It occurs to me that it may be helpful, in light of recent conversations (i.e., attacks) concerning the status of the Society of St. Pius X, to review the basics of so-called “full communion” as understood by those who are running the dog and pony show in Rome.
So, is the SSPX comprised of “schismatics feeling they are in good standing,” as one Michael Voris claims?
According to Canon Law:
Schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him. (cf Canon 751)
In order for this definition to be understood in a Catholic sense, one must recognize that said “submission” is not absolute but rather limited to those things that are consonant with the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine; i.e., one is never bound to submit to those things that are contrary to the Faith, even if such a demand should come from the pope.
This much is simply Catholic common sense.
Specifically with regard to the SSPX and the allegation of schism, the question that must be answered in order to determine guilt or innocence is obvious:
To what precisely has the Society refused submission?
Superior General of the SSPX, Bishop Bernard Fellay, has never been bashful about providing the answer, saying:
Pope Benedict requested that we accept that the Second Vatican Council is an integral part of Tradition, we say, ‘Sorry, that’s not the reality, so we’re not going to sign it. We’re not going to recognize that.’
May God bless Bishop Fellay!
This refusal of submission does not in any way shape or form represent schism, for the simple reason that the content of Vatican Council II is not an integral part of Tradition, and the demand of said submission is therefore not properly understood as a function of the Supreme Pontiff’s legitimate authority, but rather an abuse of the same.
How so?
Look, no marginally well-formed Catholic (including Michael Voris, who does not have the integrity to answer such matters directly) would dare to assert as a part of Tradition such egregiously false notions as:
– The Jews in our time, who are defined (and happily so) by their rejection of Our Blessed Lord and His Holy Cross, are “one” in Christ Jesus, “by His Cross,” with Gentiles (defined as “the wild shoots” that have been “grafted in to that well-cultivated olive tree” that is, the “Ancient Covenant” with God), and this in spite of Our Lord’s words, “He who rejects me rejects Him who sent me.” (Nostra Aetate 4)
– There are heretical communities too numerous to number (e.g., Joel Osteen’s cash cow congregation) that are used by Our Lord as “means of salvation” as communities. (Unitatis Redintegratio 3)
– Divine revelation itself affirms that man has the right to religious freedom (Dignitatis Humanae 2), the Council’s treatment of which, according to Pope Benedict, is understood such that “At stake was the freedom to choose and practice religion and the freedom to change it, as fundamental human rights and freedoms.” (L’Osservatore Romano, Oct. 10, 2011, as reported by Vatican Radio)
Look, the bottom line, visible to anyone of good will, is simply this:
The Society of St. Pius X is entirely Catholic, and the withholding of ordinary jurisdiction from their bishops and priests is a magnificent injustice for which Our Blessed Lord will demand recompense.
In conclusion, I offer here for those who have yet to see it, a video recently produced by the Society explaining the matter of “supplied jurisdiction;” demonstrating how Our Lord in His wisdom has seen to it that diabolically disoriented men (like popes who make unjust demands for submission to false propositions as the price for “full communion”) are allowed to go only so far in depriving souls of the gifts entrusted to the Church for their good.
My diet sheet says :”Don’t eat the chocolate biscuit” (ordinary jurisdiction)
My grumbling stomach says :”Eat the chocolate biscuit” (supplied jurisdiction)
What to do??
“no authority, not even the highest in the hierarchy, can compel us to abandon or diminish our Catholic faith so clearly expressed and professed, by the Church’s magisterium for nineteen centuries”.
Interesting times. Over on the SD forum a number of posters are beginning to question not just Vatican II but Vatican I held under Pope Pius IX. They are looking at the post Vatican II papacy and saying that the problem starts with Vatican I’s definition of papal infallibility and, afterall, once you’re willing to accept that an Ecumenical Council of the entire Church can teach error why stop at Vatican II?
For real Catholics, you adhere to the Pope and you don’t use liberal distinctions like supplied jurisdiction, a term which would make the womenpriests people proud.
“To what precisely has the Society refused submission?”
How about they have set up a worldwide apostolate in opposition to the man they say is the Pope?
They tell their congregations not to assist at the Novus Ordo Mass.
Have they ever asked for, or received permission from the local ordinary when they go into a diocese to set up a chapel or Mass center?
Also an ecumenical council called for by a Pope and held in union with all the bishops in the world is an infallible means the Church uses to instruct the faithful.
Even though it has been claimed (after the fact) that Vatican II was merely a “pastoral” council that did not claim to define any new dogma, an ecumenical council cannot contradict previously defined dogma-which Vatican II did.
I have never read, or heard anything from the Society of Pius X that makes me think they are in schism. I admire their stand enormously! Think what it has meant for all these years to hold your finger in the dyke, knowing if you give in one little iota the huge wave of Modernism will drown you, and your loved ones.
–
We could look to see what has happened to the Catholic world to those who ‘gave in’ to the novelties of Vatican II. How many millions just go along with whatever Father Flapdoodle, or Sister Whatever says without knowing or caring that it goes against 2,000 years of Church teaching?
–
So the Society is ‘wrong’ to use whatever straws they can grasp to keep from drowning themselves? We make judgements and pick over every word they utter – they are this, they are that, and back and forth.
–
They need our support, our prayers, and knowledge that we understand why they do what they do. Why is it so complicated?
But that’s just what Vatican II did: contradict previously defined dogma! That’s the whole point.
Well explained on the issue of submission to the Supreme a Pontiff. The Catholic Faith has fixed content – the Deposit of Faith – which cannot change but must be preserved and passed down in toto. If a pope approves something that purports to change, or conflicts with, the Deposit of Faith, we are bound not to submit to that but reject it. We have reason and Faith and the graces therefrom. A young child with the proper instruction and understanding and disposition may be confirmed in the Faith and know the content thereof to which he may give informed assent. One cannot know the fundamental content of the Faith unless one recognises what necessarily conflicts with it. It cannot contradict itself. God gave us a Faith which we can easily know and understand, not a gnostic faith but one that is never, never unreasonable or inconsistent or self-contradictory. Anything that is in opposition to the unchangeable Deposit of Faith and moral law can never be made part of the Deposit and must be rejected. A pope who proffers anything objectively false and erroneous must not be followed in that regard.
1) If that said Pope is a modernist and their apostolate faithful to the deposit of faith, nobody should have an issue. God bless them for it! St. Athanasius did the same in the 4th century.
2) You mean the Novus Ordo Mass compiled by a committee concerned about what the Protestant advisers would think? The 2nd eucharistic prayer scribbled in a local Trattoria? Read Ann Barnhardt on the Novus Ordo at CMR: http://www.creativeminorityreport.com/2015/07/ann-barnhardt-part-v-liturgy.html#disqus_thread
3) From what I understand the SSPX tries to work with the local ordinaries, even mentions them and the Pope in Holy Mass. It’s usually the local bishops who shut them down.
4) SSPX recognize the council they just want to clean up the modernists bits in the documents, just like Bishop Athanasius Schnieder. You are right, an ecumenical council cannot contradict previous teaching. But V2 was a pastoral council that specifically did not invoke infallibility (it’s right there in it’s own writings, read it myself) nor did it declare dogma or doctrine that the faithful were bound to follow.
Michael Davies did a great job in his three part book series explaining what happened called The Liturgical Revolution. These books will help you realize what happened at V2 and why the Church is in grave need of the SSPX.
PS- I’m not SSPX, never stepped foot in one of their chapels. God bless them for preserving the faith and fighting the good fight all these decades.
God bless~
ThomasR,
If Vatican ll as you rightly stated was not infallible (not under the infallible protection of the Holy Ghost), then it could contradict a previous Council (at least in this case where it has purposely been worded so a contrary interpretation could (and has) happened.
“In dangers, in doubts, in difficulties, think of Mary, call upon Mary. Let not her name depart from your lips, never suffer it to leave your heart. And that you may obtain the assistance of her prayer, neglect not to walk in her footsteps. With her for guide, you shall never go astray; while invoking her, you shall never lose heart; so long as she is in your mind, you are safe from deception; while she holds your hand, you cannot fall; under her protection you have nothing to fear; if she walks before you, you shall not grow weary; if she shows you favour, you shall reach the goal.”
–Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, Father and Doctor of the Church
Vatican ll is not infallible.
Yes, exactly. Let me put it in the form of a Therefore, a syllogism:
1. An ecumenical council called for by the Pope and held in union with all the bishops in the world is an infallible means that the Church uses to teach the faithful and it is protected by the Holy Ghost from promulgating error.
2. Vatican II was an ecumenical council called for by the Pope in union with all the bishops in the world and it did promulgate error by contradicting previously defined dogma of the Church.
3. Therefore, due to the guarantee of infallibility of the Church, Vatican II and the errors that it promulgated could not have originated from the Catholic Church. So therefore the hierarchy that promulgated Vatican II and its errors must in some way be defective.
Supplied jurisdiction is ONLY applicable to those who are faithful to the Deposit of Faith. If real Catholics had adhered to the Pope during the 4th century, we would all be Arian heretics. We’ve had doozies for Popes, including heretics. Popes are only to be followed when they themselves follow Our Lord in the deposit of faith He gave us. Popes are not gods. Read Vatican I to understand the narrow parameters of their infallibility and read St. Robert Bellermine to grasp that we follow Popes only when they follow Our Lord.
God bless~
*Please add “From what I understand” to the beginning of the above post:+) God bless~
One of my weaknesses (I have many) is that I tend to see things in very simplistic ways. I consider the Holy Eucharist the “core” of the Catholic Church and the essence of our faith. When I assist at Holy Mass at an SSPX chapel (or Church), the Holy Eucharist is treated as if it truly were the Body,Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord (which IT is!) In contrast when I am obligated to attend “mass” in a New Order “church” because of family events, I witness the exact opposite. The SSPX as a society may not be perfect. However, until the mainstream church wakes up, the SSPX is working hard to restore, preserve and defend Our Lord’s Church. I pray one day the necessity for the SSPX as ended because the Catholic Church, as an institution, will find Her roots and return to Her former glory . Let us pray for that day!
You’re mixing up terms. Ecumenical, dogmatic, and pastoral. V2 explicitly said it was pastoral, non-dogmatic and not infallible. Thus the fact that it was ecumenical does not negate what it wrote. God bless~
Also see: http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2011-0205-ferrara-gnostic-twaddle.htm
Well said Barbara! I’m not SSPX but am sooo grateful they stood up against the tide of insanity in the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s in order to preserve the faith. We wouldn’t have the TLM, FSSP, Indult, ICK etc. without them. They stood in the breach, endured the slander and accusations, all for the purity of the deposit of faith to survive the synthesis of heresies. GOD BLESS the SSPX! They are the true heroes and heart of Our Lord’s Church.
Dare I say the SSPX are not in reality schismatics, because the pope they refuse complete submission to, being himself a heretic, is not a member of the Catholic Church. They can’t be in schism from a non-Catholic layman.
However, if they recognise Bergoglio as a true Pope, as they say they do, then they definitely have a problem:
“What good is it to proclaim aloud the dogma of the supremacy of St. Peter and his successors? What good is it to repeat over and over declarations of faith in the Catholic Church and of obedience to the Apostolic See when actions give the lie to these fine words? Moreover, is not rebellion rendered all the more inexcusable by the fact that obedience is recognized as a duty? … or is it enough to be in communion of faith with this See without adding the submission of obedience, — a thing which cannot be maintained without damaging the Catholic Faith? … In fact, Venerable Brothers and beloved Sons, it is a question of recognizing the power (of this See), even over your churches, not merely in what pertains to faith, but also in what concerns discipline. He who would deny this is a heretic; he who recognizes this and obstinately refuses to obey is worthy of anathema.”
(Pope Pius IX, Encyclical Quae in Patriarchatu [Sept. 1, 1876], nn. 23-24; in Acta Sanctae Sedis X [1877], pp. 3-37; English taken from Papal Teachings: The Church, nn. 433-434.)
This is Fr. Stehlin, the SSPX District Superior of Asia. http://youtu.be/SUa3CTK58wU
Christpher Ferrara decries it being said the SSPX are in “partial communion” rather than “full communion” with the NO church. That I get. But is it OK to render “partial submission” to the Pope, rather than “full submission”?
Denz. 1827 [Consequences denied by innovators]. “Furthermore We teach and declare that the Roman Church, by the disposition of the Lord, holds the sovereignty of ordinary power over all others, and that this power of jurisdiction on the part of the Roman Pontiff, which is truly episcopal, is immediate; and with respect to this the pastors and the faithful of whatever rite and dignity, both as separate individuals and all together, are bound by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, not only in things which pertain to faith and morals, but also in those which pertain to the discipline and government of the Church [which is] spread over the whole world, so that the Church of Christ, protected not only by the Roman Pontiff, but by the unity of communion as well as of the profession of the same faith is one flock under the one highest shepherd. This is the doctrine of Catholic truth from which no one can deviate and keep his faith and salvation.”
Magnifique! 🙂 🙂
Dear Peter,
It isn’t necessary to declare the Pope officially not Catholic in order to legitimately disobey him, according to Cardinal Burke.
The highest authority is always God and the Truths He as revealed. And as your quote points out, it is the responsibility of the Pope to protect those. When he properly exercises that authority he is owed obedience. But if he abuses that authority by acting against those truths and commands us/others to do likewise, we are obliged to disobey him, even though he is still the Pope. Here is Cardinal Burke’s explanation for that:
Vatican City, Feb 9, 2015
Cardinal Raymond Burke – “responding to a hypothetical situation” – stated that he would resist any possible move by Pope Francis away from Catholic doctrine. “… it is always my sacred duty to defend the truth of the Church’s teaching and discipline.” “No authority can absolve me from that responsibility, and, therefore, if any authority, even the highest authority, were to deny that truth or act contrary to it, I would be obliged to resist, in fidelity to my responsibility before God.”
__
“.. the cardinal stressed the need for attentiveness to the power of the office of the papacy in Catholic understanding. Papal power is “at the service of the doctrine of the faith,” he explained, “and thus the Pope does not have the power to change teaching, doctrine.”
__
The interviewer then asked: “In a somewhat provocative way, can we say that the true guardian of doctrine is you, and not Pope Francis?”
“In our faith, it is the truth of doctrine that guides us.” “If Pope Francis insists on this path [i.e. communion for adulterers] what will you do?” the interviewer then asked. “I will resist. I cannot do anything else,” he said.
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/what-cardinal-burke-really-said-about-resisting-pope-francis-87675/
========
We can’t speak for Archbishop LeFebvre and the SSPX, but it seems to us from their writings, that what he and those who since joined him did may have been a combination of the above-mentioned principles of justified disobedience, and some decisions of personal conscience.
___
We aren’t passing judgment on these people, because very complex issues are involved, but we hope for a good outcome for the SSPX. These are extraordinary times, and the word “emergency” does not seem at all out of place when describing the state of things in the Church over the last 55 years. 😉 😉
No actual pope, not one, has ever promulgated universal error with regards to faith and morals – ever. Just plain never. It hasn’t happened. Not one Church defined Truth has ever been contradicted in the magisterium of any True Pope. The worst of the ‘bad popes’ never taught the Church falsehood, ever.
–
What Ganganelli presents is the Catholic approach in that we must believe that the Church can never universally promugate error, and that the true Pope must be obeyed (even the bad ones, unless their suggestions could undermine the obvious material good of the Church (e.g. a Pope (as in someone truly elected by true Cardinals who hasn’t lost his jurisdcition due to heresy) demanding that St Peter’s be deconsecrated and sold off for scrap so the Pope can build a summer house in St Tropez – not to be obeyed.)
The trouble is that the Novus Ordo demand a ‘dogmatic’ fealty to VII – universally. What is being ignored is that VII and the Novus Ordo was universally imposed and is the norm for the now so-called Catholic Church. Therefore the so-called ‘Catholic’ Church that professes allegience to the Concilliar mandate – which is in error – has indeed defected and is not the Church. It is no more Christ’s Bride than the Church of England or the Antiochan Church – neither of which, like the Novus Ordo, have a successor of Peter to guide them.
–
BTW – the language used to demand obedience to VII was of the sort that can be nothing but part of the solemn magisterium of a Pope. It’s not for nothing that Archbishop Lefebvre was ‘excommunicated’ by Wojtyla whilst guerilla liberation theologian priests were wreaking their havoc in Central and South Amercia in ‘full communion’.
The issue is the Church of Vatican II and its New Order rites. These belong to doctrines, worship and disciplines that are not and can never be Catholic. The persons who head up such a Church can only be compared to the Archbishop of Cantebury or perhaps Billy Graham – since neither of these (unlike the Eastern Orthodox) are Apostolic. The Novus Ordo is not Apostolic due to its new ‘ordination rites’. The fact that there are still priests who could confect the sacrament left in the Novus Ordo (though probably dying off as we speak) is to be considered commensurate with the left-overs of valid but schismatic preisthood in Reformation England.
–
Burke is the caboose-conservative who is still a part of the Vatican II freight-train.
If Voris applied what the Church actually teaches in regard to heresy and schism he would know that the Vatican II Church are not the Church Militant.
–
If the SSPX applied what the Church actually teaches in regard to heresy and schism they would know that to seek communion with it will makes them themselves heretics and schismatics.
Seconded! 🙂 🙂
Spot on ThomasR. The whole point is that VII does promulgate error and contradict the prior magisterium.
” … once the Church has pronounced on any dogmatic or moral subject, its pronouncement becomes fixed in concrete. Nothing thereafter may legitimately contradict it. Even popes are bound to the previous magisterium.
The assistance of the Holy Ghost to the Church assures that any act of the Church’s magisterium will be in accordance with previous magisterium. Furthermore, by the gift of indefectibility, the Holy Ghost assists the Church in such a way that no universal discipline or law, whether liturgical or otherwise, could prescribe something sinful.
If, therefore, there is a contradiction between the previous magisterium and the current magisterium, the Catholic must side with the previous magisterium, which is not in any way alterable, and is the object of his virtue of faith. In so doing, the Catholic must see the contradictory “magisterium” as not coming from the hierarchy which is assisted by the Holy Ghost. For it is impossible that a hierarchy, so assisted, could promulgate such a thing. Therefore the contradiction found in the new “magisterium” must be seen as an infallible sign that it does not proceed from a divinely assisted hierarchy. Therefore Paul VI’s promulgation of Vatican II’s heresies is an infallible sign that he did not enjoy papal authority, nor ever did, since he would have been assisted in such a way as to avoid the promulgation of heresy and error… the traditionalist cannot avoid the conclusion of sedvacantism, without implicitly denying the assistance of the Holy Ghost to the Church, which would actually be heretical.
The serious error of the SSPX and of Bishop Williamson is precisely to say that the pope and the Catholic hierarchy as a whole is capable of contradicting the previous magisterium, and is capable of promulgating evil liturgies, disciplines and laws to the whole Church, thereby creating and promulgating a whole new and false religion. The solution, they say, is to sift the conciliar and post-conciliar magisterium, liturgy, disciplines, and laws for what they find traditional, all the while recognizing the promulgators of the false religion as the legitimate Catholic hierarchy. This means that the infallible Catholic hierarchy has universally promulgated heresy and error, as well as evil liturgy, laws, and disciplines. But this is contrary to faith.
Therefore the faith requires us not to sift the faulty magisterium and disciplines, but to reject the promulgators as a false hierarchy, that is, as a hierarchy which does not have the authority to teach, rule, and sanctify the Church… St. Paul says to the Galatian faithful in the first chapter of that Epistle. If anyone, including and angel or himself, preaches a doctrine different from what he has preached, let him be anathema [see Gal 1:8-9]. He does not say: sift the false doctrine for traditional tidbits. In other words, if the preacher should contradict the previous magisterium, he should be utterly rejected, and not “accepted but sifted.” Likewise Paul IV calls for the utter rejection of the elected pope who turns out to be a heretic. The faithful are commanded not to sift his doctrine for truth, but to consider him as a false pope.” http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/sedevacantism-pope-sifting.htm
St. Athanasius:
“Saint Anthony never held communion with the Meletian schismatics, knowing their wickedness and rebellion from the beginning; neither did he have friendly converse with the Manichees or any other heretics, except only to warn them to return to their duty, believing and teaching that their friendship and society was harmful and ruinous to the soul. Thus also he loathed the Arian heresy, and taught all men neither to go near them nor to partake in their bad faith. Once, when some of the Ariomanites came to him and he questioned them and found them to be misbelievers, he drove them from the hill, crying that their words were worse than the venom of serpents.”
“And the Roman Pontiffs, according to the exigencies of times and circumstances, sometimes assembling Ecumenical Councils, or asking for the mind of the Church scattered throughout the world, sometimes by particular Synods, sometimes using other helps which Divine Providence supplied, defined as to be held those things which, with the help of God, they had recognized as conformable with the Sacred Scriptures and Apostolic Traditions. For the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might make known new doctrine, but that by His assistance they might inviolably keep and faithfully expound the Revelation, the Deposit of Faith, delivered through the Apostles.”
Pastor Aeternus, Pope Pius IX.
“The declared enemies of God and His Church, heretics and schismatics, must be criticized as much as possible, as long as truth is not denied. It is a work of charity to shout: ‘Here is the wolf!’ when it enters the flock or anywhere else.”
–St. Francis de Sales, Introduction to the Devout Life, Part III, Chapter 29
Dear Indignus,
I agree. A magisterium which teaches error must certainly and legitimately be disobeyed. But remember that the Holy Ghost prevents an authentic magisterium from promulgating error, novelty, or contradiction.
Cardinal Burke speaks only the truth in the quotes you cite. But does he practice what he said? He is still a caboose on the NO train.
Archbishop Lefebvre said the NO was not Catholic.
Bishop Fellay said Bergoglio is a modernist.
Pope St. Pius X said modernists are heretics.
You said that Bergoglio is a heretic.
St. Ignatius of Antioch said
“If anyone walks according to a foreign doctrine, he is not of Christ nor a partaker of His passion. Have no fellowship with such a man, lest you perish along with him, even though he should be your father, your son, your brother, or a member of your family.”
St. John Eudes said
“I entreat you to shun, whenever possible, the society of those who profess false doctrines.”
The III Lateran Council said
“The accursed perversity of heretics has so increased that now they exercise their wickedness not in secret, but manifest their error publicly, and win over the weak and simple-minded to their opinion. For this reason, We resolve to cast them, their defenders, and their receivers under anathema, and We forbid under anathema that any one presume to help heretics or to do business with heretics.”
St. Thomas Aquinas said
“To know whom to avoid is a great means of saving our souls. Thus the Church forbids the faithful to communicate with those unbelievers who have forsaken the faith by corrupting it, such as heretics, or by renouncing it, such as apostates.”
St. Thomas Aquinas said
“To know whom to avoid is a great means of saving our souls. Thus the Church forbids the faithful to communicate with those unbelievers who have forsaken the faith by corrupting it, such as heretics, or by renouncing it, such as apostates.”
St. John Chysostom said
“For if they have doctrines opposed to ours, it is not fitting to be mixed up with them for this cause alone. […] What do you say? “Their faith is the same; these men are orthodox”? Why, then, are they not with us?”
St. Robert Bellarmine said
“St. Paul commands that a heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is, after showing himself to be manifestly obstinate. And this is what St. Jerome writes, adding that other sinners are excluded from the Church by excommunication, whereas heretics exile themselves on their own from the Body of Christ.”
I said
“your seats are being kept warm.”
🙂 🙂
The same narrow parameters for infallibility laid out for the pope in Vatican I must also apply to Church councils.
Just as the pope is not infallible in everything he says or does, the same goes for a council. For the pope to invoke the charismatic of infallibility, he has to want to and specifically meet certain criteria. So to a council.
V2 didn’t, but should have. It should have defined doctrine, but didn’t. It should have spoke clearly, but didn’t. The Holy Spirit wasn’t asleep, the Holy Spirit didn’t abandon the Church. The human element in the hierarchy declined His assistance and spoke merely fallible human words. Ambiguous, fuzzy, “New Theology” words. Hence, the crisis.
Actually AthanasiusContraMundum, ThomasR did not say that VII was fallible.
All the conditions for it to be considered an infallible Council were met.
Pope Pul VI stated in a homily, I think on 12 July, 1962, which I have quoted several times previously, that the teachings of VII were promulgated with the full authority of the ordinary magisterium. I have misfiled the quote, so somebody please help me out. Rich might have it?
A previous comment by Rich is appropriate here:
“The first Vatican Council tells us that, “all those things are to be believed with divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and which the Church, either by a solemn judgment or by her ordinary and universal teaching magisterium, proposes for belief as having been divinely revealed.” The second Vatican Council teaches, “Each and every matter declared in this Dogmatic Constitution the Fathers of this Sacred Council have approved. And We by the Apostolic Authority handed down to Us from Christ, together with all the Venerable Fathers, in the Holy Ghost approve, decree and establish these things; and all things thus synodally established, We order to be promulgated unto the glory of God…I, Paul, Bishop of the Catholic Church. There follow the signatures of the rest of the Fathers.”
Both demand the assent of the faithful without sifting. If we believe Montini and Bergoglio are Popes we must give assent to their teachings in total.”
The matter is further clarified by Dumb_ox:
“The following comment from the Catholic Encyclopedia (on “Infallibility”) gives indirect confirmation of the fact that we are bound by the teaching of the Church,both fallible and infallible:
“[F]allible provisional teaching, as such, derives its binding force principally from the fact that it emanates from an authority which is competent, if need be, to convert it into infallible definitive teaching”.
The conclusion is clear and unavoidable. If you accept the conciliar popes as true popes, then VII was a true council and you are bound to accept and submit to their teachings. You may not sift them.
Sorry. I think it was 12 July, 1967. (?)
Louie writes that, according to Dignitatis Humanae:
“Divine revelation itself affirms that man has the right to religious freedom”.
The Catholic Encyclopedia reads on this as follows (emphasis added):
“A well-ordered commonwealth can no more recognize the maxim of unlimited and unbridled religious freedom than it can adopt the suicidal principle of irreligion. For state toleration of all forms of religion without exception, which could be justified only on the basis of disruptive atheism or a deistic indifferentism, is in palpable contradiction to natural law and to every rational system of polity (cf. Encyclical of Pius IX ‘Quanta cura’ of 8 December, 1864)” (on “Religious Toleration”).
The Encyclopedia also writes elsewhere of “final decisions of the infallible teaching authority of the Church, for instance in the encyclical ‘Quanta Cura’“.
Dignitatis Humanae, therefore, appears to contradict Quanta Cura, which is historically prior and final (i.e. infallible). This would imply that Vatican II proposes for our religious belief something that is demonstrably false.
Dear IF, yes, but, of course, a manifest pertinacious heretic is not pope in the supernatural realm (at least) though he may not have been declared so because so many cardinals and bishops are heretics too. A pope who is a manifest, pertinacious heretic, will purport to teach false doctrine.
Yes, it’s my understanding that the criteria for infallibility are very strict and narrow.
Dear Peter,
From all we’ve read, we believe the Church has a different standard for “judging” the vicar of Christ than it does for everyone else. So while all your quotes about avoiding heretics and those who teach a different doctrine, apply to everyone else, the Pope is special case. It’s as simple as that.
Obedience is a moral virtue. Faith, Hope and Charity are theological virtues and hence of a higher order.
Since we frequently encounter sedavacantist assertions in these comment boxes, I’d like to ask for a brief clarification about that position. Sedavacantists claim the visible Church headed by Pope Francis is not really the Catholic Church, despite the fact that its members and practically everyone else in the world recognizes it as such. If the Sedavacantist position is true, then effectively the entire world is deluded or deceived about the Catholic Church. What the world sees as the Catholic Church is really a phony Catholic Church. Would Our Lord permit such a massive deception regarding the Church He founded? If so, then haven’t the gates of hell prevailed against it?
on the contrary…..it proves the Divinity of The Catholic Church…..http://marienfried.com/catholic%20teachings/prophecy%20of%20apostasy.html
Yes Crawler, that is the case – as Our Lady put it, the true Catholic Church has been “eclipsed”. Yes, Our Lord has permitted it as punishment for sin. No the gates of hell have not and will never prevail – Our Lord promises that. The Church remains visible in the faithful loyal to her.
Pope Benedict XVI has ruled that
“this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council”
So, there is no reason why the SSPX (a few individuals apart) cannot accept the documents of Vat 11, in a hermeneutic of continuity.
However, Relativists during Vat II managed to insert ambiguity, uncertainty, misinterpretation and even contradiction into some documents. These insertions are in no way part of the intent of the documents.
There is still much confusion over Vat II. It will, only be cleared up as and when we have a Syllabus of Errors of the doctrines and that will need another Council.
Until then the confusion, misinterpretations and decline will continue.
In the meantime the SSPX are not in schism. They are in separation. A new canonical status such as the Ordinariate have would solve the problem and bring this soundly Catholic body back in to full union with the currently rapidly diminishing Church.
Ock,
Thank you for this brilliant, amazing, humongous, stupendous article. It tells all. Let us read this, understand it and then consider very carefully if we will ever sit our feet in a NO church again.
““Each and every matter declared in this Dogmatic Constitution the Fathers of this Sacred Council have approved. And We by the Apostolic Authority handed down to Us from Christ, together with all the Venerable Fathers, in the Holy Ghost approve, decree and establish these things; and all things thus synodally established, We order to be promulgated unto the glory of God…I, Paul, Bishop of the Catholic Church.”
Nothing in there about being Divinely revealed. The quote from the first Vatican Council is actually proof that the errors and/or ambiguities in the documents of V2 are fallible and can be rejected if in contradiction with previously defined teachings.
It’s a mess of a crisis, but the Church still stands. Perhaps “in eclipse” is the best way to put it, as we were warned about in various Marian apparitions.
Peter,
Your comment contradicts 2000 years of Catholicism. The entire Church stands or falls on the theological concept that “where Peter is, there is the Church”. Take away Peter, the visible head, and the whole house of cards comes tumbling down. The idea that the Church is visible where the faithful are loyal sounds like an Orthodox idea. The same idea that caused them to reject the council of Florence.
Louie, I absolutely LOVE Archbishop Lefebvre… but simply can’t get past his decision to ordain bishops without permission from the Pope. Can you help me understand this? Thanks & God bless you!!
Yes James,
What you say is true: Where Peter is, there is the Church.
That is our Faith. Only problem right now is we don’t know where Peter is, or if he is here at the moment.
The Siri Thesis seems to me very unlikely, but it is not impossible.
We do have a Pope materialiter, so the Petrine Succession is intact, as Vatican I said it would be in perpetuity.
Remember that during every interregnum, which occurs every time a Pope dies, there is no Peter, but the Church endures.
There is no theological reason that an interregnum might not be prolonged and indeed Our Lady of Good Success has warned us about the advent of a prolonged interregnum:
“How the Church will suffer on that occasion – the dark night of the lack of a Prelate and Father to watch over them… The lukewarmness of all the souls consecrated to God in the priestly and religious state will delay the coming of this Prelate and Father.” (Thanks Ock.)
No, the idea that the Church is visible in the faithful remnant is not Orthodox, or novel.
Our Lady of Good Success: “The small number of souls who, hidden, will preserve the treasure of the Faith …”
Venerable Anna Katarina Emmerick: ” … even if there remained but one Catholic, the Church would conquer again because She does not rest on human counsels and intelligence…”
When Our Blessed Mother warns that the true Faith will be abolished and extinguished, what She is prophesying is that the number of true Catholics will be so small, that it will appear as if they have been abolished or extinguished, but we know, because Our Lord promised it, that the Church will never be totally extinguished and will endure until the end of time.
At one time St. Athanasius stood “alone against the world.”
Remember the Mystical Body of Christ is the Catholic Church, which is composed of its Members – be those Members many, or few.
We live in a crazy time! It makes my head spin.
What I mean is: doesn’t this decision reflect “refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff?” Isn’t that the reason people believe SSPX is in “schism?” I’m also curious to understand more about the FSSP? In a previous post, it sounded as though FSSP was not good? Do they accept Vatican II as an integral part of tradition? Thanks again!!
dear crawler,
Honestly, it’s so very rare that the issue of sedevacantism is addressed by a non-sedevacantist as charitably as have you, an individual of obvious good will. In fact, it’s so rare that I can count the times I’ve encountered it within the ten fingers of my hands & not exceeding that, over the whole of about the last 30 yrs. Seriously & on the legit. On this blog, IMO, that’d be about 5-7 times such has been treated charitably, free of ad hominem attacks & that includes the very charitable approach taken by Verrecchio himself.
The subject is typically addressed by an individual attempting to refute that about which they know next to nothing-that being the sedevacantist position. But you, an honest person, ask questions. Your questions have answers & I believe you truly seek those answers, unlike most & I don’t mind saying that here. Once you have the answers to the very questions you pose here, you may have more queries. You may want to dig deeper. Digging deeper may take a couple of years, because the subject involves matters of ecclesiology & theology, not matters of opinon. To provide you avenues via which to begin, dear crawler, here are two links-I’ll separate them in 3 comments, bc Louie said to do that when offering more than one link. So-on visibility, the gates of hell & much, much more-dealt with in a call-in program aired at the time of BVII’s resignation. It has a cost of $1.49 US dollars. I think you’ll enjoy it.
http://www.restorationradionetwork.org/season-ii-episode-18-the-resignation-of-benedict-xvi/
My other two links are free. May His Peace be to you.
dear crawler,
On matters dealing with Modernism & that which was borne of VII:
at the bottom dealing specifically with VII-
http://mostholytrinityseminary.org/sermonschurchmodernism.html
dear crawler,
Finally, a free program sponsored —–in Honor of St Louis de Montfort —–that hope you’ll find interesting. I’m merely an old-timer, so allow me once more to thank you for your comportment & exemplary Catholic expression of honest inquiry.
http://www.restorationradionetwork.org/season-4-the-root-of-the-rot-episode-11-paul-vi-the-pre-bergoglio/
It was also Benedict that officially ruled that the SSPX have no facilities. It’s a cold hard reality. No matter how much Benedict appreciated them and used flowery language at times, there never was a full resolution. As a SPPX supporter a person is stuck between a rock and a hard place. They claim fidelity to the Pope but the supreme authority in the Church says they have no facilities to perform the sacraments. Whether the term “schism” is appropriate or not, there is obviously not full communion, even though the excommunications were lifted. Don’t get me wrong, I admire the SSPX but a person like Voris may harshly used the “S” word ..but he is stating a fact based on what Benedict himself has ruled. Does not fully submitting to the authority of the Pope and having your facilities removed constitute schism? It seems some say so and some argue against the idea. I don’t know. It’s murky at best.
Actually Indignus,
If the Pope is a heretic, according to St. Jerome, as quoted above, he exiles himself, on his own, from the Body of Christ just like any other heretic does.
Voris recognizes exactly what Sedevacantist Bishop Sanborn has stated, (whether right or wrong) that if the recent Pontiffs are legit then by Catholic definition the SSPX are schismatics no matter what lip service they give.
Dear Peter,
You’re right back into that long, Sede argument that we’ve mentioned seeing so often here. You quote one Saint, somebody else quotes Bellarmine and Suarez and you end up quoting the same Saint and arguing about nuances of their understandings. We stopped at a certain point and decided to wait for a Magisterial decision. There are just too many arguments and counterarguments for us to feel certain about any of them.
St. Gianna.. Archbishop Lefebvre knew that the Vatican was waiting for him to die so that the SSPX would eventually have no priests to continue the work of preserving the Traditional Catholic faith. Obedience to the Pope (the Visible Head of the Church)is secondary to obedience to Christ (the Invisible Head). He did what he had to do to save the Church from the corruption of Vatican II. There will be a time when Lefebvre will be canonized a saint—some time in the glorious future. The SSPX is the root from which many Traditional priestly societies grew. Imagine a world with only the N.O. “mass” (mess!). Please God, forbid it!!!!
Thank you, de Maria numquam satis.
I’m sure many more people than me could answer your question better and more fully. Hopefully they will post here. But when I read your post I thought of St. Athanasius who defied his own Pope for the good of souls.
From the little that I know, Archbishops Lefebvre ordained the bishops b/c he was getting old and the crisis was still alive and well. Remember, only a bishop can bestow the sacraments of Holy Orders and Confirmation. So if the Archbishop didn’t make more bishops for the SSPX then A) there could be no more new SSPX priests B) no confirmations. Check out the SSPX.org website and Angelus Press for the background story and more understanding:+)
Finally, I asked myself a question. What if the Pope (any Pope) asked me to go against the Deposit of Faith? Would I disobey? Absolutely. For my truest obedience is to Christ and the truth He gave us via the Deposit of Faith. Archbishop Lefebvre saw the sheep under his care, the preservation of the true faith, and the fight against modernism as legitimate reasons to disobey a Pope. I would hopefully have done the same. God bless~
God bless~
FYI: I use the word “defy” in terms of Athanasius and his Pope for Athanasius was exiled and supposedly excommunicated. But please do more research to confirm a true denial of the specific orders from the Pope:+) God bless~
He believed a state of emergency (or is the term necessity? ) existed. Canon law provides for that. Even if, objectively speaking, he was wrong about there being a state of emergency, the fact that he believed there was one excludes him from the penalty of excommunication.
The excommunication of him by JP2 was bogus.
I think this question is addressed here:
http://sspx.org/en/faqvideos
Yep. And since the purpose of the FSSP, the ICKSP, and every other “approved” TLM was to siphon off support from the SSPX, they would not exist today unless Archbishop Lefebvre acted. Tradition would have died with him. He’ll eventually be canonized I believe after this crisis is over.
St. Athanasius did not defy a Pope. He was Bishop of the see of Alexandria. It’s debatable whether or not at that time he would have viewed the Pope of Rome as his superior. He was exiled by emperors and one Pope of Rome, Julius, helped prove his innocence against the Arians in a council. I think the examples are apples and oranges. And the time of St. Athansius is much more complicated.
Dear St Gianna hope this helps : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8_kpLmC24M
Yes, the FSSP accepts the teachings of vatican 2. They were allowed to be formed under JP2 with the express purpose of negating the SSPX. Their original members were apparently not wise enough to see what was going on OR they were simply cowards who didnt have the guts that it took to remain with the SSPX. Nowadays, whether or not any FSSP priests actually do their jobs and speak out against vatican 2 and our v2 “popes” is a question Im not able to answer as I never attended an FSSP mass.
http://www.truetrad.com/index.php/the-dead/the-whole-picture
Dear SaintGianna here is why he did it….https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8_kpLmC24M
Dear Indignus,
I understand. No problem. 🙂 🙂
Pope Benedict XVI, writing as Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, acknowledged that “not every valid council in the history of the Church has been a fruitful one; in the last analysis many of them have been just a waste of time” and in the very next sentence he wrote that “the last word about the historical value of Vatican Council II has yet to be spoken.” Many “valid” Church Councils have been “just a waste of time”? Why, if God the Holy Spirit watches over the doings of every valid Church Council, would “many” of them turn out to be “just a waste of time”? Could it possibly be that, in connection with those “many” waste-of-time Councils, the participants failed, for some reason, to cooperate with God the Holy Spirit’s oversight? And is the jury still out, as the Holy Father (then writing as Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger) seems to have suggested, on whether the Second Vatican Council itself might be one of those waste-of-time Councils?
I know I wont !!!!!!
Eye opening link. Thanks.
I love the one quote by St John Bosco
Your welcome
That’s true – if the Novus Ordo Heirarchy had jurisdiction then anyone resisting that jurisdiction are causing a ‘rupture of ecclesiastical union’. The Novus Ordo heirarchy, however, is plainly and universally an organisation itself of rupture, of ‘heretical schism’. How long this modernist-squatter-organisation will continue to occupy the Catholic sees, who can say? The See of Peter can never become extinct. I don’t know what the teaching is on other episcopal sees.
–
It’s ironic that Voris and his patron spend so much energy pointing the schism-finger since they are defending the Concilliar ‘heretical schism’ of the Novus Ordo.
–
“Schism is regarded by the Church as a most serious fault, and is punished with the penalties inflicted on heresy, because heresy usually accompanies it. These are: excommunication incurred ipso facto…this is followed by the loss of all ordinary jurisdiction …To communicate in sacris with schismatics, e. g., to receive the sacraments at the hands of their ministers, to assist at Divine Offices in their temples, is strictly forbidden to the faithful.” The Catholic Encyclopedia
Agree. Well worthing taking a look at this list. Still don’t understand how the Redemptorists (formerly known as), became so intellectually dishonest as to agree to “communicate in sacris” with the modernists.
St. Cyprian
“Whoever is separated from the Church must be avoided and fled from; such a man is wrong-headed; he is a sinner and self-condemned. […] But if some of the leaders of schism persist in their blind and obstinate foolishness, and if advice for their own good fails to bring them back to the way of salvation, let the rest of you break away from their ensnaring falsehood. One must withdraw from those who are engaged in sin; rather, one must fly from them, lest by joining in their evil course and thus taking the wrong road, one should become involved in the same guilt oneself.
Do everything you can to break away from such men; as you value your salvation, avoid those who associate with such harmful connections. […] Their talk spreads like cancer, their conversation is as catching as an infection […] their poisonous and pernicious propaganda is more deadly than persecution was. Persecution leaves the door open to penance and satisfaction; but those who do away with penance for sin shut the door against satisfaction altogether. And so it is that, through the presumption of certain people who beguile themselves with false promises of salvation, all true hope of salvation is destroyed.
MMC, what is sad now is that the whole neo-catholic world simply ignores the Pius X folk. I think “traditional” Catholics are the ones who cannot tolerate them.
–
By the way I will no longer use the word ‘traditional’ to describe myself or anyone else. I am Catholic. Anyone who does not believe, and live, the fulness of the Catholic Faith is not Catholic PERIOD.
Peter, I’m wondering what value there is in saying over and over that the pope is not the pope. It simply stops all discussion. Now you suggest the SSPX are not in schism because the pope you say they reject is not the pope. Case closed?
–
O, well then end of discussion
The whole issue of the false separation of Church and State has been hijacked – and the whole American Catholic Hierarchy has succumbed to this error – there is NO ‘liberty’ of religion. There is only the liberty to believe and practice the One True Faith. The part of ‘liberty’ people must get into their thick heads is: we will tolerate sects and pagans in our society – but they must not infect our Catholic society.
–
Any other talk about ‘liberty’ of religion is the Devil’s Work. It’s NOT complicated.
Yes, and all sins take a back seat except loss of Faith. That’s why we could even say we wish Francis had a gal-pal and a dozen kiddies…we could understand that, and help him to repentance and penance.
–
Instead what we have is a pope who has sinned against his Faith. He sinned when he allowed himself to be influenced by Marxism and into Modernism.
–
Not guarding, and growing, one’s Faith is a SIN.
Lest we forget. There are two diametrically opposed positions here. Some believe that however bad a pope Francis is, he’s the pope. Some believe that for the past 50+ years we have not had a pope and we are waiting for the real pope to be elected.
–
Logic states one of these positions is false. From reading the combox here it’s plain that neither side is convincing the other. What is the point of continuing this argument? I’m starting to find it distracting and boring.
Sounds like those “real” catholics like yourself and those wymyn priestesses think that the Church went pair shaped around the time of Hippolytus. That is why they had to “straighten” it out during VII. Unfortunately, their efforts have not been rewarded: http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2015/07/the-numbers-leaving-church-in-germany.html
By their fruit…
The above several comments cannot be allowed to stand unchallenged. First of all they are not substantiated unless by others like rich and salvemur. Don’t tell me to get my facts from a sedevacantist site, please!
–
Second there is a complete lack of charity in some of the recent comments on the FSSP. And, I might add, a lack of fact checking, and lots of supposition. There is also a lot of reading of intent, which is really too much.
–
Is it possible in com boxes now to simply throw opinion around and call it fact? Looking back at the history of this blog I had hoped for a more reasoned approach.
Yes, this is one of the fundamental errors proffered by VII Council. Proposed by a Protestant.
Yes. And Cardinal Burke is quoted above somewhere as saying his first allegiance is to Truth, then to the Pope – I’m paraphrasing badly but that is in essence what he said. This echoes what St. Thomas More did and said. This brave saint did everything he possibly could to stay alive. He did not take his stand lightly nor did he fling himself into martyrdom, and he finally said that he loved his King and wanted to serve him, but that he had to serve God first.
–
I believe Bishop Lefebvre’s position was similar.
“Even though it has been claimed (after the fact) that Vatican II was merely a “pastoral” council that did not claim to define any new dogma, an ecumenical council cannot contradict previously defined dogma-which Vatican II did.”
.
Actually, both JXXXIII who opened the council and PVI who closed the council explicitly said that VII was only “pastoral”. That is the objective reality of the matter. So it is not an issue of “has bee claimed (after the fact) …”.
Dear Barbara:
.
Exactly correct. We are the Catholics in the house!
.
Strictly speaking, they are not. 😉
“I pray one day the necessity for the SSPX as ended because the Catholic Church, as an institution, will find Her roots and return to Her former glory . Let us pray for that day!”
.
I have a similar prayer. I pray that one day, the SSPX will be considered first among equals of all the religious orders and institutes of religious life within the Catholic Church, and Archbishop Lefebvre will be “sainted” and declared the “Great (if not the Greatest) Defender of the Faith”.
.
It’s only a question of time. 😉
Dear Peter:
.
I always enjoy reading your posts, even though I do not always agree with your conclusions.
.
Now, with respect to this notion of “partial communion”. There is no such thing as “partial communion” since we are dealing in this instance with the Magisterium, i.e. an proposition that possesses universality. In other words, this proposition is true in all times and in all places. Therefore, universality requires that it is accepted as a whole. Any rejection of a part of a proposition that possesses universality, by default equals a rejection of the whole. (A binary situation is another way to describe it.)
.
Which leads to the proper question that should be asked and that is this: who accepts the Magisterium (universal proposition) in its entirety and who does not? By observing the individual players, we can see that the SSPX accepts the universal proposition in its entirety. We can also say that “some” of the post conciliar clerics do not accept the “universality” of the Catholic Magisterium. Actually, they tell us this directly and explicitly. In the Lumen Gentium document, we read: “The Church of Christ … subsists in the Catholic Church.”, therefore the Church of Christ no long IS in the Catholic Church but only “subsists” in it. In other words, in addition to the Catholic Church, there is something else. I.e. their “magisterium” no longer meets the universality condition, i.e. is no long true everywhere and always. So here, we clearly see that the SSPX is in full communion with the Magisterium whereas a apart of the post conciliar church (that part which adopted this false proposition) is not.
.
However, there is a part of the post conciliar church that is in full communion with the Universal Magisterium. How do we know this? We know this because Our Lord promised that this “indefectible” church will be present when He comes again. Can we see this “indefectible church” in the post conciliar church? Yes and no. We definitely do not see it in Francis’ teaching office or in the Bologna school for example, but we do see individual examples of it, i.e. Card. Burke, Pell, Arch. Schneider etc. But at the end of the day, only Our Lord knows who is a part of the indefectible church, since only He knows what is in a man’s heart. Therefore, we must assume that there are others who have not lost the faith. We must assume this since Our Lord told us, as per above.
.
Now as for the SSPX, they are in full communion with the Magisterium. Their issue is one of a disciplinary nature. Since it is of a disciplinary nature, it pertains to ecclesiastical law, i.e. that part of man-made law that regulates the manner in which the Church functions on this earth. Furthermore, this is the reason why they have never “separated” themselves from the Catholic Church. For all we know, and we can be sure of this to a very high degree, the SSPX is a large part of this indefectible church. Which explains the schizophrenic approach to them by Modernist Rome. It is as if the neo-modernists are afraid of doing anything to the SSPX that would create the “break”. This could be since they know that it could be the SSPX where the entire indefectible church subsists.
.
Anyways, this is how I understand it.
Dear Jacobi:
.
You write: “A new canonical status such as the Ordinariate have would solve the problem and bring this soundly Catholic body back in to full union with the currently rapidly diminishing Church.”
.
For this to happen, the post conciliar church WILL have to null and void the “infallibility” of the “new springtime of the spirit of VII”. In order for this to happen, it will have to reach its “Gorbachev moment”, and I wonder what the catalyst for this kind of an event could possibly be. I think the Financials that the Vatican released recently can give us a good indication.
Dear S. Armaticus,
Thanks for a very interesting comment. Please note that the “partial communion” bit has nothing to do with me at all. It was a remark regarding the link I followed from Alphonsus Jnr. above. Partial communion is like being partially pregnant – not possible. I would say that every participant on this site, every traditionalist, is at heart a good, sincere Catholic to be proud of. For me the question is very simple. A heretic is not a member of the Church. That is Catholic doctrine in concrete. The conciliar popes are all demonstrable, pertinacious heretics. Nobody here will deny that. Vatican II promulgated heresies. Nobody here will deny that either. That Vatican II was promulgated as an infallible council, was clearly stated by Montini himself. ( But some people still refuse to admit that). Therefore the conciliar popes are false popes and VII was a false council and the NO is a false church. I quoted above several Saints, Fathers, a Doctor and theologians who admonish us severely to have nothing to do with heretics. Therefore, for me, anything to do with the NO is a no, no.
I love the SSPX! They could be a tremendous help to us, if only they would BREAK with the NO and drop the una cum mass!!! The theology of their position in colluding with heretics and implicitly asserting that a true hierarchy can promulgate error is just not Catholic. There is no getting around it. Recognizing a heretic as Pope formaliter is just not possible. Please God in October Bergoglio will do something which will force them into breaking and I will drive to their Mass with joy in my heart thanking God!
I had a young SSPX family with even more kids than I had, coming to buy milk from my dairy every Sunday afternoon. A brother who was a SSPX priest came to visit them from America. How wonderful it was to shake the hand of a man who looked and conducted himself like a real priest! It brought back such memories of my youth, I felt quite emotional. I can’t wait for the day they shake the dust of the NO off their shoes.
Your point about their communion being of a disciplinary nature does not really hold water. I agree disciple is subject to canon law and therefore men. Problem is an heretical pope, whilst maintaining legal designation until formal deposition, has no jurisdiction, therefore there is no valid canonical force binding them to union. In fact all those Saints I quoted and many more, tell them to get away from the heretics and to let them be anathema. Of course the NO hates the SSPX. The former are trying to destroy Catholicism, while the latter crave union with Tradition, as do all Catholics.
Of course, as you say, “subsists” is utterly heretical. The Church of Christ IS the Catholic Church – Extra ecclesiam nulla salus est, is Catholic dogma. That single heresy alone is sufficient to declare VII a false council and the pope by whose authority the council was promulgated, a false pope.
From what I have read, the Papacy was viewed as the superior by all involved with the Arian crisis. Here is a good paper on it: http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/num51.htm
God bless~
I have been unable to find a definition of “facilities” perhaps you can help?
The so-called “Spirit of Vatican II” interpretation is heresy.
A new Council will be necessary to sort out the post-Vatican II shambles in the Church.
The coming session of the Synod on the Family will probably trigger a very wide and open schism in the Church on the question of adultery, homosexual practise, reception of Holy Communion, and therefore the Real Presence.
If this is not a catalyst for a Council to sort out the mess then Heavens save us.
Amen. I’ve been reading (over way too long a time) Bishop de Mallerais’s biography of Archbishop Lefebvre and it is horrifying how few Fathers of the Council were prepared to stand up with the Archbishop against the constant attacks on the Faith, prepared by heretical theologians (with Protestant input) for bishops who simply accepted the heterodox text and submitted it. They were furious when the Archbishop or others demanded precision and clarity on issues – they wanted that ambiguity so that they could later use it to push through their heresies worldwide.
It’s things like the false ecumenism evidenced in this video, that many in the hierarchy evidently feel is the “direction” God wants the Church to take today following the documents of VII, which keep the problems under discussion here, growing.
We don’t speak the language, but the participation in circling these objects with those of another religion, sure seems like what Rorate caeli claims it to be.
(Can anyone translate some of the speakers words?)
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2015/07/cardinal-takes-part-in-pagan-worship-in.html
Our Lady of La Salette….“Lucifer, with a great number of demons will be unchained from Hell. By degrees they shall abolish the Faith, even among persons consecrated to God.”
I reckon reason and faith, hand in hand, demand that one party must be convinced since people who claim to belong to Truth should not be ‘agreeing to disagree’, especially on so necessary an ‘issue’. ‘Where’ the visible One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church IS, is crucial. The visible One, Holy, Catholic and Apostlic Church is not the Anglican Church. It is not the conglomeration of the Eastern Orthodox Churches (it is not the ‘Old Catholic’ Church that denies the dogma of infallibility, it is not any institution that defects from the Faith. The ‘new church’ of Vatican II and its heirarchy universally impose error – this is defection. The Church cannot ever never ever universally teach error.
–
What the concilliar church is, is an organistation that takes the “the new man, who according to God is created in justice and holiness of truth”, and sacrifices him to the error of the patched together Frankenstein’s creature of the old man. Which is why ‘Frankenchurch’, is so apt.
–
Is it not important to know, without a doubt, where the Blood of Christ, the Blood of Reconciliation that ‘speaks to heaven’ appeasing the demands of Justice and procuring the Mercy of God for us, is truly raised? It is not raised in communion with error.
PS. In a talk by Bp Sanborn he observed that many people deny the defection of the Novus Ordo, believing it is “the same religion”, while recognising that it “has been made imperfect and somewhat unacceptable, and they think that we have to find our way in this quagmire of the new religion”. I think this reflects most of the folks who visit Louie’s site. This position leaves folks living and worshipping in the ‘imperfect, unacceptable quagmire of the new religion…’ Why? Perhaps they think an administrative structure (the only continuity between the Catholic Episcopacy and the Novus Ordo ‘episcopacy’) is more important than the True Faith and Holy worship.
Dear Peter:
.
The question then becomes: Who has the right to declare a pope heretical in order to remove him? I can’t accept that the laity can do this. This is just not how monarchies work.
.
Furthermore, we know that the Catholic Church has had 37/ 44 false popes in the past/present. Don’t understand why the situation today should be any different.
Faculties.
Dear Barbara,
If we keep seeking – we will find; If we keep knocking – the door will be opened; If we keep asking – we will be answered.
Dear S. Armaticus,
Your observation regarding monarchies is very interesting and very apt, because Christ’s Kingdom is a monarchy and not a democracy and the Pope is a sovereign monarch on Earth.
In a nutshell, it works like this:
The most important thing is that there are two aspects in heresy – the one spiritual and the other temporal. You have to keep reminding yourself of this.
The spiritual side is the SIN of heresy against the Divine law. Heresy is a sin because it contradicts the teaching of Our Lord in the depoit of faith.
The temporal side is the CRIME of heresy against man made canon law, which the Church promulgates and administers in terms of its authority from Christ.
The SIN of heresy cuts one off from the Church and so one automatically loses membership of the Church. This applies to any Catholic – from the Pope to the most humble layman. Somebody who is no longer a member of the Church cannot, at the same time, be Head of the Church – that is common sense. A Pope who becomes a heretic therefore AUTOMATICALLY, by himself, loses his power and authority as Pope. That is he loses his jurisdiction as Pope. He loses the “form” of the Office of Pope and this is expressed by saying he is no longer “Pope formaliter”.
However, he was properly and LEGALLY elected as Pope (i.e. “designated”as Pope), by the proper Church authorities, i.e. the College of Cardinals. So, even though he lost the power of his Office, his jurisdiction, the instant he sinned by commiting heresy, he remains LEGALLY in the Chair of St. Peter and he can only be LEGALLY removed by those who elected (designated) him in the first place – the College of Cardinals. Until that happens, he remains legally the Pope, i.e. a Pope “materialiter”, i.e. a Pope without any power, authority, or jurisdiction to teach anything, or discipline anybody. He is just a cardboard Pope, who is not even a member of the Church, sitting in St. Peter’s Chair. That is the position all the conciliar popes have been in. Of course, because the first two – Roncalli and Montini – had no authority, or jurisdiction at all, Vatican II was a false and meaningless council, because the force of a council is by authority of the convening Pope. Vatican II is not worth the paper it is written on.
So, to sum up: We have a legally designated material Pope Francis sitting in St. Peter’s Chair, but he is not a member of the Church and he does not have the power, authority, or jurisdiction of a real Pope at all, because he is a pertinacious (stubborn) heretic.
Finally, you are correct, the laity cannot depose him, that can only be done by death, resignation, or the College of Cardinals.
Please read the following article – it explains it all much better than I can. http://www.mostholytrinityseminary.org/Explanation%20of%20the%20Thesis.pdf
Hello
I have quite a lot of time for the SSPX and they certainly can’t be considered schismatic in any formal sense.
However, what does bother me is when they don’t seem to support activity to get the traditional Mass operating within the formal diocesan life and indeed may be a factor that actually hinders it.
For example, in the last few years we had a newly installed Bishop who supported us in having one of his Diocesan priests offer Mass every Sunday morning for us in the principal city of the diocese. But we can only muster 30-40 people (including children) whereas the SSPX can always count on double that for their Mass held less than 10 miles away, but in a more awkward location. So why the lack of support for the Mass that clearly has complete obedience for the Bishop of the actual diocese? This isn’t an issue of whether we accept everything in Vatican II or not – its about whether we go to a Traditional Mass as part of the actual diocese or opt to go to a Mass in conflict with the diocese. As a result, the Bishop, who has a shortage of priests, may question whether his priest’s time is better spent elsewhere seeing as there is so little interest in the Traditional Mass when he has provided it. Doesn’t this suggest something of a schismatic spirit?
Dear Ambrose and all,
Archbishop Lefebvre gave serious reasons for declaring a state of emergency and consecrating four bishops in what he considered an act of necessary disobedience, that has led to the current situations and discussions. Included in those were proven claims of unkept promises, during years of deliberate stalling regarding Papal assurances that a Bishop would indeed be provided to the Society; leaving Apb. Lefebvre fearing they were simply waiting for him to die, instead.
– The issue of TRUST is central, as we have for 55 years experienced the actions of the modernists Pius X warned had already begun attacking the Church from within at it roots by various means, including twisting words into lies.
__
It seems worse than ever right now. For example: “mahoundsparadise blog reports:
“Chicago Archbishop Blase Cupich just gave an interview with.. “LifeZette” (Laura Ingrahams new website) in which he stated regarding Traditional Catholics: “People come at their own expression of faith in different ways, and I’m respectful of that. I’ve never tried to interfere in how people relate to God. The church does allow for a wide expression of the faith. People who are more “traditional,” as you call them, celebrate the liturgy much differently than, say, in Africa. We should be respectful of people’s own religious piety if it is life-giving for them.”
====
and YET
“in a discussion about Cupich a few months ago, someone wrote, In his first Mass as our new Pastor in Omaha, Father Cupich publicly chastised our teenage daughter for genuflecting, as was her practice, along with many others in our parish, before receiving the Blessed Sacrament. He said loudly so that all in the communion line could hear: “don’t do that in my church again”.
AND
on March 27, 2002 The Rapid City Journal headlined: “Bishop bans Latin services” Members of the Latin Mass community, which has met in Rapid City for the past 12 years at Immaculate Conception Church on Fifth Street,say Bishop Blase Cupich has barred them from celebrating Good Friday and Easter vigil services at the church in an attempt to mainstream them into the English-language Mass. “We’ve been prohibited by the bishop from celebrating the Easter Triduum liturgies and locked out of our church from noon on Holy Thursday until 8 a.m. on Easter morning.” (instead they gathered at 3 p.m. for Good Friday services on the sidewalk in front of the church. The reporter wrote: “Cupich sees his decision to not allow Good Friday Latin services at ICC as an invitation to unity, not a denial.” “We’re just looking for an opportunity on an annual basis for us to all worship together, for one moment of unity as a Catholic church,” Cupich said. “I’m looking for one time each year to do that, and it seems the day the Lord died for us all would be a good day to do it. That’s all that this is about.”
====
So do we have reason to believe Blaise Cupich when he says: “I’ve never tried to interfere in how people relate to God…”?
http://mahoundsparadise.blogspot.com/2015/07/frodo-tells-fib.html
Indignus,
What he did to your daughter and locking your church on Good Friday is disgusting beyond speech!!! I don’t know how you stand for it. If this doesn’t make you see how false, heretical and evil they are, nothing will. Thank Goodness your daughter had you for parents.
Dear Peter,
Are you perhaps speed reading too fast? You seem to have missed a few pertinent points. Those incidents were citations from the named blog, illustrating our point that modernist infiltration of the Church over the past 55 years, created the high levels of distrust existing at the time of Archbishop Lefebvre’s decisions of conscience.
-Why are you implying we don’t yet “see” the very point we were making? It doesn’t apply to every priest in the Church or to the N.O itself, as you often claim, however it does apply to people who behave as Cupich has here. Are you insisting everyone generalize?
If so, we think that is dangerous behavior which leads to false judgments which can easily be sinful when the innocent are lumped together with the guilty.
Yip! I did misread it – been a long day.
P. S. Sorry! 🙂 🙂
No problem. Get some rest. :-0 🙂
Dear de Maria…I note your observation ” But you, an honest person, ask questions. Your questions have answers & I believe you truly seek those answers”
I followed your links and downloaded some of the podcasts from the Mostholytrinityseminary, and found the first three very motivational , Christocentric and inspiring…then I was listening to the Podcast entitled The Good Shepherd, to hear Quote:Francis is the AntiChrist:End Quote
Question: Do you agree with this?
Do the learned contributors to this comment box agree with this??
Dear Barbara,
LOL. Sorry I’m a party pooper, but it’s not my fault the pope decided to become a heretic and so lost his job! 🙂
Seriously though, I said one can’t be in schism if the man whom you disobey is not a true Pope. That is true in fact, but not necessarily morally true. There is another side to it. The Bible says God judges by intent. Now if an unconsecrated host fell to the ground and a man who hated God came along, not knowing the host to be unconsecrated, but thinking that it was a consecrated host and ground it into the dirt under his shoe, then he would be guilty of grievous sacrilege because of his intent. Similarly, the SSPX are in fact in schism from a pope who has no jurisdiction – the host is not consecrated, but they believe him to be a true Pope – they think the host is consecrated, and they selectively disobey him who they believe to be Pope – they grind the host into the dust and commit schism by intent. There must be grievous matter, full knowledge and consent before a mortal sin is committed. One cannot sin if in a state of invincible ignorance of the unlawfulness of the act. Well, the SSPX is not ignorant of Catholic doctrine. They know 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 …” (Pastor Aeternus.) They recognize Francis as the lawful, valid Pope with full jurisdiction, yet they will not be 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, to Francis, or his conciliar predecessors. Well, isn’t that the definition of schism – to refuse submission to the Supreme Pontiff ? Partial submission is like partial pregnancy! Does that not make them morally guilty of schism? If not, please explain to me how it does not. Since when do Catholics sift the magisterium of a true Pope? To do so is heresy in itself. Sorry if I’m boring like a stuck record, but aren’t these things very important? I think it was you who said there can’t be two truths. If I’m wrong please explain to me, in detail, as I try to do for you, where and how I am wrong.
EM. I reckon you are reading too much into the supposed quote (why didn’t you leave a link?). I’ve listened to these programmes for a while. It is true that Bergoglio is a ‘type’ of the antichrist (there have been numerous), I have never heard anyone at MHT say, oh, by the way, Bergoglio is THE man of iniquity. You have misunderstood the quote or you playing the card out if context maybe.
–
PS. Would be really interested to know who you consider ‘learned’ on these comment boxes.
PPS. The sermon EM refers to:
–
http://mhtseminary.libsyn.com/sermon-the-good-shepherd-by-fr-fliess
–
Well worth listening too (especially for those who have confusion about obedience to wolves).
–
To clarify, Fr Fliess teaches on who and what a True Shepherd is and in comparison says – Quote, “For Francis is nothing but an anti-Christ, a false shepherd, or rather a wolf in shepherd’s clothing…” Unquote.
–
A ‘wolf in shepherd’s clothing’ is very much a type of Antichrist.
Hello Indignus
Thanks for the reply, but I am not sure that it helps.
Firstly, I am not in Bishop Cupich’s diocese and our circumstances are quite different. Our Bishop, while not being what we might call a “Traditionalist” is still quite OK with allowing a Traditional Mass. We wrote to him asking for one and he now allows us to have the Mass every Sunday morning and Holy day (more if we can convince a Priest to offer more). He has even allowed us to use one of the most beautiful churches in the city. He has done this despite the fact that there are certainly forces locally that are far less friendly to us (which is why I don’t really want to name the diocese).
My point is that the SSPX congregation is not very supportive in helping this traditional Mass take hold despite the fact that there is this clear opening within the diocese. It is like they really are a separated and parallel community – hence my question about a schismatic spirit. By pointing to grievances in another diocese and with another Bishop, I can’t see how this helps justify this attitude. It just reinforces the idea of estrangement.
I have met people who attend the SSPX and also attend diocesan Traditional Masses. To me this is quite correct, they are supporting the regrowth of tradition within the church as a whole. But unfortunately, I haven’t noticed this happening much. And I have to say, from the point of view of our Bishop, he may well be concluding that he is wasting his time giving us so much when his resources are already stretched thin. In this sense, it could be argued that the SSPX is being counterproductive in our diocese.
Dear Ambrose,
You are correct in noting that our above response does not “help” in terms of offering you any solution to the dilemma you (and may others) face. It was only intended to help by identifying the underlying problem.
__
We noticed years ago that the TLM authorized in our diocese is attended by folks who travel from all over–some more than two hours away, because they want whatever they can get of the Traditional Church in their lives, and there are some good priests offering it, who give excellent homilies and are not afraid to denounce what is wrong even with the Vatican. The Mass is central and vital, but there’s a lot more to it than that. For 2,000 years The Church offered souls guidance to heaven in communities that -although imperfect because of human error–were the closest we can get on earth to perfection. We’re talking about daily and weekly mingling with like-minded Catholics; homilies at Mass that lead to greater Faith and understanding, not modernist questioning of the Faith; safety when your children enter a Confessional-for the same reasons; guidance when people go to see the priest–in short, the Teaching and Governing office of the Church, carried out as it should be, and schools that don’t make home-schooling a necessity.
That is why the TRUST factor being so broken today, as we illustrated regarding Cupich is so important. You don’t have to live in his diocese to find modernist priests and bishops and lay people in positions of authority all around you today.
__
Consequently, you can offer the TLM to people who have turned to the SSPX, but cannot offer them all the other things they are receiving from their SSPX community or assure them those things will also not be jeopardized if they come, bring their children and get involved, –dedicating their time to that location instead. We have no SSPX or FSSP in our area, so we are only know about this from what we’ve read and experienced with the post conciliar Church ourselves and are “guessing” that these SSPX communities are thriving because these families have found an oasis in this desert where they feel they can entrust their children to the care of the priests-on the whole, without the Faith being threatened.
The “help” you seek will come when Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart Triumphs, as we are assured it will. But it will take something major to rid the post-conciliar Church of modernism. Offering the TLM in a modernist setting is like putting a Band-Aid on a bleeding artery. That’s likely why the turnout is so low.
In the early 1800’s Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich had a vision of the future and saw Our Lady appear in the Church of Mary Major in Rome. She was told that the coming tribulation would be very great, was very grieved by this and motivated to pray and sacrifice greatly; and asked that people pray for the darkness to leave Rome. Seeing the people praying there at the time, she said:
“These were all good and devout people, and they did not know where help and guidance should be sought. There were no traitors and no enemies among them, yet they were afraid of one another. One can judge thereby what the situation was like.”
On the topic of general distrust, Gloria tv. reports today:
“In one of the oldest dioceses of the U.S. the wind of renewal is blowing. The local minor seminary is now requiring three years of Latin. The major seminary hired a new rector a few years ago. He wants that the seminarians learn to say Mass in the Old Rite. A priest who celebrates the Old Rite in the city where the major seminary is located, says that on free days seminarians do attend his Mass. Gloria.tv asks why it is better to mention the name of the archdiocese, although Gloria.tv knows it.
Louie,
Please write a series of articles explaining the development of the SSPX. I am a young trad, born in 1984, and I find it alarming how many trads my age who are not part of the SSPX are very ignorant of and mostly ungrateful towards the SSPX. Recently, a trad in his late 30s (and a physician no less, so not dumb) launched into a tirade about the SSPX. He attends the same FSSP parish I do. I pointed out two simple things to him: 1) there would be no TLM if it were not for the SSPX and 2) the excommunications of the SSPX bishops were lifted, undercutting the original impetus for the formation of the FSSP…incredibly he didn’t seem to know either of these two points.
I don’t understand why some “indult” trads, for lack of a better phrase, seem to consider themselves higher lifeforms vs. the SSPX. I’ve noticed this, and just general ignorance, to an alarming degree.
Hello Indignus
Thanks for the clarification.
Then from what you describe, I really am not far wrong in detecting a kind of schismatic spirit in operation. You are describing a situation where there is an unwillingness to engage with the wider church even when an opening to tradition does actually occur.
In fact, beyond that, the lack of trust you describe also indicates that the worst is assumed of Catholic communities and priests who are trying to re-establish tradition within the diocese. I find that this sits uneasily with obligations that Catholics have to their local Bishop and indeed the wider Catholic community.
I do not deny that the SSPX offers all the things you say it offers – orthodox sermons, good confessions, like minded people etc. But actually all of this is still possible to keep hold of while maintaining links to and helping to build tradition within the diocese itself. What you describe really is a parallel and separated community and this is what saddens me about the situation in our parish. It seems that a large element of the SSPX community really is too comfortable in their isolation. In that sense it is worse than giving up on the church, it is actually a case of being content in separation from it.
Dear Ambrose, The SSPX is an integral part of the One a Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. It is the heretics and apostates from pope, bishops, to lay people that have separated themselves from the Church,G and falsely describe the SSPX as separated for upholding the unchangeable a Deposit of Faith as entrusted to the Apostles for preservation and passing on intact.
It is the lay people you are criticising for doing the best to preserve the Faith, particularly to safeguard the souls of their children. One doesn’t unnecessarily risk souls. A diocese that merely “permits” the a Traditional Mass to be offered in a particular church can take away just as easily that which they purport to “give”. Just look at the egregious scandal of the diocese concerning the diocese of a Blackfen where the Faithful had a wholly traditional liturgy and doctrine for years.
Dear Poapratensis, I recommend you advise they read Archbishop Lefebvre’s “Letter to Confused Catholics”, and others of his books that explains the unchanging Faith, and what must be done to remain faithful thereto. Also, Bishop de Mallerais’s biography, which explains the whole history from the Archbishop’s fight against the internal enemies of God and the a Church, long before the SSPX was canonically erected. It wasn’t he nor the SSPX that changed but the authorities, bishops, rpriests, religious who became apostates and heretics taking control of the institutional Church. In the Great Apostasy, it is those who remain steadfast whom are maliciously accused of being in schism by the temporal authorities of the institutional Church.
Dear Ambrose,
We agree that this situation has created a kind of parallel Church or Churches if you consider all the different offshoots of it. We’ve talked about what we would do right now if we still had young children to raise and there were an SSPX in our area, and have to admit it would be very hard to choose to continue to support the efforts of our local Bishop as you describe, if it meant risking the souls of our children as much as it does pretty-much everywhere these days. The primary obligation of parents is to raise their children in the Faith with the object of getting them to heaven. That can be very easily sabotaged by even one modernist in authority. There are loads of them around.
What you’re suggesting here -likely without realizing it–is that parents place their obligation to the local Bishop above that responsibility. Having seen the destruction, we wouldn’t even be able to recommend that to other parents. And we wonder would you also then have them use the local Catholic educational systems rather than home-schooling? We wouldn’t dare, after what we experienced ourselves. We realize this distrust sabotages any sincere efforts to fix the broken system. But what it boils down to is –which children are you willing to sacrifice to test it out, while we have Pope who is actively and continually working AGAINST such a restoration?
He is one who chose and appointed Cupich, by the way.
__
We still work in our diocese in several parishes-sometimes attending two Masses on Sundays (both TLM and N.O.) to foster exactly what you hope to accomplish, so we understand your situation. But we can do that without fear of harming children or being influenced ourselves by modernist priests. We then talk to pastors and parishioners about problems in the Church, and suggest ways to help restore the disciplines. Staying active in these parishes gives us the opportunity to be known and to observe first-hand, so we’re not considered “traditional outsiders” who are exaggerating or assuming things and complaining in general about non-existing problems.
–We’ve been doing this for about 40 years, and have seen some good results, but with the priest shortage, transfers, and more appointments of lay people in positions of authority, it is a constantly changing scene that requires GOOD bishops–of which we believe there is a great shortage right now. The Synod voting reflects that.
We’ll see more of it this October.
Our only solution is to keep working and praying and educating ourselves and others in the Faith, hoping this chastisement of bad pastors will be ended soon by Divine intervention and through the intercession of Our Blessed Mother. We trust God and know His plans involve saving the most souls possible, and that He will not abandon His Church or let the gates of Hell prevail.
But asking parents to experiment with their families in order try to restore things, is too much to ask right now, in our opinion.
Dear poapratensis,
Can’t speak for the FSSP people you know, but being “indult” trads because that is our available source of the TLM, we CAN suggest a reason it is seen as being the superior choice. Despite the lifting of the excommunications, those in Rome have emphasized that the priests of the SSPX have no jurisdiction. Despite their supplying it in special cases over the years, and also despite the “supplied jurisdiction” assurances of members of the SSPX, there is a general fear of going against God’s will among people of good Faith, and of not receiving the Graces of the Sacraments–despite the reassurances.
If there were not so many contradictory claims being made by people in authority–such concerns may have been overcome by now.
Cardinal Muller’s controversial statements come to mind from Dec. 2013 when he said in an interview regarding the SSPX:
“The canonical excommunication due to the illicit [episcopal] ordination was lifted from the bishops, but the sacramental one remains, de facto, for the schism; because they have removed themselves away from communion with the Church. That being said, we do not close the door, ever, and we invite them to reconcile. But they also must change their approach and accept the conditions of the Catholic Church, and the Supreme Pontiff as the ultimate criterion of membership.”
=======
That matter took up much Catholic blog space, and was well-explained, but still the doubts nag away at people who hear about such things, without comprehending all. That seems reasonable doesn’t it?
Dear Salvemur,
The “learned” commentators would be those who know more than me….which boils down to everyone…
In my ignorance, I take comfort from Chesterton…
“Indeed the Book of Job avowedly only answers mystery with mystery. Job is comforted with riddles; but he is comforted. Herein is indeed a type, in the sense of a prophecy, of things speaking with authority. For when he who doubts can only say, ‘I do not understand,’ it is true that he who knows can only reply or repeat ‘You do not understand.’ And under that rebuke there is always a sudden hope in the heart; and the sense of something that would be worth understanding.”
― G.K. Chesterton
Hey Louie, think maybe you’re giving some of these everybody’s-goin-to heaven-people too much publicity?
Say goodbye to Father Barron, and hello to LA’s newest auxiliary Bishop.
;-( ;-( EF says it was announced at noon today.
(Eponymous flower’s editor wants to know what Los Angeles did to deserve this).
http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2015/07/another-poor-appointment-for-usa-media.html
=======
Ironic that attention was just called this week to the overdue Cascadia subduction earthquake and tsunami?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTx-3Sxc1k4
Charles Courtney Murray – Louie gives a great talk on how this American “Jesuit” practically wrote the document on Religious Liberty at VII.
No Peter. When the truth is staring you in the face it’s foolish to keep on seeking.
Yes and that would be a legitimate reason for calling a council – to identify and remove errors in Vatican II.
Because one Mass a week, with nothing else, is not enough. Full parish life, with all the sacraments in Tradition is the only way to bring back the full Catholic life we once had.
Also Off-topic but interesting. We’re not the only ones— Lombardi says the Pope makes him feel “confused”.
and nobody but Francis knows his full daily schedules. Lombardi has to call around to find out what he’s doing, and sometimes finds out after a meeting is over.
http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otn.cfm?ID=1101
Yes, sure. I’m referring to the Protestant consultors who had made it clear to the liberal Secretariat of Christian Unity prior to the Council that for the false purposes of ecumenism, a false declaration on “Religious Liberty” needed to be expounded. At the outset, Cardinal Ottaviani’s schema on the proper relations between the Church and the state was thrown out and Agustin Cardinal Bea’s false one on “religious liberty” adopted, though with some amendments that tried to mitigate the harm.
What I find interesting about your comment is you speak of people that are willing to give manifest heretics a pass on “going against God’s will” in matters of Dogma in other words they can be heretics and yet have jurisdiction. Yet the SSPX Priests who are not heretics…….well they may not have jurisdiction because…… and well the heretics say so…..ah well I am going to feel safe with the FSSP and the diocesan Latin Mass. This is not a Catholic way of thinking.
Here is the problem with all this. 1)These judgments are based on feelings,appearances,cowardice and convenience. The reality of the matter is Vatican II is a new religion. The FSSP has compromised doctrine and failed to clearly condemn errors this is leading countless Catholics away from the truth not towards it. They use the phrase extraordinary and ordinary when speaking about the new mass and the true mass. The use phrase extraordinary and ordinary implies an equality. Let me speak clearly. GET AWAY FROM THE FSSP I spent 7 years with them and they are more dangerous than sedevacantists. This is what the SSPX and the Resistance stands for: http://archives.sspx.org/archbishop_lefebvre/1974_declaration_of_archbishop_lefebvre.htm The FSSP betrayed Tradition in 1988.
Why are you attending a FSSP church? The Faith and your faith are in serious danger there. We can not attend masses where the Priest or the community are in union with new church. Vatican II is a new religion. The new mass is an expression of that religion the FSSP does not condemn the new mass.
The use phrase extraordinary and ordinary implies an equality in the two masses. Let me speak clearly. GET AWAY FROM THE FSSP I spent 7 years with them and they are more dangerous than sedevacantists and the new mass itself. They are a hybrid of the new religion and the old religion. This is what the SSPX and the Resistance stands for: http://archives.sspx.org/archbishop_lefebvre/1974_declaration_of_archbishop_lefebvre.htm The FSSP betrayed Tradition in 1988. The crisis in the Church is a crisis of doctrine. The SSPX was and is right. Put you but where you mind is and stick with the SSPX.
Why are you attending an FSSP parish? The FSSP is part of the novus ordo. The Faith and your faith are in danger there. We can not attend masses with Priests or orders that are in union with new church. Vatican II is a new religion. The new mass is a expression of that religion. The FSSP does not reject the New mass they do not condemn it. Seriously stay away from the FSSP is you want to say your soul. The crisis in the Church is one of doctrine and the FSSP betrayed tradition in 1988 and are in a compromised place today. Read here the words of Archbishop Lefebvre in 1974 this is where the SSPX stands:
We hold fast, with all our heart and with all our soul, to Catholic Rome, Guardian of the Catholic faith and of the traditions necessary to preserve this faith, to Eternal Rome, Mistress of wisdom and truth.
We refuse, on the other hand, and have always refused to follow the Rome of neo-Modernist and neo-Protestant tendencies which were clearly evident in the Second Vatican Council and, after the Council, in all the reforms which issued from it.
All these reforms, indeed, have contributed and are still contributing to the destruction of the Church, to the ruin of the priesthood, to the abolition of the Sacrifice of the Mass and of the sacraments, to the disappearance of religious life, to a naturalist and Teilhardian teaching in universities, seminaries and catechectics; a teaching derived from Liberalism and Protestantism, many times condemned by the solemn Magisterium of the Church.
No authority, not even the highest in the hierarchy, can force us to abandon or diminish our Catholic faith, so clearly expressed and professed by the Church’s Magisterium for nineteen centuries.
“But though we,” says St. Paul, “or an angel from heaven preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema” (Gal. 1:8).
Is it not this that the Holy Father is repeating to us today? And if we can discern a certain contradiction in his words and deeds, as well as in those of the dicasteries, well we choose what was always taught and we turn a deaf ear to the novelties destroying the Church.
It is impossible to modify profoundly the lex orandi without modifying the lex credendi. To the Novus Ordo Missae correspond a new catechism, a new priesthood, new seminaries, a charismatic Pentecostal Church – all things opposed to orthodoxy and the perennial teaching of the Church.
This Reformation, born of Liberalism and Modernism, is poisoned through and through; it derives from heresy and ends in heresy, even if all its acts are not formally heretical. It is therefore impossible for any conscientious and faithful Catholic to espouse this Reformation or to submit to it in any way whatsoever.
The only attitude of faithfulness to the Church and Catholic doctrine, in view of our salvation, is a categorical refusal to accept this Reformation.
That is why, without any spirit of rebellion, bitterness or resentment, we pursue our work of forming priests, with the timeless Magisterium as our guide. We are persuaded that we can render no greater service to the Holy Catholic Church, to the Sovereign Pontiff and to posterity.
That is why we hold fast to all that has been believed and practiced in the faith, morals, liturgy, teaching of the catechism, formation of the priest and institution of the Church, by the Church of all time; to all these things as codified in those books which saw day before the Modernist influence of the Council. This we shall do until such time that the true light of Tradition dissipates the darkness obscuring the sky of Eternal Rome.
By doing this, with the grace of God and the help of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and that of St. Joseph and St. Pius X, we are assured of remaining faithful to the Roman Catholic Church and to all the successors of Peter, and of being the fideles dispensatores mysteriorum Domini Nostri Jesu Christi in Spiritu Sancto. Amen.
Dear piokolby,
We can’t tell from your above reply whether or not you misunderstood us. To clarify, we were merely offering reasons people might shy away from involving themselves with the SSPX such as contradictory statements made by Church authorities. We have no access to FSSP or SSPX, and attend both Diocesan indult TLM’s when available, and N.O Masses. Where and when we see or hear error or abuses, we have tried to bring about corrections over the years, as part of our fulfillment of Baptismal and Confirmation promises.
Telling people to “get away from” Mass attendance is something we disagree with, since they are fulfilling their obligations, hearing the word of God, and receiving Our Lord in the Eucharist.
EM. Interesting quote. In that light there are things that remain a mystery to us now. Like how we could ever have a successor of Peter again when the administrative structure that once housed the Catholic Sees, have been usurped by her enemies. That goes beyond our understanding. But what we do understand is that a heretic cannot be Peter’s Successor and that a ‘bastardized’ Rite cannot be the worship of Holy Mother Church. Knowing the latter, we have to agree to accept the mystery of the former with faith, and trust that God keeps His promises.
–
Here’s a quote from a learned person:
“[their (R&R)] “pope’s” defections from the Faith, which were identical to the ones for which they had criticized Karol Wojtyla/ John Paul II with relentless fury, were indefensible. Jorge Mario Bergoglio is only a cruder, more vulgar, profane and visceral popularizer of the conciliar revolution than the supposedly “erudite” Hegelian, Joseph Ratzinger/ Benedict XVI. Most, although not all, of the differences between the two are matters of style and emphasis, not substance, as each man is but a total creature of the conciliar revolution. Ratzinger/ Benedict was one of its progenitors. Bergoglio is its child and current propagator. Consider the fact that Ratzinger/ Benedict committed Mortal Sins against the First Commandment every time he put into question or has denied a dogma of the Faith or praised a false religion or entered into a temple of false worship. He did so every time he has staged the Protestant and JudeoMasonic Novus Ordo liturgical service. Anyone who denies that entering into and treating with respect places of false worship without seeking the unconditional conversion of those who adhere to the devils worshiped therein is a Mortal Sin, is intellectually dishonest or bereft of the sensus Catholicus (thereby lacking any knowledge of the necessity of defending the honor and glory and majesty of the Most Blessed Trinity) or is a coward who is afraid to speak to the truth of the Faith for one reason or another. God will not be mocked. The God of Revelation does not want members of the Catholic Church, no less those who believe themselves to be bishops and priests, to give even the slightest degree of credibility to any false religion. The God of Revelation, which consists of Sacred Scripture and Sacred (Apostolic) Tradition, hates each and every false religion. He has no respect for false religions, which have the power to save no one and are instruments of disorder in souls and thus of disorder and chaos within nations. Those who show respect for false religions by esteeming their symbols and praising their nonexistent “ability” to contribute to the “betterment” of nations and the world are themselves enemies of God as they find themselves condemned by these very words of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ Himself: “But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea. Woe to the world because of scandals. For it must needs be that scandals come: but nevertheless woe to that man by whom the scandal cometh. And if thy hand, or thy foot scandalize thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee. It is better for thee to go into life maimed or lame, than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into everlasting fire. And if thy eye scandalize thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee. It is better for thee having one eye to enter into life, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire. See that you despise not one of these little ones: for I say to you, that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father who is in heaven. (Matthew 18: 6-10.)” Yet it is to most Catholics that those of us who reject the legitimacy of these spiritual robber barons are considered to be a source of scandal! Amazing irrationality and illogic.” Thomas Droleskey,, “No Space Between Ratzinger and Bergoglio”, http://www.amazon.com/No-Space-Between-Ratzinger-Bergoglio-ebook/dp/B00UKJKSG2/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1437528531&sr=1-1&keywords=droleskey
Hey Poikolby,
“But though we,” says St. Paul, “or an angel from heaven preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema” (Gal. 1:8). Is it not this that the Holy Father is repeating to us today?”
It surely is not! The “Holy Father” is coming up with a new heresy almost on a daily basis. Why do you so desperately cling to him, instead of listening to St. Paul?
–
” We refuse, on the other hand, and have always refused to follow the Rome of neo-Modernist and neo-Protestant tendencies which were clearly evident in the Second Vatican Council and, after the Council, in all the reforms which issued from it.”
But the authority of the Council derives from that of the Holy Father. Right?
So those neo-Modernist and neo-Protestant tendencies evident in VII are Magisterial. Right?
–
“To the Novus Ordo Missae correspond a new catechism, a new priesthood, new seminaries, a charismatic Pentecostal Church – all things opposed to orthodoxy and the perennial teaching of the Church.”
So the Magisterium has authorized the formation of a new charismatic Pentacostal Church opposed to tradition. Right?
–
“This Reformation, born of Liberalism and Modernism, is poisoned through and through; it derives from heresy and ends in heresy, even if all its acts are not formally heretical. It is therefore impossible for any conscientious and faithful Catholic to espouse this Reformation or to submit to it in any way whatsoever.”
So this poison, this heresy, is promulgated by the Magisterium. Right?
So no Catholic must submit to this Magisterium in any way
whatsoever. Right?
So the heretical Magisterium can promulgate heresy without its acts being formally heretical. Right?
–
“The only attitude of faithfulness to the Church and Catholic doctrine, in view of our salvation, is a categorical refusal to accept this Reformation.”
So the only attitude of faithfulness for a Catholic is a categorical refusal to accept this valid Magisterium. Right?
So we can render no greater service to the Holy Catholic Church, to the Sovereign Pontiff and to posterity than by doing this. Right?
–
Wow! Thanks for showing me the way dude! Here I was thinking that the Holy Ghost prevented the Magisterium from teaching error detrimental to the salvation of souls; here I was thinking that the Pope was infallible when teaching Faith and Morals to the Universal Church; here I was thinking one couldn’t be partially pregnant and partially submissive to the Pope. I wonder if Pope Pius IX knew he was making mistakes when he wrote his Dogmatic Constitution, Pastor Aeternus? Anyway, I’ve got it right now – thanks to you. We accept what the Pope says when we like it and we reject it when we don’t. Gee, this is giving me such a sense of freedom! I can almost do my own thing! Just shows you – one is never too old to learn hey?
–
Dear IF, I understand Fr Barron has been publicly lauding the evil Laudato Si.
Poapratensis,
–
Here is the link to “Letter to Confused Catholics”, recommended by Lynda in response to your comment above, which I also highly recommend. Arch Lefebvre doesn’t beat around the bush, but goes straight to the heart of the problem in the post-conciliar Church.
http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/OpenLetterToConfusedCatholics/
Disorder, confusion, chaos, sloppiness…
Hmmm… I guess that fits in with Bergoglio’s wishes for people to “make a mess”…
And who is the author of confusion and chaos…?
😉
–
As Bp Fulton Sheen stated, it’s “Christ or Chaos”…
I think we all know who Bergoglio is presently choosing…
Indignus famulus,
Catholics should not attend the new mass or the so called “indult Latin mass”. Why? It offends God. The new mass is evil objectively. It is evil because what it is lacking and therefore attending the new mass offends God and is a danger to the Faith and your faith and you should not attend. Catholics may attend some eastern rites Catholic liturgies. 1)If heresy is not in the sermons and if we find no liturgical abuse. I suggest you seek out Byzantine Catholic Church or the Resistance. The SSPX is the ideal if you are a Latin rite Catholic but the Priests of the Resistance are Catholic and may be approached.
Heresy is an objective danger to our souls we may not put ourselves in the near occasion sin. Sins against the Faith are the most dangerous because if we lose the Faith we lose heaven. Catholics must receive communion at least once a year. You may be able to travel to a Catholic mass with the SSPX once in a while if you must travel. Where do you live?
If a Catholic mass is more than 2 hours away we are not bound to travel and we are free of our Sunday obligation (I know people who drive 3 hours every Sunday for a Catholic mass every week) Bottom line we are not bound to attend the new mass in fact we are bound to avoid it under the pain of Sin. It is a mass of a new religion it is true that it can be valid but the Russian Orthodox liturgy is valid but Catholics are not able to attend there.
The new mass is a matter of Faith: http://www.olrl.org/new_mass/evils.shtml Vatican II is a new religion.
Peter,
So those neo-Modernist and neo-Protestant tendencies evident in VII are Magisterial. Right? No Vatican II is a new religion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnEQIq4_AKI
So the Magisterium has authorized the formation of a new charismatic Pentacostal Church opposed to tradition. Right? No modernists churchmen who lost the Catholic Faith did that it’s Genesis can be found in Vatican II the buildings are occupied that were once housed by Catholic clerics they now have heretics in them. Vatican II is a new religion.
So no Catholic must submit to this Magisterium in any way
whatsoever. Right? No that is no correct we must submit.
So the heretical Magisterium can promulgate heresy without its acts being formally heretical. Right? See the above video from Father Hesse and seek out his other talks on Youtube for clear answers to these questions.
So the only attitude of faithfulness for a Catholic is a categorical refusal to accept this valid Magisterium. Right? No the only attitude of faithfulness for a Catholic is a categorical refusal of Vatican II,the new mass and all the novelties since 1960. In other words remain Catholic during the crisis it will end. We do not need to choose between two false choices which are 1)Modernism 2) Sedevacantism
So we can render no greater service to the Holy Catholic Church, to the Sovereign Pontiff and to posterity than by doing this. Right? Yes if we keep the Faith and pray for the Pope as Our Lady said to at Fatima we can render no greater service to the Holy Catholic Church, to the Sovereign Pontiff and to posterity.
I suggest you read a book by Tan books called Popes Against Modern Errors: 16 Famous Papal Documents: http://www.amazon.com/Popes-Against-Modern-Errors-Documents/dp/089555643X Compare the infallible teachings of these Popes with the non infallible words coming from churchmen since 1960 and the truth will be clear to you.
It should also be noted that papal infallibility has only been invoked twice since 1950 1)for the Dogma of the Assumption in 1950 2) John Paul II’s words on women in the Priesthood in the 80’s (some say his words were not infallible but using the definition at Vatican I I think his words were infallible) otherwise nothing from 1960 has been infallible. Vatican II was a pastoral council if it was a council at all.
Poapratensis,
Open Letter to Confused Catholics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_xMFYxiX2I
I think you have made it clearer regarding the thinking that prevents some people from supporting a diocesan traditional Mass.
However, I would dispute that, as you say, I am asking parents place their obligation to the local Bishop above that responsibility of raising their children in the Faith. For that to be true, it would have to mean that taking them to the diocesan Mass would necessarily damage their faith. But how is this true?
In fact, I don’t think this is all a one way street. If you raise your child in a way that leads them to believe and act as though they have no obligations to their Bishop or the wider Church community and that the role of the local Bishop is not of particular consequence, then that is also contrary to the faith (of course, there are valid reasons to act against your Bishop, but the objections do have to be reasoned). One of the problems with a heresy, is that it can tend to push some of those who fiercely reject it into some other danger.
I think that what you say about your involvement with both the TLM and the NO is precisely the right point of view.
But the SSPX in my area only offer Mass once a week and the priest lives some distance away.
Therefore a full parish life, in Tradition, is actually better served by the local diocesan Traditional Mass community with the resident Priest who is also on hand to offer more at other times as well. Indeed, the very fact that it is actually part of the diocese is very much part of what a full Catholic parish life would have included.
Think Our Lady is trying to tell us something ???http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/holy-miracle-watch-virgin-marys-6113110
I am not so familiar with Blackfen beyond the well know blog written by its previous parish priest. But tell me, do you think that those who attended this parish (at the time he was there) were risking the souls of their children? If so, then please explain. If not, then surely it means that you are creating a false dichotomy between protecting the souls of children and attending diocesan traditional Masses?
And bearing in mind, the importance of accepting the authority of Bishops, as defined by their diocese, do you not see risks in denying their authority as a matter of course? I would say that maybe trying to comply with the Bishop, so long as it does not go against God’s law, is actually a good example to children with respect to raising them in the Catholic faith. Therefore perhaps taking children to such diocesan Masses, in parallel to attending SSPX masses, would be an assist to their faith formation.
Dear Ambrose,
We fully agree that each situation requires assessment. There ARE still good and faithful priests not affected by modernism, and in fact aware of it and fighting it.
If we’re not mistaken, one poster here (James the Lesser) described a very healthy N.O. Parish which he attends. We thought it went without saying that there is no need for parents to look elsewhere when that is the case, and their children are being safely taught the Faith in cooperation with the parents. –although parental vigilance is always necessary.
–We’ve approached it as a “mission” since we became grandparents and our youngest reached adulthood.
–We pray that the SSPX is able to have their “irregular” status eliminated, -not by undue compromising, but by the Hierarchy coming to see the great service their objections have done for the Church, and doing what is necessary to denounce the errors that came about since the 1960’s. This may require the Triumph of Our Lady to come first, or may follow the “miracle” of the Consecration of Russia–God knows. But both are our in our daily prayers. We love the Church, and see that many others who post here do likewise–despite our differences of opinion on certain issues. We all seem united in our hatred of sin and the consequences of its tolerance and promotion –especially for weaker souls in need of repentance from mortal sin.
OT, but after reading the latest from Bergoglio on climate change and other societal ills, I couldn’t resist sharing the following thought:
http://www.techtimes.com/articles/70113/20150720/pope-francis-hosts-worlds-mayors-to-discuss-climate-change.htm
–
Christ: “Seek ye therefore first the kingdom of God, and his justice, and all these things shall be added unto you.” Matthew 6:33
–
Bergoglio: “Seek ye first to solve societal ills, and don’t sweat too much about staying in a state of sanctifying grace.” (Gospel according to Bergoglio 6:33)
🙂 🙂
Medjugorge redux…
I wonder why people pay so much attention to phony apparitions and fake miracles, and so little to the trustworthy words containing maternal warnings from the Blessed Virgin to mankind.
Dear Piokolby,
Your heart is in the right place and you are so close to the truth. If you examine my previous comment you will see that every conclusion I have drawn is the logical conclusion of each of your quoted statements and that the summary of these conclusions is nonsense, or rather nonsense for Catholics.
Sedevacantists are exactly like you in that they are loyal to death to the Catholic Church before the papacy of Roncalli. They totally reject the conciliar popes and VII and know them to be false. The only differences between us, that I am aware of, is that you believe a heretic can become, or remain, a true Pope whilst I, together with Pope Paul IV and St. Robert Bellarmine, amongst many others, do not. Please read Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio. You believe that a valid Magisterium can teach error harmful to souls and I believe that is not possible, because the Holy Ghost prevents it. You believe that Catholics can pray “una Cum”, in union with heretics while I, many Saints and Popes do not – in fact they forbid it.
For as Father Faber warned: “The crowning disloyalty to God is heresy. It is the sin of sins, the very loathsomest of things which God looks down upon in this malignant world. Yet how little do we understand of its excessive hatefulness!… “We look at it, and are calm. We touch it and do not shudder. We mix with it, and have no fear. We see it touch holy things, and we have no sense of sacrilege… “Our charity is untruthful because it is not severe; and it is unpersuasive, because it is not truthful… Where there is no hatred of heresy, there is no holiness.”
I am sure we both would say we agree with Father Faber, yet you pray with heretics and seek full communion with them and their church and I do not. My belief is that a heretic cannot be a Pope formaliter; that a valid Magisterium cannot teach error harmful to the salvation of souls; that praying in union with heretics is anathema; that submission to a valid Magisterium is obligatory for Catholics, not only in matters of faith and morals, but in matters of discipline and Church governance also. These things are Catholic doctrine in concrete. These things are our Faith. To deny these things, as you do, is heresy.
“Compare the infallible teachings of these Popes with the non infallible words coming from churchmen since 1960 and the truth will be clear to you.”
How truly spoken! Yet you acknowledge these churchmen since 1960 to be the true Catholic hierarchy and you seek communion with them? I simply cannot understand. And by the way, this favourite myth that VII was not infallible, is rubbish. All the conditions for an infallible council were met and Montini stated uncategorically that its teachings were promulgated with the authority of the ordinary Magisterium.
Dear piokolby,
We disagree with your statements that Catholics should not attend the N.O. or the indult TLM and do not believe either are offensive to God. Since philosophers define evil as a “lack of some good”, in that sense you are right about the N.O. which can be vastly improved. If it is not, we would love to see it replaced with the TLM in every parish. Your objections to the TLM indult Masses are baffling to us, as the ones we’ve attended have never included any heresy in the homilies or otherwise.
In a way, we are living proof that you re wrong about the N.O. as well, as we attended it as our only Mass for about 40 years before the indult became available in a city near enough for us to attend, and you can see from our posts that we are aware of and adamantly opposed to modernism and it’s distortion of the True Faith as taught by the Church for almost 2,000 years. We are “cradle Catholics” who’ve never lapsed or missed Mass on Sundays and Holydays unless seriously ill. We also are people who pay close attention and take very seriously every word of the readings and prayers offered at Mass, fully participating, and rejecting abuses like Communion in the Hand and other things that are not part of the rite, but which are imposed in some parishes, as if they are. We’ve found good parishes after diligent searching and interviewing pastors. We grilled them -believe it. The problems come when they die or are transferred. But we’ve dealt with that too, changing parishes when necessary.
We likely won’t change your mind about the Mass itself, judging from past experiences with those who oppose it so strongly. But we have looked into it more closely because of all the objections, and are more firm than ever in our disagreement about that, now. Our personal experience with Graces over the years from the Mass, Eucharist, Confession and Anointing of the Sick when seriously ill, have been very evident to us, as we strive for greater holiness daily. It is undeniably not a fluke or coincidence that the more fervently we attended Mass, the deeper our Faith became. This is a testimony that is true and trustworthy, as we make it a central matter never to lie or mislead anyone about even the most insignificant matters.
If we were to discover we were wrong about the N.O. we would not hesitate to admit it. In our experience, though we realize you disagree, it is true worship and brings us the Real Presence of Our Lord. The Sacrament of Confession is also of tremendous value and should never be eschewed because it is provided by priests who celebrate the new rite.
Dear Lynda,
Yes, that was the basis for the suggestion he was being “punished” by this new assignment. We’ve looked at a number of his postings because of Ever mindful’s devotion to him, and see that he is conservative on some issues but liberal on others. It’s unfortunate but true that the “little bit of poison” in the glass of water is still fatal, but also more likely that a priest who is on the right track about SOME important issues, may be more easily converted to the truth about those issues in which he is misled and misleading others.
__
His insistence on the proposal that “most” people likely go to heaven–being accepted because of Benedict XVI’s promotion of it, with the added condemnation of being judged a sinful dissenter like those who rejected Humane Vitae–clinched it for us. That much emphasis on the presumption of Mercy over Justice, especially in light of the millions if not billions now living in un-repented mortal sin demonstrates a profound lack of good judgment, as well as a rejection of the teachings of Christ found in Sacred Scripture and Tradition, as well as the warnings of Our Lady of Fatima and Sister Lucia which stand starkly against it. We see this in Benedict as well–with his recent reversal of his stance on communion for the divorced showing how far back it goes with him, and his writings “as theologian” while Pope about not attempting to convert the Jews.
–We’re not assuming you are arguing FOR any of those things, just pointing them out as reasons his objections to the Encyclical on the environment don’t erase the major problems his other views present. Souls who remain in sinful lifestyles because they presume the Mercy of God will overlook their behavior, are not due entirely to Fr. Barron’s views, as they ignore his other teachings. But what he is preaching in that regard, contributes to the overall lack of concern about sin we see all around us today.
P.S. Lynda Correction—We mistakenly mis-read an earlier statement thinking is said Fr. Barron had criticized the Encyclical on the Environment. Although his video says he will have much more to say on it in the future, it does nothing but praise it as you and -E- flower correctly pointed out.
Dear ock,
Okay that is just WEIRD. Not saying it CAN’T be a miracle, but caution is advised as we’ve seen a number of expert manipulations of visuals these days–including laser projections in mid-air.
Those who think Apparitions are invalid, are free to do so, there is no requirement by the Church to accept them. However, maybe they should be investigated before trying to dismiss them?
UNDERSTOOD !!!!
Oh, I thought he’d praised it.
p.s. Just read your objection to knee-jerk dismissals, and although we still insist that caution is always good; you are also right — as even Fatima could have been dismissed as three children fantasizing, if it had not been investigated fully. Thanks for posting the link and God Bless you
🙂 🙂
See torch of the Faith, Alan and Angeline, on the wickedness promoted by these mayors, who hate God and His Holy Church.
And Climate change is natural.
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Indignus Famuli:
your unwavering support of the NO mass no longer resonates with me. Recollections of my lifelong experience with it are not, and have never been happy ones. How often I remember dragging my feet to their churches, lifting heavily my feet one step at a time through the doors, looking askance at the immodestly dressed men and women, including myself, going through the motions, noting the proud stance of priests sitting behind the centre of the alter as though in apparent judgment, listening to the mushy feel-good music of the percussion instruments, listening to sermons replete with calls for social justice and socialist propaganda, being compelled to shake the hands parishioners cared less about by me than the comportment of my thirsting soul for God, and finally, with heavy step walking towards the altar to receive the wafer from smug middle-aged woman interrupting my sight with the sight of their proud eyes taking and passing with hands often at waste level from theirs to mine the wafer host all the while listening to that insipidly flaccid music in the background turning our souls into feel-good mush. To think, in loyalty most of my youthful manhood was wasted on that…that…abomination. I detest it like I detest my sins.
Run, my brethren, run from it as though you were running not only from an occasion of sin but from actual sin itself.
I tried… I tried…. but with the election of Bergoglio the bubble burst.
We are now drawing two generations into this disaster and only a catastrophic trauma can set it straight not only for the church but for Western society itself.
Considering the hundreds, if not thousands of alleged, fake “apparitions” and the like, I’d say a “knee-jerk” dismissal is more likely to get it “right” than a “knee-jerk” acceptance.
😉
PS Not saying there aren’t real miracles of course, but one should be highly cautious in this modern world where lies and deceitfulness abound.
“Recollections of my lifelong experience with it are not, and have never been happy ones.”
That resonates with me too…
Personally, as much as I tried to “love’ attending the NO (in terms of being motivated through piety to love the liturgical ceremonies), I never could. In plain terms, there always seemed something boring, even banal about the NO. And that was before I knew about the TLM, so that I always thought that there was something wrong with ME, if I didn’t take spiritual joy in attending the highest form of prayer of the Church. Poor me! I bet you there are many more souls like that too.
–
The bottom line for the NO is this, “By their fruits ye shall know them.”
The NO leads one towards Protestantism as infallibly as someone swimming in a river is pushed by the current towards lower ground. In the same way, someone who stays in the NO can only remain catholic through a special grace of God that will allow him to swim (with effort) against the “current” that is pushing all around him towards Protestantism (communion in the hand, reference to the “Lord’s supper”, a table substituting the altar, references to the renewal of Christ’s sacrifice on Calvary practically non-existent, and so on ad nauseam.)
Fr Barron goes much further than saying “most” people are saved, his thesis is we have a reasonable hope ALL, as in EVERYONE is saved. In other words – that Hell is EMPTY, with perhaps only the demons as inhabitants. He blasphemously uses Christ’s words, “And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all things to myself.” (John 12:32) to support his heretical idea, whereas St Thomas Aquinas teaches:
“And he says, all things, and not “all men,” because NOT ALL MEN ARE DRAWN TO THE SON. I will draw all things, that is, the body and the soul; or all types of men, such as Gentiles and Jews, servants and freemen, male and female; or, ALL WHO ARE PREDESTINED TO SALVATION.”
http://www.dhspriory.org/thomas/english/John12.htm
Dear Alarico,
It’s no wonder you don’t share what you call our “unwavering support” given your experiences. We’re always eager to attend Mass, with no dragging feet, –by far preferring the TLM for many good reasons, but it is not always available.
__
Many decades ago, we were literally outsed from a parish in our diocese by a modernist Pastor (now deceased) and School Principal (nun) for consulting the Papal nuncio (who confirmed all of our concerns in writing); which we used to question the school’s new age- type curriculum, rejection of parental oversight, and introduction of altar girls, among other things. (long before the Vatican ever approved that practice) Their “invitation” to leave, was followed by a long conference with the Bishop during which he profusely praised our Faith and parenting, but ended instructing us to “find a parish where we were comfortable”, as he was “experimenting” with that one. he and the pastor didn’t feel they had to answer to Rome. Feeling very betrayed, we took on home schooling, (long before it became popular) with amid strong objections from family and others. We searched a wide geographical area, and were blessed to find a couple of parishes that employed mainly organ, had not been stripped of the old statuary, and had kept the tabernacles in the center of the high altars–thanks to moderate sized groups of die-hard Faithful Catholics who had been there for many years and were intending to fignt till the day they die to keep the Faith intact, along with some good priests who were also aware of what was happening, and working to keep it that way. (One humbly prayed silently before the Blessed Sacrament before every Mass.) There were no altar girls- till these old pastors died. So we’re no strangers to difficulties, but know the difference between the Faith and modernism.
__
Obviously some of what you describe depends on the Bishop, much of it on the pastor. The point is that your advice is for everyone, but NOT everyone has a situation like yours. We switch Communion lines in order to receive only from the priest. We’ve never had a priest who’s had problems with kneeling to receive on the tongue, or kneeling during Mass. Some abuses cropped up in later years and we’ve fought them, surprisingly with some success. We pray some day, Our Lord will provide a renewed Church with no need for the laity to work to educate the new priests, and -hopefully with the TLM as the “ordinary” Mass.
__
Meanwhile, this is no occasion of sin for us, but of Grace. We don’t know how many parishes are like yours or like ours, and horror stories abound. But you wouldn’t see us defending the N.O. so strongly if folks were not telling everyone to avoid going to Mass on Sunday if that’s all there is.
We got occasional “modernist” priests assigned over the years to our parishes, but, thank God, good talks with the pastor about their homilies and confession-advice got them forcibly removed within a few weeks. We were not the only ones complaining, it turned out.
We’re not urging you or anyone to choose a bad environment like that if children are involved. But if you are talking about adults-only who have no other choices and can offer up the sufferings and try to make a difference later; we still think it’s far better to attend an N.O. than to stay at home when Our Lord is there to Worship and receive.
This is not at all the same support as those who are “all for” the N.O. as a novelty they see as a good replacement for the TLM. It is support for what we see as spiritually best in very difficult times for all of us.
This is what’s wrong with the new mass in a nutshell:
–
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIvYH4D2u2s&list=PL2h6-YKZIv9CvUZ9MtwXmxYhT_ckzOXsf&index=5
–
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qT-WZ9a5QMc&index=6&list=PL2h6-YKZIv9CvUZ9MtwXmxYhT_ckzOXsf
–
It is interesting (perhaps ironic) to note that Fr Cekada (being a sede) describes the NO as a “mass” – whether he realizes it or not, an implicit acceptance of the validity of the (faulty) rite.
Dear In Hoc, Responding to your reply to us, and the links you provided:
We’ve said before that we believe this priest’s ideas are wrong (and after studying more than what your links here provided). His arguments are obviously based on facts and opinions mixed together; and his conclusions about the results in peoples’ lives don’t stand the test of our lifetimes of experiences-based on faithfully attending N.O. Masses. We are certain we were more attracted to the Traditional Mass when we experienced it again as adults- about 10 years ago- precisely because we already understood its parts and purposes from knowing the N.O. so well. This made us appreciate gaining the added richness of the TLM’s prayers, formality and symbolism-especially at high Masses- to enhance those and place more dramatic emphasis-appealing to our senses of sight, hearing, and smell- on key moments that were already special to us. You wish to convince us that all of that richness in our lives was the result of something so evil it must be avoided? We weren’t reading books on the Mass. We simply attended it so often that it became like a part of us.
__
It’s eqully obvious to us that it’s the ideas of Modernist priests and Popes (often expressed in homilies and in classroom settings and books) which corrupt people’s thinking–rather than the reverently done Masses we attend. We happen to be two cradle-Catholics who’ve never lapsed, who both took our formations to heart from early childhood. That taught us to include prayer, daily Masses and readings of the Saints and Fathers in our lives, which in turn caused the modernist errors to stand out so glaringly to us. All Catholics are supposed to build their Faith that way, but many were deprived of the formation that drives home how necessary it is. The TLM is superiour in that respect, but not a substitute for that good formation.
__
The N.O. Mass in all its basics, does exactly what the TLM does, which is why Cardinal Burke said truthfully that it is the same rite just a different form.
If the Church eliminates it some day in favor of making the TLM the ordinary rite once again, we’ll have no problem with that. But in the meantime, these claims about it being harmful, evil, and leading to Protestantism are not true for Faithful Catholics who know Our Lord is present, worshipped, and comes to us, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity — all of which makes it another miraculous hour of our lives every time we attend a Mass–which is something no Protestant can truthfully claim happens at his services, despite any other similarities. We’ve seen extraordinary reverence all these years -especially at the Consecration, which itself wordlessly further emphasized the Real Presence, in no way leading anyone to want to forsake Our Lord for a foolish sect that doesn’t know or believe in this great treasure we receive as Catholics at every Mass.
__
Though it’s true that it’s not all about feelings, we can both honestly say we feel the same spiritual elation from the experience of putting ourselves completely into every N.O. Mass we attend, as we do at every TLM. We are left awed by the greatness and mercy and love of God, who became man to make such great sacrifice in order to offer us salavation through the Church and Himself at every Mass. Anyone who wishes to descibe such an extraordinary thing as that (N.O. or otherwise) as terribly evil, is simply wrong, in our opinions.
Apologies for how long this went.
God Bless
Indignus famulus,
In 1969, Pope Paul VI issued a New Order of the Mass, the Novus Ordo Missae. Up to that time, what is commonly referred to as the “Tridentine” or “Latin” Mass, was used by the Church. On the face of things, it may seem to be a simple matter for the Pope to change the Mass. It has been done before. Is there a difference, then, between the modifications made by Paul VI and the liturgical changes of the past? There is a radical difference, and one that has had disastrous consequences for the universal Church.
The New Mass Contradicts Tradition. The “Tridentine” or Roman Rite Mass, while it has developed organically over the 2,000 year history of the Church, is essentially the Mass that was given to the Apostles and the Church by Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself. Although various rites emerged, they all maintained the same spirit imparted to the liturgy by Our Lord and were only adapted to various cultures without any deviation in doctrine. The Roman Rite, up to Vatican II, underwent only minor changes, such that the famous English liturgist Fr. Adrian Fortescue was able to state that “no one has ventured to touch it except in unimportant details.”
Pope St. Pius V, to protect the Roman Rite from innovations and eliminate any variations, codified the Traditional Latin Mass in the Apostolic Constitution Quo Primum in 1570. The Mass that he was confirming was not some new creation like the Novus Ordo Missae, but a Mass that matched in every respect the Faith of the Apostles. Nor was it the Mass of some particular area of the Church like the Eastern rites, but the universal rite of the Church, the rite of the Roman See. His bull says in part:
“We specifically command each and every patriarch, administrator, and all other persons or whatever ecclesiastical dignity they may be, be they even cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, or possessed of any other rank or pre-eminence, and We order them in virtue of holy obedience to chant or to read the Mass according to the rite and manner and norm herewith laid down by Us and, hereafter, to discontinue and completely discard all other rubrics and rites of other missals, however ancient, which they have customarily followed; and they must not in celebrating Mass presume to introduce any ceremonies or recite any prayers other than those contained in this Missal.
“Furthermore, by these presents [this law], in virtue of Our Apostolic authority, We grant and concede in perpetuity that, for the chanting or reading of the Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment, or censure, and may freely and lawfully be used. Nor are superiors, administrators, canons, chaplains, and other secular priests, or religious, of whatever title designated, obliged to celebrate the Mass otherwise than as enjoined by Us. We likewise declare and ordain . . . that this present document cannot be revoked or modified, but remain always valid and retain its full force . . . [The complete Apostolic Constitution “Quo Primum” of Pope St. Pius V (July 14, 1570) is available in print from Angelus Press or online].
What, then, was done at Vatican II? Were some changes made merely in “unimportant details”? Was the proper honor and respect given to the Rite essentially bestowed by Christ on His Church and confirmed by incomparable proofs in the form of thousands of saints and countless miracles? On September 25, 1969, Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani, Prefect-Emeritus of the Sacred Congregation for the Faith, sent Pope Paul VI a theological Study of the New Order of the Mass (“Short Critical Study of the New Order of Mass.”). The Study contained a cover letter signed by Cardinals Ottaviani and Antonio Bacci which says, in part:
Most Holy Father,
Having carefully examined, and presented for the scrutiny of others, the Novus Ordo Missae prepared by the experts of the Consilium ad exequendam Constitutionem de Sacra Liturgia, and after lengthy prayer and reflection, we feel it to be our bounden duty in the sight of God and towards Your Holiness, to put before you the following considerations:
1. The accompanying critical study of the Novus Ordo Missae, the work of a group of theologians, liturgists and pastors of souls, shows quite clearly in spite of its brevity that if we consider the innovations implied or taken for granted which may of course be evaluated in different ways, the Novus Ordo represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent. The “canons” of the rite definitively fixed at that time provided an insurmountable barrier to any heresy directed against the integrity of the Mystery . . . (“The Ottaviani Intervention – Short Critical Study of the New Order of Mass” is available from TAN Books or online).
Vatican I in 1870 defined the Pope to be, not an absolute monarch, but the guarantor of obedience to the revealed word. The legitimacy of his power was bound up above all with his transmitting the Faith. This fidelity to the deposit of the Faith and to its transmission concerns in a quite special way the liturgy. No authority can ‘fabricate’ a liturgy. The Pope himself is only the humble servant of its homogenous development, its integrity, and the permanence of its identity.” The Pope, as the guardian of the Deposit of Faith, has a duty to preserve the liturgy intact and pass it on essentially unmodified to the next generation. The very authors of Vatican II, on the other hand, openly acknowledged their desire not to pass on Tradition, but to make it.
St. Vincent of Lerins in the 5th century gave as a standard for the orthodoxy of doctrine that which has been believed everywhere (ubique), always (semper), and by all (omnia). But, as Cardinal Ratzinger points out, the Council Fathers of Vatican II rejected this hallowed definition: “Vatican II’s refusal of the proposal to adopt the text of Lerins, familiar to, and, as it were, sanctified by two Church Councils, shows once more how Trent and Vatican I were left behind, how their texts were continually reinterpreted… Vatican II had a new idea of how historical identity and continuity were to be brought about.” This new idea was nothing other than to create a pseudo-tradition from the “common consciousness” of the Council Fathers. This is pure Modernism and totally contrary to the Deposit of Faith.
The Destruction of Catholic Worship is the Destruction of the Catholic Faith
The Church has always set forth the firm and clear principle that: “The way we worship is the way we believe.” The doctrinal truths of the Faith are embodied in the worship we offer to God. In other words, it is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass that teaches us our theology and not the reverse. The True Mass comprises the Apostolic Tradition of faith and morals in its very essence. Every doctrine essential to the Faith is taught therein. Pope Leo XIII points out in Apostolicae Curae that the Church’s enemies have always understood this principle as “They knew only too well the intimate bond that unites faith with worship, the law of belief with the law of prayer, and so, under the pretext of restoring the order of the liturgy to its primitive form, they corrupted it in many respects to adapt it to the errors of the Innovators.” It is no wonder, then, that Luther coined the slogan: “Take away the Mass, destroy the Church.”
St. Alphonsus Liguori (Bishop, Doctor of the Church and Patron of Theologians) explains that “The devil has always attempted, by means of the heretics, to deprive the world of the Mass, making them precursors of the Anti-Christ, who, before anything else, will try to abolish and will actually abolish the Holy Sacrament of the altar, as a punishment for the sins of men, according to the prediction of Daniel: ‘And strength was given him against the continual sacrifice’ (Dan. 8:12).”
Pope Paul VI with the six Protestant ministers
who collaborated in making up the New Mass!
The question then becomes: Does the New Mass teach the Catholic Faith? No, say both Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci: “It is clear that the Novus Ordo no longer intends to present the Faith as taught by the Council of Trent.” Pope St. Leo the Great (Father and Doctor of the Church) instructs us: “Teach nothing new, but implant in the hearts of everyone those things which the fathers of venerable memory taught with a uniform preaching … Whence, we preach nothing except what we have received from our forefathers. In all things, therefore, both in the rule of faith in the observance of discipline, let the pattern of antiquity be observed.” How well founded, then, were the concerns expressed by Pope Pius XII shortly before the introduction of the New Mass: “I am worried by the Blessed Virgin’s messages to Lucy at Fatima. This persistence of Mary about the dangers which menace the Church is a divine warning against the suicide that would be represented by the alteration of the Faith in Her liturgy.”
When you place the prayers and ceremonies of the traditional Latin Mass side by side with those of the New Mass, you can easily see to what degree the Church’s traditional doctrine has been “edited out.” And the “editing” always seems to have been done on those parts of the Mass expressing some Catholic doctrine which Protestants find “offensive.” Here are some examples:
Common Penitential Rite: The traditional Mass begins with the priest reciting personal prayers of reparation to God called “The Prayers at the Foot of the Altar.” The New Mass begins instead with a “Penitential Rite” which the priest and people recite together. Who were the first to introduce a common penitential rite? The 16th century Protestants, who wanted to promote their teaching that the priest is no different from the layman.
The Offertory: The Offertory prayers of the traditional Mass clearly express a number of Catholic teachings, as that the Mass is offered to God to satisfy for sin and that the saints are to be honored. The Protestants rejected these teachings and so abolished the Offertory prayers. “That abomination called the Offertory,” said Luther, “and from this point almost everything stinks of oblation!” In the New Mass as well, the Offertory is gone – it has been replaced with a ceremony called “The Preparation of the Gifts.” The prayers “offensive” to Protestants have also been removed. In their place is the prayer “Blessed are you, Lord God of all creation,” based on a Jewish grace before meals.
The “Eucharistic Prayer”: The traditional Mass has only one “Eucharistic Prayer,” the ancient Roman Canon. The Canon was always a favorite target of Lutheran and other Protestant attacks. Instead of just one Canon, the New Mass now has a number of “Eucharistic Prayers,” only one of which we will mention here. Eucharistic Prayer No. 1 is an “edited” version of the Roman Canon. The lists of Catholic saints, so despised by Protestants, are now optional, and hence rarely used. The translators did some further “editing.” Among other things, the idea that Christ the Victim is offered at Mass (a notion Luther condemned) has disappeared. All the Eucharistic Prayers now incorporate some typical Protestant practice. They are recited in a loud voice instead of silently, and they have an “Institution Narrative,” instead of a Consecration. (According to Protestant beliefs, their ministers do not consecrate the Eucharist like Catholic priests do; they just narrate the story of the Last Supper.) Even Christ’s own words in the Consecration were altered: “. . . Which shall be shed for you and for many, unto the remission of sins” was changed to “. . . It will be shed for you and for all men so that sins may be forgiven.” (Rome acknowledged this “mistranslation” recently.) The various signs of respect toward Our Lord present in the Blessed Sacrament (genuflections, signs of the cross, bells, incense, etc.) have been reduced, made optional, or eliminated.
Communion in the Hand: The 16th century Protestant Martin Bucer condemned the Church’s practice of placing the Host on the tongue of the communicant as something introduced out of “a double superstition: first, the false honor they wish to show to this sacrament, and secondly, the wicked arrogance of priests claiming greater holiness than that of the people of Christ, by virtue of the oil of consecration.” The practice in Protestant churches of “communion in the hand” is thus based upon their rejection of Christ’s Real Presence and the priesthood. At the New Mass, just as at a Protestant service, there is Communion in the hand. But the men who created the New Mass went even further, for a layman may not only receive Communion in the hand – he is also permitted to distribute it, even on a moment’s notice. Let us recall St. Thomas Aquinas’ (1225-1274)* words on this subject: “The body of Christ must not be touched by anyone, other than a consecrated priest. No other person has the right to touch it, except in case of extreme necessity” (III, 82 a.3). (*St. Thomas Aquinas was given the title “Angelic Doctor”. His canonization decree states, “His doctrine was none other than miraculous. He has enlightened the Church more than all other Doctors”)
Veneration of the Saints: The prayers of the traditional Mass frequently invoke the saints by name and beg their intercession. The Church’s veneration of the saints in her worship was another practice which Protestants dismissed as “superstition.” The New Order of the Mass dropped most invocations of the saints by name, or made them optional. In the new Missal, moreover, the weekday prayers for saints’ feast days (most of which are also optional) have been rewritten for the benefit of Protestants – allusions to miracles, the defense of the Catholic Faith, or to the Catholic Church as the one, true Church have disappeared.
False Translations: Lastly, there is the matter of the false official English translations of the New Mass. A whole book could be written on the errors and distortions they contain. Here we will mention briefly only the official translations of the prayers for the 34 “Sundays in Ordinary Time.” The following are some of the ideas which the English translation suppresses: God’s wrath, our unworthiness, error, sins which “burden our consciences,” God’s majesty, obedience to His commandments, supplication, humility, eternity, heaven – many more could be listed. Perhaps the most serious omission is the word “grace.” It appears 11 times in the Latin original. It does not appear even once in the official English “translation”!
Clearly, then, the “new liturgy reflects a new ecclesiology, whereas the old reflects another ecclesiology” (Cardinal Benelli) and one quite foreign to the Catholic Church. This ultimately means as Fr. Gelineau, S.J., one of the “experts” who co-authored the New Mass, pointed out, that “The New Mass is a different liturgy. This needs to be said without ambiguity. The Roman Rite, as we knew it, no longer exists. It has been destroyed.” The Catechism of the Council of Trent tells us that “a Catholic sins against the Faith by participating in non-Catholic worship.” The New Mass is not Catholic worship, even if it has retained the name “Catholic,” as did the Anglican liturgy until recently.
Fruits of Vatican II and the New Mass
“By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit” (Matt. 7:15-17). Given the foregoing, it should be plain that the New Mass was conceived for an evil purpose and constructed by evil means. It only follows that such a tree would have disastrous effects on the Church. Let us look at its fruits as reported in Index of Leading Catholic Indicators: The Church Since Vatican II by Kenneth Jones.
Priests. While the number of priests in the United States more than doubled to 58,000, between 1930 and 1965, since then that number has fallen to 45,000. By 2020, there will be only 31,000 priests left, and more than half of these priests will be over 70.
Ordinations. In 1965, 1,575 new priests were ordained in the United States. In 2002, the number was 450. In 1965, only 1 percent of U.S. parishes were without a priest. Today, there are 3,000 priestless parishes, 15 percent of all U.S. parishes.
Seminarians. Between 1965 and 2002, the number of seminarians dropped from 49,000 to 4,700, a decline of over 90 percent. Two-thirds of the 600 seminaries that were operating in 1965 have now closed.
Sisters. In 1965, there were 180,000 Catholic nuns. By 2002, that had fallen to 75,000 and the average age of a Catholic nun is today 68. In 1965, there were 104,000 teaching nuns. Today, there are 8,200, a decline of 94 percent since the end of Vatican II.
Religious Orders. For religious orders in America, the end is in sight. In 1965, 3,559 young men were studying to become Jesuit priests. In 2000, the figure was 389. With the Christian Brothers, the situation is even more dire. Their number has shrunk by two-thirds, with the number of seminarians falling 99 percent. In 1965, there were 912 seminarians in the Christian Brothers. In 2000, there were only seven. The number of young men studying to become Franciscan and Redemptorist priests fell from 3,379 in 1965 to 84 in 2000.
Catholic schools. Almost half of all Catholic high schools in the United States have closed since 1965. The student population has fallen from 700,000 to 386,000. Parochial schools suffered an even greater decline. Some 4,000 have disappeared, and the number of pupils attending has fallen below 2 million – from 4.5 million.
Catholic Marriage. Catholic marriages have fallen in number by one-third since 1965, while the annual number of annulments has soared from 338 in 1968 to 50,000 in 2002.
Attendance at Mass. A 1958 Gallup Poll reported that three in four Catholics attended church on Sundays. A recent study by the University of Notre Dame found that only one in four now attend.
Only 10 percent of lay religious teachers now accept church teaching on contraception. Fifty-three percent believe a Catholic can have an abortion and remain a good Catholic. Sixty-five percent believe that Catholics may divorce and remarry. Seventy-seven percent believe one can be a good Catholic without going to mass on Sundays. By one New York Times poll, 70 percent of all Catholics in the age group 18 to 44 believe the Eucharist is merely a “symbolic reminder” of Jesus.
Who could possibly claim that there is not a terrible crisis of faith in the Catholic Church!? It is no wonder that Cardinal Ratzinger affirmed: “I am convinced that the ecclesial crisis in which we find ourselves today depends in great part on the collapse of the liturgy.” It is clear how the New Mass could create such a disaster. Liturgy dictates belief. A protestantized liturgy yields heretical belief, loss of the Faith, and devaluation of the priesthood. Satan has been able to accomplish more effective damage to the entire body of the Church in the past 35 years through the destruction of the Mass than ever before.
Conclusion
The New Mass is condemned by its own nature and by its fruits. The crisis in the Church will continue to worsen until we return to orthodoxy and discipline. What is a Catholic to do in such troublesome times? He must follow the advice of St. Vincent of Lerins: “What then shall the Catholic do if some portion of the Church detaches itself from communion of the universal Faith? If some new contagion attempts to poison, no longer a small part of the Church, but the whole Church at once, then his great concern will be to attach himself to antiquity (Tradition) which can no longer be led astray by any lying novelty.”
St. Athanasius, one of the four great Doctors of the Eastern Church, earned the title of “Father of Orthodoxy” for his strong and uncompromising defense of our Catholic Faith against the Arian Heresy which affected most of the hierarchy, including the pope. Athanasius was banned from his diocese at least five times, spending a total of seventeen years in exile. He sent the following letter to his flock which is a powerful lesson for our times: “What saddens you is the fact that others have occupied the churches by violence, while during this time you are on the outside. It is a fact that they have the premises – but you have the Apostolic Faith. They can occupy our churches, but they are outside the true Faith. You remain outside the places of worship, but the Faith dwells within you. Let us consider: what is more important? The place or the Faith? The true Faith, obviously. Who has lost and who has won in this struggle? The one who keeps the premises or the one who keeps the Faith?”
Dear piokolby,
Wow. And we thought OUR comment was too long! 🙂 🙂
We should ask if you know about the Forum and how to use it; as we saw Louie oust a guy a while back who continued posting extremely long items a number of times, after being warned against doing that. And since we don’t recall seeing your name here before this week, we thought you might not be aware of that- or the Forum–which is not limited that way.
__
A lot of the subjects you raised above have been discussed at length here over the last few years, and refuted to our satisfaction– including the power of the Pope to change the Mass, and the claim that it goes against Tradition (meaning Preserved Truth).
-Quoting a number of respected people on their concerns about the Liturgy doesn’t prove that the N.O. has in fact caused all of the negative things they feared or that have been attributed to it–such as the ongoing abandonment of Faith and morals and consequent emptying of the Parishes. These are generalizations applicable to many other causes.
–As we must in fairness consider ourselves to BE part of the “fruits” of the N.O. -having 50+ years of history with it- we object to claims that they are all rotten. Certainly all of us are sinners, but those who repent, Confess their sins, and strive for holiness, living by our 2,000 year old Tradition and seeing evidence of spiritual improvement as the years go by; do not in truth deserve to be labeled as “rotten fruit”. – We know for a fact that not all parishes experience the same abuses that have been reported and are often attributed to all N.O. Masses universally. So that claim too is false.
-If you believe the form of the Mass can never be validly changed to that degree, then there is not much use discussing the corrections we’ve seen put in place to eliminate such abuses as irreverence in Church before the Blessed Sacrament, and immodest dress, or our hopes to see both Communion in the hand and females in the Sanctuary banned. In short, we very much disagree with you on this matter of the Mass, due to personal experiences that refute your beliefs about it.
But, Indignus – what are the fruits of the Anglican communion? Are they obviously rotten to an Anglican? Or the Lutheran communion? Is it rotten to a Lutheran? Likewise, the Novus Ordo communion? How are those acclimatized to the Novus Ordo orchard going to notice the stench of the strange fruit?
–
If people steeped in the Novus Ordo removed themselves (cold turkey) and steeped themselves instead in the unadulterated Roman Rite offered up by the true Roman Catholic Priest (so that it becomes ‘second-nature’ if they were then sent back to the Novus Ordo, it would smell rotten indeed.
–
In the same way, those who spend time with the True Popes, reading their words, knowing their works, understanding their faith and adhering to the same. Once this is conformed to, to then be presented with the current heresiarchs, that person is in no doubt who is a Pope and who is a heresiarch.
–
PS. if you would ‘refute’ what piokolby presents above you would be refuting dogmatic Catholic beliefs and historical facts…
To write well and speak well is mere vanity if one does not live well.
St Bridget of Sweden
Thanks for the sobering reminder.
God Bless.
Mr & Mrs Indignus Famuli,
–
A number of points:
1) I don’t negate the validity of the NO (and ironically, it would appear Fr Cekada does not either).
2) Your arguments are based on entirely on *your* “experiences” of the NO and entirely dismiss the “experience” of the NO for 95% of catholics. Besides, what does “experience” have to do with a hard analysis of the NO based on theological arguments, such as the Ottaviani intervention, or Fr Cekada’s theological critique? Unfortunately, you did not refute a single argument put forth from these two sources. The “experiences” of this or that catholic with the NO is not argument about the problems associated the theological basis of the rite itself.
You say: “we can both honestly say we feel the same spiritual elation from the experience of putting ourselves completely into every N.O. Mass we attend, as we do at every TLM.” Well, good for you. Problem is, the Catholic faith is not primarily about “experiences” (as the modernists would have us believe) but about an assent of the intellect to a divinely revealed truth. And this is where the NO falls terribly short – in leading a soul of good will to accept the divine mysteries in the Holy Sacrifice of the mass due its protestantized nature, which is reflected in a loss of belief in transubstantiation by a vast mass of catholics, a lack of reverence etc
3) You state: “The N.O. Mass in all its basics, does exactly what the TLM does, which is why Cardinal Burke said truthfully that it is the same rite just a different form.” Regarding the first point, we are agreed, as should have been clear from my first comment on this topic, regarding the second point, you are wrong. There have been different rites within the Catholic Church, true enough, but each rite only has one form. Two forms would imply that each one is a different rite, which is exactly the case here. The Tridentine Rite is the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church, and the NO is the conciliar rite – a schismatic rite, if you will, much like the Orthodox have their own (valid) schismatic rites.
–
I think (IMO) you don’t realize the extent to which you have been preserved by a special grace from God from protestantisation despite attending the NO for soooooooooo long, a grace for which you should be immensely grateful to God. You remember what I mentioned about “Swimming against the current” in my previous comment? I’m sure that (and this would speak very well of you) you have had to endure many trials throughout these years that have been sent by God as graces that have allowed you to remain Catholic despite the NO.
God Bless.
Two basilicas for two different rites:
The (apparently) Tridentine rite celebrated on the high altar of the basilica of Our Lady of Fatima (a mighty rare occurrence, no doubt), by priests from St John Cantius (Chicago):
https://churchartphotography.wordpress.com/2010/09/17/day-5-solemn-high-mass-at-the-basilica-of-our-lady-of-fatima/
–
The cold, barren, banjo shaped new “basilica” of Fatima appears like the perfect setting for the equally banal NO rite:
http://www.cfnews.org/dia-monument.htm
PS To your claim that the NO is a different form of the same rite, this quote provided by piokolby in his comment above is further proof to the contrary:
–
“Fr. Gelineau, S.J., one of the “experts” who co-authored the New Mass, pointed out, that ‘The New Mass is a different liturgy [i.e. different rite]. This needs to be said without ambiguity [at least he can be thanked for his honesty]. The Roman Rite, as we knew it, no longer exists. It has been destroyed [i.e. the Roman rite was substituted with a DIFFERENT rite – the schismatic NO rite].’ “
The ‘basics’ of the N.O. service are very different to the Traditional Mass (read the ‘Work of Human Hands’ for a thorough look at this). They are each the fruit of a very different source. The N.O. is rightly called a Protestant Judeo-Masonic Service. VII and its Protestant, Jewish, New Theological ‘antiquarianist’ ‘experts’ are the source for the Novus Ordo. The N.O. aims to please not God, but anti-Real-Presence Protestants and Rabbis. I think it succeeds.
–
Likewise the sons of VII aim to please not God, but the aforementioned: “We hold the Jewish people in special regard because their covenant with God has never been revoked” Bergoglio, EG. How do the Novus Ordo heresiarchs get away with this teaching that places the convenant wrought in the blood of animals on the same level as the New Testament wrought in the Blood of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ? = VII.
–
Here’s what the Church actually teaches: “And first of all, by the death of our Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished; then the Law of Christ together with its mysteries, enactments, institutions, and sacred rites was ratified for the whole world in the blood of Jesus Christ. For, while our Divine Savior was preaching in a restricted area — He was not sent but to the sheep that were lost of the house of Israel – the Law and the Gospel were together in force; but on the gibbet of his death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees, fastened the handwriting of the Old Testament to the Cross, establishing the New Testament in His blood shed for the whole human race. “To such an extent, then,” says St. Leo the Great, speaking of the Cross of our Lord, “was there effected a transfer from the Law to the Gospel, from the Synagogue to the Church, from many sacrifices to one Victim, that, as our Lord expired, that mystical veil which shut off the innermost part of the temple and its sacred secret was rent violently from top to bottom.” On the Cross then the Old Law died, soon to be buried and to be a bearer of death, in order to give way to the New Testament of which Christ had chosen the Apostles as qualified ministers; and although He had been constituted the Head of the whole human family in the womb of the Blessed Virgin, it is by the power of the Cross that our Savior exercises fully the office itself of Head in His Church. “For it was through His triumph on the Cross,” according to the teaching of the Angelic and Common Doctor, “that He won power and dominion over the gentiles”; by that same victory He increased the immense treasure of graces, which, as He reigns in glory in heaven, He lavishes continually on His mortal members. It was by His blood shed on the Cross that God’s anger was averted and that all the heavenly gifts, especially the spiritual graces of the New and Eternal Testament, could then flow from the fountains of our Savior for the salvation of men, of the faithful above all; it was on the tree of the Cross, finally, that He entered into possession of His Church, that is, of all the members of His Mystical Body; for they would not have been united to this Mystical Body.” Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis
–
And it is this New and Eternal Testament that is the heart of the ‘old Mass’ that is so displeasing to Protestants and others.
–
“But it is vain for them to adopt the name of catholic, as they do not oppose these blasphemies: they must believe them, if they can listen so patiently to such words.” Pope Saint Leo the Great, Epistle XIV, To Anastasius, Bishop of Thessalonica, St. Leo the Great, Letters 1-59
Dear Piokolby,
Thank you for an excellent and truthful comment. What you stated are the facts.
Dear Indignus,
You will never be rotten fruits. You are wonderful, loyal, good people with a far above average love, knowledge and experience of the faith, even if somewhat misguided with regard to the NO mass. 🙂 🙂
However, you and many others keep on justifying your attendance at the NO mass because doing so enables you to receive the Eucharist, bearing in mind of course that the prime reason for attending Mass is to offer worship to God. Now the crucial question, which I never see discussed, is whether one does in fact receive the Eucharist at a NO mass. I was reading old posts the other day and I read one entitled “Warning: Novus Ordo” (17 March, 2015.) I was struck by the fact that neither Louie, nor any commentator in that post, raised the question of whether the NO eucharist is valid. The question of whether the NO sacraments of Episcopal Consecration, Priestly Ordination and Eucharistic Consecration are valid sacraments is absolutely crucial, yet never, ever gets discussed. I would be very grateful if these matters could be examined in depth at some stage.
Dear salvemur,
It is our understanding that Anglicans and Lutherans lack what essentials necessary to assessing the Truth, being members of heretical sects in the darkness of rebellion against Papal authority, with its consequent history of rejection of individual teachings that have became part of their education in Faith. (The special Grace of God can help them out of that darkness, but is required.) You may do well to compare them to modernists within the Church, but we are not among those, either.
__
Identifying bad fruits- such as loss of Faith, openness to sin, walking on the wide road to Hell, etc. is as easy as reading an accurate poll these days, – much easier than accurately assigning direct and indirect causes to those bad fruits. That’s where prejudices can easily enter in and begin to color thinking.
__
We see it as a big advantage that we were well-formed and rooted in the Faith, before VII, and afterwards were able to experience and compare the post-conciliar TLMs, with well-done N.O. Masses (well-done that is, judging from what we read of abuses occurring elsewhere) which were presided over by faith-filled, non modernist pastors who fully appreciate the TLM and were apparently attempting to live holy lives. So we’re not hindered by the “neo con” gung-ho N.O. mentality we often see described here, which most often welcomes, defends and tries to implement modernist philosophies like no- Baptism ecumenism, religious freedom/ indifferentism, and the often listed “Protestantization” of the Church.
Living the full Faith on a daily basis opens people to what the Mass is all about. Lacking the formation or education to live the Faith, or choosing to believe those who whitewash sin; leaves people more vulnerable to other forms of self-deception.
___
We obviously disagree again with your understanding of how dogmatic beliefs are to be applied, if you really think any disagreement with what piokolby wrote above, necessarily goes against them.
Those conflicts about the status of the Pope and the N.O. seem to be two favorite bones of contention these days, unfortunately, on which we still disagree.
__
We continue to read, pray, and place our trust in God on these important matters, that His Divine will be better understood by all.
Indignus famulus,
Let’s clear the air. The new mass is not the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church. In attending this bastard rite you are putting your eternal salvation in danger.
The problem here is pride,cowardice and an unwillingness to suffer. Pride why? Because you think you “can handle” the abuses,the heresy and the objective danger of the new mass. You can not you are not super Catholics. The new mass was created by a Freemason. It is also Pride to think you can “fix” or “make better” the new mass you can’t. We are the sheep remember that.
Cowardice comes in because many can not bare the horror of being called “schismatics” when they are not. This is a very modern and effeminate manor way of acting. If you are a Catholic you don’t need a pat on the head from a modernist to prove you are Catholic.
The unwillingness to suffer comes when Catholics are faced with the objective reality that Catholics may not attend the new mass. This fact means that 1)we may need to travel far to a Catholic mass. 2)We may not be able to go to mass because a Catholic mass is not available. 3)We may have no friends and will feel “out of the Church” If we hope to attain heaven we must be like Our Lord. This means doing God’s will being humble and suffering in imitation of Our Lord.
I say these things not to attack you but to correct you and call you to repentance. I have also committed these sins against the Faith myself and have since confessed & corrected my actions and am now being faithful to Our Lord in these matters. If you need help finding a Catholic mass here is a link: http://sspx.org/en/community/priories If I can help you in any other way to convert from conciliarism to Catholicism please comment back if not don’t comment back to me anymore.
You are adhering to the new religion of Vatican II and you attend the new mass of that new religion. As far as I am concerned you are a heretic and schismatic (objectively) and I don’t want anything to do with you for the sake of the Faith and the salvation of my soul. Repent, do penance and return to the Catholic Church lest you lose your soul.
I’m sorry, IF, but there is no way your strong Faith and morals are graces from the NO. They are graces from other sources, not a subverted form of Holy Mass.
My Faith and reason cannot permit me to see the NO as the same rite as that which existed up to the latter’s creation by enemies of the Faith.
Dear Piokolby, You ought not to get into personal attacks. Make the objective point and don’t malign INDIGNUS Famulus. They are people who have suffered and sacrificed much for God. And attending many NOMs can be a most painful experience.
Lynda,
As well intentioned as these confused souls may be they are infected with what the Archbishop called “theological AIDS”
Attending the new mass should be painful. That pain is a grace and mercy of God. It is painful because it is not our religion. The pain is there so our reason will kick in and a Catholic conscience then ACTS. Indignus famulus clearly does not have a Catholic conscience and if they do they are violating it.
These people not only don’t want to act they are defending the evil new mass. Sounds like Vorisism to me. We are facing profoundly hard times. These are not personal attacks it is true Charity. Indignus famulus needs to quit the new religion and the new mass. The question of the new mass is a question of Faith. IT IS NOT A QUESTION OF PREFERENCE OR OPINION.
Indignus famulus has been told and they reject the truth. It is with no malice that I say let them be anathema. I have a soul to save and so do you. Move on to souls who will not spit in Our Lord’s face when truth is presented. Perhaps CMTV has a job for Indignus famulus.
Exactly. And as Mr & Mrs I.F. admit in their comment directly above, they “were well-formed and rooted in the Faith, before VII”. The deposit of faith was not passed onto them through the NO, and I’m not sure they fully appreciate how difficult it is for even good willed souls who were born and raised in the NO (and who have no other form of catechesis) to cling to the faith entire and inviolate, barring a special grace from God.
Peter,
Perhaps you need to read through the comments a little more carefully.
Yes – the NO service is a valid, albeit illicit liturgy (assuming there is a proper translation of the words of consecration). The bread and wine are truly converted into the body, blood, soul and divinity of OLJC. Hence, why the service is so offensive to Christ. If only wafers of bread were distributed, we wouldn’t be so concerned with all its defects (hence the Ottaviani intervention etc) and how it distorts the sacrificial nature of the sacrament into the appearance of the “Lord’s supper”. If transubstantiation did not take place, Catholics would be as preoccupied with the NO as they are with the myriad of protestant services – they would pay little to no attention.
It is precisely because the NO is valid that it has the potential to cause so much damage to souls.
PS
–
Peter,
Re. the new rite of episcopal consecrations and why they are valid:
http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/sedevacantism/validity_of_episcopal_consecrations.pdf
Now Piokolby,
You get the SSPX plank out of your own eye, before you tackle Indignus for the mote in theirs.
Piokolby,
–
I appreciate your other comment above re. the new mass, but you shouldn’t judge I.F. that way. In fact, if I remember correctly from one of their comments way back, they have had their good share of crosses strewn along their path. I think we’re all better off if we stick with correcting our own sins, and fraternally correct those we know on a personal basis, not someone on the internet we really know little to nothing about regarding their life experiences.
Dear Hoc,
This I would love to discuss in an appropriate special post. You see, I don’t believe these NO sacraments are valid.
Hey Hoc,
Unless you are at least 65 years old, you have no real idea how very true your statement really is:
“I’m not sure they fully appreciate how difficult it is for even good willed souls who were born and raised in the NO (and who have no other form of catechesis) to cling to the faith entire and inviolate, barring a special grace from God.”
When I eventually had my belated Damascus moment, the contrast between what I had been living in and what I remembered so well of how things were before VII, was like chalk and cheese. How very hard it is for my children to understand when they don’t really know what I’m talking about. They were all grown up before I left the NO and now they all think I have a different religion to theirs and I am no longer considered a Catholic by them. I pray morning and evening that they will receive that special grace before they die.
Dear Lynda,
It’s a rarity, but on this we believe you are wrong.
The Mass itself provides us with Our Lord Who is the source of ALL Graces.
Dear Lynda,
You were correct, and we were mistakenly thinking he had criticized it. which was the reason for our above note.
🙂 🙂
Dear Ambrose, This is a huge problem for parents with young children. If I could turn the clock back 50 years and had a second chance to raise a family today, I would send my kids to a government school and do all their religious education at home using a Baltimore catechism and have a formal, virtual, family attendance at St. Gertrude’s live web cast Mass on Sundays. Being a sedevacantist, I could not take them to a NO, or SSPX mass for fear of scandal. My Catholic school education in the old days, is probably my greatest asset in life, but those days are gone. If you take your child to a NO mass and the priest says something modernist how do you explain it to your child and then how do you justify taking him back for more of the same another day? When my daughter and her husband left for Virginia in the USA, she had her kids booked into a Catholic school before they left Africa – much to my relief. When they got there, she found out that a very excellent government school was a 10 minute walk from their house and it would cost her husband $10,000 a MONTH less than the Catholic school cost. I had in the meantime had my Damascus conversion to sedevacantism and strongly promoted the government school. I’d rather have my grandkids in a “pagan” atmosphere at school with a solid traditional Catholic education at home than spending every day in a NO environment. My daughter is a very solid traditional Catholic and has agreed to teach them from the Baltimore catechism.
Dear In Hoc,
You claim that valid Theological arguments support your views, while dismissing “experience” by asking what it has to do with a “hard analysis”.
__
It’s the theoretical application of those arguments to the N.O.s which are have actually being said in parishes all these years, that we question. Before accepting theories as “facts” scientists put them through extensive clinical tests (a.k.a. actual experiences) which are then thoroughlly assessed to try to determine the truth. With direct cause and effect experiments, it’s the experienced exceptions to the proposed “rule”, which provide a good scientist with the best leads to possible errors in his theory.
__
Since we’ve seen and spoken with hundreds of people at daily Masses all over our diocese for many years; we have reason to question whether the N.O.really poisons or corrupts people, or if being a True Catholic (having good formation in the Faith and putting it into daily practice) instead allows us to appreciate it and benefit greatly from it, despite its obvious shortcomings when compared to the TLM. Are you willing to consider the possibility that it has become a scapegoat for the Modernist heresy that has infiltrated a number of parishes, Schools, confessionals and pulpits around the world?
__
You claimed we ignored 95% of people who have a completely different “experience”, and we have to ask, “did they really”? If they are still complaining about abuses they witnessed in their parishes, whether they remained there or left and found a better parish, or a TLM- they are still not corrupted by the Mass but only rightly disgusted with the abuses they’ve witnessed some modernists bringing into it. And if that 95% figure is just your way of expressing the large number of stories you have read on trad blogs, then it really is not reflective of those your theory claims would lose the Faith they were known to have; and that due primarily to the N.O. Can you’d determine which N.O. priests were and are modernists and which not; and then study the results in their individual parishes over time despite transfers and personnel changes, closings and mergings, factoring out the outside influences of the world, the flesh and the devil?
___
With that unprovable a theory, our experiences with real Catholics is the only reliable test we can see possible, limited as it is. From where we’re standing, it appears the N.O. is as Cardinal Burke described it–inferior in quality but not corruptive. Providing what God intends for many milions of Catholics for whom it is their only Mass. We sincerely believe it’s the modernists and their ideas that are being accepted and doing real damage to souls.
Dear Hoc,
you’re logic is strange. I tend to see the tragedy the other way around; the tragedy is this: if there is no transubstantiation, then there is no Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. I would argue that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is supernaturally efficacious not only to those directly participating in it, but to the surrounding society itself. So many graces flow from the supernatural Sacrifice of the Holy Mass. That is why tradition has it that when the Catholic Dominicans and Catholic Conquistadors set foot on the Yucatan and Mexico and with them the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass that is when the blood sacrifices to the Mayan and Yucatan demons began to diminish and disappear altogether. Is it a coincidence that Roe v. Wade came onto the scene in 1973 only a few years after the introduction of the NO mass? (And we all know the train of all the other political and cultural abominations that followed after Roe v. Wade.) I don’t thing so. Is it a coincidence that a significant portion of students entering Catholic seminaries had a propensity to homosexual behaviours after the introduction of the NO liturgy, that is in the 1970s and 1980s. Again, I don’t think so. The protestantization of Catholics must have a supernatural component to it. I’m beginning to think Peter Lamb is right. The ‘feel-good’ sense of the NO supper has no potency. And if it has no potency, then what is it?
In Hoc Signo Vinces,
I agree with you that our focus should be on our own sins. It is not a sinful judgment that I am making. I am not judging Indignus famulus. In Charity I assume they have good will.
This is a public forum and the Faith is in question. Catholics have a duty to defend the Faith from these errors the poor souls trapped in these errors have our prayers and our pity.
We need to be clear the Catholic position is a clear condemnation of the errors of conciliarism, feeneyism and sedevacantism. It is a supreme lack of true Charity to put kid gloves on with souls in our times.
Archbishop Lefebvre’s 1974 declaration is right and it is with it that I stand in this crisis.
Dear piokolby,
Wow. Sorry to hear that anathema. Hope you’ll consider the possibility that you could be wrong, and though it probably won’t be appreciated by you until later, when you find that out, 🙂 🙂 we’ll keep you in our prayers.
This is our version of turning the other cheek.
Sincerely, God Bless you
Speed reading? Get some rest. 🙂 🙂
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Indignus Famulus,
Your first two paragraphs to piokolby are quite nasty. Who made you two the gatekeepers of this blog? Leave that to Louis as moderator to control.
Secondly, I don’t deny both of you the heroic struggle you have shown throughout the decades, but you boast way too much about it. You two have been blessed with support from one another and with many graces from God, but you can’t presume that all other Catholics, especially those born after the Second Vatican Council are as well equipped as you two.
Seriously, do you expect EVERY Catholic from now on must exercise the heroic virtues you two have clearly demonstrated? If so, this is too heavy a burden to carry. Even our Lord Christ showed much more compassion to his poor flock.
‘Woe to you …. because you load men with burdens which they cannot bear….’ St. Luke 11:46
Reminder it is Catholic teaching that if the Church does not supply you a proper place of worship (within reason; about an hour) which includes a wholesale rejection of Vatican II you are dispensed from the Sunday obligation. It is not mortal sin; it would be mortal sin to attend any Mass that does follow Vatican II in knowledge of knowing it is modernism and masonic. However you must still sanctify the Sunday.
Piokolby,
We are out of time and space on this post, but be warned, I am going to make a sedevacantist out of you. 🙂
Peter,
God forbid. FrChazal 100% destroyed Sedevacantism here is part 1 of his 4 part talk on the Sedevacantism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdgM1R0MH-Q
Watch all four parts then come talk to me. Otherwise I will not EVER discuss the matter with you.
Will do. 🙂
Someone once said “If Rembert Weakland is in full communion, who isn’t?”
HOW WELL ARE YOU PREPARED FOR MASS??
Lament and grieve because you are still so worldly,
so carnal,
so passionate and unmortified,
so full of roving lust,
so careless in guarding the external senses, so often occupied in many vain fancies,
so inclined to exterior things and so heedless of what lies within,
so prone to laughter and dissipation and so indisposed to sorrow and tears,
so inclined to ease and the pleasures of the flesh and so cool to austerity and zeal,
so curious to hear what is new and to see the beautiful and so slow to embrace humiliation and dejection,
so covetous of abundance,
so niggardly in giving and so tenacious in keeping,
so inconsiderate in speech,
so reluctant in silence,
so undisciplined in character,
so disordered in action,
so greedy at meals,
so deaf to the Word of God,
so prompt to rest and so slow to labour ,
so awake to empty conversation,
so sleepy in keeping sacred vigils and so eager to end them,
so wandering in your attention,
so careless in saying the office,
so lukewarm in celebrating,
so heartless in receiving,
so quickly distracted,
so seldom fully recollected,
so quickly moved to anger,
so apt to take offense at others,
so prone to judge,
so severe in condemning,
so happy in prosperity and so weak in adversity,
so often making good resolutions and carrying so few of them into action.
Then, with complete resignation and with your entire will offer yourself upon the altar of your heart as an everlasting sacrifice to the honour of My name, by entrusting with faith both body and soul to My care, that thus you may be considered worthy to draw near and offer sacrifice to God and profitably receive the Sacrament of My Body.
For there is no more worthy offering, no greater satisfaction for washing away sin than to offer yourself purely and entirely to God with the offering of the Body of Christ in Mass and Communion.
Thomas a Kempis
Imitation of Christ
Book 4
Chapter 7
Indignus famulus,
Anathema sit
Peter,
–
“You see, I don’t believe these NO sacraments are valid.”? I knew that, obviously, that’s why I provided you with evidence to the contrary.
As soon as I provide you with an opportunity to have this issue discussed you shut the door for discussion firmly shut?
Are you even considering looking through the evidence that reaches the opposite conclusion to your own regarding the validity of the new episcopal consecrations?
Then why state a desire to have this issue “discussed” in the first place?
Are you merely attempting to draw the so called “discussion” to fit in nicely with your own preconceived ideas, to the exclusion of evidence which would disprove such a proposition?
Alarico,
–
Regarding your reply above, I would answer with the following words at the close of the Tridentine rite: “…grant that the Sacrifice which I, though unworthy, have offered up in the sight of Thy Majesty, may be acceptable to Thee…”
This implies that the “sacrifice” – even if valid, may NOT be “acceptable to Thee”. Otherwise why offer up such a prayer?
I believe that the NO, while a valid (albeit illicit) sacrament, is not “acceptable to Thee” – to the Most High – that was my point.
“Are you willing to consider the possibility that it [the NO] has become a scapegoat for the Modernist heresy.”?
You have it the opposite way around, my friend.
It’s the modernist heresy that has given rise to the rotten fruit of the NO.
Dear IF, you are conflating two different things – the Blessed Sacrament and the proper rite of the Holy Mass. We al now the criteria of a valid consecration. If you receive the Blessed Sacrament in a state of grae and with tbe proper disposition, you will receive graces. That is not because of the new order of the Mass, but quite separate. The graces are from the Blessed Sacrament properly received, not the innovative NO. The distinction is fundamental.
Not at all Hoc. I would have thought you would have given me more credit than that. No, it was simply that that discussion would be long and completely off topic in this post. I was hoping for a special post where we could look at all sides in depth. I don’t have any preconceived ideas Hoc. I spent a lot of time looking at all sides before I made my mind up on this whole question of our current situation. These are not questions to be decided lightly. One’s salvation could depend upon it. What possible preconceived ideas could I have as an ordinary layman with regard to sacramental theology? No Hoc, you are accusing me falsely here ol’ pal.
Lord, save us – doesn’t a satanic mass have a valid consecration if the criteria are satisfied? A validly ordained priest who intends to consecrate (for evil purposes) the valid matter using valid form??
Amen.
I would read this prayer differently:
Please accept this sacrifice EVEN THOUGH I AM SO UNWORTHY to offer it. Rather than;
Please accept this sacrifice WHICH MAY NOT BE ACCEPTABLE to thee.
Right… *yawn*…
In one breath you state that you wish to have a discussion (to learn the truth), in the next that you believe the NO rites are invalid (clearly with no intention to change your mind even if provided with opposing evidence), in the next you express your intention to make piokolby into a sede, in the next that you’ve spent a lot of time studying the issue (and hence your mind is firmly set on the issue with the corresponding preconceived ideas).
–
I’ll repeat your words in case your memory fails you:
“I would be very grateful if these matters could be examined in depth at some stage.”
I am still waiting patiently for your examination of the linked article from the SSPX, and would be most interested to learn what you think of the evidence presented therein:
http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/sedevacantism/validity_of_episcopal_consecrations.pdf
–
In short: you ain’t foolin’ me. And I hope you’re not foolin’ anyone else on this site either.
Lynda,
Yes sadly some men get ordained just for the purpose of offering black masses. The novus ordo has made this problem much worse but it has been documented even before the council.
Does a satanic mass have a valid consecration if the criteria are satisfied? This video will answer your question: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opMuVJcud7M
The prayer doesn’t suggest that God accept a sacrifice which is not acceptable to him (much like those of Cain) – it seems to me that would be blasphemy – , on the contrary it is a humble prayer that the sacrifice MAY BE acceptable and pleasing to the Divine Majesty.
Indignus, the Lutheran communion and the Anglican communion are an attack upon the Catholic communion. All defections exist for one reason, to give satan another tool in his kit to attack the Faith. What was the source of Lutheranism? The wretched creature Luther who slandered the Blood of Christ with particular zeal. What was the source of the Anglican communion? Divorce and the murdering of the Faithful. What was the source of the Novus Ordo communion? A team of traitors who had a very particular aim – to remove the ‘stumbling block’ of real sacrifice from the liturgy. They rested on terms like ‘essentialization’, meaning that the ‘heretics’ are God’s approved way of purifying the defects of the Catholic Faith.
–
BTW, why does the N.O. have no offertory? Here’s why: “All the reformers rejected the Roman Offertory and its idea of a sin offering by the priest instead of a thank offering by the people.” (Lutheran Litury, Luther Reed.)
–
VII changed the “Mass of the Faithful”, to the Liturgy of the Eucharist (since it was meant to be a service for those outside the faith as well). The ‘offertory’ was reduced to the ‘Preparation of the Gifts’ – it completely removes the sacrificial nature of the bread and wine maintained in the traditional offertory and which holds fast the sacrificial role of the priest. This sacrificial role is replaced with the ‘peoples’ gifts to be offered up. They got away with this by once again engineering a false ‘antiquity’ – when trying to find any source for so much of the new rite however, ‘it became necessary to create new formulas from scratch” because antiquity didn’t back up their claims. “With the Offertory gone, the ‘difficulties on the doctrinal plane that jeopardized ecumenical dialogue on the Eucharist’ were removed.” Work of Human Hands. Rev. Anthony Cekada. pg 278.
–
“The vagaries of men’s minds can never replace the revealed truths of God…the figurative meaning of the sacrifces of the old convenant are fulfilled in the New Testament in His Blood.” The N.O. service places the ‘worshipper’ in a protestant service where the assembly is what supposed to be pleasing to God, rather than New Testament in His Blood.
“This implies that the “sacrifice” – even if valid, may NOT be “acceptable to Thee”. Otherwise why offer up such a prayer?”
–
“The prayer doesn’t suggest that God accept a sacrifice which is not acceptable to him … on the contrary it is a humble prayer that the sacrifice MAY BE acceptable and pleasing to the Divine Majesty.”
–
Huh?
You persist!
“As soon as I provide you with an opportunity to have this issue discussed you shut the door for discussion firmly shut?”
Read the comments more carefully Hoc!
What I said was:
“I was struck by the fact that neither Louie, nor any commentator in that post, raised the question of whether the NO eucharist is valid … I would be very grateful if these matters could be examined in depth AT SOME STAGE.”
The clear implication was that I recognized this to be Louie’s site and that I would be grateful for a post, subject to his discretion and at his convenience, regarding the validity of the NO sacraments, which would allow extended, in depth discussion on the subject.
You responded by providing me with a number of your preconceived ideas regarding the validity of the NO sacraments and a link.
I replied: “This [your link], I would love to discuss IN AN APPROPRIATE SPECIAL POST.”
Crikey mate, don’t you get plain English? Starting a lengthy OT debate in this post, I considered then and consider now, inappropriate. This is not firmly shutting the door! It’s just the opposite – I’m seeking an opportunity to throw the door wide open! Why can’t you get that? Instead you rather uncharacteristically rant into a series of disjointed, irrational, insulting attacks on my integrity. You must have got out of the wrong side of the bed this morning Hoc. In this one you did not do yourself proud.
“In short: you ain’t foolin’ me. And I hope you’re not foolin’ anyone else on this site either.”
What a stupid, inane remark!
Hoc,
If the “NO service” (novus ordo missae) was promulgated by a true Pope, how can it be illicit?
Vatican II specifically says that it is only infallible and part of the Extraorinary Magistarium when it explicitly says so. This in itself proofs that VII is not infallible because it admits it could be wrong. And to clear up a misconception that many try to raise is that the Ordinary AND UNIVERSAL Magistarium is infallible but VII does not fall under this catigory. The reason for this is that NO single papal document as a whole does fall under this kind of infallibility but rather certain teachings in papal documents that are repeated over and over again and are in accord with Tradition. For instance it is infallibly taught that contraception is wrong but no one will argue that an entire encyclical that teaches against contraception is infallible. For instance Paul VI and Pius XI (i think) taught against artificial contraception but Paul Vi taught unlimited natural family planning where as Plus XI said NFP could maybe possible be used in extrodinary circumstances for major health reasons. Only one could have been right and both were part of the Magistarium.
Dear ACT, could not both be right? If Pius XI taught that it may be allowable in restricted circumstances and Paul VI seemingly expanded those circumstances, (your use of the term “unlimited” seems a slight exaggeration of his intent), including what Pius XI allowed, it’s not A or B, but A & B.
There is really only one reason to leave the NO mass strictly alone:
–
They distribute the Body and Blood of Our Lord through laymen, and they receive in the hand. That is sacrilege plain and simple
Mike you make a good point but I would still disagree with Paul VI on NFP. I could go into more detail as to why I disagree but that is not necessary because there are many other examples of papal encyclical s contradicting each other on generally minor points. The point is we should not over exagerate papal infallibility like some on this blog seem to do. At the same time it is important to realize that if you do contradict a pope you better be using an equal or greater authority like another pope or scripture.
Dear, A Critical Thinker, You’ve explained the infallibility parameters very well. Perhaps, you could rewrite it under the later/current post by Mr Verrechio, so that more people could read it? I just happened to notice it.
Pope Pius XII was not teaching the Universal Church. His was a private letter to the Italian midwives. For me, Paul VI was not a true Pope, so his teachings are irrelevant. I thought Casti Connubii forbade contraception full stop. I have read it before, but its too long to re-read now, because I’m clapped. Please can you give me the clause where he says NFP may be OK under certain circumstances?
I could not find the lines but found plenty of other websites saying Paul VI endorced NFP. Besides my liberal high school teachers always use him and John Paul II to justify NFP.
I think you are referring to Pope Pius XII’s letter to the midwives where he clearly endorses NFP under certain circumstances. The important point to remember is that this was a private letter (fallible) and not Magisterial teaching to the Universal Church (infallible.)
Dear PL
Yes Pius XII letter was fallible but so are all encyclicals to the extent in which they are novel. Encyclicals are official letters to bishops of the world and other Catholics. They are very authoritative and part of the authentic Magistarium. I would say Pius XII letter falls under this catigory of authority because it was an official papal letter. I would also say Vatican II falls under this catigory because it never said it was binding on the Universal Church.
Dear ACT, 3rd sentence of para 59 of Casti Connubi. Continually abused and distorted, taken out of context, to support avoidance of children by avoiding marital act only around fertile period. I left reply earlier on current post as my phone having difficulty here
I just have to write to let everyone know that I’m so grateful for this comment box. I’m so enjoying this debate and have learned and will continue to learn. I see, we all love and cherish our faith and so passionate about it that our emotions get in the way, but this is what makes for a great debate. I can overlook it so I continue to scroll down for the next answer/question. This is how I learn. Please don’t stop. Just shake off the dust of harsh words and continue to move forward. I hope I will learn more in the days ahead..Thank you, Louie for this great blog.
“Subsists in” means all that “is” means, and more. “Is” does not say enough. There is a very good article on the phrase here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsistit_in
Other bodies have “elements of sanctification” because to be the Church belongs to the CC alone – those other bodies are Christian, in so far as they are Catholic. In so far as they are not Catholic, they are not Christian. One cannot deny that God is at work in them, for if He were not, conversions of their members could not happen. Christ is Faithful to the CC – He is not limited to her, or by her, but works on whom He wills, when and as and where He wills. God is not limited to Catholics – He is not a tribal fetish, and faith in the Church must not be allowed to be mistaken for tribalism, nor tribalism for faith.
Jimmy,
Protestants are heretics. They are not Christians. They follow Christ according to their own versions of His teachings. There is only one Church of Christ and that is the Catholic Church. Outside of that Church there is no salvation, except by invincible ignorance. There is no such thing as partial truth – there is only truth and falsehood.