Are you schismatic Roman Catholics?

When first coming into contact with the Old Roman Catholic Church many devout Catholics immediately inquire, "Are you schismatic Catholics?

Old Roman Catholicism is neither a sect nor schism as some of its self-constituted enemies may claim. Old Roman Catholics acknowledge the Bishop of Rome historically and spiritually as the Patriarch of the West and our priests pray for the Pope in the Canon of their Masses to express the desire for unity which should exist amongst all Western Catholics. A thorough reading of history clearly indicates that the Old Roman Catholics did nothing of a schismatic nature to warrant Pope Pius IX's uncanonical institution of a new hierarchy in the See of Utrecht in 1853, in opposition to the historic hierarchy of the existing Old Roman Catholic Church, which was an act in flagrant violation of the ancient historic canons of the undivided Church, nor had the Old Roman Catholics taught anything that had not always been considered to be totally Catholic in either Faith or practice.

 In 1145 Blessed Pope Eugene III granted to the Cathedral Chapter of Utrecht the right to elect successors to the See in times of vacancy. This meant that, unlike most other Sees in the Roman Catholic Church, the Cathedral Chapter of Utrecht could elect their own bishops without permission or approval from the Pope. This had been the universal practice in the early Church. In 1215, the Fourth Lateran Council (Canons 23 and 24) confirmed this privilege.

 Another significant right granted to the Church of The Netherlands was the privilege of hearing and adjudicating all of its canonical issues and matters within its own ecclesiastical courts without the necessity of referring them to Rome or any other court of canon law constituted outside of the Metropolitan See of Utrecht, either for an initial adjudication nor for any subsequent appeals. In 1520, Pope Leo X decreed in the papal bull Debitum Pastoralis that the Bishop of Utrecht, his successors, his clergy, and his laity should never be tried by an external tribunal of canon law. If any such proceedings did take place they were null and void. This extraordinary right had been granted by Pope Leo X at the request of Philip of Burgundy, who was the reigning prince-bishop of Utrecht at the time.

 In 1691, the Jesuits falsely accused Archbishop Peter Codde, the occupant of of the See of Utrecht, of favoring the so-called Jansenist heresy. We say so-called Jansenist heresy because no one has ever yet succeeded in finding the repudiated heretical statements, either in substance or in form, in The Augustinus of Bishop Cornelius Jansenius, where the Jesuits pretended to have discovered them. Archbishop Codde was ordered to stand trial in Rome despite the special privilege and Papal dispensation from such a trial (see above re: Debitum Pastoralis). Despite the Archbishop's proved innocence of heresy, the influence of the Jesuits was so great that they persuaded the Pope to issue a secret brief suspending and deposing Archbishop Codde. Neither the names of his accusers, nor the charges made against him, were ever made known to him, nor was he permitted to offer any defense, all of these actions being contrary to the Canon Law of the Roman Catholic Church. This created a breach which was never healed, though Pope Clement XIV was favorably disposed towards the grievously wronged Church of Utrecht.

 We believe and maintain, as we have always done since 1691, that these irregular proceedings against the Church of Utrecht, based, as they were, upon charges which were proved at the time to have been groundless, were null and void and in direct contravention of the privileged rights of the See of Utrecht for immunity from prosecution outside her territory. Add to all of this the uncanonical actions of Pope Pius IX in 1853, again contravening the ancient historic canons, as well as the privilege granted the See of Utrecht in 1145 regarding the election and appointment of her own Bishops and despite the majority opinion of the vast number of Catholic canon lawyers and academics being in favor of the Church of Utrecht, the actions of the See of Rome can be viewed in no other light than to declare them unjust, uncanonical and utterly null and void. Thus it is that we have remained, and are still in actual technical canonical fact, and not according to any fanciful or far-fetched theory, part and parcel of the Roman Catholic Church, despite her refusal to acknowledge or honor our historic and proven position as true Roman Catholics.

                                                               

LEFT MOVES TO OUTLAW CHRISTIANITY

The mask is off. All pretense has been dropped, and the anti-Christian left's boundless depth of hatred for individual liberty, our First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) is now on full display.

Addressing the high court's Hobby Lobby decision last Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., fumed, "We have so much to do this month, but the one thing we're going to do during this work period—sooner rather than later—is to ensure that women's lives are not determined by virtue of five white men."

To which Justice Clarence Thomas must have replied, "Say what, honky?"

"This Hobby Lobby decision is outrageous," continued Reid, "and we're going to do something about it."

Read the entire article by Matt Barber at this link:  Left Moves to Outlaw Christianity

Loving Liberty, Paying the Price

As we approach this momentous day in the history of our nation one is drawn back to the question. “How much are we willing to give up in our liberty just to go along with the flow?” In recent years we have seen the wholesale assault upon the foundation of the basic document that protects our rights as Americans. We now have an administration that blatantly rules by pen, phone or simply ignoring our laws to do as they alone choose to do.

The question that now presents itself is, are we to be much like Esau going along with the present state of affairs, squandering our precious birthright for a mess of pottage thus gaining momentary relief and forfeiting forever everything precious. 

How long can this wholesale assault on the basic fabric of our nation continue before it implodes in to a state of anarchy?

In my reading we came across the piece by Shane Krauser that bears sharing.

Loving Liberty, Paying the Price

By Shane Krauser

Americans often cry out that America must be fixed. In making this claim, which is most assuredly true, we often forget that we created the problem, and, therefore, we must fix the problem. The only way we can even begin to think about repairing the maladies America faces is to come to grips with the fact that we must utilize the Constitution as our framework and guide to resolving nearly every issue. As uncomfortable as it may make some, this solution will require Americans to dive in, study, absorb, and incorporate the text of the Constitution and its corresponding principles into our minds and hearts. No more casting blame on the other guy, the other party, or the other branch of government. Resolving problems such as what we’re faced with don’t come overnight.

As I travel as the director of the American Academy for Constitutional Education, I am often astounded by the impression so many have that arguing the Constitution is an art. I suppose it shouldn’t bewilder me, for it is the profession of lawyers that have created this false image of resolving issues. The reality is that the application of the Constitution is really more of a science. It is the reason why the Academy often says that we are creating “constitutional technicians.” We are not creating “constitutional chefs”, “constitutional artists”, or even “constitutional beauticians”. The game changer consists of a strict application of the Constitution by the people themselves.

The goal is to illustrate that these problems we face as Americans can no longer be resolved on the basis of who yells the loudest or who has the most financial support. It is those very approaches and philosophies which we have allowed and have engaged in that have caused these issues to become such a festering sore on this great land. And, unfortunately, this approach almost always relegates the truth to an irrelevant status. The truth takes the back seat.

So, the invitation is to become one of the few sheepdogs in this country, a freedom-loving species that truly cares about liberty and the rule of law. We must learn to deal with the issues by asking the right questions of our representatives and of others who advocate any number of views. We must learn to first stand for the Constitution and not for necessarily ideas and policies we may think are good or bad. If the rule of law cannot and will not prevail in the minds of Americans, what good are ideas or policies that merely hinge on the whim of those in power? That approach is like a boat with no rudder and no sail and is not suitable for those who wish to be free.

Either the Constitution means what it says and is the ruling document or it is nothing more than a social icon that is not even worth the paper it is written on. You make the choice. However, if your choice is the former, you must remain true and strong in battle. If your answer is the latter, believe me, the sheepdogs are rallying and we will bring the fight. The sheepdogs will howl in the night warning the wolves, who would deprive the people of their freedom, that we are on their trail and will pledge our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor to the very cause they seek to undermine. And we, the sheepdogs, will protect the sheep as well, for the poor sheep know not what is at stake.

Papal Infallibility

Many have ask me what is the difference between The Old Roman Catholic Church and the Church of Rome. As far as the expression of the Catholic faith and traditional Tridentine liturgy go absolutely nothing. They both express the same tenants of faith and contain the same indisputable valid apostolic orders from the time of Pentecost forward.

 Then what is the deciding factor?

The Dogma of Papal Infallibility!

 As Old Roman Catholics we do not accept the imposed Dogma of Papal Infallibility as being essential for one’s salvation. As devout Catholics we continue to honor the Pope as being the Bishop of Rome, the undisputed successor of the Blessed Apostle Peter, the first among equals in the Christian world and pray daily for his continued good health and well being.

In the proceedings of the First Vatican Council in 1870 the decision was made to declare the Pope as infallible in all things and in order for a person to be considered saved they must accept this dogma without question. It must be pointed out that this was not a popular decision among many of the Roman Church Magisterium and the vote was pushed through with a goodly number refusing to take part in this questionable action. 

Soon after the proclamation of the dogma of papal infallibility in 1870, several large groups of mostly German-speaking Catholics along with a great number of other disenchanted Catholics throughout Europe split from the Church.  An extract of the history of the proceedings by Dr. Fredrik Nielsen is provided below for a better understanding of the historical background of this most controversial decision.

             Nielsen, The History of the Papacy in the XIXth Century

“The public meeting on 18th July was, according to the testimony of all, characterized by “a majestic and earnest solemnity”, which made a great impression upon those who were present....  Only a small portion of the episcopate took part in the last vote.  Germany and Austria-Hungary were very thinly represented; the episcopate of France, England, Ireland, and the United States was divided, and even amongst the bishops of Northern Italy the opposition had adherents.  There was also division in the narrowest circle of the Vatican itself....  Not even all the Orientals could be compelled by the Propaganda to appear in the aula on 18th July.  There were then about 917 dioceses in the whole of Roman Catholic Christendom, but only 535 bishops were present at the decisive moment.  These did not in fact represent half of the Roman Catholic Church. Two hundred and thirty-four actual bishops were absent, and the Italian bishops, the cardinals, the officials of the Church, and the apostolic vicars made up about four-fifths of the majority.

The public session was opened as usual with a Mass, with the placing of the Holy Scriptures on the altar in the middle of the Council, and with the Veni Creator Spiritus.  When the hymn had been sung, the secretary of the Council delivered to Pius IX the text of the new dogmatic constitution Pastor Eternus [sic].  The Pope gave the document to Bishop Valenciani of Fabriano and Matelica, who then mounted the ambo and read the whole constitution, consisting of four chapters.  As soon as the reading was ended, Valenciani addressed the following question to the assembled fathers: “Reverend fathers, do you assent to the decrees and canons which are contained in this constitution?”  He then descended from the ambo, and the voting began by roll-call.  During the roll-call the storm broke out with violence to the joy of the ultramontane members, who in the thunder of heaven saw a divine confirmation of the condemnation of Gallicanism and Liberal Catholicism....

Five hundred and thirty-three of those present voted Placet, and only two, the Bishops Riccio of Cajazzo in Naples, and Fitzgerald of Littlerock in the United States, said Non placet.  The “scrutator” who collected the votes was so accustomed to everybody saying Placet, that he repeated Placet also on behalf of the Bishop of Cajazzo, but Riccio with a stentorian voice shouted out his Non placet over the assembly.  Evil tongues asserted, however, that this brand new bishop had only said Non placet in order to give a proof of the freedom of the Council, which Jesuitism might afterwards make use of.  Bishop Fitzgerald is said to have originally intended not to take part in the voting, but when it was pointed out to him that all the bishops present were to vote, he also said Non placet.  Mgr. Pie claims, however, to know that one of the two bishops who voted Non Placet submitted himself to the Pope on the evening of the same day, and confessed his faith in the decisions of the Council, and that the other did so the next morning....

After the voting was over, Pius IX rose to give the decisions of the Council the confirmation of his apostolic authority.  And then he delivered a speech, in which he expressed his hope that those who had voted against the constitution would come to a better understanding....

The interest in the important vote at Rome was not great.  Some houses from early morning, as was customary, were decorated with carpets hung out, but in the evening only the public buildings, the religious houses, and a very few private ones were illuminated.  Only the diplomatic representatives of Belgium, Holland, Portugal, Monaco, and a few South American States showed themselves in the hall; the great powers were conspicuous by their absence.  But the large space was filled with monks and nuns.  The monks clapped their hands and shouted Bravo at the Pope’s words; the nuns were touched and sighed: Papa mio.”

And thus goes the story of Papal infallibility and the split by all Catholics of conscience from that time forward.

Thoughts.

Another memorial day stands just around the corner and as I continue to march toward my destiny, having achieved the sage age of 82 my thoughts turn to those days of my youth. Having survived by divine intervention both Korea and Vietnam old tapes slowly begin to play.

In my mind’s eye I can again see smiling faces, in the distance of time hear the cheerful batter of those I served with, who continue to live in my heart. The grueling demands of training seem so small now. The forced marches, the never ending sessions on the rifle range, the five mile runs each morning as we prepared our bodies and minds to engage other men, in another place in the demands of combat. Then that exposure to combat becomes another memory that continues to replay almost daily.

Do we stop to remember now those who we left behind in some foreign land or shipped home in their aluminum containers to grieving families? The precious freedom we arise to each morning is a costly privilege that has been purchased over the years by the sacrifices of our youth. And yet there are those in our nation today, many in very high places, who would cast this precious freedom aside in order to mold the peoples of this land into a dependent society. We must never allow this to become a reality. It is time for all Americans to arise and take back the precious freedoms they have exchanged for a small pot of porridge from big brother.

When this nation was formed the states each had explicit rights that were indelibly unalterable and yet we have allowed our national government to infringe on those precious rights. Chipping away much like a stone mason, taking one away small chip at a time until there very little of the original left.

I pray that our next Memorial Day finds this nation in the process of turning around and recovering those values we all once held so dear.

Yes, we were created as one nation under God and may we return once again to our founding roots.