In just the past few weeks alone, some of the biggest names in neo-conservative herodom – Cardinal Raymond Burke; Cardinal Robert Sarah; Bishop Athanasius Schneider, and Archbishop Charles Chaput – have rewarded their quasi-traditional fanboys and girls with a rude awakening.
At least that’s what should have happened.
Let’s review:
– During the Q&A session at a recent Sacred Liturgy Conference in Oregon, when asked about the Society of St. Pius X, Cardinal Burke cautioned attendees not to attend their liturgies; even if no Traditional Latin Masses are available in the diocese due to their irregular situation.
(I’ve received confirmation concerning these comments from two independent sources. More inflammatory things were allegedly said as well. If and when a recording of the session is made available, there may be more to report. Stay tuned.)
– In a recent essay published in the French publication La Nef, Cardinal Robert Sarah said that the expression “reform of the reform” should be abandoned in favor of “mutual enrichment” since the Traditional Roman Rite, according to the mind of the cardinal, could stand to learn a thing or two from the Novus Ordo.
“‘Reform of the reform’ has become synonymous with dominance of one clan over the other,” he said.
“This expression may then become inappropriate, so I prefer to speak of liturgical reconciliation. In the Church, the Christian has no opponent!”
– Writing in an essay for Rorate Caeli, Bishop Athanasius Schneider urged respect for the Second Vatican Council and its “original and valuable” contributions. He went on to urge, as the way forward, what amounts to little more than a return to the failed “hermeneutic of continuity” that was launched by Benedict XVI in 2005.
– American Archbishop Charles Chaput penned what was dubbed “a hard hitting essay” in defense of religious liberty.
According to Chaput, “working for religious freedom” is important, among other reasons, for the contribution it makes in “service to the poor.”
“In America,” Chaput wrote, “the liberty of religious communities has always been a seedbed of social action and ministry to those in need.”
In the archbishop’s crosshairs were the progressive editors of La Civilta Cattolica, but needless to say, the hardest hit was leveled against the Social Kingship of Christ and the mission that He gave to His Church.
In spite of all of this, each one of these “wake up calls” were met, not with eyes opened wide, but with wide applause from the peanut gallery; oftentimes from people who fancy themselves “traditional.”
The bottom line here is simple: Each one of the aforementioned prelates are Men-of-the-Council.
Sure, they may occasionally decry certain allegedly “ambiguous” conciliar propositions, or the deficiencies of the Novus Ordo (more specifically, the way it is performed), but at the end of the day, they have Vatican II and the New Mass coursing through their modernist veins.
As such, that makes them, and anyone like them, part of the problem; namely, the apostasy about which Our Lady warned at Fatima.
Heroes die hard. I get it, but enough already.
Very disheartening about Cardinal Burke. Indeed he feeds us stones when he tells us to avoid the SSPX at all costs. To deny the starving, shivering sheep this holy refuge in abjectly deformed and spiritually dangerous diocese where there is little to no transmission of the Faith, and where heresy is promulgated (“gay Masses”, enshrinement of Amoris Laetitia, etc) is disgraceful.
I can believe that has been said at that conference, because no matter how much traditional one tries to be inside the NO spectrum, it will still be a NO-NO. But I would really like to hear that material. That recording of the session would cast out any doubt.
Archbishop Lefebvre:
“It is imperative to know that today Rome is at the service of the revolution and therefore terribly anti-traditional.
That is why I refused to put myself in their hands. They only wanted that, by recognizing my mistakes, I help them continue their revolution in the Church – no more, no less. All those who have left us are not aware of the situation and believe in the good will and the rectitude of thought of the bishops or cardinals in Rome. Nothing is further from the truth! ‘It is not possible for them to lead us into the revolution,’ say those who agree with the Pope and his bishops. Well, that is exactly what will happen.”
Once you realize what so-called “conservative-traditional” bishops and cardinals think about Tradition and the Holy Mass, isn’t it time to question how a bishop consecrated in the Novus Ordo rite can ordain a priest to the Latin Roman Catholic rite using the Tridentine Mass with the proper intention of “doing what the Church does” in the true Roman Catholic Faith? He cannot give what he did not receive in his consecration to the Novus Ordo rite.
We are told to avoid all sacraments that are doubtful. Burke et al must be avoided. Their “ordinations” are doubtful. Burke et al are modernists, therefore they are heretics and to be avoided. Stop looking to conciliar “prelates” to correct their own heresy. Not happening. It puzzles me why so many traditionally minded Catholics look to modernists to solve the problems of the Church.
Dear Archbishop Chaput- The poor we will always have with us. How about working to ensure the same for the Catholic Faith of all time!
Yes. And enough already with this need to canonize their precious Vatican 2. St. John 23, St. John Paul 2, Venerable Paul 6.
Shove it down our throats as much as possible. The devil is all too obvious.
Even those born and bred Vatican 2, should be able to see how ridiculous all this canonization after canonization is. Either something has gone quite right within our Church, or something is very wrong. Hmm…i which it is… I guess it depends on which glasses one chooses to wear. Very difficult to find the Catholic lense today.
Ah…St. Plus X, my inncorrupt Pope, no Pope was canonized for 500 years prior to him. No Pope after him….until:
Vatican 2, Vatican 2, what would we do without Vatican 2?
A springtime with no sun, withering up and dying, choking amongst the weeds. Very ugly.
1958 Conclave. I think we need to start there and then connect all the dots with prophecy, the “eclipse” of the Church, and the infallible and authentic Magisterial teachings of the Church. All mere opinions are less than worthless.
The Faith? Yes. But let no one forget the primary mission of the Catholic Church is to save souls through the Sacraments. The poor…a secondary consideration at best. The “poor” that Jesus spoke of consists of the “Poor in spirit”- those who starve for supernatural graces to become holy. I know Chaput. He was once my bishop in Denver while I was a seminarian. He is a good talker and politician. He did not make his way to the top via “tradition.” As someone already said above, Chaput is a post-VII conciliar prelate. He says all the “right” things, but does things differently in the shadows.
Prelates like Burke and Sarah remain entrenched in Vatican II. Has anyone noticed that their Dubia went the way of the still unanswered Ottiavanni Intervention Dubia at Vatican II? The silence is absolutely deafening. These men fear causing a schism. News flash Cardinals Burke, Sarah, et.al, the schism happened fifty plus years ago. Archbishop Lefevre was and is correct about everything he ever said. The Catholic Church is in eclipse. Too many questions and not enough answers!
But, the SSPX may be a bit too visible to be part of the “eclipse”, and they’ve been trying for years to become “recognized” by the false, usurped “Church”. I’m afraid we may want to keep digging.
Can anyone find an official Church document that allows for the consecration of Bishops without a Papal Mandate, such as in a “state of emergency” or interregnum? The only thing I can find is that when this did happen, the consecrations were later ratified by the Pope. However, and the thing is, there was a Camerlengo(sp) who is authorized to carry out the administration of the Church/Pope’s duties during that time period. That is what’s lacking with the Sede position, and I am aware of their (and SSPX) popular answer to that but there’s no Church document that I can find. Pope Pius XII condemned the consecration of bishops without a Papal Mandate. We may have been further along in Daniel’s prophecies than we have been willing to realize. Everything must flow from the (actual) Pope to be valid and impart Grace. That is what I’ve been learning.
While in the seminary in the late 80’s/early 90’s, my professor of dogmatic theology advised us that during WWII while the Catholic Church in Eastern Europe was mostly underground, the bishop of a diocese (sorry, it all escapes my memory) died with no successor or auxiliary bishop. After some time, the remaining priests secretly exhumed the bishop’s body removing his hands, and using them to lay on the ordinands heads while reciting the prayers of ordination. During JPII’s papacy, the case came to light. JPII, after ordered an investigation of the incident and the exigent circumstances of the time, decreed that the ordinations would remain valid. I wish I could remember the bishop’s name and the diocese/country this occurred, but I cannot…too many years ago now- nearly thirty- have passed. I wish I could give you more. Maybe someone else might know. However, this might apply to your question, albeit, indirectly.
Also, papal mandates concern canonical matters- not the validity of the ordinations/consecrations. This is the case with the SSPX.
You are trying to find some precedent in history to understand the present. I think there is none. Search all you like. I don’t think you’ll find one. We cannot solve this mystery.
What do we do? Hold fast to tradition. As a member of the laity, this means go to a valid Mass and receive sacraments from validly ordained clergy.
It seems that about to arrive at the last train station on the line – that the Church has lost Her mission after all.
Thank you for the story, and the replies. It’s imperative to figure out where the valid Sacraments are, if there are any at present. There has to be valid Sacraments somewhere, of course. As someone stated, a doubtful Sacrament is no Sacrament. We definitely see the “fruits” of the N.O. (lacking Grace). For those of Good Will (and receiving unknowingly), if a Sacrament is invalid one will receive Grace, but not from the invalid Sacrament. All validity does flow from the Blood of Christ through the Chair of Peter, that is for certain come to find out. Even the demons themselves are staunch legalists.
In this house I am seeking and praying for light and for the Truth. My opinions are worthless, and I don’t seek to comfort myself with any of them.
Please take note of # 37 on, with respect to the necessity of a Papal Mandate:
http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_29061958_ad-apostolorum-principis.html
There are no heroes in Novus Ordo land….only traitors. Mount Crushmore will be crushed–Please God, soon!
I like it when they preach on and on about religious freedom–it just self-validates the objective requirement to ignore their authority.
It wasn’t lost, it was rejected by rebels and usurpers. Every Cardinal is dressed in drag as far as I’m concerned.
Whats your point simple beggar? Even if excommunicated the ordination is still valid. Even the schismatic eastern churches have valid sacraments. There are plenty of valid sacraments in the world. Its just that the vast majority of sacraments in what is thought to be the Roman Catholic Church are doubtful.
There could be real Cardinals among them who profess the Faith, and have been appointed under supplied jurisdiction due to widespread common error of who the Pope is. I don’t know for sure, so I can’t rule this out.
The Catholic way is to take the minimal retreat to safety requiredy, and not beyond that. I keep open these possibilities, so that if they turn out to be right, and God uses them to restore the Church, I won’t be in an irreparable schism. There are great mysteries that I am not competent to solve; while it is all very fascinating, I’m not going to keep digging away at every thing when it doesn’t change the outcome.
So, while the SSPX should tighten up on various things, I have decided that I can take shelter safely there, with sacraments and masses I know to be valid and sure. The rest is up to the hierarchy to sort out.
Who’s face is number 2 on Mount Crushmore? I recognize JPII, Cardinal Sarah, and Cardinal Burke. Thank you.
Yes. Why?
Yes^^^
Wow. Reading the comments on this blog makes me think there are actually catholics left on the planet. Thanks be to God!
Because they either do not know/understand the teaching of the Church regarding who is, and who is not an actual member (hint: public heretics are not members), or they do not want to apply it, because in our current crisis, it leads to extremely unpopular and undesirable conclusions that have no precedent in history.
It’s in the Code of Canon law.
I’m eager for the reform of the reform of the reform of the reform of the reform of the reform.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otX_JyI23OA
God bless you, Cradle Convert!
–
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otX_JyI23OA
It’s in the Code of Canon law.
http://sspx.org/en/disposition-law-case-necessity-church
http://sspx.org/en/disposition-law-case-necessity-church
I apologize – it does seem confusing. Have been low on sleep. I’ll have to regroup. Please do see the link above from Pope Pius XII beginning with #37. That was just 4 months before he died and hell took over.
Nevertheless, how can an excommunicated prelate (a non-Catholic), confer a valid consecration? I know the party line on that, but I’ll guess we’ll have absolute clarity on Judgment Day.
One related issue is that the new rite of Consecration of 1968 is invalid, or doubtful at best. It turns out it doesn’t even confer the authority to forgive sins. They omitted that part. This would result in priests not actually having been ordained priests, hence invalid Sacraments in most places (N.O./Conciliar Church). That would definitely amount to a “frightful crisis” (LaSalette) , a horrible, imminent chastisement (Sr. Lucia 1957), and a key aspect of the “operation of error” (2 Thess Ch. 2).
Thank you for that. The problem is that it even says the meaning is unclear, and I would personally completely disregard the 1983 Code as it comes from the Conciliar Church. What Pope Pius XII pronounced in his Encyclical above seems to destroy that position.
It didn’t start with the 1958 conclave. It began upon the death of the greatest pope of at least the last two centuries––if not for the last thousand years––St Pope Pius X. The Modernists began there assault with the election of Pope Benedict XV in 1914. He was the first of three, successive, weak popes, the latter two being Pope Pius XI elected in 1922 and Pope Pius XII elected in 1939.
These three men are hailed as “great popes” by the foolish and the modern leaders of the church, but in fact, they unquestionably paved the way for Vatican II. All were feckless leaders (as far as allowing the Modernists to initiate and expand their foothold), but the last of the three, Pope Pius XII, was the worst of all. He all but single-handedly set the stage for the Second Vatican Council.
Blame John XXIII and the diabolically-inspired popes that followed for sure, but lay the actual responsibility where it properly belongs
There’s now a rumor out there that Francis may take away permission to say the Latin Mass (LifeSiteNews). Not surprising in the least if it proved to be accurate.
They weren’t public heretics.
Doesn’t anyone recognize face #2?
crawler
That’s Cardinal Muller.
More on that subject from Dr. Chojnowski who says he knew about this plan since 2001 during the papacy of JP2:
http://radtradthomist.chojnowski.me/2017/07/franciss-plans-for-latin-mass-on-agenda.html
Great! Thank you, maryiloveher. It doesn’t look like any picture of him I’ve seen of him before. He seems to have a rather strange expression, perhaps something like a cross between a smile and a grimace. Constipation perhaps…
True, but not being a “public heretic” is a frighteningly low standard––maybe even making Louie’s point.
Good Saturday morning Tom A,
Once again, your pristine clarity in truth shines. As we can only remain, this side the veil, perfectly imperfect as the miserable human creatures which we are, we can through grace alone, as you again demonstrate, thanks be to God, the simple realities as Reality. The metaphysical act of priestly ordination imparts an eternally fixed change onto the ontology of the man who receives it, such that once validly ordained a priest, always a priest into eternity. Because the sin of the Orthodox is that which is opposed to charity and not to Faith, as is the sin of heresy, so as they remain in schism and as such outside the Church where there is no salvation, their exercise of the Sacraments remains as Sacraments of Holy Mother Church. God bless and keep you and yours’. In caritas.
“Any offers coming from Modernist Rome could be nothing more than a scheme to further annihilate the Holy, Roman Catholic Church. Therefore, let it be known that the SSPX will not seek or accept any form of recognition or generosity from this corrupt Vatican especially from the current papacy, which cannot be trusted.” Bishop Bernard Fellay (in my dreams!)
This plan is a perfect trap designed to end Apostolic Succession! As a condition for Personal Prelature, Bishop Fellay and fellow SSPX bishops pledge not to consecrate any more bishops. All the Ecclesia Dei fraternities (FSSP etc.) rely on bishops consecrated to the Novus Ordo rite for their priestly ordinations. Voila! No more Apostolic Succession; therefore, no more truly Roman Catholic priests and bishops, no more Real Presence, no more absolution for sinners. Is this plan so diabolical that even the elect will be deceived?
Special prayers for those Roman Catholic bishops who continue to consecrate bishops to the Latin Roman Catholic rite.
Dearest Louie,
Your persistent edification of the stark evil, which as the privation of the good which is due Holy Mother Church in this case, and as it relates to the utter and implacable responsibility of a true Shepherd as bishop to lead and to guide his sheep into the Beatific Vision, remains as it only can, as evidence of your true love of the Mystical Body of Christ, His Bride, Holy Mother Church. Our Blessed Dominus Deus Sabbaoth and Savior, Jesus the Christ, Son of the Living God, as true God and true man, in the Gospel of Matthew 12:30 said this: “He that is not with me, is against me: and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth.” We know that there lies precious nothing “in between”, as our Lord Jesus the Christ also commanded that the “luke warm” He will vomit from His mouth.
In that understanding, the so called “conciliar church” of Roncalli and Montini et al, is the Church of Jesus the Christ OR the Church of the Ages, the Angels, the holy Martyrs and the Saints is. The Church of 2,000 years offers, in Her highest form of liturgical expression, the prayer of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, as codified onto the being of said Holy Mother Church unto the end of time. This Apostolic codification of the holy Roman Missal and Mass, among other things, is not to be altered one iota, with the penalty of latae sententiae excommunication and the wrath of Almighty God and the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, as invoked by Saint Pope Pius V in his Apostolic Constitution, “Quo Primum”, with the power only he possessed, as the authentic Vicar of Christ Jesus in this world. Either Saint Pope Pius V was the authentic Vicar of Jesus Christ or Roncalli, Montini, et al were/are, as that which is True as Infallible in 1570 or any time, cannot somehow not be true and “become” fallible at some later time. This “becoming” is the Hegelian signature of Lucifer as is evidenced by the “evolutionary” Modernist mind, as Joseph Ratzinger ratifies now as he has, over his entire clerical career and with such pristine and perspicacious pertinacity, for all those with eyes which see. As if Roncalli and company somehow “fixed” an “Apostolic error”, then it would be that all the Pontiffs over the centuries in between Pius V and Roncalli, somehow allowed that “error” to persist. This can only ever remain as it is in being, an absurdity on its very face, which implodes under its own weight. This we know with certitude, as either holy Tradition, that which is known and practiced and remains as it is known and practiced over the entire Life of Holy Mother Church, and as such is Infallible, or it is fallible, as being cannot both be and not be, at the same time, and under the same respect. If it is indeed fallible, then the gates of hell have prevailed against His Church. If it is Infallible as Christ Jesus Himself commanded in Matthew 16:18, and as thus it is as it can only ever be, immutably Infallible, then we are left with a singular conclusion. This singular conclusion is the reality that the present conundrum which we find ourselves in is not a conundrum after all.
The reality which speaks as res ipsa loquitur is that we indeed have two churches and as thus, two religions. One Church is with us as it will remain, implacable unto the end of time, as the Church of Jesus the Christ; One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. The other church is the church of the Antichrist, as there is only good and there is evil, as the privation of the due good, as it relates to any moral act, and there is nothing else in the created cosmos. We know this as Christ commanded it in Matthew 12:30–“He that is not with me, is against me: and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth.” Jesus the Christ also commanded in the Holy Writ— you will know them by their fruits. The “conciliar church” is the church of the Antichrist, which blasphemes Almighty God and leads infinitely precious souls into hell. The “conciliar church” only “scattereth” precious souls as we know this as an historical reality over the past 60 years. The “fruits” of the “conciliar church” are the fruits of Lucifer himself–which is to first deceive and then divide and conquer.
Lastly, blessed Saint Paul warned us in the mystery of his prophetic 2 Thessalonians 2, and now quoting the Douay-Rheims copy, verses 6-9:
“6 And now you know what withholdeth, that he may be revealed in his time.
7 For the mystery of iniquity already worketh; only that he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way.
8 And then that wicked one shall be revealed whom the Lord Jesus shall kill with the spirit of his mouth; and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming, him,
9 Whose coming is according to the working of Satan, in all power, and signs, and lying wonders,…”
May Almighty God allow His children of the True Church the reception of His infinite plenitude of mercy, as if this application is correct, we now but await the revelation of the man of perdition, the very person of the Antichrist. Amen. The Grace and Peace of God the Father of our Blessed Lord and Savior, Jesus the Christ, be with you and yours’ Louie. In caritas.
Ok fellow pilgrims, I’m afraid I’m a bit lost here. I could use some help.
We have left the NO Church after suffering with it lo these past few years.
Off to the Latin Rite, until that fateful day when the priest moved to a new locale far away.
Intermission.
Voila! A new diocesan Latin Rite appears, but we note offertory checks are to be made out to the church, a full NO Church.
Question: Are we supporting the NO Church? We do not want to support the NO Church.
Is the SSPX a “good” place to go for the Holy Mass? Am I still giving to the NO Church by giving to the priest saying the Latin Mass?
This entire issue is crazymaking, and I am beginning to see why people just stop attending Mass and disengage from “formalized religion”. Please excuse me for my frustration. I don’t mind trying to sort this out, but I can’t figure out the right thing to do except stop attending the NO Mass, which is a done deal.
Dear Evangeline,
Reading the note to Louie above may help you sort your thoughts. Indeed, going to a “priest” who was “ordained” after the holy Sacraments were “changed” by Montini, as “Paul VI”, in 1969 (if memory serves me) places into grave doubt the reality of the ontological change, through the act of the authentic Sacrament of Holy Orders, to the man who received these sacraments (small case “s” intended) of Montini and company and not of Christ Jesus. You see, we must as we only can, remain consistent in the right reasoning of what these mercenaries of Lucifer since Roncalli in 1958 have done, as being cannot both be and not be, at the same time, and under the same respect or we defy the Thomistic law of non-contradiction, which Christ’s true Church holds as reality. They have literally and existentially pulled off the summa and summit of deception. These wolves have captured and control the edifice of the Church of Jesus the Christ. They are quintessential actors, if you will, and have parlayed the grandest Luciferian deception that time and space has heretofore accepted. Anyone can dress in the “robes” of Holy Mother Church, as priest, bishop, cardinal, and pope. As any actor at the pinnacle of success can do, they play the role in word with deception, while it is clear that observing their lives, as with the lives of the Pharisees, their act demonstrates at once an almost implacable hatred for the Mystical Body of Christ, His Bride the Church, as they crucify Her today. In closing, giving of your money then to the diocesan church where the true Mass in praxis is held, while at once remembering that the validity of the “Mass” there remains in question, because the validity of the ordination of the priest is also in question, is as giving your money to the “conciliar church”. I pray this helps. In caritas.
Evangeline
I think the SSPX is a good place to go.
Archbishop Lefebvre to his priests:
“You will love to hear confessions. The ministry of confession is one of the most beautiful manifestations of the charity of the priest. And if you remain for hours in the confessional, is this not what the holy Cure of Ars and all holy priests have done, who spent their lives in the confessional? Extraordinary manifestation of their charity, of this charity which is found in the Holy Eucharist. These things you will do, I am certain, my dear brethren, my dear seminarians, because that is what all the faithful who hope in Ecône expect from you. That is what the priest is— the holy priest is a priest who is charitable above all, who has his heart wide open to all those who come to consult him, to all those who seek consolation from him, and courage and firmness of faith. You then will be such priests as these, filled with this charity of Our Lord, and you will ask this particularly of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary.”
As do I, maryiloveher. Our ecclesial place of refuge, receiving the valid and licit Sacraments, the Son of God gave man. Amen. Alleluia. In caritas.
Of course he wants to get rid of the Mass…..SP itself alludes to this with the “mutual enrichment” garbage—SP was the first step of the process! Benedict the Abdicator was always a faux Trad.
To any and all who may be reading this thread. Do not be disturbed by all these comments pronouncing judgment on the validity of sacraments in our Catholic churches. They have no authority to make such claims. Therefore they are not to be taken seriously.
The sacraments in the Novus Ordo are valid.
The sacraments in the Novus Ordo are valid.
The sacraments in the Novus Ordo are valid.
And God does not require you to figure this out for yourself.
Yes you are on your own and you must take charge of your spiritual life but God is merciful and all powerful. Do not be disturbed. Padre Pio said it best:
Love the Madonna, and pray the rosary often and well.
John 314-Did Padre Pio give this advice knowing we would be deprived of the True Mass and valid sacraments?
Archbishop Lefebvre:
“There is a relationship between this new Code of Canon Law and the entire liturgical reform, as Bugnini said in his book The Fundamental Principles of the Changing of the Liturgy. “The path opened by the Council is destined to change radically the traditional liturgical assembly in which, according to a custom dating back many centuries, the liturgical service is almost exclusively accomplished by the clergy. The people assist, but too much as a stranger and a dumb spectator.” What? How can one dare say that the faithful are present at the sacrifice of the Mass as simply dumb spectators so as to change the Liturgy? How must the faithful be active in the sacrifice of the Mass? By the body or spiritually? Obviously spiritually. One can draw a great spiritual profit from assisting at Mass in silence. It is, in effect, a mystery of our Faith. How many have become saints in this silence of the true Mass!
“A long education will be necessary for the Liturgy to become an action of all the people of God.” Without a doubt. Then he adds that he is speaking of “a substantial unity but not a uniformity. You must realize that this is a true break with the past.” This past is the twenty centuries of prayer of the Church.
Bugnini was the key man in the liturgical reform. I went to see Cardinal Cicognani when this reform was published and I said to him: “Your Eminence, I am not in agreement with this change. The Mass no longer has its mystical and divine character.” He replied: “Excellency, it is like that. Bugnini can enter as he likes into the Pope’s office to make him sign what he wants.” This is what happened to the Secretariat of State. This is how all these changes happened. They agreed on it beforehand, and then obtained signatures for some changes, and then others, and then others.
I said to Cardinal Gut: “Your Eminence, you are responsible for Divine Worship, and you accord permission for the Blessed Sacrament to be received in the hand! They will know that this was published with the agreement of the Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship!” He replied: “Excellency, I do not even know if I will be asked for it to be done. You know, it is not I who command. The boss is Bugnini. If the Pope asks me what I think of Communion in the hand, I will cast myself on my knees before him to ask him not to do it.” You see, then, how things happened at Rome: a simple signature on the bottom of a decree and the Church is ruined by numerous sacrileges … The real presence of Our Lord is ruined, for it is no longer respected. Then, nothing sacred remains, as was seen at the large reunion at which the Pope was present, where the Blessed Sacrament was passed around from hand to hand between thousands of persons. Nobody genuflects anymore before the Blessed Sacrament. How can they still believe that God is present there?
It is this same spirit which inspired the changing of the canon Law as that which inspired the changes in the Liturgy: it is the people of God, the assembly, which does everything. The same applies to the priest. He is a simple president who has a ministry, as others have a ministry, in the midst of an assembly. Our orientation towards God has likewise disappeared. This comes from the protestants who say that eucharistic devotion (for them there is neither Mass nor sacrifice: this would be blasphemy) is simply a movement of God towards man, but not of man towards God to render Him glory, which is nevertheless the first (latreutic) end of the Liturgy. This new state of liturgical mind comes likewise from Vatican II: everything is for man. The bishops and priest are at the service of man and the assembly. But where is God then? In what is His glory sought? What will we do in heaven? For in heaven “all is for the glory of God,” which is exactly what we ought to do here on earth. But all that is done away with, and replaced by man. This is truly the ruin of all Catholic thought.
You know that the new Code of Canon Law permits a priest to give Communion to a protestant. It is what they call eucharistic hospitality. These are protestants who remain protestant and do not convert. This is directly opposed to the Faith. For the Sacrament of the Eucharist is precisely the sacrament of the unity of the Faith. To give Communion to a protestant is to rupture the Faith and its unity.”
We we not “derprived” and I have no idea what he was thinking. So instead of trying to twist it into some apocalyptic vision I simply see it for what it is — excellent advice.
Evangeline, while very critical of the SSPX hierarchy and their efforts at reconcilliation with heretics, I still go to one of their chapels. They have real priests and real sacraments and teach the true faith. If they do reconcile with modernist rome, and their priests start being ordained by heretics, then thier sacraments will become doubtful and they will have to be avoided.
“How can one dare say that the faithful are present at the sacrifice of the Mass as simply dumb spectators so as to change the Liturgy? How must the faithful be active in the sacrifice of the Mass? By the body or spiritually? Obviously spiritually. One can draw a great spiritual profit from assisting at Mass in silence.”
I can appreciate this quote from the Archbishop but only for a low mass. For high mass, the people have their place to participate such as singing the ordinary and any hymns. In fact I don’t think the “reformers” would have gotten anywhere if, back in the day, the people, instructed by the clergy, we’re singing as they should.
I can tell you from experience, as I work as a professional singer for a Latin mass community, that it is like pulling teeth to get people to sing the simplest of music. They truly do stand around like dumb spectators. It is a scandal and I can see how it was like taking candy from a baby for the modernists to bring in the N.O.
Thank you all for your generous responses. Lots to think about.
And by whose authority are they valid? Heretics? Modernists? You? The wise position is that they are doubtful given all that has happened. This is not an authoritaitve pronouncement, just a prudent decision given all the facts and observations. It is offered to you as advise and not as judgment. Do with it what you may.
Tom A, can you tell me where this Church teaching about avoiding sacraments that are doubtful come from?
Not that it pertains to me because I’m not doubtful about the sacraments being valid but just wondering what that’s based on or is it an infallible teaching of the Church.
John, thats a good question. I have heard it said that it is a grave sin to recieve doubtful sacraments but have never actually seen it in any official capacity. I’ll have to look into it. That said, it simply makes sense since if one were to have doubt then one would not want to be guilty of idolatry by worshipping bread.
Yes, but what about the flip side in telling others its just a piece of bread when in reality it’s100% the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. How blasphemous would that be? Thats why I think opposite of what you say, in other words the “burden of proof to prove beyond a reasonable doubt” that it isn’t the Body, Blood of Jesus lies with you and actually I feel that the same principle applies to the Pope, the Mass, etc.
And its like another argument I’ve been seeing lately about the Pope can’t teach error even when he’s not speaking ex cathedra. Will did that come from?
Suppose the Church was the visible congregation of non-smokers. If this was the bond of the visible Church, then smoking would sever you from the Church. In this scenario, non-smoking would be the visible bond that unites the Church and identifies members from non-members. Smoke, and you’re no longer a member. If this were not the case, it would not be a visible group identified by not smoking, but an invisible group who is not identified by anything. It would not be a congregation, and it would not me made up of non-smokers.
But in reality, the Church is the congregation of the faithful; so public heresy, a visible and public rejection of the Faith, severs one from membership.
Apart from the other two sins of schism and apostasy, no other sin severs the bond, because they don’t contradict what it is to me a member of the congregation of the faithful.
Pope Pius XII talks about traditio instrumentorum “everyone knows that the Church has the power to change and abrogate what she herself has established.” – from Pope Pius XII’s Sacramentum Ordinis
Well, they’ll run into problems with Bishop Tissier de Mallerais. He has said publicly and for many years that the new sacraments of Orders are doubtful, and that he doesn’t trust them, and leans towards invalidity rather than validity.
Tom, That’s exactly my position. I go to the SSPX and thank God for them. I have no doubts about the Mass, the Blessed Sacrament or my Absolution, but I wish they would tighten up on their ecclesiology a good amount.
When you say “ordained by heretics” I assume you mean the novus ordo heretics who were themselves “ordained” or “consecrated” in Paul VI’s new rites. So you are referring to the new rite, not that someone is a heretic?
“leans to invalidity.” They’re either valid or not , kind of like a woman being pregnant or not.
Congratulations Evangeline. Well done. Regarding the local parish indult “latin Mass”, I would stay away, unless the priest was ordained before 1968, or he is ex-SSPX.
You have made the beginning of a retreat to safety dueing the crisis. Now you might want to look at the controversy surrounding the new rites of Orders that Paul VI invented in 1968. The very best and most moderate conclusion I can come to is that they are seriously doubtful, and the worst is that a layman goes through the ceremony and comes out as a layman. Yes, it’s that bad.
When St Paul commanded us to “hold fast to tradition”, I believe this includes all the Sacraments. If you were to go to the SSPX, which I highly recommend, you would be aligning yourself with priests whose Orders come from the unbroken lineage of the Church through the ages. We can trust them.
On the other hand, the Indult in your parish probably has a man who has received the new rite of Orders, and, well, you just cannot be certain. We have Leo XIII’s Apostolicae Curae available at the click of a mouse. I recommend reading it through a couple of times. About 20 minutes to read it once. Compare what the Anglicans did with Holy Orders to the novus ordo synthetic rite of 1968.
If we do as we are commanded, i.e. to “hold fast to tradition”, and not accept any compromise, we can’t go wrong, regardless of whether some novus ordo prelate tells us we are not allowed to do so. If we disregard this, and dabble with the novelties that were imposed upon the faithful after V@, then we “enter at our own risk”.
That said, if you do go to the SSPX, and I hope you do, then ask the Priest if you can make a general confession before you go to Communion there. You don’t have to tell him that you think novus ordained priests are invalid or doubtful, but just that it is something you would like to do.
Notice they just never come out and say it’s 100 % invalid because they know that would be a lie. Better to say its “doubtful” and than make up some goofy novelty rule that says we should never take part of anything that’s “doubtful.”
The words “leans towards invalidity” reminds me of the neocat term “not in full communion”. Both meaningless phrases.
Why do you have the authority to claim that they are all valid? It cuts both ways, John.
If we were not required to figure anything out for ourselves, then why did Our Lord commission His Church to TEACH? What would be the point of the Church teaching us, if not that we are expected to apply these teachings? What else do we do with the teachings other than apply them as the guiding factor in all our thoughts and actions?
The Church cannot contradict herself. But the new rites of Orders contradict what was laid down as necessary for validity by Pius XII.
The Anglicans dabbled with their revised rite of Orders, not only regarding an invalidating FORM, but also by the denial and suppression of the Catholic theology regarding the Priesthood in the surrounding ceremonial rite.
Leo XIII teaches, in Apostolicae Curae, that even were the Anglican FORM for their “holy orders” to be considered valid by the Church, the surrounding rite – because of its omission of the Catholic theology of the Priesthood – manifests a DEFECT OF INTENTION in the minister, and the sacrament is “absolutely null and utterly void”.
Now a side by side comparison of the new 1968 rite of Ordination reveals the same pattern of deletion and suppression regarding the Priesthood, and the FORM has also been mutilated. It doesn’t mean the same thing that the traditional rite had; the meaning which Pius XII said was necessary for validity. The new Episcopal Consecration is another issue, but let’s leave it there.
I admire your zeal to defend the Church, and I’m not buttering your bread here. But simply saying something three times does not make it true. We have to look at the crisis and make an assessment based upon the teaching of the Church prior to its inception. It’s ugly, it’s difficult, it’s unpopular. So be it.
The people who doubt the changes did not pick this fight; they are not the ones who lit the fire. Don’t concentrate your zeal at them. Turn the fire hose in the right direction. This disaster came from the very top, and has trickled all he way down to a comment box on Mr Verecchio’s blog in 2017.
Johnjo, well of course they are either valid or invalid. But we simply do not know. The only source for validity at this moment is out of the mouths of modernist heretics.
Yes, once regularized, you can rest assured Rome will insist on sending their own “new rite” bishops to ordain the new sspx ordinands. Then the corruption will be complete and we will have to flee to the sede chapels.
Good point. I will stop refering to the NO eucharist as a piece of bread. But I will still avoid it and advise others to do the same. We are in a similar situation as the historical episode of Anglican orders and sacraments. It was confused/doubtfuluntil Leo XIII cleared it all up. As far as Pope teaching error, the real argument is not about infaillability, its that a Pope cant be a heretic. Most sedes never bring up the infaillabilty argument to advance their position. Its simply not required to demonstrate the basic obvious fact that a non-Catholic can not be a Vicar of Christ. Pius XII authoritatively taught what it takes to be a member of the Catholic Church. Jorge Bergolio does not meet those qualifications. If he is your Pope, why are you resisting him? Your duty is to conform your belief to his teaching since he teaches, according to you, with the authority of Christ.
John, I read the source document and the context doesnt give the Church carte blanche to abrogate and change at will. Firstly, the Church can abrogate the laws it establishes but it cannot abrogate or change what Christ established. The key phrase here is “what she herself established.” Of course the temporal laws established by the Church can change. But what is of Divine origin is by defintion unchangeable for eternity. Sacraments were all instituted by Christ and simply revealed to the Church. She has no power to alter their meaning. The new rites of ordination alter the essence of the priesthood by creating doubt thru ambiguity. Ask your average NO priest what the essence of his priesthood is and you will have your proof that most do not have the traditional concept of priesthood in mind. This, coupled with an ambigious NO offetory and a Eucharistic meal narrative, makes the doubtful priests doubtful intention highly suspect. Now add in the fact that even if transubstantiation occurs at a NO celebration, the intent of most NO priests is not to offer a sacrifice but to share a meal. So Christs body is being used for a wholly different purpose. Another reason in favor of invalidity is simply the anecdotal evidence of how the parishioners treat the host. If it were Christ, do you think they would behave differently? Forget what the “official documents” say, just observe a typical Sunday NO Mass. They don’t believe its Christ either!
The SSPX offers “conditional” Confirmation for those confirmed in the N.O. Therefore, we can conclude that the SSPX considers the N.O. sacraments as doubtful. While the N.O. sacraments may be valid, it is my opinion that they are not a source of abundant graces available in the Traditional Rites.
Wow. SOL, that video you posted above is heartbreaking reality. Funny thing is, I wouldn’t get it at all 10 years ago. By the grace of God today that makes my heart weep and yearn for the Great Triumph of Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart. How nice it would be to have lived in the old days. Just Beautiful, those glimpses. It’s all i got. I hope to make it to Heaven where that beauty is still reserved. I hope to deserve it.
Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, SSPX:
“I spoke this morning to the children about Saint Hermenegild. He was a young martyr,
seventeen years old, who lived in the sixth century. He was Catholic, but his father was a
heretic, an Arian. He was supposed to inherit the throne of Spain, but his father, furious that
his son was a Catholic, forbade him the throne and sentenced him to prison. Hermenegild –
whom we celebrate on April 13th (a month ago) was in prison for several months as Easter approached. He wanted to receive Communion, Holy Communion for Easter. His father was thinking the same thing and sent him a bishop carrying Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament! What a joy for Hermenegild to be able to make his Easter communion! Except that when the bishop entered the prison cell, he presented himself thus: “I am the Bishop of Huesca, I am an Arian and I bring you Holy Communion!” “I am Arian,” that is to say “I am a heretic, I’m not Catholic.”
It was a bishop who was not Catholic, dear faithful, who brought Holy Communion to
Hermenegild. What did Hermenegild do? What would you have done in his place? Would you still have accepted to receive Holy Communion? In order to receive Jesus in the
Eucharist, is it not worth making some compromises, receiving even from unworthy hands the Lord Jesus? This bishop celebrated Mass validly though he did not believe that Jesus is God, because that was the Arian religion. He did not even believe that Jesus was God! But we do think he could validly celebrate Mass and he was bringing Jesus in the Eucharist!
Well, in the twinkling of an eye, inspired by one of the gifts of the Holy Ghost – whom we
are celebrating today − the gift of Counsel, he said: “No. I will not receive communion from
your sacrilegious hands! As for me, I am in chains but I am free to work my salvation. You, my lord, are free but you are a slave of the devil because you have a false faith, you’re not Catholic! And I will not receive Holy Communion from sacrilegious hands!”
Bear it patiently at least, if you cannot bear it cheerfully
Thomas a Kempis
Bearing things patiently does not preclude calling evil good.
This crisis won’t be helped by patience and cheerfulness. It needs drastic action and anger!
“…I am aware of their (and SSPX) popular answer to that but there’s no Church document that I can find.”
The answers you are looking for are found in Canon Law:
The salvation of souls is the highest law (NC 1752).
OC 2261 §2 (NC 1335). The Church suspends its prohibition for an excommunicated or suspended priest celebrating the Sacraments or posing acts requiring jurisdiction, provided it be in favor of the faithful who request it for any reasonable cause at all, and especially if there is no other minister.
OC 878 §2 (NC 970). Ordinaries and superiors are not to restrict jurisdiction. If the priest is suitable and the good of the faithful requires his services this jurisdiction cannot be refused to him. Clearly traditional priests should in justice receive personal jurisdiction and that everywhere (NC 967).
Good Sunday evening Tom A,
In support of your clear and correct language, allow the last sentence of the 6th paragraph of “Pope Paul VI” purported “Apostolic Constitution”, “Missale Romanum”, as evidence of the change of the very language from the mouth of our Blessed Lord Himself. Language which finds its place in the very context of the formula of Consecration itself, that language which as you clearly state above, as it is Divine in its Origin, can never, ever, ever be altered by men. This alteration that occurred by Giovanni Batista Montini, who posed as “Pope Paul VI”, speaks as res ipsa loquitur to the reality that he simply could not have been a true Pontiff, rather he was a false pontiff, as his “formula” places an internal contradiction within the ecclesial life of the Mystical Body of Christ, which places an affront, by a man who claimed the Papacy, to the charism of ecclesial infallibility, which in truth cannot occur, as if it could, the Pope could contradict that which has been accepted in Sacred Tradition over the life of the Church, an utter absurdity. And now to quote this imposter pope from his purported “Apostolic Constitution”–“Missale Romanum”:
“The words Mysterium fidei have been removed from the context of Christ’s own words and are spoken by the priest as an introduction to the faithful’s acclamation.”
He had the unmitigated hubris to actually state that he purported to remove “from the context of Christ’s own words”, the words, “Mysterium Fide”, which are in fact part of the Consecration, rendering his “consecration” invalid, as being cannot both be and not be, at the same time and under the same respect, for those with eyes which see. And now to quote from the article of July 13 at akaCatholic, by the humble priest who reflects the Person of Christ Jesus in his language, Fr. Jose Miguel Marques Campo, entitled, “Mysterium Fidei”, here is where the words, Mysterium Fidei actually are in the True Consecration of our Blessed Lord and Savior, Jesus the Christ:
“Hic est enim Calix Sánguinis mei, novi et ætérni Testaménti, mystérium fídei: qui pro vobis et pro multis effundétur in remissiónem peccatórum. Hæc quotiescúmque fecéritis, in mei memóriam faciétis.
For this is the Chalice of my Blood of the new and eternal Testament, the mystery of faith: which shall be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins. As often as ye do these things, ye shall do them in remembrance of me.”
And as Montini purported to change the Divine Words of Consecration of the Eternal Word as the Logos Himself, he simply could not have been an Holy Roman Pontiff of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, rather he was a pope of the “conciliar church” in apostasy, which is the church of the Antichrist. Amen. In caritas.
Here’s an aside, and off-topic, but oh well.
It’s interesting that in your Latin Mass community, it’s like pulling teeth to get people to sing the simplest of music. At the SSPX chapel that I attend, the faithful sing rather enthusiastically – the processional and recessional hymns – at high Mass. But then the choice of music is only drawn from actual Catholic hymns, and not extremely complicated ones. By not having so many hymns to choose from, the faithful are more likely to learn them. Many of the people don’t even look at the hymnal – they just know the music. We don’t have any professional singers.
We recently had a visiting French priest, and after a low mass, he recited the Hail Mary in Latin, and expected everyone to know it and recite it along with him. Well, quite a few people there were able to do so (not me though!).
Amen.
That is the clear truth.
One must be irate in the face of such terrible apostasy and blasphemy and the support for inherent evil that prevails across the visible Church. If there is any love for God or souls.
I think it was Fr William Faber who said, “There can be no holiness without a hatred of heresy”.
Al the Silent Crusader: Unfortunately, come to find out, that is not true, This is why it’s imperative that we keep searching at this juncture for the Truth. We need to turn to the Church for answers and not mere opinions. We also should tremble at the very fact that we have ALL been partcipants in this apostasy within these last 48 years. This requires abdjuration and removal of censures, not simply “oh well I know everything now.” I found this in my research:
“Pope Pius XII clearly taught how bishops receive jurisdiction. Furthermore, the same pope later explained in greater detail what he truly meant in the dogmatic letter, Mystici Corporis Christi, elaborating on it in his encyclical, Ad Apostolorum Principis, June 29, 1958. Let us read paragraphs 39 and 40, as we listen attentively to the voice of Jesus Christ Himself.
39. Granted this exception, it follows that bishops who have been neither named nor confirmed by the Apostolic See, but who, on the contrary, have been elected and consecrated in defiance of its express orders, enjoy no powers of teaching or of jurisdiction since jurisdiction passes to bishops only through the Roman Pontiff as We admonished in the encyclical letter Mystici Corporis in the following words: ‘. . . As far as his own diocese is concerned each (bishop) feeds the flock entrusted to him as a true shepherd and rules it in the name of Christ. Yet in exercising this office they are not altogether independent but are subordinate to the lawful authority of the Roman Pontiff, although enjoying ordinary power of jurisdiction which they receive directly from the same Supreme Pontiff.
40. And when We later addressed to you the letter Ad Sinarum gentem, We again referred to this teaching in these words: ‘The power of jurisdiction which is conferred directly by divine right on the Supreme Pontiff comes to bishops by that same right, but only through the successor of Peter, to whom not only the faithful but also all bishops are bound to be constantly subject and to adhere both by the reverence of obedience and by the bond of unity.’
Now as it’s obvious to many that according to Church teaching, Francis cannot possibly be the Pope, and if not him then not the others claiming to be Pope since Pope Pius XII either, then it becomes clear that we are likely much further along in things than we have been willing to believe. Let the reader of Pope Pius XII (Christ) understand.
Surely we have already been living the spiritual chastisement that Sr. Lucia warned in 1957 was “imminent” and coming by 1960, and the reality seems more horrifying than we could have imagined.
TPS: That is exactly the very problem, I’m finding out.
It even says it’s not clear, besides that they refer to 1983 which we certainly can’t rely on for truth. Rome has lost the Faith, but when convenient we’ll use their Code of Canon Law. Hmmmm. Not passing my smell test at this point.
Is that the 1983 or 1917? Either way, that is referring to priests, but we get priests only from validly consecrated bishops, and therein lies the problem. See what Pope Pius XII says on the matter in a reply of mine above.
Someone I know believes that Christ would not allow His Church to err in this way that leads souls to hell. I don’t know how to answer that, because it did not seem possible to me either, yet here we are. Clearly, Our Lord is letting it happen. And I no longer think the Novus Ordo Church will EVER return to orthodoxy.