Immaculate Conception Church

Old Roman Catholic Church, Hudson Florida

Latest News

FAQ: Do Atheists go to Heaven?

By

Question:  I saw it in a number of places that Pope Francis stated that atheists can go to heaven?  Did he really say this?  How can it be?

Answer:  The claim  that the Pope spoke of atheists being saved received wide coverage. [1]  It seems that the Pope was the victim of somewhat lose reasoning on his own part, and of journalists’ ignorance of Christian terminology.  His statement is available on the Radio Vatican website, and speaks of atheists being “redeemed,” but makes no mention of their “salvation.”[2]  It seems that many journalists equated the two terms.  Christ died for the redemption of all mankind, but individuals are saved by belief in Jesus Christ and His teachings, Baptism, and a life in conformity with Jesus’ teachings—an atheist would hardly qualify.

What Pope Francis seems to be saying is that all men, being created in God’s image and likeness, have an obligation to do good, for everything God does is good.  This obligation to do good is enhanced by the fact of the redemption of mankind.  If everyone strives to do good—in what Pope Francis calls the “culture of encounter—we could enjoy world peace.

If we, each doing our own part, if we do good to others, if we meet there, doing good, and we go slowly, gently, little by little, we will make that culture of encounter: we need that so much. We must meet one another doing good. ‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’ But do good: we will meet one another there.

“We will meet one another there” refers to meeting in a peaceful world—quite a bit less than a promise that we will meet in heaven.

Phrasing his words to atheists in religious terminology may have added to the confusion of those unable to distinguish redemption from salvation.  After all, the terminology of religion does little or nothing to convince a man who doesn’t believe in God that he should do good for world peace.

Does redemption make the non-believer more capable of natural virtue than he would have been prior to the Redemption?  Possibly, but such a question is best left in the arena of theology, and not in a brief homily at Mass.

Further confusion arose when a Vatican representative corrected the erroneous reporting by the news services.  Whether out of genuine confusion, or in an effort to save face, the Vatican spokesman was reported to be correcting the Pope! [3]

In any event, we would remind the Holy Father of the timeless equation:
GOOD – GOD = O

by Fr. Brusca

What is the difference between “Catholics” and “Roman Catholics”

By

There are four “marks” of the Catholic Church, identified in the Creed, which distinguish It from all others. The true Church is “One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.” Its true members possess characteristics as individuals that enable the Church to display her “marks” as a society.

The Church is One.   Catholics must seek the truth and profess it to those around them. Only unity of belief in the truth can bring about unity of purpose and unity of action. Our Lord describes Himself as the Truth, the Word of God who became flesh and dwelt among us.1 Without truth there is no Christ; without Christ there is no Church.
Catholics must be truthful and seekers of truth.

The Church is Holy.   But, by nature, we are sinful people. The Church offers us many avenues to holiness, many forms of life that lead to God, and many ways to receive His graces. But central to any attempt at holiness is the virtue of humility. Those that perceive themselves as somehow better than others are destined to sin, just as the devil was able to tempt Adam and Eve through their pride.2
Catholics must be humble and submissive to God’s laws.

The Church is Catholic.   For the Church to be Catholic, simply the Greek word for “universal,” Her members must have charity, the Greek word for “love.” We will unite all nations under the rule of Christ the King, only if we love God and only if we love our fellow man for the love of God.3 “Charity is not envious, is not pretentious, is not ambitious, is not self seeking”; it has no room for making others look bad so that we can look good.4
Catholics must be charitable.

The Church is Apostolic. Our Faith goes back to the Incarnation and the Public Life of Christ. Catholics hold the Faith that has come down to us from the Apostles, as though it were a jewel wrapped in silk. “Even if an angel from heaven should preach a different Gospel, we would not believe him.”5 They “stand firm and hold the traditions they have learned from the Apostles.”6
Catholics must be traditional.

Pope Saint Pius X is said to have quizzed a group of seminarians studying in Rome as to how the Church might be identified. They all responded with the traditional four “marks,” but Pope Pius demanded another. One bright student added that “the Church must be Roman.” Another quickly added, “and loyal to the Popes.” The Saint smiled, perhaps condescendingly. “Yes, of course, both the good and the bad, but what else.” No hands were raised. The Pontiff himself supplied the answer:

“The Church is Persecuted.” This we learn from our Lord Himself at the first Mass: “If you had been of the world, the world would love its own: but because you are not of the world … the world hateth you. If they have persecuted Me, they will also persecute you.”7 But, our Lord would have us cherish this persecution as a beatitude: “Blessed shall you be when men hate you, and when they shut you out, and reproach you, and reject your name as evil because of the Son of Man. Rejoice on that day and exult, for behold your reward is great in heaven…. bless them that curse you and pray for those who lie about you.”8
Catholics will be persecuted. Preceding section by Fr. Brusca

 

The term “Catholic” means “universal” but that is insufficient to answer the question.  If a Church is to be considered “Roman Catholic” it must acknowledge the petrine ministry, that is to say the pope, the successor to the See of Rome.  These Churches in turn are organized into assemblies of the faithful, hierarchically ordered, normally in terms of a certain territory, and often called a “particular church” (See, diocese, prelature,  et al).   Under Roman Catholicism there are a number of rites and traditions divided into Eastern and Western Rites:

Eastern rites include:  Byzantine Rite (Antiochian, Greek, Slavonic); Alexandrian Rite; the Syriac Rite; the Armenian Rite; the Maronite Rite and the Chaldean Rite.

Western rites include: Roman (Mass of St Pius V, Mass of Paul VI, Anglo-Catholic Ordinariate); Ambrosian; Carthusian; Dominican; and Sarum.

The Old Roman Catholic Church is part of the western Roman rite with “juridic irregularity” from the current Vatican administrative perspective, similar to the Society of Pius X.  We acknowledge Peter, we pray and hope for full union but are impeded by the modernist influence and agenda.  We give Vatican II the assent to which it is due.

 

 

NOTES:

1. John xiv: 6; i: 1, 14, 17.
2. Genesis iii: 5 “and you shall be as Gods.
3. Mark xii: 30, 31. The two great commandments.
4. 1 Corinthians xiii: 4-6.
5. Cf. Galatians i: 8, 9.
6. Cf. 2 Thessalonians ii: 14 (15).
7. John xv: 19, 20. But John xiii through xvii are as much a consolation as a forewarning of persecution. Everyone should read them once in a while.
8. Luke vi: 22, 23, 28.

Liturgical Catastrophe in 1969

By

For nineteen centuries the things connected with the Church’s Liturgy were held more sacred than any other human possession. The Mass was the renewal of the one Sacrifice of the Cross, accomplished by His ordained priest acting “in the Person of Christ.” From that Mass might be communicated or reserved in a golden vessel the true Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, of Jesus Christ; given to those fasting, and in the state of grace, and wearing their “Sunday best.” The Psalms chanted or recited for several hours a week; said without fail by cloistered religious in monasteries and convents, by busy priests in their churches or even on subway trains, were the “work of God.” There was a sense of the sacred about Catholic churches and establishments — perhaps a sense, and a smell, and a taste, and a touch, and a sight — all unmistakably pointing to something holy. Today, that pointer is missing, and perhaps the something holy is gone as well.

At the time of Vatican II there was a well developed “liturgical movement” comprised of people wanting to return to a greater degree of participation by the congregation in the Mass. The Vatican II declaration on the Liturgy,  Sacrosanctum concilium, appeared to be a reasonable step in that direction. Attention was paid to participation in the Mass, the Office, and the Gregorian Chant. The less frequently heard parts of the Mass could be read in the vernacular. Even such ideas as adapting the liturgy to the cultures of mission countries did not seem particularly dangerous at that time since no one could even conceive of a priest offering Mass in anything but a holy way. Laymen were enlisted to read the epistle, but that was actually less significant than using laymen as Mass servers, which had been done for centuries. Offertory processions were a novelty to most, as well as some altars that faced the congregation, but not all that traumatic. The abominable translations of the Epistles and Gospels caused some stir, but everyone assumed that they would be corrected. In 1965 various parts of the Mass were removed, and the “bidding prayers” inserted.1

To my recollection, the first undeniable damage was done to the Mass around 1967, when the Canon of the Mass was translated into English and other vernacular languages. In sacred Scripture and in every Catholic (and non-Catholic) rite, the words of consecration indicate that the Precious Blood of Christ is “shed for [you and for] many unto the forgiveness of sins.”2
In every language that I know anything about, except Greek, the words of consecration were mis-translated with the identical, heretical phrase! Instead of saying “for many,” the phrase was rendered “for all men,” “por todos,” “fur alle,” “per tutti,” etc. The Catechism of the Council of Trent,3
some 400 years ago, specifically stated that we do not use such words in the Consecration, for while Christ did shed His Blood to redeem all mankind, not everyone’s sins are forgiven, and it is to forgiveness that our Lord referred at the Last Supper. The idea that all men are forgiven of their sins, or are otherwise saved is the heresy of “Universalism.”4
It is reasonable to suppose that someone who knowingly falsifies the meaning of our Lord’s words does not do what He does, and thus at least fails to consecrate the wine and perhaps does not celebrate Mass at all.

1969 brought the complete revision of the Mass known as the Novus Ordo Missae, or New Order of Mass. Composed with the help of six Protestant ministers, the Novus Ordo, and particularly its vernacular versions, minimizes the concept of sin and forgiveness, or that Mass is a sacrifice, or that there is a difference between the priest and the people. There is a great body of literature about its shortcomings, the best, in my opinion, being  The Great Sacrilege by Father Wathen.5
A more “official” critique of the Novus Ordo was issued by Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani, the former head of the Holy Office (today known as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith).6

The Ottaviani Intervention points out that the New Mass may be invalidly celebrated for another reason, beyond the mis-translations of the essential parts. The new missal refers to the “Narrative of the Institution” instead of the Consecration. Together with St. Thomas, Ottaviani holds that the intention to narrate is not the intention to consecrate.7
The term “narrative” appears to be intentional as the error is reiterated in the New Catechism.8

Gradual developments further reduced belief in the sacrificial nature of the Mass and in the Real Presence. Communion in the hand, lay distributors, altar girls, liturgical dancing, and so forth have combined to strip Catholics of their belief in the Sacred Mysteries. There are few vocations to the Sacred Priesthood because there is nothing Sacred anymore. Man now worships existentialist man, and not the Father of Heaven. Please note that I have cited only those abuses actually sanctioned by the Pope — there are a myriad of yet crazier practices that go on with at least the tacit approval of those in authority. And there are many more to come.

I have merely “scratched the surface” with my brief analysis of what has gone wrong in the New Mass and in the New Church. You may have noticed that the word “Latin” appears nowhere in these pages apart from this single occurrence. While much could be said about the loss of the traditional and universal language of the Church, I will refrain from doing so in order to put the lie to the Modernist contention that Traditionalists are upset about nothing more significant than the nostalgia associated with the use of an ancient tongue.

    1. Instruction, Sacred Congregation of Rites, 26 September 1964. 

    2. Matthew 26, Mark 14.  Luke 22 says only “for you.”  John gives no account. 1 Corinthians 11 does not say. 

    3. Catechism of the Council of Trent for Parish Priests (1563) Part II, Chapter IV, Section 24. 

    4. Hans Urs von Balthasar, a proponent of Universalism was named Cardinal by Pope John Paul II but was struck dead the night before receiving the Red Hat. There are overtones of it in the CCC, #1058 for example; and in CTTOH, 186-7, where it is suggested that Hell is real but maybe Purgatory is adequate and nobody actually goes to Hell. 

    5.. James F. Wathen, OSJ, The Great Sacrilege (Rockford: TAN Books and Publishers, 1971). 

    6. Alfredo Card. Ottaviani, Antonio Card. Bacci, and a Group of Roman Theologians, The Ottaviani Intervention (Rockford: TAN Books and Publishers, 1971). 

    7. Ottaviani, ibid., page 44 and note 29 in the TAN edition; St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica III, Q. 78, A. 5.

    8. CCC #1353.

[Fr Brusca]

Globalism and the “New World Order”

By

Traditionally, the Church recognizes the right of individuals to band together and form nations. While It holds a monolithic notion of one true doctrine and one correct morality for all the world, it recognizes that the worldly affairs of people may differ from one region of the globe to another. Political rule is best left to the lowest organizational level possible, so that the rulers are personally familiar with the conditions about which they are legislating. Localized rule also gives people who don’t like the way things are done in one place the freedom to move somewhere else — global rule implies a requirement for everyone to think alike. At the end of the First World War, Pope Benedict XV put it this way:

    The coming of a world state is longed for and confidently expected by all the worst and most disordered elements…. The state based on an absolute equality of men and a community of possessions, would banish all national loyalties…. In it no acknowledgement would be made of a father over his children — or of God over human society…. If these ideas are put into practice there will inevitably follow a reign of terror.1

Yet in spite of this, several documents point to the Vatican II popes as globalists. Gaudium et spes, the Vatican II document on the Church in the modern world, is long winded but deserves a reading. It points out a lot of things in the world that “ought to be.” Now, it is hard to argue with “ought-to-be”s. Everyone should have a good standard of living, and education, and health insurance, and safety from crime, and the benefits of music and art, and so on – – very few would disagree. However, aa problem arises when, after lots of well publicized discussion, no one has any real world solutions for how the “ought-to-be”s might be made realities. More and bigger government is usually the final answer, despite calls for something called “subsidiarity.” In this case, bigger government means world government — a very frightening prospect for any but those in favor with that government. For those who disagree with its policies, world government means nowhere to hide.

Among the global utopian socialist ideas of the postconciliar church we find: International re-distribution of income, and a world bank;2 the elimination of nationalism;3 the desirability of an armed world-force to allow the disarmament of nations, and the government control of privately owned weapons.4 The inability of any but a world organization to protect the rights of each individual.5

In his 1964 speech to the United Nations, Pope Paul VI referred to that body as the “last great hope for mankind.” Not the Catholic Church, or the Blessed Virgin, or Christ the King — but the United Nations.

 

    1. Pope Benedict XV, 25 July 1920.  Bonum sane

    2. Pope Paul VI; Populorum progressio #49, #51. 

    3. Populorum progressio #62.

    4. CCC #1308, #1316. 

    5. Pope John XXIII, Pacem in terris #137, #145 

 

[Fr Brusca]