As mentioned in the previous post, it appears rather obvious that in the publication of Summorum Pontificum and his defense of the same, Pope Benedict XVI violated his own convictions, and deeply held ones at that, on any number of important points.
In his book, The Spirit of the Liturgy, written after nineteen years of service in Rome as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, just five years prior to his elevation to the papacy and seven years before Summorum Pontificum, Cardinal Ratzinger made no bones about his view of the Novus Ordo Missae.
Did he believe its creation to be an example of liturgical “growth and progress” properly speaking? No.
Did he view the new Mass as a rupture relative to the venerable liturgical tradition that preceded it? Of course.
Did he imagine the Novus Ordo and the traditional Mass to be equals? Certainly not.
And yet, relative to the promotion of the norms established in Summorum Pontificum, he put pen to paper to make the opposite case.
What does this say about his motives?
Nothing. At the end of the day, this isn’t our concern. I’m perfectly willing to assume that Pope Benedict shielded the faithful from the scandalizing truth such as he understood it because he believed, rightly or wrongly, that this would best serve the Church at that moment. The Lord will judge.
What this episode in the Benedictine papacy does tell us, however, is that he was willing, in the course of conducting the affairs of the Church, to violate his own convictions; to put forth even in writing that which he arguably understood to be false in order to achieve a particular end.
Fast forward to February 10, 2013:
Pope Benedict XVI declared before the College of Cardinals his incapacity for carrying out the Petrine ministry and his intention to renounce the same, citing a lack of strength of mind and body as the reason.
Can anyone be blamed for wondering if the Holy Father, in announcing his abdication, once again deliberately skirted around a deeper, and potentially scandalizing, truth as a means to an end?
So, what exactly do we know?
Benedict declared himself incapable, both mentally and physically, to carry on.
Several days later, he delivered, without notes, a lengthy address to the parish priests and other clergy of Rome. Not only was his mental acuity unquestioned; it was hailed.
His last public appearance took place on April 27, 2014 at the canonizations. Though he walked with a cane, he was far from showing signs of a physical “incapacity” such that he would be, even now, unable to “adequately fulfill the ministry” of the pope.
Benedict further suggested in his declaration that he was making way for someone better able, both mentally and physically, to address “questions of deep relevance for the life of faith, in order to govern the barque of Saint Peter and proclaim the Gospel.”
Following his departure, the Conclave elected, and in very short order, Jorge Bergoglio, a 76 year old man with one lung whose public discourse strongly suggests even to his most devoted cheerleaders that he is far duller of intellect than his predecessor.
To be clear, I certainly don’t claim to know the whole story, but one thing I’m fairly certain about is this, the declaration of February 10, 2013 isn’t it.
“Benedict declared himself incapable, both mentally and physically, to carry on.”
I am prepared to believe that, World Youth Week having become the pinnacle of the Vatican’s events calendar, Benedict simply did not have the stomach for another one in Rio.
My guess is that he could no longer outmaneuver the “wolves” while sitting in the Chair, so perhaps, being a good chess player, he decided to sit behind the Chair…Bishop of Rome to Rook 6….
The abdication of Benedict assures a new trend for the papacy. The Vicar of Christ can leave his post as if he were the CEO of the Pepsi Corporation. It is possible that Bergoglio will also abdicate to further assure this possiblity and to weaken the Papacy. Let us not forget that Bergoglio is a Jesuit and the modern Jesuit believes in collegiality not in the supremacy of Peter!
I believe that as he saw age rapidly ruining him, he decided to call a “jump-ball” between the conciliar church and Tradition. He knew that any conclave would not elect Pius XIII. He was becoming confused about his own actions as a priest, cardinal, pope, and exactly what their effect had been on the Church. He promulgated “Summorum Pontificum,” observed for a while, and then resigned, (let the games begin). Akin to the attitude, “If I was wrong, the Church will right Herself. If I was correct, I can do no damage.” He knew that he, and his progressive colleagues had a long head start. He gave Tradition a small leg-up, and retired from the field. He saw the damage of Vatican II, but he still believed he was right. He just didn’t want to be the referee.
As we know, Papa Benedict declared only that he is leaving “active ministry”.
–
He wears papal white.
–
He lives in the Vatican.
–
He kept the papal coat of arms.
–
And, of course, a public statement that he resigned completely of his own free will is not a certainty that that is true – as Louie is pointing out here.
–
We have two popes, in a real sense. In the truest sense, there can be only one Vicar. The issue is that I do not believe anyone can have moral certainty at this time which one of them it is. Crazy times, indeed!
Hi Louie. If you’re looking for plausible conspiracy theories, here is one that I have contemplated — but I don’t really take seriously. First, I have to say that Ratzinger is the most complex (and mysterious to me) of all the cast of characters of Vatican II. At this point his fan club membership is diminishingly small — despite the few who look back nostalgicaly to his papacy.
So, keep in mind that Ratzinger was involved in negotiations with Archbishop Lefebvre and the Society of Saint Piux X — I’m refering here to the time before he became pope. The thought is that one of his primary “missions” as pope was to make a deal with the SSPX in order to bring them fully into the Conciliar Church and accept in some form the legitimacy of Vatican II. Well he did conduct negotiations with Bishop Fellay, but he failed to get an agreement signed.
Then the Cardinals decided that he had been given enough time to accomplish his “mission” and he had failed. So he was pressured to hand over the Seat of Peter to a much more “radical” successor that would apply different methods to accomplish this same goal.
Enter stage left (the liberal side) Bergoglio — who was the previous runner up. Exit stage right (the “conservative” side) in a helicopter Ratzinger.
+ + +
One thing I have noticed is that the SSPX has been very quiet lately about Bergoglio. I haven’t even seen anything from them criticizing the horrible attempt at revising the image of their spiritual founder Pope St. Pius X into a “misunderstood” pro-modernist reformer. It makes me wonder if they have been seriously threatened by Bergoglio. (We know that Bishop Fellay met briefly with Bergoglio recently.) It also makes me wonder what is their plan for the future.
If you are looking in all this for a sign of the presence of the Holy Spirit, I can’t find it. It seems the Holy Spirit has deserted the Conciliar Church.
+ + +
“Forty years long was I offended with that generation, and I said: These always err in heart. And these men have not known my ways: so I swore in my wrath that they shall not enter into my rest.” Psalm 94
In light of the questions presented in Louie’s latest blog, we were surprised by the level of conviction in Benedict’s own words a year after his retirement in a letter to La Stampa, “There isn’t the slightest doubt about the validity of my resignation from the Petrine ministry, The only condition for the validity is the full freedom of the decision. Speculation about its invalidity is simply absurd.” Moral certainty aside, to take action or make decisions contrary to what Benedict said would seem to either make him deluded, (confirming his mental deterioration), or a liar.
I just realized that I failed to describe the “mission” in the previous scenario. The “mission” would be to eliminate the threat to the Conciliar Church that is posed by its greatest legitimate critic/adversary — the SSPX. Ratzinger was supposed to accomplish this through a “pacification” program — “Ratzinger the pacifier”. Once the SSPX was brought under the administrative control of the Conciliar Church then forces could be exerted to push them to be more and more in conformity with the Vatican II revolution through a process of “integration”.
On the other hand you have the “stalinist” approach of “Jorge the destroyer” who forcefully applies a steel fist to the “problem” of the traditional movement in the Church. We have yet to see how he plans to deal with the SSPX, but we have already seen him in action with respect to the Franciscans of the Immaculate.
The “mission” remains the same; the methods used change depending on who is in charge.
+ + +
BTW, Bergoglio’s reign of terror reminds me of the slaughter of the innocents by King Herod. He knew that the Christ child had been born and he wanted to ruthlessly eliminate Him. But an angel appeared to St. Joseph and the Holy Family found shelter in Egypt. It seems to me that there is a multi-path “slaughter of the innocents” in progress. One path is through the destruction of holy orders. Another is through the sex education programs in the schools. Another is through the porn-ification of society. Another is through abortion…. all of these seem to be aimed at corrupting the souls of the innocents that could be tomorrows nuns, priests, bishops and even popes. And in some cases as in abortion to directly murder them so that they will never see the light of day. Is the Holy Family hiding somewhere? Think of the fine young priest who was murdered recently. His family had sheltered him from the world so that he could grow into maturity without the stain of corruption of this sinful generation. Perhaps he could have been that next Pope that would turn the boat of Peter around. But remember that Herod failed in his diabolical “mission” and Our Lord triumphed. Amen.
If I had to bet on it, this scenario seems to fit the long story of Benedict who did, after all, used to were a suit rather than clericals.
Either that or I’d bet on the sedevacantists’ conviction that we have had nothing but anti-popes and false-popes for an entire generation now. (p.s. but unlike most people, svs know the Church of Christ will not fail, whereas most people seem to think if we have anti-popes or false-popes, the church has failed – doesn’t really make sense since the petrine office belongs to Christ and His Church, not the other way around.)
Astute. The contemplation that the Holy Innocents are the ultimate target of the VII and Novus Ordo onslaught is something we should all thake seriously.
There are very many True men and women of the Catholic Faith who post on this site. With that being said, can we PLEASE research what the FSSP order actually is….and STOP treating this offshoot order of V2 as if they were actually committed to the Faith?????? For any advocate of this lost bunch of men….please tell me specifically which priest of the FSSP has spoken out against the sickness being spewed by our “pope”? Then next name i hear (they are cowards and refuse to acknowledge the sickness of the anti-church) will be the first name i hear. Hey Fr Flood…proponent of divorce and HEAD of the north american chapter of the FSSP….I hope you are reading this.
It’s my understanding that the FSSP were originally an offshoot of the SSPX who went the whole hog back to Rome so long as they could keep, for the most part, the ’62 Missal.
–
http://www.traditioninaction.org/Questions/B556_FSSP.html
As such, the FSSP are probably an contemporary example of what would become of the SSPX if they buddied up to the traitors too much.
Salvemur
I have a PDF file about how the order destroyed the parish of Our Lady of Fatima in Pequannock NJ (someday i”ll figure how to link it and post it). Personally speaking, my family (including our 10 children) is going through a LIVING HELL thanks to the disgusting guidance given by an FSSP non- priest who was assigned to that parish and who has since left, either because he knew he needed to leave or because he was re-assigned ( i honestly dont know). I’d like to say more but a public forum is probably not the place to fully explain. Because their head priest, Fr. Flood, supported the actions of this clown (trust me, you cannot imagine what I really want to describe both him and Flood as), I will never again have ANY use for the FSSP.
And yes, the FSSP is basically the SSPX without any courage or Catholic conviction…they are total cowards in every sense of the word. And i welcome any priest of their order to debate me on the subject.
rich,
–
I can happily report that my parish priest, who is a member of the FSSP, has no problem pointing out the errors of the post-conciliar Church, and does so regularly from the pulpit as well as in his monthly catechesis classes. Just last Sunday – Trinity Sunday – he gave a homily on the fact that Islam does not worship the true God. This was, of course, one week after the so-called “Inter-Faith Peace Gathering” at the Vatican. No, he doesn’t call Francis an apostate or a heretic. He simply teaches the truth of the faith, and he does so clearly and forcefully.
–
It pains me to hear that you’ve been treated so badly by a priest of the Fraternity. I highly recommend writing a letter to Bishop Vitus Huonder, who was commissioned with the Apostolic Visitation to the Fraternity recently. I’ve met the Bishop on more than one occasion – he offers the TLM regularly – and I know he’s dedicated to ensuring excellency in the Fraternity and a return to tradition in the wider Church.
FSSP parishes have a habit of popping up right next door, so to speak, to SSPX parishes of long standing. You’d think in the famine of the Traditional Mass of today it would be more merciful to go and establish a parishes in the in millions of acres of novus ordo wastelands – but that’s something that doesn’t seem to happen. The Novus Ordo Bishops seem to often use the FSSP to undermine the apostolate of the SSPX.
p.s. is there anything worse for a Catholic than a bad priest? Not much, I’d say.
Abdication fascination. Juan Carlos has abdicated; Spain has a new King, Felipe VI. It seems abdication is the way out of a sticky-wicket in post-modern sovereignties.
Solemnity of Corpus Christi:
–
http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/corpus-christi-doctrine-true-faith-4245
–
http://meetingthemets.com/2014/06/19/june-19-2014-republished-reflection/
–
Christus vincit, Christus regant, Christus imperat (The King Who does not abdicate).
Rich,
–
Whatever injustices may have been committed to your family by an individual FSSP priest, it is undeniable that there are many holy priests within the fraternity working to build up the Church and defend Tradition. Fr Walker (RIP) was one such priest. This homily linked below was posted shortly after his death; in it his desire to lead the faithful into green and safe pastures is made abundantly clear. I have never even heard an indult TLM priest talk so clearly about the evil of sin, and the need to make reparation to Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seXdJ_XxeBA
–
Even Fr Hewko (SSPX-MC) recently asked for prayers for Fr Walker, admitting that he was a holy priest indeed (3:40):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1ESt-lTR84#t=11
Is it confirmed that Francis has canceled all July appointments? As reported here:
http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/556186/20140618/pope-francis-appointments-vatican-declining-health.htm
It’s looking probable that he has some serious condition such as heart failure (20 pound weight gain – fluid), maybe complicated with a lung virus.
Sorry, coughing wouldn’t necessarily be from a lung infection, but instead is likely from heart failure itself. Heart failure used to be called “congestive heart failure”, but not anymore since not all get the congestive kind – yet Francis does seem to qualify for that.
Also, a class of drugs commonly used to treat HF (ACE Inhibitors) is known for producing a dry cough.
Dear Edu. Thank you for the link to the homily by Father Walker. Beautiful. In these sorrowful times a young priest speaks like a pope, and a pope speaks like a young inexperienced priest.
+ + +
His Superior General has posted a letter:
http://www.fssp.org/en/kwalker.htm
+ + +
“… there was an innocence to Fr. Walker which is rarely found in this valley of tears.”
+ + +
His reason for becoming a priest was already beautifully formulated in his application to the seminary:
“God, in His infinite love, desires all men to be saved and so achieve their true end. Along with the Church, then, I am deeply grieved by these errors concerning the nature and dignity of man accepted by so many people in the world, which deviate them from their supernatural end. In full view of the situation in the world, then, the only vocation that I could be satisfied with, as a work, would be one that would be dedicated to bringing people to salvation in whatever way God wills for me to do so.”
+ + +
Like St. Therese, God has called him to His side at an early age. Like the Little Flower, his mission of saving souls will come to full fruition now that he has entered into the Church Triumphant. Pray for us Father Walker. Send down a shower of blessings on God’s Holy Catholic Church.
+ + +
The other day I was walking through the woods and my senses became heightened in a supernatural way. I felt as if in the presence of Our Lady. As the feeling grew I realized that the wind was stirring the tops of the trees. I was showered by small “flowers” and my thoughts turned to the words of St. Therese “My mission – to make God loved – will begin after my death. I will spend my heaven doing good on earth. I will let fall a shower of roses.”
Stephen Brady who used to run ‘The Roman Catholic Faithful’, made this comment with regards to the FSSP:
–
‘ “Approved” Indult Masses: Here we must raise a word of caution. It is unfortunately the case that, in order to obtain “official” permission to celebrate the Traditional Mass, priests are pressured to compromise in their homilies concerning the contemporary errors infesting the Church. This does not deny that fact that there are many solid and holy priests celebrating local Indult Masses and Masses of the Fraternity of St. Peter and the Institute of Christ the King. Discretion must be used in attending such Masses, especially when the Holy Communion distributed at Masses includes Hosts from a prior Novus Ordo Mass which may or may not have been a valid Mass, depending upon the additional tampering with the liturgy that might have been committed by the “presider” at that Mass. ‘
–
That said 99% of masses these days should have a ‘Faithful Discretion Recommended’ warning.
Edu and Matt
Thanks for the words of encouragement.While I’m well aware that one rotten apple really should not spoil the whole bunch, I went directly to the priest who is supposed to be in charge (Fr. Flood) and was basically treated like garbage by him. This is why i have no use for them…one bad priest does not an order make, but one of their leaders was just as bad.
Salvemur
Yup…a bad Catholic priest is about as bad as it gets.
I tend to agree with E Michael Jones who said, regarding Pope Benedict XVI’s efforts to advance Tradition with his moments of giving in to weakness, that Pope Benedict XVI fought Joseph Ratzinger. If only Joseph had gotten out of the way.
so thiTo rich and all others who have post here
God bless you. It is so obvious that we share a love for Christ Our King, and for all the riches God has bestowed on us through His Church.
——-
It’s equally obvious Satan causes these divisions among us -misusing our most ardent desires to be nourished by the True Church which Jesus Promised to remain with till the end of time.
——-
Its “rule” has been manhandled by sinful creatures to the point where it can become a danger to the Faith and Soul of anyone not schooled in understanding the Truth as it was always proclaimed, and unable to discern and avoid the attempts to add to her treasures, modernist-twisted theological discourses and damaging advice on how to live in a way that pleases Almighty God and imitates Our Divine Lord.
——-
In 2ndThessalonians 2: 6-14 St. Paul comforted the flock that the end was not near, till after the great revolt would come, when what restricts would be removed making way for the man of sin, the Anti-Christ.
——-
His main advice to them was to hold on to the Traditions he had passed on to them, –both orally and written, and to remain united as we await the coming of Our Lord.
——-
Let’s face it, those words no longer speak of a FUTURE time to us who ONLY BY THE GRACES OF GOD have so far survived this Great Revolt, despite the sealing up of the 3rd Secret of Fatima in 1960 when she said it would be obvious. Even those who opened the windows of the Church to let it in, have declared that Satan’s smoke has entered it through ‘cracks”..
It’s cracked all right….
We all know it was the voice of the “dragon” and not the voice of Christ that was broadcast to the ends of the earth from the Vatican courtyard on Pentecost last month, denouncing the Blessed Trinity as a false god-directly from the writings of the Qu a ran—a book which St. John Paul II once kissed –(does that now make it a second-or third-class relic?). What a contrast to the first Pentecost, when the third Person of the Blessed Trinity descended upon the Apostles and Our Lady, and all assembled in Jerusalem heard the Truth proclaimed, that Jesus, their Messiah, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, One with The Father, Whom they had crucified, had risen from the dead as He had said, and Ascended into Heaven from whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.
Were it not for our desire to remain loyal to Jesus and believe in His promise to remain with His Church, at the same time as His Popes buy into false theologies that so clearly betray Him, we would have to wonder what could possibly have left Faithful Catholics like us, divided into so many groups we get dizzy trying to keep all the S’s straight: :
N.O.-Catholics, SSFP, SSPX, N.O./SSFP, and SV- SSPX -to name 5
——-
Yet here we all are.
——-
So -Thanks to you all for answering this call, and with the passionate love you so often display. May God do what is necessary to bring us to a day when we can all declare with certainty, “habemus papa” and can be united behind a Holy Father who will carry out God’s will AND perfectly, preserve sacred Tradition and all that has been Divinely revealed, till Jesus comes again.
——-
Rich, we will say extra prayers for you and your family , that you find a good priest and can give them what they need in the meantime. We know firsthand what it is like to anguish about your own children being deceived and in danger of losing their souls because you taught them to respect and love the Church, only to find so many pastors who betray you and Jesus -even in the confessionals they enter..
——-
Hold on tightly to your Faith. Jesus deserves that from each of us, as we weather this storm. He never betrayed us, even warning us this time would come. May our sufferings help purify His Bride so her holiness will draw all souls to salvation and the sheer beauty of the reflection of the Blessed Trinity, Our Lady, all the Saints and Holy Angels will be made visible though the holy lives of her children still on earth..
——-
Sacred Heart of Jesus, Bless us, Immaculate Heart of Mary pray for us. .
We just heard about the Pope’s condition AFTER posting this last comment. Just wanted to clarify that, so no one took it as a response to that news.
Let us pray for his conversion, especially if he is in danger of death.
God Bless All
If you study Ratzinger’s past, you cannot help but conclude that he is just as much a Modernist as his fellow travelers. Where he might be different in practice, however, is that he seemed to be attempting to implement a sort of “big tent” theory, whereby Tradition and Conciliarism could peacefully co-exist. A fatally flawed and ultimately anti-Catholic vision, of course, but the wording of Summorum, as Louie points out, seems to support this. But at least Pope Francis the Red-Nosed and Bishop Fellay are both on the same page about this: they both know, from their own sides of the fence, that Tradition and Conciliarism cannot co-exist.
“Seemed to be attempting” Your premise is based upon conjecture. Even Louie stated Benedict compromised his own principals. But you make the leap to him purposely being anti-Catholic, as Pope. We are not allowed to make such judgements, especially against a Pontiff. I will not entertain this provocation any longer.
Brilliant comment on the mystery of the resignation. I intend to quote this in the next edition of The Great Facade.
Bigfred I did respond to your comments in Irish post.
lol excuse me for asking, but are you the real Chris Ferrara? Just find it kind of amusing that we now have commenters from The Remnant (nothing wrong with that of course ; ) , as they say, the more the merrier…
Yes, it’s me. This blog is one of my favorites. Also Mundabor.
You missed a possibility: If he says something other than this, he’ll be – punished.
–
Do I know? Of course not! This is not even an educated guess. But it is definitely a possibility.
It’s great that you’ve got a priest like this. It’s also great that he apparently doesn’t have anyone listening to his sermons for something to report to the local ordinary, on whom he depends for his existence in that diocese. I can tell you that is NOT the case for many an ICK and FSSP priest.
–
Salvemur is completely correct: the Indult Masses and then the ICK and FSSP are a *response* to the Society, and a calculated strategy to undermine it to the extent that is possible.
–
I attended ICK Masses for five years, most of that under the care of a wonderful canon for whom I have great respect, but there is a reason he refused to speak frankly regarding the roots of the crisis. Publicly, that is.
That may be one of the very few things E. Michael Jones has been anywhere close to correct on.
This is essentially true, but it is also true that Papa Benedict XVI and Cardinal Ratzinger are different men. The former tossed the un-official official Vatican story on Fatima into the trash can, intentionally embarrassing its chief architect.
–
I believe Papa Benedict may have more surprises in store for us yet.
Edu, please don’t pigeonhole Mr. Ferrara as “from the Remnant” – not that that’s anything to sneeze at in itself. 🙂
Off Topic — Joey Lomangino has died – the man the “seers” at Garabandal said would receive new eyes when the “Miracle” occurred. Another false apparition bites the dust.
cdon, you’ve said nothing new there.
Dear JamesTheLesser,
With no intention of upsetting you, might we suggest that rather than forbidding any hint or suggestion of a Pope doing things that harm the Church, you consider allowing for the possibility that they have come to hold views with in fact do that, yet have convinced themselves they are doing God’s will.
You may be right in objecting to a lot of the unnecessary personal mockery people use in describing the Popes -such as crass nicknames, as Our Lord Himself requires us to respect authority as coming from God.
In Pope Benedict’s case, we think some people-possibly including Louie, may not have considered that he was not so much contradicting his personal beliefs in any dishonest way, but simply reacting as He felt all Catholics should regarding the new Mass, despite how his personal preferences had changed.
——–
What we can’t condone, however is the turning of Christ’s Madate to teach and Baptize all nations, into a “no-proselytizing” rule, and an “exception” for the Jews, claiming their Old Covenant is still in place. Benedict seemed to uphold that “novelty” which started as far back as when Eugene Fisher was hired by the USCCB and worked for over 30 years convincing the Church and the world that the old thinking was wrong–there is no need for them to convert to be saved. (Culture wars has an excellent article on it)
Jesus said they would die in their sins for not believing in Him, and sent the Apostles to try to convert then and all nations.
All the conciliar Popes appear to have bought into that denial of Truth, and perhaps they really convinced themselves it was God’s will. Maybe it was Diabolic disorientation. But whatever it was, Jesus wept for the people they have now abandoned, and many other religions are now treated the same way
We can denounce these errors without bashing and trashing the Popes who embrace them, by treating them with the same respect due anyone in error, and an additional amount because of their office, while still passionately decrying the tragic outcome of their errors. Would you agree?
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/06/18/vatican-pope-is-not-ill/
“Vatican denies reports that Pope Francis is ill”
.
…which says, “It is customary for popes to vacation during the summers months”. But I doubt that it is “customary” for a pope to schedule a whole month of appointments and then cancel them all.
Also, there is not likely any acute crisis, or else he would have canceled appointments starting immediately. But surgeries are scheduled in advance. Here is a list of surgeries used for HF:
http://www.webmd.com/heart-disease/heart-failure/heart-failure-treatment
Thank you, that is Big news.
Many people hinged their belief in Garabandal to that promised miracle, because he claimed Padre Pio told him to go there, and that it was a true apparition of the Blessed Mother.
We later read Padre Pio always told people to submit to the Church’s authority on apparitions, but few people gave that any attention.
For those fairly new, like myself, I found this from the Amazon page from Chris Ferrara’s book:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Great-Facade-Vatican-Catholic/dp/1890740101
“Christopher A. Ferrara earned his Baccalaureate and Juris Doctor degrees from Fordham University. He is President and Chief Counsel of the American Catholic Lawyers Association, Inc., a nonprofit religious organization dedicated to defending the religious liberties of Catholics in state and federal litigation, public discourse and debate. He has achieved major appellate victories in pro-life cases. Mr. Ferrara has written extensively on Catholic issues, including the postconciliar crisis in the Catholic Church. His writing has appeared frequently in The Latin Mass, The Remnant, Christian Order, Catholic Family News, and other publications.”
Bravo to Chris. It’s very conceivable that the ACLA will eventually be involved in defending Catholics arrested for “hate crimes” in the U.S. as part of the radical homosexual agenda.
Some of their civil cases:
http://www.americancatholiclawyers.org/news.htm
bigfred,
Most of the on-line reports that quote doctors, say that it’s quite common for patients with only one lung, to develop congestive heart failure and lung infections-especially when they overdo activity levels, as he has done in the past year. His 20 pound weight gain in indicative of heart problems as you noted earlier. But he could also have had a “wake-up” call and decided to listen to his doctors for a change, and take a good rest.
Indignus, it seems that everything with Francis includes conflicting signals galore and then waiting to see what happens next. Even health.
Speaking of the law, I hope that every conservative Catholic blogger is at least a little familiar with some basic concepts that might arise as a result of so-called lawfare harassment. That would include quashing of a subpoena (which has to be done fairly quickly), and use of anti-SLAPP motions that are available in some states – especially as in CA.
To add a bit of detail to that, it was Mr. Ferrara that defended Terri Schiavo from the vultures.
–
If neo-Catholics in general had any sense they’d admire the man for this if for nothing else.
I wish Pope Francis no ill, but it seems we do have a spare supreme pontiff waiting in the wings. Just 100 yards or so away, I believe.
Well said. He’s already been broken in, too.
Apart from the link you provided no one seems to be confirming, ‘no bookings for July’ for Bergoglio. I guess we’ll know soon enough. If he is ‘enjoying a period of unwellness’, as they say, might it be an opportunity for conversion? Who can say. It didn’t seem to work for Wojtyla. For over two decades, he abused papal privileges; raised up the evil spirits of ‘assisi’, ‘theology of the body’, ‘massive mass mockeries’, and ‘papal apologies to the unrepentent’, and more besides; and all these evil spirits have had a field-day with the faithful; and Wojtyla never publicly recanted of any of it, despite having the great mercy of a timely rather than untimely death. Bergoglio
similarly is an abuser of papal privileges, honouring the evil spirits raised by Wojtyla (including the ‘spirit of indifference to the justice of Almighty God’, whilst raising many of his own, ‘the spirit of the dissolubility of marriage’, amongst them. A conspicuous freemason of the 1800s once taught that there is no point in trying to obtain masonic oaths from a jesuit, as it is impossible to bind any jesuit to an oath. For Bergoglio’s sake, perhaps he will, if he is given enough enjoyment of bad-health, eschew his oath to modernism and convert.
“it is impossible to bind any jesuit to an oath”
That’s a memorable phrase.
.
You also reminded me of having watched “The Good Pope” recently which is, in parts, on youtube. In Italian, with English subtitles, starring proud atheist Bob Hoskins. Maybe from 2004.
.
About 3/4 of the way through, Montini is on his deathbed. He wonders if his shows of humility were really only pride. Since the movie is a liberal paean to Montini, his henchman is immediately seen correcting Montini and assuring him that he is s super duper guy. But there must be something to that episode. Maybe from a diary or something like that?.
I mean Roncalli, of course.
Apparently there’s a 1960’s film called, ‘The Shoes of the Fisherman’, starring Anthony Quinn (which quite accurately displays the whole straw in the chimney business of a conclave) which is considered a Hollywood welcome mat for a Wojtyla. Never seen it. I did see the hoskin’s papacy on screen – I don’t remember the Montini scene. Montini was of Jewish descent and had a down the line Jewish burial. Viktor Frankl recalls in one of his memoirs a meeting he had with Montini. Montini fervently asked for Frankl to pray for him. Pray for him to whom? Christ?
–
Fr Berry (in his exegesis of the Apocalypse of St John) says of this passage: “I know thy tribulation [the Church of Smyrna] and thy poverty, but thou art rich: and thou art blasphemed by them that say they are Jews and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.” : “The real Jew the true son of Abraham is the Christian who has accepted Christ as the Messias promised to Abraham of old. These who call themselves Jews are but rebels against the God of Israel and the prophets of old. They are the synagogue of Satan. Wherever the Gospel was preached the Jews were its first and most bitter enemies. Tertullian writes : The Jewish synagogues are the source of persecutions.” Given the conflation of Talmudism and the Prophets of Israel of late, I think this is an important distinction, especially since Bergoglio is demanding that all ‘christians’ acknowledge their ‘inner jew’.
–
https://openlibrary.org/books/OL7177653M/The_Apocalypse_of_St._John
p.s. re Bergoglio’s sudden hourly non-appearance on the world’s stage:
–
http://mundabor.wordpress.com/2014/06/19/francis-has-a-holiday-the-world-holds-his-breath/
@Siobhan – Could you cite the source of Joey’s passing? We haven’t yet found it, and we’d like to pass it on. Thanks & God Bless.
For anyone out thier with a slight sympathy for the siri-theory, you’ll probably find this interesting:
–
http://www.isoc.ws/
Indignus famulus — here you go.
http://catholicism.org/joey-lomangino-blind-garabandal-devotee-passed-away-r-i-p.html
Bingo. Its nice to know that not everyone has their blinders on. The FSSP was allowed to form for a very specific reason…..basically to undermine the SSPX, ergo, the right way. FSSP priests are obligated to be obedient to the V2 debacle. If one good FSSP priest here and there is able to speak the truth….that’s great. When it is found out though, that priest will be silenced.
Thanks much.
We found it elsewhere later, too, and couldn’t believe the spin!
They’re saying they believe in it now, more than ever, and this feeling just came over them, so it must be from Joey in heaven. And remember, Conchita foretold that something would happen just before the biggest miracle, which would destroy belief in Garabandal.
Can you believe that? The proof if the authenticity of Garabandal, has just become the utter failure of it’s only definite prophecy-Joey’s eyesight restored before his death-because that failure fulfills the later prophecy that something would happen to destroy all faith in Garabandal.
So get ready for the big miracle, folks!
(And when Fatima is fulfilled, they’ll be sure to claim that’s it
Don’t know about you all, but this won takes the cake on diabolical disorientation, from our point of view!
Hold on guys, he’d have to be re-elected by another conclave now that he’s declared his resignation unquestionable.
Shudddder…here we go again…
If anyone has been thoroughly duped on the Garabandal “apparitions”, sorry to say folks, but you have only yourself to blame. The Bishop of Santander has CONSISTENTLY stated since the ’60’s that NO supernatural events of divine origin have taken place in Garabandal. The Vatican has firmly backed this claim, stating that:
–
“the Bishop of Santander has been and continues to be the only one with complete jurisdiction in this matter and the Holy See has no intention of examining this question any further”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garabandal_apparitions
–
Hence, anyone who believed in the apparitions was clearly going against the judgement of legitimate Church authority.
–
Strangely enough, for my own temperament – I believe firmly in the Fatima apparitions – I have never really bought into the apparitions at Garabandal. My first BIG BIG red flag was really early on my research into the apparitions: The “Archangel Gabriel” first appeared to the seers when they were STEALING apples from a local field??? Was this an apparition of Satan camouflaged in angelic clothes? After all, we have St Paul’s warning not to trust even ANGELS who preach a gospel other than the one he preached by divine mandate:
“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.”
Galatians 1:8
I agree. And I don’t disagree that he may have done harm to the Church. My point being, I don’t believe it was intentional. That…we are not allowed to judge anyway. If you begin from the point of view that the Pope is not truly a Pope then you can only conclude that he is willfully doing acts of evil to purposely destroy the Church. Are you willing to go that far?
I could see why you wouldn’t like him. Being that you are associated with the SSPX, if I’m not mistaken.
Interesting idea, but what do you have in mind as possibilities?
Personal punishments have been dismissed by many on this blog, as being of no importance to him. Concerns for the good of the Church, would seem already outweighed by what has taken place since his resignation, and thus more reason for him to try to recapture his position by claiming he felt forced out, and then attempting to undue the damage.
Punished by whom?
To James the Lessor re #13 above
We wholeheartedly agree that sinful- judging of intentions-especially of Popes is not our place by Divine instructions as well as Church fathers. But the distinction is important to note–that what makes judgments regarding intentions sinful, even when done by legitimate superiors, is drawing certain conclusion in the absence of knowledge of facts–especially those which can clarify what the accused actually thinks and says were his/her motivations for actions.
There is also a difference -albeit a dangerously fine line–between sinful judging and intellectual exploration done for the common good, would you not agree?
——–
Where we have to disagree is in your conclusion that an invalid Pope would necessarily willfully be doing acts of evil intent, and that therefore starting with that premise necessitates that conclusion. What if he were unaware that his election was invalid, and still held the good of the Church as the motive for his actions? They could still be harmful because he is in error about what is best or what is God’s will, and because he does not have the special protection of the Holy Spirit, yet truly not because of any evil intent on his part.
We’re not suggesting any of this as our take on what is currently occurring, only that it is possible.
We warmly second those sentiments and add that there is plenty “else” to admire in Chris’s work over these many decades of chaos.
(Just to ensure we don’t give him a swelled head-we’re fairly certain he must have something in his past writings he regrets that we just missed-maybe a slight exaggeration or a dangled preposition?) lol
No offense, but this sort of stuff exhausts me. I’m a simple man trying to live my Faith the best I can. What am I supposed to do? The Popes are bad, the Church is bad, the FSSP is bad. Everything is bad. I feel beaten down and don’t know where to turn. I come here for sanity and leave feeling discouraged. Why is it all so complicated?
May God bless and protect you and your family, cdon.
I agree, the comment threads can be dispiriting. As a recent convert and lover of the TLM, I try to live the Faith and trust in the Holy Spirit. That may seem crude and unlettered but it works for me.
James,
–
PLEASE, whatever grievances you may have, DON’T THINK that the “Church is bad”. The Church is the spotless bride of Christ. Only individual members of the Mystical Body are “bad”.
–
You say that’s it all complicated, but you don’t seem to be making life any easier for you. If the comment thread discourages you, why visit it and comment on it? I try to flee from whatever is detrimental to my spiritual life. Personally, this comment thread if anything, only serves to confirm me in the faith, but if it bothers you, why indulge in it?
–
How would you feel if you were a spectator on Good Friday, seeing all the apostles fleeing when Christ Our Lord was captured by impious and apostate men?
Dear James and ontarienne
It would not surprise us to find that every person posting here feels EXACTLY as you each express it, at least from time to time if not continually.
What we have found extremely helpful is taking a break to remind ourselves that all of this confusion was foretold by Our Dear Lord in Matthew with words like –there I have warned you….it will be a time of great distress.– of falling away from Faith.. And we all know that Satan is behind confusion and false ideas.
—–
Thankfully, He also comforted us with His assurance that He will remain with His Church till the end of time. And if we become like little children, and come to Him when we feel burdened He will give us His rest. Unfailing promises.
And, dear Ontarienne, trusting His Holy Spirit is anything but crude, it is what we are all called to do.
James, you are with the Church, right? You want to find the truth, and you want the Office of the Papacy to be respected. All obvious from your posts. We are with you on all of that, and certain that if we continue trying to live holy lives, seeking to do God’s will, following the Traditions passed down to us, we have nothing to fear. Let’s all remember it’s not up to us to resolve all of this or have all the answers regarding those in authority. We know you’ve read the Bible–remember He’s going to wipe away all our tears. How can He wipe them away, unless we first feel like shedding them now and again.
We can see you share our Faith and Love, please also share our Hope in His never-failing promises.
Whenever blogging gets you too down, go read His word and come back when you feel like you’re up to the challenges folks here toss out. There is no way everyone but you is right all the time, or we’d all be in perfect agreement about every topic. Let it be part fun and part mission, and all with Trust in Him.
——
You have many gifts to share, we have been made to think by what you have posted, and that always helps us grow. Thank you..And God Bless us all.
If the posts here suddenly become joyfully united in agreement before the promised triumph of Mary’s Immaculate Heart, we had all better have a lab check what is in the water we’re drinking.
Joke time anyone?
A Franciscan and a Dominican were arguing over which order was better and decided to ask for Divine Guidance.
The answer came in the form of a letter dropped from heaven by God, which read,
My Sons, please stop bickering about such trivial matters,
Signed
God, O.P.
my friend, dear JamesTheLesser,
I believe you, soldier, when you say you are exhausted. This is why I and others gave you, many posts ago, helps—– to assist you. I hope you take some of them.
And –I hope it helps to say that if an old woman like me, who has to live through and hold onto lovely, whole & entire Mother Church, after being a child in the exquisite different Catholic life of Pope Pius XII, can hold on—so can you.
Please take the helps! And stick around.
ah, hahahaha,
very good, dear Indignus famulus
I live in new york city. Especially in light of what’s transpired in recent days here & elsewhere, we never discuss what’s in OUR water.
One additional thought to James the Lesser
If we each learn to manage the feelings of frustration inevitably produced by these duels with words, engaging in them without letting despair enter in, others will continue to feel free to express their true opinions in response to our thoughts, and that helps keep the dialogue more honest, and beneficial to all, as they needn’t hold back in order to “walk on eggshells’ around us. Occasionally people go to far and need reminders to be charitable, but that’s better than an ongoing artificial “church of nice”-ness to borrow a concept from the Vortex, which would make getting to the heart of things, a longer trek and maybe even a mission impossible..
My questions were rhetorical.
I’m not despairing, nor asking anyone to “walk on eggshells”. And believe you me….. I no proponent of the “Church of nice”. I’m not asking you to “hold back”. Go ahead, express yourself. 🙂 If you frustrate me I will take a breather and move along.
Maria, you have indeed given me good tools. To which I say… Thanks.
Can we please move on now? This may have gotten overblown. :-/
Let me further clarify. My question regarding the Church, which you specifically mentioned, was rhetorical.
I agree with many of the comments. JamesTheLesser asks, “Why do things have to be so complicated?” while indicating that this is discouraging and exhausting. Yes, but such is life, even the spiritual life. Simplicity is a beautiful concept but as a working model of reality it is “simply” wrong. Simplicity as a model is helpful at times, but to reduce to simplicity and say that it is true or real is an error. Buddhist will disagree but they are wrong as well.
___
The simple man of faith is invariably a very complex person. Humility is the truth, about ourselves and our wider reality. Good progress would be to get beyond the question of how far down the rabbit hole we want to go and instead to just go there and then decide what to do about it.
There are several reasons, but his silly (honestly) attacks on the Society are one of them, yes.
–
I can’t see how it’s anything other than amusing how on his website he champions his *comments* about his famous debate with Michael Davies without making the *actual debate* available. I wonder how many people who read it are left wondering why that is.
Fair questions.
–
I’m not even going to speculate on the “whom” as it would be little more than blind speculation. But, are the things that, say, Malachi Martin said about the Vatican true, to any extent?
–
As to what he fears – are we all so certain he has no fear of death? If for no other reason than that he wants to stay around to do what good he can?
–
That’s also really nothing more than speculation. I’ll say no more.
One more brief response to your comment: For what it’s worth, the supreme pontiff is not called an apostate or a heretic from the pulpit in our SSPX chapel, either. And his image hangs in the sacristy. There is no reason to descend into the subjective. Rather, the errors of the council and the entire “new orientation” of spoken of, when necessary and prudent, with no bitterness, and no personal judgement.
–
In my five years of weekly attendance of ICK High Masses there was never once a single word spoken regarding that stinking elephant in the room. It’s just the way it is, and the way it must be for those who desire “canonical regularity” in this very irregular time in the Church.
A Dominican and a Jesuit are walking down the street when a man runs up to them saying “Fathers, Fathers, how many Novenas must I pray to get a Mercedes-Benz?” The Dominican replies, “What’s a Mercedes-Benz?” and the Jesuit says, “What’s a Novena?”
Heheh. ‘what’s a novena?’ Did either of them say, why are you calling me Father?
The Church of Christ can never fail. It certainly has become alarmlingly smaller. But we still have the Rosary and the Sign of the Cross, as Sister Lucy said, and somewhere on this earth everyday True Priests of the True Apostolic Body of the True Church offer up the True sacrifice. We can unite ourselves with this through Prayer. We know the Church through her sound uncomprimising and unified teaching – so we know who the heretics are although it might not be pleasant acknowledging this. Don’t bless heretics! Pray for their conversion but do not bless them or else, as St John tells us, if we bless those who hold false doctrines or different faiths we become a party to their sins. Pray for their conversion. But pray for myriad blessing for authentic priests and bishops that they do not fail in their mission as the Novus Ordo does daily and unashamedly. Heretics are called fornicators in biblical metaphor – unfaithful to Christ – we don’t want any part of that.
But I wonder if you think one can say that the NO succeeds in the intended mission from its inception, which is to destroy Catholicity in worship?
Louie’s evidence suggests reason to question Pope Benedict”s statements, and history suggests reasons to eliminate fear of death from among them:
in 1988 Salman Rushdie published Satanic Verses and fled for his life.
—–
in 2005, Kurt Westeergaard published 12 Cartoons insulting Mohammed,
and his translator was murdered, he went into hiding under police protection.
—–
in 2006 Pope Benedict caused a media firestorm in Regensberg, Germany in his speech on Faith and Reason -denouncing violence as a way of spreading Faith, in which he showed that the Qur’an contradicts itself by both forbidding and promoting use of violence in spreading the Faith, and then quoted a Byzantine Emperor who labeled Islam as evil an inhumane (making the point that we need not use that kind of rhetoric today, only reason). (Which of course was ignored by the outraged Moslems who denounced him)
Benedict returned to the Vatican and went about his life as usual, making public appearances as late as April 27, 2014.
He could have gone into hiding, worried about the future good he could do for the Church if his life were taken. But he didn’t.
the NO has certainly destroyed Catholic worship in scores of parishes and dioceses. Happily God gives us the likes of Archbishop Lefebvre to vouchsafe the Apostolic Body and authentic faith to new generations. The gates of hell continue to cower at the Bulwark of the True Church.
I actually LOLed at that one. It should be easy to adapt it to Francis, by changing a few words.
Dear Michael
Thank you for this insightful and beautiful snapshot of a Saintly soul.
We just returned from Mass on today’s feast of St. Aloysius Gonzaga, and are struck by the similarities between his passionate love for the Church and that of this young priest, especially in his application to the seminary.
Both were cut off in their youth, with so much potential for earthly work suddenly halted. Yet both can continue their work from the ranks of the Church Triumphant -as we see St. Aloysius still doing, and pray Fr. Walker will too, either now, or in the very near future, if his soul needed any purgation. May our prayers assist them.
James,
Very glad to hear that. God Bless
Dear salvemur and de Maria numquam satis,
We are relatively new to this discussion on the N.O, but being completely convinced that the TLM far exceeds it in beauty, majesty, reverence, excellence of content in its prayers, and thus as a means of teaching the Faith as we worship, we nevertheless cannot agree that the N.O has succeeded in destroying Catholic worship.
—–
Having just returned home from one, aware of the inherent shortcomings, we nevertheless, heard the true Word of God and a great homily on St. Aloysius, given by a respectable priest who went on with great reverence -especially in confecting the Sacrament of the Eucharist with the proper matter and form–the same words spoken by Our Lord, Whom we received on the tongue after deeply bowing, as many others did very reverently, and finished the Mass in the same way, with no dancers or clowns or even personal words added by him.
——
Whlle we are well aware of the fact that this is not always the case, it is not such a rare exception as the total condemnation in your comments so often implies
—–
We are not attacking you personally, respecting your obvious deep faith and conviction, but wonder whether you have decided that the Sacrament, which is apparently validly provided in words(form) matter, and intention by the priest, is somehow not the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ?
If it is valid, as it seems to us to be, then it is not a detriment to the Souls who receive it.
If you believe it is not, can you explain why?
dear Indignus famulus,
I apologize for constructing my comment poorly thereby causing one to see in it a total condemnation. I asked a question. I didn’t make a statement.
That said, what I meant in asking the question was this: Was it not the intent at its inception to destroy Catholicity in worship, via de-emphasizing the Sacrifice { i.e.-we do not offer bread and wine for example, in the Holy Sacrifice,}
I did not mention validity. That is another topic.
The way I see it is that any authenticity found in the novus ordo is because some substance that belongs to the True Church has not yet been leeched out. The nature of the novus ordo is anti-thetical to Catholic authenticity – hence the fruits. The novus ordo has the seeds of its own destruction within it. That’s my opinion based on what I’ve learnt and based on the necessity of conforming always to the Church that has been held in unity of voice, of teaching, of worship for two millennia and which, mercifully, is not hidden from anyone. The rites invented by montini turn away from the Missal to the Haggadah – they turn away from the unbloody sacrifice of the Lamb Who was Slain to the memorial meal of rabbinical Judaism and protestantism. the novus ordo episcopal ordination is a new rite and many priests have good cause to declare it invalid. The Church is about certainty – Paul vi’s new rites undermine that certainty and attack the apostolic body at every turn. The book by Fr. Cekada – The Work of Human Hands – is a thorough and accessible examination of the history and meaning of the N.O. mass. I’m just a lay Catholic who prays for the grace to neither deceive nor be deceived, but encountering the obvious side of the N.O. anti-Church made seeing that its blast point and trajectory are anti-Church impossible to miss.
–
Archbishop Lefebvre’s ‘Open Letter to Confused Catholic’, makes clear some of the things mentioned above. God can of course give grace wherever He wills; the guaranteed sacramental grace of the grand and solemn rites of Christ’s Church, however, are under attack by montini’s new rites.
While I don’t hold the position that the N.O. Mass is, in itself, invalid, I think I understand where the criticism coming from. Have any of you ever seen a Lutheran “Eucharistic Meal”? If not, take a few minutes: http://bit.ly/1nrwFs5
–
Now, I can’t say that this minister was intentionally disrespectful, or that the Eucharist was not offered in the proper manner according to N.O. standards. The words of consecration were not correct, but in saying “for all”, he simply said what the overwhelming majority of N.O. priests continue to say today. Should we Catholics, then, feel no qualms in participating in this “Eucharistic Meal”? After all, Luther will almost certainly be rehabilitated in 2017, and a declaration of doctrinal and liturgical unity will not be far off.
Dear deMaria,
Thank you for clarifying that. We apologize for assuming your remark demonstrated total agreement with those of Salvemur before and after yours.
—–
Rereading yours, we see what you mean.
—–
Regarding what you did intend to say:
We have done some reading on the many who contributed to the Council and the creation of the Novus Ordo, and the magnitude of their ideas and intentions is mind-boggling-whether the information about them comes from reports or from interviews with them, done in later years, it seems to make no difference. A few things they seem to share were the desire to drastically change the Church and some of her most important teachings,, such as the necessity of preaching conversion and Baptism, and, as you mentioned, altering the emphasis of the Mass from formal Sacrifice to community meal.
—–
As you said discussing “validity” was not your intention, we feel we need to ask whether the “intent to destroy worship” by altering that emphasis or in any other way isn’t does require it to be invalid For how can a change which does not affect validity, “destroy” anything.
——
And that really is our point. . We have so much in common with all the posters here, in seeing the damage done to our beloved Church, yet God provided for us, when we had no other recourse–there being no FSSP or FSSX groups in our area. What we have come to see now, is that there may be a great blessing for all of us in that, as we have a completely different vantage point from which to view all these issues. Some may view that as a disadvantage, as we have for so many years, ourselves, but now we can see more of the hand of God in it, and thank Him.
——
There is a “new” Church being attempted within the True one, Louie points out in his next blog after this one. The question is, did God want us all to stick with Her, or follow those like Archbishop Lefebvre, or later, the FSSP?
What we read of him portrayed him as someone we would admire greatly. So we looked into his ideas recently, because of your devotion to him, and that of others who post here.
——
What we found of his own ideas, seemed reasonable, until he mentioned having no choice but to take actions contrary to the wishes of the Pope,due to the state of “emergency” created by the circumstance going on in the Church.
Bear in mind this is all our first impression—
Furthermore, he decided that Jesus’ Promise to remain with His Church could not be fulfilled unless Archbishop Lefebvre took it upon himself to assure the continuation of the Mass in the old form,by consecrating 4 Bishops.
(We read that the Vatican was deliberately stalling him on their promise to consecrate only one Bishop)
——
You may find this oversimplified, but our taking a fresh look at it may allow us all to zero in on some basic ideas that still need to be examined.
In Jeremiah 27-29, God sent His prophet to tell Israel He was exiling them to Babylon as punishment for their sins, and he wanted them to go there, set up lives, plant gardens, have children, and wait for Him to restore their former way of life, including the Holy Sacrifice of which they were being deliberately and totally deprived during that time of exile.
Some of them listened to other prophets, not sent from God, who told them God would not do that to his people. So they were punished by God with all sorts of things like plagues and famine etc, after he sent Jeremiah to tell them that.
It is, therefore possible, that God would leave us in this Babylon of the new false Church, and want us to remain suffering without the beautiful TLM, until He restores it, without going into schism or declaring ourselves SV because of all the atrocities we see even at the top. We are all capable of seeing what is happening, at least everyone here on this blog is. Perhaps God wants us to be his gaurdians of the less informed, and voice to those who will still listen, rather than being divided into groups fighting one another as to which is really doing God’s will.
——
At any rate, we are glad to get to know you and all the others here, and hope our insights may give you something to think about, and your responses will all be considered seriously by us, as well.
God Bless us all with the unity we so desire in His Love and in His Holy Name.
and Dear Matthew,
Our priest this morning, said “many” during the Consecration, as our Bishop instructed with the last changes– following the Vatican’s instructions to correct that other existing bad translations and errors.
We think one major advantage of saying the Mass in Latin, is the absence of problems like that occurring in the first place.
dear Indignus famulus,
Thank you. Your question , worded as such, does not make sense, vis a vie:
—
“—— we feel we need to ask whether the “intent to destroy worship” by altering that emphasis or in any other way isn’t does require it to be invalid For how can a change which does not affect validity, “destroy” anything.”
—
I’m sure it was a typo. Just want to be certain what you meant, so I can pay you respect by answering properly. {Note that I said “properly,” not necessarily competently ! } If you wish, can you reword so I can respond?
—
As to more, yes, it is a vast oversimplification, but that’s not a criticism. How much can be said in this format? I would encourage all to learn about Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre’s entire relationship, {a devoted one,} to Pope John Paul II, and the Pontiff with him, the Pontiff’s intention to do the Consecrations, to which you alluded, and other matters.
—
In order to do this, I recommend beginning by viewing the documentary on the life of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre available from Angelus Press and elsewhere.
—
Further, the magnificent 600+ page treatise by Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais entitled -“Marcel Lefebvre -The Biography,” is a substantive work and dispels what, at least I have found, are widely held misconceptions about not only Lefebvre, but also the entire era commencing before 1970 & in which we are still in the midst.
—
It is the opinion of many learned that Lefebvre not only protected the Roman Rite, but he also protected the Faith undefiled. This is important, because we are not Latinmassists, it’s not just the Mass, if I may so state it. n And , as you know, but many do not, the SSPX are “una cum,” united with Rome and the current Holy Roman Pontiff.
Dear deMaria,
Thank you for your response, and sorry about the typo and confusion of our question. What we were trying to ask was whether an assumption of invalidity isn’t implicit in your statement concerning the destruction of the Church’s worship. Christ’s real Presence being honored, adored, and sacrificed, as well as received by the Faithful, is the heart of Catholic Worship is it not? If those elements remain, true worship is still possible, even if hampered by the loss of (what we agree with you are valuable) other things.
——
We will try to look into the other writings and things you recommend, although our free time is limited, so it may take a while.
——-
We wonder if would care to comment on the idea we tried to present, regarding the Prophet Jeremiah and God’s will that His people be deprived for a time of their formal worship, as a punishment willed by Him, with their full acceptance being required. We understand your comment about not being just Latin Massists, to mean the intention is to preserve much more concerrning the Faith.
—–
That seems to us to parallel what the Israelites thought would be the reason God would never exile them to live under a pagan King without their worship and everything else in their lives connected with it. .
We also wonder if you agree that Archbishop Lefebvre -for whatever reasons–made an intentional decision to disobey the Pope.
We agree there is a limit to what can be covered in this forum.
dear Indignus famulus,
Thank you so much.
No, the assumption of invalidity is not implicit. I did not address validity. This was my original remark {query,} to another dear commenter:
“——–But I wonder if you think one can say that the NO succeeds in the intended mission from its inception, which is to destroy Catholicity in worship?—”
Emphasis now, if I may, on “destroy Catholicity—.” You, indeed addressed the “intended mission–” part of my remark highly eloquently just now. We are not talking validity herein.
—
My point was that when the Faithful do not recognize that the Holy Mass is indeed a Sacrifice, I put forth that they, through no fault, are prevented from worshiping as Catholics. Thus my “destroying Catholicity” remark. I’m sure you and many others have experienced as I have, within the context of evangelizing, the numbers of faithful who were never taught of the Sacrificial nature of Holy Mass. On at least 3-4 occasions in the last five years or so, when I simply mention this, I’ve found, thanks be to His Majesty, that hearts are open most poignantly to conversion.
—
When the priest does not believe, know, or intend as the Church does, then we are talking validity, but not today, notwithstanding that It’s widely known & written about that many priests do not even believe in the Sacrifice since the {ongoing} catastrophe of poor formation.
dear Indignus famulus,
Again, thank you. I’m not as articulate as most here, but I remember another dear commenter reminding us of the plight of the Japanese deprived of the Mass and priests for so very long and yet the Faith whole endured most impactfully.
—
With regard to wondering if I —
“—– agree that Archbishop Lefebvre -for whatever reasons–made an intentional decision to disobey the Pope.—-”
–I’m not touching that with a ten foot pole in this format, due to my lack of aforementioned, among other things, competence.
—
But, again with gratitude for allowing me to comment here, if I may revisit , and link to , if you will, a most splendid, IMO, point of reference which addresses same & more. This, in the form of an intellectual conference, devoid of emotionalism and false sentimentality, {which is saying a lot in view of the topic,} —–programming recorded just prior to the last conclusion re: SSPX & Rome talks.
—
As you’re aware, Mr. Verrecchio offers his educated reflections, along with other experts, in this compelling audio. Incidentally, I use this regularly when I evangelize, because, in my personal opinion, educating about Lefebvre’s preserving the Faith undefiled, is an integral part of catechesis. But that’s me.
—
I’ve linked to it here before, because of its excellence and ease of listening, even to a busy mother, for example.
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/up-close/2012/04/17/the-sspx-and-rome
—
Thank you so much for all .
How interesting, Ratzinger saying to EWTN’s Arroyo in 2003: “I had the desire to retire in ’91, ’96, 2001…”
–
He wanted to return to writing books and studying. But he won’t because he sees how elderly and suffering JP23 keeps carrying on with his duty.
–
http://youtu.be/AKVO_v2FbtE?t=42m15s
Dear deMaria,
Thank you for the replies again. We were hoping you could tell us why you would go into official schism with the Archbishop, when you and all the members of the society seem to be Faithful as we are to almost all the other Church Traditions. From the link to the Colleen Hammond interviews, we understand more fully the agony you must feel, because every word from the panel reflects our deepest beliefs, while what we hear from most of the priests and bishops (and Popes) is almost the opposite on all those major issues, so like you, we know where we are hearing the Good Shepherd’s voice and where we are not. So what seems to stand between us is obedience to the Pope, which Tradition requires even though some of his personal beliefs are in error.
—–
(we always thought of the Mass as a Sacrifice- from the Eucharistic prayers- the Angels carrying the Eucharist to God’s altar on High etc. and hearing homilies all our lives about Jesus being the only perfect expiator of our sins, offered at every Mass).Perhaps that’s why we fell deeply in love with the TLM when first exposed to it, because we recognized all the Mass parts were there, but with much richer prayers..
—–
Because we care about sharing the Faith, we’ve spent many hours discussing it with Protestant’s in the past, and found that all of them gave us the same words we’ve been reading on these posts, for believing they are the True Church, and the Roman Pontiff and his followers have polluted it, so they had to form their own group and “carry on” the True traditions. It’s amazing and yet very sad at the same time, how all the words are the same–even their rejection of ecumenism as indifferentism.When we ask them about Jesus’ Promise to stay with His Church till the end of time, they say, that’s true, He’s with us because we ARE the only ones who are preserving it as He intended–just as the SSPX seems to think.
—–
So it strikes us that if there are so many groups saying that, and one Church that Jesus founded and made that promise to, making Peter it’s head with the keys to bind or loose, and Mary and Jesus are still waiting for the Pope to consecrate Russia, then breaking away from that must be a grave error as the Church has always taught.
As you didn’t comment on Jeremiah and the Babylonian Captivity, don’t you think it applies here?
.
bigfred,
We’re thinking he was overwhelmed after trying to deal with the pedophilia scandal, to be informed (vati-leaks) about so many more atrocities at once, that had to be dealt with right inside the Vatican. Every 5 years as we get older seems to leave us feeling less and less up to dealing with big emotional issues.
And being more inclined to intellectual pursuits than law-enforcement, maybe he thought the next guy would be more up to it.
It’s not the first time he’s been wrong about something, after all.
Concerning some of the NO enquiries above; for decades the English mass deliberately presented false words at every mass (poured out for ALL) – putting words in the mouth of God – that He never ever said, causing a whole generation of mass-goers to participate in a lie about the Word Incarnate. Could this have been pleasing to God? By the fruits. Once I showed up to mass (N.O.) on a weekday. I was the only one there and the local bishop was the presider (yep that’s novus ordo – the bishop says mass and noone shows – he is around 70 I’d day). Anyway, this was after Benedict’s abdication and Bergoglio’s entrance so the words of consecration in English had at least been officially righted; however, when he came to the ‘this is My Body’, he said, ‘this is Jesus’. He refused to be an alter Christus – this mass was invalid. I didn’t take communion. I can remember being shocked – what’s he saying? At the time I thought, well, they want an impoverished Church, they’ve got one.
–
Plus we are told no to participate in prayers with heretics – if the mass prays
in union with Bergoglio and one’s local bishop who refuses to say a mass correctly, one has an obligation not to participate in such a pray – therefore such a mass.
Dear salvemur,
Isn’t this awful? Thank God they fixed the English for when there is no TLM available. You will get no argument from us-that was definitely an invalid Mass you attended, and the ICEL’s years of using the word ALL were just as bad.-though I think most of us had no idea till more recently, that anything was amiss with that.. Things are bad all over.
—–
A pastor in our state was recently arrested for soliciting sex, and booted out of the parish where he had live donkeys at the communion rail -advertised in his parish bulletin as the big draw for all the Palm Sunday Masses each year.
—–
I Don’t think anything would surprise us . We recall seeing newspaper photos of Cardinal Bernardin’s group back 30 years ago in Chicago, holding illicit Masses and drinking “consecrated” wine out of large wine glasses at tables set up like in a restaurant- we’ve pretty much seen it all.
—–
It seems you and your families have had an easier path with those wonderful priests and holy teachers, we envy you. We have no groups like that in our area. We keep having to find new parishes, and do our best to counter all the evils. By God’s Grace after 6 of them in 40 years, we found the TLM 3x/wk (albeit in a part of town where you should have a body-guard to go from the car to the Church)
May God Bless us with a Holy Pope who will restore His Church to order.
Indignus, what I took from that Arroyo interview was that Ratzinger had been inclined for many years toward retirement simply because he was, as you say, overwhelmed and he probably has an aversion to conflict. This supports the idea that he retired from being pope because of the same simple motivation, without any ulterior motives being involved.
Have any of you ever seen a Lutheran “Eucharistic Meal”? If not, take a few minutes: http://bit.ly/1nrwFs5
Matthew, thank you for this link.
Oh. my. goodness. I had no idea!
We toss this in for anyone interested–
We’ve asked a number of people why they have jumped ship, so to speak rather than staying in the boat with Jesus-who promised to remain with His Church till the end of time; and why go with someone who’s disobedience to the Pope’s orders, got him excommunicated and brought his followers into schism–or “partial schism” whatever that is.
—–
Where we’d appreciate simple responses like our given reasons, we get invited to read 600 page books or watch 20 videos–(and we’re trying) but they don’t address those questions any differently than all Protestants do- i.e.”we haven’t left the True Church, we ARE the Church and are preserving it for future generations.
—–
Some of you, mocked (rightly so) the Garabandal claims to authenticity, based on the apple-stealing that was going on when it began, yet condone the much more serious sin of disobedience to and assumption of the authority of the magisterium–which is now a major factor in the history of the SSPX.
We wonder why you all didn’t stay and fight, because of what Jesus promised.
If Archbishop Lefebvre convinced himself and others that Jesus couldn’t prevail in the PVII (post Vatican II) church, shouldn’t we all be united in correcting such obviously erroneous ideas? Maybe if anyone but a respected archbishop make those same claims we would recommend a good counselor.
—–
We keep getting examples of the hideous things going on, and quotes of “fruits” as if we are in any need of things to convince us that things are really bad in the PVII Church. We don’t, as we’ve frequently cited examples ourselves.
The whole thing hinges for us, on (hate to quote the latest fad, but) What Would Jesus (have us) do?
—–
When the disciples panicked in the storm and woke Him- in the boat, He said, Oh Ye of little Faith.”
When some of the Israelites refused to believe Jeremiah, that God was sending them to Babylon without their Sacrifice, He sent Jeremiah back to tell them to stop listening to false prophets, and obey his will. Go live there, build houses, plant gardens, have children, and wait, or he would send them plagues to destroy them.
It was all about OBEDIENCE and FAITH IN GOD’S PROMISES, which is why we are sticking it out despite all the hardship it has caused.
—– .
Our Lady and Our Lord, submitted her requests to the Roman Pontiff and are still waiting, while threatening more and more serious chastisements, because of the disobedience regarding Russia.
If they give us that example, staying within the disobedient Church,and told us to pray and it will happen “late”, how can anyone justify, creating a revolution outside of the Church, which causes more spits and disagreements and confusion?
—–
We mean no disrespect to any of you. We know there are great, serious consequences to families and especially children, either way you choose. But Abraham with his hand in the air about to sacrifice Isaac, was halted and rewarded because of his Faith.
We have our own and a whole passel of grand kids to help through this, too.
That’s why we’re trying to understand all this, sort out good ideas from bad, and hopefully help ourselves and others do whatever Jesus wants us all to do.
—–God Bless all.
Dear Indignus famulus.
Thank you, point taken and —
frankly, I can see where you could even take it as offense to , well, in your words–” get invited to read 600 page books or watch 20 videos–(and we’re trying) but they don’t address those questions——-” So, once more, point taken and apology offered.
—
I cannot speak for others but one reason I made here, and in other places, suggestions thus- is because I’ve up to now considered Mr. V.’s site as one to which youth & those seeking can come and have some water that’s cold and exhilarating, along with suggestions made with good will.
—
In an interview on Voice of Catholic Tradition in 2013, Mr. V. refers to his blog as a place for those who have the stomach for it, with his distinct sense of humor. {paraphrasing} Later , Mr. V. while working out certain moderation issues, stated he did not wish to moderate his readers into lukewarmness. These are the words of a man of courage and forthrightness.
—
I’d venture to say, that we come here to visit not because we wish to make definitive statements, but just to connect with each other and read our favorite Catholic writer.
—
With regard to the SSPX– even vaguely accusing your fellow Catholics, those who worship or abide- as having “jumped ship,” is a serious matter. If you are a canon lawyer then you have studied this and have formed an educated opinion as to status; you would also be aware that there are colleagues of yours who, also having studied in great depth, differ on this matter. The Society of St. Pius X is not in schism–short answer. There is a canonical irregularity, short answer.
—
Since you’ve made assumptions about me directly, maybe it would be good to correct that. I attend a diocesan parish in a very poor and unsafe neighborhood where a “diocesan approved” Traditional Latin Mass using 1962 rubrics is celebrated by a diocesan priest. I used to attend an SSPX chapel when I had a mobility dog to assist me with accessibility.
—
The Mass location currently is a place to which I’d never bring someone I am catechizing or an individual who has fallen away, because I think it is a danger to the Faith, confusing at best, scandalous at worst. I regularly return weeping.
—
In this diocesan parish, every flavor of “worship” from neo catechumenal way to slaying in the spirit to you name it —they’ve got it— all under the same roof. That same roof under which in 1930 when it was built, upon the humble yet high original marble altar, was celebrated only The Traditional Rite of the Roman Catholic Church.
—
To borrow, if I may, your comment to another above, isn’t that aweful?
—
It would probably be good if you would read what Archbishop Lefebvre and the Society teach about the Novus Ordo rather than speculate. Google is your friend here.
—-
Before that, have you read so-called the Ottaviani Intervention? This is the first and one of the best critiques of the new Rite. There is a great deal more to it than validity.
—-
The priests and bishops (which are the only members) of the Society of St. Piux X ARE NOT IN FORMAL SCHISM.
—
http://www.acatholicthinker.net/blog/2013/10/23/a-brief-response-to-fr-z.html
Actually, the Traditional Mass is as distant in memory for me as it is geographically. The grand and solemn Holy Sacrifice is a thousand miles away, literally over land and sea – at least SSPX. There is a former SSPX gone FSSP under Benedict that is about a 7 hour drive away. No, the NO is the landscape of my waking. I live in the land of the liturgical dance, otherwise know as the neo-danse-macbre.
–
Indignus famulus: “Some of you, mocked (rightly so) the Garabandal claims to authenticity, based on the apple-stealing that was going on when it began, yet condone the much more serious sin of disobedience to and assumption of the authority of the magisterium–which is now a major factor in the history of the SSPX.
We wonder why you all didn’t stay and fight, because of what Jesus promised.
If Archbishop Lefebvre convinced himself and others that Jesus couldn’t prevail in the PVII (post Vatican II) church, shouldn’t we all be united in correcting such obviously erroneous ideas? Maybe if anyone but a respected archbishop make those same claims we would recommend a good counselor.”
—
The fact that you nonchalantly proclaim the priests and bishops of the Society of St. Pius are outside the Church, as if this is a simple fact, demonstrates that your exposure to this issue is woefully one-sided. (Or, alternatively, that you’re disingenuous – not that I’m suggesting that.)
—
In a nutshell, the Society is not schismatic because the Society does not, and has never, refused communion with the Roman Pontiff. It recognizes his authority: this is something that schismatics (such as, say, the Russian Orthodox) never do.
—
As a well-respected Italian theologian observed, it is not the Society that refuses communion with the Vatican, but they that refuse communion with it.
—
And for what? For, indeed, continuing the Faith, the true Faith, all if it: refusing to bow to the conciliar novelties of false ecumenism, religious liberty, and collegiality. These novelties are *not* Catholic teaching – they are not official teaching of any kind. Paul VI informed the Church that that enigmatic council that defined no dogma and pronounced no anathemas – a first in the history of the Church! – was “pastoral” and bound the faithful to *no new teaching*. (How could it, when 50 years later still no one can agree on *what* its teachings are?)
—
http://www.acatholicthinker.net/blog/2013/10/23/a-brief-response-to-fr-z.html
—
I’m doing my best to give you the benefit of the doubt, but statements like “Archbishop Lefebvre convinced himself and others that Jesus couldn’t prevail in the PVII (post Vatican II) church” do reek of an agenda.
—
—
Indignus famulus: “When the disciples panicked in the storm and woke Him- in the boat, He said, Oh Ye of little Faith.”
When some of the Israelites refused to believe Jeremiah, that God was sending them to Babylon without their Sacrifice, He sent Jeremiah back to tell them to stop listening to false prophets, and obey his will. Go live there, build houses, plant gardens, have children, and wait, or he would send them plagues to destroy them.
It was all about OBEDIENCE and FAITH IN GOD’S PROMISES, which is why we are sticking it out despite all the hardship it has caused.”
—
I am also, indeed, “sticking it out” in the one, true faith, the Catholic Church, attending Society of St. Pius X Masses.
—
Regarding obedience, the fact is that all human obedience has natural limits – that is Catholic teaching. All theologians that have weighed-in on the issue have declared that there are cases in which the command of a prelate, even the supreme pontiff, who does indeed enjoy supreme jurisdiction over the entire Universal Church, cannot be obeyed. I will post some of their quotes, as well as some links, in further posts.
—
—
Indignus famulus: “Our Lady and Our Lord, submitted her requests to the Roman Pontiff and are still waiting, while threatening more and more serious chastisements, because of the disobedience regarding Russia. If they give us that example, staying within the disobedient Church,and told us to pray and it will happen “late”, how can anyone justify, creating a revolution outside of the Church, which causes more spits and disagreements and confusion?”
—
What’s very interesting about your observation here is that it is the SSPX, and elements associated with it, more than anyone else, continuing to call for a valid Consecration of Russia and praying for that cause.
On true and false obedience:
—
http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/OpenLetterToConfusedCatholics/Chapter-18.htm
More regarding true & false obedience:
—
http://sspx.org/en/can-obedience-oblige-us-disobey
Here is just a bit of what eminent theologians, saints, and even popes have had to say about true and false obedience:
—
Bellarmine: “Although it clearly follows from the circumstances that the Pope can err at times, **and command things which must not be done**, that we are not to be simply obedient to him in all things, that does not show that he must not be obeyed by all when his commands are good. To know in what cases he is to be obeyed and in what not, it is said in the Acts of the Apostles: ‘One ought to obey God rather than man’; therefore,were the Pope to command anything against Holy Scripture, or the articles of faith, or the truth of the Sacraments, or the commands of the natural or divine law, he ought not to be obeyed, but in such commands, to be passed over.
—
“By disobedience, the Pope can separate himself from Christ despite the fact that he is head of the Church, for above all, the unity of the Church is dependent upon its relationship with Christ. The Pope can separate himself from Christ either by disobeying the law of Christ, or by commanding something that is against the divine or natural law. By doing so, the Pope separates himself from the body of the Church because this body is itself linked to Christ by obedience. In this way, the Pope would, without doubt, fall into schism…. He would do that if he did not observe that which the Universal Church observes in basing herself on the Tradition of the Apostles, or if he did not observe that which has been ordained for the whole world by the universal councils or by the authority of the Apostolic See. Especially is this true with regard to the divine liturgy”
—
Augustine: “[St. Paul] showed, nonetheless, that it is possible for subordinates to have the boldness to resist their superiors without fear, when in all charity they speak out in the defense of truth.”
—
Bellarmine: “Just as it is lawful to resist the pope that attacks the body, **it is also lawful to resist the one who attacks souls or who disturbs civil order, or, above all, who attempts to destroy the Church. I say that it is lawful to resist him by not doing what he orders and preventing his will from being executed.**”
—
Suarez: “**If the pope gives an order contrary to right customs, he should not be obeyed; if he attempts to do something manifestly opposed to justice and the common good, it will be lawful to resist him**; if he attacks by force, by force he can be repelled, with a moderation appropriate to a just defense.”
—
St. Catherine of Siena: “There is a time when those who obey, obey to their own condemnation.”
—
Pope St. Gregory the Great: “Peter remained silent so that, being first in the hierarchy of the Apostles, he might equally be first in humility.” (Peter allowed himself to be publicly rebuked since he recognized that it was just.)
—
Pope Innocent III (died 1216): “The pope should not flatter himself about his power, nor should he rashly glory in his honour and high estate, because the less he is judged by man, the more he is judged by God. Still the less can the Roman Pontiff glory, because he can be judged by men, or rather, can be shown to be already judged, if for example he should wither away into heresy, because ‘he who does not believe is already judged.’ (John 3:18) In such a case it should be said of him: ‘If salt should lose its savour, it is good for nothing but to be cast out and trampled under foot by men.'” (Sermo 4)
—
Pope Adrian VI (died 1523) “If by the Roman Church you mean its head or pontiff, it is beyond question that he can error even in matters touching the faith. He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgment or decretal. In truth, many Roman pontiffs were heretics. The last of them was Pope John XXII (1316-1334).” (Quaest. in IV Sententiam).
—
Pope Adrian II: “We read that the Roman Pontiff has always possessed authority to pass judgment on the heads of all the Churches ( i.e., the patriarchs and bishops ), but nowhere do we read that he has been the subject of judgment by others. It is true that Honorius was posthumously anathematized by the Eastern churches, but it must be borne in mind that he had been accused of heresy, the only offense which renders lawful the resistance of subordinates to their superiors, and their rejection of the latter’s pernicious teachings.” (Allocution III, Lect. In Conc. VIII, act. VII)
Dear de Maria numquam satis,
Thank you for your kind and helpful reply. It proved you were very wrong about one thing–( your past labeling yourself as not as articulate as others on this blog) lol.
—–
We apologize if our post seemed aimed directly at you, as it was not at all our intention to do that, and no offense was taken by us regarding anyone’s suggestions, although that impression may have been given. (The number 600 just seemed useful to illustrate our point about looking for direct replies more from the heart of the person posting, rather than from those who inspire them)
Being rather new at this type of activity, we especially appreciate your having taken the time to advise us , and will try in future to limit our scope accordingly, and watch out for offensive opinions like “jumping ship” . So thank you for the feedback, and since we’re all human, don’t be surprised if we fail in future responses, despite our best efforts.
—– In our defense on that one, however, it may have been due to some buildup of frustration over seeing so many postings referring to “N.O” people as if they are dupes and idiots or as corrupted as those who deliberately work to further Satan’s attacks on the Church.
—–
If you look back at a few of these recent blogs, you may see what we mean, as so many seem to feel it is “open season” on those ‘people” as scapegoats for all kinds of vitriol and mockery. That is possibly due to the unlikelihood of many who still participate in those parishes regularly, also enjoying a blog like this one. Our situation may be somewhat unique in that way.
—–
Not being canon lawyers, to answer your question, we took a look at some of the links recommended, and one in particular mentioned the SSPX being in schism, and then half-jokingly in “partial schism” which is where those comments you object to, originated,–we think it was in an interview of John Vennari, Louie Verrecchio, and Doctor LeMont.
—–
Perhaps they were referring to the canonical irregularity you mention, or perhaps that is the current status and the video was made prior to a change?
It was our understanding that excommunications were lifted from the 4 Bishops who were consecrated by ArchBishop Lefebvre, but that he had already died, separated from the Church at that point. If we were misinformed, we apologize, but we hope you can see why having reason to believe that to be the case, our questions were not based on our own opinions, but (we believed)on those of others in a position to make those formal judgments.
—–We wee at a loss regarding your comment about us making direct assumptions about you, as our post was referring to so many we had read, and we had no one in particular in mind. Truly. But perhaps we unknowingly referred to more than one thing we had talked about with you. If so, it was unintentional.
—–What we were hoping to convey was our sincerity in believing that many truly good and saintly people stay in the post-conciliar parishes out of strong sense of duty to be obedient to the Lord, rather than because they identify with or are oblivious to the nightmare we are all living through. And our challenge was to those who deny them respect for that, to then defend their reasons for the “schism” we thought they had chosen to remain in–taking Louie’s comment on the video we mentioned, to mean that all in the SSPX were willing to be in schism if that’s what it costs to reject Vatican II and the NO.
—–.
We hope this clears a few things up, and we’re very sorry if you felt attacked by any of our words. We assure you, we admire your spirit and sincerity greatly, and from what you’ve told us, it seems you are doing 10Xs as much as the “average” even much younger Catholic is these days, to help others.
And yes, the situation at your parish sounds awful, as well.
God Bless us all as we continue to “fight the good fight”
nd do not deserve to be so denigrated and wrongly labeled as if they identify so closely with the Novus Ordo, that they deserve to be berated for doing what they believe is right.
.
Sorry that last partial paragraph was obviously not edited out from an earlier comment.
Dear Catholic Thinker,
Please read our response to deMaria, just above yours to us, as we hope it will eliminate any wrong impressions you got from what we said. at least concerning the idea that the SSPX was in schism.
We trusted John Vennari and Louie’s comments and never thought to question it.
We got the other information regarding Archbishop Lefebvre, from another video of a Priest–we’ll try to find which one and let you know–who was defending his actions, not accusing him. He said the Archbishop felt the situation was an official “emergency” and that in order for Christ’s promise to remain with the Church- to be carried out, it was necessary for him to consecrate bishops before he died.
——-
We found that shocking, for any individual to assume that Jesus couldn’t carry out His promise without an act of disobedience to Papal authority, and coupled with what you are saying, that there was no schism of any kind–which seems to contradict the above mentioned video, our statements were based on a one-sided view, but it was supposed to be the side you’re on.
We hope to review these sources and clear up this confusion.
But we hope you can see that our challenges were based on them, and not on any prejudices of our own.
—–
As far as your words about sticking it out too, we are very well aware that everyone we’ve read on this blog is as profoundly in love with the Church as we are, and would not even wish to suggest in the slightest way, anything else.
Again, based on the idea that some form of schism had been declared by others in authority, our question should appear in a different light to you–no?
——
Finally, regarding the Consecration, we never questioned your belief regarding that, or your loyalty. We were merely pointing to the fact that Jesus and Mary submitted their holy wills to the authority of the Popes while thePopes have remained disobedient–again, with the assumption of schism. It’s all based on that.
We have great respect personally for everyone who posts here, we cannot say that strongly enough–absolutely no other agenda than sharing our love of the Church and one another, and seeking Truth. And by the way, your posts happen to stand out as some of the best sources of information on the SSPX we have seen. Clear, concise, and often quoting just the right documents.
God Bless
Dear Catholic Thinker,
Thank you for the links and quotes–some of which we’ve read before.
We would like to talk more about these issues, once we’ve cleared up the confusion about the “partial schism” comment and what Archbishop Lefebvre actually said and did. It’s possible someone was trying to support his actions and misstated his words or reasons on the video we watched.
We were taking leads from his supporters on our research, and we were researching because of the importance of these matters to all who love the Church, including folks like you. So please be patient as we have to do this “catching up” in what little spare time we have. Since its so late we’ll end our part in this for now.
God Bless You
These are the kind of things which will come more and more into play as Francis pushes farther and farther. Cyprian had also posted a very good exposition not too long ago.
–
Many Catholics out in the world seem to have the idea that a pope cannot be thought of as having done wrong, cannot be criticized, and must always be obeyed since he is the successor to Peter. I’d say that it is particularly effective to quote actual popes who said otherwise.
–
Besides having involved academic discussions, it’s also very helpful to have short sayings which are compelling. Such a one is “There is a time when those who obey, obey to their own condemnation”. That succinctly presents the idea that it is not only allowable but also mandatory to disobey in the present circumstances.
–
Still, defenders of Francis can always say that Francis hasn’t actually crossed the line. October will probably change that. As Francis has been doing little else but preparing for October, a good Catholic should be trying to prepare others to accept the idea that a bad pope can be resisted.
Indignus, I was looking forward to hearing replies to what I’d thought was your main point: why would/should people “jump ship” so to speak, instead of staying in the NO and fighting from within. (Things got sidetracked as to what is jumping ship or not, which is a different question.)
–
One obvious answer is that people would prefer to be at Mass with their own kind, rather than suffering through the irritating (or worse) blitherings of liberal non-Catholic catholics, including those of the presiding priest.. Another answer might be: to not be seen as morally supporting the wrong that goes on, as well as to not financially support to the wrong.
–
Any others?
Somewhat related to that: how much can Dolan compel the parishioners of Holy Innocents? Besides transferring their names to the rolls of the homo-loving St Francis parish, can he try to stop them from simply joining any other parish of their choosing? E.g., can Dolan order (or otherwise intimidate) other pastors into refusing to accept the H.I. parishioners?
–
When I had switched parishes in the past, it was a simple matter of making a phone call. But there were no politics involved.
de Maria, that’s good of you to provide some background on the moderation here. Interesting.
–
Also, your point about new readers is well taken. There will inevitably be more and more people coming online who are upset over Francis’ changes. Hopefully, many will find there way to here.
–
It also wouldn’t hurt for new arrivals to, in general, be explicitly greeted. Or at least to be replied to on their first posts. There is a chance here to catch some who will otherwise drift away into some other churches, such as Protestant ones.
I’m going to repost my comment here at the bottom, to better the chances that de Maria sees it:
–
=================
–
de Maria, that’s good of you to provide some background on the moderation here. Interesting.
–
Also, your point about new readers is well taken. There will inevitably be more and more people coming online who are upset over Francis’ changes. Hopefully, many will find there way to here.
–
It also wouldn’t hurt for new arrivals to, in general, be explicitly greeted. Or at least to be replied to on their first posts. There is a chance here to catch some who will otherwise drift away into some other churches, such as Protestant ones.
–
=========================
That also reminds me, how are people following comments here? I don’t see the usual and common means, such as clicking a checkbox to follow comments, or having the “comments RSS” available.
dear bigfred,
Point taken! Greeting here those we haven’t met before. I wonder what you think of-tongue in cheek here–providing {which I’ve done at times, & don’t know how well it’s gone over,}} a bit of-well, not really a warning, but kind of.
In that, we can get pointed , have cat fights and food fights, but to suggest that the great exuberant Catholics we’re just meeting are not repulsed by perhaps a happening food / fight. Your thoughts?
–
re: following comments-I know. I try to make a mental not of numbers of comments & topics and keep up that way. But I’m always worried I’ll miss one of the dear commenters precious gems, to be quite honest.
–
I’m so grateful for Mr. V. to provide this super format.
–
Peace be to you.
de Maria, my impression is that the tone here is very mild. I think that people are also apologizing too much, at times. But then, I suppose that I’ve gotten rhinoceros-like skin over the years, from being on political forums.
–
Still, we must consider: what about those people who are very new to the internet in general? Well, I think that some might be put off from saying anything, for fear of being set upon. That’s why I interposed myself (though just a newcomer) when OaTmEaL arrived not too long ago. My aim is to oppose Francis and his gang, and to get converts to that cause. I have little interest in being the best debater or the winner of arguments, etc.
–
de Maria, I therefore could not think of a more gracious ‘hostess’ for this place than yourself. Louie is lucky to have you participating here.
–
Btw, wise bloggers are savvy enough to be grateful for commenters, otherwise it’s just something like a ghost town.
As to the matter of following comments… does anybody here have Louie’s ear in, e.g., offsite communications? I assume he does not regularly read comments, otherwise he would have replied to Ferrara.
–
It is fairly simple in the technical sense for the blog owner to add the ability to follow comments, though there is the usual learning curve for adding the first WordPress “plugin”. The way it’s installed at Angelqueen seems best, because a person can subscribe without commenting. E.g., : http://angelqueen.org/2014/06/23/who-are-the-real-christian-ideologues-featured/
–
Here is an example of what comments RSS can look like:
https://mundabor.wordpress.com/comments/feed/
–
The one thing lacking here is the ability to follow comments. I might write some software to do that.
bigfred,
Thanks for zeroing in on that point. We ourselves feel all the things you mentioned as likely reasons, and agree they are valid. So the question then becomes, do they outweigh the bad that results from their being chosen.
—-
As to the side-track, it’s no small matter, and to be expected. No one wants to spend years agonizing, come to a moral decision, put their trust in wise, holy men, see the truth of their warning evidenced, and then have all that questioned as possibly resulting from an additional error–especially when someone less-informed comes along suggesting that maybe God’s will was to stay put in parishes that subject themselves and their children to bad teachers, horrible scandals, and a hierarchical power structure that is fighting what is good more often than what is evil.
—–
And yet, is it not right to also consider that division of the Church into groups who now more and more identify entire parishes of fellow Catholics as being not “their own kind” as well as providing evidence by the way they refer to them in speech, that prejudices resulting from that mindset are mounting, is an obvious very bad fruit that should not be lightly dismissed as less important than all the good they are doing?..
Hence our raising the question of the importance of determining what reactions God wants from His people during this crisis, and pointing to cases where He made His will known in the past, such as in Jeremiah 27-29–that they be forced to be subject to a Pagan King, deprived of their greatest comforts-including the Holy Sacrifice of Atonement for their sins– for a very long time to be determined solely by Him, after which He promised to restore it all to them. (a Triumph like that of Mary’s Immaculate Heart) And he specifically forbade them to listen to false prophets tell them God would not deprive them of the objects from the Temple, or the Sacrifice, saying He would send them destruction for spreading those lies.
—–
And as someone above pointed out –the Japanese Faith was found thriving after many years of being deprived of any leadership or formal worship, when missionaries arrived to help them.
—–
So can we really use principles of justified disobedience to avoid this particular kind of suffering that may be the Divine Will as a punishment for sins within the Church? That’s our question, not meant to be a condemnation of the good being done by preserving the Truths, just pointing out that that has been done in the past, without division.
—–
Again this may be our ignorance, but we’d always thought of the teachings on justified disobedience being related to an individual being told by his superior to commit sin, and refusing, rather than an individual or group believing they must disobey by taking an action forbidden by the rightful authority, because evil will result if he does not. The one is a certainty, the other is based on a possibility, requiring the direction of the Holy Spirit regarding the future–His domain.
(No levity or mockery in this at all): t would all have been settled easily had Mary appeared to Archbishop Lefebvre and asked him to consecrate Russia because the Popes would not, and he was the only Bishop left who could represent the True Faith in its entirety. But instead she and Our Lord said they are waiting–despite terrible suffering and chastisements which the Popes and Bishops who ignore their requests are still bringing upon the whole world, including the Faithful. (Besides the wars, we just heard another terrible plague in West Africa has killed over 400 people and is spreading as villagers flee it)
—
So we’re asking is it not possible this other alternative is what God wants, without personally condemning any of the motives or good being done by these societies and their members whom we admire so greatly.
All the justifications we’ve heard so far, for this need to stay in a state that requires “reunion”, haven’t addressed those questions.
.
We realize how complicated all the issues are, and agree fully with all of the condemnations of heresy and error in the modernist teachings.
—–
But the more we hear about how complex are the decisions regarding disobedience, the more it leads us to question whether God would subject His people, whom He instructed to become more and more like little children, to such a barrage of information and arguments, expecting them all to come to the “right” decision in a choice between remaining in their parishes trying to fight the evils that confront them, or leaving them to join with others who feel a they do.
So we raise these points because they
sorry that got cut off, but this post is too long as it is.
bigfred and de Maria
As two of those (relatively-speaking) “newcomers” we appreciate your latest comments. Though we think it might be difficult to catch every new person posting and greet them, when bigfred said hello and welcome to us, it took us by surprise, made us feel good honeslty (despite our own slightly thick skins about such things), and less intimidated to put in our ideas, amidst so many obviously seasoned posters, on subjects so controversial.
So bigfred,
it’s all your fault we’re spending too much of our timey annoying all these good people. Are you ready to re-consider that greeting idea (lol) .
Indignus, I’d guess that if you were forced to condense your long post into one sentence, it would be about Japan – because that situation contains the answer. The Church as the repository of the Faith is not determined by the Church as meant by the organization of people who have roles in it.
–
I am mystified about Catholics who chose one spot on the continuum (from total Francis-lover to FSSP to SSPX to SV and beyond) , then insist that their particular spot is the one right spot. There are good and bad in each – certainly more bad in NO but that doesn’t mean they are all bad – and in no spot are there all good, either.
–
Btw, did you know that the 1st mass conversions in feudal Japan ~1600AD were ordered by their feudal liege lords?
Reconsider the greeting? Never!
–
That was downright decent of you to say those things, Indignus. I salute you.
–
Haha, now what is Latin for “a hundred thousand welcomes!” ? 🙂
–
is it “C’ead Mile Failte” ?
bigfred
Maybe you should ask Joe Biden-who claims to be a devout and faithful Catholic, and uses phrases like that…
As it’s the classic greeting from Ireland, I’m trying to convince the NSA that I’m from Ireland. After all, Obama isn’t compiling dossiers on everybody because he’s anti-Muslim. He and his kind will be going after Catholics* (and others) eventually.
–
*our kind
bigfred,
Remember Obama’s visit to Ireland, he also claimed ancestors from there. (If not an actual birth certificate.) He may think you’re family.
–
dear bigfred,
We were told yesterday that the SSPX was never in schism, yet today we found this statement in the Nathional Catholic Register: “The Congregation of the Faith, said that although Pope Benedict XVI lifted the canonical excommunication of SSPX prelates, they remain suspended from the sacraments because “by their schism they have broken away from communion with the Church.”
——-
We’ve looked further and read various contrary arguments from supporters of the SSPX, which state that this cannot be true according to the Vatican’s own Canon Laws, and that even John Paul II was incorrect about it, but if these people are incorrect, many souls in the SSPX could be in danger.
——
We recall that St. Joan of Arc and St. Athanasius suffered similarly so it is possible that all the claims of the SSPX are right, and the Vatican is wrong. But we think It’s important that the Vatican’s pronouncements are not kept hidden from view when discussing these issues, as that does not serve those who seek to know the truth, and to make honest judgments using their consciences.
So while it’s true as you said that all these groups have good and bad in them, some like the SSPX, have much more serious problems going on with the Church Authorities, than those on your list who have not been declared separated. And we think that makes it somewhat misleading to present them as equals..
Dear Catholic Thinker,
We were able to research a bit more later today, and left a comment in reply to bigfred below (June 23rd after 11pm)
The short version is that we hope the SSPX is right about all its arguments and that this situation is quickly resolved in its favor, as with St. Joan and St. Athanasius. But we do feel a better approach to presenting your views would be to present the Official Church’s pronouncements and THEN state your reasons for believing they are wrong, rather than to make statements as you did to us, such as “the SSPX has never been in schism” , leaving us to find the opposite pronouncement made by the Congregation of the Faith.