National catholic Distorter recently published a story entitled, Cardinal to religious: Those who abandon Vatican II are ‘killing themselves’, the title alone saying pretty much all that we need to know.
The prelate quoted in the title is Cardinal João Braz de Aviz, Prefect of the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, but also quoted in a similar vein in the story itself is Archbishop José Rodríguez Carballo, Secretary if the Congregation.
You may want to read the article at NcR for yourself as part of your Friday discipline; unless, of course, you happen to have hair shirt handy.
While you will find plenty to suffer in the article, what you won’t find are any surprises.
The official position in Rome has long been that total acceptance of Vatican Council II is the new litmus test for so-called “full communion.”
In fact, you might say that this policy effectively serves to replace the Oath Against Modernism that Paul VI of most bitter memory abolished.
Using statements made by the Vatican prelates quoted in the NcR article, I constructed the following Oath Pro Modernism.
In truth, it would be intellectually honest for the pope to require it of all who wish to enjoy that vaunted “full communion.”
Oath Pro Modernism
I [name], firmly embrace and accept the Second Vatican Council, acknowledging with profound conviction that it is my non-negotiable point of reference.
Furthermore, with due reverence, I submit and adhere with my whole heart to a new deepening, a new pausing, and a new listening; always following the great lines of the Second Vatican Council as the departure point, opening myself to the culture of the present moment, never to be closed to new things.
I sincerely hold that God is always a new movement of light, of heat, and of demonstration; speaking in new ways to men and women with the true language of their particular time and place.
I attest and affirm that those who distance themselves from the Council as if to make another path are killing themselves; will not have sense; will be outside the Church, and sooner or later they will die.
I promise that I shall keep all these articles faithfully, entirely, and sincerely, and guard them inviolate, in no way deviating from them in teaching or in word or in writing.
Thus I promise, this I swear, so help me God.
An alternative litmus test for “full communion “……
I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me
Galatians 2:20
Careful Louie!
If you keep this sort of thing up, you are in danger of becoming a sedevacantist. 🙂
Louie, you inspire us…
–If we opened our minds hearts and souls- to the thing
that our pastors and teachers assured us would bring,
brand new life to the Church (with the world rushing in);
we’d get used to the new things that make our heads spin.
__
And essentials weren’t changing, they said, you will see,
We are all to be part of a huge “family”
when the Springtime arrives, then the whole Church will bloom,
-so get rid of those kneelers and statues–make room!
__
‘Cause it’s gonna be easier for people to learn
the Good News we will share (from this thing called the G.I.R.M.)
plus the “new” “understandings of Scriptures -for sure
will appeal to the masses in ways that endure.
__
It will touch all our hearts and will never be boring,
and lead to befriending the world -while ignoring,
obsessions like sin, hell and judgments above
-now we’re far too elightened for that stuff- “just LOVE”.
=====
Fifty years have gone by now and Churches are closing.
While Sundays for most- mean more hours for dozing.
And polls show that people have come to “agree”
that the teachings of old, (too restrictive, you see)
__
Need to stay in the closet, with old fairy tales,
No triumphal old pride, (for this crowd never fails)
To welcome the sinner, with arms opened wide,
like the road we’re all travelling on, side by side.
__
Because Mercy means friendship and comfort you see.
That old talk of repentance was so un-friend-ly,
it could ruin the bridges we’ve built to all men
and we won’t let that happen, not EVER again.
__
We’re united in working to better mankind,
and we don’t need old Dogmas for our peace of mind,
If there’s one thing all people of earth can agree,
it’s the Pope of today, who will set us all “free”.
__
From those sick narrow minded traditional geeks,
Who think they know better than Francis who speaks
of the God of Surprises who leads us anew
by the power of the Spirit – of Vatican Two.
OK , Louie. I have taken the oath and now await my card from you that certifies that I’m a card carrying modernist!
I have not read the NCR piece but if the essence has been correctly distilled here then I imagine the persons involved will have to show their working.
They will have to objectively prove to the atheist, the Mohammedan, the believer in Judaism – indeed, to the whole world – that Jesus Christ is in fact God. Until they have done so, they cannot even begin to claim the religious authority to speak in His name.
Louie, good job but would not the last line of the oath be: “Binding myself under no less a penalty than that of having my throat cut across, my tongue torn out by its roots, and buried in the rough sands of the sea at low-water mark, where the tide ebbs and flows twice in twenty four hours, should I ever knowingly or willingly violate this my solemn oath and obligation, so help me God, and keep me steadfast in the due performance of the same.” (Paraphrasing the oath of a first degree Freemason.)
o how much i LOVE this new OATH PRO MODERNISM!!!!!!!!!! me show it to fr. billy tonight during our spa session and chant it while we SNORT our curry powder & center our CHAKRAS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WOOOOO HOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dear Louie,
“Radical Catholic” left this note in the com box at Deus Ex Machina:
“Boniface over at Unam Sanctam Catholicam put together a dandy of a song that someone needs to link to Louie. I’d do it, but since he migrated blog platforms, I haven’t been able to log onto the new site. Here’s the link: ” https://youtu.be/tjGnf_NMPQg
Deary me. If I had forgotten for a few minutes, this video lays out how anti-catholic the average parish parading as Catholic has become. I wish I could laugh. The final few frames of the True Faith that has been eclipsed by this nonsense says it all.
Louie wrote: “The official position in Rome has long been that total acceptance of Vatican Council II is the new litmus test for so-called “full communion.”
–
But communion with what? What is the autority called Vatican II that it can sweep away 200 and something popes and their communion, and, as ‘inquisitor-p’ noted in the schuller post, ‘Are we really supposed to believe that we have suffered under 34 centuries of…error?’ Are we, I would add, really ready accuse the Holy Ghost of such a thing?
Dear Indignus,
LOL! Your poem is jolly good. Many a true word spoken in jest. 🙂
Why would anyone want to be “in full communion” with evil?????
Dear Salvemur,
Very good point. What IS the authority, when it’s not EVEN claimed that the council was dogmatic. PASTORAL EXPERIMENTATION ?
__
Okay, so let’s then take a good look at the RESULTS after 50 years of implementation the results, and declare it a FAILED experiment—, based on the loss of Faith and increase of number of souls living in sin; NO LONGER believing in the Real Presence in the Eucharist OR in the Traditions of the Church, but “sold” on the idea that they are “okay with God” while they “journey towards cosmic one-ness.
__
We’re dealing primarily with the results of failed Catechesis, which has failed BECAUSE it was based on this “Spirit of VII” which is diametrically opposed in many ways, to that 2,000 years of teaching, which, though not carried out by “perfect” human beings, was clearly the work of the Holy Spirit.
Pius X was gifted with miracles while he still lived on earth. To us, one of them was the gift of insight he demonstrated in writing Pascendi Dominici Gregis, which explains in great detail, all we currently see happening, as do the warnings of Our Lady at Fatima and Akita.
Satan has gone after consecrated souls in particular, infiltrating to the highest levels of the Church. Belief in Hell has fallen by the wayside, and men live as if there is no revealed Truth telling them otherwise, and to beware of the eternal consequences of sin and vice–beginning with the Original Sin still on the souls of the Unbaptized.
Dear my2cents,
Good question. Psychologists and Moral Theologians say most people perceive what attracts them as “good”. But the devil is the “Father of Lies”
and can disguise evil AS good, which is why we need trustworthy pastors.
___
There is an interesting term in Psychology for situations like this promoting of VII as a litmus test after all these years of obvious destruction of Faith in so many souls. DELUSIONS OF GRANDEUR:
http://psychcentral.com/encyclopedia/2008/delusion-of-grandeur/
It is described as:
” the fixed, false belief that one possesses superior qualities such as genius…
It is most often a symptom of schizophrenia, but can also be a symptom found in psychotic disorders, as well as dementia..
___.
People with a delusion of grandeur often have the conviction of having some great but unrecognized talent or INSIGHT. They may also believe they have made SOME IMPORTANT DISCOVERY THAT OTHERS DON’T APPRECIATE OR UNDERSTAND.
–Grandiose delusions may have religious content, such as the person believes he or she has received a special message from God or another deity.
–Sometimes, in popular language, this disorder may be known as “megalomania,”
http://psychcentral.com/encyclopedia/2008/delusion-of-grandeur/
Dear Peter,
WHAT “jest” ?
Where would we direct a non-Catholic who wanted to enter into full communion with the Catholic Church?
I have just read a newsletter of Bishop Sanborn and thought that the following extracts might be of some interest in view of the comments regarding VII, NO and sedevacantism:
” … We of course follow the world of Novus Ordo conservatives quite
closely. We do so because they still retain, I believe, the Catholic faith, that is, the virtue of faith, despite the fact that they adhere to many errors. They are like the survivors of a nuclear blast. They wander through the rubble of what was once the great Catholic city, and they search desperately for Catholic morsels of food among the cremated remains. They still desire to be Catholic, and still want to adhere to all of Catholic doctrine, even though they labor under much ignorance concerning the
truths of the Catholic Faith…”
” … Consequently they agonize to find a system which either denies that there is a defection, or asserts that somehow the Catholic hierarchy is not responsible for
the defection. Neither of these possibilities conforms to reality. For the reality is that in 1958 Modernist intruders took over the posts of authority in the Catholic Church, and have promulgated ever since an entirely new religion, supposedly in the name of and with the authority of Christ. The reality is that there is defection from the true Faith, and that the Modernist intruders — the Novus Ordo hierarchy — are responsible for it. Knowing down deep that their system of denial does not work, Novus Ordo conservatives do not like to have their boat rocked. They regard sedevacantism as a most evil horror, and consequently will put up any defense in order not to get sucked into the logic of sedevacantism.”
” … I believe that this sensitivity is owing to the fact that the Novus Ordo conservative knows in his heart that his theological position has no foundation. He believes in an interpretation of Vatican II that has never been produced by anyone, has never been heard, has never been seen, not for these fifty years since the close of Vatican II. The hermeneutic of continuity is a mythological figure,the unicorn in the forest.”
http://www.mostholytrinityseminary.org/SCSF_March_2015.pdf
So, Peter, you’re saying anyone in full communion with Bishop Sanborn is in full communion with the Catholic Church?
Bishop Sanborn makes more Roman Catholic sense than anyone i have ever listened to about Holy Church and the Crisis. He has been around since Archbishop Lefebvre was taking his stand against the new “mass”. He speaks with authority and makes it hard for one not to agree with what he says, since his words are words a true Catholic has been thirsting for. He doesn’t mix words – he is courageous and straight forward in wisdom and understanding and knowledge.
http://mostholytrinityseminary.org/sermonschurchmodernism.html
I meant to comment or reply to your comment; my comment is under the next (Crawler’s) comment.
Thank you, Fiat. I see your comment below.
One of the most important sayings of Benedict XVI, I think, is as follows,
“The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of super dogma which takes away the importance of all the rest.”
Santiago de Chile 2005.
Now this tells me several things.
– That the doctrinal position of Benedict XVI is the same now, as it was in, say, 1960.
– That my doctrinal position is the same now as it was in, say, 1960.
– That Catholic doctrine between say the time of Paul V and the present day has not changed and that anyone who believes it has is wrong.
– And incidently, that my doctrinal position and that of Benedict XVI and also that of the SSPX, a group whose services I have never attended, but who state that Catholic doctrine has not changed, are one and the same.
As such any idea such as the “total acceptance of Vatican Council II” is meaningless, since pastoral involves a way of relating and in no way implies or involves Truth.
Dear Peter,
We suppose this Bishop would label the two of us, and our family members who think and act similarly as -“Novus Ordo Conservatives”, as we had attended nothing else BUT the N.O. for over 40 years, and participate fully in our Parishes. (until the TLM re-appeared in our vicinity) .
–So is he right? We’d have to say yes, about us retaining the Catholic Faith. But no, about the rest of it.
–We don’t believe we “adhere to errors” or wander around searching for Catholic morsels of food. In addition to our daily prayers and readings from the rich past of the Church, (which every Catholic should make part of their lives) every N.O. Mass we’ve attended has fed us with the Word of God from Scripture and His Real Presence in the Eucharist, every bit as much as a TLM provides those two things, and just as Our Lord provided them for his Apostles at the Last Supper , and the Church continued to do, meeting weekly (as Scripture attests) until the Liturgy developed into the TLM with only minor changes after 5-600 years.
— Perhaps the good Bishop does not believe that, but then perhaps he’s adhering to errors himself, that say otherwise
— When we hear false things occasionally from priests and Bishops, we write or talk with them to correct them, after researching thoroughly. But in our experience, that happens during homilies or in the confessional, and depend entirely on the priest, not the rite.
–He also claims that because we’re ignorant of ” the truths of the Catholic Faith” we either deny there is a defection, or deny the hierarchy is responsible.
–What we actually do is point out how Our Lady predicted both of those things at Fatima and Akita, and that Paul VI admitted that “the smoke of Satan had entered the Church” well after Mons. Eugene Pacelli (later Pius XII) said ” I am worried by the Blessed Virgin’s message to Lucy of Fatima. This persistence of Mary about the dangers which menace the Church, is a divine warning against the suicide of altering the Faith, in her Liturgy, her Theology, and her soul.”
— The Bishop claims modernists have “promulgated” a new religion. This is an important point to refute, as there is a big difference between personally “promoting” something , and “promulgating” it officially.
—We’ve heard erroneous claims from modernists along these lines as well, but VII was declared “pastoral” and not dogmatic. And in fact, because of it’s increased emphasis on the involvement of the laity, we are technically freer to speak up and to form associations that are critical of it and of those who promote error based on it’s ambiguities and misleading statements. We can point to many passages that invite us, the laity, to much greater participation, whenever we are challenged for speaking up.
=====
The fact that we regard Sedevacantism as something to be avoided, is not founded on personal insecurity, as this Bishop strongly suggests, but rather on the “reality” that when people stop attending Mass on Sunday- as we often hear some groups of Sede’s claiming we all must- (some even calling it sinful to continue attending)–, then they stop receiving the Eucharist. If they stay at home, even if they make a spiritual communion, they are not receiving the physical body and blood of Christ, and unless they are handicapped, that is against Church law, (whether or not a true Pope is in the chair of Peter,) which God may well judge as sinful, So we continue to present the truth as we see it, so that people may re-consider decisions that lead to that situation.
— Our Lord said without eating His flesh and drinking His blood , a person has no Life” within him. This is why Cardinal Burke said he hopes both- that the TLM will spread and the N.O. abuses will be prevented so it will be done reverently everywhere. He knows many people depend on the N.O. for fulfilling their Sunday obligations, even though he admits it is vastly inferior in quality to the TLM.
–Secondarily to that it’s actually harder for us, logically speaking, to believe that the Lord suddenly removed all possibility of attending valid Mass from billions of Catholics all over the world, from the 1960’s until now, after promising to remain with His Church till the end of time. And although we’ve heard the arguments about things like that happening in times of persecution and widespread heresy for example, over many years, they DID have priests who would secretly meet in the woods and in homes, and offer the true Sacrifice. In some countries like Japan, we understand that was not the case for a long time. So God could remove it entirely.
–But he could also be testing our fidelity to Him, by expecting us to continue attending the N.O. despite all the abuses we witness; while we work to protest them, and correct our priests and Bishops.
— We’ve been doing that now for about 40 years, and have seem some good results locally. One pastor was so liberal he invited Richard McBrien to guest speak in his parish. He’s now promoting the Fatima message, and personal confession; and preaching often on the gravity of sin. (It took 30 years for that change to occur, but it gives us hope that many more conversions like that are in progress, while we make sacrifices daily and pray for the Consecration of Russia and the Divine intervention/ miracle that will follow it.
Either the SSPX or a solid FSSP parish. I know, not much to choose from. But they had the same problem back in the time of St. Athanasius and the Church recovered and grew:+) God bless~
“every N.O. Mass we’ve attended has fed us with the Word of God from Scripture and His Real Presence in the Eucharist”
Indignus Famulus
“every N.O. Mass we’ve attended has fed us with the Word of God from Scripture and His Real Presence in the Eucharist”
Indignus Famulus
“every N.O. Mass we’ve attended has fed us with the Word of God from Scripture and His Real Presence in the Eucharist”
Indignus Famulus
Amen, Amen and Amen
Dear Crawler,
You have me a bit uncertain about how to answer your question for two reasons:
1. I have no particular knowledge of Bishop Sanborn, except that he is a sedevacantist (sedeprivationist?) Bishop and I’ve listened to several very good talks by him.
2. I’m not quite sure what you mean by being in “full communion” with him. This “full, or partial communion” terminology is VIIspeak. For example: The fullness of truth “subsists” in the Catholic Church, but non-Catholic sects may/do have elements of the Truth. There is only Truth, or Untruth. Truth mixed with Untruth = Untruth, not “partial” Truth. Similarly we are in Communion, or Separated, united, i.e. we are one, or not. We can’t be half one, or half not one. OK I’m rambling, but I’m trying to explain my hesitation in answering your question as it is phrased.
So, to answer your question on the face of it, my answer is yip!
I have yet to get a “conservative” catholic person to read through Pacendi. It’s like trying to get a vampire to drink a glass of holy water.
None are so blind as those who will not see.
Ever Mindful,
If you’ve managed to hold onto the Faith living in Novus Ordo-land, you are blessed and one of the few. They do exist. The vast vast majority have not. Many have their Faith demolished in Novus Ordo-land. And if not them, then their children, their family and friends.
Charity towards your neighbor demands you work for the restoration of Tradition because most souls NEED the traditional Mass/catechism/preaching whether they know it or not.
Recognizing the right of Almighty God to be worshipped in a way fitting for him (and not aping protestant false worship) also demands you work for the restoration of Tradition and the TLM.
Louie, please construct an “Oath Pro Tradition”.
Thank you.
That is brilliant! Well, is Mr or Mrs that is the poet? Please don’t tell me it was a joint effort!!
This is true.
To a sedevacantist Priest.
In USA the Mass Center Directories of the following give quite a number of locations where such a Priest can be contacted:
St. Gertrude the Great Church in West Chester, Ohio.
The Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen (CMRI.)
The Mater Boni Concilii Institute (IMBC.)
If we are to run with the sedevacantist position then we must believe that there has no Pope since 1958 or so. If we are truly in an interregnum then canon law forbids the ordination of Bishops during a period of interrgnum. This means it would be impossible for Fr. Sanborn to become Bishop. Or any sedevacantist Priest to be elevated to Bishop. As much sense as Sanborn makes he is operating illicitly based upon the conditions of his own theory. This is the objective Truth. And there is no way around it. On top of that, like IF stated, he is telling people not to receive the Eucharist in Churches HE deems invalid. This is dangerous. Novus Ordo aside, why would someone such as Sanborn not inform people that they could receive sacraments at an Eastern Catholic Church? The answer I got from a Sanborn follower was that Eastern Catholics worship modernism. The most irrational response I have ever heard. I spoke with a Ukrainian monk Priest and went off on a tangent about VII and modernism in the Latin Church. He told me if I wanted Tradition then it could be found at his Church and invited me to Liturgy.
Let me ask you a question. Do you think people in “Novus Ordo-land” of good will, with the potential of growing holier in the TLM will be more or less receptive to the idea of attending a TLM when they read or hear barrages of insults coming from Traditionalists or sedevacantists about how awful all “Novus Ordos” are?
I’m not talking what they should do. I’m not talking about the hierarchy that are bad. I’m talking grass roots level people that have not fully seen through the fog and aren’t as fully catechized as some Traditionalists.
Mind you, I am not saying you do this. But there are Traditionalists that spend a great deal of time pointing out all the bad of the Church and throwing the baby out with the bath water by lumping everyone associated with the NO together.
Dear CraigV,
We’re a bit puzzled by your response to Ever mindful (above). It seems based on a presumption that anyone who recognizes the Truth that God’s Word is proclaimed, and Our Lord is received in the Eucharist at N.O. Masses, is therefore NOT working at restoring Tradition.
___
The quote Ever mindful repeated above, containing those truths about the N.O. was made by us in the context of opposing the idea of skipping Mass altogether, for people who fully appreciate the TLM but have none available–as is so often the case.
__
In THAT situation, people with The Faith, living in what you designate “Novus Ordo Land” are not only fulfilling their Sunday obligations, but serving as missionaries for the restoration of Tradition, insofar as they are willing to work at that –in the many ways we cited above in our response to Peter Lamb, and in whatever other ways God leads them, in great charity for souls..
___
Are you not assuming Ever mindful’s evident appreciation of those truths about the N.O., is equivalent to spiritual blindness? Would you not agree that attending a reverently done N.O. said by a faithful priest, is far better than missing Mass on Sundays and Holy Days, thus not receiving the Eucharist?
___
.
Dear my2cents,
Louie is really good, but there’s one that was truly inspired, already on the books:
Given by His Holiness St. Pius X September 1, 1910.
I . . . . firmly embrace and accept each and every definition that has been set forth and declared by the unerring teaching authority of the Church, especially those principal truths which are directly opposed to the errors of this day. And first of all, I profess that God, the origin and end of all things, can be known with certainty by the natural light of reason from the created world (see Rom. 1:19), that is, from the visible works of creation, as a cause from its effects, and that, therefore, his existence can also be demonstrated: Secondly, I accept and acknowledge the external proofs of revelation, that is, divine acts and especially miracles and prophecies as the surest signs of the divine origin of the Christian religion and I hold that these same proofs are well adapted to the understanding of all eras and all men, even of this time. Thirdly, I believe with equally firm faith that the Church, the guardian and teacher of the revealed word, was personally instituted by the real and historical Christ when he lived among us, and that the Church was built upon Peter, the prince of the apostolic hierarchy, and his successors for the duration of time. Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical’ misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. I also condemn every error according to which, in place of the divine deposit which has been given to the spouse of Christ to be carefully guarded by her, there is put a philosophical figment or product of a human conscience that has gradually been developed by human effort and will continue to develop indefinitely. Fifthly, I hold with certainty and sincerely confess that faith is not a blind sentiment of religion welling up from the depths of the subconscious under the impulse of the heart and the motion of a will trained to morality; but faith is a genuine assent of the intellect to truth received by hearing from an external source. By this assent, because of the authority of the supremely truthful God, we believe to be true that which has been revealed and attested to by a personal God, our creator and lord.
___
Furthermore, with due reverence, I submit and adhere with my whole heart to the condemnations, declarations, and all the prescripts contained in the encyclical Pascendi and in the decree Lamentabili, especially those concerning what is known as the history of dogmas. I also reject the error of those who say that the faith held by the Church can contradict history, and that Catholic dogmas, in the sense in which they are now understood, are irreconcilable with a more realistic view of the origins of the Christian religion. I also condemn and reject the opinion of those who say that a well-educated Christian assumes a dual personality-that of a believer and at the same time of a historian, as if it were permissible for a historian to hold things that contradict the faith of the believer, or to establish premises which, provided there be no direct denial of dogmas, would lead to the conclusion that dogmas are either false or doubtful. Likewise, I reject that method of judging and interpreting Sacred Scripture which, departing from the tradition of the Church, the analogy of faith, and the norms of the Apostolic See, embraces the misrepresentations of the rationalists and with no prudence or restraint adopts textual criticism as the one and supreme norm. Furthermore, I reject the opinion of those who hold that a professor lecturing or writing on a historico-theological subject should first put aside any preconceived opinion about the supernatural origin of Catholic tradition or about the divine promise of help to preserve all revealed truth forever; and that they should then interpret the writings of each of the Fathers solely by scientific principles, excluding all sacred authority, and with the same liberty of judgment that is common in the investigation of all ordinary historical documents.
___
Finally, I declare that I am completely opposed to the error of the modernists who hold that there is nothing divine in sacred tradition; or what is far worse, say that there is, but in a pantheistic sense, with the result that there would remain nothing but this plain simple fact-one to be put on a par with the ordinary facts of history-the fact, namely, that a group of men by their own labor, skill, and talent have continued through subsequent ages a school begun by Christ and his apostles. I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the belief of the Fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the apostles. The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way.
___
I promise that I shall keep all these articles faithfully, entirely, and sincerely, and guard them inviolate, in no way deviating from them in teaching or in any way in word or in writing.
___
Thus I promise, this I swear, so help me God. . .
Thanks JamesTheLesser; I will try to find the answer to your questions.
God be with you.
To Lynda, dear friend
Yes it’s joint-to the end.
While the lady likes rhyming,
the gent’s into timing.
🙂 🙂
Dear CraigV,
Maybe your definition of “conservative” is too all–encompassing. In our experience, real conservatives care deeply about preserving and passing on Truth, and naturally respond positively when they come across clear explanations (like Pascendi) of things that are as complicated and devilishly twisted as modernism. When we read it the first time, there were periodic spontaneous shouts of “yes!” (You’d have thought we were watching the home team winning the Super Bowl.) It was due to many years of pent-up frustration dealing with this monster without a name. Pius nailed it.
They’d be less inclined hearing such folks of course.
I’d add however, that any critique, any pointing out of any of the problems is likely heard in their ears as exactly what you describe
Unless the traditional person is prepared to sing the praises of the the new mass, the new catechism, etc., they will be probably considered one of “those” people.
But when ya really see how it is, the depths of the situation/crisis, ya just can’t play that game any longer. At least I can’t.
Indignus famulus,
No that’s not what I was saying.
I must have misread Ever Mindful and not spoke clearly enough myself. My apologies.
I took his comments as to a defense of the Novus Ordo as such.
To those who have managed to hang onto the traditional catholic faith in Novus Ordo-land, God bless them, but they’re the exception not the rule. Such folks can be deceived by their own personal experience and not realize the depth of the crisis, and that the only way out is a full blown return to Tradition.
Dear JamesTheLesser,
What a very interesting question! I have no clue what the answer is, but will also try to find out. Please can you be a bit more specific? To which code of canon law are you referring – 1917,or 1983? Which particular canon are you quoting?
But some read scritpure within the bounds of all sorts of anti-Catholic contexts. Where and who reads scripture cannot be a standard or else the protestants and their ‘sola scriptura’ are at least as ‘real presentish’ as the Novus Ordo with its multiple ‘real presences’ which were created by VII and its GIRM which didn’t stay in print long because it was simply too revealing of what was going on. There is a book called, ‘The Work of Human Hands’, by Rev. Anthony Cekada which lays out the reason the Novus Ordo was created and what that means.
The thing is, we, many of us, take this oath without even knowing it through seeking and converting to Christ and His Bride on a daily basis. We then read the oath and know it to be the work of the Holy Ghost. We then leave the Novus Ordo Sunday thinking, but all that (the New Order) is pretty much against, in some way, the oath against the father of lies. That’s when we discover the SSPX and are, at least willing, to listen to the hard fought protection of the Faith not under any Novus Ordo ‘authority’ of the sedevacantists.
The contradictions to the Faith (I think they used to called that heresy or apostasy or something) that one encounters on a perpetual basis at whatever the local Novus Ordo is, to me, are the ‘fruits’ of the Novus Ordo. I think we still all realise there a handful of priests in the Novus Ordo here and there who have tried to move a Vatican II defined ‘heaven and earth’ to keep the Faith real and the worship unabusive in the parishes they have charge of. But what about the next generation of Novus Ordo ‘priests’ who are born and raised and made in the ‘New Ordo’ that demands oaths to VII in direct opposition to a True Pope’s Oath against Modernism? Born and made in the Novus Ordo from start to (hopefully not) finish?
UNHEARD HOMILIES
It has been a very, very long time since I heard a homily regarding hell.
And so here are some reflections from St Faustina, on Divine Mercy Sunday…
Sister Faustina’s Vision of Hell
“I, Sister Faustina Kowalska, by the order of God, have visited the Abysses of Hell so that I might tell souls about it and testify to its existence…the devils were full of hatred for me, but they had to obey me at the command of God, What I have written is but a pale shadow of the things I saw. But I noticed one thing: That most of the souls there are those who disbelieved that there is a hell.” (Diary 741)
“Today, I was led by an angel to the Chasms of Hell. It is a place of great torture; how awesomely large and extensive it is! The kinds of tortures I saw:
The First Torture that constitutes hell is:
The loss of God.
The Second is:
Perpetual remorse of conscience.
The Third is
That one’s condition will never change.
The Fourth is:
The fire that will penetrate the soul without destroying it. A terrible suffering since it is a purely spiritual fire, lit by God’s anger.
The Fifth Torture is:
Continual darkness and a terrible suffocating smell, and despite the darkness, the devils and the souls of the damned see each other and all the evil, both of others and their own.
The Sixth Torture is:
The constant company of Satan.
The Seventh Torture is:
Horrible despair, hatred of God, vile words, curses and blasphemies.
These are the Tortures suffered by all the damned together, but that is not the end of the sufferings.
Indescribable Sufferings
There are special Tortures destined for particular souls. These are the torments of the senses. Each soul undergoes terrible and indescribable sufferings related to the manner in which it has sinned.
There are caverns and pits of torture where one form of agony differs from another. I would have died at the very sight of these tortures if the omnipotence of God had not supported me.
No One Can Say There is No Hell
Let the sinner know that he will be tortured throughout all eternity, in those senses which he made use of to sin. I am writing this at the command of God, so that no soul may find an excuse by saying there is no hell, or that nobody has ever been there, and so no one can say what it is like…how terribly souls suffer there! Consequently, I pray even more fervently for the conversion of sinners. I incessantly plead God’s mercy upon them. O My Jesus, I would rather be in agony until the end of the world, amidst the greatest sufferings, than offend you by the least sin.” (Diary 741)
Dear Salvemur,
What we’re seeing and hearing among newly ordained priests (from several states)–whom we’ve spoken with in the last few years, is a greater awareness of the crisis as well as its causes, and a surprising love for Tradition.
__
A monastery friend had told us this about 5 years earlier , but we were far more skeptical until we actually saw it evidenced for ourselves. When we brought up our concerns about the then “new Pope” to many of them, the response-to our surprise, was, that if the news was all true about him, and nothing is officially done by the Cardinals, at least his life is limited by his age, we can just weather this. (We had to groan because they are all very young, and we are more likely to kick that same bucket with him, if not before. But their enthusiasm and hopefulness was impressive.
__
We’ve been too burned over the years to start jumping for joy, but it gave us pause, and Our Lord has promised the gates of hell won’t prevail. And we know that what is impossible for man is never impossible for God. In the Apocalypse, after all the dire predictions that we see coming true right now, we have the sound advice of our Lord again and again, saying we need to “persevere to the end, in Faith.’ That’s what we plan to do, no matter what happens. Ave Maria, Ora pro nobis…
Dear CraigV,
Thanks for clarifying that. We agree it’s a real mess in many places, and know that the Dogma will prevail because we have Our Lord’s word on it. So there must be a return to it- wherever it has been abandoned.
I appreciate your response. There has been a string of ‘to be weathered popes’ now whose ‘gift’ is ‘Novus’ mass, doctrine, hopes and fears. The Benedict ‘hiccough’ was not so much of a hiccuough as a brief pause for breath. I really do think that those clergy who wave flags saying, the Novus Ordo episcopal ordinations are not Catholic, will be served to be ‘not whistling dixie’ so to say in the end. The blanket innoculation against the Holy Ghost — how can this be part and parcel of a valid Rite of Ordination? Are we to believe that only writting teaching ‘sola script’ if not ‘scriptura’ influences someone with a vocation? I don’t know if you watch hockey, but if you’re the goal tender, you don’t try to shake hands with the puck. I totally agree that the ‘gates of hell will not prevail’. These days it would be interesting to know what Novus Ordo Rome thinks that means. But we will not be left to be the ‘portion of foxes’.
Dear Salvemur,
We long for a day when the fulfillment of this prophecy in the book of Revelations, [ Our Lord] will be mirrored so closely by one seated on the chair of Peter, that all our divisions will cease.
“And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with an iron rod. ” (Apoc. 12: 5)
Thank you, Indignus. This beautifully written oath does not have to be re-constructed. It must be restored and reaffirmed. I don’t expect this papacy (totally devoted to Vat.2) will ever require the clergy to sign. However, it should be circulated among the Catholic faithful in order to voice their love of Tradition and their disdain for the evil intent of the Modernists in the post-conciliar church.
Thank you again.
The Novus Ordo Church as a ‘whole’, should do a survey of ‘confession’. How many priests can stand it? but then the environment it is conducted in is like a coffee room with only two people. Hands up Novus Ordo catholics reading this – how many bother to go to confession? Why on earth would a Novus Ordo catholic need ‘confession’? Why? Vatican II asserts a Church that subsists without Apostolic confession (Low Sunday Gospel, ‘Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.’)
–
What on earth could this mean in the Average Novus Ordo? It means, you Felix Unger traditionalist git, go and make agree on everything with a protestant.
Peter,
To be honest, I don’t if it comes from 1917, 1983 or both or only one.
“Can. 335 When the Roman See is vacant or entirely impeded, nothing is to be altered in the governance of the universal Church; the special laws issued for these circumstances, however, are to be observed.”
Another interesting tidbit, Sanborn has laid out the case that the SSPX is a heretical sect. He was made a priest in the SSPX. That would mean he was made a priest not by the real Catholic Church but a heretical sect. Simply becoming sedevacantist does not make his ordination valid.
@IF: (1) Do you know, for a fact, that the NO missae in its most reverent form is pleasing to the Almighty?
–
(2) Do you believe that a manifestly heretical prelate retains jurisdiction after his heresy becomes manifest and until he is judged by the Church and removed from office?
I don’t think one has to sing the praises of the Novus Ordo. But rather, show the beauty of the Truth in the TLM and be a witness to the beauty of Truth, and display the fruits of the Holy Spirit. Would this not be more affective means of attraction?
I don’t know what a “Novus Ordo Catholic” is but I can tell you I know a Priest that celebrates both TLM and NO and he advised me to go to confession once a month. And not only do they have confession at this particular Church for however long it takes on Saturday but also before every Mass. There is also no receiving Eucharist standing or in the hand, no altar girls, no Eucharistic ministers. There is a great deal of reverence by the Faithful and the prayer to St. Michael is said after every Mass, both TLM and NO. The Priests often discuss the necessity to avoid sin, go to confession and grow in
Holiness. If you would like to come visit I could take you there but we’d have to get there early because each of the 4 or 5 Masses is jam packed and you won’t find a place to park.
I know what a Novus Ordo Psuedo Katholic is. Bergoglio is an obvious public-unaduterated-OSKAR of Novus Ordoism.
So anyone that attends an NO is pseudo, ie: not Catholic and just like Bergoglio. Got it. Does this apply to Eastern Catholics also? Just curious.
Why would you isinuate that people like IF and Ever Mindful understand what they hear in the reading in a way other than the mind of the Church? Also, why did put real presence in quotes? Are you saying people like IF and Ever Mindful don’t receive Jesus in the Eucharist and you think their belief in the real presence they receive at Mass is a sham? This is rather insulting. But doesn’t surprise me because this is the attitude Sanborn and NOwatch instill in their followers.
I believe he’s referring to the Novus-ordo-land type lingo that confuses the presence of God in the Word (scripture) and where 2 or 3 are gathered in His name with the Real Presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament.
Dear Salvemur and JamesTheLesser
We’re always on the lookout for truth. In your exchange above, we see a few things that represent many other such discussions of the past:
1. There is honestly NO evidence we’ve seen that folks like James and us– who have experienced good priests and good parishes (Post VII) which keep to the True Faith overall, are in any way part of a majority. Therefore Salvemur is right to claim that the overwhelming problems we face, as polls show, that “most” self-described Catholics today, world-wide, have rejected parts if not all of the Truths of the Faith, while being LED AND DECEIVED by modernists in the Hierarchy of the Church, to believe they are either NOT doing anything contrary to the will of God, OR that the great Mercy of God, looks the other way regarding their sinful lives, and is happy with their “overall good intentions”.
THIS is where the problem lies.
2. Non-duped Catholics who have physically (or mentally) pulled away into groups denouncing modernism, appreciate the TLM and the rest of Tradition, much more fully than most did when the TLM was The Mass of the 1950’s for example. Then you would see laxity, where today you see only fervor, because people have been made keenly aware–by suffering — of the need for this counter-revolution.
__
3. The designation “Novus Ordo Church” is one we find irritating and annoying, because we’ve recognized the problem as being much larger than the changes made in the rite of the Mass, (which did strip it down to bare necessities in many ways, but nevertheless left it with the elements present at the last Supper), which Our Lord said to “do” in memory of Him, leaving it with MORE, however, than the early Church was doing for centuries before the TLM came to be. Since we also have the aforementioned good experiences with the N.O. being done reverently and well, WITHOUT the abuses we so often hear reported as if they are everywhere and at all times, which have demonstrated to us the accuracy of Cardinal Burke’s statements in its defense, that it IS capable of bringing great Graces to all souls, although the TLM is vastly preferable in many ways.
___
4. What we should all be attacking, is the MODERNIST INVASION of the Church –SPEARHEADED BY SATAN–which appears to us to have CONFISCATED AND USED the Council as A PRIMARY VEHICLE. They managed to mix all their carefully chosen “language” in with a smattering of Dogmas and Doctrines repeated from the past, in a way that can cleverly be “interpreted” in a variety of ways. That’s why the above Oath against Modernism issued by Pius X, (a full 7 years before Our Lady appeared at Fatima), is so relevant today. And why blogs like Louie’s can play such an important part in demonstrating the truth. It’s why our opinion of VII, is that it is overall dangerous to the Faith, and has been used to launch modernist attacks against the Church, on a scale never seen before. False
Ecumenism was once out-rightly anathematized. Now it is regularly promoted. The mandate to Teach and Baptize was always Primary. Now we make “pledges” to delighted Rabbi’s and Imams, that proselytism is a thing of the past.
Mortal Sin prevented reception of the Eucharist for 2000+ years. Now we have Pope praising Kasper’s heretical ideas as “Theology done on one’s knees”.
__
We need to join forces, as much as we are able, in fighting for the Truth. In our HO, it would help to start labeling the problem as something other than the “N.O. Church or N.O. Catholics.
___
As we’ve said before, we were Catholics from infant Baptism on, attending the TLM first, then the N.O.–with never a choice– for 40+ years. We’re still Catholic today, despite the modernist infiltration of our Church, seeking to do God’s will and to know the Truth about whatever affects all souls. Since there obviously DO exist others like us, some right here on Louie’s blog, why use labels which carry with them an automatic bashing of people’s intelligence or ability to see what has become obvious to others, that are based solely on the Mass they attend? Without them, we will likely make more progress in identifying the problems for those who don’t yet understand what’s going on.
Dear Indignus,
There have been a number of comments as to the advantage of attending the NO mass, despite all its negative features, to attain the overriding advantage of being able to receive the Eucharist. Sadly, this is not a valid argument, because the Sacrament of the Eucharist in the new rite, is invalid. The proper form of the Sacrament has been altered, thus rendering the Sacrament and consequently also the mass invalid, even presuming the “Lord’s supper” is “presided over” by a validly ordained priest. An excellent monograph by Patrick Henry Omlor, entitled “Questioning the Validity of the Masses, Using the New, All-English Canon” explains the Sacramental Theology involved lucidly and in great detail. It may be read here:
http://www.the-pope.com/qtv.html
All the good souls who in ignorance, innocence and good faith attend NO masses receive grace, (but not Sacramental grace), for their sincere good intention. Anybody who knows and understands the evil fraudulence of the NO mass and who attends one, commits the sin of giving scandal and committing sacrilege. I attended the No mass, in good faith, from 1969 until two years ago when I started seeing the light. It is infinitely better for me to stay at home and assist virtually at the Mass, live, on the webcast of St. Gertrude the Great and receive the reality of the Sacrament in a a Spiritual Communion:
Examples To Illustrate “The Reality” of The Eucharist.
” … 95. We read in John (6,24): “Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.” But, since we believe that infants who have been baptized and who die before receiving the Eucharist are saved, how do we explain Christ’s words: “Except you eat . . . you shall not have life in you.”?
96. This is answered as follows. By Baptism a person “is ordained to the Eucharist, and therefore from the fact of children being baptized, they are destined by the Church to the Eucharist; and just as they believe through the Church’s faith, so they desire the Eucharist through the Church’s intention, and, as a result, receive its reality.” (Summa Th., III, Q. 73, Art. 3, emphasis added).
97. Therefore infants, though they do not receive the sacrament of the Eucharist, nevertheless receive the reality of the sacrament, namely, union with the Mystical Body.
98. Similarly, one who with the right disposition, though he be unable to receive Holy Communion, makes a “spiritual communion,” thereby receives the reality of the sacrament, but not the sacrament itself.”
That is infinitely better than getting a piece of bread! There is no escape in going to a SSPX, or Orthodox mass. Both are schismatic and therefore not Catholic. The SSPX offer their mass in union with a heretical “pope” and a schismatic Bishop, which is not pleasing to God:
” … There are some men, in fact, whose names cannot even be mentioned by the celebrant in the “Commemoration of the Living”: “Hence were anyone to mention by name an infidel, a heretic, a schismatic, or an excommunicated person (whether a king, or a bishop, or any other), … he would certainly violate the law of the Church.” (De la Taille, The Mystery of Faith, v. II, p. 317). ”
One can go around in circles for ever claiming that Vatican II was “Pastoral” and not doctrinal, happily continuing to ignore Paul VI’s clear and unambiguous statement that he promulgated with the authority of the Ordinary Magisterium. One can blissfully ignore Pope Paul IV’s crystal clear proclamation that a heretic cannot become, or remain Pope. One can turn a blind eye to Pastor Aeternus and pretend, with the SSPX, that “Recognise and Resist” is an option and not schism. But there comes a point when blissful ignorance becomes willful blindness.
Well said;,and many thanks to you and all the others who comment here for clarifying the terrain and topography…having enjoyed years of chocolate milkshakes, I am tentatively nibbling on the roast potatoes, though those hot chilli peppers can bring a tear to the eye
I fed you with milk, not solid food, for you were not ready for solid food.
1Corinthians 3:2
You need milk, not solid food; for everyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is unskilled in the word of righteousness. But solid food is for the mature, for those whose faculties have been trained by practice to distinguish good from evil.
Hebrews 5:13-14
Unbelievable! I bet you both answer together when one is asked a question. Like some identical twins. God bless.
@IF: It is noted that IF is back to her old game of browbeating others and not answering painful questions directed to her.
–
Before I start, I thought it really quite comical that the person who made a post about “delusions of grandeur” constantly uses the “royal we”. It is also noted that I considered it quite humorous that the LEGION of voices behind IF also got around to calling me possessed by the devil too in a post a few weeks back! The last person to accuse me of that was a modernist priest when I challenged him for supposing in a homily that the traditional church teaching on marriage could be changed!
–
In any case, in an earlier post, I noted that IF is apparently agenda-driven – that she believes the new mass is an acceptable alternative to the TLM. She advised people as recently as her postings today to continue frequenting the new mass. She has even gone after Mr. V himself when he advanced the thesis that the NO is harmful to the faithful.
–
It is established fact that Catholic doctrine is watered down and distorted in the new mass. IF nonetheless denies that the new mass alone can be a source of harm to the faithful. I consider this position delusional for it supposes that the faithful can weekly listen to a corrupt liturgy and not be corrupted by it.
–
In any case, it is not seen how the NO mass – as a corrupt expression of true Catholic doctrine – can be pleasing to the Almighty since it does not comport with the FAITH THAT HE HIMSELF ESTABLISHED. In view of this, I asked IF a simple question, whether she knew, for a fact, that the new mass in its most reverent form is pleasing to the Almighty.
–
Although it is not seen how apart from observation and empirical evidence one could answer this question absent a private revelation from the Almighty Himself, it would seem that she need know the answer to this question before she advises people to frequent the new mass, because I cannot imagine IF believing that it doesn’t matter if we participate in something that is displeasing to the Almighty!
–
Not surprisingly, she has not answered this question. For if she did, it would be clear that it was she who was suffering from delusions of grandeur.
–
In any case, I don’t know – for a fact – that the new mass in its most reverent form is NOT pleasing to the Almighty. Nonetheless, from empirical evidence, it appears that the new mass is decidedly not pleasing to the Almighty as those who frequent the new mass apparently are NOT receiving the graces necessary from their assistance at the new mass to avoid losing their faith. For instance, numerous polls indicate that a sizable majority of NO attendees no longer believe in the real presence. Further, mass attendance figures continue to spiral downward, indicating people are not persevering in the faith.
–
So how should we view this, that it is “OK” to do something displeasing to the Almighty as long as we get the graces we want? Now, not everyone is as aware of the issues regarding the new mass as are many of the commentators here. My comments are directed to condemn the ignorant, rather they are directed to those who do have knowledge of the deficiencies of the new mass as a faithful expression of Catholic doctrine. Since those more knowledgable of the situation are more culpable, I warn those more knowledgable to contemplate the reality of the situation. Is it really possible that we derive much grace from a “mass” that we know to be a corrupt expression of Catholic doctrine? A mass that conflicts with the faith that the Almighty himself established? Or is our position something like, well, the Almighty let the situation get confusing so really can’t be blamed and I will ignore logical arguments that suggest the new mass could not be pleasing to the Almighty, and frequent it anyways because ultimately I am only interested in my own salvation and NOT what is pleasing to the Almighty, as if it possible to merit salvation by even thinking in this manner! Shouldn’t our default position be that we desire to do nothing that is displeasing to Our Lord, and work out our salvation in other ways?
–
As another example of how you should take IF’s suggestions with the proverbial “grain of salt” consider that in a post today she said this:
–
“What we should all be attacking, is the MODERNIST INVASION of the Church –SPEARHEADED BY SATAN–which appears to us to have CONFISCATED AND USED the Council as A PRIMARY VEHICLE. They managed to mix all their carefully chosen ‘language’ in with a smattering of Dogmas and Doctrines repeated from the past, in a way that can cleverly be ‘interpreted’ in a variety of ways. That’s why the above Oath against Modernism issued by Pius X, (a full 7 years before Our Lady appeared at Fatima), is so relevant today. And why blogs like Louie’s can play such an important part in demonstrating the truth. It’s why our opinion of VII, is that it is overall dangerous to the Faith, and has been used to launch modernist attacks against the Church, on a scale never seen before. False
Ecumenism was once out-rightly anathematized. Now it is regularly promoted. The mandate to Teach and Baptize was always Primary. Now we make ‘pledges’ to delighted Rabbi’s and Imams, that proselytism is a thing of the past.
Mortal Sin prevented reception of the Eucharist for 2000+ years. Now we have Pope praising Kasper’s heretical ideas as ‘Theology done on one’s knees’.”
–
If modernism is such a big deal to IF, why does she defend the new mass, which was assembled by a legion of modernists to appeal to the most modernist of (heretical) protestants? If false ecumenism is such a big deal to IF, why does she defend the new mass, which was formulated to advance false ecumenism, e.g., unity without unity in belief? Methinks the lady doth protest too much!
–
Does IF ever stop to contemplate for a moment that the modernists she makes mention of who invaded the institutional Church defend the new mass with hammer and tongs and look for any opportunity to suppress the TLM? One wonders.
–
Cognitive dissonance meet IF. IF meet cognitive dissonance.
Dear JamesTheLesser,
I am busy trying to get the answer – will let you know if I can.
Reading the quote of c.335 you have provided: ” … nothing is to be altered in the governance of the universal Church; … ”
I would understand that to mean that during an interregnum, governance of the Church was to continue as normal i.e. Bishops would continue to be consecrated as usual and doesn’t indicate that ” If we are truly in an interregnum then canon law forbids the ordination of Bishops during a period of interrgnum. ” Anyway hopefully we will find an answer.
As for the tidbit 🙂 :
Bishop Sanborn was one of the first SSPX seminarians and was ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre in June, 1975. He was later Rector of the first SSPX seminary and consecrated Bishop by Bishop R. McKenna in 1995.
Remember that the Sacraments of the SSPX and Orthodox are valid – even though they are schismatics. So he was validly consecrated and is still a valid Bishop.
This is great. But sadly, very unusual. Most Catholics do not have access to a Holy Mass offered strictly according to the rubrics, and a reverent priest who wholly ascribes to and teaches the Deposit of Faith and morals.
I have not seen any “brow-beating” by Indignus Famulus. If you want to refute assertions by them, do so on the basis of the assertions and the grounds for them, and do not make ad hominem slights.
@Lynda: Here is a direct quote from IF directed to me:
–
“Dear Cyprian,
Please stop harassing people for not wanting to try to be theologians. You’re not that good at it yourself, apparently, and you’re behaving like an agent of the devil .here and elsewhere. We’re tired of explaining things like this to you.”
–
I felt browbeaten when IF wrote this. It is also noted that you did not call out IF for writing this. Do you consider saying someone browbeats other commentators is more serious than someone who accuses another commentator of being “an agent of the devil”? Apparently your indignation is very selective!
Also, as you can see my own natural inclination is to give someone the benefit of the doubt, because in my post today I incorrectly recalled her as saying I was possessed by the devil, when in fact she actually accused me of being an agent of the devil, which is far worse!
Also, another reason that I incorrectly recalled her accusation is because I also have trained myself (thanks ACT) not to let such obvious efforts at ad-hominem escalation to detract me from the point I was trying to make. If you also followed the prior debate, I relented from anything that might be considered ad-hominem AS SOON AS IF took a position. Unlike most other posters here, IF does not like to set forth the doctrinal support for her position when the issue isn’t black-and-white and is subject to debate. The last time I checked IF isn’t the magisterium so it is perfectly within the right of other commentators to ask her for the sources of her positions or the internal logic thereof.
@Lynda: One other thing Lynda. My use of the word “browbeat” was calculated to smoke IF out and make her defend her positions which in many instances are not truly Catholic. By you interpreting this as serious and rising to her defense you actually played into her hands – now she has another commentator positioning me as just a big stupid bully who picks fights with people. This is called “cover” and allows her to ignore me.
Of course you do.You are a heretic. I know you are a parody and I enjoyed the tour of the abomination built by that diocese out west you posted here.Good work.
I think at a minimum a syllabus of errors re V2 must be promulgated…but only if the entire disaster can’t be anathematized.
Highlights of my parish…the abrogation of the Roman Canon.I have not heard it in 2 years.The Priest not saying the word men during prayers but instead remaining silent…no mention of penance,sacrifice or hell.
St Pius X was prescient…what we have now is a man centered disaster.Some of the very large churches I have been to were virtually indistinguishable from a protestant mega-church.Large musical ensembles,giant tv screens with sappy images and song lyrics, huge sound systems….
Appalling…
My six year old asked if the big parish we visited was Catholic…and made it clear to me she never wanted to go back.Imagine if you will the fate of those who so offended her in her innocence.
What more needs to be said of that place?
Dear Lynda,
Thanks for your astute-as- usual remarks here. This is unfortunately another example of attempted schoolyard- bulling by Cyprian, so we’re posting the facts here that led us to make that TRUE statement he quoted above –that he is “acting as an agent of the Devil”.
Anyone not interested, please skip this post, as it’s simply the kind of defense we feel is occasionally necessary when people act as he does, with continue personal mockery and unwarranted disrespect in place of reasoned discourse.
=======
–The quotation cited by Cyprian was from Louie’s Feb 8, 2015 comment section– made by us following a number of false, personal accusations denying our integrity; and additional spiteful remarks he then made to other posters who stepped in to defend us.
___
-At the time, after Barbara intervened suggesting ways to practice Christian charity in discourse, and Lynda graciously replied to her: “You are right Barbara. Commenters ought not speculate about other commentators, nor make personal slurs. We must keep the matters under discussion, and not disrespect.”
__
Cyprian the asked “Barbara; Who you were talking about? …
Barbara replied: “Actually, Cyprian, it was these comments of yours that I was talking about”:– “@IF: The give-away that makes me doubt your cover story (that the entity IF is really just an elderly couple comprised of a “meek” wife and a long suffering husband) is that.”
___
Barbara added later, after seeing him continue in that vein:
“Any comments about IF’s identity are off limits in civilized discourse, especially when you are snide about it. These comments add nothing to this discussion and are time-wasters when we might be getting on with some good stuff.”
____
We agreed, and when he stated to us he was not going to apologize, we replied: ”
Dear Cyprian, We didn’t ask you for an apology, and we were only half-joking when we suggested you do penance before God punishes you in purgatory for your numerous false, and disrespectful statements about our marital status, family size, beliefs, and personal integrity….” We’ve responded with sincerity to you, feel we have not been treated with the same in return. So we will pray that you receive the Graces to take a look at how you behave, and develop some genuine remorse. God Bless you. Sincerely”
====
he continued his tirade, writing another mocking discourse to Ever mindful, including:
“IF has been spotted as an agenda-driven commenter on these threads. Careful reading of his/her/its comments will make one recognize that he/she/it has set-in-stone beliefs, e.g., that the NO mass is a perfectly acceptable Catholic mass….
…So IF certainly has been spotted as an agenda-driven commenter! My only question is why IF chose a screen name (“indignus famulus”) from the TLM that refers to the priest offering the mass!
=========
We are elderly Catholic grandparents, and responded that
“-Our only “agenda” is finding the truth. The original reason we gave you for not wanting to discuss these matters past the point where they are clear to us, is that it can lead to LOOKING LIKE you’ve proven something as true that is actually false, but we don’t have the knowledge to demonstrate that….” For you to accuse and insult and slap labels on people with very legitimate reasons like ours, is reprehensible behavior. So you’ve created another reason we don’t
wish to have a discussion with you, by being so nasty. We really hope you’ll take a look at how you’re acting, and make an effort to change. You seem to care about the side of the issue you are defending, and if you apply yourself to finding the truth without misleading anyone, you can examine your arguments more carefully, to present them in ways that are not misleading.”
=====
Our final post to Cyprian said,
” You can go on “noting” all the false things you want people to believe. We will be skipping anything you post from now on, unless it starts with some evidence of
genuine remorse for all the dishonest “techniques” you formerly employed “win” arguments including especially misstating facts about what others said and did to make them appear at fault or hypocritical.
–It’s a real shame your have not recognized the need to toss out all those evil tools, because we can clearly see the intelligence needed to make use of them, in what
you write, and would enjoy engaging in respectful conversation with you, were they not there to make that such an unpleasant experience.
Please think about that, and consider ridding yourself of those burdensome ploys. You don’t need them to share your thoughts in a Catholic manner. We’ve been praying for you, and will continue to do so. May God bless you.
======
May God bless us all, and may Cyprian realize that bullies like him are never respected when the truth about them becomes generally known. We stand up to bullies, whether on line or in our daily lives–in the Church or elsewhere..
Our priest always told us that we did not have the obligation to attend the Novus Ordo. He wasn’t a sedevacantist. He would say, “Not only do you not have the obligation to attend the new Mass but once you understand why then you have the obligation to not attend it.”
Are you familiar with the old “confession shopping”, that if you don’t like what you hear just go to another priest? I think we’ve moved beyond taking the word of any priest as “gospel”. Some gave bad advice long before 1962. One other thought, even if the Chair of Peter is vacant, that doesn’t give license to hold the Precepts of the Church in abeyance. Was this priest providing a TLM?
Cyprian,
Methinks you need to continue your training. If I may suggest, when you feel yourself getting anxious, find a quiet space with an adult beverage, (if you’re of age, that is), and consider 3 times how to respond.
@Hi IF! Now that we know you are paying attention, I promise I won’t make another mildly ad hominem attack for the duration of this disputation. You can take my word for it because in the case of our last dust up as soon as you advanced a position it was all business for me, i.e., only about the argument and nothing about the person. In any case, the reason that I had to escalate a little to get your attention is because you ignored the following questions directed to you:
–
“(1) Do you know, for a fact, that the NO missae in its most reverent form is pleasing to the Almighty?
–
(2) Do you believe that a manifestly heretical prelate retains jurisdiction after his heresy becomes manifest and until he is judged by the Church and removed from office?”
Hey Mike, we’re still waiting for your opinion on the import of Bugnini’s statement that VII represented a conquest of the Catholic Church. You remember Bugnini – he’s the guy who authored the new mass with a bunch of protestant and protestant sympathizers – you know the mass you vociferously defend as a legitimate rite of the Catholic Church?
Wow!!! I have just read a FANTASTIC article defending sedevacantism.
Steven Speray has flattened Siscoe into a pancake! Lynda it answers your desire for a formal declaration of deposition by the Church, before a Pope can be deposed in detail.
Please will everybody read this article? It is not long and will, I think, be very instructive to many regarding the sedevacantist position.
https://stevensperay.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/steven-speray-responds-to-robert-siscoe-and-the-remnan1.pdf
Pleeeease everybody, read this article! 🙂
Dear JamesTheLesser,
I’ve just had an half hour conversation with Fr. Francis Miller O.F.M. regarding the tidbit. He gave me a stunning explanation regarding it. I could never reproduce what he taught me as well as he spoke it, so I have begged him to put what he said on paper and I will post it when I get it.
He was in his car driving to say Mass somewhere in Alabama and I am sitting in South Africa and we were talking on skype as though he was sitting opposite me. Too incredible for speech!
Peter Lamb, in regards to Sanborn, he claims the SSPX is heretical for recognizing the Pope and thus is not Catholic. If he was ordained in the SSPX then by his own logic he was ordained in a non Catholic sect. If he believes the SSPX IS Catholic and he split from them then he is a schismatic. Seems like a quandary.
Dear Peter,
We read the link you provided, as you requested, and sadly, found a lot more of what we’ve come to expect from these debates, which -as we explained to you previously, leaves us hoping even more for a Divine intervention to put an end to all this confusion.
Looking at the number of articles on-line about this particular debate, it’s apparently been going on for quite some time, involving a lot of back and forth accusations of dishonesty on all sides Siscoe, Speray, Speray’s brother, the Remnant’s Canon Lawyers, and Novus Ordo watch–with each accusing the other of the SAME overall disqualifiers:
–For example, On March 16, 2015 in the Remnant, Siscoe wrote:
” I am acquainted with Steven Speray from dozens of telephone conversations we’ve had over the past few years. I’ve never known anyone as obsessed with any single issue as Steve is with “proving” sedevacantism by any means possible.
“… he will stop at nothing to prove it. Any citation he can find from a theologian that he can twist to support his position is treated like a papal decree, and his own private interpretation of the “proof-text” is considered to be infallible. When he is presented with quotations from theologians of equal or greater authority, which directly and explicitly contradict his private interpretation, he will either ignore them, or, when they can’t be ignored, he will declare “they’re wrong”. His obsession with proving something that cannot be proven, since it involves 1) opinions that have not yet been resolved by the Church, [2] and 2) judgments that he does not have the authority to make”
—And in your link, Speray writes with equal conviction:
Now if Siscoe actually quotes me and then says exactly opposite of my meaning and explanation, it should come to no surprise that he does this with Bellarmine and everyone else he quotes.
========
So where does all of this get us? The bottom line seems to be with more divisions growing wider between the only Catholics left on the planet, and a GREAT need for an authoritative decision.
So we pray for our Good Shepherd to help all the people on both sides of this great divide, and for Our Blessed Mother’s intercession, that it may be resolved very soon.
You have had much better luck than I in getting folks to even read it.
Seems to me almost no one in the conservative camp wants to read anything pre-Vatican 2. Certainly nothing from the 150 years or so prior to that council.
I’d much rather become Eastern Catholic and avoid any such theories.
Dear JamesTheLesser,
Every Catholic is subject to the Pope:
” … Hence we teach and declare that, by the appointment of our Lord, the Roman Church possesses a superiority of ordinary power over all other Churches, and that this power of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, which is truly episcopal, is immediate; to which all, of whatever rite and dignity, both pastors and faithful, both individually and collectively, are bound, by their duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, to submit, not only in matters which belong to faith and morals, but also in those that appertain to the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world, so that the Church of Christ may be one flock under one Supreme Pastor through the preservation of unity both of communion and of profession of the same faith with the Roman Pontiff. This is the teaching of Catholic truth, from which no one can deviate without loss of faith and of salvation.” (Pastor Aeternus ch. 3.)
Therefore, in terms of the above, any Catholic who refuses submission, or obedience to the Pope cuts himself off from the Church, is no longer a Catholic and commits the sin of schism.
That is precisely what the SSPX does. They recognise Francis and his predecessors as true Popes, but do not submit to him and obey him at all times. Sometimes they obey him, sometimes they don’t, i.e. they recognise him, but when the occasion arises, they resist him. This is not to be Catholic.
So, you are correct, Bishop Sanborn was a member of a non-Catholic sect (SSPX) and was ordained in that non-Catholic sect.
The important fact not to loose sight of is that that sect, despite the fact that they are schismatics, still have valid Sacraments, as do another sect – the Orthodox churches. So even though he was a schismatic at the time, his ordination was perfectly valid. Bishop Sanborn departed from the SSPX in 1983.
Bishop Sanborn does not now believe that the SSPX are Catholics. He believes them to be schismatics.
Sedevacantists do not recognise the conciliar popes as true Popes, so they are not schismatics, they are Catholics.
This makes no sense. You say we must be subject to the Pope but then say we don’t need a Pope to be Catholic. If men can be ordained and elevated to Bishop without a Pope then the Papal dogmas, prerogatives, claims of jurisdiction, etc. are unnecessary or at worst ….a sham.
Dear Indignus,
Thank you for reading the article. The rancour, friction and ad hominem comments are, as you say, a great pity. Come to think of it, my statement that the one had made a pancake out of the other was not too bright either. I suppose we are all human and get excited and a bit carried away now and then. However, if we ignore that aspect of the article completely as irrelevant to the discussion itself, I think some very good points, references and quotes are provided in explaining the sedevacantist position. The sheep are scattered as you say and to your prayer that the situation be resolved soon, I say AMEN.
Peter, it’s obvious that the theory is not a slam dunk and doesn’t adequately answer all the obviously glaring holes or questions begged. One has to do mental gymnastics to get around issues that should have a simple straight forward answer. The fact that the theory is not entirely convincing is the obvious reason attacks have to be made. When you shut people down by attacking their character or denigrating their beliefs it becomes much easier to convince yourself you won the argument and your theory is truth. Those that perpetuate this theory don’t want to face the reality that holiness can be obtained outside their little clique. It would mean grace can be obtained in pockets of places they rail against and their theory then begins to crumble. Either you are all in or you have to admit the reality is not that simplistic.
Dear Cyprian,
You’re very fortunate that we’re “practicing” Catholics and seasoned parents and grandparents. We doubt very much that without that, we, or anyone you treated as you have just done us, would still be hoping for your awakening to the poison you are allowing Satan to feed you, and swallowing.
Look at what you just wrote above. Really see it for what it is. An admonition that you are willing to commit sin –willfully aggravate and slander two old people, in order to get their attention, so you can (you think) force them to converse with you, after they made it very clear they had chosen not to, because of your reprehensible behavior.
So you take it upon yourself to coerce them to comply with your will, using mockery and lies, that you admit, were personal attacks that you “had” to use to “escalate” your plan. That is directly out of hell.
What if you had caused one of us to have a heart attack or stroke, due to that deliberate aggravation? Don’t write this off as nonsense, Cyprian. THIS is a very important moment in your life. Face the evil you have chosen to embrace in this pattern of behavior. Reject it, and turn your life into one of an honest person, unwilling to give in to trickery, deceit, manipulation, and lies of any degree. THEN this will have all been brought to a happy conclusion. Not before.
Don’t ask people who spend our time analyzing human behavior to reach truth, to “Trust” your word right now. THAT kind of trust must be earned. So IF and when you come to your spiritual senses, we’ll be watching to see how you behave if you choose to continue online here.
We ARE sincerely praying for you, as we have said a couple of time already. Manipulation is dishonest. Dishonesty is of the Father of Lies. Whom do you choose to serve? We serve the Lord.
Dear James The Lesser,
No, we do need a Pope to be Catholic, because Our Lord built His Church on the rock of St. Peter and his successors, which succession will endure until the end of time. Where Peter is, there the Church is.
However, a Pope is not always present. A pope is always absent in the period of time between the death of one Pope and the election of his successor. Only this time around the interval between Popes is the longest in the history of the Church and is due to the carefully planned invasion of the Church by the masons, who have provided us with a string of false popes. When the next true Pope arrives we will be subject to him.
Dear Peter,
You seem the most generally congenial self-proclaimed sedevacantists we’ve encountered online so far, not that our experience in that area is vast. Despite your “gung-ho” ness, you don’t appear prone to putting others down for disagreeing, or accusing of sin- if they don’t think as you do. That’s a BIG plus 🙂 🙂
— If the position is wrong, (as we’re very inclined to think it is) you stand a much better chance of hearing truths that will help you change your mind about it, by behaving that way. (We naturally assume you hope the opposite will happen, and folks will come to “see the light” )
===
–As to your suggestion that people “ignore” that aspect of the article completely, (i.e. the slam-dunking of opponents characters) as “irrelevant” to the discussion–it’s not that easy to write it off, because most people we speak with disagree with the idea that these issues (like pertinacious heresy and Papal legitimacy) are easy for anyone to grasp, and are searching for trustworthy guides in these complex matters. These reputation wars make that even more difficult. We personally don’t think God would expect us all to become Canon lawyers and delve into all these things the way these folks do. So we’re hanging tight and waiting for further clarification from Him, while continuing to pray for the Collegial Consecration and conversion of Russia. -A BIG MIRACLE is what we all need.
God bless all who seek the Truth. We’ll continue to give our opinions when we feel things are obvious to us, and pray for these things to be clearly resolved, as we said above.
Dear JamesTheLesser,
I have to agree the reality can seem not that simple! 🙂
For me, the theory of sedevacantism does answer all the questions. I agree with you entirely that trying to shut people down is not at all a good thing. I really hope you don’t think I try to do that. I also agree that millions of people who are not sedevacantists are very holy. 🙂
Dear Peter,
Just curious. How will he be able to “arrive” if there are no legitimate Cardinals to elect him? If we haven’t had a true Pope since John XXIII, then there were no legitimate Cardinals made since then, right?
Dear Indignus,
Sounds good to me! 🙂
Ha! 🙂 🙂 Only about Faith and morals. Very different tastes in all else.
Dear Peter,
This is one BIG area where we disagree with you completely-your contention (and those you cite) that we’ve not been receiving the Eucharist all these years.
We’ve looked into the allegations that the rite was altered a number of times, and don’t agree that there were any changes in the words that actually confect the Eucharist.
Furthermore, when we checked out the allegations about the use of the words “many” versus “all”, it turned out that they were unnecessary to the consecration itself, and more likely than not, “all” was used by Our Lord at he last Supper.
At least the translation of the word He used in Arabic? would have been, it is said. We can’t argue one way or the other with that part of it–not being fluent in the languages (or even having studied them). But it was “translations” of the Latin words Pro Multis, which were the problem there. The Pro Multis was never changed. So the essential words were not altered, and that demonstrated the intention. The fact that translations were changed back to more accurately reflect that, also shows that there was no demand to change it.
But ask yourself this–WHICH words of Our Lord changed the Bread and Wine into His Body and Blood? None of those was altered either in the Latin OR the translations.
ergo–valid consecrations. Valid Eucharists.
Makes sense to us.
Peter, you are the most charitable sedevacantist I’ve encountered. 🙂
I cannot say that of about 98% of the rest I’ve run across. Of course, I don’t know any in person. So maybe the internet is not the best means.
I guess you missed it. It was right after your last post on Louie’s “A masterstroke of evil genius” of March 26th. It’s the 51st of 51 comments. (As yet the last word.)
Correction –not Arabic, Aramaic..
Dear 3littleshepherds1,
Refreshingly said! And all under (about) fifty words or less.
Hey Mike, if you had really handed it to me, as it were, you would have quoted your relatively short reply to me here to remind me. The fact that you didn’t, means it really wasn’t persuasive and evidences why I did not feel the need to reply to it. After all, not everyone is so ready to brush aside Bugnini’s malignant and revelatory words as nothing to be concerned about as you apparently are. If this is how Bugnini felt – that VII represented a conquering of the Catholic Church – I take him at his word and don’t want anything to do with his handiwork if he really viewed himself as effectively an enemy of the Church.
All that hand-wringing not to answer two simple questions. Here is another source for much of the same material covered in Steve Speray’s article. I represent to you that it doesn’t contain any ad-hominem nastiness that you apparently found so troubling to your constitution:
–
http://www.romancatholicism.org/sedevacantism-reconsidered.html
–
Perhaps after perusing this article you may consider taking a position on the second question I directed to you –
–
(2) Do you believe that a manifestly heretical prelate retains jurisdiction after his heresy becomes manifest and until he is judged by the Church and removed from office?
James, Indignus. Who are the ‘uncharitable’ sedevacantists you have run across? It is easy to feel good about oneself if one decides on partial Faith, because then one can dismiss the charity that expesses the fullness of the Faith. The sedevacantists I am aware of have pretty much sacrificed everything to not to comprimise Christ with Belial.
As far as I can see, the sedevacantist clergy try day and night to drive home how crucial Truth is because Truth is Christ. Who can say the same about the Novus Ordo clergy? or the Novus Ordo ‘popes’?
–
‘And say: Thus saith the Lord God: Woe to them that sew cushions under every elbow: and make pillows for the heads of persons of every age to catch souls: and when they caught the souls of my people, they gave life to their souls. And they violated me among my people, for a handful of barley, and a piece of bread, to kill souls which should not die, and to save souls alive which should not live, telling lies to my people that believe lies.’
–
In my experience on both sides of the planet, the Novus Ordo is a soft pillow, or ‘cushion’ to catch souls.
No, Cyprian,
All that hand-wringing because a person who presents himself here as a fellow Catholic, is in denial about the seriousness of his sins, the danger to his soul, and the harm he is doing others.
Conversing here is a privilege, not a right.
Your behavior has lost that- with us. We’ve told you how you could regain it, but that has to begin with acknowledging it. Instead, you continue trying to goad and manipulate some more. It’s sad.
__
Your actions have caused us to lose respect for your judgment and integrity. Why would anyone want to hear your thoughts on the Faith, when you aren’t willing to live it in your everyday life by practicing Christian discourse and honesty?
___
It’s a good thing you did all this to us. We’ve learned how to pray well for those who persecute us, and how to stay Christ-like while not giving in to bullying and manipulation. We won’t be answering your questions, until you show a willingness to change. Hope that happens soon.
____
@IF: You spend a great deal of time on this blog “minding” the opinions of other commenters (and even Mr. V for that matter) for personal peccadilloes and deviations from what you consider to be orthodoxy.
–
Just to remind you, on one post you even questioned the integrity of a priest author of a blog article that was the subject of a blog post because you felt he overly exaggerated facts for effect. Without losing a beat you then exaggerated some anecdotal evidence you were aware of to counteract the priest’s opinions!
–
In fact, on many individual posts, your comments may make up 50% or more of the comments. Now, when someone is so quick to criticize and find fault with others IGNORES on more than one occasion mere questions to them – I call foul. Most of my alleged “sins” in this regard consist in asking you difficult questions on topics that you don’t want to offer specific opinions on – when you feel free to offer related advice to others on the very topic I am questioning you about! I have resorted to dramatizing your hypocrisy merely to get you to respond. Once you are engaged, I put aside the mild criticism. Now compare your behavior here with mine. I resorted to some mild criticism of your hypocrisy to get you to engage. Once it was clear that you were paying attention, I brought two questions to your attention and waited for a reply. Instead of replying to those questions you have authored two lengthy attacks on my person. The ad hominem attacks you have directed towards me now dwarfs anything I may have said about you!
–
And may I remind you, I NEVER even got close to accusing ANYONE on this blog of being an agent of the devil like you have! Hard to live that one down isn’t it?
–
Stop behaving in a childish and entitled manner and merely answer questions directed to you. Then “WE” (meaning you) can avoid all this . . . drama!!!!
Dear Salvmur,
I think this is a really good comment. It really sums the situation up very well and includes the most apt description of the NO I have ever read. Where does it come from? I have read the bible a few times, but have no recollection of this quote, which I suppose is part of getting old.
Dear Indignus,
LOL! I had no idea I was gung-ho! If only we could see ourselves as others see us. 🙂
Dear Cyprian,
You need to learn the difference between the legitimate questioning of issues, and expressing opinions on them–which we frequently do–and personally attacking people, as YOU do, and have done once again here, with more false statements about our comments. We never attacked that priests integrity and made of point of saying so in our comments, noting that we agreed with MOST of what he said, and that some of his statements SEEMED exaggerated to us. We did NOT exaggerate OUR experiences one bit. This is more of your personal, unprovable attack mode. The false statements you make, and refusal to take correction, demonstrate your personal animosity once again here.
No one commenting here OWES you a response to any questions you wish to ask them. We responded to you in charity in prior months, but your behavior now precludes that. The fact that you refuse to consider your slanderous statements as sinful, makes it likely you will go on behaving in the same manner, and this error is AS detrimental to your soul and others, as what this Pope is doing. Modernists use all sorts of trickery in language to turn wrong into right on paper.
What you are doing here, is every bit as fraudulent and sinful.
Your attempts to turn the conversation here back to your “questions” is very obvious. Our answer has repeatedly been “no” to you, because of this penchant for personal attacks you have demonstrated clearly… You describe them as “mild” and “attention” getters, as if they are somehow justified in God’s sight.
You are wrong. They are seriously evil and not justified at all.
Accept it or not from us. But learn to let go of your personal slandering of reputations, or you will stand before God some day, and account for every evil word you’ve written here. We speak only the truth. You still do not.
@IF: You spend a great deal of time on this blog “minding” the opinions of other commenters (and even Mr. V for that matter) for personal peccadilloes and deviations from what you consider to be orthodoxy.
–
Just to remind you, on one post you even questioned the integrity of a priest author of a blog article that was the subject of a blog post because you felt he overly exaggerated facts for effect. Without losing a beat you then exaggerated some anecdotal evidence you were aware of to counteract the priest’s opinions!
–
In fact, on many individual posts, your comments may make up 50% or more of the comments. Now, when someone is so quick to criticize and find fault with others IGNORES on more than one occasion mere questions to them – I call foul. Most of my alleged “sins” in this regard consist in asking you difficult questions on topics that you don’t want to offer specific opinions on – when you feel free to offer related advice to others on the very topic I am questioning you about! I have resorted to dramatizing your hypocrisy merely to get you to respond. Once you are engaged, I put aside the mild criticism. Now compare your behavior here with mine. I resorted to some mild criticism of your hypocrisy to get you to engage. Once it was clear that you were paying attention, I brought two questions to your attention and waited for a reply. Instead of replying to those questions you have authored two lengthy attacks on my person. The ad hominem attacks you have directed towards me now dwarfs anything I may have said about you!
–
And may I remind you, I NEVER even got close to accusing ANYONE on this blog of being an agent of the devil like you have! Hard to live that one down isn’t it?
–
Stop behaving in a childish and entitled manner and merely answer questions directed to you. Then “WE” (meaning you) can avoid all this . . . drama!!!!
Reply went in directly above .
How wonderful and pleasant it is
when brothers live together in harmony!
Psalms 133:1
Hey Cyprian, my intent was to link my comment as I don’t like taking up blog space with repetitive comments. Since I was unable to do that I gave all the info which would enable an easy search. There was no thought of having “handed it” to you successfully or otherwise. Ergo your statement of “fact” is false.
– Re.: the “brushing aside” of Bugnini’s words; I guess at times I don’t express my thoughts well. IMHO, whatever his intent was, God has a way of frustrating our plans to accomplish His will. Bugnini could not act with free reign, there were a number who opposed him. Therefore I think he had to couch his desired changes in a manner that wouldn’t repulse all. As I said, (quoting), “I would rather see an examination of the prayers and actions of the N.O. as required in the GIRM, and have it shown what is in error, sinful or poisonous. Not due to abuses, or lack, or that it was/could be done better, but where heresy resides.”
Dear Ever mindful,
Yes. 🙂 🙂
(although sometimes there are necessary detours and lessons to be learned, before arriving there..
“These are the things that ye shall do; Speak ye every man the truth to his neighbor; execute the judgment of truth and peace in your gates.And let none of you imagine evil in your hearts against his neighbor; and love no false oath: for all these are things that I hate, saith the Lord. Zech. 8:16-17
Dear Cyprian, You’re getting overly involved in the personal, which is not right in this forum. Please do not insult other commenters but speak only to the substance of the issues under discussion. Think of our host, and all the other readers, as well as those you are directing your disapprobation at. Actually, I do not see any substantial contradiction in what you and Indignus Famulus have stated regarding the Novus Ordo.
Dear Mr Lamb, I don’t read anything in the article that would preclude chaos in the hierarchical Church were there not to be a formal procedure for declaring the manifest heretic Pope, a manifest heretic and therefore, not a Catholic, and not the Pope.
@Mike: The problem with thinking that Bugnini’s malign intents may have been frustrated is that the way Bugnini was treated doesn’t gibe with that. It appears to me that when he was too glib (letting the cat out of the bag so to speak) and became perhaps a lightning rod for the opposition to his liturgical reforms he got banished, you know, sort a like the Michael Corleone treatment – flee to Italy util the heat dies down. In Bugnini’s instance “Italy” was Iran where the hot potato was finally banished never to return.
@IF: Although IF may not believe this at this point, I read ALL of her comments, and not by any stretch of the imagination to find fault – rather to learn! In any case, we as followers of the Lord should not be surprised when the volume level in our disputes may rise a level:
–
“Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but the sword. For I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And as a man’s enemies shall be they of his own household.”
@Cyprian
Interesting that you insist you are justified in being highly offended by our statement that you have put yourself at the service of the devil, in your treatment of us; yet you continue to address a married couple posting together here, as “she” and “her” –further verifying the truth of that accusation.
…And Cyprian, your response does not address the question of import. Is the N.O.Mass valid? Bugnini, tangos & puppets are red herrings. If the N.O. is offered prayerfully, respectfully and faithfully, I am adoring, praising, petitioning and thanking God, Father, Son and Holy Ghost. And if worthy, receiving Body, Blood, Soul & Divinity of Our Lord, Jesus Christ.
Dear Lynda,
” … (vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived AUTOMATICALLY, and WITHOUT NEED for any FURTHER DECLARATION, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power.”
There you have it from the Apostolic Constitution, Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio, of Feb., 15, 1559 of Pope Paul IV in black and white. A manifest heretic falls from office automatically without any further procedure being necessary. As St. Robert Bellarmine states the loss of Office is ipso facto when the Pope becomes a manifest heretic. He falls in terms of DIVINE Law.
You are demanding the view of John of St. Thomas who requires a declaration BEFORE the Office is lost:
” … “The Church is able to declare the CRIME of a Pontiff…” also “The Church must render a judgment before the pope loses his office.” (For the CRIME, not SIN of heresy.)
Remember the Pope is sovereign, he can be judged by no man, only God: “… the See of Peter is judged by no one.” (Canon 1556.)
The argument of John of St. Thomas is soundly refuted by St. Robert and others as presented by Speray. The short cut is the definitive teaching of Pope Paul quoted above. So lets accept that no declaration by the Church, or anybody else is NECESSARY to depose a formally heretical Pope – he does so himself by becoming a manifest heretic.
However, under NORMAL circumstances prevailing in the Church, a council of Cardinals COULD and WOULD formally denounce and declare him guilty of the CRIME (against canon law) of heresy and formally depose him in the interests of order and good GOVERNANCE and discipline in the Church.
At present, normal circumstances do not prevail. The opposite prevails. The most powerful Cardinals are co-conspirators who aid and abet their leader. If you insist on the Church formally deposing the conciliar popes you will have to wait for the Restoration, which will come one day.
Dear Mike,
This thread is getting so long that comments get missed. Please see my comment to Indignus of 12 April regarding the invalidity of the NO eucharist and mass. Judging from the reply, I don’t think the source I quoted was read. Why the NO consecration is invalid is explained in detail here: http://www.thepope.com/qtv.html
So, devout attendance at the NO mass, in good faith, brings grace for the good intent, but no sacramental grace and you get served a piece of bread.
Mike the link I just gave you doesn’t work? This one will, I hope!
http://www.the-pope.com/qtv.html
Peter,
Thanks for the link. While not too familiar with Olmor’s treatise, it’s been quoted in a number of other articles I’ve read. It’ll take a while to wade through it, I think, so rather than look for a response here and make this thread longer, I think it’d be better to add it in the Forum to “On Vatican II and the Novus Ordo” started by Maestro, (https://akacatholic.com/topic/on-vatican-ii-and-the-novus-ordo/ ). I believe this would be somewhat germane to his topic. (I especially like Olmor’s preface re. St. Anselm.)
Yes, I’m aware of the above but what happens in practice? The Church, as a visible entity, must be protected too, for the ultimate sake of souls. If Pope Francis had already lost his outer role as office holder, how would this be realised in concrete terms without any declaration by bishops or cardinals, and the calling of an election?
@Lynda: If you haven’t noticed that IF has been making it personal I suggest you reread IF’s comments directed to me starting on a blog post back in the beginning of January. In the interest of fairness, I suggest you direct a similar comment to IF too, if you have the courage to do so.
https://akacatholic.com/inevitable/
Dear Lynda,
It would be recognised in concrete terms as is being done right now, by a remnant of faithful clergy and laity who are still confecting valid sacraments, proclaiming the Catholic Faith and denouncing the usurpers and heretics.
Dear Ingignus,
The short answer to your question is: I/we don’t know.
There are various possibilities:
1. If there were any valid, orthodox Cardinals left they might elect a Pope.
2. If none were left, the clergy of the diocese of Rome could elect a Pope.
3. If none were left, the remnant of orthodox Bishops of the world could gather and elect a Pope.
4. Sedeprivationism may provide a solution. According to this thesis the current Pope might well be a Pope materialiter, but not formaliter and thus maintain a legitimate power of designation, but how this theory can be reconciled with 6.(i) and especially 6.(iii) of Cum Ex Apostolatus, I do not know.
5. Divine Intervention.
What we do know is that there will be a valid Pope again, sooner, or later. Vatican I assures us that the Succession of St. Peter will endure until the end of time.
When he does come, we will know him, however he might come.
JamesTheLesser, here is one answer i got from a Priest who works with Bishop Sanborn:
“Sorry for our late response. I was away for two weeks so I could not check this email account.
I can give you a short answer to the Canon Law objection.
The current situation of the Church (prolonged vacancy of the See/heretical hierarchy) is extraordinary and beyond the scope of ordinary Church law. In cases where the fulfillment of the letter of the law becomes harmful to souls, epikeia is to be applied. The letter of the law says, for example, that a priest cannot hear confessions without the proper jurisdiction. If we apply such law today, people would remain in their sins and possibly be lost. The same principle is t be applied to the law that forbids episcopal consecrations without papal mandate. If we were to follow the letter of the law, there would be no more priests, no more sacraments. Canon Law is subordinated to a higher law: the salvation of souls. The rules that govern epikeia are studied in Moral Theology.
“Eastern Catholics” are in communion with Francis, so getting the Sacraments from them would be illicit (mortally sinful). The only exception: in danger of death, the Sacrament of penance may be received from a heretic/schismatic (provided he has valid orders).
I do not understand what the blogger is saying about the Ukrainian priest. If the priest is not in communion with Francis (for the right reasons), then he is a Sedevacantist and is also applying epikeia to administer the Sacraments.
I hope my answer was helpful.
In Xto, ”
God be with you all, who are in Truth, looking for the right path in Holy Mother Church.