Yesterday, Francis addressed a gathering of newly consecrated bishops on pilgrimage in Rome. In reality, it was a seminar on how to apply the pastoral pearls of wisdom found in Amoris Laetitia.
The theme of the address (available on the Holy See website in Italian) was “discernment,” which, properly understood (i.e., in a Catholic sense), is inseparable from the gifts of the Holy Spirit; wisdom, understanding, counsel, fortitude, knowledge, piety, and fear of the Lord.
The Bergoglian model, not surprisingly, is rather different.
Francis, Vicar of You-Know-Who, began his seminar by paying lip service to the Catholic understanding, but then, in serpentine fashion, he masterfully drew the new bishops’ attention directly to where he really wants it to be – on man; ultimately leading them to believe that discernment is a gift that the sheep bestow upon the shepherd!
Here’s the segue:
Discernment, therefore, is born in the heart and mind of the bishop through his prayer when he contacts people and situations entrusted to him with the Divine Word pronounced by the Spirit. [Emphasis in original]
In other words, it’s the people, stupid.
Francis went on:
Discernment is the grace of the Spirit to the holy faithful people of God, who constitutes it a prophetic people, endowed with the sense of faith and that spiritual instinct that makes it capable of sentire cum Ecclesia. It is a gift received in the midst of the People and is oriented towards its salvation. Since the Spirit already dwells in the heart of the faithful, the apostolic faith, beatitude, righteousness, and evangelical spirit are not strangers to them since Baptism. [Emphasis in original]
The bishop, according to Francis, “is not the self-sufficient ‘father,’” rather, he is “called to live his own discernment of Pastor as a member of the People of God at the service of the koinonìa (fellowship).”
Repeatedly throughout the discourse, Francis encouraged… wait for it… “dialogue” – in particular, with the faithful.
The Bishop’s discernment is always a community action, which does not disregard the richness of the opinion … of the People of God … In serene dialogue, he is not afraid to share, and even sometimes change, his discernment with others … with lay faithful , because they retain the “sense of smell” of the true infallibility of the faith that resides in the Church. [Emphasis in original]
Did you get that?
It’s not the venerable councils of the Church, Sacred Scripture, or the constant witness of tradition wherein “true infallibility” resides; rather, it is in the people.
From there, Francis grew bolder in cautioning the new bishops not to rely on the aforementioned means by which the true Faith is transmitted, saying:
I therefore invite you to cultivate an attitude of listening, growing in the freedom to give up your point of view … The mission you are waiting for is not to bring your own ideas and projects, nor solutions that are abstractly designed by those who consider the Church a home garden [an expression presumably intended to mean that it supplies all that is needed].
He continued:
Discerning therefore means humility and obedience … Obedience to the Gospel, the ultimate standard; to the Magisterium, who keeps it; to the norms of the universal Church, which serve Him; and to the concrete situation of people, for whom you want nothing other than to draw from the treasure of the Church as most fruitful for their salvation.
Notice two things…
One, the Gospel according to Bergoglio is but the “ultimate standard;” another way of saying (as he did of Christian marriage numerous times in Amoris Laetitia) the “ideal” not infrequently unattainable.
Secondly, notice how the Devil works: Rather than saying, Oh, don’t bother conforming yourself and your flock in obedience to Scripture and Tradition, he tells the bishops that they are bound to obey “the concrete situation of people.”
And what about those times when “the concrete situation of people” is out of step with “the norms of the universal Church”?
Francis answers:
Discernment is a remedy for the immobility of “it has always been done this way”… It’s a creative process that does not just apply patterns [applicare schemi – fit into preformed molds]. It is an antidote against rigidity, because the same solutions are not valid everywhere.
Those “same solutions” is a reference to the bi-millennial practice of the Church and the teachings that undergird it, which is presumably why it is so important for the shepherd to turn to the lay faithful for an explanation as to how things ought to be.
Francis goes on:
It is always, today and forever, the Risen Lord that forces him [the shepherd] not to resign himself to the repetition of the past and to have the courage to wonder if the proposals of yesterday are still evangelically valid.
In other words, make room for the God of Surprises – me!
Do not be imprisoned by the nostalgia of having only one answer to apply in all cases.
There’s much more of the same to be found in the text, but presumably you get the picture.
As the address makes perfectly plain, one of the strategies for ensuring that the Amoris Laetitia disease spreads across not only the globe, but the generations, is to inject newly minted bishops with copious amounts of its virus so they may freely dispense it within their home dioceses.
And the countdown to correction continues…
It is doubtful that these men were ordained priest, let alone bishops. There is plenty of unanswered doubt on this subject and no one seems to address this issue other than the late “Fr” Hesse who said, “he could feel his priesthood.” As if that guaranteed ontological certitude. Even the SSPX recognized this problem before they were seduced by fancy new digs in a posh Roman postal code.
Dearest Louie,
In utter humility, as error cannot “correct” error, there is no “Dubium” in truth, as the privation of the due good as the evil, cannot somehow “correct” the privation of the due good as the evil, which does not, as it cannot, contain the “good”, as it is the negation of the “good”, which has no metaphysical “being”, as “negation”. The so called, “conciliar church” as the church of the Antichrist, cannot somehow “correct” the Church of Jesus the Christ, as if “correction” of Christ’s Church were to even be possible in reality as Reality, resting in perfect as infinite contradistinction to reality as deception, which the “conciliar church” can only be in reality quo Reality. Can you see the absurdity on its face? How can Christ’s Church, in the person of His Vicar, require “correction” ? That is an embrace of the law of non-contradiction that indeed again, does cause the cosmos to shudder, as either Christ’s Church, His Mystical Body and spotless Bride, is perfect in Her definition and teaching of Her Dogma and Morality, or She is not perfect. If not, then the Son of God made Man, as God Himself, erred in Matthew 16:18. There is no other alternative understanding in Almighty God’s created cosmos, as He deemed so, and not this perfectly miserable creature me, writing this.
Therefore, the “Bergoglian orientation” is the “Ratzinger orientation”, is the “Wojtyla orientation”, and back unto and including the “Roncalli orientation”. As this “conciliar church” of the “conciliar popes” first defines and then teaches heresy, in its diabolical council of vatican II, and that is NOT what a council as Council does, which is to define and teach the Dogma and Morality of Christ’s spotless and infinitely pure Bride, His Church—the “conciliar church” then, with metaphysical certitude, cannot “be” Christ’s Church. As any human person’s soul, which yet contains any iota of stain of personal sin, cannot enter into the Beatific Vision, so to it is that Christ’s Church quo His Church simply CANNOT contain any stain of heretical error and as thus be His Church. This metaphysical absurdity, as Lucifer’s summa and summit of deception, is taking countless souls to hell, as is objectively understood and deFide, as there is no salvation outside the Church. I pray this helps. In caritas.
Francis-speak is always vomit inducing. The above photo should have a caption under it saying “Clown School Class of 2017”. They are 20 more NO “bishops” that I would never have anything to do with.
I just prayed about this at adoration this a.m., because I wondered if a man who dances around like a clown in church or preaches lies was truly, in fact, a priest. Would a man who didn’t feel called, but just wanted the “job” and would be lying at ordination – would he truly be able to consecrate the bread and wine ? Could someone living a lie do that, or forgive sins? I got a picture at a NO Catholics moving sale, of The First Eucharist. I have wondered since I got it, because the host Jesus is holding up is black. There is white in the rest of the picture, but the host is supposed to be white. I look at it every day and wonder.
These bishops, “consecrated” in the N.O. pseudo-church, are now generals in the Army of “You-Know-Who”.
Not that I agree at all with the Francis premise, but are they kidding? No bishop is going to lower himself to talk with an ordinary Catholic anyway, unless he has made or can make a big donation. The most communication you might get from your local bishop are some boilerplate platitudes on Christmas and Easter in the bulletin… I am sure most people here have had the experience of writing a letter to their local bishop and never getting a reply or an answer. Letters to bishops are as effective as windows on a submarine. You don’t even get the courtesy of a stupid form letter: (“Thank you Mr. _________ for your letter…please be assured that we received it with an open heart….” .) You actually get more caring concern from a Walmart advertising flyer or circular; at least they want you to come in for a visit.
You are fortunate if you can get 2 minutes of your priest’s time before getting blown off most places, and especially if they know you are going to point out some scandal or other problem…
.
Michael F Poulin
Thanks for posting this, Louie. So the sheep have to lead the shepherd, do they? At one point so the shepherds keep them from going to the slaughter? When Europe (and quite possibly this country as well) turns Muslim by the 2030’s or ’40’s? And will we ever get a vicar of Christ again who’s more concerned about saving souls than serving Soros? Just askin’…..
I’ve known Novus Ordo ‘presiders’ in my life that I believed were 100% not validly ordained (many of whom ‘left’ the ministry after I had made this seemingly crass judgement of them). The reason is the massively defective theology, and therefore defect of intention. Many ordained in the 1970’s/80’s. They didn’t have a clue what the Catholic Faith was to begin with. So yes, there are definitely problems with the New Order clergy.
Two things these men will never root out—heresy or immorality. This has been proven to the level of a rule.
Rumor has it that right before taking this photo, the photographer told the group to think of Bergoglio and say “sleeze”.
No one is obliged to believe this. Father Gruner STATED that Francis is NOT Pope.
shooobiy dooby dooooooo
They.are.not.validly.ordained.
Much.less.validly.consecrated.
These.are.laymen.
Very true. What do you think would happen if a parish “discerned” that they want the traditional mass. I can imagine the bishop responding with something to the effect, “discern this!”
The bar for a valid ordination is actually quite low despite how y’all “feel” about it. Shout out to N.O. Watch, Traditio, M.H.F.M., etc.
What is your agenda? If what you decided to type as a comment is true, does that mean we should all just go back to sleep, as it were?
Leo XIII infallibly teaches that the intention to do what the Church does is known when the minister of the sacrament “seriously and correctly” uses the proper matter and form.
Reading his Bull, Apostolicae Curae – slowly and twice if needs be – is a must in order to understand the mind of the Church in assessing whether a sacrament is valid. It’s not overly long.
https://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/L13APCUR.HTM
Paragraph 33 says the following:
“Concerning the mind or intention, inasmuch as it is in itself something interior, the Church does not pass judgement: but in so far as it is externally manifested, she is bound to judge of it.
Now if, in order to effect and confer a sacrament, a person has seriously and correctly used the due matter and form, he is for that very reason presumed to have intended to do what the Church does.
This principle is the basis of the doctrine that a sacrament is truly a sacrament even if it is conferred through the ministry of a heretic, or of one who is not himself baptised, provided the Catholic rite is used.
But if, on the contrary, the rite is changed with the manifest purpose of introducing another rite which is not accepted by the Church, and of repudiating that which the Church does and which is something that by Christ’s institution belongs to the nature of the sacrament, then it is evident, not merely that the intention necessary for a sacrament is lacking, but rather that an intention is present which is adverse to and incompatible with the sacrament.”
So, Leo XIII is teaching that the intention to do what the Church does is known when the minister uses proper matter and form in a Catholic Rite, i.e, a rite which expresses what the Church believes.
We are not to judge if a sacrament is valid based upon whether we think the minister is really orthodox or what have you, or whether he is well meaning. This is impossible for us to judge, since we can’t read hearts. We, like the Church, can only assess what is visible and perceptible to the senses. A bad rite cannot rectify a good intention.
The new rites of orders suppress the essential character of the sacrament they purport to be administering, since they delete and omit the same doctrine that the Anglicans suppress in their rite of “orders”. Leo XIII declares the Anglican rite of orders to be “absolutely null and utterly void”, due to defect of form, and defect of intention.
To close this off, we know when the minister has the intention to do what the Church does when he uses the proper matter and form in a rite which expresses the faith of the Church. The Novus Ordo rites of orders fail to do so, and cause the minister to manifest a defect of intention. That’s all there is to it.
Go where the traditional rites have been administered on the clergy by Bishops who have been consecrated in the traditional rites. Although they need to iron out a few things, the SSPX have preserved the rite of Orders entirely.
The Papal Subject–I agree with what you say. That is why I find it so alarming that the SSPX seeks “regularization” from Modernist Rome. Doesn’t that validate the legitimacy of the post-conciliar “church”? Why jeopardize what you have fought to preserve by putting all you have accomplished in harm’s way? Can Bergoglio and Co. be trusted to allow the mission to “restore all things in Christ” when it is doubtful the Modernists don’t believe in Christ?
Good Saturday afternoon The Papal Subject,
Thank you for that. If you would, please publish the authentic Rite of Holy Orders along with the “new rite” of “holy orders”, such that all viewing can see the change in language (and as thus the change in “form”) and discern the outcome of the change.
The heresy of Ratzinger and as thus, the clarity of Ratzinger as being in truth a false pope, is readily visible in his so called “Summorum Pontificum”, so praised by those who are receiving the “operation of error”, to believe the lie as the truth. The definition of the word, “rite”, as from “Merriam-Webster” no less, begins with–“a prescribed FORM or manner governing the words or actions for a ceremony.” (accent mine) As Ratzinger purports in “Summorum Pontificum” that there are two forms of the same rite, in that act, he commits heresy. To edify this heresy, two sentences of Article 1 of Summorum Pontificum are now quoted:
” These two expressions of the Church’s lex orandi will in no way lead to a division in the Church’s lex credendi (rule of faith); for they are two usages of the one Roman rite.
It is therefore permitted to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass following the typical edition of the Roman Missal, which was promulgated by Blessed John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated, as an extraordinary form of the Church’s Liturgy. ”
Ratzinger actually as literally perverts the meaning of language in this quotation. As the meaning of “rite” speaks directly and specifically to “form”, and again as from Merriam-Webster, the definition of the word “rite” is–“a prescribed FORM or manner governing the words or actions for a ceremony.”–Ratzinger thus, in “Summorum Pontificum”, now says that there can be “two usages”, one as the “extraordinary form” and the other as the “ordinary form” of the SAME FORM, as “rite” speaks directly and specifically to “form”. The word “rite”, has no meaning as the word “rite”, if the word “form”, which holds the literal understanding of the word “rite”, is somehow extracted from its immanence as the word “rite”. The word “rite”, as all words do, holds its very meaning as a word in the expression of its metaphysical “being” as a word. This is the word’s etymology, which cannot change, as Almighty God is the Creator of metaphysical “being”, as Being Himself. The meaning of words can be perverted by men, and this is reality as deception, but the true meaning can never change, as it is rooted in the very “being” of the word, as Christ Jesus is the “Eternal Word” made flesh, as the “Logos”, the “Meaning” Himself, of all that is His created cosmos.
Lastly then, after first having the above discussion of the Thomistic analysis of the very “meaning” of words themselves, and knowing then that their “meaning” is unchangeable but can be cunningly perverted as deception, we can now definitively and precisely know what Ratzinger said in “Summorum Pontificum”. What he said in his statements: “for they are two usages of the one Roman rite” and “…as an extraordinary form of the Church’s Liturgy”, is that there are “two forms” of the “same form”, whereas “form is to rite” as “wax is to candle”. Without “wax” there can be no “candle”, as without “form” there can be no “rite”. Lucifer can only deceive through his useful idiots as he cannot create. Thus, his emissaries in this world can only pervert the language, as Almighty God is the Creator of it, and therefore the meaning simply CANNOT be changed in Truth, as Truth is the divine Person of the Son of God, as the Logos, the Eternal Word, the Meaning of all else that is, which He created.
It is an utter absurdity to suggest that there can somehow be, “two forms” of “one form”, just as “two” is not “one”, but “one” is “one”, as “one form” is “one rite” and “two forms” is “two rites”. As “two rites” cannot be “one rite”, therefore in Truth there are two different “rites”. One Rite is Holy as it is Sacred and it is the Rite which Saint Pope Pius V infallibly (Ecclesiastical infallibility) codified in Apostolic language to be the singular Roman Rite of Holy Mother Church in “Quo Primum”; not be changed one iota by addition or subtraction unto the end of time, from its essence as Rite. He also commanded that the wrath of Almighty God and the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul reign down upon “anyone” who would attempt this. The other rite therefore, is Antichrist, as Christ Jesus commanded, You are either with Me or against Me, and Let your yea be yea and your no be no, anything else is from the Evil One. “Summorum Pontificum” is against Jesus the Christ, as it is against Saint Pope Pius V, who in union with the Council of Trent, wrote Apostolically, “Quo Primum”, binding Holy Mother Church until the end of time, with the penalty of the wrath of Almighty God and the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul to come down upon “anyone” who would attempt to change this. “Anyone” is “anyone”, which leaves not one exception. All one has to do is bear witness to the poisonous fruit that has befallen the Baptized in this world as the collapse of Christendom and the Great Apostasy in our very midst to “see” the wrath of Almighty God and the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul upon us. I pray this helps. In caritas.
Totally agree with you, they cannot answer a question regarding the faith n sacred scriptures, the only response I ever got from them was …..” you should not ask questions that will endanger your soul”
To my taught was how can I possibly be endangering my soul by asking for a difining term to something the Lord said and did? Sadly I didn’t grow up with at catechism, so naturally I had a lot of questions.
Modernist believe in Christ ? Now that would be something I’d like to see happen. the modernist believe in themselves more than they believe in God, they simply just piggy back off the truth to further develop their own pack if lies, that is the words of man. Dr Martin Luther would be so proud of these bishops today.
Ok, that makes sense, and it sounds like you are saying that these chapels with the traditional rites are the Catholic Church. That this is where the Catholic Church exists today. So, would you agree, that all of you should get together somehow, a council perhaps, elect a pope, and consecrate Russia?
Who are “all of you”? Simply just deny the evil in front of your face and let the chips fall where they may. Why are you worried about electing a true pope? When did the Church ever set a time limit on a papal interregnum?
The religion of man. This goes back to Louie’s last post about the constitution (the latest if many of his good articles on the subject). Pride goeth before a fall.
The bar for all sacraments are pretty much the same. Form, matter, and intent. The NO sacraments changed the form and we all know that the errors of V2 have misguided millions of catholics. So intent in NO sacraments is basically a useless guide since we have no idea what the average NO “priest” believes anymore. So we are stuck with looking at the form and matter. Matter has not changed so we must now look at Form. Form has also changed and the only ones who can affirm that the form is valid are modernists. Are we suppose to take their word on this?
Well said Papal Subject, in the case of sacraments, the burden of proof is in the NO crowd to prove they are valid. They can not do so other than proclaim they are valid becauee they self proclaim that V2 did not change the faith. Any trad who falls for this lie is a fool in denial. I am sorry this may offend the likes of rushintuit or sspx or the remnant, but you are basing the validity of the NO sacraments on the very people you accuse of destroying the Church. This is so foolhardy on so many levels that only the self decieved cannot see this. Please, I implore my traditionally minded brothers in Christ to awake from your stupor and see the NO V2 sect for what they truly are; a counterfeit church masquerading as the Church of Christ. No, I cannot answer your question about visibility or gates of hell, but I can see with my own clear eyes that those in power in Rome and the average diocescan chancellory ARE NOT Catholic. How can you not see this also?
Regarding my comment above–“when it is doubtful the Modernists believe in Christ”. My wording was incorrect.
The visibility of the Church is simply known by the plain, outward profession of the Faith of her members.
This is why public heretics are simply NOT Catholics, because to be a Catholic one must profess the Faith, not heresy, which is opposed to it.
We do not and cannot read another’s heart. We don’t know the interior intention of someone else. Neither does the Church.
Don’t forget that Leo XIII teaches that the ceremonial rite surrounding the Form and Matter is the means by which we know whether or not the intention is correct.
If the ceremonial rite surrounding the proper Matter and Form expresses what the Church believes and teaches regarding that Sacrament, then that causes the minister to manifest the intention to do what the Church does. You can plug the traditional Mass or the traditional rite of Orders in here to understand it in context.
If the ceremonial rite surrounding the proper Matter and Form does not express what the Church believes and teaches regarding that sacrament, then this causes a manifest defect of intention in the minister, and the sacrament would be invalid.
So, does the new mass, or the new rite of orders, properly express what the Church believes and teaches?
If they do, then all we then need to look at is the Matter and Form. (The novus ordo usually or often has the right matter and form. though the new rites of orders is doubtful.)
If they do not, then even were the Matter and Form right, the minister would still manifest a defect of intention, and the sacrament would be invalid.
Our Lord commanded us to love Him with “all our mind”.
Houw can you know if a question will endanger your soul unless you ask it?
This looks like a modernist trick to keep people from simply applying the teaching of the Church or the principles of Thomism to probe into the newchurch antics and uncover the fraud.
Thanks IC, I’ll just put up a few links, rather than write an essay. There is a lot of material, and it takes time to go through, to double check, to look for objections and to come to a clear conclusion on this. But the validity of Sacraments is of such importance that it cannot be overlooked lightly.
The articles are not magisterial. They are applications of the magisterium to our time.
https://novusordowatch.org/2013/06/unholy-orders-invalid-bishops/
https://novusordowatch.org/wp-content/uploads/purging-priesthood.pdf
That’s right Tom, they have to prove that the new rites are valid. They introduced the changes, they have to prove them in accordance with the prior teaching of the Church on these matters.
Until they do, why should I trust them? It is not certain whether or not they were promulgated by a Pope, or whether they were promulgated by a man who lost his Pontificate.
It is for some future restored Church to decide, and in the meantime, I’ll “hold fast to tradition”.
Help! after looking up the validity of the rite of Post Vat II Baptism written by a priest to my horror I find that not only my 2 children [ now in their 40s] but my 4 grandchildren are probably not Baptized Catholics. The good priest said it is likely that all Catholics Baptized in the post-Vat II rite are unbaptized and need to be re-baptized conditionally. How do I do that? And what about their Holy Communion, Reconciliation and Confirmation? I’m trusting the Holy Spirit to help you to guide me because – usually a clear thinker – at this moment I’m shell shocked!!!! I’d appreciate any and all feedback. I must get this sorted. God bless you.
If they were baptized with water and in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost(Spirit), then they were baptized. Even a pagan can validly baptize. As far as the other sacraments go, who knows. If Novus Ordo Rites were used its anyones guess.
Nothing but instructions on how to implement “heterodox, heretical, praxis” in a practical manner aka Heretics 101
Hello, God’s Servant First.
The Sacrament of Baptism is pretty much bullet-proof. The form and matter in and of themselves express the intention to do what the Church does, because the Form used while pouring the water represents exactly what the character of this sacrament essentially is. Baptise means “wash”. “I wash you in the name of the Father etc…”. A Jew or a Hindu can validly baptise, even though they don’t believe in the sacrament. They just have to perform the form and matter properly and it is valid, “ex opere operato”, by the working of itself.
The new ceremonial rite surrounding the form and matter in the sacrament of Baptism is slightly different to the old, but it still expresses what the Church believes and teaches.
Just because it is a new rite doesn’t necessarily invalidate it.
We need to look at all the new rites of Paul VI; the ones with problems (i.e. the ones that express something essentially different to what the Church believes and teaches) are Holy Orders (both to the Priesthood and the Episcopate), the Novus Ordo mass, Confirmation and Extreme Unction.
The Sacraments of Baptism, Penance and Holy Matrimony have been spared from doubt.
So, if your Priest was ordained in the old rite, before 1968, then his absolutions are valid, but his novus ordo mass remains doubtful.
The new rite of penance, or “reconciliation” says “I absolve you of your sins, in the name of the Father etc…”. It has the same essential character as the old.
The new rite of Confirmation is ambiguous, as is the form and the matter used.
The new mass has the character of a memorial meal, and not of a propitiatory sacrifice, so even though the priest uses bread and wine, the intention to do what the Church does is made doubtful, and they have also messed around with the consecration of the chalice, introducing another doubt.
So, the new Baptisms are ok. Some priests go beyond what the Church has taught regarding the sacraments, and lead souls to unnecessary worry and anxiety when there is no need. I think I may have seen that priest’s arguments myself, but there is no need to worry.
But, if you want to be certain of the Sacraments from now on, I recommend going to the SSPX exclusively, since the priests are ordained in the traditional rite by a Bishop consecrated in the traditional rite, who were consecrated by +Lefebvre, who was properly consecrated a Bishop.
Make a general Confession, and ask for conditional Confirmation the next time one of the Bishops visits the local Society chapel. They will do that with no questions asked for you, to remove any doubt. The mass is certainly valid.
The SSPX Mass, I mean.
I’m not saying that. I’m laity, not hierarchy.
I’m going to “hold fast to tradition” per Divine Law. That includes Sacraments from clergy who have received their Orders in an unbroken lineage that has been handed down to us. The rest is for the hierarchy to sort out.
Why should I trust the new rites when they appear to be defective and probably invalid in comparison to what we learn from tradition? Do you? If so, why?
I agree completely. They should not be regularised by heretics. For now, the SSPX are a safe refuge from the destructive revolutionaries. May God keep them this way, and may He help them to see the dangers that are involved with any regularisation.
Question for The Papal Subject (or anyone who would like to respond):
Regarding the new procedures for marriage at SSPX churches/chapels, must the local diocesan bishop be notified so that a N.O. priest could perform the actual marriage ceremony? What would the procedure be if the bride and groom and/or the SSPX pastor are totally against this? Why would the SSPX pay this homage to the destructive revolutionaries they are supposedly protecting their flock from? These are very serious considerations, are they not?
Here’s your answer.
New Eucharistic Miracle in Poland (Novus Ordo)
http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/new-eucharistic-miracle-poland
I don’t know nearly as much as you folks do about this topic. But here’s what disturbs me about your assumptions on validity of the priesthood, sacraments, etc.
If what you say is true, then thousands, if not millions, of Catholics have in fact been denied the Sacraments for many decades. Only priests born before, say, 1920 or 1930 would have been of the age to go through a valid ordination. Everybody after that has been wasting their time and their lives, many going their whole lives without benefit of a single sacrament.
To me, that would be a great definition of “the gates of hell have prevailed”, since God would have left so many of His children without His Presence and the sacraments. On that level, it does not make sense to me.
I don’t know much about anything, but it does not make sense at all that God would allow such an evil trick to be played on Christians who intended baptism. There is such a thing, if all else fails, as a “baptism of desire”, where the intention is enough, in a shorthand way of looking at it. I trust God entirely, even though my sacraments were faulty by being given by some kind of erroneous priest, that God will honor the intention of the sacrament. I have no theological nor canonical law to quote you, but only appeal to you to remember that God loves you, and knows your sincerity. We can trust Him.
Good morning Papal Subject.
How can I thank you for your wise and gentle answer to a real concern. For the first time in years I truly panicked – then I went into my ‘failsafe’ mode – I took a deep breath, prayed to the Holy Spirit and put my question to this wonderful forum! I then realized that all the angst had gone and I had but to wait for the guidance I needed.
This morning I read your post and knew that once again [and using your knowledge ] the Holy Spirit has answered my concerns; strengthened my soul and guided my Faith. May God bless you.
The doubt is not with baptism. The doubt arises with the other sacraments (not sure about marriage). The ambigious Rite of Episcopal Ordination in 1968 has probably rendered all modern day sacraments that require a priest or bishop as invalid. Unfortunately, Evangeline, good intentions cannot fix defects in form, matter, or intention when it comes go sacraments. The church can supply extraordinary jurisdiction in case of legal oversights but not in the case of defect in the sacraments.
Evangeline, thats why these times have been suggested as The Great Apostasy. Our Lady at Fatima and La Salette forewarned us if we did not repent or consecrate Russia. Well the modern world has formally rejected the Kingship of Christ and perversions are rampant. Why is it hard not to trust Our Lady? The gates of hell will not prevail as long as there are souls who profess the true Catholic faith as taught before the calamities that arose after Vatican 2. Hold fast to Tradition, Evangeline. Stay far far away from the conciliar false church. Christ is the head of the Catholic Church. His Church cannot err. Can you say that about Bergolio’s counterfeit conciliar sect?
John 314, if you do not believe that Satan can mimic a miracle, then you naive. There is also the possibiliity of tampering with the results at the lab. I will stick with authoritative Papal pronouncements prior to 1958. If you trust the modernists with their “miracles” well good luck with that. I also recall reading that the Son of Perdition will perform many signs and wonders to decieve even the elect.
The baptismal rite is valid but it follows Thomas Cramner not Apostolic Tradition so perhaps the souls are not made as receptive to all of the graces. Even protestsnt babies, validly baptized are members of the RCC until the age of reason. This is pre Vatican II teaching.
Good Sunday afternoon my2cents,
It would seem that the most effective way of understanding the problem with the SSPX, as a general understanding, and as such shedding light upon all of the particulars (and I am a lay member), is in their literal as actual embrace of an internal contradiction. They posit the so called, “Recognize and Resist” position, which is diabolical, as it is a full on assault of the law of non-contradiction. Almighty God does not, as He cannot, place contradiction into His creation, only the demon and man do that. Therefore, contradiction cannot exist in His Church, as it does not have “being”, as it is the privation of the due good of “diction”.
In an attempt to use as few words as possible here, as the SSPX acknowledges the “conciliar popes” as true Popes, in truth then, they have no recourse but to give of their full, willful assent into his (their) teachings as Pope and that understanding is deFide. To use perhaps the most blatant example of this “teaching” in recent time, recall the so called “Post Synodal Apostolic Exhortation”, “Amoris Laetitia”. This is a teaching document of the pope in union with his bishops, as it cannot both be a teaching document and not be a teaching document, at the same time, and under the same respect as “teaching document”. If it is not a “teaching” document, then what would there be to “recognize and resist”? And as it is posing as a “teaching” document, then how can the SSPX resist anything of it?, as to do so, is to defy the Pope’s infallible teaching authority on Dogma and Morality, in union with his Bishop’s, and that is a violation of Charity, which places those guilty of that violation in schism, and as thus outside the Church, where there is no salvation to be found and again, deFide. If Jorge from hell, as “Francis”, was a true Pope and his “bishops” were true Bishops, then this teaching instrument, as a “Post Synodal Apostolic Exhortation”, would then emanate from the Universal Magisterium of the Holy, Catholic Church. As this would be the reality as Reality, if he were a true Pope and his bishops true Bishops, Amoris Laetitia then would carry the charism of “Ecclesiastical Infallibility”, and as thus we would be morally obligated to give of our free will assent to the teaching of Amoris Laetitia, under the pain of schism.
Finally then, what we witness in our very midst, is the SSPX formally proclaiming the “conciliar popes” as Pope. In doing this, they obligate themselves to submit to all his (their) teaching under the pain of schism. As they submit to all of their teaching, they submit to heresy. As they submit to heresy, they suffer latae sententiae excommunication in their persons, by the very act of the embrace of material heresy, which is objective. Do not confuse their submission into heresy, which indeed is in opposition to the Faith, and as such this submission places each person who holds it into excommunication from the Church by virtue of the act itself, where there is no salvation. The “sin of heresy” is completely different but it adds to the pain of excommunication, which is latae sententiae, occurring in the “internal forum”, as the subjective realm of the human person. To be guilty of the “sin of heresy” a person must acknowledge an objective understanding of their heresy and continue to hold the heresy in spite of knowing it. That sin is mortal. How can any human person be excommunicated from Holy Mother Church by virtue of the willful assent into material (read as objective) heresy, latae sententiae, and not even know that they are excommunicated, and as thus on the path to hell? This, by their free will assent into the “operation of error”, as Saint Paul proclaims in 2 Thess 2, such that they believe the “lie as the truth”. If you “believe” the “lie as the truth”, then you have no recourse but to accept the lie as though it is indeed the truth, regardless of any rightly reasoned human argument placed before you. The “operation of error” is a Supernatural operation which God sends his perfectly miserable human creatures, who have no true love for the Truth and therefore do not seek Him with zeal. This is NOT God’s Will for His creatures, rather it is the will of the creature himself and he receives the “operation of error” in lieu of the grace which he freely rejects through his embrace of iniquity. This understanding of the “operation of error” is fortified by the Angelic Doctor, who in his Summa Theologiae, taught that the intellect must first “inform the will” and then by virtue of the reception of grace alone, can the will choose the good over the evil. Amen. Alleluia. Let those with eyes see. I pray this helps. In caritas.
Dear In Caritas,
Thank you for your response which helps and hurts. It helps because it is TRUE. It hurts because it is TRUE!! I always thought the SSPX was the first line of defense against the evil Modernist “church”. The Crusaders have left the battlefield. I speak of the leadership–not necessarily the priests who try very hard to stay in the battle.
God bless you, In Caritas.
Uh not across the board. Unlike their early days, the SSPX has been admitting novus ordo “priests” in its ranks without conditionally ordaining them.
Fact.
Years ago ,after experiencing so many “disordered” and ‘proud to be’ pastors , I asked an elderly Canon Lawyer retired priest the following question.
“Since we know a number of Seminary Rectors and Vocation Directors have actually barred heterosexual males in favor of homosexuals ,from entrance into seminaries and it was stressed ,even to children receiving their First Holy Communion, that Proper Intention was necessary for a valid reception of a Sacrament, How do we know these preferred
homosexual priests had the Proper Intention to receive the Sacrament of Holy Orders?”
After a long deep breath he replied, “It would appear that the Vatican had better redefine Proper Intention.”
I was left flummoxed.
More recently an older friend left her job after years as a DRE.
After the last five years of being employed under an openly homosexual pastor who led a double life ( one as a Trad priest for the pew people and one as a unabashed flamer who mocked the people in the congregation in the rectory) she had a severe car accident. She refused acknowledging her religion to the Extraordinary Ministers who came by her room but when an older priest popped in she told him she “used to be a Catholic”. Intrigued he came in to speak to her and she told him all she had been through working in the rectory. She asked him if he wanted to hear her confession and he declined, rather , he gave her Holy Communion and Anointed her adding,”My dear you did not leave the Catholic Church , the Catholic Church left you.” He asked she not ever tell his name saying, “They will see to it I lose the right to visit patients in the hospital.”
Hearing her story first hand when I visited her in the hospital, this time I was no longer flummoxed.
Agree, yet at the time as a young cat courious about dogma definitions, and ignorant of what was really going on, this was not agreeable to the NO priests of our parish. thanks be to God , I have two old catechisms now.
Evangeline, I can’t tell you how heartbreaking and devastating this is for me personally.
How many times have I wished that I could wish this all away. How many times have I backed up and tried to re-assess the situation in the desire to arrive at a different outcome. Anything but this. I know many good and well meaning Catholic souls, both laity and novus-ordained clergy. I’ve been around a good while, and it does affect me.
I wasn’t born with this information that has come out since the 60’s. I’m a nobody like everyone else. I simply wanted to know just what the hell happened to the Catholic Church which I love and admire.
Unfortunately, if I apply the sound teaching and practice of the Church as it was up until the revolution, then make a rational judgement on what the revolution essentially is, and how deep and wide it cuts, I have to put aside my longing to be a part of a brighter time of history, and face the cold black truth of our time in the face.
We still have, by Divine Providence, validly ordained clergy – both Priests and Bishops – to administer the Sacraments and offer Mass, but their relative number is so small that it naturally makes one wonder if one has indeed gone up a dead end, and there might just be some other conclusion which is nowhere near as bad as it appears to be. But this has been tried by many, including myself, and it seems that, yes, it is really this bleak.
Wow, that is very dark. There’s not much to be added to that. Thanks for telling it.
So just ask a new Priest about his story when he is sent to the Chapel, and then figure it out. I don’t know what to do in case he is doubtfully ordained, by the way, except don’t go to him for confession and don’t go to his Mass. I would politely state my position and respectfully recommend he receives (conditional?) ordination. Then what? I don’t know. I pray it doesn’t happen here.
I would love to know which Society chapels the sede’s here are taking refuge in. I might be next to you at the communion rail on Sundays and we’d never know. Don’t worry, I’m not asking for information, and I don’t want to give away mine!
You are very welcome. I’ve accidentally stumbled up some of these dark alleys on the internet in my journey, and run into some nut cases on the way! I am glad I was able to help you, because I worked through these things myself, and was myself helped by a very knowledgeable and charitable friend when I got stuck here or there.
You were thinking of the SSPX a while back Evangeline. Since these serious doubts cannot be resolved at this point in history, then why not take safe refuge at a Society chapel until something or someone brings this crisis to its end?
At least you will be certain that the Sacraments and Masses are valid and safe. The new things might be, but that is far from certain. After lots of study and thought, I don’t think they are, but that’s not binding on anyone else.
The Papal Subject—I would suspect there are a number of sedes in every (or most?) SSPX chapels/churches. Remember that years ago, the SSPX were very adamant in their condemnation of the post-conciliar church and the behavior of the postconciliar popes. This was fertile soil for sede leanings. These parishioners may not be taking refuge there. There position regarding the validity of the Modernist popes may have been formed there.
Good Monday morning The Papal Subject,
The harsh reality as Reality is indeed in our midst and that is the Great Apostasy as the singular time in the history of the world whereby the “operation of error” is so writ large that it is as if the Church is gone. Yet we know with divine certitude that is not possible and we miserable human creatures have also received the great consolation of our Lady, our Mother, and our Queen at LaSalette: “The Church will be in eclipse, the world will be in dismay.”. There can only be one such time and never to be again, as the Holy Writ and Holy Tradition commands us to know. Our Blessed Lord as our God admonished His disciples and to paraphrase: You look to the sky and see the clouds in the east and you know the storm is coming and yet you do not know the signs of the times. Ultimately, The Papal Subject, the most bitter of bitter pills to swallow, is the reality as Reality that each of us alive today will die and meet the Infinite Judge, Jesus the Christ, at our Particular Judgment, holding one of two realities in our hearts, as it relates the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, outside of which there is no salvation, deFide. That reality is two-fold. We either die knowing we are without the Pope or we die without the Faith, as any belief other than so called “Sedevacante”, holds within its immanence a contradiction of the Church’s holy Catholic teaching, deFide. 2 Thess 2, in communion with the true Vatican Council of the 19th century, hold the key as, “only that he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way.”, and as the Council taught infallibly, the Holy Roman Pontiff “SHOULD” remain until the end of time. “Should” speaks to the Will of Almighty God but not to the will of man, sorrowfully and most deeply. The word “should” is “suggestive”, while the words “will” or “shall” are definitive. The Council did NOT use the definitive, nor could it in Truth, as it would then have been in contradiction with 2 Thess 2, which CANNOT occur in Christ’s True Church, His Mystical Body, and SPOTLESS Bride. Amen. Alleluia. Thanks be to God. Praise be to God. In caritas.
I would just like to add t the post above (lest anyone think the DRE was God forbid, homophobic) That this longtime Diocesan employee was literally tortured by the phony Trad priest. According to her account, he even went so far as to hire two lesbians to work in his rectory to “report” on any other employees who did not appreciate his lifestyle choices and comments. When she quit, a Layman from the parish came to visit her with the warning,”What goes on in the rectory must stay in the rectory.” One reason was because his employees from a previous parish warned people he is not the cassock and beretta wearing holy priest he appears to be in public. They were concerned for his altar servers. So sad, because I have seen his name praised all over Catholic blogs by lay people and even priests as a wonderful Traditional cleric.
Well, I respect that you have given your opinion—while others ignore—I have to accept reality as it presents itself. A miraculas event can be condemned if it contradicts the Faith. This event confirms the Faith, so I accept it. And just as a matter of principle, when a miracle happens, God is speaking to us, and we should conform our beliefs to the reality of what the miracle is confirming, not conform the miracle to our current perceptions.
St Joseph of Cupertino
https://youtu.be/eXxOLNRBdXw
In support of this would also be the fact that consecrated hosts from Novus Ordo parishes are being used for black Masses. To my knowledge Satanists recognise the Real Presence of Our Lord in consecrated Hosts from both Novus Ordo and Traditional Latin Mass.
Gods servant first, you might want to check out this website where a Traditional priest explains the difference between the Sacraments before and after Vatican II:
traditioninaction.org
For example, here is their link to the changes in the Sacrament of Penance (renamed to Reconciliaion in Vatican II):
http://traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/a044htConfession_1_Somerville.htm
Ursala, you assume that Satanists have some sort of supernatural gift to spot the difference between consecrated and unconsecrated hosts. Either way Satan, being the Father of Lies isnt all of a sudden going to “grace” his minions with any manner of truth. His minions are the most decieved of all creatures and should rightly never ever be counted on to impart any truth whatsoever to a faithful Catholic.
Tom, demons recognised Jesus. And they recognise Him today in the Eucharist.
Luke 4;41: “And devils went out from many, crying out and saying: Thou art the Son of God. And rebuking them he suffered them not to speak, for they knew that he was Christ.”
Yes, demons recognize Christ more than we do. But we should not accept their testimony as truthful. They lie.
It is not so much what they say as the extent they will go to to obtain consecrated hosts, knowing that the Lord Jesus is most vulnerable in the form of bread.
I could be wrong of course, but I think the devil, the demons and their human servants (especially the Freemasons, Communists and Militant Homosexualists who infiltrated the Church and implemented the changes following Vatican II) went first for massive-scale Eucharistic Sacrilege and overall desecration before their next step, which will be the invalidation of the Holy Eucharist.
Yes Ursala, I believe the diabolical goal of satan and his minions is to deprive the world of the mass, the eucharist, and sacraments in general. What better way than to introduce new rites or ordination and forms for the sacraments. I do not understand why so many people cannot believe that God would permit this. God permitted a flood that destroyed all of mankind save 8 souls. He promised no more floods but ha also warned us of a Great Apostasy. It sickens me to think that NO sacraments are generally invalid, but I cannot assume that God would never permit this. That is why it is of upmost importance to hold fast to Tradition, avoid the NO, and keep an eye on the SSPX lest they too fall to modernism. I am very troubled that the SSPX is allowing NO priests to operate in their chapels without conditional ordination. Someone should publish a list of SSPX priests who were not comditionally re-ordained. Our salvation is on the line and the faithful need certitude.
Haven’t.seen.a.comment.like.this.since.myspace.
Tom, in your opinion, has there been large-scale Eucharistic Sacrilege since Vatican II?
If yes, how would this be possible if there has been hardly any validly confected host to be desecrated?
If no, as there has been no (or very little) Eucharistic Sacrilege (for lack of validly consecrated hosts), is there any need to make reparation and console our Lord for offences against Him in the Eucharist, as Our Lady of Fatima requested?
Ursala, even one Eucharistic sacrilege is too many and demands reparations. Our Lady asks for these reparations not because of the quantity of these diabolical events but because of these diabolical events. When Bergolio refuses to kneel before the NO eucharist, it makes me wonder whether he intends to disrespect Our Lord in the Eucharist or whether he refuses to kneel because he knows/believes its only bread. There are still priests in the NO who were ordained with certitude and the new rites of priestly ordination are not as defective as the episcopal rite. I cannot take the word of modernists who proclaim their rites are valid and there are no traditional authorities to proclaim them invalid. This leaves us, not in confusion, but with doubt. Personally, if I were to enter a NO church, I would make a respectable bow towards the high altar that used to have true sacrifice. I would not acknowledge the NO table. When passing a NO tabernacle I would never genuflect lest I be guilty of idolatry. I would however, pause and reflect on Our Lords passion and the sad state of affairs. I would ask Our Lord how much longer His faithful will have to wait for His return. But I cannot have certitude that His Eucharistic Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity are truly present in their tabernacles. By a simple bow or pause, I would appear like 99.9% of all the other Novus Ordoites who abandoned genuflections years ago. Bottom line, in my opinion, I think there is a lot less Eucharistic sacrilege occuring than we think.
Dear Ursula,
In truth, all one has to do, as all one can do, is to look to Holy Mother Church for the answers. Saint Pope Pius V tells us, as he commanded the Church with the full power of his Apostolic authority, in “Quo Primum”, that there is only ONE Roman Rite as the Gregorian Rite, and that Rite will remain until the end of time, to remain unchanged, thus not adding nor subtracting one iota from its essence as the singular Roman Rite of Holy Mother Church. He closed his Apostolic command by giving the warning that “anyone” who would attempt to alter this, “will” incur the wrath of Almighty God and the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius05/p5quopri.htm).
“Anyone” means “anyone”, as “anyone” cannot mean “anyone but one”, as in a successor Pope can change it. If he meant “anyone but my Successors”, then he would have said that plainly. Further, this is not a juridical matter, as the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is a matter Divine. Therefore, the “binding and loosing” power of Peter does not apply. Pope Saint Pius V executed this definition of a matter of Faith at the behest of the Council of Trent, and as thus he acted in union with his Bishops as the Successor of Peter. In that act of defining a matter of Faith in union with his Bishops, the charism of infallibility of the Holy Ghost as “Ecclesiastical Infallibility” is invoked, as if it was not, then Sacred Tradition would fall to the gates of hell, which cannot happen as commanded by the Son of God as God in Matthew 16:18.
Lucifer, using his useful idiots as his mercenaries, can only posit one truth in opposition to another. He does this by perverting one truth or perverting its use and then places it into contradiction with another truth. What he has accomplished oh’ so successfully in this time of the Great Apostasy, where the reception of the “operation of error” is writ large, is to veil the charism of “Ecclesiastical Infallibility” as though it doesn’t exist, and he does this by getting those who are receiving the “operation of error” to speak only about the charism of “Papal Infallibility”, as the “ex-Cathedra” proclamation of the Pontiff, which is rarely used. Because the ex-Cathedra proclamation is rarely used, Lucifer is able to create the deception that essentially most of what the authentic as true Pontiff may define or teach Apostolically, while in union with His Bishops, which is in the Universal Magisterium thus, and as such protected with the charism of Ecclesiastical infallibility, is somehow not infallible, because the Pontiff didn’t proclaim this teaching, “ex-Cathedra”, as though it needed to be, when it already holds the charism of Ecclesiastical infallibility, which protects Sacred Tradition from error.
What this reality as deception accomplishes is to create the mirage that the true Holy Roman Pontiff can first write and then teach heresy in an “official” Magisterial document, as the “Post Synodal Exhortation”–“Amoris Laetitia” poses as being, and in union with his “Bishops” as it also poses as being, which is to suggest that the Pontiff can indeed be an heretic teaching heresy and that it is even possible for that to be in reality as Reality, and beyond it being possible for him to accomplish that as true Pontiff, it is okay because when he does this, he is not teaching “ex-Cathedra”, and as thus we can simply ignore what he teaches and all is well with the “Church”, as if the gates of hell would not have already conquered the Church, if any of this were actually possible in reality as Reality, instead of what it actually is– reality as deception.
What this so called “Recognize and Resist” approach does in actual fact, is to suggest that the Catholic clergy and laity also hold a charism of infallibility as we “recognize” what is in error, select it out of what the “pope in union with his bishops” teaches, reject it, and resist him and his bishops along with him. Realize that all this occurs, this “recognize and resist”, in perfect contradistinction to what the true Catholic Church teaches infallibly at the true Vatican Council of the 19th century, which is that we must SUBMIT fully of our free will assent into the acceptance of all that the true Pontiff in union with his true Bishops defines and teaches, under the pain of an eternity in hell because of being in schism, and as thus outside the Holy Church where there is no salvation, deFide. This so called “Recognize and Resist” diabolical deception, gives Jorge from hell a carte blanche capacity to blaspheme God, profane His Word, mock His Church, all the while he freely embraces heresy and purports to teach it as “Pope”, as if he actually could be the Holy Pope, while behaving as he does.
Those who embrace, “Recognize and Resist”, even claim that heresy can be taught from a “Council” as so called “Vatican II”, in what it refers to as the, “Dogmatic Constitution on the Church”, as “Lumen Gentium”, and while it teaches heresy it can still be a Council of the true Catholic Church. In Lumen Gentium 16, this diabolical council, which is all it can be in truth, teaches frank and utter heresy. That cannot happen at a Council of Christ’s true Church, as otherwise contradiction has been placed into Holy Mother Church, which cannot happen because that places an affront to the law of non-contradiction, and Almighty God does not exist in contradiction, therefore nor can His Church, His Mystical Body, and spotless Bride. A true Council of Holy Mother Church cannot do that or the gates of hell have prevailed against Christ’s Church.
Lastly Ursula, our Blessed Lord commanded the following, in the Gospel of Saint Luke, chapter 22, verses 31,32 from the Douay-Rheims copy:
“31 And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat:
32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.”
Therefore, the Son of God made Man, commanded that Peter and his Successors will NOT loose their faith as Faith and as Holy Roman Pontiff. Therefore, as the gates of hell cannot prevail against Christ’s Church, Peter and his Successors CANNOT loose the Faith. This is a matter of Divine Revelation from Jesus the Christ, Son of the Living God. Amen. Alleluia. I pray this helps. In caritas.