Over the course of the last three days, Michael Voris has put his unholy obsession with the SSPX on display via some 30 minutes of video (with the promise of more to come) featuring over four thousand words – a portion of which was allegedly plagiarized (but more on that in a moment.)
Even though I’m not real keen on the idea of expending a great deal of energy parsing the criticisms of a man who is so clearly motivated by an agenda that has nothing whatsoever to do with seeking and telling the truth…
Below, I’ll provide in italics what I consider the most noteworthy parts of Voris’ videos such as they have been released to date, with my commentary immediately to follow.
Many Catholics, most Catholics, in fact, don’t really know very much at all, if anything, about this group which has been around in one form or another since 1988, as one way of counting … The Society came about in response, reaction to the overall weakening of the Church and many of Her leaders, which has been an ongoing process since the 1960s.
This is rich: Voris mentioning those who don’t really know very much at all about the SSPX as he gets even the most basic facts completely wrong. Most noteworthy here is his utterly preposterous assertion that the SSPX came about in response to some amorphous “weakening of the Church.”
He knows very well (as he and I had discussed in some detail on more than one occasion) that the SSPX came about as a very direct response to the errors of the Second Vatican Council and the deplorable theology of the Novus Ordo Missae.
It’s as if Michael is under some kind of self-imposed gag order that prevents him from speaking on the problems with the Council and the New Mass; issues he used to address with great passion just a few short years ago. More on that soon…
The SSPX, Church Militant, and many other Catholics recognize the deep crisis that has been brought about by weak leaders, corrupt leaders, homosexual leaders, feminized leaders in the Church for the past fifty-odd years. All of these evils, in fact, are their responsibility. It is their dissent and heterodoxy and lack of courage that have caused all of this to happen. Many faithful Catholics couldn’t take it anymore, so to speak, and simply left. The clown Masses, the lack of faith on the part of leaders, the abuses, the watered-down catechesis, the lesbian nuns, the gay priests, the destruction of the Faith by religious orders, and on and on.
Michael Voris is kidding himself if he thinks for even a moment that he is any way comparable to the SSPX as it concerns addressing the present crisis in the Church.
The Society operates from the standpoint of speaking Catholic truth in the face of every attack regardless of the source. Voris, by contrast, runs every last word through a filter; avoiding anything that might conflict with more personal concerns; the likes of which we’ll address a little later…
As for the suggestion that the SSPX “simply left” the Church by holding fast to the true faith, even as her aforementioned “weak and corrupt” leaders abandoned it, is idiotic even for him.
It was simply too painful for many lay people to take. In an effort to hold on to whatever they could of the Faith, they ran straight into the arms of groups like the SSPX, as well as others.
The only people that “ran” anywhere were the faithless and feckless fools who, many unknowingly, just accepted the Council and the new Mass as gifts from Almighty God. The Society and its faithful simply stayed Catholic such as it has always been and always will be in spite of the conciliar revolution.
In truth, that the SSPX didn’t actually run anywhere is the problem:
Thanks to their refusal to travel with so many others in the direction of heterodoxy on a road that is paved with the ambiguities and errors of Vatican II and the protestantized rite that grew out of it, the sinful men running the show in Rome, the pope included, are seeing to it that the SSPX is denied formal jurisdiction.
Let’s be clear – these men (again, including the pope) are not synonymous with “the Church;” rather, they are, objectively speaking, laboring for her destruction.
Whether or not they actually desire her destruction, or are simply operating in ignorance, is of no bearing on the present matter whatsoever.
On its face, this isn’t a difficult distinction to comprehend, but the reason so many find it difficult is very simple:
As Catholics we are wired to follow our leaders, especially the pope, just as a child is wired to trust its mother. We are loathe to believe that our leaders could possibly mislead us, even to the point where certain propositions set forth in an “ecumenical council” are a danger to the faith.
The greatest hurdle faced by the children of the Church in this case is coming to terms with the fact this is even possible, which one can do by applying their intellect to the situation in the light of faith, at which point the picture will become clear:
Those who cling to the clarity dispensed by the Church before the Council cannot possibly be on anything other than solid ground, while those who accept the conciliar compromises are at risk of losing the faith. The evidence is all around us.
Voris has so applied his intellect. He knows very well that the Council and the new Mass both are causing people to lose the faith. He won’t say aloud it now for reasons that we’ll discuss shortly.
Many excellent leaders in the Church, good holy men and women, recognize the exact same problems, but they haven’t left. Cardinal Raymond Burke, Bp. Athanasius Schneider, Bp. Thomas Paprocki…
Cardinal Burke has been very clear: If Pope Francis puts in place a program allowing the divorced and remarried to receive Holy Communion apart from a true remedy (e.g., an annulment) he will not follow; rather, he said he will maintain the true faith.
The SSPX did likewise, and yet will Voris call Burke a schismatic should this happen? Of course not.
We here at Church Militant have one concern here: Despite stupid claims that we are doing this for money, we are concerned about the souls of our fellow Catholics…
In this, Michael Voris protests too much.
Back in the day, Voris, out of genuine concern for souls, used to lambaste the new Mass as a danger to the faith. Likewise he used to criticize the Council for its abject failures. As such, he looked upon the SSPX and its purpose for existing with, if not with support, a degree of understanding that is now nonexistent.
So what exactly changed?
His temporal concerns; nothing more, nothing less.
Enter Terry Carroll – his self-appointed “Executive Producer” – the same guy that bought Mike and CMTV a building at a time when they were about to find themselves without a studio and precious little resources for securing a new one.
Terry is a parishioner at Mater Dei parish, run by the FSSP, in Irving, TX. His pastor for some time (until very recently) was Fr. Philip Wolfe, FSSP.
On the local level, a dust up ensued between the SSPX and the FSSP, or more appropriately, between individual persons associated with each as, apparently, a priest of the Society had advised people to avoid the FSSP and it got back to Fr. Wolfe.
Why did the SSPX priest so advise certain persons?
Presumably because (generally speaking) the FSSP priests avoid directly criticizing the dangers inherent in the new Mass and the Council (as Voris once did) as well as the words and deeds of the pope. This is the price for “full communion,” but the truth remains that all three of these things (the Novus Ordo, the Council and the shenanigans of the popes) represent a grave danger to souls.
The details of this local conflict aren’t important, but what is important to know is that Fr. Wolfe (as many on the ground have informed me and will likely attest here in the comment section) adopted a rather personal, and some would say unhealthy, animosity toward the SSPX.
Terry Carroll, like his pastor, did too, and that personal vendetta against the Society (and unwillingness to go full bore after the dangers associated with the Council, the new Mass, and the actions of the pope) has since been adopted by Michael Voris as well.
It doesn’t take a Sherlock Holmes to connect the dots, folks.
If Terry Carroll was just another CMTV “premium member” with an axe to grind, would Michael Voris have done this same about face?
You’re free to believe so if you’d like, but I don’t.
Look, if Michael had a genuine change of heart such that he now feels compelled to change his previous (and well disseminated) stance of these matters, he would address them head on. I’ve done that in this space many times, speaking of how I once naively believed one thing about the Council, the Mass and even the SSPX, only to have my eyes opened to the truth. I’m happy to let people know what led me to the place where I currently stand.
By contrast, what has Michael done relative to his new “understanding”?
He deleted from his website any and all references to his former positions; as well as the segments that include me; a 13 part Vatican II series among them. He refuses to engage the people he criticizes directly. He pretends he never believed anything other than what he spews today…
This isn’t the behavior of a man who had a change of heart based on a new awareness of truth.
In the end, Michael can protest that Terry Carroll’s money has no part in this all he wants, but only a willing fool can believe it.
In any case, the “plagiarized” text (as alleged in the link above) is taken from a sermon given by Fr. Wolfe. In reality, it is far more likely the case that it was used with permission, tacit or otherwise, thanks perhaps to Terry Carroll and his Mater Dei connection.
In any case, let’s press on…
Voris goes into yet another rant about the SSPX being in schism that is so lacking in plausibility that even Karl Keating took to his own blog to criticize it!
Now there is the objective case of schism, and the legal/subjective case of schism. And we must distinguish between the two.
Voris then goes on to quote (without attribution) Fr. Wolfe:
Schism is not something that comes into being by a legal declaration.
This argument is fair enough; objective reality isn’t subject to legal pronouncements. This is, however, a multi-edged sword.
There is also, to borrow Voris’ words, an objective case of jurisdiction, and the legal/subjective case of jurisdiction. And we must distinguish between the two.
This is the SSPX argument with respect to supplied jurisdiction. We covered this recently enough, so I won’t go into more detail here.
“Refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff” by the Society can be seen in their refusal to reconcile and place themselves under the authority of the Vicar of Christ, rejecting his dogmatically defined “full power of shepherding, ruling and governing the universal Church,” a power “ordinary and immediate over all the churches and over each and every member of the faithful.”
This is sophomoric at best. The pope has no authority to bind anyone to that which goes against the Catholic faith.
Here’s the truth: The SSPX refuses to sign a statement saying the Vatican II is “an integral part of the tradition of the Church.” It is this to which they refuse to submit, not the legitimate authority of the pope.
At one time, I am certain that Michael Voris would likewise refuse to sign such a statement.
Today, he is unwilling even to address those specific conciliar propositions that are so clearly at odds with the tradition of the Church, and why this is the case isn’t exactly a mystery. (See above.)
Supporters of the Society are also discouraged from participating even in FSSP settings because the FSSP “accepts Vatican II.”
Look, I’ve met FSSP priests who are wonderful men who have good relations with their brother priests in the SSPX and vice versa.
The SSPX doesn’t tell everyone they meet to avoid the FSSP. Heck, they don’t even tell every person they meet to avoid the Novus Ordo!
The way they advise individuals is highly personalized. For the person who knows that the Council is a grave danger to the faith, they have no problem advising against them allowing themselves (and their kids) to be formed in an FSSP parish since we have an obligation to engage those things that threaten to lead us away from the faith.
They don’t a one-size-fits-all approach to this topic.
That is why the status of the SSPX is, at this time, technically an “internal matter.” Once there is a formal declaration of schism, it changes the rules of engagement from an internal to an external matter.
Let’s revisit what Voris (and Fr. Wolfe) said earlier: Schism is not something that comes into being by a legal declaration.
This is true. As such, the pope can make a formal declaration of schism based upon the SSPX’s refusal to accept the errors of the Council, and guess what?
That doesn’t make them schismatic; rather, it makes the pope guilty of abusing his authority.
The objective truth isn’t really all that difficult to see here with respect to the Council’s standing in relation to the truths of the faith as they have always been taught. First and foremost, however, one must be willing to take a good hard look at the conciliar texts and the new Mass and apply one’s intellect as informed by faith.
Voris and Co. no longer has an interest in urging their viewers to do that; Voris simply wants to dictate to the audience what serves him best.
The Society is not in an “irregular canonical status” – that is a made-up term by SSPX supporters.
No, Cardinal Castrillon de Hoyos said as much with respect to the SSPX when he said:
We are not confronted with a heresy. It cannot be said in correct, exact, and precise terms that there is a schism. There is a schismatic attitude in the fact of consecrating bishops without pontifical mandate. They are within the Church. There is only the fact that a full, more perfect communion is lacking — a fuller communion, because communion does exist.
Stop using deceptive language. No status means just that — none. Zero. Zilch. Nada.
And yet magically, come midnight Dec. 8, 2015, “zilch” will, according to the pope, turn into the jurisdiction necessary to validly and licitly hear confessions and offer absolution.
So, what exactly will change at the stroke of twelve?
Subjectively, the pope will recognize their jurisdiction at that point.
Objectively, absolutely nothing will change whatsoever, which brings me back to Fr. Wolfe’s gem about things not coming into being by a legal declaration.
…every single SSPX priest and bishop is committing a mortal sin when he offers Mass.
This is the depths to which men’s minds can sink when they are not moored to the pursuit of truth. His Vortexellency has no authority to make this subjective determination as to willful intent.
Even Pope St. Pius X refrained from making that kind of judgment against the modernists, even as he condemned them with great force in Pascendi.
There is no other way for mankind to have been saved and redeemed except through the sacrificial offering of God Himself, totally innocent and obedient, to God the Father.
This is part of a much longer and laborious dissertation on obedience that has all the markings of an Epistle from Terry Carroll to Ferndale. (I’ve read more of his ramblings than I care to acknowledge.)
In any case, only an idiot (willing or otherwise) would equate every request that comes forth from the lips of a pope with the will of the Father.
For example, was the will of the Father being expressed when Pope Alexander VI turned to one of his females friends and requested… Well, you get the point.
That a priest who knows that Peter has forbidden him from offering the Sacrifice of the Mass would be so presumptive as to thumb his nose at the Vicar of Christ and say his superiors have given him permission is terrifying —terrifying for the soul of that priest. Catholics who go to SSPX chapels: Are you so incredibly certain of your case that that priest is not being disobedient…
I would submit that a reasonably well-formed Catholic of average intelligence can indeed arrive at a high degree of certainty that the dictates of the post-conciliar popes with respect to the SSPX (as it concerns issues surrounding Vatican II and the new Mass) are not manifestations of the will of the Father.
I say this from experience.
In conclusion, for now…
I’ve never described myself as an “expert” on Vatican Council II, but Michael Voris has described me as such, on air, and even ribbed me in a good natured way saying “We don’t do false humility here” when I resisted the idea.
So … let me go on record here by saying that I will gladly sit with Michael Voris on a live program to discuss specific reasons why no Catholic should ever be forced to sign off on Vatican II as an “integral part of tradition.”
Until then, I’ll continue to uphold the duty of engaging his folly here such as I’m able.
UPDATE: Having just received a message from a friend “on the ground,” I’m happy to clarify that Fr. Wolfe was not the pastor at Mater Dei, but rather the Parochial Vicar and Assistant Pastor; a man who Mr. Carroll clearly idolized.
Furthermore, I’ve been informed that Fr. Wolfe has apparently been rather willing to speak about Vatican II in strongly condemnatory terms, and he also openly criticized Pope Francis in various sermons, although typically on weekdays when they are not recorded.
Lastly, my contact confirmed that indeed something in 2012 caused Fr. Wolfe to begin attacking the SSPX, and that posture only heightened following the election of Pope Francis. Terry, for his part, quickly took on what my friend called “his own jihad” against the SSPX shortly thereafter.
All in all, the time table laid out herein is accurate. I’ll leave it to you to decide if the “jihadist” with the cash in hand played a part in influencing Voris to reinvent himself.
http://youtu.be/7lKtH5kuwPg
**********Breaking News**********
The Radical Catholic blog has confirmed from CMTV that Voris and CMTV plagiarized the sermon of a Priest of the FSSP in his attack on the SSPX. Father Wolfe FSSP is the Priest the sermon is linked at the end of this blog:
http://theradicalcatholic.blogspot.com/2015/09/vortex-of-plagiarism.html
Questions:
Will the FSSP issue a public statement rebuking Voris and CMTV?
Will the FSSP tell Voris PUBLICLY that he does not have permission to use FSSP sermons in his attacks on other Catholics in print or in audio and that his view that the SSPX is in schism is not the OFFICIAL position of the FSSP?
Will the FSSP issue a public statement saying that Father Wolfe does not speak for the FSSP and his views are his own?
Will the FSSP issue a public statement in support of the SSPX and debunk the schism myth?
Father John Marcus Berg, F.S.S.P. Catholics are watching and waiting.
Father Gerard Saguto, F.S.S.P. Catholics are watching and waiting.
The war is here where will the FSSP stand? Under the standard of Christ? or Will they remain under the standard of Satan?
This is what michael voris used to say
http://youtu.be/S_vwwajyASI
Dear Louie,
I totally agree with you about CMTV. Voris has done much good and I used to enjoy him but now I actively avoid him. Sad. As you say, hopefully someday he will be humble enough to admit his error. In the meantime, I’m glad to say that I now fully support you and have put my money where my mouth is. Keep up the great work.
I worship in an SSPX Parish and I know full well why I’m there. I feel sorry for Michael Voris. I’m the same age as the Pope but even Fr. Bergoglio [as he likes to call himself] doesn’t understand Tradition. We are truly living in a period of disorientation. But then again, Sister Lucia warned us; didn’t she-?
May Our Lord reward you for your great defense of the Faith and holy priests, EVERYWHERE!!
“So, what exactly will change at the stroke of twelve?” The Pope grants (to what he may consider the schismatic) SSPX jurisdiction to grant absolution. The schismatic Orthodox bishops and priests are validly ordained too. If he so desired, in this year of mercy, to also grant them jurisdiction, TMAHICH could do so. For these past years we’ve all been discussing how Pope Francis couldn’t care less about dogma, doctrine, rules and rubrics. Why should this action with the SSPX have any meaningful import?
I don’t remember reading anywhere that Sr. Lucy said that diabolical disorientation would be the sole purview of liberals or modernists. May none of us ever become so prideful as to claim immunity.
I’m pretty much thinking the same thing. Take any “good news” with a grain of salt when it comes from modernists. We assume they are coming from a position of the Faith…but they’re not.
Francis called a protestant minister his “brother bishop”…the man has an entirely different concept of sacraments, sin, church, juristiction, etc. than we do.
I wouldn’t be half surprised if he “granted faculties” to the Dali Lamma.
There are so many dangers coming down the pike that I find it hard to believe this issue is taking up so much air time and energy.
–
Michael Voris has a bee in his bonnet and he has boxed himself into lambasting a group that just goes about its business without giving him any attention at all. Maybe that’s what’s got him in a tizzy. They are not coming out with press releases, video responses and challenges, threats to sue, etc. They ignore him as you’d ignore an ant at a picnic.
–
Those who favour the Society of St. Pius X will not change their minds. Those who think this group is the anti-christ will not be moved from that position. Those of us who don’t have a dog in the fight would rather read about something more important.
–
We have apostasy and heresy within the bosom of Holy Mother Church. The upcoming Synod will be a real evil. The recovery from this disaster will be a century long. Can we just let Michael Voris get on with his shtick?
Faithful Catholics do not have time to be having this debate with the Synod just around the corner.
The worst criticism of the SSPX sure comes from the Novus Ordo Traditionalists. In my experience I’ve found them to be extremely obedient people who were obedient as children. I suppose they have a natural virtue and would follow every rule even if they were protestants. I think it sometimes gives them scruples. They remind me of that commercial where the woman walks up to the counter to pay for something and the girl says, “I need to see your I.D.” and the woman says, “But I’m your Mother!”
They do not understand epikeia at all it seems to me. The fear of being disobedient to (modernist) Popes made so many many Catholics in the last 50 years compromise.
I too have been heartbroken by M Voris’ recent rants against the SSPX and have diverted my financial support to Harvesting the Fruit.
Ad majorem Dei gloriam
3littleshepherds1,
“Novus Ordo Traditionalists” That is the most Orwellian phrase I have ever heard. Either one is a Catholic or a heretic.
piokolby
Novus Ordo 25% Traditionalists.
But everyone one who has ‘signed off’ on VII by professing obedience to it and it’s heresiarchs is outside the Church.
–
Most professed Novus Ordites and, indeed, any who ‘recognise’ in a Heresiarch a ‘pope’, live in a sort of miasma where ‘evidence does not rule the position, the position rules the “evidence.”‘ Unfortunately Voris has much in common with the SSPX in this way.
Voris- shmoris–who cares? This gossip fest is now less scintillating than a junior high school girl spat in the Bronx after a game of Double Dutch. Vennari & I agree on (almost) nothing, obviously–but I see that he’s not gotten involved in this most recent Voris-shtick. I applaud that.
Opus dei (“small d”) is the “lace” connecting all the dots of the CMTV operation that not many people appear to be willing to look into.
dear salvemur,
Agree. Tragically “the position ruling the evidence” mode into which the SSPX has morphed is a hook that draws, as in removing a vaudeville performer from a stage —— . Hopefully, the non una-cum SSPX priests will make the courageous move after the *nothing* in October.
The opinions of Voris are “small potatoes” when you look at the big picture. Voris has, in many cases, exposed the corruption inside the N.O. Church. Yet, he sticks with it like glue. These are the signs of an unstable mind. Or more likely, he is a talking head for an evil and destructive force. The bottom line, in my opinion, is he is merely a distraction from the real issues facing the Catholic world and the world in general.
Ignorance is bliss. Let Voris live in his blissful world. We’ve got bigger fish to fry.
Dear DeMaria and my2cents,
your above comments are quite smug and patronizing. Kindly stop presuming everyone who reads this blog or watches CMTV has a developed awareness of the dismal state of affairs in the Church as you claim to have.
This public disputation between Verrecchio and Voris is not only interesting, but important, and is an excellent vehicle for attracting those in the margins — the more rough and tumble Catholics — who would not otherwise be exposed to the crisis in the Church to enter the fray.
I suggest you show more charity to Catholics. It’s very uncatholic to pretend you belong to an exclusive club.
Louie,
Look more closely into the factions and personalities in and around Irving that split up Fisher Moore College around 2012-14, and you just may find your answers as to whose motives now motivate whom. You’ll note CMTV covered that school in an on-site special just as loyalties were pulling at its seams. Certain nearby FSSP priests were drawn into the controversies.
Dear Alarico,
Anyone who reads Louie’s blog should, by now, have developed an awareness of the dismal state of affairs in the Church. I do not claim, presume or pretend to belong to an exclusive club. I certainly never meant to give that impression nor do I wish to be smug and patronizing. My only point was the Church today is in a dire crisis and the antics of Mr. Voris are the least of our problems. If I do, in fact, belong to an exclusive club, I would hope it would be as a Catholic faithful who adheres to the unchanging tenets of the Catholic Church as Christ established it. In charity, I pray that every Catholic should be as blessed. I say that sincerely, recognizing my own faults and shortcomings which may have led to giving this false impression. Furthermore, I do agree that Louie’s blog and the comments that follow are an excellent vehicle for enlightenment during these dark times. Alarico, thank you for bringing this to my attention. Perhaps, I should chose my words more carefully. God bless.
Lots of us jump in to visit Mr.V., in the midst of raising broods of children & grandchildren, juggling this and that, including old age & a long time witnessing the collapse since before 1963 for example. This takes a toll on an aging trad & many times that is apparent. That said, we all have differing personalities, ways of expressing ourselves that can even vary from day to day. Sometimes we are trite, blunt, even silly. Other times we are eloquent, seem knowledgeable and other times appear foolish. Honestly, we all need to be quite compassionate towards one another and realize that we know nothing about each other except that we love the Faith. I, for one, have found so many polite & dear empathetic souls here on Mr. V.’s site who treat me wth tender kindness even on my worst days, and would never even think of bringin up my myriad flaws & throw them in my face. I thank God daily for them.
radtrad,
I wish I could make your comment flash in bright colors. Then I would place bells and whistles around the comment! What went on at Fisher Moore College is not known. In justice it should be known. Using the principle of “By their fruits you will know them” the FSSP is now showing more and more bad fruit.
We have not yet seen Justice in the Fisher Moore College scandal.
The full details of what happened at Fisher Moore College need to be made public.
Looking at what happened at Fisher Moore College in the light of the attacks from Voris this week and in the light of the attacks on Father Gruner the night of his death by Father Paul Nicholson this is all clearly a manifestation of the demonic.
We are not just dealing with infighting we are dealing with Satanic attacks by false brethren and wolves in sheep’s clothing. The clerics involved in the taken down of Fisher Moore College and these many attacks on the SSPX need to seek out an exorcist.
The leadership of the FSSP and the Bishop of Father Paul Nicholson need to do their duty. If they fail to do their duty then the moral responsibility for the many Mortal sins coming from all of this rest with the leadership of the FSSP and the Bishop of Father Paul Nicholson.
Our Lord sees everything. Then he has the gall to post this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBjHH2Eg-vQ all this after what happened at Fisher Moore College!
Dear DeMaria and my2cents,
for your information, I’m no spring chicken myself. Both Verrecchio and Voris are about exactly my age — born at the tail end of the American baby boomers — and although not a bit as courageous or knowledgeable in the faith as them, I really commiserate with both their stories. When making comments please consider that there is a tsunami of baptized Catholics following us who don’t have the foggiest idea of what is going on in the Church, and that popular blogs no matter what their angle may be the platform they have to grasp the issues.
Please allow us and them to listen to you.
God bless you both and pray for me.
But who gets to determine where the standard of Christ is planted? Are they abandoning it if they fail to adopt the same posture as the SSPX?
What exactly is a “Novus Ordo Traditionalist?” Someone who favors a reform of the Reform N.O., or someone who attends a TLM as authorized under Summorum Pontificum?
There’s an old definition of “fanatic” as someone who can change neither his mind, nor the subject.
Increasingly, Voris’s obsession (which apparently is driven in some way by his backers, Mr. Carroll and Fr. Nicholson) with the SSPX marks him out as, I’m afraid, something of a fanatic. Especially in light of the context in which he’s stepping up his attack – with the Pope extending a remarkable olive branch to Econe and disastrous developments in annulment law and the ominous maneuverings underway for the “Synod Against the Family.”
I really appreciate the space provided here in regards to the excellent content being discussed. In light of all that surrounds us, (the new annulment process, synod on the family, silence on sodomite marriage, etc.) I am glad to be able to stay on course with what Louie provides here. I must admit, I am not a typical traditionalist but have read my way through hours of debate over the defense of tradition and have come across many resources, such as this forum, that have given me a formation that I wouldn’t have guessed having even just 5 years ago while still assuming that I am even to this day light years away. Having said that, it is a bit disappointing having come to the knowledge that full disclosure on this site has given, to know that Fr. Wolfe is in some way, if not directly, but indirectly involved in what we are seeing play out. I’ve recently come across many of his sermons online and found them to be quite useful. I’m also reminded of Dr.Taylor Marshall’s involvement of Fisher More College and am still in the dark as to many of the details. I was still reading his blog almost daily when it all transpired, and can remember it not sitting well with me after hearing his explanations. He also is a member of that parish, and the words he used to describe Fr. Gruner were very sensational to say the least. I still hadn’t found out who Fr. Gruner was yet, so I looked past it in ignorance. Nevertheless, his blog, writing style, and persona seemed to be totally different to me from that day forward. Fortunately, I have read my way to excellent sites such as this one, if only by the grace of Almighty God.
Dear Scott,
I, too, had learned much from Fr. Wolfe’s earlier talks (2003-2006) on audio sancto. When I noticed, however, that his more recent talks include the subjects of Sr. Faustina and divine mercy in a favorable light, I “turned him off.” To me, devotion to the false divine mercy devotion of Sr. Faustina is an excellent indicator of how modernist a priest is. (Remember, divine mercy had been condemned 3 times.)
I understand there is a “diabolical disorientation” going on, which is difficult for many priests to recover from, but devotion to the divine mercy chaplet only exacerbates the disorientation, I have noted.
Thank you for this honest report, Mr. Verrecchio. It answers a lot of questions I had in my mind.
Dear piokolbe and/or radtrad,
Could you please provide a link or more information on the closing of Fisher More College and how it relates to Michael Voris?
And what does Taylor Marshall’s video have to do with the closing?
I do not understand the connection and would like to understand.
At first I thought this was an angry tirade toward Mr. Voris for alleged plagerism. I don’t follow Mr. Voris. Then I realized This entire tirade is full of calumny and detraction about the FSSP and false accusations about Fr. Wolfe. As one who was there for this sermon (and many more), and class, I firmly state that he has NEVER attacked the SSPX. You really need a better “source”, maybe someone who doesn’t provide you with misinformation in order to slander a good and faithful priest.
Dear Adam 95,
It helps to know who is “on our team” though, doesn’t it? We do need to know who we can trust and who we cannot.
It helps me, anyway.
It was not accepted due to faulty translations. Getting information out of Poland was very difficult for a long time.
I’m glad you agree that Fisher More’s story is so important. Besides its probable connection to ChurchMilitant.com’s zeal against the SSPX, the unraveling of Fisher More College (the president’s fiscal leadership aside) is a stark study just how quickly Church power will coalesce to suppress an institution whose express mission is Traditional Catholic Formation (unless of course the institution was “grandfathered in” and has swallowed every conciliar tenet proffered since “grandfather” died).
Had Fisher More College been allowed to stand or fall on its own management and merits (rather than pushed by actors within and out) we might have seen a the start of a formal, independent, institutionalized meeting ground between the SSPX and sundry other traditionally inclined priests and priestly orders.
One single Traditional Catholic College in the whole United States operating with the approval of the local ordinary was just too much to ask. Just one full-communion Catholic educational environment where debate over the impact and soundness of a monumentally disruptive 50 year old council might take place? Really? Not even one?
It might seem like a small misfortune, but that College’s demise illustrates in spades the traps awaiting any future independent and stridently Catholic apostolate that seeks to foster unity among the trad diaspora.
Dear marian,
Please look more closely at this.
http://iconicjesus.org/home/category/objections-to-divine-mercy-sunday/
marian,
Your rash judgement I hope is based on ignorance and not malice. First of all everything said about Fr. Wolfe FSSP is true and public. The same holds for the FSSP all the statements about the FSSP are true. Calumny is a sin where one tells a lie with the intention of harming the reputation of another. No one here is committing the Mortal sin of Calumny here against the FSSP or Father Wolfe FSSP.
The attacks from Michael Voris & CMTV against Catholics in the SSPX would not be possible were it not for the FSSP and the Bishops who ordain Priests for the FSSP. These latest round of attacks is the fruit of Father Wolfe’s influence that is a manifestly provable fact. Call Father Wolfe and ask him about the SSPX!
Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz close friend of the FSSP and has does many ordinations for them “excommunicated” the SSPX in his diocese. Did the FSSP help the SSPX in this injustice? No they did not.
Bishop Morlino who has ties to opus dei and the Jesuits he is also a friend of the FSSP who recently attacked the SSPX by promoting the myth that the SSPX Priests do not have supplied Jurisdiction. That is a lie.
Michael Voris right now has a post up attacking the SSPX and he directly links to the FSSP site in Scotland and names Father John Emerson FSSP. The FSSP superiors have already been notified: http://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/fr.-john-emerson-fssp-on-his-break-from-the-sspx Will the FSSP leaders act? Do they disagree with Voris? Do they care?
If Catholics do not like these attacks on the SSPX your beef is with the FSSP and it’s superiors. It is also with the Bishops who do the ordinations for the FSSP. Lastly it is with Father Paul Nicholson, Father Nicholson’s Bishop and opus dei.
We know where these attacks are coming from they are coming from the standard of Satan. These attacks are coming from the FSSP, opus dei and novus ordo clerics working with them.
I hope all you FSSP faithful and supporters remember this when you are putting the envelope in the basket on Sunday. You are supporting evil.
Father John Marcus Berg, F.S.S.P. Catholics are STILL watching and waiting.
Father Gerard Saguto, F.S.S.P. Catholics are STILL watching and waiting.
The war is here where will the FSSP stand? Under the standard of Christ? or Will they remain under the standard of Satan?
@Servant of Our Lady
The manner in which certain of the staff at ChurchMilitant.com, the FM College Administration and local FSSP clergy conducted themselves during the disgracing of the school suggests to me that the whole affair informed, hardened or turned the sympathies now on display at CM.com.
I don’t mean to be evasive, but that’s all I can say in justice. I don’t have close familiarity with any of the people concerned. I do believe that there’s a thread of influence and someone as familiar with these personalities as Louie would do well to explore it.
Dear Servant of Our Lady,
I will take a look at the link you posted.
Servant of Our Lady,
I like Rad Trad would like to say more but in Justice I can not. I do not have a right to say anymore. You do not have a right to hear anymore from me. I do encourage more investigation and I hope Justice is somehow given to all those harmed by the take down of Fisher More College. I hope for the sake of the salvation of souls and the good of the Church that the whole story is known. I hope those responsible both cleric and lay alike are made to pay for what they did there. I hope Catholics will be protected from those responsible. I will say this: Stay away from the FSSP, Taylor Marshall and CMTV. Stay away. http://sspx.org/
Dear marian,
This link is more succinct.
http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f072_DivMercy.htm
Now that Father Wolfe’s role has been made public with respect to both CM and Fisher More, it would be a good time to reread the story of the collapse of Fisher More College with all that in mind, and be sure to fill in what has been said here in between the lines:, especially in the section on “Relations with the FSSP”:
http://amongtheruins2.blogspot.com
Richard M
They prefer the Traditional Mass for sure but they are not going to cause any scandal to other Catholics by being disobedient to the Pope even when doing so would help to save souls. In the early days of the Novus Ordo priests and some Bishops understood that they had to give that scandal in order to protect souls from sliding into heresy and losing the Faith.
I think Novus Ordo Traditionalists, in my opinion are generally of goodwill, but actually end up causing scandal through false obedience.
Piokolby,
As I am not a malicious person, I suppose I will simply be ignorant in the public eye now. If I found myself in a place where only an SSPX or Norvus Ordo were available, I would choose the SSPX, hands down, and I would know it was valid thanks to Fr. Wolfe.
I believe Bishop Morlino just issued a public apology to the SSPX also.
As for Michael Voris, I don’t watch or follow him in any way.
May God bless and keep you.
Dear piokolby,
I had already decided (in agreement with you) to stay away from CMTV and T. Marshall. (Both Voris and Marshall refer to JPII and John XXIII as saints —- big red flag!).
I disagree with you, however, that the FSSP should be avoided. I think, as does Michael Matt, that the FSSP priests each have their own reasons for their actions in these dangerous times as they attempt to carry out their duties of saving souls.
“The early Christians were hiding from the pagans in their day,” says Michael Matt in this video:
http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/1973-new-from-remnant-tv-a-ceasefire-the-fssp-vs-the-sspx
Mr. Matt also says that “St. Edmund Campion dressed up as a jeweler to avoid arrest.” This is at the 4 minute mark in the video.
I remember that you detested this video and Michael Matt’s opinion here because I recall that you commented on it when it first came out. You have some excellent points in your comments, but I agree with Mr. Matt on this one. We really have no idea what pressure these FSSP priests are under. There are some very holy FSSP priests who truly care about the souls of their parishioners.
You do not have to rehash your reasons why you hate Mr. Matt’s opinion as I just re-read your words and the responders here on this link:
https://akacatholic.com/providential-propers/#comments
It has all been discussed in detail in the “comment section” on the above link, about half way down the page.
BTW, thanks for the link to the tradcatknight. I think it is excellent.
Interesting insight. Surely not all folks who are waking to the reality of the Counterfeit Church assume those who have already woken up are ipso facto ‘smug’? More like battle weary at times while being good soldiers of Christ. Take a trip over to Novus Ordo Watch to learn about the actual truth of things, not watered down, but assuming those with a genuine sense of the faith will be given the grace to handle it.
Dear Alarico,
With respect, atttempts to moderate commmenters on this site have been undertaken by other commenters here before, going back years. That’s Mr. V.’s job. From what Louie’s stated himself, he welcomes all voices – whether blunt, shy, up front, in your face or the opposite — as well as the sedvacantist voice, as mine is.
**
IMHO –that, along with Verrecchio’s exhilarating writing style– make this site what is-a meeting place to ignite the thinking process. Louie will never bore a reader, guaranteed.
**
That said, we disagree on the points you bring up. I hope that’s OK. For example, I don’t think that grasping issues, as you put it, Alarico– is at all key or even important. IMHO, no one is going to learn anything about the Faith here in this combox or any other. Faith is a gift. With regard to the heresy of Modernism running rampant & the Modernist Sect of which Bergoglio is head which occupies what were once Catholic parishes, it takes weeks, months, years to comprehend all that. Within that undertaking will be the discovery of where Catholicsm actually lives on, whole & entire, undefiled, untainted & immutable. Those who have ears will hear, those who have eyes will see. So, to your point upon which we disagree, “issues” matter not-only the Faith matters.
**
With all this being said, I think we all, myself included are inclined to take ourselves entirely too seriously. This is a combox, we are commenters. Nothing more and probably less.
hi, scott,
From one not typical traditionalist to another (I’m a sedevacantist, you know –that radioactive, flea-bitten & lice infested group rejected by all,) I agree with lots of what you say. Peace be to you.
hi, Servant of Our Lady,
IMHO what you point out is important. Listening to audio sancto raised much concern for me a long, long ago. I am really sorry that I ever recommended them to anyone ever- which, sadly, I did. Fawning over Paul VI, Divine Mercy blather & countless other things. Their stuff & stance is indicative of the serious problem with the FSSP-that being they are fully signed on to the Modernist Sect & are part of it.
This is a bit off topic, but are you aware of why Fr Flood is no longer in charge of the N American FSSP?
I have spoken to/communicated with exactly two FSSP priests in my life. If I NEVER run into another one again I will consider myself blessed. Liars and cowards is what the two I spoke to were…and one was the former head of the order here in America. I DARE him to try and dispute me.
I double -dare, rich !
Lol….it wont be happening my friend. That man left MUCH to be desired…..even my 18 year old son (at the time) was appalled by the man’s evasiveness over extremely serious matters of the Faith. Im curious as to why he’s no longer in charge (though im not surprised).
dear marian& all,
It must be pointed out that validity is not the central issue. There are valid consecrations within masses said by schismatics. The central issue & question to be asked is: Is that religion which is currently observed in Vatican overseen dioceses worldwide the Catholic religion?
rich, you bring up an important subject, if you will, when you mention the man’s evasiveness regarding serious matters of Faith. I, for one, would like to see priestly formation meaningfully addressed & perhaps even studied to a degree that’s it’s possible in this format by Mr. V. & other “trad” sites. I’d also like to see the currently all pervasive Heresy itself honestly made a point of discussion, without sentimentality or appealing to emotions which we all have wrapped up in this topic. That Heresy being Modernism itself.
Im sure some people reading this comment section of louie’s fine blog will be scratching their heads thinking so many different opinions on the same topic whats it all about.. Im not talking about those who comment but readers of louie’s blog who might just be coming across these topics for the first time. This is my weak attempt at trying to make things easier for new readers etc to understand the different positions. First of all whatever myself or others comment here does not mean that this is louie’s position or that he even agrees with the comment. In allowing myself and others to comment even though louie most probably disagrees with certain things (speaking for myself) shows that louie has great charity and isnt controlled by anyone.(opposite to voris) I would imagine quite the opposite, im sure this approach has caused louie a great deal of problems as of late. Why all the differences in opinion here ??. 1 reason is the position we take. Most of the time unfortunately it falls into a type of group. 1st group attend the new mass at local parishes this ranges from sunday catholics too conservative and everything in between can comprise of people who dont make good use of the sacraments to parish council types , eucharistic ministers etc. 2nd group those that attend TLM this can range from someone who may attend a weekday TLM or sunday TLM but who still likes to be involved with their local parish and who see’s no problem with new mass. 3rd group those that choose only to attend TLM except for funerals weddings etc. make use of all the sacraments in the (old rite) at places like the FFSP , ICKSP etc this is where it can become a little complicated while these places offer all sacraments in the (old rite) they are in what we hear voris and others saying “full communion” with/under rome meaning that they are under the jurisdiction of the local bishop and cant/dont attack issues like the second vatican council. They accept the council and while there are priests that personally may object even tell certain parishiners this or that they have by joining one of these groups accepted rome’s position that the second vatican council is part of the church and tradition. 4th group SSPX canonically founded by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in 1970. The society rejects the second vatican council and the new mass although officially dont deny the validity of the sacraments as they are in the new rite. The SSPX is not under the jurisdiction of the local bishop thats why they are able to talk freely about the council and the heresy of modernism that is rampant in the church today. Their jurisdiction is supplied by cannon law because they beleive there is a state of emergency in the church because people are in danger of losing the catholic faith. 5th group SSPX RESISTENCE 2012/2013 these are mostly priests that belong to the SSPX. since the doctrinal declaration of april 15th 2012 to rome made public easter 2013 priests and bishop wiiiamson saw that the society was changing its direction that archbishop lefebre had founded. Things had got worse since 1970 and the SSPX Was trying to compromise its previous postion on the council with rome order to be accepted by rome. 6th group sedevacantism those who belong to this group regard the chair of peter vacant there are different variations/groups of sedevacantism but mainly beleive there hastnt been a true pope since the death of pope pius xii 1958.1 of the main reasons they beleive this is that a formal herectic cannot hold office and therefore places himself outside the church. The majority of sedes beleive the new mass invalid due to the new rites doubtful priestly ordinations possibly invalid and majority beleive episcopal consecreations in the new rite invalid. Hope it may help someone to understand the complexity of it all. This is a very short description and in no way represents all the opinions of these groups listed.
john6,
You have inaccurately classified & also inaccurately defined the sedevacantist position. I will not take it any further than that here, with respect to Louie’s request to engage in sedevacantist disussions at length not here, but in the forums. That said, I do no wish to engage you there, but others might want to- with regard to this.
I do get it that your comment here was not meant to be an intensive treatise. Nevertheless, I address you here not out of disrespect, but simply because the sedevacantist position is almost always inaccurately sketched out and characterized here & elsewhere. For anyone who wishes to gain knowledge on the position, the information is out there.
De maria. No need to be so defensive i wrote a short paragraph to explain things to people who read the blog and comments.
“Inaccurately classified and Inaccuratley defined” sorry to the average reader i got it wrong in my comment above thanks de maria for correcting me. sedevacantists dont believe the chair of peter is vacant theres no different/various groups within the sedevacantist movement. The majority do beleive there were true popes since 1958. They do beleive a pope can be a formal herectic and maintain his postion as pope , the new mass is valid all priests are considered vailidy ordained and the bishops in the new rite are fine aswell. Problem sorted.
Father Wolfe has been transferred. His last day at Mater Dei was 8/30/2015. Their website didn’t say where he was going…
Servant of our Lady this man was annouced dead by doctors ,was dead for 3 days http://youtu.be/jeTcee4YUQg
3 options 1. GOD did it 2. Satan did it 3. All the doctors had it wrong and he wasnt dead then he made up a story. Mine is no1. I pray the chaplet everyday at 3-00oclock God willing.
Dear de Maria,
I ask this question with all sincerity not to provoke any animosity or defensive reaction.
It has been my experience time and again that fellow Trads, who later support the sedevacantist position, want nothing to do with family or friends who do not take this position. We are all fighting for the faith in one way or another. Please keep in mind that I am speaking only for myself. Very dear and close friends, who fought side by side with me and my family to defend the Catholic faith, have literally turned their backs on us and pretend they never even knew us. Our only “fault” is that we have not taken this position. This is not the place to debate the sedavacantist position. I am only asking this question in the hope that you can shed some light on this kind of behavior. Any insight you can give regarding this reaction will be appreciated. Regardless of how we categorize the post-conciliar popes, the Traditional movement is best served by sticking together.
Thank you and God bless.
john6
heh-heh, point taken! Thanks for the levity. Quite honestly, few of us can giggle today, no? I literally admire your use of sarcasm & I must admit, it’s well executed & actually appreciated. I didn’t see you mention (granted -perhaps I missed it?) the point central to the sedevacantist position -that being the Roman Catholic Religion. We hold that the religion borne of VII is not the Catholic religion, but a non-Catholic Sect, of which Bergoglio is now the head. No sedevacantists disagree on this. There are disagreements (none of which involve Doctrine or Dogma it must be emphasized,) which can only be resolved by the Authority of One to Whom the Authority of the Keys has been given by virtue of lack of any impediment, IOW a reigning pontiff who is protected by the Holy Ghost from giving the faithful anything contrary to the Faith, even within the exercise of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium. The rest would be for a forum.
Hello 3,
Well, I suppose I am one of them, then – though I would characterize myself as more than “prefer” since I exclusively attend the TLM (save for an occasional Melkite liturgy, I suppose), either through an Ecclesia Dei society or diocesan priest, depending on where I am.
I don’t know what it means to be “disobedient to the Pope even when doing so would help to save souls.” What would such an occasion look like for me as a layman? Since I am not under religious vows, my opportunities for “disobedience” are rather limited, since I otherwise adhere to all traditional teachings of the Church. There is, in any event, no SSPX or sedevacantist chapel within easy driving distance of me even if I wanted to go. I think some charity is in order here.
And then there’s Archbishop Lefebvre, who was more than willing to work within diocesan and canonical frameworks when he erected the SSPX, and asked for nothing more than that when he met with Paul VI. His position hardened somewhat in his final years (during which, I might maintain, he probably still would have sprung for either the 2000 or 2012 structure deals offered to Fellay, based on what I know of them), but the fact is that he really did try to work obediently if it would be allowed, even to a papacy that was increasingly singing a modernist hymn.
I do think it possible to simultaneously hold that Bishop Olson’s action was in certain ways unjust to the staff and students at Fisher More while also being critical of the administrative leadership of President King.
The reality is that, regardless of what Bishop Olson did in taking away the right to TLM from the college (and failing to provide any alternative), Fisher More was in a terminal state due to imprudent financial decisions made by the administration. The college (despite having some good faculty and staff) was on track to die either way, and that cannot be laid all at the feet of the bishop, or the FSSP at Mater Dei.
It is indeed a shame that there is not a single fully traditional Catholic college in the country. But when we try to support one when it does emerge, we have to be clear in holding them up to high standards of governance. Just because they’re traditional in teaching and praxis doesn’t mean they’ll always be prudent in every respect. I’ve seen this story play out more than once before.
He’s been reassigned to be the parochial vicar at St. Joseph, the FSSP parish in Tyler, Texas. Fr. Joseph Terra (he’s the FSSP priest who was badly beaten in the attack in Phoenix that killed Fr. Walker) will be the pastor. I think they wanted an experienced priest to help Fr. Terra as he’s still not quite 100% in his health.
Richard M,
Who gets to determine where the standard of Christ is planted? God.
Are they abandoning it if they fail to adopt the same posture as the SSPX? No the abandoning of Christ for the FSSP is a doctrinal matter:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vX75xiW2Z54
The abandoning took place with the founding document ecclesia dei in 1988 and was made more clear in 2003 with the FSSP constitutions.
This detraction and extreme lack of charity – to say nothing about factual errors – has got to be challenged. Father Wolfe has been transferred in the normal round of these and is obviously needed elsewhere. Father Flood has served his term(s) and is more than ready to go back to parish work. To suggest in such a snide, sarcastic, evil way that these two movements by the FSSP are in any way related to the “controversy” here or on Church Militant is beyond the pale. I got news for all of us here. The FSSP does not have time to respond to every crackpot coming down the internet pike. Nor are they interested in arguments. Nor are they interested in hearing the kind of drivel spewed out by piokolby, rich and others.
–
Is there no one out there who can challenge poikolby and rich, and others here who detract from the reputations of these men, and from the reputation of the FSSP but me?
–
Over 160 bishops in your country and 6 in mine, along with dozens of others around the world have invited this Society of St. Peter into their diocese. But they are all liars? All in mortal sin? All evil?
–
The real truth of the matter is that some of them are not doing or saying what piokolby wants them to do or say.
–
What did Our Lord Jesus say: “by the love you have for one another will they know you” and “love your enemies, be good to those who hate you and persecute you.”
–
Not good enough for some here. This is beyond disgusting and a lack of charity. To spread this kind of crap (totally unsubstantiated) around for thousands to read is sinful. And this goes unchallenged! Where are the readers of this blog who have had enough of this detraction and gossip?
–
There can be room for disagreement but not when it’s Our Lord Himself speaking.
–
There is a glee I read here when piokolby and rich and some others come out with yet another outrageous statement about somebody. Many can’t wait to give the high-five, and say Amen.
–
Louie, your excellent blog is being hijacked. Have you noticed the fall off in comments by “the regulars?”
–
Louie, your blog does not rise and fall by my participation. But I am going to check your topics before I read further. I want news I can use, and information about my beloved Church that either furthers my knowledge about her, or warns me about those who want to destroy her. But the combox is just getting too much.
Hi, my2cents,
I know that you ask in sincerity, I’ve read you for some time & admire you. If I ever respond with animosity (real or perceived) or have a defensive reaction, I take full responsibility for that & ask forgiveness for the vice it represents. So if, in responding to you here, anything comes off that way- know it’s not intentional.
Your question- poignantly phrased- touches on the experience of many a trad. I am so sorry that this has been your lot, it’s heart rending. It has been mine too, coming in from the opposite direction, if you will. The very word “sedevacantist ” is almost considered profanity. Indeed we are often victims of true prejudice-marginalized as lunatics, bazaare, on the fringe or “fringe groups,” etc. That said, no Catholic at any time ought ever to turn their back on another Catholic. If sedevacantist friends or family have done that to you, or anyone, it’s a shame. If we want to be charitable, we could possibly say that it’s because of the treatment of sedevacantists described above, that a small number of sedes respond to other trads in a kind of a backlash mode, if you will. But as a sedevacantist myself, that excuse does not fly. It may seem ironic, but I have zero tolerance for that.
The reason I feel that way, my2cents, is because I’ve held the position for decades, hence- bc of the timeframe-in my early years of mothering I met some of the original laity & priests who held the position (who BTW shall at this time remain nameless.) I witnessed their fine example of Catholic kindness, involvement & charity toward those who disagreed with them. I saw how they themselves maintained true & loyal friendships (which I happen to know continue to this day,) with fellow Catholics who were at odds with them w/regard to these matters. Indeed, contrary to what some may hear about us, we sedevacantists in reality live amidst other Catholics in peace & gracious commaraderie. Sedevacantist bishops & priests interract with other Catholics, be they SSPX, those who are in diocesan life, etc. all the time & with mutually expressed warmth. However, sadly, the impression is often given that this is not the case. Perhaps bc of those such as yourself who have been poorly & even cruelly treated by a sedevacantist somewhere along the line, some proceed to make vast generalizations. But not so with you, you came forth to talk. So I hope we can say that we whole heartedly agree that such warm discourse between sedevacanists & Catholics who oppose is the way not only that it should be, but it is the way we are called to be. And yes, most especially under the duress we all endure. Thank you for addressing me, dear my2cents.
The financial problems of the college were not of the Presidents’ making. But for the President’s creativity, the College would have failed two years before it did. You should do your homework and talk to someone on the inside before you repeat the biased assertions of Taylor Marshall.
Servant of Our Lady,,
The problems with the FSSP are doctrinal:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vX75xiW2Z54
The error can be found in document ecclesia dei in 1988 and was made more clear in 2003 with the FSSP constitutions.
This definition of Tradition is what the FSSP publicly holds as a condition of being received into new church. This is the document that created the FSSP.
“4. The root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of Tradition. Incomplete, because it does not take sufficiently into account the living character of Tradition, which, as the Second Vatican Council clearly taught, “comes from the apostles and progresses in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. There is a growth in insight into the realities and words that are being passed on. This comes about in various ways. It comes through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts. it comes from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which they experience. And it comes from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth”.
Since the FSSP publicly accepts Vatican II as a council when John Paul II created the FSSP with this document he said Vatican II teaches “new” points of doctrine it is clear the FSSP founders accepted this document and created the FSSP Catholics may not accept new doctrine yet this statement is in the FSSP founding document the Pope says:
“5:
b) Moreover, I should like to remind theologians and other experts in the ecclesiastical sciences that they should feel themselves called upon to answer in the present circumstances. Indeed, the extent and depth of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council call for a renewed commitment to deeper study in order to reveal clearly the Council’s continuity with Tradition, especially in points of doctrine which, perhaps because they are NEW, have not yet been well understood by some sections of the Church.”
The question of the FSSP really is a question of doctrine,principle and new mass. While the subjective options of Priests and the subjective problems of are friends are real and important the real questions are one of doctrine,principle and new mass.
The FSSP is wrong on the doctrine,principles and the new mass. The FSSP really is apart of the novus ordo.
Barbara,
Your charge of “detraction and extreme lack of charity” are baseless and are based on your feelings not on objective reality.
Detraction is a sin where one reveals the true and secret fault of another without a good reason. Charity is not spelled “luv”. The repeated and on going links between the FSSP and many of these attacks on Catholics in the SSPX coming from Voris and many other matters is a MANIFESTLY PROVABLE FACT.
The FSSP has a long public and well documented record with the SSPX. The FSSP is also responsible for the break up of several Catholic marriages. Sadly SSPX faithful went to a FSSP Priest (who I won’t name) with problems in their marriages and the FSSP told these Catholics “YOU ARE NOT MARRIED” so sadly original sin being what it is one of the spouses took advantage of the error of the FSSP Priest left the family.
This has happened more than once in America. Catholic families (WITH CHILDREN) have broken up because the FSSP Priest told Catholics they were not licitly married because they were married by a SSPX Priest. Shame on the FSSP!
The FSSP are bad actors. Their bad fruit is well know. Voris and Fisher more college are just the latest in a long line of horrors.
The FSSP was founded on heresy and lies and it shows now all these years later.
Voris used Father Wolfe FSSP in his attacks.
Voris linked directly to the FSSP site in Scotland in his attacks on Catholics in the SSPX.
DID I MISS THE PUBLIC STATEMENT FROM THE FSSP? No I didn’t.
The authorities of the FSSP have been notified about all this just as Father Paul Nicholson’s Bishop was about his demonic actions. The Bishop did not stop Nicholson. So the horror continues and the FSSP………..same story.
Richard M
Yes Archbishop Lefebvre wouldn’t be disobedient unless it was to protect the Faith. He took some time waiting to see the fruits of the Novus Ordo before he made firm judgements. Since the fruits got worse and worse he understood that he needed to protect souls and to warn them about the dangers to their Faith. This meant telling them to avoid the New Mass altogether and then he was horrified by the fruits of ecumenism. When Pope John Paul II had the Assisi meeting Archbishop Lefebvre pleaded with the good Cardinals like Siri and Oddi to make a public protest to defend the honor of the Church. But they didn’t.
I was reading the blogger Leo over on Catholic Truth Scotland and he said a priest once described Vatican II as “human respect, dogmatized”. So what’s the opposite of human respect, piety? I think that for piety, for love of Our Lord, and for love of the Holy Father (no matter how bad he is), we ought to publicly resist his errors based on the previous Popes throughout history. At least warn Catholics who cross our path.
Regarding group #5, you said “5th group SSPX RESISTENCE 2012/2013 these are mostly priests that belong to the SSPX”
That should be past tense, i.e. these are mostly priests that *belonged* to the SSPX. Hopefully, if they no longer agree with the direction of the SSPX they haven’t remained “to poison the well” as it were.
I have a certain admiration for Fr. Hesse, a full-bodied Catholic figure who has dropped into obscurity far too quickly.
But, respectfully, I cannot agree that the FSSP has abandoned Christ through their current status. I know a fair number of Fraternity priests, and they are among the finest priests I have ever met.
I don’t say any of this as a criticism of those attending and supporting SSPX chapels, or even their clergy, which also includes some fine priests. The Church is in a grave crisis, and we all have to make our own way for the sake of our souls and those of our families. But if the situation is such that no connection whatsoever with the rest of the Church can be justified, then what you really have to be advocating is full-blown sedevacantism. Which I know some people here do. But that’s definitely not the position of the SSPX.
Well, I’m not basing what I say on Marshall – I have good friends who were there, too, on staff (though their opinions and mine do not perfectly coincide on this affair, I should add). And Taylor was hardly the only former staffer to have concerns about how the college was run.
It’s quite true that President King inherited a very bad financial situation. But the new campus lease turned out not to be sustainable, either, just a reprieve in execution of sentence, and it is astonishing to me that he thought it could be otherwise. Either way . . . financially, the college was always on life support. And whatever King’s responsibility (or lack thereof) for that, you can hardly blame Olson of the Mater Dei priests for that state of affairs. It long predated the actions in question of either of them. Even the Drumm narrative at the link admits that much – just as it concedes that they really did make some bad hiring decisions. (I also think Drumm’s defense of the Dudley affair is unpersuasive. If you are going to give official platforms to statements rejecting the validity of Vatican II and the Pauline Missal without any public correction or disavowal, you have to be prepared to take the ecclesiastical consequences, whether they’re just or not. A group like CMRI *does* accept those consequences, quite readily; they are not bothering to depend on any bishops but their own for their apostolates. King and Drumm seemed to want it both ways. But this is a rabbit hole I don’t want to take the conversation down.)
All that said, I found it very unfortunate that Bishop Olson yanked away the TLM without providing any alternative using his own resources, either at the college or within reasonable proximity to it. It ended up punishing students and staff for what were, allegedly, the failings of the administration. The fact that he has since set up an FSSP parish doesn’t really fully redress that injustice, to my mind.
Barbara,
I give you credit. You’re coming out of your usual comfort zone. For once you’re ranting, raving & complaining about something other than us evil sedevacantists! I can’t believe it! Congrats.
Dear de Maria,
Thank you for your kind response which I believe to be as sincere as my question. Yes, I feel certain that this unfortunate behavior comes from both sides of the aisle (so to speak). Sedevacantism is not a religion in of of itself. It is a reaction to the dreadful years after the Second Vatican Council which is getting worse by the minute. Whether you believe the Pope IS the Pope (but in grave error and behaving as a Heretic) or the Pope IS NOT the Pope (for the same reasons), the fact remains that we are all suffering Catholics, striving to restore what is birthright — membership through Baptism in the True Church of Christ–the Holy, Roman Catholic Church. Dear de Maria, thank you for the time in answering my question. There is enough hurt going around from anti-Catholics both outside and inside the Church, without throwing daggers at each other. I pray that Catholics (on BOTH sides of this issue) read your response and learn that the real enemies of Our Lord love confusion and division. God bless you.
Richard M,
One of the greatest problems facing Catholics who are trying to understand the crisis is a lack of distinctions and a lack of proper definitions.
A distinction must be made when speaking about the FSSP. When I speak about the FSSP I am speaking about the group as such. Meaning the official constitutions and public documents between Rome & the FSSP.
In other words I am speaking about what the group believes officially and publicly. What I am not getting into is the subjective faith and morals of the Priests of the FSSP and the laymen who attend their parishes. Clearly many of them have the Faith and are holy. That reality is irrelevant to the objective errors of the FSSP which are public.
The FSSP accepts the new mass and Vatican II. The founding document of the FSSP contains lies and heresy.
The FSSP constitutions in 2003 bound the FSSP to the document that contains lies and heresy. This reality does in fact place the FSSP under the standard of Satan objectively.
The 1974 Declaration of Archbishop Lefebvre makes clear where the SSPX stands:
http://archives.sspx.org/archbishop_lefebvre/1974_declaration_of_archbishop_lefebvre.htm
A really good film about todays saint St Joseph of Cupertino well worth a watch
http://youtu.be/eXxOLNRBdXw
Thank you Barbara! You said it much better than I. I was immediately attacked when I posted a response. God bless you.
Mr Carroll has turned ChurchMilitant.com into his Ideological Toy.
Unfortunately, it is about to go the way of The DuMont Television Network, which was more entertaining.
You are remeniscent of the UBS Executive in the Classic Satire, “Network”, having turned Michael Voris into “Howard Beale” and all the Innanity which followed.
This rendition of an Internet TV Network has NOTHING to do with the Catholic Faith.
It is all about YOUR EGO.
Barbara, Michael can have his shtick back when he stops using it to attempt to squash faithful Catholics who attend the SSPX. Many in the world only have the SSPX chapels or missionary priests to attend the traditional Latin Mass. This has had “supplied jurisdiction” written all over it from day one, and to current, and we didn’t need to have the Pope tell us this, but it ought to help the royally confused like CMTV and co.
“that said, no Catholic at any time ought ever to turn their back on another Catholic.”
Unfortunately, people who follow Bergoglio are not Catholic. Since becoming a sedevacantist, I have broken contact w/many of my family who consider themselves to be “traditional catholics” even as they stopped ‘believing in’ confession when they were in college, attended mass whenever they feel like it, but always go to ‘communion’, are sterilized, use birth control, are divorced and remarried, are pro-abortion, are pro-homosexual marriage, don’t believe anyone is going to hell, believe everyone is saved w/out being baptized or Catholic, are married to unbaptized persons, never go to mass, raise their children w/these values, never prayed the rosary with their children who are now 35 etc.
I used to think my family would grow out of it. That we were all good people. But I realized, and it actually had nothing to do w/sedevacantism, that me and mine WERE Nancy Pelosi. It was taking the faith seriously that led me to become sedevacantist and it is taking the faith seriously, that my family is going to hell (literally) which led me to break contact with them (as Jesus Christ directs us to do – see Matt 18).
Many people think the Dimond bros are fanatics (God knows what they would think of St. John the Baptist, Jesus Christ or even St. Paul or St. Catherine of Sienna etc.) but they have an interesting video which I have linked to several times (not sure anyone has watched it), but they make a point re: +Wmson thinking that Ratzinger is a good person. If Ratzinger is leading people to hell, denying the divinity of Jesus Christ, contradicting Jesus Christ (re: valid covenant of Jews) and committing sacrilege, Ratzinger is NOT good. He is EVIL. +Wmson is therefore blind himself — imagine St. John the Baptist (or Jesus) stating that the high priests, scribes and pharisees were “good people” . Good people do not go along w/heresy. All it takes for evil to happen is for good people to do nothing but ‘keep walkin’ along w/Pope Francis’.
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/truth-about-the-sspx-mc-similar-groups/#.VfzYaN9VhBc
(1) ‘This is the price for “full communion,”’ There is no such thing as ‘partial’ communion. “Full communion” is a VC2 heresy. I’m surprised to see terminology used here. The modernists are suborning the so-called traditionalists.
(2) Re: courage or lack thereof of FSSP priests, funniest thing I ever saw was on the Remnant – pic of ‘priest’ all decked out in battle fatigues including bush hat w/the headline “Will You (i.e. me) Die for Him?” [Jesus: The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. John 10:11]
http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/1870-will-you-die-for-him-a-sermon-on-the-eve-of-persecution-in-america
(3) SSPX now that it is wanting to be in ‘full communion’ w/heretics is pretty silent itself. Following post talks about SSPX censorship of sermon criticizing Francis:
http://callmejorgebergoglio.blogspot.com/2015/09/is-fsppx-going-to-celebrate-jubilee-of.html
(4) What you all may be missing and maybe why Voris is really hitting this now, is that FSSP doesn’t have a bishop, but if perverse Fairy Whore(hey!) has his way, they just might get one: Fairy(see) Fellay!
Thank you, john6.
A great film ——– and you posted it on St. Joseph of Cupertino’s feast day!
Hello john6. I will look at the link of this man who was dead.
Will you also look at the links I posted above?
Dear de Maria nunquam satis,
Thank you. God love you!
Servant of our lady i looked at your two links and read them again. Id aleeady come across 1 of them a couple of years ago. Iv read and listened to lots of different people speak against this devotion but it never changed my mind. 1 of the problems we have is that if your a traditional catholic bad wording but you know what i mean then what tends to happen is you end up in one of those groups in my comment lower down. Which means that because these others dont beleive certain things it gets people start to say you shiuldnt believe this or that. I have a great devotion to our lords most sacred heart i go mass first fridays make a few holy hours in the week recite the litany of sacred heart etc , i kept coming across the argument , its replacing devotion to the sacred heart which in my case wasnt true.
addressed to TWN,
If you don’t mind-consider a few things–you don’t have to respond-this is not a challenge. Nor is it a personal attack on you. Nor is it a challenge or personal attack on anyone reading this.
***All Catholics are called to charity toward neighbor. That neighbor would include jews, mohammedans, shintoists, hindus, etc. This, for the love of God & the goal of conversion.
***That said, this includes those who wish to be Catholic. It includes those who, through no or >>limited<>>limited<<< fault of their own. These Catholics focus heavily & almost continually on Bergoglio-who is not the problem. VII & that which was borne of it, a Modernist Sect, is the problem. But they are for the most part Catholic.
*** Here, let it not be said that the interior of anyone is being judged. Only God can do that.
***The aforementioned Catholics do not include the SSPX, who fit into a seperate category, not to be further delineated here, not bc it's complicated-it's not. But just bc it ought to be further delineatd in that separate category for clarity which would take a minute.
**********
All of us have a duties as Catholics.
In exercising one of mine here, it must be said that the Dimond Bros. teach against several Sent.certa teachings of Holy Mother Church. For this reason Catholics must be wary of them.
**********
It does not matter whether folks think that those Dimond Bros. are fanatics or anything else they may think. I understand the point you're trying to make when you state that people thought the same of the Great & Venerated Saint Who ate locusts & foretold the Coming of the Redeemer and they did. what does matter , though, is if they adhere to the teachings of the Church.
********
I assume, perhaps wrongly, that anyone who engages in any way with the Dimonds espouses their stance against Church teaching on BOD and BOB & other things I'll not mention here but you know what they are , I hope.
******
I am not a follower of the Dimonds, may God forbid. I am a Catholic who assents to all the Teachings of The Roman Catholic Church which lives on, undefiled in all her Glory.
***
Whatever happens in October affects not Holy Mother Church. There are validly consecrated priests & bishops worldwide to shepherd & provide (valid-it must be noted,) Sacraments to the faithful by the thousands. If there is a so-called "schism" next month, that will affect the Modernist Sect which occupies diocesan parishes everywhere only.
dear john6,
I absolutely have always loved this film. A couple of years ago, I heard a solid Catholic treatment of the Holy Trinity which, in a side note, mentioned that as wonderful as this film is, the part in which the saint explains the Trinity must be ignored. Do you have any insight on this? I can see where it’s slightly off, but no more. Anyway, IMHO, knowing this & taking it into account one can still certainly enjoy this fabulous film. I love the Saint so much.
marian … I was there … in the pew … EVERY time. I remember every word and it is my expectation that Father Wolfe will find someone else to host all the sermons he has been preaching but have not been posted publicly since the sad split with Audio Sancto. Father has done a 180 degree turn since his days in Kansas City, where I also was. The same priest asked me to purchase a picture of the Archbishop (Lefebvre) for the Rectory. Now I suppose he is throwing darts at it. I don’t know what changed his mind regarding the SSPX, but whatever or whomever it is has him hooked good. I know he is a good priest striving for holiness. I know one FSSP priest … ONE … that has publicly said the SSPX is not in schism. Michael Matt interviewed him in Mexico recently, I believe.
Barbara … ChurchMilitant and M. Voris started this. Go back to them. This is a defense of the SSPX not an attack on FSSP or Father Wolfe, personally. Think of it as pulling back the curtain on the little man of OZ (Voris).
Dear john6,
I have learned much from your links over the past several months and appreciate your insights.
In all charity and respect to you, I want you to know that I did look at your video, but have noted that errors have been found with the “modern-day Lazarus” story.
There are many doctrinal errors in this man’s supposed “apparitions.”
Although not everything on this site can be trusted, the site does a good job with this supposed “visionary.”
http://www.catholicplanet.com/apparitions/false158.htm
——–
I suppose that you won’t change your mind, as you have said that you already looked at the links above, but I wanted you to know (with my greatest respect for you) that the Lazarus story does not add strength to the thrice-condemned divine mercy case.
We can end the discussion on this subject . Thank you for “discussing” it.
Let’s move to Louie’s next post!
There is a way to point out the faults of others. The way it is done here by poikolby and some others is NOT the Catholic way taught by Jesus Himself.
–
There are some whose position gives them the duty to point out faults. In our Catholic life they are usually priests and bishops – and this is being done by many of them. For any layman to take up this duty is a very serious matter. It can be done, but always with a view that charity is the FIRST item ticked off. The second item is that the correction is desired, and the recipient is open to the correction. The time and place has to be taken into consideration as well.
–
Louie does a fine job of using his layman status in the correct way, although he steps over the line on occasion. I too have been guilty of using the combox to lay off my personal frustrations, and I have also used uncharitable language.
–
“Love your enemies, be good to those who hate you” is not a suggestion. The accusation that I “luv” those who want to destroy the Church is an obfuscation. I love piokolby and others here enough to point out that they may be sinning themselves by their polemics and lack of prudent speech.
–
The best way is to always talk about principles not personalities. We can point out very effectively what is happening without name-calling, and certainly without shouting from the rooftops that this priest, this bishop, this society or association is in mortal sin – mostly because we don’t like what they have done in particular circumstances.
–
To accuse the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter’s members of be responsible for the break-up of marriages is scurrilous and reprehensible. And to do it using the lame excuse that one is trying to speak the truth and warn others is to be blind to one’s true motives.
I read this blog daily….I may post here about 3 times a week, if that, and I would hardly consider what I do “hijacking”. I have very good reasons for my feelings towards your beloved order.
dear rich,
As , albeit indirectly, pointed out in a discussion with my2cents below, trads have 2 things in common: they love the so called latin mass & they revile sedevacantists. There are those who’d love to discredit stories like yours, bc of their own prejudices & preferences while at the same time having a holier than though attitude that would put a Holy Roller Southern Baptist to shame.
*** Dwelling in their castle of self-righteousness, they are blinded & cannot see that courageous Catholics like yourself will risk all to protect another Catholic from experiencing degradation at the hands of a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
*** A couple decades ago I wrote for a very popular trad bi-monthly which I will not name, whose editor said a now famous statement: “You can tell they are Catholics by their hate.”
rich,
I implore you to never cease telling your story.
May God love you.