Catholic Family News has published an English translation of a recent interview with Fr. Fausto Buzzi, FSSPX, conducted in Italian by the secular online media outlet Il Giornale.
In the interview (published on the Society’s official website as well), Fr. Buzzi, who serves as an assistant to the District Superior of Italy, raises some points worthy of discussion.
When asked for his opinion of Francis, Fr. Buzzi responded:
For us, Pope Francis isn’t any better or worse than the other Popes of the [Second Vatican] Council and the post-Conciliar era. He works “on the same building site” begun by John XXIII, that of the auto demolition of the Catholic Church, to construct another that conforms to the liberal spirit of the world. Actually, I’ll say something further: the current Pope is not as responsible as was Paul VI. This Pope saw the Council through, he finished it, he made all of the reforms. Now, all of this is the cause of the gravest crisis which we see in the Church. Certainly, these actions and words of Pope Francis seem graver than those of his predecessors. But that’s not the case. Today, it’s the media effect that makes things much more evident, than was previously the case. In substance, however, the actions of Paul VI were much graver than those of Francis.
Let’s dissect this.
First, while one notices that Fr. Buzzi prefaces his comments by saying, “For us…” it’s anyone’s guess as to who “us” represents.
In other words, it is not possible to say, much less to confirm with the powers-that-be (as I’ve recently discovered), whether he speaks for the Society as a whole or simply for himself.
Francis isn’t any better or worse than the other Popes of the Council and the post-Conciliar era.
While I wholeheartedly agree that each one of these men bear responsibility for the present ecclesial crisis, I reject the idea that it is shared equally.
Fr. Buzzi apparently isn’t convinced that this is entirely true either as he went on to say:
The current Pope is not as responsible as was Paul VI … the actions of Paul VI were much graver than those of Francis.
I suppose we can all agree that when it comes to ranking popes in terms of damage done to the Church, to souls, and to the world, Paul VI and Francis either share top honors or occupy first and second place; no matter how one might order them.
That said, as it concerns the active promotion of grave errors that undermine Eucharistic piety, doctrinal purity, and Christian morality, a case can be made that Francis is exponentially worse than all of the previous popes combined based upon the damage done by Amoris Laetitia alone.
Indeed, it can be said that Vatican Council II and the Novus Ordo Missae are utterly unique in their offensiveness against the Catholic faith. In fact, if not for them, it’s a safe bet that the likes of Jorge Bergoglio would never have stepped foot on the loggia of St. Peter’s in the first place.
And yet, a distinction must be made.
Properly speaking, the Council and the new Mass, as gravely poisonous as they are, are not in and of themselves synonymous with the present crisis; rather, they set it in motion, or to use Fr. Buzzi’s analogy, they represent “the building site.”
Consider: For many reasons, the pontificate of John Paul II was a disaster in its own right.
Even so, during his reign, there was no question about whether or not intrinsically evil acts were excusable under certain circumstances. There was no question about whether or not adultery and fornication are mortal sins. There was no question about whether or not the Divine Law is too difficult for some persons to keep.
Presumably, you get the point.
The same can be said of the pontificates of each of the conciliar popes, even though they stood on the very same “building site” upon which Francis is standing.
Yes, these men erected their own particular monuments in service to the worship of man, and each has much to answer for, but I think it no exaggeration to say that Francis has managed to outdo them all.
Even Paul VI, it seems, would have shuddered to hear it said that God Himself asks us to persist in adultery. (cf Amoris Laetitia – 303)
So, does it really matter which one of these scourges against the Church is considered worse than the other?
Not really. What does matter a great deal, however, is that one does not embrace the utterly false idea that Francis isn’t any better or worse than the other Popes.
The danger of doing so is that it provides an all-too-convenient excuse for failing to address the unique and very grave offenses against the Faith being perpetrated by Francis at this very moment; threatening to lead untold numbers of souls to Hell.
It is, in other words, a cop out to respond simply by saying, “Oh well, the real problem is the Council and the new Mass,” as if this undisputed fact somehow relieves one of the duty to confront Francis’ blasphemies and heresies head on.
Later in the interview, Fr. Buzzi illustrated the point rather well when he was asked to comment on “the doctrinal debate surrounding Amoris Laetitia.”
He replied:
You’re causing me to repeat myself, with this question. If on one hand, all the initiatives to correct this document and to defend the Christian family (indissoluble and sanctified by a sacrament) have been praiseworthy, the true problem is upstream. Do you know where the root of Amoris Laetitia lie? We find them in the Council document Gaudium et Spes. Therefore, as I said the terrible crisis in the Church is traced back to her DNA, that is, Vatican II.
Get it?
It’s all well and good to defend the Sacrament of marriage, but Amoris Laetitia isn’t really the problem.
There you have it; the cop out is complete.
The Church and her faithful, members of the sacred hierarchy in particular; indeed everyone who wishes to be numbered among the Soldiers for Christ, have the duty to fight against evil and error on whatever front it may arise.
In other words, we need not choose between engaging the enemy on either the conciliar front or the Bergoglian front; we can and must do both.
As I’ve stated many times, Amoris Laetitia is cut from conciliar cloth; it is most certainly a rotten fruit of the Council. (In my view, the theological seeds for Amoris were sown most notably in the Declaration on Religious Freedom, Dignitatis Humanae.)
That realization, however, in no way lessens our duty to condemn Amoris Laetitia and to call its author to account.
In closing, as noted, we cannot know for certain to what extent Fr. Buzzi is providing the mindset of the Society as opposed to just his own personal opinion, but based on recent events, it appears to me that he has just given us at least a glimpse of the former.
Take the ax to the root!……….Once ‘they’ have ‘Uncrowned Our Lord Jesus Christ’, by some ‘CRACK’ Satan has entered the Sanctuary, and legions of Catholic hearts…….is there a limit to all ‘errors’ and ‘evils?’ Time and history is our witness. Why so many Catholics are so scandalized about AL? The consequences of the ‘bad seed’ that was planted decades ago, are nothing less than catastrophic! As was (is) the disobedience of Adam and Eve……the root is the ‘original sin’.
What was planted then in the Holy Church, namely, Protestantism, Freemasonry, Americanism, liberalism, modernism, Sodom+++ Gomorrah, exodus of millions from the Church of Jesus Christ, divorce, annulments, the loss of souls, known to God alone ……Apostasy that is ravaging both the Church and every nation!!!
Father Buzzi is very ‘just’, for it is not ‘just’……dumping all the garbage on Pope Francis. At the moment of death, God will sort us all out…….Miserere!
Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us Catholics!
Fascinating interview by William F. Cuckley……er, Buckley….of Fr. Malachi Martin in 1978 during the short pontificate of John Paul I:
Firing Line with William F. Buckley Jr.: The Mission of the Pope
https://youtu.be/SpbrtcFqu20
I read this a while ago. He sounds like he’s arguing the sedevacantist position but…evidently he’s not. I’m assuming his point is that even though it is now so obvious to all us Catholics that the pope isn’t a Catholic, the jokes on us because “they’ve” known all along that going back to Paul VI the popes weren’t Catholic. But why address grave offenses against the faith when you’re comfortable recognizing nonCatholic popes and resisting all their errors? Does it matter if some of their pontificate is in error or all of it? I don’t see why it would, if you’ve decided to ignore the Pope, you are ignoring the Pope. The only problem with that is; it’s not Catholic. But it looks Catholic, if you throw out that one tiny part of the faith, the Papacy. So there ya go, a lick and a promise and you’ve got your Church back with good old FSSPX, pretty much. Yay!
I have long thought that Montini was far worse and more destructive than Bergoglio. Adultery is extremely serious, but the heresy, blasphemy and sacrilege which Paul VI introduced via the council, the new mass and the new rites of orders has claimed more souls than adulterers.
Pacelli (Pius XII) was worse than either since he brought in Bugnini, excommunicated Fr Feeney, changed Holy Week, and promoted Montini.
But considering only Montini and Bergoglio I would rate Francis as worse since Paul VI signed Humanae Vitae.
I concur with The Papal Subject. Sins against faith are greater than those against morality. Undermining the faith, whether directly or indirectly, is far more serious than undermining morality in like manner.
The reason for the strong reaction of the Catholic world against the actions of Pope Francis is because directly or indirectly undermining the Church’s moral teaching, as he is doing, has a direct practical impact on the life of the entire Church, whereas the doctrinal errors resulting from the teaching of his predecessors can be ignored. The former is comparable to the wall of a house collapsing at once, the latter to termites eating away at the structure.
Another reason for the reaction we are witnessing is because the conservatives, who are the prominent voice in the Catholic media, have always been defenders of the Church’s moral teachings, yet weak on doctrine Because of this they remained silent when doctrine was attacked, yet are outraged when the same method is used against the Church’s moral teachings. This is why the conservative mind is so scandalized by Pope Francis’, and why the Traditional Catholic mind finds him more tolerable than his predecessors.
And let us not forget that it was Pope Benedict, The Green Pope, who began the attack on morality with his praiseworthy comments for the male prostitute who used “protection”. This, too, caused a strong reaction from the conservative mind.
I hope that sound Catholic minds arent going to simply start scapegoating Mr Bergoglio for the toilet that now occupies Rome. Im not even smart and I know better than that.
There wouldn’t be a Bergolio if there wasn’t a Montini to pave the way. Whether they are infected with gallons of poison or simply a drop, the results are the same. One must avoid.
As imprudent as Pius XII was with his reforms, they did not change the essential propitiatory nature of the Mass, nor any doctrine, nor the essential nature of Holy Orders.
Humanae Vitae reversed the two ends of marriage from their proper order which the Church has always taught:
1. The procreation and education of children
2. The mutual help of the spouses.
Pius XI founded the Vatican Bank in 1929. Six days later, Our Lady formally requested the Consecration of Russia. Our Lady’s requests fell on deaf ears and that started the ball rolling.
Thank you
Pius XI did not change the essential propitiatory nature of the Mass, nor any doctrine, nor the essential nature of Holy Orders.
Paul VI smelled & recognized the smoke of Satan, Francis has set up intake fans as in a wind tunnel. Even our separated brethren have excommunicated him…
BYZANTINE PATRIARCH Declaration of excommunication on pseudo Pope Francis
Francis Bergoglio, a Jesuit, has been admonished, warned several times to distance himself from heresies. However, he obstinately rejects any repentance. He continues to cause extreme offense not only to the believers of the Roman Catholic Church but also to all Christians and unbelievers.
By abusing the supreme church authority through heresies, he intensely promotes the self-destruction of the Church, in matters of both faith and morals.
It concerns the following heresies: Francis Bergoglio
1) denied the universally valid moral norms in the exhortation Amoris Laetitia.
2) did not distance himself from heresies of syncretism with paganism which place the redemptive death of Christ on the same level as the sacrifice to pagan gods, de facto demons. He thus destroys true mission.
3) promotes a so-called dynamic approach to the deposit of faith, whereby he makes heresies equal with the apostles’ doctrine.
4) neither identified nor condemned Vatican II heresies promoting syncretism with paganism and declaring Allah to be the same God as Yahweh (LG 16, Nostra Aetate declaration).
5) participates in crimes against humanity of the New World Order (NWO).
6) works towards dechristianization of Europe by intensively promoting Islamization.
7) is silent on the stealing of children by the juvenile justice system.
8) approves and promotes homosexualism and other gender deviations, which is contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures and Tradition.
For these heresies, Francis Bergoglio excluded himself from the Catholic Church. Therefore, the Byzantine Catholic Patriarchate, by authority of the apostolic and prophetic office, in the name of the Triune God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, declares Francis Bergoglio to be excommunicated from the Catholic Church. Unless the person concerned shows repentance at least in the hour of death, he will be eternally condemned.
Every Catholic who is in unity with him in heresy is likewise excommunicated from the Catholic Church.
Therefore, let the priests and bishops no longer mention the name of this excommunicated apostate Francis in the Divine Liturgy.
+ Elijah
Patriarch of the Byzantine Catholic Patriarchate
It’s obvious to me that Pope Frankie is an agnostic or an atheist, something no one would aver about Martin Luther. Whatever the faults of prior recent Popes, were any of them unbelievers?
“Who am I to judge?”
http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2018/02/dossier-over-clerical-orgies-extortion.html
For Mike above ,
Byzantine “Catholic” Patriarch Elijah ? I think not.
“Patriarch Elijah Anthony Dohnal OSBMr (born 1946 in Hluk[19]) was elected as first Patriarch of the Byzantine Catholic Patriarchate.[20] He was elected by the Bishops’ Synod of the Ukrainian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church in an extraordinary assembly of 5 April 2011, on the day of establishment of the Byzantine Catholic Patriarchate.
On June 22, 2014, the New York Times reported [21] that Ekspres, a Lviv-based newspaper, conducted a lengthy investigation of Dohnal’s church, and concluded that it had discovered an important clue to the group’s pro-Moscow allegiances and advocacy on the side of Moscow during the 2014 pro-European anti-Moscow revolution in Ukraine: Before the 1989 collapse of Communism in his homeland, then still Czechoslovakia, Dohnal worked as an informer for Soviet intelligence services (the infamous KGB). The Ekspress newspaper published what it said was a document from former Czechoslovak archives that identified him as a mole for Soviet intelligence with the code name “Tonek.” The New York Times reported that, as of 2014, Mr. Dohnal, who as a Czech national has gone into hiding to avoid expulsion from Ukraine for visa violations, and his lieutenants never attracted a large number of followers, but made headlines in the local Ukrainian news media for their pro-Russia’s views and their brainwashing of vulnerable young recruits.
Elijah was ordained priest in 1972 in the Czech Republic and joined the OSBM Order and changed rite in 1991. He has a doctorate in theology from Charles University, Prague and lectured dogmatics in Prešov, Slovakia[citation needed].
He was consecrated archbishop in 2009 and held the title of Vicar. He was appointed Byzantine Catholic Patriarch through election and the imposition of hands by the Bishops’ Synod headed by Archbishop Michael Osidach on 5 April 2011.”
If Paul VI declared to see the smoke, was he a detector of the smoke or was he the igniter? And who is worse, the one that lits a fire or the one that pours oil in?
Then, quoting the “Patriarch” Elijah, who has recently been promoting the heresiarch Jan Hus (the igniter of the anti-catholic “husites” revolution in 15th century) to be declared a saint. The “patriarch” often has really sound ideas, but he tends to mix them with quite anti-catholic ones, especially recently.
Pope VI stole the Mass.
We cannot live without the Mass.
Actually, it is a bit more complex.
The Patriarch Elijah claimed anathema on the pope, on several bishops, on the Russian (orthodox) patriarch Kyrill, and he also warned several bishops and cardenals that they will go to hell unless they repent substantially.
So, he was doing the right things, and some of his demands and claims are clearly wrong. But he is definitely not pro-Russian, and I wonder how NY Times can here be taken as a reliable source of information, especially on Ukrainian issues, it needs be treated the same way as BBC which is – they can perhaps be trusted about the weather in your town but hardly anything beyond that.
But, we slipped from the main theme. Which of the popes since Pius XI is the worst is a question that experts can discuss for ages.
The point here is – was it worth dissecting an opinion of one priest? Why should we discuss e.g.what was meant by “us”?
Then, John Paul II is argued not to be as bad as the others. Well, then, is it better to say “uder certain circumstances you can keep living in a mortal sin”, or “go and worship Buddha on the altar”, as was done in Assissi? I think that while with the former only part of the sinners are lost, with the later all who participate go to the place where Buddha now dwells.
In this page, a few days ago, the author claimed that the worse the situation the better because then people shall notice the desaster easier. I do not believe so – while there is a forest fire, and more flame jump to the height, the people that were enjoying the bonfire now rejoice of seeing more flames and the amazing fireworks. As a forest fire is hardly put down by jumping around crying “see that flame, how big it is, and the colour!”, but through rain and water, similarly there are some means of diminishing the Christian (Catholic) desaster. Shall we continue crying “how abominable”, or shall we pray Pater Noster?
I would say that the excommunication of Fr Feeney severely weakened or even “changed” the doctrine of “no salvation outside the Church.” Perhaps the Church had already buried this doctrine but the Fr Feeney affair was the final nail in the coffin. After this, “the sky is the limit” as far as the advance of modernism goes.
The faith is more important. Catholics have gone months and years, decades and even centuries without the Mass. Yet they retained the faith. Yes Montini tried to destroy the Mass, but the graver sin of modernism is a destruction of faith itself.
@Mike – please don’t let his made-up title fool you. This Elijah guy is a nutjob who heads a random tiny splinter group, is NOT in communion with Rome, and most certainly does NOT speak for “Byzantine Catholics”.
We shall and do continue pray the Rosary daily for the “church of Darkness” to leave Rome.
http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2018/02/dossier-over-clerical-orgies-extortion.html
Fr Villa and many others claimed Pope Paul 6th was one of the disordered.
I wish Father Buzzi would have ended this interview on a hopeful note outlining the SSPX’s plan to fix this mess. Perhaps, they don’t have a plan.
Every SSPX Rosary Crusade demonstrates their plan. It is the plan outlined by Our Lady of the Rosary. This plan will be successful.
Yes, Rush. The intercession of Our Lady is necessary for the success of any plan to defeat the enemies of Christ. As powerful as it is, praying the Rosary is not the plan itself. I’d still like to know what the plan is. Do you know? Many prayed for success in the war against Nazism, but we still had to send our troops to fight the battles.
I agree with Fr. Buzzi. Francis did not confirm a schismatic council and schismatic Mass, as Paul Vl did. He’s correct about Gaudium et Spes being at the root of Amoris Laetitia.
Francis is the logical outcome of a long-ago infiltration of modernism into the Church. Pope St. Pius X wrote Pascendi in 1907. By then the modernists were already well entrenched. Archbisop Lefebvre said that modernism entered the Church 100 years before the Council. It’s rather amazing that it took this long for a Pope Francis to gain the seat of Peter.
1958 was the year they took over, not 2013.
Sure, but as you well know, Tom, faith and the Mass go closely together: Lex orandi, lex credendi, and the Mass is the highest form of prayer.
Also, the faith had been undermined long before Paul VI abolished the Mass, so there was little hope that modern, poorly catechized, society would be able to keep whatever was left of the faith amidst all the comforts and distractions after the Mass had been taken away.
It is true that certain communities, long ago, had kept the faith intact despite having no priest to say the Mass (e.g. and island off Scotland for 6 decades and in Japan for 2 centuries), but I was thinking more about the catastrophic effect the sudden disappearance of the True Mass (of the many Masses said around the world each day) had on whole countries and civilizations.
Pius X!! did NOT excommunicate Fr Feeney .It was an oral excommunication from Cardinal Cushing on the behest of Joe Kennedy whose Jewish business friends wanted him stopped from converting their sons in Harvard Square.
the excommunication decree was oral and never ratified by the Vatican . My deceased friend Mother Teresa took care of him till the day he died and the Local Ordinary came to assure him he was never really excommunicated. He asked him to recite the creed and he obliged by reciting the Athanasian Creed from memory. Several of the nuns had gone to Rome and were told the excommunication was never approved at the Vatican.
It should be noted also that Fr Feeney while upholding the dogma always added ,”Of course we always believe in God’s Mercy.”
https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=1467
1914 was the date they took over, not 1958. That was the year WWI started in June. Pope Pius X was murdered in August and the greatest scholar of the papacy, and head of the Jesuits, the German, Fr. Wernz died not 24 hours before, also likely poisoned.
The solution to this problem, as I have said in the past, is military. It is the solution chosen, by the great saint, Bernard of Clairvaux. The Council of Pisa had excommunicated Anacletus II, the presumptive pope of the Romans, while Innocent II, the true pope, was recognized by everyone else. The question was, how do we get rid of this heretic pope? Emperor Lothair helped by going after Anacletus II’s support in Roger of Sicily, but it was the preaching of Bernard himself that convinced the successor of Anacletus to voluntarily give up the papal throne.
I just commented on LifeSiteNews, regarding the 140,000+ Poles who have petitioned their ordinaries to hold the traditional line on divorce and remarriage. These people are not afraid to lead even in the face of opposition. There are defenders of the faith. And yes, I do believe they would take up arms to defend it.
One thing that I do know, is that the conversion of Russia has been entrusted to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
1958 was the last year that you could completely depend on Catholic publications.
If you mean doctrinally, that’s probably correct. If you mean diplomatically, I don’t agree. I believe the Vatican went off the rails right from the get go in 1914 diplomatically. They did not come down hard on the English for their warmongering and Benedict XV did not support the fight against modernism and I don’t recall if he did anything for Russian Catholics after the Revolution. During Pius XI’s pontificate (who I do not believe had any masonic ties), there occurred the twin disasters of the Mexican masonic revolution and the Spanish civil war. In both instances the Vatican did little to help Catholics.
If I understand this correctly this is an SSPX priest. That organization purports to represent tradition and true Catholicism whilst remaining silent in the face of the most blatant and vile words and actions to come out of the Vatican or Catholic clergy at any prior point in history, hands down and without any reasonable doubt.
That this would even be questioned shows us that even while we protest against this blasphemous pope and hierarchy we have all been corrupted, because to question that at all is frankly, shocking. No prior act or era can in any way compare to what we are forced to witness. I need not list the outrages, we all know them only too well.
In my opinion this is a dodge, a distraction. Paul VI is dead. He’s a soft target, far easier to go after than the vengeful papal pustule sitting on the throne right now. The SSPX has lost it’s credibility, or should have. If they still have currency with some it’s only because of the desperate need to believe there is still sanity. I don’t know much about the SSPX but why should I care about them? They have said nothing about the total collapse of the moral order, Natural Law and Roman Catholicism, propagated by Rome and the minions. I don’t see any reason to pay irrelevant people much attention, and self-interested cowards, even less.
There isn’t much that one organization (like the SSPX) can do about the collapse of the Catholic church. Is it really their fault that the modernists are in control? You didn’t mention modernism above, so maybe you aren’t familiar with what modernism is.
Indeed, the SSPX doesn’t say much anymore about the problems with the current hierarchy in the conciliar church. Bp. Fellay has gone soft, while pretending otherwise. He thinks that Francis is a great guy.
The bigger problem in the Church, however, isn’t just the Pope. It’s a systemic problem, and has been for a long time now. I think it’s ridiculous for trad Catholic to just focus on the problems with Francis. Where have they been all these years? The problem with modernism and the conciliar church didn’t just begin with the Francis papacy, as so many here seem to think.
Why don’t you study something about the life of Archbishop Lefebvre? After all, he was one of the few at the forefront of confronting the liberals at Vatican ll, and afterwards. The sedevacantists certainly weren’t at the Council. They came later. They did nothing to try to curb the liberalism at the Council.
Yes, the Mass of the Ages is the perfect expression of the Faith.
I would say that declaring the Council to be illegitimate and an anti-council is pretty much the nuclear option. What more can one do to curb a council than to reject it? The council needs to be recsinded and expunged. By stating that it isnt a Catholic Council pretty much does the trick. Why do so many trads still call it a valid council yet still resist it? That makes no sense. The council is either Catholic or it is not. If it is, then there is nothing to resist. If it isn’t than reject it and therefore those who promulgated it. Rejection is the only logical resistance. There is no possibility of reforming the thing whatsoever.
How many Sedes were at the Council to proclaim that it wasn’t a Council, or that there were serious problems with the Council?
If the bigger problem in the Church is freemasonry, then it is freemasonry and it’s puppetmasters that must be eradicated from the Church in order to eradicate the naturalism and it’s derivative in doctrine, modernism.
Don’t neglect this Elijah was also reported to be a KGB stooge, & we all know how much fun they had with the 2016 USA elections-playing both sides. Remember, God can even cause Balaam’s ass to speak.
There were no sedes during the council.
Why would sede’s have existed when the v2 council took place? I dont doubt for a second that many good Catholic bishops were simply duped in 1965. Im a sede and I have the utmost respect for Abp Lefebvre, as does Fr Cekada….I believe that Abp Lefebvre was duped.
I also believe that if the Bishop were somehow still alive today in 2018 hed be the leading sede in the world.
We need to ask mr “32nd degree”, John Salza, how we should go about eradicating the masons. Never fully trust a practicing American lawyer in this day and age.
Sure and Opus Dei used every media outlet to make us believe Pope JP2 ended communism and Gorby was a secretly Baptized Catholic ,which I may add he strongly denied to the AP in 2007 when he visited Assissi with his daughter. He made sure it was on the record he was ,is and will ever remain a , “….firm believer in Communism and an Atheist.”
And Leck Walesa was also revealed to be a KGB informant code named “bolek”,. He was banned from the communist era Polish record keeping book of anti communist heroes called ,”The Book of Remembrances.”
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35602437
I might also add that the elderly nuns who were Slaves of the Immaculate Heart , in Stillriver ,Mass. ( Fr Feeney’s Order) , also told me the Jewish businessmen in Boston would spit on them when they walked down the streets in the city.
When it comes to Marxist Communism the old maxim ,”The enemy of my enemy is my friend” does not and cannot apply.
Yes Marxist Communists are complex .
” Many prayed for success in the war against Nazism, but we still had to send our troops to fight the battles.”
Interesting statement 2 Cents, apparently while some Catholics prayed for the end of Nazism , others supported it,
“Saint” Escriva supported Hitler . Hmmmm
“In a NEWSWEEK interview, more damning accusations were made by Father Vladimir Feltzman, who resigned from Opus Dei in 1985 after 22 years. He is now an aide to Cardinal Basil Hume, England’s Roman Catholic primate. According to Feltzman, Escriva feared human sexuality, believed everything he wrote “came from God,” possessed “a filthy temper” and even defended Adolf Hitler”
http://www.newsweek.com/questionable-saint-197568
Agreed!! I just conferenced with a lawyer who bald faced denied plain facts and attempted to draw counter intuitive conclusions.
I think he’s correct. Paul VI was worse but he’s tied with John XXIII. Countless souls lost becuase of those two. There are few souls left in Montini’s religion who will be lost solely because of Francis’s apostasy. Thr vast majority lost the Catholic Faith decades prior.
Paul VI is much worse for destroying the Catholic Faith and replacing it with a cult of man.
There is one way in which, in my opinion, Pope Francis, differs from his predecessors: Francis does not believe in God, never mind in Christ or Catholicism. Whatever damage the other Popes did to the Church, I doubt they were atheists.
Evangeline, why should you care about the SSPX?
Well, for starters, the SSPX have valid Masses and Sacraments. That’s a big plus in their favor right there.
Are you morally certain that Paul VI’s new rites of Orders, which he invented in 1968, produce real priests and bishops? I’m not.
There were some Roman theologians who questioned whether Paul VI was actually the pope back in 1965. It might have even been during John XXIII. It’s on record somewhere online, but I can’t put my finger on it.
…AND the Mass is Christ’s propitiatory Holy Sacrifice of Calvary, renewed in unbloody manner on the Altar. It was said, in its ancient rite, continuously throughout the world, until brutally robbed in the late 1960s by Paul VI.
Miserere nobis, Domine!
Yet unfortunately, the SSPX no longer insists on conditional reordination for an NO “priest” who joins their ranks. Sad. This one little ommision will be their downfall eventually.
Rich,
There were no sedes at the Council, yet sedes believe that they and only they have it all figured out. They (you) are latecomers to the battle against the Crisis.
It’s pure conjecture that +ABL would have taken the sede position if he were alive now. Sedes have difficulty seeing the bigger picture. +ABL could see the bigger picture, because he was a devout and traditional Catholic long before the Council. Why do you think that he kept going back to Rome, to try to talk sense into them, before the 1988 episcopal consecrations?
He didn’t bother with Rome after that, but he was never a sede. The sedes do not have a monopoly on truth. They have been duped by Cekada and Dolan and other sedes into believing that only they have the proper perspective.
And…I recall many years ago reading on the Angelqueen forum that both Cekada and Dolan are homosexuals. We don’t hear much about this anymore, however. Why is that?
I can’t see how anything short of an apocalyptic, material chastisement, can fix this mess. I can imagine that the SSPX will get us to that point at least. Then a Catholic Church will rise up from the ashes.
Wow, that’s a serious accusation. It supports your argument against sedevacantism in absolutely no way whatsoever but it is definitely a scandalous accusation. I hope you have good reason to believe this is true.
In addition, it was ABL himself that trained and formed Bp Dolan and Fr Cekada. The biggest sede maker in the world is the SSPX. Much of the sede community can be traced right back to Econe.
Firstly, Ive never heard that rumor. Secondly, if I had heard it Id make sure that my source was impeccable before sharing it on a reputable Catholic website such as this one. i have no problem with calling a spade a spade, but it needs to be done correctly.
That is very sad Tom. I’ve heard that, but have never met one who was not ordained by the Lefebvre lineage. If I do I’ll avoid him and kick up a stink about it. I don’t think I’d be alone. The faithful in the SSPX pews are more distrustful of all things Novus than some of the upper hierarchy.
That video is fascinating. The very respectable Monsignor is a study in the exact type of Novus Ordo churchman that led us down the road to perdition. Ordained in the old and hostile to it. Condemning the SSPX but refusing to say a word against Kung. These men will answer to God.
I saw that allegation on that site years ago. It looks like it was written by a complete nut.
I would be very careful repeating such a groundless piece of calumny without incontrovertible proof.
Dear Tom A,
This is a Giant Ommission! The virus that is all things Novus Ordo has infected the SSPX. Some of the most intelligent, well-formed priests ordained before 1988 are almost awe-struck by Novus Ordo priests who want to work with the SSPX but do not request conditional ordination. They infiltrate and now influence the education, the management of money, and the priesthood of the true Roman Catholic priests of the Latin Rite. How do we convince the SSPX priests that the priesthood and episcopate they possess is the rare precious jewel necessary for the continuation of the Latin Roman Catholic Church?
The sede Bishops will never allow their priests to come in without being absolutely positive that there is no taint of a new rite ordination. Lets pray a new Superior General this summer sets things right. Im not banking on it however.
Leave an apple out long enough, and it will rot, turning from green/red to black.
The same principle applies here when we consider the ‘reforms’ we are familiar with.
Caimbul:
Why does it matter that some came to the sedevacantist conclusion later than the Council? Didn’t many come to Christ much later? A lack of proclaimed sedes at the Council proves nothing. It is interesting that from what I have read ABL signed all of the Vatican II documents.
As for your last question regarding Father Cekada and Bishop Dolan, perhaps we don’t hear much about that anymore because it is pure calumny and no serious Catholic should be repeating it.
The excommunication was reversed in the end after, of course, they had destroyed his apostolate and caused so much suffering and scandal.
HV also craftily expressed that birth control by natural methods could be used acceptably to be sure that no children at all result from the marital act.
How does a Catholic sin against faith? A Catholic sins against the faith by apostasy, heresy, indifferentism, and by taking part in non-Catholic worship.”(Catechism of Trent, Catechism of Pope St. Pius X, Baltimore Catechism) Canon Law states: It is not permitted at all for faithful to assist in any active manner or have any part in the worship of non-Catholics.( Canon 1258)
False Ecumenism
All of these ,so called, Popes expressed views that showed their religious indifference. As if all roads lead to heaven. This shows also the influence of Masonic false ecumenism. True Catholic dogma does not teach this.
“It firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives;”{Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Cantate Domino, 1441, ex cathedra}
So why do these Popes continue to contradict this clear teaching of the extraordinary magisterium? I think, to the modernist mind absolute truth, as Church defined dogma, is counterintuitive. They just don’t think in those terms. Everything is ambiguous and nebulous evolving situation ethics.