For Matt and Westen, it was a pathetic and imprudent waste of their contributors' donations. They are clearly deluded - thinking that they are somehow doing something powerful - their sanctimonious poses are quite laughable!

I think it is a publicity stunt to make them look conservative. Its like an R&R statement of how macho they are.

Larry, Moe and Curly above, macho??? It's a shame these scammers don't defend the Catholic Church. Ahh, the art of pretend

It sure will increase their Novus Ordo readership.

And it has gone well beyond contempt of the Church's authority but contempt for God Himself.

I am quite sympathetic to people trying to actually DO something, and I've said so before, both on this blog and in the podcast. However, I'm also sympathetic to being reasonable. When you're announcing some big international protest against Francis' madness, as Michael Matt did, and then it turns out it's a few select individuals standing in silence in front of a church in Munich, please don't blame me for saying that's ridiculous.

If your car is stuck in the mud and someone suggests that turning on the windshield wipers may help, you have every right to mock that idea. Yes, I guess you could say that the one who turns on the wipers is "at least doing something", but it's still stupid.

What is Novus Ordo Watch doing? We're chiefly doing one thing: EDUCATING souls with real Catholicism so they can find their way out of the false Vatican II Church and contribute to its demise by no longer supporting the thing and no longer accepting its claims.

No, we have never "accused people who wear the brown scapula and blessed medals of SUPERSTITION and said they were worthless." I have no idea what you were reading, but it definitely wasn't NOW. We're Catholics here, brown scapulars and all. I won't accuse of lying, since I assume you're probably confusing this site with another, but you definitely didn't read that here. Please retract this. It is not true.

They are teaching others that what they call the Catholic Church is able to defect. They are teaching that it is up to the sheep to correct the shepherds, including the Supreme Shepherd, all of which they recognize to be the pope and the bishops of the Catholic Church. That is heresy.

Their little protest is a very clear statement that they have their own peculiar religion, a hybrid Protestant-Catholic religion, with its own peculiar set of beliefs. It is certainly not identical with Catholicism from 1950. It is more like “Catholicism” from 1970.

Where were the protests during the usurpations of Roncalli through Ratzinger?
They are saying they are OK with the New Religion, so long as you don’t go so far as to allow homosexuality, allow female priests, allow married priests.
But Religious Liberty, Ecumenism, Agnosticism, Syncretism, collegiality, Eucharistic Hospitality, invalid ordination and consecration rites, the re-interpretation of all the sacraments, etc.—all these things are fine.
If they want to “do something,” they should divorce themselves from anyone or anything connected to all these errors.

Tschugguel throwing the pachamama to the river was stronger than this protest for example.

Yes, and I applauded him for it at the time. It resulted even in Bergoglio having to say something about it. That kind of action had some real effect. But standing there in Munich probably didn't even get Marx to put his fork down.

Didn't Jesus say that when a few are joined together HE would be there?

Sure, but then they could also have met behind closed doors with just five people.

By your reasoning every martyr who has stood up for the Faith alone and died for it should have stayed at home. There is only merit in large crowds?????? Wow!

You completely missed my point. You had said that it didn't matter how many were protesting, since Christ is there among even two or three. So I responded that if the essential thing be that Christ is present somehow, then not only does it matter how many they are, it also doesn't matter whether they are showing up in public or just pray in private. Either way, Christ is present.

But obviously the idea wasn't simply to make sure that Christ is present but that the protest have some kind of effect. And my point is that in order for it to have the desired effect, it needed to be different from what it was.

You can disagree, but that's what I'm saying.

'At least they're doing something.' Yes they are...which is nothing of significance. I guess they are pretending to defend the true church. Problem is...their church is a different catholic church than the pre VATII Catholic Church. Personally, I take them as worthless to the cause they pretend to espouse. You either have a pope you respect, love, obey and fully submit to or you don't. These devils speak with a forked tongue...they say they do but they don't. They are and have been judging Francis. Is that what you think true Catholics do? You support and prefer those 'good men' who you fail to see are the ones knocking the faith of Catholicism and are the real purveyors of falsehood.

How often do you mock your pope?

And please do provide the NOW link where it mocks the brown scapula etc....

Then go join them running on the treadmill, babs.

Babs, you said, "What are you armchair mockers doing?"

Perhaps you don't realize that in saying that, you presume to know what any of us does outside this combox.

As far as what NOW does, I and others, have been lead to the CERTAIN, and profoundly life changing, knowledge of the falseness of the Novus Ordo b/c of this ministry. Thanks be to God! What is the "uncertainty" you accuse NOW of "purveying"? My faith is much more certain now than before NOW.

You also said, "At least they're doing something." Again, you do not know what any of us does (unless you happen to know any of us personally, of course).

There is no intrinsic value or virtue in "doing something," e.g. NOW's windshield wipers illustration. It can give the actors and certain observers a sense of accomplishment, but to what end? Just to have a "good" feeling that temporarily suppresses, or supplants, the "bad" feeling about what is being protested? I can name a multitude of ways their time might have been better spent.

I invite you, I exhort you, to click on "Start Here," read, and bring to this combox -- whatever you think of us -- specific quotes of anything you do not understand, or disagree with, and we will work with you.

Pax tecum.

Feelings. Nothing more than feelings....

What are you armchair mockers doing? We're living the Catholic Faith and practising it to the best of our ability with the little resources we have. What are you doing? Still staying united to a false church which claims is the Catholic Church?

What is Novus Ordo Watch doing apart from sniping at well-meaning people? NOW does a fantastic job and is more than polite to those of the false opposition. NOW is educating a worldwide audience and trying to pull them out of the false religion AKA Novus Ordo Church.

You have falsely accused NOW of calling the brown scapular and other blessed medals superstitious. NOW has never said such things. What you said is slander and is a mortal sin.

We are praying the rosary, litanies, and many other prayers for everyone to wake up. We are also educating our friends and family about what the Catholic Faith teaches. NOW educates and prays for everyone as well.

I do not know where you got the idea that "In a recent article NOW accused people who wear the brown scapula and blessed medals of SUPERSTITION and said they were worthless." NOW would never, ever say that. I am sure that NOW wears a scapular and supports the blessed medals. Where is your PROOF NOW said that? If you do not have proof then you committed a mortal sin of slander.

Where is your PROOF NOW said that? If you do not have proof then you committed a mortal sin of slander.

Calumny comes to mind. I don't know if there is a distinction between the two - calumny and slander - maybe slander is more a legal term and calumny a description of the sin.

Anyone?

Both sinful and typical NO responses

Calumny is probably the better term to use even though I used the word slander. Slander is a false, malicious statement (spoken or published), especially one which is injurious to a person's reputation while calumny is a falsification or misrepresentation intended to disparage or discredit another. Talebearing is also a similar term one could use and according to the theologian Heribert Jone it consist in reporting something unfavorable against a person. In Babs case, I'm not sure if he/she is trying to hurt NOW reputation out of hatred by slander or to simply discredit by making something up through calumny. Either way it's a mortal sin what Babs said without showing where he/she got this idea.

Suggest you see Dominic Prummer O.P., Handbook of Moral Theology, pp. 131-139. This is available as a free download on-line.

Thank you, Kevin. Found in it 17 entries for "calumny," including the pages you mentioned.

Here is the link for anyone int'd

https://archive.org/details...

Scroll down, right side, for download options.

Here is one quote just for interest:

299. MALICE OF DEFAMATION. Unjust defamation (whether it be simple
detraction or calumny) is a grave sin contrary to justice and charity which
admits of slight matter.
This is evident from the words of S. Thomas (S. Th. II, II, q. 73, a. 2) :
"It is a serious matter to take away the good esteem of another, because
amongst man's temporal possessions nothing is more precious than his
good name; if he lacks this he is prevented from doing many good
things. Therefore it is said: 'Take care of your good name; for this
will be a more lasting possession of yours than a thousand valuable and
precious treasures.' And therefore detraction considered in itself is
grievously sinful."

Hello P.T. I hope the reference to Fr Prummer helped. Deus benedicat te.

Yes, it did, thank you. That's the kind of reference I was wanting, but did not know where to find. Now others can benefit from it as well. I haven't finished reading all the references to "calumny," that kind of material is slow going for me, or in bits and pieces, but it's illuminating. It's fascinating to me how much detail these moral theology writers go into. Clearly the questions have arisen before now... The [real] encyclicals are like that, elucidating every iota (one of my favorite all time stories, the Council of Nicea).

Deus benedicat te, as well.

PT

Hello P.T. Glad you found Fr Prummer's book helpful and interesting. If you can, could I suggest that you read the whole thing through little by little and taking your time? You will learn a lot of Sacred Theology that way. The Dominicans used to start their novices on Moral Theology (precisely on the virtues and vices). It was helpful for them as novices in the religious life, but it was a good way to get them started on Sacred Theology. People today tend to speak of Dogmatic Theology and Moral Theology and Scriptural Theology and Positive Theology and so on. It sounds as though there are lots of theological sciences. In point of fact, unlike philosophy which is comprised of a number of distinct sciences (Logic, Natural Philosophy and Psychology, Metaphysics, Ethics, Poietics, and Economics), Sacred Theology is only one science, which, as St Thomas says, is both speculative and practical. Moral Theology is the science in its practical aspect. Speculative, by the way, here means look-ey science, and practical means do-ey science. Its great virtue is that it is generally speaking easier to follow and grasp than speculative Theology. which was why the Dominicans eased their students into the study of Sacred Theology via its practical parts. After a couple of years of reading a little at a time, whenever you have the chance to do so, you'll be amazed at how much you know)).

Actually, my main reason for writing was not to terrorize you with yet more reading than you already do. In a few short weeks, Lent will begin. This year I have the possibility of making a retreat for the course of Lent, something that has not been possible for me over the last few years. I know that sounds strange for someone who is virtually a hermit, but I have the leisure (and, I hope, also freedom from local interruptions) to make the most of Lent.

The reason I am mentioning all this is that I may from time to time read the posts here, but for Lent won't comment, because it is still a form of communication, even in the cyberspace world of a combox, which is against the spirit of a retreat. So, please think nothing of my absence. I will still be offering my Rosary for your intentions each day.

God bless. Kevin

Hi Kevin, thank you for the heads up about your Lenten retreat. I am glad you did not disappear w/out notice. Wow! That is ambitious. I will, of course, continue in my prayers for you (and thank you for same), and remember especially during your retreat. I hope it is fruitful for you. Forty days!

And thank you for the encouragement, and background for same, regarding reading Fr. Prummer's book. So encouraged (isn't that a great word? to put heart in, just for fun, I looked up the etymology of 'courage' and found, ""valor, quality of mind which enables one to meet danger and trouble without fear" so your caveat about terrorizing me about the reading is not so far off the mark...)... anyway, to that end, I'm going to try and find a hard copy and proceed as you suggested. You know, I thought reading Deharbe's was going to be tedious, but it wasn't, it was a joy and a delight as well as a huge education. So, God willing, this will be similar.

Thank you also for the description of theology - sacred, moral, etc... There had been for some time an inchoate question in the back of mind along those lines, but I didn't know enough to form the question. Helpful explanation, esp. w/comp. to philosophy. Helpful clarification.

BTW, "comprised of," is a common misuse, it's the other way around, i.e. you wrote, "unlike philosophy which is comprised of a number of distinct sciences..." Actually it's "...philosophy, which comprises a number of distinct sciences..." at least that is what I've learned, maybe the usage is different in Austr. Some people do not welcome those types of, um, edits. I trust you are not offended.

So...two weeks from today!

Till then, pax tecum.

PT

Hello, PT.

Good to hear from you.

Yes, you are right, of course. I should have written "composed of", which is correct. Actually I knew that "comprised of" is incorrect. I wrote on the hop and, for lack of time, confounded two expressions and didn't proof what I wrote and so didn't correct it. No, the incorrect expression is not a foible of Australian written usage, which, if properly employed, is the same as any other English, as hard as it might be for speakers of any other English dialects to believe.)) I imagine you are a professional writer (or something along those lines), so I understand the desire to edit what people write. Split infinitives (and other grammatical hiccups) drive me fruity, so we are fortunate to have lots of material here for learning patience.

If the truth be told, I recommend reading St Thomas himself over one of the theology manuals composed from his writings, even if written by eminent Thomists, such as the text of Fr Prummer. These are useful commentaries on St Thomas, in fact sometimes magnificent, but they are no substitute for drinking deep at the source. There are good English translations of the Summa Theologiae: the Fathers of the English Province and also Benzinger Brothers years ago both published excellent translations, both of which are available. I haven’t suggested it earlier because people generally baulk at reading St Thomas. You, however, would relish reading him. You have an excellent mind and a good temperament, and you would benefit in many ways.

When I was about nine years old, I was always looking for good books to read. There was an elderly friend of our family, a retired teacher of English literature, whom I asked (via my parents) for a list of authors to read. He thought about my request for a while and came up with a catalogue of books and suggested in which order I should read them. He was most gracious in allowing me to borrow a number of the books he mentioned. I still remember that he started me off reading Shakespeare and Tolkein. He warned me that the first five or six plays of Shakespeare would make difficult reading but that if I persevered, I would find that I would love Shakespeare from then on. He was right. At first I felt that I had stumbled on a foreign language, and could barely understand any of it. After half a dozen plays, however, it was as easy and came as naturally as modern English. By the time I was eleven I had read his complete works twice, and I have loved his plays and sonnets ever since. The point is that I had to go through the initial difficulties. St Thomas is the same. The Summa Theologiae (or, Theologica, if you prefer) is, as its name suggests, a synopsis of the whole of Theology. It is a book for beginners in Sacred Theology. Fortunately, St Thomas was not only monumentally great as a theologian and a saint; he was one of the greatest teachers of all time, so he keeps everything simple and in order and emphasizes the principles that enlighten the mind, so bit by bit one’s understanding grows on a secure foundation without confusion or uncertainty. Initially, however, reading the Summa (and starting at the very beginning of the work) would take patience and quiet determination. Eventually you would know Sacred Theology from having learnt it at St Thomas’ feet, as it were. There are untold blessings that this study confers.

After my retreat, I have decided to contribute very little to the combox. There are several reasons for this: I have a lot of study and other work (and prayer) to do, and this is more pressing and precious to me than posting comments; the quality of comments that I can offer is, by and large, inferior compared with most who comment here; also one is hamstrung here because comments which address questions in terms of Thomistic philosophy and theology are either not welcome or are incomprehensible to most people who comment. That is not a criticism of people here, as I learn immensely more from their comments than they could ever learn from mine. If, however, you decide at some stage to read Fr Prummer or (better, fingers crossed) St Thomas, I will give you my e-mail address, so that I can be contacted if you run into anything that has you stumped. I would be only too happy to explain any difficulties for you, so that you can again make your way forward. So, my address is kjfcerezo at hotmail dot com.

Yes, please pray for me during Lent. As always, I keep you in my prayers.

God bless.

Thank you for sharing this resource and the link to it. What a treat and a blessing it is to find a trustworthy resources for Catholic theology that is just a click away! May God bless you and yours.

You're welcome, and welcome to NOW, don't remember seeing you here before.
However, the source came from KCherryTree (see posts above), I just posted the link. Am very glad it is of help to you, and I agree about having trustworthy Catholic resources just a click away. There are lots of those on this site, and in the comments.

Hi Babs, welcome back.

I have not accused you of anything nor publicly judged you - though I like the idea of spouting, it brings to mind a lovely image of a whale on the open sea... I do not know if you are in mortal sin. Mortal sin requires full consent of the will. I did point out that you publicly, falsely, accused someone and asked you how is that not calumny (to which you did not respond, btw). You could just say, "I was wrong, I am sorry, please forgive me," (not to me, to the injured party).

You said, "Let's face it you people here are bullies who work in packs."
Aside from making me smile, that, too, is a form of calumny. This is a public forum. People respond to others' comments, as you and Lauermar did. Are you two a pack?

I accept that you took a passage out of context - and applaud that you removed that comment.

I do not accept that I attacked you in any way. Each time I wrote to you for clarification you did not respond. You still may, you know.

I asked you what the "uncertainty" is you accused NOW Mod of purveying. You did not respond to that.

I also invited you to click on "Start Here," read, and bring to the combox specific quotes you disagree with or do not understand and people here will help you. Whatever you think of us, we do, each in our own way, try to help people understand why sede vacante is the only conclusion.

The invitation is open and will remain so.

Peace be with you.

Jeremias - verbal diarrhea is no substitute for adult conversation.

One hit wonder.

Although she never responded to my request for evidence of her calumnious charge, I suspect Babs might be referring to this quote which is found in at least two posts on this site:

Anything in the worship of God which does not tend to his honour and glory, or which is against the ordinances and practice of the Church, to whom the regulation of religious worship exclusively belongs, is superfluous worship and superstition. This sin is committed by attributing an infallible effect to a fixed number of prayers or acts of piety, or to the mere material wearing of the scapulars or medals, or by unwarrantably acting against the rubrics while saying Mass or administering the sacraments or sacramentals of the Church.

The quote isn't from some whacky sedevacantist, however; it is from Fr. Thomas Slater, S.J., "A Manual of Moral Theology", vol. 1 (1925), page 140. It bears, of course, the necessary imprimatur. The book is available for free perusal here: https://archive.org/details...

Proper reading comprehension is important here: Fr. Slater is not, of course, condemning the wearing of scapulars as superstitious -- he is condeming the MERELY MATERIAL wearing of scapulars as superstitious. What that means is that it is superstitious to wear the scapular without any Catholic faith, without devotion to the Blessed Mother, etc., and thinking one will escape the fires of hell despite all of one's unrepentant sins and stubborn unbelief. That is what is meant by a "material" wearing of the scapular, as opposed to a "formal" wearing of it. The scapular itself is only a piece of cloth - it has no "magical powers". What makes wearing the scapular fruitful is the intercession of the Blessed Mother and one's sincere devotion to her, which finds expression in the beautiful custom of wearing this important sacramental.

Babs should apologize for her calumny. I'm sure she didn't do it out of malice and sincerely misunderstood the text; but she should have asked for clarification, especially considering that we were quoting from a 1925 Catholic moral theology book.

No, the Fr. Slater passage was not used in the way you suggest. I know very well that Novus Ordos who wear scapulars usually do so with fervent devotion, becuase if they were not devoted, they would not bother to wear it to begin with (I know - I used to be Novus Ordo myself).

Rather, the Fr. Slater passage is used on this site to point out that there is such a thing as false worship (which includes superstition, vain observance, etc.), and that people need to be aware that one cannot simply say "anything goes" when it comes to the worship of God. This is relevant, for example, with regard to the New Mass. Not that every Novus Ordo believer who attends it is subjectively guilty of mortal sin in that regard, but just objectively, it is false worship.

If you have a concrete example of where you think I judge the state of other people's souls, please do let me know. As for judging intentions, I do that precious little because intentions are usually irrelevant to what I argue. Although I must say that it's not like intentions cannot be manifested -- in some cases they are even quite obvious.

I am sorry if commenters on here behave uncharitably or say they don't care about souls. You have every right to object to that, and you should. So next time you see that on here, please respond to the comment and chime in. God bless you.

And *you're* the one complaining about commenters with an attitude? Wow.

Well, she did delete most of her obnoxious, ignorant comments, so there's that.