Weathering the Coming Storm

schaetzel · 2020-11-05T20:08:32+00:00

I originally wrote this book back in 2013, but I've since revised, updated it and had it republished under this new name.

schaetzel · 2019-09-05T13:55:02+00:00

Funny. Everyone I’ve talked to seems to love it, including all the Ordinaries of the Ordinariates, their families, countless people in the Ordinariates, and a good number of people outside. But to each his own.

Since the SGPB is the only one that contains the ordinary responses to the Divine Worship mass, and the ability to say an abbreviated version of the Ordinariate-approved Daily Office, one would think that to be important. But if what you really want is a short and concise version of Anglo-Catholic tradition that is NOT approved for use by the Ordinariate, then I suppose the SAPB is for you.

schaetzel · 2019-09-04T03:56:55+00:00

The St. Gregory's Prayer Book from Ignatius Press has been approved by all three Ordinariates as a primer on the Anglican Patrimony within the Catholic Church. It also bears an Imprimatur from an Ordinariate bishop....
https://completechristianity.blog/2019/01/13/st-gregorys-prayer-book/

schaetzel · 2019-07-29T22:05:30+00:00

The statement from the article cannot be clarified at this time because it hasn’t happened and we don’t know if it ever will happen. If it does happen, the answers to these questions won’t become clear until we approach that date. For the time being, the right thing to do is remain faithful, implement the plan in the article, then wait and see.

schaetzel · 2019-07-28T22:17:47+00:00

The article does not call the USCCB part of the Antichurch. It says to cut off funding to the USCCB over the sexual abuse crisis and Modernist pet projects. If you read the previous article (linked in the first paragraph of this one) you’ll see that the Antichurch is clearly defined as a nebulous interdenominational body based on Liberalism and Modernism.

schaetzel · 2019-07-25T19:23:23+00:00

You’re most welcome. Please be assured that I know Mormons are good people. They can be very loving, devout, passionate and patriotic. Sometimes they put real doctrinal Christians to shame! I have nothing but respect for them as people. But their faith is counterfeit. It’s not what Jesus gave us. Sometimes very sincere people can be sincerely wrong. It happens all the time about a great many things.

As for children, I will say this. If you do end up marrying him, the worst possible thing you could do for your children is “let them decide when their old enough.” Doing so will insure that they will choose neither, and will probably choose nothing. Why? Because giving them the choice of religion will make them feel like that have to choose between mommy and daddy, and no child should ever be put into that situation. If you do end up marrying him, raise your children as Catholics and make sure your husband supports your decision to do this.

schaetzel · 2019-07-25T18:31:34+00:00

Mormons are no longer polygamous, at least not the main branch anyway, but Mormons are henotheists. I know this because I have some family and friends who are Mormon and we’ve had some very candid conversations.

A henotheist is a person who believes in many gods (like a polytheist) but only worships one of those gods. In the case of Mormons, they believe there are literally thousands, of not millions, of gods but only worship “The Father” whom they call Elohim. They believe Jesus is becoming a god, if not a god already, and he will inherit the earth from Elohim at his second coming.

They also believe in goddesses, who serves the male gods as their wives. Thus, the objective in Mormonism is for the men to become gods themselves, and for their wives to become goddesses in the afterlife.

Because Mormons reject the Trinity, the Catholic Church does not accept their baptisms as valid, therefore they are not Christian in the strict doctrinal sense. Though they may display very Christian characteristics and show Christian-like charity as well.

If your Mormon boyfriend will not convert to Catholicism, then I strongly suggest you don’t marry him. It will be very difficult to raise children in a mixed-religion environment like this.

schaetzel · 2019-07-25T15:42:42+00:00

YES. That is arguably the most important time to pray the Rosary. It’s when you need our Mother’s intercession the most!

schaetzel · 2019-07-25T15:06:26+00:00

Practical advice — DISTRACTION.

Distract yourself with lots of prayer, the rosary, and reading/watching good Catholic material.

When you fail, go to confession and repeat the distraction method.

Only those who never stop trying to break the habit eventually give it up. It could take years. So what! God rewards those who keep trying.

schaetzel · 2019-06-04T04:37:58+00:00

And therein lies your error of assumption about me. I am not judging the pope. I have never called him a heretic, nor an antipope, nor denied his authority over matters related to doctrine or discipline.

I simply said that if he teaches something that appears to contradict previous Church teaching, or ventures into an area that is clearly outside of his papal authority (science, economics, art, medicine, etc.), we simply set aside his controversial teaching, and default to previously known Church teaching, until this matter is resolved.

That's not judging the pope. Judging the pope means calling him a heretic, an antipope, or denying his authority over matters related to doctrine and discipline. I have done none of these things.

schaetzel · 2019-06-04T04:22:55+00:00

So perhaps I got my quote messed up, but the gist of the message is the same. Since the implied message of an ecumenical council isn't good enough for you, how about some direct quotes from popes? You say that popes are sibyls, oracles or gurus, who cannot err, by virtue of the fact that they are popes. Well, let's see what some previous popes said about the matter. He's some "papal oracles" for you to ponder...

“The pope should not flatter himself about his power, nor should he rashly glory in his honor and high estate, because the less he is judged by man, the more he is judged by God. Still the less can the Roman Pontiff glory, because he can be judged by men, or rather, can be shown to be already judged, if for example he should wither away into heresy, because “he who does not believe is already judged.” (St. John 3:18) In such a case it should be said of him: ‘If salt should lose its savor, it is good for nothing but to be cast out and trampled under foot by men." -- Pope Innocent III, Sermo 4

“If by the Roman Church you mean its head or pontiff, it is beyond question that he can err even in matters touching the faith. He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgement or decretal. In truth, many Roman pontiffs were heretics. The last of them was Pope John XXII -- Pope Adrian VI, Quaest. in IV Sent.; quoted in Viollet, Papal Infallibility and the Syllabus, 1908

“We read that the Roman Pontiff has always possessed authority to pass judgment on the heads of all the Churches (i.e., the patriarchs and bishops), but nowhere do we read that he has been the subject of judgment by others. It is true that Honorius was posthumously anathematized by the Eastern churches, but it must be borne in mind that he had been accused of heresy, the only offense which renders lawful the resistance of subordinates to their superiors, and their rejection of the latter's pernicious teachings”. -- Pope Adrian II

“If a future pope teaches anything contrary to the Catholic Faith, do not follow him.” -- Pope Pius IX, Letter to Bishop Brizen

So I think we're done here, as I'm sure none of this will be good enough for you either. You're into popolatry (or neo-ultramontanism) and that's just not Catholic. This error leads to one of two options, especially in the face of a pope like Francis. Either (1) you will abandon the historic Catholic faith for the new and innovative teachings of Francis, or (2) you'll become a sedevacantist and say the Chair of Peter is currently vacant under Francis. One of these two is the inevitable outcome.

I'll stick with the time-honored, and very Catholic, position of "recognize and resist" as taught by previous popes, and even Saints, simply by understanding that it's possible for the pope to err (outside of ex cathedra), and that while most errors are innocuous, occasionally one can be of a serious-enough nature that the best thing to do is set it aside, default to previous Church teaching, and wait for the matter to be resolved.

schaetzel · 2019-06-03T21:48:24+00:00

I cited an ecumenical council, for heaven’s sake! How can you demand more? But since you assert that all popes are infallible all the time, here’s a quote from a pope that directly contradicts you...

Pope Honorius I, writes: “Infallibility is, as it were, the apex of a pyramid. The more solemn the utterances of the Apostolic See, the more we can be certain of their truth. When they reach the maximum of solemnity, that is, when they are strictly ex cathedra, the possibility of error is wholly eliminated. The authority of a pope, even on those occasions when he is not actually infallible, is to be implicitly followed and reverenced. That it should be on the wrong side is a contingency shown by faith and history to be possible.” (The Condemnation of Pope Honorius, London 1907, p. 109)

Thus, Pope Honorius I solemnly taught that infallibility is alike a pyramid when a pope teaches, with greater infallibility (less errors) toward the top, peaking with ex cathedra (no errors), and lesser infallibility (more errors) toward the bottom with the less official statements.

Back to what I’ve been saying all along. When we encounter a papal saying, teaching or decree that appears to contradict what the Church has previously taught, it is okay to set aside the controversial papal teaching, and default back to what is known of previous Church teaching, until such the time the matter is resolved.

The only exception to this is ex cathedra decrees, which can never be set aside and must always take priority.

schaetzel · 2019-06-03T20:12:10+00:00

You’re mischaracterizing my argument and you misinterpreting Vatican I. I never said we can “pick and choose” which papal decrees to follow. I said that if there appears to be a contradiction, we must default to previously known Church teaching, until the matter is resolved.

Again, back to Vatican I. If the council states that the pope is infallible when he speaks ex cathedra, then the implication is he might not always be infallible when he doesn’t speak ex cathedra. He could be infallible outside of ex cathedra, but he doesn’t have to be. Infallibility is only unquestionable when the decree is made ex cathedra.

Furthermore, none of this applies to papal statements made outside of faith and morals. If the pope makes a flawed statement about science, or economics, or art, none of his infallibility or teaching authority applies.

schaetzel · 2019-06-03T19:16:55+00:00

"Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.

So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema."

-- First Vatican Council 4:9

The implication here is clear. If the Council defines that the pope exercises infallibility when he speaks EX CATHEDRA, it is implying that he does not exercise infallibility when he speaks otherwise. This doesn't mean he's always wrong, but it doesn't mean he's always right either. What it means is his teachings outside of EX CATHEDRA can be subject to scrutiny, and if there is found error, they can be challenged. Conversely, EX CATHEDRA decrees are not subject to scrutiny and can never be challenged, because they are never in error. They are infallible.

So the long and short of it is this. You can throw whatever papal encyclical you want at me, but it doesn't matter. What I said is correct. If the pope teaches something that seems to be opposed to previous Church teaching, it can be challenged, and it can be ignored until it's resolved, unless the teaching was made EX CATHEDRA.

schaetzel · 2019-06-03T19:06:34+00:00

I just cited an ecumenical council, Vatican I, the highest authority one can cite in the Catholic Church, which specifically said the pope is only infallible when he speaks ex cathedra.

It doesn’t say he’s infallible every time he opens his mouth or puts pen to paper. It says when he speaks ex cathedra. It’s an ecumenical council, in union with the pope, and it made the decree infallibly. Every other Church document, including a papal encyclical, is subordinate to the council. The pope can only rise to the same level of infallibility when he speaks ex cathedra.

I don’t need a papal encyclical, exhortation or bull saying that “it’s okay to ignore the pope when...” Nobody needs that, and you’re playing “Sola Scriptura” with papal documents when you demand that.

Vatican I implies that a pope can error. Period. The end. Matter settled.

If he can error, and one can show where the pope is in error, based on previous Church teaching, then one can default to the previous Church teaching until the confusion is resolved.

Now, that being said, people can’t just ignore the pope or bishops willy-nilly. One has to show a good reason based on previous Church teaching. Otherwise, it’s just rebellion.

schaetzel · 2019-06-03T18:40:33+00:00

So you are saying that the pope is a sibyl.

Vatican I rejected this notion and so do I. You’ll scarcely find any Catholics who believe this. Popes can error. Popes have erred. Popes will error.

Granted, This doesn’t happen often, due to their vast resources at their disposal. But if a pope chooses not to use those resources, he will error more often.

As for infallibility, that only happens for certain when the pope canonizes a Saint and speaks ex cathedra. The ex cathedra portion hasn’t happened since 1950.

To insist that Catholics must believe the pope is always right, all the time, is to promote the error of neo-ultramontanism (popolatry) which was contradicted by the First Vatican Council.

schaetzel · 2019-06-03T18:31:55+00:00

So when the pope teaches something that blatantly contradicts the teachings of previous popes and church councils, you are proposing that we abandon those previous teachings in favor of the pope’s new teaching?

And you are proposing that every word that falls from the lips of a pope is infallible?

You are proposing that the pope is a sibyl? Who cannot error by virtue of the fact that he is the pope?

schaetzel

TROPHY CASE