he then says "As Christians, we cannot consider Judaism as a foreign religion; nor do we include the Jews among those called to turn from idols and to serve the true God".  

      What do you think that Pope Francis means by that statement – remembering that the Church teachers that Jesus Christ is the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity? 


      Pope Benedict XIV said Ex Quo Primum (# 61):“The first consideration is that the ceremonies of the Mosaic Law were abrogated by the coming of Christ and that they can no longer be observed without sin after the promulgation of the Gospel.”
      He cites the definition of the Council of Florence and declares in the Encyclical repeatedly that the Old Covenant was “revoked”, “abrogated” and “abolished”. The doctrine is repeated again by Pius XII in Mediator Dei

      Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, 1441, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and teaches that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments… after our Lord’s coming… ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began… All, therefore, who after that time (the promulgation of the Gospel) observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, the holy Roman Church declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation.”

    38. John Jensen March 16, 2014 at 7:25 pm


      Regarding this:

      Just to add to the discussion, after Pope Francis makes that statement he then says "As Christians, we cannot consider Judaism as a foreign religion; nor do we include the Jews among those called to turn from idols and to serve the true God".  

      What do you think that Pope Francis means by that statement – remembering that the Church teachers that Jesus Christ is the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity? 

      I think he is saying that Jews (religious Jews, because many are not) worship the true God – but of course they do not worship Him in His fulness – as Trinity.

      And regarding this:

      Pope Benedict XIV said Ex Quo Primum (# 61):“The first consideration is that the ceremonies of the Mosaic Law were abrogated by the coming of Christ and that they can no longer be observed without sin after the promulgation of the Gospel.”
      He cites the definition of the Council of Florence and declares in the Encyclical repeatedly that the Old Covenant was “revoked”, “abrogated” and “abolished”. The doctrine is repeated again by Pius XII in Mediator Dei

      Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, 1441, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and teaches that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments… after our Lord’s coming… ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began… All, therefore, who after that time (the promulgation of the Gospel) observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, the holy Roman Church declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation.”

      As it says, the old law is abolished.  Jesus made that clear repeatedly, and St Paul – many of his epistles are to the same effect.  Yet the same St Paul says that the Covenant of God with the Jews has not been abolished (Romans 9-11).

      I agree there is much that is regrettable in the modern tendency to think that, because there is good everywhere, and 'specially in the Jewish Covenant, that therefore there is no real difference between Catholics and everyone else.

      I am, myself, a convert.  I became a Catholic because I believed I could be saved in no other way.  And I am a descendant of Jews, though Jews would not claim me.  My father was Jewish.  Had my mother been Jewish, I would be considered a Jew.

      It is an honourable calling.  Many are called, few are chosen.


    39. Teresina March 16, 2014 at 8:53 pm

      Thanks for that JJ as you became a convert believing that you could be saved in no other way is the teaching that I was brought up with and is a dogma of the Church which cannot change.

      I remember being expressly taught at primary school that the new covenant replaced the old, that we have a Judeo-Christian heritage but that the Jews, nevertheless, needed to convert and that one day they would be converted.  I looked at your reference which I presume relates to Romans 9-11 but that does not refer to the covenant at all.  You may be referring to what Pope John Paul II said and explained here that that reference misquotes Romans:

      "It is rather obvious that all of these cardinals, placed by the pope on the highest commissions of ecumenism and relations with the Jews, are basing their opinions on the idea that the covenant God made specifically and only with the Jews is still in force, and that God is obligated by that covenant. Where is the source for this idea? It seems to come from none other than John Paul II himself, who said in a 1980 speech:

      The first dimension of this dialogue, that is, between the people of the Old Covenant, never revoked by God [Rom 11:29], and that of the New Covenant, is at the same time a dialogue within our church, that is to say, between the first and second parts of her Bible. Jews and Christians, as children of Abraham, are called to be a blessing to the world by committing themselves together for peace and justice among all men and peoples (emphasis mine).

      The interesting thing about the pope’s statement is that he, or whoever inserted Romans 11:29 in brackets, misquotes and misconstrues the biblical verse. Romans 11:29 does not say that the Old Covenant is irrevocable, but only that the “gifts and call of God are irrevocable” (NAB). As St. Paul explains throughout Romans, the “gifts and call of God” are nothing less than the gospel of Jesus Christ, the very gospel that St. Paul says earlier in the chapter that only a remnant of Jews are presently accepting while the rest remained hardened in their blindness, even to this day (Rom. 11:5-14).

      Vatican II was careful enough to catch this distinction, when in footnoting Romans 11:28-29, recorded the verse correctly: “God does not take back the gifts he bestowed or the choice he made” (Nostra Aetate, 4). Accordingly, Vatican II never states that the “Old Covenant” has not been revoked. Even when Vatican II was emphasizing that the Hebrew Scriptures have “not been cancelled,” the council referred to them by the words “Old Testament,” not “Old Covenant” (Guidelines on Religious Relations with the Jews, II Liturgy) so as to specify that the ethical principles and prophetic messages of Scripture endured, but not to suggest that Judaism is still honored by God as a viable religion or that Moses’ covenant is still in force. Moreover, when Vatican II spoke specifically about the Old Covenant it indicated that it was “concluded”:

      The Church, therefore, cannot forget that she received the revelation of the Old Testament through the people with whom God in His inexpressible mercy concluded the ancient covenant….Indeed, the Church believes that by his cross Christ, our peace, reconciled Jews and Gentiles making both one in Himself.

      In place of the Old Covenant, Lumen Gentium specifies that the New Covenant, which incorporates both Jews and Gentiles, is the “unbreakable covenant” (1, 6). It further states that the Church is the New Israel: “Thus the apostles were the first budding-forth of the New Israel” (Ad Gentes 1, 5). 

      Previous papal and conciliar teaching, as well as Scripture itself, are very clear that the Old Covenant has been revoked. Moreover, both sources confirm there is only one meaning to the “Old Covenant,” that is, the Mosaic covenant. These things were made plain as recent as the teaching of Pius XII in Mystici Corporis 29-30:

      And first of all, by the death of our Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished; then the Law of Christ together with its mysteries, enactments, institutions, and sacred rites was ratified for the whole world in the blood of Jesus Christ..but on the Gibbet of His death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees fastened the handwriting of the Old Testament to the Cross, establishing the New Testament in His blood…30: On the Cross then the Old Law died, soon to be buried and to be a bearer of death, in order to give way to the New Testament of which Christ had chosen the Apostles as qualified ministers.

      The Councils of Trent and Florence were clear about this as well: “that He might both redeem the Jews, who were under the Law” (Trent, Session 6, ch 2); “If anyone shall say that man can be justified before God by his own works which are done through his own natural powers, or through the teaching of the Law…let him be anathema” (Trent, Ses. 6, Canon 1). The Council of Florence said the same:

      It firmly believes, professes, and teaches that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, of the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments, because they were established to signify something in the future, although they were suited to the divine worship at that time, after our Lord's coming had been signified by them, ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began…

      It further warns that all those who practice the old law’s ceremonies in an effort to procure salvation (which is what takes place in Judaism today) are “not fit to participate in eternal salvation.”

      All, therefore, who after that time observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, it declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation, unless someday they recover from these errors. (DS 712).

      Scripture is also very clear on this matter. 2 Cor 3:7-14 specifies that the “old covenant” (the only time the phrase is used in the New Testament) refers to the Law written on the tablets of stone that Moses carried, and it was those decrees which served as a “ministry of death and condemnation” upon the Jews and all of mankind. Galatians 3:10-12 is clear that those who rely on any part of that Law for salvation will be condemned (cf., Rom. 6:14; 7:6-10; Jam. 2:10). Hebrews 7:18-19 is clear that “the former commandment is annulled because of its weakness and uselessness, for the law brought nothing to perfection” (NAB). Hebrews 8:13 indicates that “When he speaks of a ‘new’ covenant, he declares the first one obsolete” (NAB). Hebrews 10:9 states “He takes away the first to establish the second” (NAB).

      Not only does the pope’s statement “the old covenant has not been revoked” go against traditional teaching, it flies in the face of his own teaching that only the New Covenant is irrevocable. For example, in Mulieris Dignitatem, 5, 11 the pope said: “at the beginning of the New Covenant, which is to be eternal and irrevocable.” He said the same in Redemptoris Custos, 32, Dominicae Cenae, 9 and Evangelium Vitae, 25.

      If one wants to say that the Abrahamic covenant is still in force, that’s a different story, but neither Scripture nor magisterial teaching ever refer to it as the “old covenant,” nor does either source say that the Abrahamic covenant was made exclusively for the Jews or connected only with Judaism. According to Galatians 3:8, the Abrahamic covenant was made initially in view of the Gentiles, as St. Paul says: “Scripture, which saw in advance that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, foretold the good news to Abraham, saying, ‘Through you shall all the nations be blessed’” (NAB). This is so since Galatians 3:8 is quoting Genesis 12:1-3 – when Abraham was a Gentile.

      Of course, Jews can certainly be incorporated into the Abrahamic covenant if they accept the Christ of Calvary, as even Zechariah the Jewish prophet said in Luke 1:72-73 regarding the sole purpose of the birth of Christ: “He…remembered his holy covenant, the oath which he swore to Abraham our father,” and as St. Paul says in Romans 11:23 pointing out that God is able to “graft them [the Jews] in again” if they “do not continue in their unbelief.”

      In effect, the Abrahamic covenant is still quite new, since it deals with faith in Christ, not Law, and it has become the New Covenant. St Paul makes it quite clear in Galatians 3:17-19 that the “old covenant” (the Mosaic law, which “came 430 years later”) was superceded by God’s “promises” to Abraham, and whereas the former was taken away, the latter continued. It is the same reason that St. Paul says in Galatians 3:29 that if we are “Christ’s then we are Abraham’s seed,” and why Jesus says to the Jews that “Abraham your father rejoiced to see My day” (John 8:56).

      Apparently, even the pope has assented to this truth. He writes: “God’s covenant with Abraham, of which circumcision was the sign (cf. Gn 17:13), reaches its full effect and perfect realization in Jesus, who is the ‘yes’ of all the ancient promises (cf. 2 Cor 1:20)” (Redemptoris Custos, 11). That being the case, it is puzzling why he would insist that the “Old Covenant” has not been revoked, since he apparently knows the difference between the two covenants, and that the Old Covenant and the New Covenant cannot exist simultaneously."


    40. Benedicta March 16, 2014 at 10:07 pm


      Your posting above which appears from an unnamed source. It is by Robert Sungenis a named anti-semite and is part of a larger article taking apart Pope John Paul II piece by piece.

      Its poor work by you wrapping your own prejudices in this man's rotten work.

      It needs unmasking.

      Yes, I know its Lent and here I am….but if I don't comment briefly I think it would be an ommission I can't ignore.

      I have been following your argument. It is anti-semitism by the back door. The New Covenant fulfills the Old Covenant and does not mean they are revoked. Regardless of the earlier Council statements the Church has corrected itself in Vatican II. Judaism is the root and Christianity the flower. As Pope Benedict XVI said on his visit to Auschwitz….that they (the Nazis) tried to destroy our faith by pulling it up by its roots. Therefore an an attack on the Jews is an attack on the Gospel.

      If God can revoke the Old Covenants…then He is a God who can revoke the New Covenant. Indeed Islam would concur with you that there has been yet the final revelation through the Koran given to Mohammed. You open the door to this argument.

       Judaism is our older brother. It is a unique and particular relationship. 


      Now back to Lent….


    41. Don the Kiwi March 16, 2014 at 10:14 pm


      CCC.121.  The Old Testament (Covenant) is an indispensible part of Sacred Scripture. Its books are divinely inspired and retain a permanent value,for the Old Testament has never been revoked,

      CCC123.   Christians venerate the Old Testament as true Word of God. The Church has always vigourously opposed the idea of rejecting the Old Testament under the pretext that the New has rendered it void. (Marcionism)

      I doubt, Tersina, that you would wish to be branded a marcionist.

      Christ fulfilled the Old Testament, and therefore salvation is found only through Him. However, that does not mean that what went before has been voided – on the contrary, it is that which is the foundation of the New. Those who have not had the opportunity to know Christ can be led to Him through the Old Testament.

    42. Abenader March 16, 2014 at 10:23 pm


      Michael will be here in May (4th). Why dont you (man to man) ask him/confront him about the (historical) link with Brammer? Also, you can ask Michael as to the reasons why he will not criticise the Holy Father. Michael is man enough to answer you directly.

      On the other hand, Im at a loss to understand the attack on the Remnant as well as indirectly Verrechio, both of whom I enjoy. For some reason, it occurred to me that these guys seem to have developed some strategy between them (good cop bad cop) so Im still trying to figure out whether this bust-up is 'real'.

    43. Teresina March 16, 2014 at 10:39 pm

      Benedicta, if you have been doing your Lent properly how come you are reading Being Frank? 

      As a cradle Catholic I can tell you categorically that the Church teaches that the New Covenant replaces the Old Covenant when the Veil of the Temple was rent asunder.  Please can you point me to some new teaching of the Church in this regard?  Pope John Paul made that statement, sure, but he did not make it ex cathedra and as Sungenis says Romans 11:29 (and surrounding verses)

      "And so all Israel should be saved, as it is written: There shall come out of Sion, he that shall deliver, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob. [27] And this is to them my covenant: when I shall take away their sins. [28] As concerning the gospel, indeed, they are enemies for your sake: but as touching the election, they are most dear for the sake of the fathers. [29] For the gifts and the calling of God are without repentance. [30] For as you also in times past did not believe God, but now have obtained mercy, through their unbelief;

      [29] Are without repentance: his repenting himself of them; for the promises of God are unchangeable, nor can he repent of conferring his gifts."

      Nothing there refers to the Covenant.

      Please refer me to the new teaching of the Church.

      Also as has been stated by others:

      "A tactic in debate is to destroy the credibility of one's opponent, thus (the thought is) you destroy the credibility of their argumentation. Such tactics, though effective in appearance, are truly invalid arguments. Once you go from discussing the points of an argument to discussing the person who raised the points, you've moved into the realm of "ad hominem" (Latin for "against the person"). For those not paying close attention, or for those who are already convinced, the argumentation seems quite good – but to the objective reader/judge – attacks on the person are seen for what they are, invalid argumentation. So, you attack the person and hope no one is watching when suddenly the discussion is not about "the argument" anymore, but it's about "the person." This appears to be exactly the motives behind some of the responses (and blogs) that have been attacking Robert Sungenis. If one looks at these responses objectively, one will see something lacking. Though the responses are rather verbose and emotionally charged, what they lack is substance. What I have seen, thus far, is a lot of attacks on Robert's motives and the slinging of terms like "anti-semitic." What I have not seen is evidence disproving what Robert said. "

      And if you will notice, Benedicta, I did not show it as my work.  I put quotes around it and I would like you to take each argument put forward by Sungenis and refute it, thank you.  I have had enough of you people twisting the Church's teachings.  When you show me a dogmatic teaching that the the old covenant did not replace the new then I will accept it.  Until then I accept the truths I was taught which you, quite frankly, obviously from everything you state on Being Frank have never been taught.  When you know your Faith you will be in a position to argue it.

    44. Teresina March 16, 2014 at 10:52 pm

      Abenader, what would I need to ask Michael Voris because it is not a historical link with Brammer, Brammer owns the television station – Michael Voris works for him.  The story was disclosed at the time that the television station was requested to change its name by the diocese from Real Catholic TV to Church Militant.  Michael Voris stated at the time that they were going after the wrong person as the television station was owned by Michal Brammer, which is quite clear from this:

      "the issue being discussed by canon lawyers is where jurisdiction over lies – with the Archdiocese of Detroit, where Michael Voris, the star of the show, lives and works, or in the Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend, where the owner and financier of, Marc Brammer, resides.

      Fr. Mark Gurtner, Judicial Vicar of the Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend in Indiana spoke with LifeSiteNews, acknowledging that the diocese did know of Mr. Brammer’s enterprise of  When asked if the diocese had any complaints about, Gurner replied, “No, as far as I know there’s nothing.”

      Speaking as a canon lawyer and not an official of the diocese, Gurtner also said he believes the jurisdiction of the case resides with the Indiana diocese. “It certainly seems to me that canonically Michael Voris would not be the one that this would be imposed on,” he said. “Even though he is the one that regularly appears on (the show) he, in a sense, is really just an employee of (”

      “It seems like if the Archdiocese of Detroit is trying to go after (Voris), that’s the wrong person to address this with, that would have to be with the owner of the website or blog,” he added.

      “I suppose if this Marc Brammer is paying for and running, constructing his blog from our diocese in his home I suppose you could make the argument that we have jurisdiction canonically.”

      There has been a falling out between Michael Voris and the bloggers you mention.  I think what Michael Voris has to say is perfectly correct but I agree with the bloggers who say that Michael Voris has stirred everyone up with his comments on Church Militant and because that has resulted in people emailing him and asking him why he isn't mentioning the Pope who is guilty of the same errors as he points out re the Muslims, etc, which is shown quite clearly on the video by Verrecchio.  Have you watched it?   If so, what do you think?

    45. Teresina March 16, 2014 at 10:57 pm

      I doubt, Don, that you would wish to be branded a heretic so can you point me to where the Church teaches that the new Covenant does not replace the new?

    46. Teresina March 16, 2014 at 10:59 pm

      I doubt, Don, that you would wish to be branded a heretic so can you point me to where the Church teaches that the new Covenant does not replace the old – the Church's dogmatic teaching is quite plain if you bother to read what is set down.  And I will quote it again: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and teaches that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments… after our Lord’s coming… ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began… All, therefore, who after that time (the promulgation of the Gospel) observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, the holy Roman Church declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation.”

    47. Teresina March 16, 2014 at 11:11 pm

      The Rending of the Veil of the Temple
      by Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen

      Our Blessed Lord had called His Body the Temple because the fullness of Divinity dwelt in it. The earthly temple of Jerusalem was only a symbol of Himself. In that temple of stone there were three great divisions. Beyond the court of entrance was a place that was called "holy," and beyond it a place more secret still, which was called "the Holy of Holies." The court was separated from the holy place by a veil, and a great veil also divided the holy place from the Holy of Holies.

      The very moment that Our Blessed Lord willed His death:

      At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. [Matthew 27: 51]

      The very fact that it was tom from top to bottom was to indicate that it was not done by the hand of man, but by the miraculous Hand of God Himself, Who had ordained that, as long as the Old Law should endure, the veil should hang before the Holy of Holies. Now He decreed that it should be torn asunder at His death. That which of old was sacred now remained opened and manifest before their eyes, uncovered like any common and ordinary thing, while before them on Calvary, as a soldier pierced His heart, was revealed the new Holy of Holies containing the ark of the New Testament and the treasures of God. The death of Christ was the deconsecration of the earthly temple, for He would raise up the new Temple in three days. Only one man, once a year, could enter into that old Holy of Holies; now that the veil was rent which separated holiness from the people, and separated the Jew from the Gentile, both would have access to the new Temple, Christ the Lord."


      I think a few of you people better do a bit of study on WHAT THE CHURCH ACTUALLY TEACHES.

    48. Teresina March 16, 2014 at 11:30 pm

      Benedicta, the Church has not corrected Herself in Vatican II whatsoever.  No Council can change dogma.

      And in fact the anti-semites are those who would deny the Jews the means of salvation through the Catholic Church.  You would deny the Jews the very thing you have seized with both hands – shame on you!  And if you knew your Faith properly you would know that no Council can overturn dogma.  For your edification:

      In the Roman Catholic Church, a dogma (plural dogmata) is an article of faith revealed by God, which the magisterium of the Church presents as necessary to be believed if one freely chooses to be a Catholic.  Of course, Benedicta, if you don't freely choose to be Catholic that is your business.

    49. Benedicta March 17, 2014 at 7:04 am




      Yes, thank you…my Lent was not to engage with Being Frank….reading it was not excluded. Yes,….mea culpa here I am…but as I mentioned….I can't sit by reading while you drag the Church into blatant anti-semitism. To ignore it goes against the increase in charity which Lent calls us to.

      The links above are to two writings by our Catholic Dominican Fr Aidan Nichols (NOT a heretic). Yes, indeed the Church does correct herself! Vatican II has reasserted her prior claim to anti-marcionism….a trap.

      Please don't drag Blessed Fulton Sheen into this as someone who supports your view…he doesn't.

      But what Blessed Fulton Sheen highlights is the distinction lost in the earlier Councils.

      That distinction is between the Temple of Jerusalem and the Covenants of Judaism. Yes, the Temple was destroyed as Jesus predicted and His Body is the new Temple. It happened and is an uncontestable fact. Catholics and Jews might have different reasons as to why it happened but it happened.

      So the Old Law as manifest in the Temple cult could not endure.

      But the Covenants of Judaism which Catholicism continue to teach in their Judaic integrity but fulfilled in their definitive meaning as pointing toward Christ as their final fulfillment. We read on different levels the first two of which are the same as Judaism. Judaism reads corporate Israel where we read Christ yet also read eschatalogically messianic fulfillment. The Covenants are several the most important to Judaism being the Mosaic Covenant. Which we continue to observe in the Commandments. As Christ said, he fulfilled the Law and didn't abolish it.

      Remember it is God Himself who guarantees the fidelity of the Covenant….(well put in Hosea).

      Because God Himself guarantees the Covenants they can't be revoked or God has contradicted Himself….become a little arbitrary. Though He could revoke them He won't by the terms of His own binding to us of Himself in Covenant….sealed definitively I might add in the Body of His own Son.

      So YES, the Church has corrected itself in Vatican II by recalling itself to its prior and authentic teaching of rejecting Marcionism, by reclaiming the irrevocable status of the Jewish covenants.



    50. Teresina March 17, 2014 at 10:02 am

      Benedicta, I have given you up for Lent and I suggest you look up calmuny.

    51. Teresina March 17, 2014 at 10:16 am

      Supersessionism is not the name of any official Roman Catholic doctrine and the word appears in no Church documents; however, the Catholic Church does officially teach that the Mosaic covenant was fulfilled and replaced by the New Covenant in Christ. Nevertheless, the Catholic Church does not teach that the Jewish people themselves are effectively irrelevant in terms ofeschatology and Biblical prophecy.[23] For the Catholic Church, the Jewish people are a reminder that the “gifts and calling of God are irrevocable” (Rom 11:29).[24] The Church recognizes an ongoing and unique relationship between the Jewish people, God and the Church.[25] Additionally, the Church teaches that there is an integral continuity between the covenants rather than a rupture.[26]

      The Church’s teaching regarding the fulfillment and replacement of the Mosaic Covenant by the New Covenant in Christ can be found in the Scriptures, the Fathers and various Magisterial documents:

      Pope Pius XII, in the encyclical Mystici corporis (1943) states: By the death of our Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished; then the Law of Christ together with its mysteries, enactments, institutions, and sacred rites was ratified for the whole world in the blood of Jesus Christ. For, while our Divine Savior was preaching in a restricted area – He was not sent but to the sheep that were lost of the House of Israel – the Law and the Gospel were together in force; but on the gibbet of His death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees fastened the handwriting of the Old Testament to the Cross, establishing the New Testament in His blood shed for the whole human race. “To such an extent, then,” says St. Leo the Great, speaking of the Cross of our Lord, “was there effected a transfer from the Law to the Gospel, from the Synagogue to the Church, from the many sacrifices to one Victim, that, as Our Lord expired, that mystical veil which shut off the innermost part of the temple and its sacred secret was rent violently from top to bottom.” (paragraph 29)

      In Lumen Gentium (1964), the Church stated that God “chose the race of Israel as a people” and “set up a covenant” with them, instructing them and making them holy. However, “all these things . . . were done by way of preparation and as a figure of that new and perfect covenant” instituted by and ratified in Christ (no. 9). In Notes on the Correct Way to Present the Jews and Judaism (1985), the Church stated that the “Church and Judaism cannot then be seen as two parallel ways of salvation and the Church must witness to Christ as the Redeemer of all.”

      While acting as prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Pope Benedict XVI wrote: “God, according to the Prophet, will replace the broken Sinai covenant with a New Covenant that cannot be broken . . . . The conditional covenant, which depended on man’s faithful observance of the Law, is replaced by the unconditional covenant in which God binds himself irrevocably.”[27]


      In this Torah, which is Jesus himself, the abiding essence of what was inscribed on the stone tablets at Sinai is now written in living flesh, namely, the twofold commandment of love. . . . To imitate him, to follow him in discipleship, is therefore to keep Torah, which has been fulfilled in him once and for all. Thus the Sinai covenant is indeed superseded. But once what was provisional in it has been swept away, we see what is truly definitive in it.

      Joseph RatzingerMany Religions, One Covenant[

    52. Teresina March 17, 2014 at 10:53 am

      "A link from the “Catholic News Service”  (the source is, therefore, above suspicion). 

      The link contains the following pearl of wisdom from our Bishop of Rome:

      “Do you need to convince the other to become Catholic? No, no, no! Go out and meet him, he is your brother. This is enough. Go out and help him and Jesus will do the rest”.

      For the first time in the history of Catholicism, evangelisation is made without evangelisation. Actually, there could be no need for evangelisation at all.

      In pure Francis style, this confused but so well-sounding piece of nonsense could mean one of two:

      1. You don’t need to evangelise: Jesus will evangelise for you, when he sees that your meet-o-meter and help-o-meter has reached a high enough level, and he will then care for the conversion of the poor infidel. 

      2. You don’t need to evangelise because there is nothing like an “infidel”: people “go out”, “meet” as “brothers”, “love”, and “help”; this is all that is required."


       Lumen gentium, 14, said: "Christ Himself 'by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door. Therefore those men cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it.' Therefore though God in ways known to Himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel to find that faith without which it is impossible to please Him, yet a necessity lies upon the Church, and at the same time a sacred duty, to preach the Gospel."[16]

    53. John Jensen March 17, 2014 at 10:58 am

      Teresina, the point is that the Pope is not saying that the Jews can be saved on the basis of being Jews.  You may be complaining about the way he has expressed himself – I do not think it is fair to refer to his statement as heretical.


    54. John Jensen March 17, 2014 at 11:13 am

      There does seem some confusion here between the idea of the old Law being replaced by the new Law and that of the Covenant being removed.  The old Covenant is not removed; it is fulfilled in the new.  But the old Covenant still stands.  That is why St Paul in Romans 9-11 talks about the Jews being restored at the end.  If the old Covenant were simply abolished, there would be no meaning to the idea of the Jews as a people – only as individuals descended from what was once a people.


    55. Teresina March 17, 2014 at 11:28 am

      JJ, the problem is there are not two covenants, the new one replaced the old and in fact the Jews themselves broke the covenant.  The promise that God gave to them is that they can be saved through Christ.  Judaism is not a means by which they can be saved.  It is even said in Vatican II " The Church, therefore, cannot forget that she received the revelation of the Old Testament through the people with whom God in His inexpressible mercy *concluded the Ancient Covenant*. "  When something is concluded it is at an end.  It can be likened to when you get a new licence – the old licence is revoked.  God hasn't broken his promise of salvation to the Jews but he has given them that means through the new covenant and not the old.  That is always what has been signified by the rending of the veil of the temple.  But there is a move afoot in Catholicism to try to say that the Jews do not  need the Catholic Church for salvation.

    56. Teresina March 17, 2014 at 11:30 am

      JJ if the statement itself is not heretical then he is at the very least expressing indifferentism … and that from the mouth of the Pope is very serious.

    57. Teresina March 17, 2014 at 11:42 am

      USCC Removes Heretical Sentence from its Catechism:

      Bishops Vote to Revise U.S. Catechism on Jewish Covenant with God, by Nancy Frazier O’Brien, Catholic News Service: WASHINGTON: The U.S. bishops have voted to ask the Vatican to approve a small change in the U.S. Catholic Catechism for Adults to clarify church teaching on God’s covenant with the Jewish people. The proposed change – which would replace one sentence in the catechism – was discussed by the bishops in executive session at their June meeting in Orlando, Fla., but did not receive the needed two-thirds majority of all members of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops at that time. After mail balloting, the final vote of 231-14, with one abstention, was announced Aug. 5 in a letter to bishops from Msgr. David Malloy, USCCB general secretary. The change, which must be confirmed by the Vatican Congregation for Clergy, would remove from the catechism a sentence that reads: “Thus the covenant that God made with the Jewish people through Moses remains eternally valid for them.”

    58. Benedicta March 17, 2014 at 11:46 am


      Why do you have to be so mean.

      You agree so far with JJ but then take a dark turn into Sungenis….trying to put the idea of 'revoked covenants' as the authentic teaching. 'Fulfilled' is not the same of 'revoked'.

      The problem is your are proposing to jettison the whole lot….'revoked covenants'. Because you say they are no longer salvific….that is a yard too far. Because the enduring faith they have carried forward because of them (the Covenants) and the continued witness of the Jews to the faith of Israel (embodied in the Covenants) is not completely devoid of salvific value because it anticipates fulfillment in the One yet to come.

      No one is proposing that Christ can be abandoned for an alternate route of salvation through Judaism. Essentially they relate to each other reaching definitive fulfillment in Christ. There is no salvation except through Christ.

      The Jews hold this in anticipation. That is on main reason why they are a people set apart…they wait on the Lord who will rescue His people.  

      The Jews need to be read as a people still in anticipation and in a now but not yet so are we. We look to the same end.

      You quote Pope Benedict XVI in Many Religions, One Covenant. Please read the whole book. Pope Benedict is using the word 'superseded' in an exposition of what Christ brings in fulfillment…not in what he has caste away. What can be lost is 'provisional' which is distinct from the 'definitive' which is retained. Even the Jews practice of their religion is not the same now as it was in Christ's day…Temple worship is at an end….they have retained the essentials brought forward mainly from the synagogues…Rabbinic Judaism was reformed after the fall of Jerusalem.

      At no time does Benedict or Church teaching today state that their covenants are revoked. This skirts toward Marcionism and the Church is trying to find new ways of expressing,  without compromising salvation through Christ, the relationship which abides between Judaism and Christianity.

      "……..they (Christians) should also acknowledge God's providence, which has obviously given Israel a particular mission in this 'time of the Gentiles'. The Fathers say that the Jews, to whom Holy Scripture was first entrusted, must remain alongside us as a witness to the world. But what does this witness say?…Faith, hope, and love (as Benedict goes on to explain in terms of time)….It follows, therefore, that the figure of Christ both links and separates Israel and the Church. It is not within our power to overcome this separation, but it keeps both of us to the path that leads to the One who comes. To that extent the relationship between us must not be one of enmity'.  Pope Benedict XVI Many Religions – One Covenant…pages 104-106. 

      This is a long way from the complaints of Sugensis.

      Now compare the tone of Pope Benedict and Nostrae Aetate etc etc with the Canons 67-70 of the Fourth Lateran Council. Linked above. Quite a difference. Yes, indeed the Church can reject from within herself that which is not holy. But others, like Sugensis would hold Catholics today and beat the Popes over not holding us to the grindstone of anti-semitism.

      Now it is back to Lent….I'm sure you have more to say on the matter…and thanks for pointing out my calumny.



    59. Benedicta March 17, 2014 at 11:55 am

      But there is a move afoot in Catholicism to try to say that the Jews do not  need the Catholic Church for salvation.

      Teresina…the Jews need Christ for salvation….Christ works through the Church as the fount of Grace. That is all that needs to be said…how the Jews 'come in' is up to Christ. St Paul set them apart as a people whom God would not fail to reconcile.

    60. Teresina March 17, 2014 at 11:56 am

      I have read that Mr Sungenis was accused of anti-semitism because he went on a campaign against a part of the official United States Catholic Catechism for Adults which said that the Moses' covenant remains eternally valid for Jews. After that he was labelled an Anti-Semite.

      In the end the US Catholic Bishops Conference had to change the passage in the catechism, there by admitting that Mr. Sungenis was correct. The Catholic Church has always taught – as the New Testament does clearly – that God's Mosaic Covenant with the Jews was perfected in and superseded by the New Covenant, and that that Old Covenant is no longer extant as a means to eternal salvation.  This is a very basic Church teaching, core to Christianity, for, if there is another covenant other than Christ's universal Covenant with all men, then Christ is not necessary for salvation and He is not truly the Saviour.

      Sungenis has denied being anti-Semetic and to keep saying that he is is indeed calumny and a mortal sin.

    61. Benedicta March 17, 2014 at 11:59 am


      Teresina…you are a great spin master.

      USCC Removes Heretical Sentence from its Catechism: ???

      "The Vatican has granted its approval to a change proposed by the US bishops to the text of the United States Catholic Catechism for Adults.

      The original 2004 text stated that “the covenant that God made with the Jewish people through Moses remains eternally valid for them,” leading some to believe that the text taught that only Gentiles, and not Jews, are called to the new covenant. The revised text, approved by the bishops at their June 2008 meeting, quotes St. Paul: “To the Jewish people, whom God first chose to hear his Word, ‘belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ’ (Romans 9:4-5; cf. CCC, no 839).”

      A press release issued by the bishops’ conference notes that “the clarification is not a change in the Church’s teaching. The clarification reflects the teaching of the Church that all previous covenants that God made with the Jewish people are fulfilled in Jesus Christ through the new covenant established through his sacrificial death on the cross. Catholics believe that the Jewish people continue to live within the truth of the covenant God made with Abraham, and that God continues to be faithful to them.”


      Don't think so.

    62. Teresina March 17, 2014 at 12:03 pm

      "On August 5, 2008, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops released the results of a vote taken to revise the heretical text- "(t)herefore, the covenant God made with the Jews through Moses, remains eternally valid for them"- which had been approved and published in the 2006 first edition of the United States Catholic Catechism for Adults (USCCA).


      The vote in favor of removing the offending sentence was 231-14.


      This vote was a great victory for our bishops, and for the faithful.


      As Dr. Robert Sungenis wrote at the time, it was "A Victory For Catholic Truth":


      "With very good reason, indeed, those who sought to justify or explain away the "eternally valid" formulation, saw in this apostolate a clear, persistent, and uncompromising voice raised in unambiguous opposition to the entire fiasco. Thanks in part to the support and unquenchable Catholic optimism of the supporters of this apostolate, no amount of error, distortion, intimidation, or theological "bomfoggery" (to borrow Chris Ferrara’s incisive term) could stand in the way of the overwhelming weight of Scriptural, Patristic, and Magisterial witness: the covenant God made with the Jews through Moses most certainly does not remain "eternally valid," but is instead fulfilled, brought to completion, and perfected in the new and everlasting covenant in the blood of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ."


      How did it happen, and what price did Dr. Robert Sungenis pay for his “unambiguous opposition to the entire fiasco”?


      Here follows, for the record, the timeline of what I have come to refer to as the “Harrisburg Affair”.



    63. Don the Kiwi March 17, 2014 at 12:11 pm


      I'm beginning to wonder if you are actually Chris Sullivan in drag. ;-)   (just joking – just joking)

      No-one would dispute any of the articles you have posted ad infinitum.

      The problem is your own interpretation of them.

      Jesus "fulfilled" the Old Covenant, so it has been completed – He did not revoke or abrogate it. You are confusing the two. If the OT was abrogated or revoked, does that mean that the Ten Commandments or the Paschover have also been abrogated? Of course not. they have been fulfilled in Christ. Jesus said no part of the law (of Moses) would pass away until it had been fulfuilled. Upon fulfilment, it passses. That is why all the Old Law sacrifices are now nullified – Jesus is the New Sacrifice.

      I have quoted previously what is written in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. If you disagree with that, then you are outside the Church. I am hardly a heretic by quoting the Catechism.

      I won't waste any more of my time on this topic.

    64. Benedicta March 17, 2014 at 12:11 pm

      I have read that Mr Sungenis was accused of anti-semitism

      Sorry Teresina not a good horse to back.

      Superseded cannot be used as the definitive holistic approach to the Judaic covenants and Christ in the New Covenant… pertains to certain aspects i.e. Temple and Christ's Body. Not the whole content of the Jewish faith.

      Change your language to fulfillment and then there is clear fidelity to the work and person of Christ and an acknowledgement of the enduring relationship of the Jewish faith to that work and person….?

      I am not sure why you want to supersede them entirely? No one is saying, except yourself, that Judaism, of itself is a valid path to choose for salvation….i.e. and equal but different path. No one is saying this.

      What I and I think JJ and I believe the Church is saying that Judaism and Christianity are the trajectory of salvation history……YET to finally fulfilled in power by the eschaton.

      Christ's coming amongst us was salvation through justice and his second coming is by power.

      I don't think we should talk about Christ's work in the first instance as if it is the second and therefore we can say right now who is in and who is out. We have to leave room for the Holy Trinity to carry us through to that final eschaton…..I am just saying they are carrying the Jews through as a people as well.

      This can't be said for any other religious community or group.


    65. Benedicta March 17, 2014 at 12:16 pm


      I won't waste any more of my time on this topic

      My only point in coming back in is that many might read what Teresina has drawn as conclusions and indeed look up Sugensis  (Whatever his name is….and she keeps pulling this bunny out of the hat) and think the Church is weirdly anti-semitic.

      Its quite unbearable.

    66. Teresina March 17, 2014 at 12:20 pm

      Don, are you implying that there are two covenants?

    67. Teresina March 17, 2014 at 12:37 pm

      Personally I think Benedicta is an utter disgrace.  When she cannot argue points she reverts to ad hominem attacks on the person.  She has not been able to refute a single point raised by Mr Sungenisis who was in fact vindicated by the Catholic Bishops Conference removing the heretical statement from the catechism that he spoke out against.  For this reason I will not respond to anything she again raises because it always results in her attacking the person – as can be seen in many of her posts.

      Don, you say, "No-one would dispute any of the articles you have posted ad infinitum.  The problem is your own interpretation of them".  Everything is quite clear and doesn't need an interpretation.  Your interpretation seems to suggest two covenants co-existing which is not the Church's teaching.

    68. Werahiko March 17, 2014 at 12:43 pm

      Teresina March 17, 2014 at 12:37 pm

      Personally I think Benedicta is an utter disgrace.  When she cannot argue points she reverts to ad hominem attacks on the person.

    69. Werahiko March 17, 2014 at 12:44 pm

      Oh dear. My smiley did not show up.

    70. Teresina March 17, 2014 at 12:44 pm


      Pope Pius XII, in the encyclical Mystici corporis (1943) states: By the death of our Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished; then the Law of Christ together with its mysteries, enactments, institutions, and sacred rites was ratified for the whole world in the blood of Jesus Christ. For, while our Divine Savior was preaching in a restricted area – He was not sent but to the sheep that were lost of the House of Israel – the Law and the Gospel were together in force; but on the gibbet of His death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees fastened the handwriting of the Old Testament to the Cross, establishing the New Testament in His blood shed for the whole human race. “To such an extent, then,” says St. Leo the Great, speaking of the Cross of our Lord, “was there effected a transfer from the Law to the Gospel, from the Synagogue to the Church, from the many sacrifices to one Victim, that, as Our Lord expired, that mystical veil which shut off the innermost part of the temple and its sacred secret was rent violently from top to bottom.” (paragraph 29)

      In Lumen Gentium (1964), the Church stated that God “chose the race of Israel as a people” and “set up a covenant” with them, instructing them and making them holy. However, “all these things . . . were done by way of preparation and as a figure of that new and perfect covenant” instituted by and ratified in Christ (no. 9). In Notes on the Correct Way to Present the Jews and Judaism (1985), the Church stated that the “Church and Judaism cannot then be seen as two parallel ways of salvation and the Church must witness to Christ as the Redeemer of all.

      While acting as prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Pope Benedict XVI wrote: “God, according to the Prophet, will replace the broken Sinai covenant with a New Covenant that cannot be broken . . . . The conditional covenant, which depended on man’s faithful observance of the Law, is replaced by the unconditional covenant in which God binds himself irrevocably.”[27]""

      In fact what Don says is supported by Mormonism:



      The Latter Day Saint movement rejects supersessionism. According to the Book of Mormon, during his post-resurrection visit to the Americas, Christ tells his audience "[F]or behold, the Lord remembereth his covenant unto [the Jews], and he will do unto them according to that which he hath sworn."[28]



    71. Teresina March 17, 2014 at 12:50 pm


    72. Teresina March 17, 2014 at 12:53 pm
    73. John Jensen March 17, 2014 at 1:05 pm

      There has only ever been one Covenant – but it has taken different forms.  And God's promises to the Jews are covenantal promises.  That is all that is meant.

      Again – you are taking the word 'conclude' and assuming it has only one meaning – 'to put an end to' – a meaning that it cannot reasonably have in this context.


    74. John Jensen March 17, 2014 at 1:06 pm

      'Indifferentism' is heretical.  Francis is not expresing indifferentism.  He is not saying the Jews can be saved simply because of the fact that they are Jews.


    75. Teresina March 17, 2014 at 1:24 pm

      JJ, indifferentism is stating that no one belief or philosophy is superior to another.  What do you think Pope Francis' statements to Muslims mean for instance: "“Sharing our experience in carrying that cross, to expel the illness within our hearts, which embitters our life: it is important that you do this in your meetings. Those that are Christian, with the Bible, and those that are Muslim, with the Quran. The faith that your parents instilled in you will always help you move on.”


    76. Teresina March 17, 2014 at 1:28 pm

      JJ, why do you think that the US Bishops Conference were instructed to remove the statement: "Thus the covenant that God made with the Jewish people through Moses remains eternally valid for them"?

    77. Benedicta March 17, 2014 at 2:35 pm


      You put this back in one of your posts:


      Pope Benedict XIV said Ex Quo Primum (# 61):“The first consideration is that the ceremonies of the Mosaic Law were abrogated by the coming of Christ and that they can no longer be observed without sin after the promulgation of the Gospel.”
      He cites the definition of the Council of Florence and declares in the Encyclical repeatedly that the Old Covenant was “revoked”, “abrogated” and “abolished”. The doctrine is repeated again by Pius XII in Mediator Dei"

      Whoever wrote this has done some spin work. I looked it up…Benedict XIV was talking about Euchologion – liturgical rites. What you have written is simply an exaggaration to the point of a lie. In this context Benedict XIV is simply writing about admonitions etc regarding unclean and clean foods. In this regard 'The first consideration is that the ceremonies of the Mosaic Law were abrogated…." etc etc So he is merely extrapolating on the implications of the teaching of the Apostle James at the Council of Jerusalem which 'has long since vanished'. What he is saying is that the liturgical rites and ceremonies of the Mosaic Law are abrogated. This of course is true…But the Covenants remain and Rabbinic Judaism is not Temple Worship.

      So it is not about the faith of the Covenants but simply the liturgical laws and precepts in this context of Pope Benedict XIV's writing. This is in continuity with Pope Benedict XVI in his own writings.

      Next I checked Mediator Dei. Pius XII stands in continuity re liturgy with Benedict XIV. He in no way is appealing that the Covenants of Judaism are abrogated, revoked etc.

      I don't need to argue against Sugensis….he has been sanctioned by his Bishop and taken to task over a form of Holocaust denial which was upheld. It is beneath any Catholic to take his point of view with any credibility.

    78. John Jensen March 17, 2014 at 2:50 pm

      Indifferentism means that it doesn't matter what religion you follow, you are equally likely to be saved.

      I don't know why some US bishops sought to remove that line from the Catechism, nor why others didn't want to.  Perhaps they thought some would interpret it as encouraging indifferentism.

      The possibility of something being interpreted that way doesn't mean that it must only be interpreted that way.  I have not said that I thought the way things were being stated (including some of the Pope's statements) was always best, only that they do not have to add up to heresy.


    79. Benedicta March 17, 2014 at 3:08 pm

      Actually there are six covenants Teresina? Not two as you keep saying.

      Adam and Eve






      Given that you think the Judaic (prior to Jesus) covenants have been revoked…..where does that leave us regarding Adam and Eve for example. How can Jesus in his own words points us back to a covenant regarding marriage when he is in the process of abrogating the Judaic covenants. How can it be that marriage according to St Paul is salvific for both husband and wife, each to the other, if they are faithful to God and each other….but yet Christ didn't establish marriage Himself? Rather  marriage was a covenant brought forward from Judaism and fulfilled in the higher teaching of Christ.

      If you want to abrogate the primal covenant between God and man where does that leave us? Making marriage up for ourselves? 

      How can we talk about the Church as salvific in Christ if we abrogate the covenant establishing the Israel, the People of God beginning in Abraham and given form by Moses.

      Who will abrogate us….as it seems we have a God with time limits who can change His mind?

      Most importantly…. 

      Why in this 'time of the Gentiles' (from Christ until the eschaton) does attesting to the certain Revelation and faith in Jesus Christ, as the pre-existent Logos and Lord of history bringing us toward the eschaton, mean that we can at this time, claim to know the all outcomes and consequences and aspects of detail pertaining to Christ's coming amongst us.  To take this to the point where we abrogate and so caste off, causing a definitive rupture in salvation history where the ultimate boundaries of salvation are written in our own hand is to illicitly anticipate the eschaton and say now that we know God's judgment in this matter. We can't because we can't by our own reason, even in the name of Christ, say what God's path of salvation in Christ means for others, especially the Jews. All we know absolutely is that only valid Baptism saves and that God does not revoke his covenants….that is all we can say. We have to hold it  together.


    80. Benedicta March 17, 2014 at 3:17 pm

      Go out and help him and Jesus will do the rest”.

      Yes Pope Francis says to go out to people as a Catholic Christian. In answer to whether we need to convince them to become Catholic….he says 'no go out and help him and Jesus will do the rest'.

      Problem…no good advice. Grace is always prior. Grace saves us first. Grace precedes and opens the eyes of the soul. We just have to be present to be hands and feet and witness by living authentic Catholic lives. Through that Jesus does do the rest and we are ready to meet that need for content and shape to the desire of another to become a Catholic in Christ.

      Problem? Teresina? Is that not evangelisation….working as hands and feet at the service of Grace. We do nothing of ourselves that Grace has not already begun.

      Please leave the Pope alone. He won't be perfect on everything but by the charism of being Pope he will be more reliable than not. We can pretty much trust his direction because he is the Pope. And no I am not recommending worshipping the Pope!

    81. Teresina March 17, 2014 at 3:48 pm

      Thanks, JJ, point taken.

      Fr Hunwicke:

      7 January 2014

      Nostra Aetate (1)

      Since the Council, an idea has been spreading that Judaism is not superseded by the New Covenant of Jesus Christ; that Jews still have available to them the Covenant of the old Law, by which they can be saved. It is therefore unnecessary for them to turn to Christ; unnecessary for anybody to convert them to faith in Christ. Indeed, attempting to do so is an act of aggression not dissimilar to the attempt of Nazi Germany to exterminate that people. This is sometimes called the Two Covenant Theory.

      This view is widespread among non-Catholic 'Ecumenists', and is increasingly taken for granted even within the Church by the professional 'Ecumenism' industry. It is suggested that this doctrine is mandated by the Council. And, underlying, reinforcing it, is the guilt felt by many in Western Society about the Shoah; and the determination of Zionists and their sponsors to characterise anybody who dissents from this growing consensus as 'Anti-Semitic'. I had better say at once that my father served in two wars, the second fought against Nazism; that I was all of four years old when Hitler died; and I am dashed if I am going to be made to feel guilty for what Hitler did to the Jews and nervously rewrite my own beliefs so as not to offend them. Any more than I would consider it appropriate for the intellectuals of Tel a Viv to regard themselves as obliged to feel personally guilty for what the Turks did to the Armenians.


    82. Teresina March 17, 2014 at 4:03 pm

      Fr Hunwicke continued:

      13 January 2014

      Nostra aetate (5): the recent Papal Magisterium


      The sort of people who would violently reject the points I am making are the sort of people who would not be impressed by the the Council of Florence. So I am going to confine myself to the Magisterium from the time of Pius XII … since it is increasingly coming to be realised that the continuum of processes which we associate with the Conciliar and post-Conciliar period was already in operation during the Pontificate of Pius XII … to the present day.

      In 1943 Pius XII published his encyclical Mystici corporis. He did not discuss Judaism as a topic; the fabric of Christian discourse had not yet so disintegrated as to render necessary the sort of polemic in which I am presently engaged. But, in laying the foundations of an exposition of the Ecclesia, he wrote as follows. "With the death of the Redeemer the Old Law was abolished (abolitae) and the New Covenant (Testamentum)  took its place (successit); it was then that the Law of Christ, with its mysteries, its laws, institutions, and sacred rites, was ratified for the whole world by the blood of Jesus Christ. … by his death on the Cross he made void (evacuavit) the Law with its decrees and fastened the handwriting (chirographum) of the Old Covenant to the Cross, establishing the New Covenant in His Blood which he shed for the whole human race. 'At that moment', says S Leo the Great, 'there came about so evident a transition (translatio) from the Law to the Gospel, from the Synagogue to the Church, from the multitude of sacrifices to the one Victim, that when the Lord gave up the ghost the mystic veil, interposed to hide the inner paets of the Temple and the secret sanctuary, was rent with sudden violence from top to bottom'. On the Cross, then, the Old Law died (mortua est) – soon to be buried (sepelienda) and to become lethal (mortifera futura) – and was succeeded by the New Covenant (Novo Testamento cederet)…" As was the custom, this passage in the Magisterial opus of a very recent pope (I was a sixth former when he died) was very adequately propped up with Biblical, Patristic, and Conciliar references. I am confident that these words are a very fair summary of the assumptions of two Christian millennia.

      But was this consensus set aside in the Conciliar or in the  post-Conciliar period? We turn to one of the great exegetes of the post-Conciliar 'look' – Cardinal Jan Willebrands. Willebrands was no Ottaviani. He had a finger in every exercise of aggiornamento and every 'ecumenical' outreach of the Vatican. In 1985 he signed Commission for religious relations with Jews; notes on the correct way to present the Jews and Judaism in preaching and catechesis in the Roman Catholic Church. Here are two paragraphs of that document. "In virtue of her divine mission, the Church which is to be 'the all-embracing means of salvation in which alone the fulness of the means of salvation can be obtained'* must of her nature proclaim Jesus Christ to the world. Indeed we believe that it is through him that we go to the Father 'and this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent'. Jesus affirms that 'there shall be one flock and one one shepherd'. Church and Judaism cannot then be seen as two parallel ways of salvation and the Church must witness to Christ as the Redeemer of all 'while maintaining the strictest respect for religious liberty in line with the teaching of the Second Vatican Council'*". The inner citations I have asterisked are from Unitatis redintegratio and Dignitatis humanae of Vatican II. This is not surprising since, at the Council, Willebrands was responsible for drafting some of its most sensitive documents (Ecumenism; non-Christian religions; Religious Liberty). Despite this experience, despite his high-profile stance in the establishment of new relationships with non-Catholics, he was evidently completely unaware that Vatican II, in whose processes he played such a significant role, had in some way mandated or even encouraged belief in 'two parallel ways of salvation'.

      Equally unaware of this alleged revolution was, it appears, another of the bright young things of the sixties, a peritus at the Council, another of its drafters. In 2002 Joseph Ratzinger was to enunciate (in an interview) the teaching of S Paul that "in the end all of Israel will be brought home. It is another question, how far, with the rise of the Church – the people of God from all nations – and with the coming of the new covenant, life under the old covenant, a life that remains closed to the new covenant that comes from Christ, is still a valid way of life …We are in fact waiting for the moment when Israel too will say Yes to Christ … " Does that mean that Jews will have to recognise the Messiah, or ought to do so? "That is what we believe …".


    83. John Jensen March 17, 2014 at 4:37 pm

      I absolutely agree with the concern that some imagine people can be saved other than through Christ and His Church.  It is false and is what that book Will Many Be Saved by Ralph Martin is about.  I strongly recommend the book.

      I take the Pope's comments about not necessarily arguing people into the Kingdom to be in the spirit of the famous "preach the Gospel at all times; use words if necessary" line – whether St Francis of Assisi actually said it or not :-) (and in any literal sense, he probably did not).

      I think the point is that evangelism and the mission enterprise is not a certain part of our Christian life; it is our Christian life.


    84. Don the Kiwi March 17, 2014 at 5:02 pm

      No I'm not suggesting there are still two covenants. Jesus has fulfilled the OT – completed it. Those parts – such as the Ten Commandments which still hold – have been blended – subsumed into the New and Eternal Covenant establishe by the Secong Person of the Blessed Trinity, Our Lord Jesus Christ.

      I suggest anyone who is still unsure about these things should get their CCC and read up the sections on the Old Testament/Covenant.

    85. Benedicta March 17, 2014 at 5:18 pm


      I've read Ralph Martin's book too. Its very good. The statement that there is no salvation except through Christ and the Church is absolutely true. The problem is defining exactly what that means. Christ, of course, because he is actually the reason for our existence so exitusreditus then is through Christ…there is no other way. What about the Church? The Church is Christ's mystical body and the only fount of Grace through which Christ saves. What we have to understand though is that while this is absolutely true it in no way limits Grace to what we know and can observe. God is covenanted to His Church and so there can be no contradiction but at the same time there is mystery and God's work beyond what we know.

      Example….Japan….Christians established at some time. Persecution. Shut off from the world for two centuries. No priests. No liturgy. No visible Church. When the country opened up again…the Catholic faith was intact. It was the work of the Holy Spirit. There is no other explanation…the faith should have died out. The same I believe in China. It is happening now in North Korea. There are also those, even in Saudi Arabia who have a desire for Christ…cannot be baptised or have any explicit faith…..what about them?

      The Holy Spirit works through but beyond the Church in a mysterious way. Any perfect act of love is salvific.  

    86. Teresina March 17, 2014 at 5:19 pm

      Yes, JJ I agree and I will put that book on my list.  And I agree we cannot be badgering people to become Catholic and we cannot deny the truth either for fear of commiting offence or being PC. After all Faith is a gift from God – otherwise how could we explain this.  You may well be aware of it but I read the story in the Marist Messenger some years ago now about the writer Andre Frossard who experienced a conversion like Saul on the way to Damascus.  It is extraordinary.  It is a miracle.  Here is an extract – sorry it is so long but it’s like nothing I have ever read before.    Apparently his book, "God is real I have met him" was a best seller.  He was waiting for his friend who had gone to confession:


      The evening promises to be pleasant and I am waiting.  To sum up, I feel absolutely no curiosity whatsoever about anything to do with religion, all of which is simply out of date.

      It is ten past five.  In two minutes I shall be a Christian.

      As a contented atheist, I obviously had not the faintest idea of this when, tired of waiting for the end of the incomprehensible devotions that were holding up my friend a bit longer than he had expected, I in my turn push open the little wrought iron door to take a closer look, for the sake of art or idle curiosity, at the building in which I am tempted to say he is dawdling (in actual fact I can have been waiting for him at the most for three or four minutes)

      What could be seen of the chapel over the doorway had not been particularly exciting. I hope that the little sisters for whom I am going to become a little brother will forgive me if I speak ill of their home but it gains nothing by being inspected on foot. It stands at the end of a short yard, one of those buildings in the English gothic style of the end of the nineteenth century, the work of architects resolved to put some order into it and thereby taking all the life and movement out of it. I do not write this for the dubious pleasure of criticizing an art form whose reputation needs no comment but simply to make clear that artistic emotion had nothing to do with what follows.

      The interior is no more uplifting than the exterior. It is like a banal stone ship beached for careening with its dark grey lines going hither and yon without ever achieving the Cistercian marriage of the austere and the beautiful. The nave is sharply divided into three parts. The first, starting at the entrance, is reserved for the faithful who say their prayers in semi-darkness. Windows, neutralized by the mass of buildings all around, leak a feeble light onto statues and a side altar decked with flowers.

      The second part is occupied by nuns, their heads hidden in black veils, like rows of patient birds settled in their varnished wooden benches. I shall learn later on that they are sisters of the order entitled “Adoration Réparatrice,” a congregation founded as a response of piety to certain excesses of the revolutionary spring of 1848. Relatively few in number—it will later emerge that this detail has its importance—they belong to one of those contemplative orders which choose imprisonment so as to make us free, choose obscurity so that we may have light, and invite from the materialist morality that will still be mine for another minute or two, the judgment that they serve no useful purpose. They are saying a sort of prayer with the voices from one side of the nave answering those on the other and coming together at regular intervals in the chant of “Gloria Patri et Filio et Spiritui Sancto” before resuming the alternating murmur of the quiet stream of prayer. I have no idea that they are singing the psalms, that we are listening to Matins and that I am being borne up on the gentle tide of the canonical hours.

      The far end of the chapel is quite brightly lit. Above the high altar draped in white, a vast arrangement of plants, candlesticks and ornaments is dominated by a large ornate metal cross with, at its centre, a dull white disc. Three other discs of the same size but not quite of the same appearance are fixed at the extremities of the cross. I have before now been inside churches out of interest in art but I have never seen a monstrance with a host in it, indeed I believe I had never seen a host, and I have no idea that I am in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament, towards which rise up two ranks of burning candles. The presence of the supplementary discs and the florid complications of the décor make it even more difficult for me to make sense of this distant sun.

      All this has a significance that escapes me, the more so in that I am paying it hardly any attention. Standing near the door, I am looking around to find my friend but I cannot make him out among the kneeling forms in front of me. My gaze moves from shadow to light, returns to the congregation without inspiring any particular thought, goes from the faithful to the motionless nuns, from the nuns to the altar and then, I know not why, concentrates on the second candle burning to the left of the cross. Not the first nor yet the third but the second. And that is the moment which without warning sets off the series of wonders that with inexorable violence are going to demolish instantaneously the absurd being that is myself and bring to dazzled birth the child that I had never been.

      First of all, these words are put to me: “spiritual life.” They are not spoken to me, I do not utter them myself, I hear them as if they were uttered near me in a low voice by a person who has to be seeing something that I have not yet seen myself.

      The last syllable of this murmured prelude has no sooner entered my consciousness than the avalanche begins. I cannot say that heaven opens; it does not open, it is hurled at me, it arises like a sudden silent thunderbolt from out of this chapel in which one would never have dreamed that it was mysteriously enclosed. How can I describe it in these reductive words that refuse to serve me, threatening to intercept my thoughts and consign them to the realm of fantasy? The painter to whom it was granted to catch a glimpse of unknown colours, how would he paint them? It is like a crystal, indestructible, infinite in its transparency, almost unbearable in its brightness (a fraction more would annihilate me) and, as it were, blue, a world, another world of a brilliance and density such as to reduce ours to the faint shadows of unfinished dreams. It is reality, it is truth, I see it from the dark bank on which I am still held back. There is an order in the universe and, at its summit, beyond this veil of dazzling mist, the evidence of God, evidence become presence and presence become the person of the One whom a moment ago I would have denied, the One whom Christians call “our Father” and from whom I learn that He is gentle, with a gentleness like no other, not the passive quality sometimes so described but active, breaking open, far beyond any form of violence, capable of shattering the hardest stone and, harder even than stone, the human heart.

      This overwhelming flood that breaks over me brings with it a joy that is nothing other than the exultation of a man saved, the joy of one brought off from a shipwreck just in time, but with this difference, that it is only at the moment when I am lifted up towards salvation that I become aware of the mire in which, without realising, I am buried and I cannot understand, seeing myself still half caught in it, how I have ever been able to live and breathe there.

      At the same time I am given a new family which is the Church, She having the task of leading me where I must go, it being understood that despite appearances I have a certain way still to travel, a distance that cannot be abolished and has to be covered.

      All these sensations that I am labouring to express in the defective medium of ideas and images come simultaneously, enfolded one within the other, and after many years I have not exhausted their content. The whole is dominated by the presence, beyond and through an immense multitude, of the One whose name I can never write again without feeling the dread of wounding His tenderness, the One before whom I have the happiness of being a forgiven child, waking to learn that everything is gift.

      Outside it was still a fine day and I was five years old. The world that once had been made of stone and tarmac was a great garden in which I was to be allowed to play for as long as God was pleased to leave me there. Willemin was walking beside me and seemed to have noticed something utterly unusual in my face; he gazed at me with medical thoroughness. “What is going on with you?” — “I am a Catholic,” and then, as if afraid of not having been sufficiently explicit, I added “apostolic and Roman” to complete my confession of faith. “You’re goggle-eyed!.” — “God exists, it is all true.” — “If only you could see yourself!” I could not see myself. I was like an owl at midday, facing the sun.”

    87. Teresina March 17, 2014 at 5:34 pm

      I know this is going off topic but I didn't realise that his book is available on line:

      During his distinguished career, Frossard became a close friend of Pope John Paul II and was elected to the Academie Francaise in 1987. He died in Versailles on 2nd February 1995. The passage below is from the end of his book, God Exists: I Have Met Him, 1970. The book is beautifully translated by J. F. Harwood Stevenson, and can be found online HERE.]

    88. Teresina March 17, 2014 at 5:57 pm

      The Archdiocese of Detroit also opposed Real Catholic’s understanding of other religions and Christian communities. Vorris affirms the dogma outside the church there is no salvation.
      The case is similar to that of apologist Robert Sungenis of Catholic Apologetics International (CAI). His former bishop asked him to remove the name Catholic from CAI. Robert was also being opposed by the Jewish Left while his bishop was unable to say in public that Jews need to convert into the Church for salvation.
      Robert Sungenis’ bishop of Bishop Kevin Rhoades who is now the bishop of Fort Wayne-South Bend, USA where the owner of Real Catholic lives. He is Marc Brammar who has written to the bishop and received no reply.
      Wikipedia and other hit media have reported that Sungenis had been criticized by the his bishop, Kevin Rhoades and was asked to remove the name Catholic.
      Michael Vorris has indicated that the pressure on the Archdiocese of Detroit has come also from outside the diocese. He seemed to be indicating the same non Catholic opponents of Sungenis.

    89. Benedicta March 17, 2014 at 6:06 pm


      A Jewish conspiracy? Were they complaining?

      Can you expound for me what 'No salvation outside the Church actually means'?

      In an event like the Holocaust or even Darfur what would be the situation of the souls as regards salvation….be they Jewish or otherwise…not Baptised say. Can something be explicitly applied to them as regards their condition …can we say 'they are damned' or 'some of them are damned'? Because is there is no salvation outside the Church does it mean this or something else.

      What do you actually want us to agree with?

    90. Teresina March 17, 2014 at 6:14 pm


       Vorris affirms the dogma outside the church there is no salvation.In the Roman Catholic Church, a dogma (plural dogmata) is an article of faith revealed by God, which the magisterium of the Church presents as necessary to be believed if one freely chooses to be a Catholic.[1]

    91. Teresina March 17, 2014 at 6:15 pm

      In other words one can dissent from dogmatic teaching if one chooses not to be Catholic – free will.

    92. Benedicta March 17, 2014 at 6:24 pm

      No Teresina

      That won't do.

      What does it actually mean?

      Surely this dogma has a meaning I can assent to?

      What is it in the context of the examples I have referred to. You must know you defent it often enough.

    93. Benedicta March 17, 2014 at 11:07 pm

      Dominus Iesus, in its entirety is very definitive in what it requires in all matters pertaining to the saving action of Christ, the Church and both in regard to universal and particular aspects of salvation. It is a sober document and essentially takes no prisoners. Personally I think it holds together the fullness of the whole Tradition both the broad and restrictive interpretations which abound in both ways throughout the Fathers and the teaching of the Church since then.

      Above all else, it must be firmly believed that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mk 16:16; Jn 3:5), and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through baptism as through a door.77 This doctrine must not be set against the universal salvific will of God (cf. 1 Tim 2:4); it is necessary to keep these two truths together, namely, the real possibility of salvation in Christ for all mankind and the necessity of the Church for this salvation.78

      Perhaps then I answer my my own question…..the best key is Dominus Iesus.

      Another tending in terms of salvation more to the speculative (not quite the same definitive tone as Dominus Iesus but still papal teaching )is Pope John Paul II's Apostolic Letter Salvifici Doloris. This points to the mystery of suffering and the redemptive power of suffering. I'm thinking now of the Holocaust and those in places like the Sudan, Darfur and the streets of Harlem. In suffering we become like Christ….personally I think this is a valuable key to understand how it might be possible that a powerless victim of injustice, an ordinary person and not an evil doer, might become like Christ in suffering in dire circumstances. It is a way in which Christ is figured and embodied in that suffering person. There is scriptural warrant in Dives and Lazarus for surely the poor man was outside, ignored and died in suffering and yet was not in Hades but in Paradise. Christ didn't bother to tell us his status re the Jewish catechism and the poor man's belief….he was just suffering.

      Christ is so amazing so far reaching for those not disposed to evil who will receive him; there is always hope. I think we as privileged Catholics are called to help them in prayer and in that way join in Christ's Redemption. Being too prescriptive about out own salvation misses the point…rather our vocation is too glorify God by joining with Christ and the Holy Spirit in the work of salvation of others who are outside and are not brought in by the ordinary means. Just a little private theology…speculation on hope on my part.

      St Faustina's prayer comes in here…'O my Jesus, save us from the fires of hell, and bring all souls to heaven especially those most in need of thy mercy'.

    94. Teresina March 17, 2014 at 11:25 pm

      Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, we read: “On the Cross, Christ consummated the building of the Church. The Old Covenant ceased and the New Covenant sealed with the blood of Christ began”. (Pg 292)

      Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma is widely recognized as one of the greatest summaries of Catholic dogma ever published. Since its original publication in German in 1952, it has served as an invaluable reference for students and teachers, clergy and families anyone who needs a clear, concise and systematic presentation of the Catholic faith. By: Dr. Ludwig Ott

    95. Teresina March 17, 2014 at 11:41 pm

      "The Catholic faithful are required to profess that there is an historical continuity — rooted in the apostolic succession53 — between the Church founded by Christ and the Catholic Church: “This is the single Church of Christ… which our Saviour, after his resurrection, entrusted to Peter's pastoral care (cf. Jn 21:17), commissioning him and the other Apostles to extend and rule her (cf. Mt 28:18ff.), erected for all ages as ‘the pillar and mainstay of the truth' (1 Tim 3:15). This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in [subsistit in] the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him”.54  With the expression subsistit in, the Second Vatican Council sought to harmonize two doctrinal statements: on the one hand, that the Church of Christ, despite the divisions which exist among Christians, continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church, and on the other hand, that “outside of her structure, many elements can be found of sanctification and truth”,55 that is, in those Churches and ecclesial communities which are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church.56 But with respect to these, it needs to be stated that “they derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.57

      17.  Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.58 The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches.59Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.60

      On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery,61 are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church.62 Baptism in fact tends per se toward the full development of life in Christ, through the integral profession of faith, the Eucharist, and full communion in the Church.63"

      Therefore, as I mentioned a week or so ago by virtue of Dominus Jesu only those communions who retain a derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church by means of apostolic success and the true Eucharist.  That means the orthodox churches and the SSPX only – all other protestant churches, muslim and buddhists do not have that element.

    96. Teresina March 17, 2014 at 11:43 pm

      And also the Jews do not have that element of apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist.

    97. Benedicta March 18, 2014 at 10:59 am


      Yes Dominus Iesus….excellent, very clear.

      You highlighted some of this…

      The Catholic faithful are required to profess that there is a historical continuity…(Christ, the Church etc a it goes)

      Then Dominus Iesus describes this Church of historical continuity….

      This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in [subsistit in] the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him”.

      Is your point to post these sections from Dominus Iesus to point out the truth of them…that you agree with Dominus Iesus.that the Church we are required to profess…the Church of historical continuity is in fact This Church, subsists in the Catholic Church?

      If so that brilliant.

      I wondered because in February and in Anonymity Online post you rejected 'subsistit in'. It was a break from Traditional teaching and lead souls astray.

      Do you read Dominus Iesus (which by its tone is not pastoral but definitive teaching….the equivalent of Trents anathemas). This tone and manner of wording has been described formerly as such by Ratzinger when in the CDF. So it can't be dismissed as pastoral and so can be ignored.

      The Church you are required to profess ….subsists in

      Also in the same manner counter to your rejection of LG on the same Anonymity Online because is not continuous with Tradition 'Outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation'. But as Feeney's case in the USA pointed out that phrase can only be used in the manner the Church uses and not in a private manner. So in Dominus Iesus we have the clear interpretation...following on in the same clear and definitive manner that 'That doctrine must not be set against the universal salvific will of God'….i.e. the real possibility of salvation in Christ for all mankind and the necessity of the Church for this salvation.

      Are you agreeing with Dominus Iesus then…..if so then there is nothing else to say but brilliant.

    98. bamac March 18, 2014 at 12:57 pm

      Just a note about the ban on Michael Voris that you mentioned earlier Teresina … though i guess this you might not agree with what is said ..

    99. bamac March 18, 2014 at 1:00 pm

      The part that I found of particular interest is …

      ~~Voris’ “extreme position” was the default position for the Church a few decades ago.  False ecumenism implies equivalence where there is none –  but I doubt this is actually about Voris’ comments with regard to other faiths, this is about Voris’ challenging statement regarding the state of the Church in this country.  Remember, Scranton is the Diocese where the very orthodox Joseph Martino was forced to step down as bishop due to a threat of schism eminating from the Call to Action types there.  Almost unheard of nowadays, the Vatican accepted his resignation – and a more “moderate” man took Martino’s place as bishop.

      I don’t think Voris would have been banned had  Martino remained in place.  And Martino was driven out due to having offended his brother bishops, and possibly more importantly, the demonrat party hierarchy, with his unremitting orthodoxy. All the other reasons stated were just smokescreen.



      When is Michael due in NZ again ?


      Mrs Mac

    100. Teresina March 18, 2014 at 1:56 pm

      Mrs Mac, I absolutely support everything that Michael Voris says.  He is absolutely orthodox in all that he says.  I am just disappointed about the falling out with the other bloggers who he has worked in with until now – photos of them together go to show that – others are adopting a "wait and see" attitude so I will too.  Voris does not have an extreme position on ecumenism.  Anyone who takes a stand for truth are in fact losing their positions.  As Mario Palmaro quote GK Chesterton a few days before he died "We do not need a Church that moves with the world, but a Church that moves the world."  and that is what Michael Voris and others are fighting for.

    101. Teresina March 18, 2014 at 2:09 pm

      No, Dominus Iesus, while an excellent document clarifying the Vatican II document, does not carry the weight of an ex cathedra pronounciation such as extra Ecclesiam nulla salus (outside the 
      Church there is no salvation)
      .  You will see that that document has in fact been further watered down by what authority I don't know.   Outside the Church there is the long-standing teaching of the Church until Vatican II.  In fact extra Ecclesiam nulla salus (which the SSPX adhere to) puts them and the Orthodox Churches in the position that if some of them were to die tomorrow they are not on the barque of Peter and, therefore, it is then down to the mercy of God whether they go to heaven or not.  That is why it is so important that particularly those churches that are so close to the Church should be dialogued with – much more so than the protestant churches and Muslims etc who do not have an ordained priesthood.  As far as I understand, no dogma can be overturned because the Church has pronounced that it is divinely inspired and without error.  So any other pronouncement by the magisterium is open to error, including Vatican II, except where it repeats the previous dogmatic statements of the Church.

      Here are the pronouncements that the Church has made so the position cannot be clearer:

      The original saying by Saint Cyprian of Carthage (3rd century AD) is found his Letter LXXII, Ad Jubajanum de haereticis baptizandis, and in Latin reads: "Salus extra ecclesiam non est".[5]

      Fourth Lateran Council (1215): "There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved."

      Pope Boniface VIII, Bull Unam sanctam (1302): "We are compelled in virtue of our faith to believe and maintain that there is only one holy Catholic Church, and that one is apostolic. This we firmly believe and profess without qualification. Outside this Church there is no salvation and no remission of sins, the Spouse in the Canticle proclaiming: 'One is my dove, my perfect one. One is she of her mother, the chosen of her that bore her' (Canticle of Canticles 6:8); which represents the one mystical body whose head is Christ, of Christ indeed, as God. And in this, 'one Lord, one faith, one baptism' (Ephesians 4:5). Certainly Noah had one ark at the time of the flood, prefiguring one Church which perfect to one cubit having one ruler and guide, namely Noah, outside of which we read all living things were destroyed… We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

      Pope Eugene IVCantate Domino (1441): "The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the "eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" (Matthew 25:41), unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church."

      Pope Boniface I, Epistle 14.1: "It is clear that this Roman Church is to all churches throughout the world as the head is to the members, and that whoever separates himself from it becomes an exile from the Christian religion, since he ceases to belong to its fellowship."

      Pope Pelagius II (578-590): "Consider the fact that whoever has not been in the peace and unity of the Church cannot have the Lord… Although given over to flames and fires, they burn, or, thrown to wild beasts, they lay down their lives, there will not be (for them) that crown of faith but the punishment of faithlessness… Such a one can be slain, he cannot be crowned… [If] slain outside the Church, he cannot attain the rewards of the Church" (Denzinger, 469).

      Saint Gregory the Great (590-604), Moralia: "Now the holy Church universal proclaims that God cannot be truly worshipped saving within herself, asserting that all they that are without her shall never be saved."

      Pope Sylvester II, Profession of Faith, June AD 991: "I believe that in Baptism all sins are forgiven, that one which was committed originally as much as those which are voluntarily committed, and I profess that outside the Catholic Church no one is saved."

      Pope Innocent III (1198–1216), Profession of Faith prescribed for the Waldensians: "With our hearts we believe and with our lips we confess but one Church, not that of the heretics, but the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church, outside which we believe that no one is saved" (Denzinger 792).

      Pope Clement VI, Letter Super Quibusdam (to Consolator the Catholicos of Armenia), September 20, 1351: "In the second place, we ask whether you and the Armenians obedient to you believe that no man of the wayfarers outside of the faith of this Church, and outside the obedience of the Pope of Rome, can finally be saved… In the ninth place, if you have believed and do believe that all who have raised themselves against the faith of the Roman Church and have died in final impenitence have been damned and have descended to the eternal punishments of hell."

      Pope Leo XII (1823–1829), Encyclical Ubi Primum: "It is impossible for the most true God, who is Truth Itself, the best, the wisest Provider, and rewarder of good men, to approve all sects who profess false teachings which are often inconsistent with one another and contradictory, and to confer eternal rewards on their members. For we have a surer word of the prophet, and in writing to you We speak wisdom among the perfect; not the wisdom of this world but the wisdom of God in a mystery. By it we are taught, and by divine faith we hold, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and that no other name under heaven is given to men except the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth in which we must be saved. This is why we profess that there is no salvation outside the Church… For the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth. With reference to those words Augustine says: 'If any man be outside the Church he will be excluded from the number of sons, and will not have God for Father since he has not the Church for mother.'"

      Pope Gregory XVI (1831–1846), Encyclical Summo Jugiter Studio (on mixed marriages), 5-6, May 27, 1832: "You know how zealously Our predecessors taught that very article of faith which these dare to deny, namely the necessity of the Catholic faith and of unity for salvation. The words of that celebrated disciple of the Apostles, martyred Saint Ignatius, in his letter to the Philadelphians are relevant to this matter: 'Be not deceived, my brother; if anyone follows a schismatic, he will not attain the inheritance of the kingdom of God.' Moreover, Saint Augustine and the other African bishops who met in the Council of Cirta in the year 412 explained the same thing at greater length: 'Whoever has separated himself from the Catholic Church, no matter how laudably he lives, will not have eternal life, but has earned the anger of God because of this one crime: that he abandoned his union with Christ' (Epsitle 141). Omitting other appropriate passages which are almost numberless in the writings of the Fathers, We shall praise Saint Gregory the Great, who expressly testifies that this is indeed the teaching of the Catholic Church. He says: 'The holy universal Church teaches that it is not possible to worship God truly except in her and asserts that all who are outside of her will not be saved' (Moral. in Job, 16.5). Official acts of the Church proclaim the same dogma. Thus, in the decree on faith which Innocent III published with the synod of the Lateran IV, these things are written: 'There is one universal Church of the faithful outside of which no one at all is saved.' Finally, the same dogma is expressly mentioned in the profession of faith proposed by the Apostolic See, not only that which all Latin churches use (Creed of the Council of Trent), but also that which the Greek Orthodox Church uses (cf. Gregory XIII, Profession 'Sanctissimus') and that which other Eastern Catholics use (cf. Benedict XIV, Profession 'Nuper ad Nos')… We are so concerned about this serious and well known dogma, which has been attacked with such remarkable audacity, that We could not restrain Our pen from reinforcing this truth with many testimonies."

      Pope Pius IX (1846–1878), Allocution Singulari Quadem, December 9, 1854: "Not without sorrow we have learned that another error, no less destructive, has taken possession of some parts of the Catholic world, and has taken up its abode in the souls of many Catholics who think that one should have good hope of the eternal salvation of all those who have never lived in the true Church of Christ. Therefore, they are wont to ask very often what will be the lot and condition of those who have not submitted in any way to the Catholic faith, and, by bringing forward most vain reasons, they make a response favorable to their false opinion. Far be it from Us, Venerable Brethren, to presume on the limits of the divine mercy which is infinite; far from Us, to wish to scrutinize the hidden counsel and "judgements of God" which are "a great abyss" (Ps. 35.7) and cannot be penetrated by human thought. But, as is Our Apostolic Duty, we wish your episcopal solicitude and vigilance to be aroused, so that you will strive as much as you can to drive form the mind of men that impious and equally fatal opinion, namely, that the way of eternal salvation can be found in any religion whatsoever. May you demonstrate with skill and learning in which you excel, to the people entrusted to your care that the dogmas of the Catholic faith are in no wise opposed to divine mercy and justice.
      "For, it must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood; but, on the other hand, it is necessary to hold for certain that they who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is invincible, will not be held guilty of this in the eyes of God. Now, in truth, who would arrogate so much to himself as to mark the limits of such an ignorance, because of the nature and variety of peoples, regions, innate dispositions, and of so many other things? For, in truth, when released from these corporeal chains 'we shall see God as He is' (1 John 3.2), we shall understand perfectly by how close and beautiful a bond divine mercy and justice are united; but as long as we are on earth, weighed down by this mortal mass which blunts the soul, let us hold most firmly that, in accordance with Catholic teaching, there is "one God, one faith, one baptism" (Eph. 4.5); it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry.
      "But, just as the way of charity demands, let us pour forth continual prayers that all nations everywhere may be converted to Christ; and let us be devoted to the common salvation of men in proportion to our strength, 'for the hand of the Lord is not shortened' (Isa. 9.1) and the gifts of heavenly grace will not be wanting to those who sincerely wish and ask to be refreshed by this light."[6]

      Pope Pius IX (1846–1878), Encyclical Singulari Quidem March 17, 1856): "Teach that just as there is only one God, one Christ, one Holy Spirit, so there is also only one truth which is divinely revealed. There is only one divine faith which is the beginning of salvation for mankind and the basis of all justification, the faith by which the just person lives and without which it is impossible to please God and come to the community of His children (Romans 1; Hebrews 11; Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 8). There is only one true, holy, Catholic Church, which is the Apostolic Roman Church. There is only one See founded on Peter by the word of the Lord (St. Cyprian, Epistle 43), outside of which we cannot find either true faith or eternal salvation. He who does not have the Church for a mother cannot have God for a father, and whoever abandons the See of Peter on which the Church is established trusts falsely that he is in the Church (ibid, On the Unity of the Catholic Church). … Outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control."[7]

      Pope Pius IX (1846–1878), Encyclical Quanto conficiamur moerore, August 10, 1863: "And here, beloved Sons and Venerable Brothers, We should mention again and censure a very grave error in which some Catholics are unhappily engaged, who believe that men living in error, and separated from the true faith and from Catholic unity, can attain eternal life. Indeed, this is certainly quite contrary to Catholic teaching. It is known to Us and to you that they who labor in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion and who, zealously keeping the natural law and its precepts engraved in the hearts of all by God, and being ready to obey God, live an honest and upright life, can, by the operating power of divine light and grace, attain eternal life, since God who clearly beholds, searches, and knows the minds, souls, thoughts, and habits of all men, because of His great goodness and mercy, will by no means suffer anyone to be punished with eternal torment who has not the guilt of deliberate sin. But, the Catholic dogma that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church is well-known; and also that those who are obstinate toward the authority and definitions of the same Church, and who persistently separate themselves from the unity of the Church, and from the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter, to whom 'the guardianship of the vine has been entrusted by the Savior,' (Council of Chalcedon, Letter to Pope Leo I) cannot obtain eternal salvation. The words of Christ are clear enough: 'And if he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican' (Matthew 18:17); 'He that heareth you, heareth Me; and he that dispeth you, despiseth Me; and he that dispiseth Me, despiseth Him that sent Me' (Luke 10:16); 'He that believeth not shall be condemned' (Mark 16:16); 'He that doth not believe, is already judged' (John 3:18); 'He that is not with Me, is against Me; and he that gathereth not with Me, scattereth' (Luke 11:23). The Apostle Paul says that such persons are 'perverted and self-condemned' (Titus 3:11); the Prince of the Apostles calls the 'false prophets… who shall bring in sects of perdition, and deny the Lord who bought them: bringing upon themselves swift destruction' (2 Peter 2:1)."[8]

      Pope Pius IX The Syllabus of Errors, attached to Encyclical Quanta Cura, 1864: [The following are prescribed errors:] "16. Men can, in the cult of any religion, find the way of eternal salvation and attain eternal salvation. – Encyclical Qui pluribus, November 9, 1846.
      "17. One ought to at least have good hope for the eternal salvation of all those who in no way dwell in the true Church of Christ. – Encyclical Quanto conficiamur moerore, August 10, 1863, etc."

      Pope Leo XIII (1878–1903), Encyclical Annum Ingressi Sumus: "This is our last lesson to you; receive it, engrave it in your minds, all of you: by God's commandment salvation is to be found nowhere but in the Church."

      idem, Encyclical Sapientiae Christianae: "He scatters and gathers not who gathers not with the Church and with Jesus Christ, and all who fight not jointly with Him and with the Church are in very truth contending against God."

      Pope St. Pius X (1903–1914), Encyclical Jucunda Sane: "It is our duty to recall to everyone great and small, as the Holy Pontiff Gregory did in ages past, the absolute necessity which is ours, to have recourse to this Church to effect our eternal salvation."

      Pope Benedict XV (1914–1922), Encyclical Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum: "Such is the nature of the Catholic faith that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole, or as a whole rejected: This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved."

      Pope Pius XI (1922–1939), Encyclical Mortalium Animos: "The Catholic Church alone is keeping the true worship. This is the font of truth, this is the house of faith, this is the temple of God; if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation… Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ, no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors."

      Pope Pius XII (1939–1958), Encyclical Humani Generis, August 12, 1950: "Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation."

      Pope Pius XII (1939–1958), Allocution to the Gregorian University (17 October 1953): "By divine mandate the interpreter and guardian of the Scriptures, and the depository of Sacred Tradition living within her, the Church alone is the entrance to salvation: She alone, by herself, and under the protection and guidance of the Holy Spirit, is the source of truth."

      Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, 14: "They could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it, or to remain in it."

    102. Teresina March 18, 2014 at 2:10 pm

      I should have said that Dominus Jesu has been further watered down but I don't know by what authority.

    103. Benedicta March 18, 2014 at 2:15 pm

      That's a difficult position to defend Teresina.

      I hope others aren't influenced to follow your approach.




    104. Teresina March 18, 2014 at 2:19 pm

      I notice that neither Bl Pope John Paul The Great nor Benedict XVI made any ex cathedra pronouncement as regards Lumen Gentium no doubt because they can't say it isn't free of error and devinely inspired.   The best that has been done to clarify it is Christus Jesus from Benedict XVI (then Cardinal Ratzinger).  Therefore, because of the solemn pronouncement of the Church over the centuries that to accept the Pope and the Church is the requirement for salvation the Church is bound to encourage people to convert.  Our Lord Himself said that nobody comes to the Father except through Him, and therefore that literally excludes, but for the mercy of God, those who aren't baptised entering heaven.

    105. Teresina March 18, 2014 at 2:26 pm

      There are two positions and only one can be right and when you read the infallible pronouncements of the Church and weigh them against the very thin statement from Vatican II I think the overwhelming weight goes with the traditional position on this.  And it is the safest one after all especially when looked at what Pius IX says: 

      "Encyclical Singulari Quidem March 17, 1856): "Teach that just as there is only one God, one Christ, one Holy Spirit, so there is also only one truth which is divinely revealed. There is only one divine faith which is the beginning of salvation for mankind and the basis of all justification, the faith by which the just person lives and without which it is impossible to please God and come to the community of His children (Romans 1; Hebrews 11; Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 8). There is only one true, holy, Catholic Church, which is the Apostolic Roman Church. There is only one See founded on Peter by the word of the Lord (St. Cyprian, Epistle 43), outside of which we cannot find either true faith or eternal salvation. He who does not have the Church for a mother cannot have God for a father, and whoever abandons the See of Peter on which the Church is established trusts falsely that he is in the Church (ibid, On the Unity of the Catholic Church). … Outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control."[7]

      Anyone who has converted to the Faith needs to count themselves grateful for God's mercy.

    106. Teresina March 18, 2014 at 2:44 pm

      A hard position to defend?  Based on the statements of 20 Popes it certainly is not  The hard position to defend is that taken by Vatican II.  As it is Bl Pope John Paul the Great and Benedict XVI tried to tighten things up in Christus Jesus but the liberals are even trying to water that down.

    107. Benedicta March 18, 2014 at 2:45 pm


      Mrs Mac and Teresina

      Michael Voris is stimulating and yes we want, need and like to see Catholics defending the faith. But there is need to be discerning. It seems he isn't…why I don't know. The link above is an interview with E Michael Jones…by Voris. Why would he pick E Michael Jones…it is easy to say perhaps he didn't know this man that well. This association is deeply problematic. But what if he does accept this man's work? If so it makes a difference. It has too. The company people keep matters. The links above point to the problem I have.

      Its a problem that keeps coming up time and time again.

      I'll be honest with you. Participating on Being Frank has changed my mind about a few things. I am a Catholic who happily reads, learns from and accepts what the Church teaches. Some would say I would read 'only since Vatican II'. That's not nor has ever been true. I am at the moment reading Scheeben.

      I was friendly to the Latin Mass, have been to one and would have liked to go to more had I had relatively easy access. But not now. I will wait it out and suffer the dodgy stuff and hold to what's good. Why? I hope the Latin Mass can be restored but free of what currently seems to come with it…that I can't tolerate.

      Because even though I knew that there were some issues in thinking such as is discussed here on the pre-Vatican II and post-Vatican II lines of things. What I didn't realise is that these issues aren't simply features for a few but absolutely form Traditional lines at this time…not with many prelates and priests I have met but with ideological ranks in the pews. In so far as it seems to require that I think Vatican II unfaithful and erroneous. It also requires to take post Vatican II teaching apart piecemeal and find the static thoughts and words which correlate exactly with what has come after primarily the Baroque era. But the Church didn't begin then. There is no reaching back to the early Church Fathers which are, it seems to me, the correctives that Vatican II has taken on.

      So Traditionalism as presented here offers to enter into a contradiction….be faithful to the Real Catholic Church pre Vatican II and be unfaithful to the post Vatican Catholic Church. This isn't limited to poor liturgy but the very documents from that time. Somehow I will have to enter into conspiracy type thinking to retain a semblance of fidelity to the current Popes (mainly pictured as wannabe restorationists of not good liturgy but neo-scholastic theology; which is ridiculous). In that way I will be a Real Catholic. This is madness and cuts the branch from under Peter the Faith sits on.

      Its really sad. What needs to happen is that we need to become more willing to appropriate the virtues of being able to be taught, to apprentice ourselves to the Church in what she proposes knowing we can trust God because that is what He has provided. Instead we oppose, counter propose, dissect and rationalise. It isn't the Catholic mind.

    108. Benedicta March 18, 2014 at 2:47 pm


      Pope John Paul II and Ratzinger wrote together Dominus Iesus.

      We have to slip into conspiracy theories that these documents of these Popes are watered down?

      Its crazy crazy thinking….a mind trick to keep you batting with the current Popes while rejecting their teaching. They aren't fools!

      I think its unbalanced insanity.


    109. Benedicta March 18, 2014 at 2:54 pm

      ex cathedra ex cathedra….

      You try to hang the Popes on ex cathedra. Unless they pronounce ex cathedra you can dismiss them.

      You can't.

      Infallibility is only 140 odd years old as a defined doctrine! So now we hang them on their own doctrine? We are deaf to the Popes unless its ex cathedra? What subtle nonsense.

      How do you think the Church got through all these centuries?…Because of the essential authority which of itself abides in the Papacy. But to agree with you we have to abandon that principle and pick them over for something ex cathedra.

      There has only been only infallible doctrine so defined….the Assumption of the Virgin Mary.

      When the current Popes in encyclicals say….'it must be professed' 'it must be firmly believed' 'it must be held' and so on….this is teaching which can't be set aside. Nor is it inconsistent with what went before….unless you also want to insist that Jews should wear yellow stars and not own real estate…..Council of Florence canons?

      Its crazy insanity and weird religion for the sake of religion. It has nothing to do with Christ and His Church but religion for its own sake.



    110. Benedicta March 18, 2014 at 3:08 pm

      God….is there anywhere in New Zealand that one can actually share and talk the faith without being trampled on as a liberal by trads or a trad by liberals.

      I love the Church. I love the Holy Trinity. I love Mary and the Saints.

      Where o where is there somewhere in this God forsaken land that holds this together where one can actually go and be free in the faith? 

    111. Benedicta March 18, 2014 at 3:10 pm

      Dear Mrs Mac

      I love you in Christ but I can't follow Michael Voris…I wish him well but I don't want to go where he wants to take me…Christ and His Church are better than that.

    112. Teresina March 18, 2014 at 3:18 pm

      Spoken again, Benedicta, when you don't even know what you're talking about – I read last night on the internet that there is a some sort of document that has come out since Dominus Jesu that has explained that document in a softer way. I didn't take down the name of the document at the time but I will locate it later when I have time and put it up for you.  It is no conspiracy theory at all.  It is a literal fact.  I think you should check your facts before jumping into print.

    113. Teresina March 18, 2014 at 3:21 pm

      Once again, Benedicta, you are showing lack of knowledge of the faith – perhaps you had better check out the meaning of "ex cathedra" as opposed to the other documents of the magisterium.  This is simply why gullible people like yourself are swollowing anything as gospel that comes out of the Vatican.  Remember we have had a number of black Popes – so the fact of being Pope doesn't signify anything.  So if the Pope tells you to jump off a cliff are you going to do it?  That's how silly your above statement is.

    114. bamac March 18, 2014 at 3:25 pm

      Dear Benedicta,

      When I first came across Being frank and then when I forst started commenting , it seemed to be very different from what it is now .  Looking back in the archives of those times  one finds many commenters who no longer comment , there were no long screeds in comments , I , for oe, found food for thought and,often for prayer .   i found thoughts of some helpful  and those I did not agree with made me think more about why I did indeed , disagree thus strengthening me in the way I felt and believed .

      I would like to thank Admin of the present and of the past for all that they too have done , thanks to commenters past and present …. I think that Don said somewhere that he was out of here ?  

      God Bless you all but I too am out of here… Shalom,

      Mrs Mac

    115. Teresina March 18, 2014 at 3:28 pm

      Basically, if you like to think of it Benedicta your ideas that anyone can be saved (laudable though it is) without being in the Church means that the martyrs who died for the Faith died for nothing.  How do you justify that?  It defies logic.  Some of what Vatican II has come out with defies logic and flies in the face of the Church's past teachings.  That is the problem.  This is not a new discussion.  It has gone on since the Second Vatican Council.  The Mass was only one problem.  Restoration of the Mass will not solve the problem either.  There are not one or two people complaining but probably in the millions of people who want clarification on all these points, and rightly so.  We are talking about salvation itself.   The very fact that Popes Benedict and John Paul had to put out the corrective document Christus Jesu shows that indeed there are problems with some of the Vatican II documents and they are the root of theh problems we have experienced over the last 40 years when you weren't even a Catholic.  You don't really have any knowledge of what the problems are.  I have sympathy with you but you need to read the other side of the equation to find out why good people are standing up for truth – including Michael Voris.

    116. Teresina March 18, 2014 at 3:36 pm

      Mrs Mac, I am sorry because I have been at fault for posting long screeds.  Many times it is because it is the only way to illustrate what is being said – how many people actually go and look at linke which is often pages and pages long where as only one or two paragraphs might apply to what I am trying to illustrate.  Also, you have been commenting a long time on Being Frank.  I read Being Frank for a long time but the issues in the Church have changed and are quite serious.  No doubt that is why the comments have changed.  It has probably gone from being a blog where lighter topics were discussed and now heavier ones.  I think the idea of the Sunday Scrum was a good idea because then a long argument could develop which others could choose to ignore if they wished.  This particular topic because it is to do with Pope Francis and the many concerns people are raising has turned into an overly long topic.  I have always found what you have had to say valuable so I hope you will reconsider.


    117. Teresina March 18, 2014 at 3:50 pm

      Mrs Mac, I watched that video of Michael Voris.  He can make that choice but I don't agree with it because as someone pointed out if the New York Cardinal was made Pope tomorrow and was doing the same things again, would Michael Voris not criticise.  Also, there are instances where a Pope who actually preached heresy was forced to recan because of the public outcry.  If no one raises a voice against error it will persist.  In fact one of the Pope's most stident critics who lost his job because of it and fell illl with cance, Pope Francis actually telephoned him.  The paper that was criticised was actually taken down of the Vatican website.  Some say as a result of the criticism of Palmaro.  Still Palmaro had this to say:

      "We were aware, and we wanted, to open a debate, and even to pay the consequences of what we were going to write. After six months of the pontificate, in the midst of the huge consensus the Pope had, we found it impossible that no-one would bring up some questions.”

      He added, “we did not want to judge the Pope as a human person. We distinguish the action from the person.

      ”He added, “we did not want to judge the Pope as a human person. We distinguish the action from the person.”

      "When he got the phone call, Palmaro said he felt a “duty to tell the Pope that I criticized him. I did not think he would have read my articles, but I thought I was a coward in receiving such a great gift as a Pope’s phone call and not being sincere with him.”

      Pope Francis responded saying that he “understood that the critics had been moved by love for the Pope.”

      Palmaro concluded that “critics are useful, and the decisions taken during these last days confirmed me of the existence of the problems I highlighted together with my colleague Gnocchi.”

    118. Teresina March 18, 2014 at 3:59 pm



      Share › 










      Fr.Duffy Fighting 69th • 4 months ago

      Whatever happened to Gnocchi? He lost his job, right? No phone calls to him. All catholics need to ask themselves this question. Is the Pope above criticism, especially when it comes to issues related to the foundational pillars of our Faith? The Divinity of Jesus, The True Presence, the sanctity of the Sacrament of Reconciliation, the Immaculate Conception and the Virgin Birth and the very words spoken by Jesus in the Gospels. We also need to watch for changes to the Liturgy of the Eucharist, and the current teaching on eligibility to receive Communion. There needs to be a line drawn in the sand – current teaching on all the above issues cannot be changed

    119. Benedicta March 18, 2014 at 4:41 pm

      Basically, if you like to think of it Benedicta your ideas that anyone can be saved


      I never said that. Christ died for all but not all accept Christ. are in the wrong, fragmented and contradictory place it won't hold. Its all too political its as dead as the liberal tone. There is no life in it. There is in the Latin Mass and I think it will take a whole other generation before certain things can truly flower.


    120. Benedicta March 18, 2014 at 5:00 pm



      This is the document from the CDF which explains how we are to receive teaching from the Magisterium.

    121. Benedicta March 18, 2014 at 5:13 pm

      oops wrong document this is one I wanted for the armchair theologians.

      33. Dissent has different aspects. In its most radical form, it aims at changing the Church following a model of protest which takes its inspiration from political society. More frequently, it is asserted that the theologian is not bound to adhere to any Magisterial teaching unless it is infallible. Thus a Kind of theological positivism is adopted, according to which, doctrines proposed without exercise of the charism of infallibility are said to have no obligatory character about them, leaving the individual completely at liberty to adhere to them or not. The theologian would accordingly be totally free to raise doubts or reject the non-infallible teaching of the Magisterium particularly in the case of specific moral norms. With such critical opposition, he would even be making a contribution to the development of doctrine.



      ~~23. When the Magisterium of the Church makes an infallible pronouncement and solemnly declares that a teaching is found in Revelation, the assent called for is that of theological faith. This kind of adherence is to be given even to the teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium when it proposes for belief a teaching of faith as divinely revealed.

      When the Magisterium proposes "in a definitive way" truths concerning faith and morals, which, even if not divinely revealed, are nevertheless strictly and intimately connected with Revelation, these must be firmly accepted and held.(22)

      When the Magisterium, not intending to act "definitively", teaches a doctrine to aid a better understanding of Revelation and make explicit its contents, or to recall how some teaching is in conformity with the truths of faith, or finally to guard against ideas that are incompatible with these truths, the response called for is that of the religious submission of will and intellect.(23) This kind of response cannot be simply exterior or disciplinary but must be understood within the logic of faith and under the impulse of obedience to the faith.

      What is it that no one seems to understand here….is there a better teacher than the Church in this world?


    122. Benedicta March 18, 2014 at 5:53 pm

      Is this pre-Vatican II? Or Post-Vatican II?

      Is St Cyril right or wrong?

      ~~21. In approaching therefore, come not with your wrists extended, or your fingers spread; but make your left hand a throne for the right, as for that which is to receive a King. And having hollowed your palm, receive the Body of Christ, saying over it, Amen. So then after having carefully hallowed your eyes by the touch of the Holy Body, partake of it; giving heed lest you lose any portion thereof; . . .

       (St. Cyril of Jerusalem [c. 313-386], Catechetical Lectures, 23:21-22)




    123. Teresina March 18, 2014 at 6:16 pm

      I haven't got time to discuss this now but this gives you an idea of what is an infallible teaching:

      "But before being bound to give such an assent, the believer has a right to be certain that the teaching in question is definitive (since only definitive teaching is infallible); and the means by which the definitive intention, whether of a council or of the pope, may be recognized have been stated above. It need only be added here that not everything in a conciliar or papal pronouncement, in which some doctrine is defined, is to be treated as definitive and infallible. For example, in the lengthy Bull of Pius IX defining the Immaculate Conception the strictly definitive and infallible portion is comprised in a sentence or two; and the same is true in many cases in regard to conciliar decisions. The merely argumentative and justificatory statements embodied in definitive judgments, however true and authoritative they may be, are not covered by the guarantee of infallibility which attaches to the strictly definitive sentences — unless, indeed, their infallibility has been previously or subsequently established by an independent decision."


      In short it has to be pronounced as definitive teaching – and Vatican II, for example, did not do that.  That is why you have even the Opus Dei prelate saying there are anomalies in the documents.  



    124. John Whyte March 18, 2014 at 7:14 pm


      As Mrs Mac said this place used to be different.  There were less 'screeds of comments'.  But what I do think, particularly about online, is that the only people who comment are those with very strong opinions.  Trying to 'talk' with people who just nod in agreement leads to an empty echo chamber in cyberspace.  To get some form of discussion going you need strong differences of opinions.  

      I still read your comments most of them are insightful.  You put some of my knowledge to shame, and I'll try to remember your bolded quotes about infalibility.  

      Re: Latin & Mass & Traditionalists – I'd love to talk more but I don't think this is the place (nor the time, you have a lenten promise to keep :)  )  

    125. Benedicta March 18, 2014 at 8:03 pm

      HI John

      That's okay. Lenten promises….I have a few and the others are going okay.

      Yes, its a hard one. Either a short tiny platitude or an actual argument which usually needs grunt.

      I know we all love God and the Church. But at the same time it seems very polarising. I don't really get that.

      I feel comfortable with the Latin Mass, the Ordinary Form, Catholics of all shapes and sizes and Opus Dei. Like most arrangements there are some you feel more in tune with than others. I don't have a 'spot'. I'm not sure I want one.

      I get a bit worked up because so much is so political and so unnecessary.

      There have been some long standing and profound movements in the Church from the beginning…I think we just take it in our stride. Muzzling Rome won't work…historically it never does. I prefer to listen.

      There is a hard book to read but worth the effort. 'Three Rival Versions of Moral Enquiry' by Alasdair MacIntyre. He advocates that we reclaim the virtue of learning….like apprentices in a guild. To listen to the teacher we trust and simply absorb all the skills pertaining to that craft. I think the Church is like that and I take the Popes as my point of orientation….these Popes because they are handing onto me the Tradition….I am not handing it on to the Pope. Therefore I feel secure in that they have the charism and they might not be always right but mostly always right. It is my job obsequium religiosum.

      Mostly its like a chaotic classroom and no one can hear for the critics and correctors. is the fruit of modernism even while they cry it down.

      Obsequium religiosum is foreign to us and we have to try to learn…to change ourselves in order to learn…or we don't.

      Yes, Lent….it is a lovely time.

      I have bought from Amazon 'Lent at Ephesus' by Benedictines of Mary, Queen of Apostles, Missouri. Its beautiful. They sing one hymn by a Redemptoris priest who missioned in New Zealand.

    126. Abenader March 18, 2014 at 9:11 pm

      Mrs Mac

      Michael will be here on the 4th of May.

      And like you, if I had daily access to the Mass of the Ages, it is there that I would proceed,

      Shalom too.

    127. Teresina March 18, 2014 at 9:41 pm

      Actually, I went back to a post in 2010 and I couldn't find much difference at all – certainly there are different posters but everyone moves on in blogs.  Interesting to see that on The sheep are deserting the shepherd – Benedicta was posting – 40 responses total to that post.  

    128. Teresina March 18, 2014 at 9:44 pm

      I went back to posts in 2004 and 2007 and the posters are all different – that's the nature of the beast I think – better to have too much than not enough as in some of them with no comments at all.  But I do think the idea of using the Sunday Scrum for longer discussions is preferable to save getting off topic and then others who aren't interested in a particular discussion don't need to engage.

    129. Teresina March 18, 2014 at 11:00 pm

      There are different levels of teaching authority and unless they are in the form of a Papal bull or encyclical it seems the teaching can be open for debate.   Dominus Jesu is certainly a restatement that the Catholic Church is the one true Church founded by Christ.


      Papal bulls and encyclicals[edit]

      The oldest surviving panel icon of Christ Pantocrator, c. 6th century.

      Pope Pius XII stated in Humani Generis, that Papal Encyclicals, even when they are not ex cathedra, can nonetheless be sufficiently authoritative to end theological debate on a particular question:

      It is not to be thought that what is set down in Encyclical letters does not demand assent in itself, because in this the popes do not exercise the supreme power of their magisterium. For these matters are taught by the ordinary magisterium, regarding which the following is pertinent: “He who heareth you, heareth Me.” (Luke 10:16); and usually what is set forth and inculcated in Encyclical Letters, already pertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their acts, after due consideration, express an opinion on a hitherto controversial matter, it is clear to all that this matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot any longer be considered a question of free discussion among theologians.

      Humani Generis

      The end of the theological debate is not identical however with dogmatization. Throughout the history of the Church, its representatives have discussed whether a given Papal teaching is the final word or not.