The oman atholic bserver

More Catholic Dilemmas

Page 21d: Revised 07/10/2000

Click this link for entire list of Roman Catholic Dilemmas

Eucharist Dilemma #1

*Credit for this dilemma goes to surfer Jim Julian, who pointed it out to me via email. Thank, Jim!

FACT 1: The Roman Catholic Church teaches transubstantiation, which says that the communion wafer is magically transformed into the real body and blood of Jesus Christ.

FACT 2: Catholics really believe that, when they eat their Eucharist, they are eating God. For the sincere Catholic, this is the time when Jesus comes into their life.

FACT 3: Like it or not, that communion wafer goes down the throat and is managed by the body just as any other bit of food.

The Dilemma

QUESTION: Is the Roman Catholic Eucharist wafer digested by the human body?	Yes	No
QUESTION: Is the Roman Catholic Eucharist wafer assimilated by the human body?	Yes	No
QUESTION: Is the byproduct of digestion and assimilation, thereafter eliminated as urine, feces, or both?	Yes	No
QUESTION: How do you, as a Roman Catholic person, feel when you realize that, a few hours after eating the Eucharist, you flush your God down the toilet?	Your Answer?

I realize that the presentation of this Roman Catholic dilemma will be found offensive by many. I am sorry about that, but could find no softer way to present the facts.

| Return to List of Catholic Dilemmas |

Eucharist Dilemma #2

*Credit for this dilemma goes to surfer Jim Julian, who pointed it out to me via email. Thank, Jim!

FACT 1: The Roman Catholic Church teaches transubstantiation, which says that the communion wafer is magically transformed into the real body and blood of Jesus Christ.

FACT 2: Catholics really believe that, when they eat their Eucharist, they are eating the real flesh and blood of Jesus Christ.

FACT 3: The Roman Catholic Church also teaches that it is a mortal sin to eat meat on certain days of the year, including, in the United States, Ash Wednesday, Good Friday and all Fridays of Lent. (See The Catholic Encyclopedia, Revised and Updated Edition, Copyright 1987, with Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur; page 17, under "Abstinence.")

FACT 4: The Roman Catholic Church requires all Roman Catholics to obey what are called the "precepts of the Church." Failure to obey these precepts is a mortal sin. The Fifth precept requires all Roman Catholics to abstain from meat (flesh) on designated days (see the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Copyright 1994, with Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur; page 494, Number 2043.)

FACT 5: Roman Catholics can eat their Eucharist on almost every day of the year, including all the Fridays of Lent.

The Dilemma

QUESTION: Do you believe that the Eucharist really is the actual flesh and blood of Jesus Christ?	Yes	No
QUESTION: Do you believe it is a mortal sin to eat meat on the days designated by Rome for fast and abstinence?	Yes	No
QUESTION: Do you realize that, when you eat the Eucharist, you are eating human flesh, which is actually meat?	Yes	No
QUESTION: Do you realize that, when you eat the Eucharist on Ash Wednesday or a Friday during Lent, that you are thereby committing a mortal sin because you are eating meat?	Yes	No
QUESTION: Do you see how Rome puts you in a 'catch-22' by insisting that the Eucharist really is flesh, or meat, by making the eating of flesh, or meat on certain days a mortal sin, and then offering you the Eucharist on those very days?	Yes	No
QUESTION: How shall you resolve this dilemma?	Your Answer?

| Return to List of Catholic Dilemmas |

Eucharist Dilemma #3

FACT 1: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that Jesus instituted the Eucharist at the Last Supper, and that the bread and wine were miraculously transformed into the real body and blood of Christ.

FACT 2: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that it is a sacrilege to take the Eucharist while in a state of mortal sin.

FACT 3: Judas Iscariot, who betrayed Christ, was clearly in a state of 'mortal sin'. According to Scripture, he chose to betray Christ before the Last Supper ever started:

Evidence:

¹⁴Then one of the twelve, called Judas Iscariot, went unto the chief priests, ¹⁵And said unto them, What will ye give me, and I will deliver him unto you? And they covenanted with him for thirty pieces of silver. ¹⁶And from that time he sought opportunity to betray him.(Matthew 26: 14-16)

ASIDE: I added this passage because one Roman Catholic surfer accused me of "jumping the gun" by assuming that Judas was already in a state of mortal sin (Catholic terms) while at the Last Supper. He intimated that Judas was not in a 'state of mortal sin' until after the Last Supper. Here we see that Judas made his covenant with death before the Last Supper. His decision was already made, the money was in his pocket, and he was committed to act. Now, according to Catholic Doctrine, a "mortal sin" is defined as follows:

"For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Page 455, Article #1857.

No one can deny the 'gravity' of the betrayal of God's Son. No one can deny that Judas knew he was betraying Jesus to death (it would have been equally serious to betray any innocent person to death!). No one can deny that Judas gave 'deliberate consent.' We might also do well to recall the Scripture that says, "As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he." (Proverbs 23:7), and Jesus's declaration that even when the sin exists only in the mind, it remains a sin! (Matthew 5:28). No, Judas had already committed his 'mortal sin' long before the Last Supper began.

More Evidence:

²¹And as they did eat, he said, Verily I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me. ²²And they were exceeding sorrowful, and began every one of them to say unto him, Lord, is it I? ²³And he answered and said, He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish, the same shall betray me. ²⁴The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born. ²⁵Then Judas, which betrayed him, answered and said, Master, is it I? He said unto him, Thou hast said. 26And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. ²⁷And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; ²⁸For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. (Matthew 26: 21-29)

FACT 4: Jesus Christ gave the Eucharist to Judas Iscariot while Judas was in a state of 'mortal sin.' (Note: some Roman Catholic surfers claim that Judas had left the "Last Supper" before the "consecration" and passing out of communion by Jesus. While Matthew, Mark and John are silent on the question of Judas's presence for communion, Luke is very, very clear in saying that Judas was there at that time.)

Evidence:

¹⁴And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him. ¹⁵And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer: 16For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. ¹⁷And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves: ¹⁸For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come. ¹⁹And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. ²⁰Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. 21But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table. ²²And truly the Son of man goeth, as it was determined: but woe unto that man by whom he is betrayed! (Luke 22: 14-22)

The time-line is very clear:

Jesus "consecrates" the bread and passes it out to be eaten ("this is my body.") -Verse 19
Jesus "consecrates" the wine and passes it out to be drunk ("this is my blood.") -Verse 20
Jesus says that Judas is, at that moment, after the communion, still present ("the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table.") -Verse 21.

Luke's description is so clear that no 'interpretation' is needed. Judas was there for communtion-period.

The Dilemma

QUESTION: Will a Roman Catholic priest give the Eucharist to a person he knows to be in 'mortal sin?'	Yes	No
QUESTION: If the Eucharist is really the true body and blood of Christ, would Jesus, who Is God, knowingly give it to a man he knew to be in mortal sin?	Yes	No
QUESTION: Since Jesus gave the Eucharist to a man he knew was in mortal sin, is this not proof that the bread and wine were only that - bread and wine - as a memorial, and not the transubstantiation of Rome?	Yes	No
QUESTION: Who will you believe about the Eucharist, Jesus Christ or the Roman Catholic Church?	Jesus	Rome

| Return to List of Catholic Dilemmas |

Eucharist Dilemma #4: Corrupted God?

FACT 1: The Roman Catholic Church says that when a priest 'consecrates' the bread and wine, it ceases to be bread and wine and becomes the real body and blood of Jesus Christ, thereby becoming God.

Evidence

"That the consequence of Transubstantiation, as a conversion of the total substance, is the transition of the entire substance of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, is the express doctrine of the Church." (Council of Trent, Session XIII, Canon ii)

FACT 2: the Roman Catholic Church teaches that, once consecrated, the Eucharist (also called 'the host') becomes Christ, God, permanently. That is, it cannot ever return to simple bread and wine.

Evidence

"The council of Trent (Sess. XIII, Can. Iv) by a special canon emphasized the fact that, after the Consecration Christ is truly present and, consequently, does not make His Presence dependent upon the act of eating or drinking. On the contrary, He continues His Eucharistic Presence even in the consecrated hosts and Sacred particles that remain on the altar or in the ciborium after the distribution of Holy Communion. In the deposit of faith the Presence and the Permanence of Presence are so closely allied, that in the mind of the Church both continue on as an undivided whole. And rightly so; for just as Christ promised His Flesh and blood as meat and drink, i.e., as something permanent (cf John 6:50 sqq). . . . " [Catholic Encyclopedia: The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist]

"Baptism, for instance, lasts only as long as the baptismal action or ablution with water, an is, therefore, a transitory sacrament; on the contrary, the Eucharist, and the Eucharist alone, constitutes a permanent sacrament (cf Council of Trent, Sess. XIII, cap. Iii). [Catholic Encyclopedia: The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist]

"The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist." [Catechism of the Catholic Church, Page 347, #1377.]

FACT 3: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that the permanent Eucharist can become corrupted.

Evidence:

The Permanence of Presence, however, is limited to an interval of time of which the beginning is determined by the instant of Consecration and the end by the corruption of the Eucharistic Species. If the Host becomes moldy or the contents of the Chalice sour, Christ has discontinued His presence therein. [Catholic Encyclopedia: The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist]

Hold it! Rome has just finished telling us that the "species" (i.e., the bread and wine) no longer exist and that the transformation is permanent! So how can she now be saying that a non-existent "species" gets corrupted. An incredible contradiction!

FACT 4: The Roman Catholic Church further teaches that the corruption of the Eucharist mentioned in Fact 3 cannot possibly occur!

Evidence

"The most that may be said is, that from the Eucharistic Body proceeds a miraculous sustaining power, which supports the appearances bereft of their natural substances and preserves them from collapse. [Catholic Encyclopedia: The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist]

FACT 5: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that she finds no basis to support her dogma of the Eucharist in Sacred Scripture, but, rather, turns to her own tradition and to Pagan philosophy for her 'proof.'

Evidence

"In the absence of Scriptural proof, the Church finds a warrant for, and a propriety in, rendering Divine worship to the Blessed Scarament (the Eucharist, or host) in the most ancient and constant tradition. . . " [Catholic Encyclopedia: The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist]

"Aristotle, himself taught (Metaphys., VI, 3^rd ed. Of Bekker, p. 1029, a. 13) that quantity was not a corporeal substance, but only a phenomenon of substance. . . . The Catholic Church . . . bases her doctrine on the everlasting philosophy of sound reason (from Aristotle), which rightly distinguishes between the thing in itself and its characteristic qualities (color, form, size, etc.)."

[Catholic Encyclopedia: The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist]

The Dilemma

QUESTION: Does Rome base her dogma of Transubstantiation upon Sacred Scripture, or upon the teachings of pagan philosophers such as Aristotle?	Your Answer?
QUESTION: Does Rome teach that her transubstantiation miracle is permanent or temporary?	Permanent	Temporary
QUESTION: Does Rome teach that her Eucharist IS God?	Yes	No
QUESTION: Does Rome command her people to worship the Eucharist?	Yes	No
QUESTION: Does Rome teach that, with her Eucharist, the bread and wine no longer exist as bread and wine?	Yes	No
QUESTION: Does Rome teach that her Eucharist is subject to corruption?	Yes	No
QUESTION: Since the bread and wine no longer exist, what is it that gets corrupted?	Your Answer?
QUESTION: Are you sure you want to worship a God who is defined, not by Scripture but by Pagan philosophy?	Yes	No
QUESTION: Are you sure you want to worship a corruptible God?	Yes	No

| Return to List of Catholic Dilemmas |

Eucharist Dilemma #5: Disobeying Jesus

FACT 1: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that both the body and blood of Christ are fully present in both the bread and the watered-down wine of her Eucharist.

Evidence: "The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of bread does not divide Christ. [Catechism of the Catholic Church, Page 347, #1377]

FACT 2: In practice, the Roman Catholic Church distributes her Eucharist only in the form (which she terms species) of bread. Exceptions are rare, but they do occur.

Evidence:

"Since Christ is sacramentally present under each of the species, communion under the species of bread alone makes it possible to receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace. For pastoral reasons this manner of receiving communion has been legitimately established as the most common form of the Latin rite." [Catechism of the Catholic Church, Page 351, #1390]

FACT 3: When He instituted communion, Jesus used both bread and wine, as separate and distinct acts of this memorial service. Jesus commanded us to partake of both the bread and the wine.

Evidence:

. ¹⁷And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves: ¹⁸For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come. ¹⁹And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. ²⁰Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. (Luke 22:17-20)

²⁶And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. ²⁷And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; ²⁸For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. ²⁹But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom. ³⁰And when they had sung an hymn, they went out into the mount of Olives. (Matthew 26:26-30)

The Dilemma

QUESTION: When Jesus passed-out the bread, which did He say: 1. "This is my body and blood?" 2. "This is my body."-poriod?	My body and blood	Just my body
QUESTION: When a priest passes out the bread, what does he say he is giving to you: 1. the body and blood of Christ? 2. only the body of Christ?	Body and blood	Just the body
QUESTION: In passing out the Eucharist, is the priest obeying the command of Jesus, or is he disobeying it?	Obeying Jesus	Disobeying Jesus
QUESTION: Speaking of the wine, did Jesus command us saying, "Drink ye all of it; ²⁸For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins"?	Yes	No
QUESTION: Do Roman Catholics obey this command of Jesus Christ when they partake of the Eucharist?	Yes	No
QUESTION: Is there any indication in Scripture that Jesus added water to the wine?	Yes	No
QUESTION: Does the Roman Catholic communion add water to the wine?	Yes	No
QUESTION: When Jesus said, "This do in remembrance of me." was he instructing us to celebrate communion exactly as He celebrated it?	Yes	No
QUESTION: Is there any part of "Do this" that is either confusing, or that leaves room for major deviations, or that suggests that He really meant "Do something else?"	Yes	No
QUESTION: Are there any passages of Scripture that state, or even imply that Jesus meant the bread to represent both His body and His blood?	Yes	No
QUESTION: Are there any passages of Scripture that state, or even imply that Jesus meant the wine to represent both His body and His blood?	Yes	No
QUESTION: Does the Roman Catholic Church obey Jesus' instructions by celebrating communion exactly as Jesus celebrated it?	Yes	No
QUESTION: Which is the proper form for communion - the form used by Jesus Christ, or the form used by the Roman Catholic Church?	Your Answer?

It is clear from the Scripture that Jesus identified the bread as representing His body in one statement, and in a separate statement He identified the wine as representing His blood. It is equally clear that He told us to do exactly as He had done. . . to use both bread and unadulterated wine, as separate and distinct actions. There is no hint that Jesus meant that the bread alone represented (much less actually consisted of) both His body and blood. There is no hint that Jesus added water to the wine before passing it out. Search the Scriptures and you will not find a single passages that either states or implies that Jesus meant the bread to represent both His body and His blood.

Does the Roman Catholic Eucharist fulfill the command of Christ? Hardly. Rather is it a very distorted practice which adds elements not found in Scripture. Jesus did indeed constitute the practice of communion. And when He asks us to do something in remembrance of Him, does it not behoove us to do that thing in the way He commanded us? Anything else would be a form of heresy, and would be most insulting to the Lord our God. Since the form of communion ordained by Jesus includes both bread and wine, one who takes only the bread does not receive communion at all!

And what of Jesus' command to "Drink ye all of it; ²⁸For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins"? Did Jesus say "only priests should drink this?" No, He said "Drink ye ALL. . ." Obedience to Christ in this matter demands that one partake of communion using both bread and wine. Yet the disturbing fact is that the priest alone drinks the wine, and watered-down wine at that. Do Roman Catholics obey this command of Christ? No, they do not. Why not? First, because they are generally forbidden to obey Jesus' command in this matter. Second, because they fear coming under their church's curse:

"If anyone shall deny that in the venerable sacrament of the Eucharist the whole Christ is contained under each form and under every part of each form when separated -- anathema sit." [Council of Trent, Session XIII (1551) DS 1653.]

Thus does the Roman Catholic Church curse anyone who would choose to believe Jesus' instructions in Scripture over Rome's contradictory instructions. The Catholic Church has effectively removed the symbolic blood of Christ. . . that sacred blood that secured our salvation. . . from her version of communion. Evidently the Council of Trent believed they had the power and authority to modify Jesus' simple instructions - to declare, in effect, that they had a better way than Jesus did. Go figure!

So who will you obey: Jesus Christ or the Roman Catholic Church? It is clearly a question of obedience to Jesus, versus obedience to the Roman Catholic Church. Why? Because Rome's version of communion is drastically different from what Jesus commanded us all to do. Just be aware that if you choose to obey Rome, you simultaneously choose to disobey Jesus Christ. Conversely, if you choose to obey Jesus Christ, you simultaneously choose to disobey Rome. You can't have it both ways: there is no middle ground on which to stand. If you are a sincere Roman Catholic, I respect your right to believe and choose who you will obey, God or man. All I seek to do here is to make you aware of the exact nature of your choice, for it will influence your eternal destiny. It's something to think about.

The Mass Dilemma

The Roman Catholic Church has the practice of claiming the unanimous, or nearly-unanimous agreement of bishops and priests for Rome's dogmatic declarations. You don't have to look long or far to find that, more often than not, such declarations are outright lies. For example, at the time of Vatican Council I, with its promulgation of the dogma of papal infallibility, Vatican observers noted serious discord among the attending bishops, with the majority in opposition to this new Roman Catholic invention. Yet the Pope and his curia subverted the will of the majority and pushed-through the new dogma. This chicanery led to the departure from the church of many bishops and priests, and to a schism called "The Old Catholic Church" movement.

Today, we have a closer-to-home example of the same thing in the chaos and schism that followed Vatican Council II, with its promulgation of the "New Order of the Mass," also called the Novus Ordo Mass. Once again claiming a solid agreement among the bishops present, the Pope again stacked the deck against the opposition of the majority. The result? A Roman Catholic schism that is so large and strong it will not just fade away as did the "Old Catholic Church" movement noted above. Once again there came a defection of priests, bishops, nuns and laity, but on an almost monumental scale.

Rome would like us to believe that no schism currently exists in the Church. The facts prove otherwise. Once again Rome displays her propensity for ignoring reality in a vain attempt at 'proving' the generally unanimous agreement among her theologians, bishops and priests. Enough for the lead-in. Herewith for your consideration are the facts, the supporting evidence . . . and the inevitable questions designed to get you to start thinking about the true nature of the Church of Rome.

FACT 1: One change that emerged from Vatican Council II was a departure from the traditional Latin Mass (also called the Tridentine Mass), along with much of its traditional ritual forms. Changes included saying the Mass in the language of the local people, the use of altar girls as well as altar boys, movement of the altar from the back wall of the church to a position closer to the people, and the priest officiating while facing the people, rather than with his back to them.

FACT 2: The so-called 'new order of the Mass (also called the Novus Ordo Mass) was promoted as a means of making the Mass more intelligible to the attendees, with an emphasis upon letting the people be more the participants and less the captive audience of an event in a language they could not understand.

FACT 3: Vatican Council II observers note that the Novus Ordo Mass was far from being a unanimous, or even a majority decision by the bishops at the council. For example, Roman Catholic theologian Hans Kung, in his exemplary work entitled Infallible, An Unresolved Enquiry points out clearly that the council was an exercise in political power plays by the Pope and his Curia versus the majority of attending Bishops. Those Bishops who objected to any of the Pope's ideas were dropped without warning from their speaking assignments! The Pope literally stacked the Council with his own people, and forced through his own agenda, often in the face of widespread opposition from the Bishops.

FACT 4: After Vatican Council II, the Roman Catholic Church split along the line of tradition vs modernism. It was almost a replay of the post-Vatican Council I schism between the Pope and bishops/priests over the issue of papal infallibility. But the current schism is far larger, and far more likely to continue. Why? Because the 'Old Catholic Movement" following Vatican Council I shriveled-up of natural causes to become but a shadow of its original self. The current split, however is a totally different breed. A significant number of bishops, proclaiming the Pope to be in theological error, broke from Rome to become the Tridentine-only traditional Roman Catholic Church.

FACT 5: The Tridentine-only group has its own priests, bishops, nuns, convents, rectories, churches and even seminaries (for example, the Pius X Seminary in Winona, MN, and the Institute of Christ the King Seminary in Cashton, WI). The Novus Ordo group has its own priests, bishops, nuns, convents, rectories, churches and even seminaries. BOTH groups claim allegience to Rome and to the Pope. The Tridentine only group has been more vocal than Rome would wish, while the Novus Ordo group tries to sweep the whole thing under the rug.

Evidence: For example, in the city of Boston, Massachusetts, we have Fr. John Keane, a Tridentine-only priest who has his own radio program every Sunday morning on station WROL at 7:00 a.m. If you live in the Boston area, or the area of Portland-Rumford, ME (on a sister station), you owe it to yourself to listen to this priest! Fr. Keane is pastor of his own church, Saint Roger & Saint Mary, in West Roxbury, Massachusetts (a suburb of Boston). He also has chapels in Lawrence and Scituate, Massachusetts, and in Cumberland, Rhode Island. You can read the story of Fr. Keane's struggle in his biography entitled Vicar of Venom, available by writing to Fr. John Keane, 378 Washington Street, Brookline, MA 02445-6852.

More Evidence: The book entitled The Mouth of the Lion by Dr. David Allen White, (available from AMAZON.COM) is must reading for those who wish to understand the current split in the Church of Rome. Here is the biography of Bishop De Castro Mayer, a Tridentine only bishop who, along with a bishop from France, ordained several new bishops for the Tridentine only movement. This is not only a most informative book, it is also one of the most exciting dramas you could encounter today - the conflict between the traditional, Tridentine only bishops and the Novus Ordo bishops. This is one of the best-written books I ever read. Even if you disagree with the Roman Catholic church, you can't help but admire De Castro Mayer as he battles fellow bishops who are determined to destroy him. Who really wins? You'll have to read the book to find out! Who loses? The Catholic people do.

FACT 6: Prior to Vatican Council II, all priest were required by their consecrating bishops to take five vows to God. The first vow was the promise to never say any Mass but the Tridentine Mass, based upon the Council of Trent. The second vow was to support Pope Pius X's Oath against Modernism, followed by vows of poverty, chastity and obedience.

FACT 7: All that the current Tridentine only priests and bishops ask is that they be allowed to keep the very vows that had been demanded of them by the Roman Catholic Church.

FACT 8: The Novus Ordo bishops appear determined to prevent the Tridentine only priests from keeping their vows. This they are doing by refusing to assign Tridentine only priests to regular parishes, and refusing them permission to perform the Tridentine Mass in almost all of their churches. This trend does admit of a few exceptions. . . . very few of them. As a result, the Tridentine only priests have been forced to build their own churches and chapels, and even to establish their own separate seminaries.

FACT 9: The Tridentine only Catholic Church appears to be healthy and growing; it is adding churches and seminaries at a good clip. Vocations to the priesthood in this Catholic Church are on the increase; the average age for priests is dropping as new, young men are ordained. The Novus Ordo Catholic Church appears to by dying. More than ten thousand American priests have resigned since the end of Vatican Council II; Mass attendance has dropped dramatically; churches are closing with alarming frequency; the average age for priests in getting older by the day. Even as I compose this page, I received word that two Roman Catholic Churches (Novus Ordo type) are preparing to close in a nearby city.

Evidence: "... what had been the clear vision of the priest's vocation seemed to disappear after the (Vatican II) Council. Since then, fifty thousand priests have resigned from their ministry. And with fewer candidates for ordination the Church is experiencing today a severe shortage of priests. even in the United States an increasing number of Catholic communities are unable to celebrate the Sunday Eucharist because they lack an ordained celebrant. According to sociologist Richard Schoenherr the number of active diocesan priests stood at 35 thousand in 1966 but will fall to about 21 thousand by the year 2005. Unfortunately, the Church's leadership has been reluctant to address honestly the problems raised by the growing shortage of priests. [Catholicism at the Dawn of the Third Millennium, by Thomas P. Rausch, S.J., Copyright 1996 by The Order of St. Benedict, Inc., Collegeville, Minnesota.]

FACT 10: The official Roman Catholic position on this subject is that no schism really exists. This fact was given by Catholic apologists on the radio program, Catholic Answers Live in May, 1999. I called this program and asked, specifically, whether or not the Tridentine only group is considered a schism. The answer was a categorical "No!" UPDATE! Catholic Answers Live seems to have reversed itself. On its Monday, September 6, 1999 program, they stated that there really is a schism here. This was in response to a question about the Societies of Pius V, and of Pius X - two similar groups of Tridentine-only dissenters.

FACT 11: The term, schism, refers to a separation or division into factions, as shown by the following dictionary definition:

schism (s¹z"m, sk¹z"-) n. 1. A separation or division into factions. 2.a. A formal breach of union within a Christian church. b. The offense of attempting to produce such a breach. 3. Disunion; discord. [Middle English scisme, from Old French, from Latin schisma, schismat-, from Greek skhisma, from skhizein, to split. See skei- below.] -American Heritage Dictionary

FACT 12: The Tridentine only bishops and priests generally admit quite honestly that a schism exists within the Roman Catholic Church. It is their belief that the pope has erred in this matter, and that they are therefore not bound to obey him in this area.

FACT 13: The Tridentine only group stands on the solid ground of the decree Quo Primum, written by Pope Pius X, July 19, 1570, which states that the Tridentine Mass and only that Mass must be 'said' by priests, bishops, archbishops and cardinals, FOREVER. Any other form of the Mass is strictly prohibited, FOREVER. Click here to read the text of the Quo Primum decree.

The Dilemma

QUESTION: Given the above facts, can you see that the modern Roman Catholic Church is split into two opposing groups - one "traditional" and one "modern?"	Your answer?
QUESTION: Given the above facts, can you identify which Roman Catholic Church is the true Roman Catholic Church: the Tridentine only church or the Novus ordo Church?	Your answer?
QUESTION: What do you think accounts for the fact that the Novus Ordo church has suffered so great a loss of priests and churches?	Your answer?
QUESTION: Why do the Novus Ordo bishops go to so much trouble to stifle priests who wish only to keep their ordination vows?	Your answer?
QUESTION: Why do Rome, the pope, and the Novus Ordo bishops works so hard to suppress the efforts of the Tridentine only bishops and priests?	Your answer?
QUESTION: Given the current split, or schism within the Roman Catholic Church, how do you see things turning out? Some of the options are: *1. The schism will be healed as Rome returns to the traditional Mass.* *2. The schism will be healed as the Tridentine only group gives up and submits to the Novus Ordo group.* *3. The schism will widen until both groups anathematize and excommunicate each other.*	Your Answer?
QUESTION: The Pope declares the Roman Catholic Church to be an undivided unity. The facts prove the opposite. Both these groups consider themselves the only 'true, traditional Roman Catholics,' and that the other is false. Both can not be right? How can you trust a Pope who can lie in the face of incontrovertible facts?	Your Answer?

A Note to Roman Catholic Surfers

If you are a Roman Catholic, and you would prefer the Tridentine (sic., Latin) Mass to the more Protestant-looking Novus Ordo Mass, help may be at hand. I have a list of most, if not all the churches, chapels and home sites in the United States, where the Tridentine Mass is offered. If you would like to know of the location nearest to you, please post a message on my Message Board, and include the name of your city/town, or the name of the nearest large city/town. I will reply with the locations nearest to you.

| Return to List of Catholic Dilemmas |

Comments? Questions?

Click this box to view or sign our Message Board. See what others have to say! Enter your own comments about this site, or the information you find here. If your comments are of general interest, they may be included in an update to this site.