Since posting yesterday, I discovered a new definition for the expression “poking a hornet’s nest:” Pointing out to self-identified ‘traditionalists’ that a priest who celebrates the Mass of Ages for them is actually an enemy of tradition who champions the conciliar ecumenical heresy that lies at the very heart of the crisis in the Catholic Church today.
So, armed with this new awareness, what am I going to do now?
I’m going to poke that freakin’ nest again, of course!
No, not just for the sheer sport of it, but as a courtesy to the “hornets;” to afford them one more opportunity to come to terms with the painful truth.
Besides, there’s an important truth in all of this that can benefit a great many more people who are confused as to the terrible state of affairs in the Church today thanks in large measure to ecumenism.
Below is the entire video on the ecumenism of Vatican II that prominently features the commentary of Bishop-Elect James Massa.
WARNING: The entire production is beyond wretch-worthy. Watch it at your own risk.
For the present discussion, I want to focus on the following quote from Fr. Massa (beginning at the 6:00 mark).
Because of course we had this history of persecuting one another going back to the Reformation, going back to the very dark periods of religious intolerance. Prior to the Council, it was questionable whether Protestants from the Catholic standpoint were fully Christian; whether they were members of the one Church of Christ. It was debated between canon lawyers and theologians whether anyone but Roman Catholics were true members of the one Church.
Apparently, Fr. Massa believes that in order to examine these so-called “dark periods of religious intolerance,” one need look no further back in time than the pontificate of Pope Pius XII who said:
This true Church of Jesus Christ is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church … As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. And therefore, if a man refuse to hear the Church, let him be considered – so the Lord commands – as a heathen and a publican. It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit. (Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, 1943)
The Holy Father, Pius XII, would underscore this teaching some seven years later:
Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the Sources of Revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing. (Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, 1950)
Pretty straightforward, isn’t it?
I mean, the logic isn’t especially difficult to follow:
The true Church of Jesus Christ is the Catholic Church, and those who refuse her faith and governance (meaning, the doctrines of the Holy Catholic faith and the authority of the pope) are as “heathens” who cannot be said to be “living in the unity of such a Body;” namely, the true Church of Jesus Christ.
Even so, Fr. Massa makes the claim that “prior to the Council, it was questionable whether Protestants from the Catholic standpoint were fully Christian; whether they were members of the one Church of Christ.”
This simply isn’t true; Catholics had (and in fact, have) no reason whatsoever to question as much. The matter is settled: Protestants are not members of the one Church of Christ.
Note well that Pope Pius XII, in equating the Roman Catholic Church with the one Church of Christ in Humani Generis claims recourse to nothing less authoritative and binding than the “Sources of Revelation.”
What’s more, he does this expressly in response to those who claimed that they were not bound by his treatment of those who are outside of the Body by virtue of their rejection of the Catholic Church’s “faith and government.”
Let’s be very clear, the teaching of Pope Pius XII reviewed above is Catholic dogma, infallible and immutable; it’s not an open question that the pastoral council, Vatican II, a council that defined exactly nothing, somehow answered.
Pope Pius XII, for his part, was simply reiterating what was already well-established by his predecessors.
In his magnificently clear and unambiguous Encyclical, Mortalium Animos, his predecessor, Pope Pius XI, taught:
For since the mystical body of Christ, in the same manner as His physical body, is one, compacted and fitly joined together, it were foolish and out of place to say that the mystical body is made up of members which are disunited and scattered abroad: whosoever therefore is not united with the body is no member of it, neither is he in communion with Christ its head.
Again, as Pius XI was writing in 1928, there was no question as to whether or not Protestants “were members of the one Church of Christ;” the answer was perfectly clear to everyone worthy of the name “Catholic,” they are not.
Consider as well the words of Pope Leo XIII:
The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium. (Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, 1896)
In stating as much, Pope Leo XIII (as one can easily verify by reading the document in full, linked above) was at pains to establish recourse to Sacred Scripture and Tradition going all the way back to the time of the Apostles. He also cites a number of Church Fathers just for good measure.
The point is obvious; the matter under discussion here was in no way whatsoever up for discussion prior to the Council as Fr. Massa suggests; rather, it was, and is, a matter of dogmatic Catholic teaching.
In his defense, it must be said that Fr. Massa did not invent the ecumenical heresy of so-called “partial” communion; in fact, he’s promoting this modernist fruit of Vatican Council II no more aggressively than the popes of the past fifty years!
Indeed, this is precisely how a priest who is known to celebrate the Traditional Mass finds enough favor in Rome to be made a bishop today.
Look, I think we can all agree that if Fr. Massa was professing the immutable faith taught by Leo XIII, Pius XI, and Pius XII referenced above, while he may find still himself on the pope’s radar screen, it would be for an entirely different reason and reward.
So, “friends of Fr. Massa,” by all means remain in his friendship (and mine if you can stand it).
You might even consider using your influence with the Bishop-Elect to encourage him to reject the conciliar ecumenical novelties in favor of the Faith that has been handed down throughout the centuries, but please, don’t waste your time or mine telling me how traditional he is.
The guy sounds like a finocchio to me.
Please allow me to ask a basic question…
“Is there absolutely no value at all to a Protestant baptism ???”
This is one answer I found on Catholic Answers…
As I understand it, Protestants do not have a valid priesthood, and only priests can baptize unless there is a danger of death. Why, then, does the Catholic Church recognize Protestant baptism?
Since baptism is necessary for salvation and God wills the salvation of all, the Church recognizes all validly administered baptisms, even if Protestant. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:
The ordinary ministers of baptism are the bishop and priest and, in the Latin Church, also the deacon. In case of necessity, anyone, even a non-baptized person, with the required intention, can baptize by using the Trinitarian baptismal formula. The intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes. The Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of baptism for salvation. (CCC 1256)
When considering the validity of non-Catholic baptism, the Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism instructs:
Baptism by immersion, or by pouring, together with the Trinitarian formula is, of itself, valid. Therefore, if the rituals, liturgical books, or established customs of a church or ecclesial community prescribe either of these ways of baptism, the sacrament is to be considered valid unless there are serious reasons for doubting that the minister has observed the regulations of his/her own community or church. (DE 95.a)
I’m glad he celebrates the TLM to begin with. That’s huge! But that’s only half (maybe not even half) of being a “traditional Catholic.” While the Mass is at the center of our Faith, it is not THE Faith. This is the infallible doctrines and teachings of the Catholic Church, that are REFLECTED in the Mass. But saying the TLM does not give one (like Fr. Nicholson) the “get off free” card when it comes to the TEACHINGS of the Church as they were presented and taught before Vatican II. If Fr.’s going to be a “traditional Catholic” (or be labeled as such) he needs to embrace ALL of tradition, not be a “cafeteria traditionalist” who picks and chooses from the vast vineyard of pre-conciliar teachings/traditions which ones to follow and which to discard. Fr. may be correct in his orthopraxy, but he is NOT traditional in his orthodoxy. Let us pray for this Bishop-Elect and all those in the Church that they may discover the ripe fruits that await them in the timeless liturgy and teachings that are found in Tradition! Deus vos Benedicat!
Wow, terrific piece Louie. I was literally pumping my fist in the air at the end of it as I read it…..thanks for standing up for the truth!
Forgive me if I cannot tolerate one more minute of watching the entire video on the ecumenism of Vatican II. I am grateful that you have done so for us.
What a gift to your readers that you have studied the documents of Vatican II well and have even produced study guides for those who want to learn more about the nonsense contained therein. You are most capable then of comparing those documents (and the insanity of the above video) to the true encyclicals of the pre Vatican 2 encyclicals. The citing of the quotes from the true encyclicals as you have done here is most helpful when trying to show to us (your readers) true Catholicism. It has been an excellent way to learn. Thank you.
We are all blessed that Our Lady assigned to you the task of studying this nonsense. She knew what She was doing, even if you did not know where it was going to take you.
Dear Mr Verrecchio,
Stick-pounding on hornet’s nests seems to me to be a lot like driving moneychangers from the Temple.
Michael F (Dicksciple) Poulin
This priest is FSSP????
Say it ain’t so.
Apparently I was not the only one whose blood pressure was going through the roof listening to this shameful man talk. This man is either willfully a subject of the devil or he has chosen to remain ignorant of the truth. Either path leads to the same place. While I will pray for men like him and Mr Bergoglio I dont see them changing.
The FSSP is obviously the worst of the worst of course as they bow down to the false vatican 2 false church but yet act in a tradtional manner for the sole purpose of deception, but why do you say this man is part of their order?
I noticed that. Louie, was right, watching the thing in ‘totus’ is ‘wretch-worthy’, so I decided to just listen and couldn’t tell that the saccharine feminized voice doing half of the heresy spouting was actually Rev. Massa. I guess his voice of heresy has not yet broken, in order that he find Catholic maturity in the True Faith.
If one is baptised with the Trinitarian Formula and the person baptising has the intent to do what the Church intends and uses valid matter (water) in the correct manner, it is perfectly valid (anyone can baptise someone in a pinch). What the new ecumenists would have everyone believe is that Baptism is the be all of salvation (but then since they teach that the unbaptised (jews, muslims etc. are part of savific traditions ‘inspired by the holy spirit’ they will teach anything). They have created a sort of Rights of the Rite of Baptism, denying that if one who is baptised rejects the True Faith, refusing the doctrines, dogma and worship of the Catholic Church he is outside the Church (anyone can, by their defection from the True Faith, remove themselves from the Body of Christ – what an albatross around these heretics lay around the neck of all those who lay their salvation on their Baptism in opposition to keeping the Faith).
Our Lord Jesus Christ Who is risen, is the perennial stumbling block for those who prefer their false faiths and schisms – but wait – VII and the new ecumenism have removed that stumbling block! Go Rev. Massa (not)! “novelty…new relationship…dialogue…interfaith…human institution…renewal…” To claim – near the end of the miserable piece – that the ‘Church’ is the fullness of faith, yet all the other Churches are still salvific is completely against reason. The ‘fullness of faith’ the Massa’s of the world refer to is rendered null and void by the new ecumenism they clock their soul cards into every morning.
For more insight into the New Ecclesiology (Frankenchurch): http://www.mostholytrinityseminary.org/Triple%20Column%20Ecclesiology.pdf
Louie writes: “Massa did not invent the ecumenical heresy of so-called ‘partial’ communion; in fact, he’s promoting this modernist fruit of Vatican Council II no more aggressively than the popes of the past fifty years!”.
This brings to my mind the following observation that Avery Dulles made about Josef Ratzinger, which appeared in First Things in 2006 (bold emphases added):
“Over the years Ratzinger has had a great deal to say about the dogmatic constitution on the Church. In his earliest observations he contends that it did well to subordinate the image of Mystical Body to that of People of God. The Mystical Body paradigm, much in favor under Pius XII, makes it all but impossible to give any ecclesial status to non-Catholics and leads to a false identification of the Church with Christ her Lord.”
This reads as if either Dulles or Ratzinger or both regard the magisterium of a pope as actually nothing more than the policy of his current “administration”. This is not religion. The Catholic mind, however, which assents to the teaching of Pope Pius XII, is not surprised to find that it is consistent with that of his predecessors even prior to the Protestant Revolt. Take, for example, the introduction to the Bull Unam Sanctam, produced by Pope Boniface VIII in 1302, which contains the following assertion:
“[T]he Church…represents one sole mystical body whose Head is Christ…[1 Cor 11:3]”.
Wasn’t the heresiarch Fr Joseph Ratzinger the man mainly responsible for pushing one of the most notorious heresies from Vatican II, namely that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church, in direct contradiction to the teaching of Pius XII referenced above?
Throw that so-called catechism away. Dig out your Council of Trent Catechism (I hope you have one tucked away somewhere!) and read the words there. If they match the modernists’ words fine. If you find differences go with Trent.
Yes. Sometimes modernists will profess a liking for traditional things simply because they are beautiful. Kinda like collecting antique furniture…looks good but one would not want to go back to the way of life symbolized by this stuff.
That’s the difference. Catholics embrace all of Tradition, not an easy thing. Pseudo-catholics embrace what pleases the eye and ear but only if it doesn’t disturb their modernist philosophy.
Pray to St. Thomas Aquinas that he will intercede for them. Only when minds are enlightened to Truth through the teaching of time-less philosophy will the Church return to the correct path.
Yes. The study of Bulls and Encyclicals is very important. They are a true anchor for our hope that Truth is out there if you want it.
When one reads modernist encyclicals it’s heartbreaking to see the disorientation the demons have brought into current thinking.
Yes. Pope Ratzinger is only seen as orthodox in contrast to Pope Bergoglio. Just as Francis’, Pope Ratzinger’s writings are sparsely sprinkled with orthodoxy. This is a terrific opportunity for pseudo-catholics to beat us with: “see, he is teaching good stuff – read it here!”
Whenever you hear a Catholic say he or she wishes we had good old Pope Ratzinger back – he was so ‘conservative’ – remind him or her what it means to be a conservative: you want to CONSERVE something. This is hardly what has happened over the past four papacies, into the present debacle.
This link to the MostHoly Trinity seminary on the Traditional teachings of the Catholic Church prior to Vat II that says that schismatics and heretics are clearly outside the Catholic Church was great. Thanks.
Well, I’m getting a little tired of this harangue against the FSSP. We have known at least a dozen priests from this association and have found them to be nothing but orthodox and Traditional, in their practice, and thinking, preaching and example.
They have chosen to serve God with the permission of the bishops into whose diocese they have been invited.
They mostly fly under the radar and do not provoke controversy but that does not mean they compromise ANYTHING of the One True Faith.
Think for a minute what it means that a given bishop ‘allows’ the FSSP to serve the faithful who desire tradition. This is God’s Providence.
I challenge you to give me one little example of any FSSP priest, in any diocese which you know personally – no internet suppositions, gossip, or calumny please – compromising the Faith through his apostolate.
And don’t tell me that you have had difficulties with a particular priest – this is subjective. Let’s have an objective example where the FSSP as a group, led by Father Berg, and in North America by Father Flood, or any apostolate in your knowledge which has compromised with any bishop.
From my personal experience I know of three instances where families have left their FSSP parish in disgust. But in each case there was a personal, subjective disagreement with their pastor – all ‘hurt’ at what the priest did, or said, or would not allow them to do.
It appears you and your family have suffered under an FSSP priest – who said they were saints individually? But as a group they serve God, their Bishops, and their flocks. It really is unjust for you to continue to snipe at them.
And before anyone says I want the details of your case be assured I agree that is none of my business. But it is my business to call for justice.
I agree 100% with your comment above. BXVI deluded a lot of catholics into thinking that some kind of restoration was in the horizon. They failed to see, however, the dark clouds gathering afar. And it is sad to say, that some of the traditionalists I respected the most in the past – and who definitely did a lot in defense of tradition – and who continue to do so (I’ll omit their names here for the sake of avoiding internecine fighting) did in fact fall for this delusion.
I’dd add that most heretics have some good things to say here or there sprinkled in with their heresies, so it baffles one’s mind why anyone would say that a heretic who utters orthodoxy every now and then would be seen to be some kind of hope for Catholicism.
“By their fruits ye shall know them.”
Perfect analogy for this situation. Amen.
We need people like you to keep brandishing that stick, so the truth stays out in the open where people can notice it.
We recently looked up “The Catholic Church” in the online Encyclopedia Britannica, found the section on Vatican II, and unfortunately found these words:
“In accordance with Vatican II, the Roman Catholic Church officially abandoned its “one true church” position..”
THAT is what the world now believes, what modernists want them to believe, and what too many people think will solve the world’s religious conflicts.
What the Council said in the “Declaration on Religious Freedom”
” God Himself has made known to mankind the way in which men are to serve Him, and thus be saved in Christ and come to blessedness. WE BELIEVE THAT THIS ONE TRUE RELIGION subsists in the catholic and apostolic Church, to which the Lord Jesus committed the duty of spreading it abroad among all men. (Declaration on Religious Freedom, n.1).
— The Baltimore Catechism says in # 121 answering the Question: “Are all bound to belong to the Church?” ” All are bound to belong to the Church, and he who knows the Church to be the true Church and remains out of it cannot be saved. ”
You’ve often written about the ambiguities and misleading language used in the Documents of VII, and how they can be read through different lenses, making it easier for error to be taught. What seems to have happened among the modernists in the Hierarchy today–is that they’ve taken the opportunities and run with them–all the way to reversing the Church’s 2,000 year old mandate from Our Lord, while claiming it is being done at the direction of the Holy Spirit. And even though the Council was not dogmatic, they claim the fact that it was a Church Council, means God was with it.
We’ve seen the fruits of this false ecumenism that emphasizes the “good” in all religions and seeks to befriend everyone in order to work for the good of mankind and the spread of a generic gospel, without converting anyone. It is a damnable lie because it leads souls away from the One, True Church necessary for salvation.
I thought Louis stated Fr Massa was FSSP. I could be wrong on that.
Judging from the sermons I’ve heard on Audiosancto.com, I expect FSSP to be solid. I’ve never heard them defend the novelties of V2, though of course they are “muzzled” from condemning V2 directly in exchange for their existence.
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
Just a friendly reminder of how the radicals and faux-radicals do it:
“Because this is how Bergoglio’s revolution proceeds, “long-term, without obsession over immediate results.” Because “the important thing is to initiate processes rather than possess spaces.” Words from “Evangelii Gaudium,” the program of his pontificate.”
If the above is true, it would appear that the process of the Restoration has been initiated. Even with a tool like the bishop-elect.
In other words, the offering of the actual Catholic Mass is 1) necessary 2) but insufficient for a genuinely traditional Catholic priest. Similarly, assisting exclusively at the actual Catholic Mass is 1) necessary 2) but insufficient for genuinely traditional Catholic laymen.
Yet many, it seems, believe that offering/assistance at the actual Catholic Mass is 1) unnecessary 2) but sufficient for being a traditional Catholic. These many are increasingly referred to as the “tradition-minded,” and they often call the actual Catholic Mass “the Extraordinary Form.”
Catholicism as the omega point? Why not.
It might just be about using the right words. 🙂
When you say, “it would appear that the process of the Restoration has been initiated…even with a tool like the bishop -elect..” we understand you to mean that God is working behind the scenes, even using the “bad guys”.
While that may be true, (as “all things work unto good for those who believe”) it’s still important that people know what ideologies their leaders hold–especially when it’s so easy to assume that a priest who is “for” the TLM also values the Tradition that produced it .
A shepherd that’s “part” wolf is a big problem until the restoration is completed. People who put too much trust in him, letting their guard down, can get eaten.
–Not saying it isn’t also nice to be reminded there’s hope we’re seeing the beginnings of the end of the rule of modernists 🙂 🙂
How can you say they are ‘muzzled’ when you have just pointed out sermons you’ve heard on Audiosancto that are solid? Many of them are FSSP priests and the talks are sermons delivered, in public, in their parishes.
I’ve heard my pastor (FSSP) criticize Vatican II, the hierarchy and Cardinals BY NAME from the pulpit. He does it in the proper context though. No criticism on its own – he afterwards teaches the correct thing usually using the Fathers.
He has also criticized the Pope but in an indirect way – which gives good example.
As I said previously, this forum isnt the place to divulge what took place in my particular situation. We spend much time on this blog pointing out what is wrong in our Church. That was what I was doing….telling people to keep their eyes open at all times. I have no doubt that there are many good men within the order but they are still obedient to Rome. Knowing what Rome is capable of should be MORE THAN ENOUGH to be leery of anyone in union with them. BTW, I spoke to Fr. Flood on at least two occasions regarding my matter…all I will say is that I was very unimpressed with his “help”.
God bless you Louie for loving those hornets enough to beat them awake with a stick:+) You are an example of Our Lord not leaving us alone in this insanity…giving us a beacon of light and strength and sanity in these dark times. May He continue to bless you with all the graces you will need to help souls to the truth:+)
Moreover the Lord your God will send the hornet among them until those who are left, who hide themselves from you, are destroyed
This priest from everything I can research is not FSSP.
He is a diocesan priest