Skip to main content

"Holy Thursday marks the institution of the priesthood and the Eucharist. What an incredible gift, and yet how very much it is ignored, or worse. Get to Confession, folks. Sorrowful Mysteries these three days. Blessed Triduum, all. -nvp"

non veni pacem (Mark Docherty)
“In thee have our fathers hoped: they have hoped, and thou hast delivered them. They cried to thee, and they were saved”

Comments

Renato said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
3:40 PM
Renato said…
When we delve deeper, we begin to understand Benedict XVI's gesture of keeping the Munus petrinum to himself...
3:51 PM
Renato said…
Eucharistic communion is valid in union with a legitimate Supreme Pontiff. That is when we read the Ecclesia De Eucharistia, according to the teaching of Pope John Paul II.

In Article 38 it says: the Holy Spirit incorporated into the Church instituted in her the means of salvation through the bonds of "profession of faith, of the sacraments, of ecclesiastical government and of communion" through this structure which the document affirms to be visible, but "through the Supreme Pontiff and the Bishops."

Later, in Article 39, we can delve into this: the communion of the Church in the Eucharist is fundamental to communion with the Bishop and with the Roman Pontiff. The document condemns anyone who goes against this teaching because it is an "incongruity" to this unity. Because the Pope, as the successor of Peter, is "the perpetual and visible foundation of the unity not only of the Bishops, but also of the multitude of the faithful." And it becomes an "intrinsic requirement" to maintain a legitimate unity in the Catholic Church.

This Encyclical Letter shows us that the celebration of Mass is valid only when it expresses this communion with Peter, a legitimately elected Supreme Pontiff, and other legitimate Bishops in communion with him.
4:02 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

If Francis is a Heretic, What should Canonically happen to him?

Did Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (the future Pope Benedict XVI) say that Francis is a heretic ?   On June 3, 2003 the then Cardinal Ratzinge r (and future Pope Benedict) , head of the Congregation for the Faith, said that the endorsement of  " homosex civil unions" was against Catholic teaching, that is heterodoxy : "Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimatization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil... The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behavior or to legal recognition of homosexual unions ." (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, "Considerations Regarding Proposals to give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons," June 3, 2003) Gloria.tv reported: " Francis made on October 21 his latest declaration in sup...
6 comments
Read more

A Hour which will Live in Infamy: 10:01pm November 3, 2020

10:01pm November 3, 2020, a hour which will live in infamy, the United States of America presidential electoral integrity was suddenly and deliberately attacked by the forces of the Democrat Machine and some corrupt collaborators within the Republican Party. It will be recorded that "under the pretense of COVID, executive branch officials across a number of key battleground states violated election procedures passed by the legislative branches of those states in a number of ways that opened up the process to fraud on a massive scale, never before seen in the history of this country" which makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks before. During the time before and after the attack the Democrat Machine and its corrupt collaborators in the Media have deliberately sought to deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace.  The attack on United States has caused severe damage to the Ameri...
Post a Comment
Read more

Could Francis be an Antipope even though the Majority of Cardinals claim he is Pope?

Is it possible for someone to be an antipope even though the majority of cardinals claim he is pope? The case of Antipope Anacletus II proves that it is possible for a majority of cardinals to claim a man is pope while he, in reality, is an antipope. In 1130, a majority of cardinals voted for Cardinal Peter Pierleone to be pope. He called himself Anacletus II. He was proclaimed pope and ruled Rome for eight years by vote and consent of a absolute majority of the cardinals despite the fact he was a antipope. In 1130, just prior to the election of antipope Anacletus, a small minority of cardinals elected the real pope: Pope Innocent II. How is this possible? St. Bernard said "the 'sanior pars' (the wiser portion)... declared in favor of Innocent II. By this he probably meant a majority of the cardinal-bishops." (St. Bernard of Clairvaux by Leon Christiani, Page 72) Again, how is this possible when the absolute majority of cardinals voted for A...
3 comments
Read more