Michael Voris and Fr. Paul Nicholson are on a mission. The question is, what exactly is it?
Placating benefactors and building the franchise
April 29, 2015
154 Comments
Voris last week took another swipe at SSPX in his April 23, 2015 “VISION CHASERS” Vortex; wherein he lumps SSPX with discredited seers of apparitions like Veroica Lueken, Matthew Kelly, Nancy Fowler.
However, he did make an interesting point that I hope Louie or someone in the comments section would address. Voris says (writes … script is under video at the CM site):
Voris last week took another swipe at SSPX in his April 23, 2015 “VISION CHASERS” Vortex; wherein he lumps SSPX with discredited seers of apparitions like Veroica Lueken, Matthew Kelly, Nancy Fowler.
However, he did make an interesting point that I hope Louie or someone in the comments section would address. Voris says (writes … script is under video at the CM site):
“…pious believing Catholics who do believe the Faith have taken themselves outside its jurisdiction by following fake apparitions and/or joining movements of priests who exercise no legitimate authority—like the SSPX, for example, whose marriages and confessions are invalid because they are not in communion with the local bishop, which gives them communion with Peter.”
What is the status of sacraments received by SSPX?
opps:
sorry I copied the first paragraph into comment twice
Dear TomV,
Without going into a long dissertation which would drive people from this blog, I present to you the following link which may assist you in clarifying the question you posed above. As an aside, I used to attend an SSPX chapel in my area and did go to confession. When I found out that their confessions are questionable because they do not have faculties from the bishop of our diocese, I went to confession at a local parish. I confessed that I had gone to confession at an SSPX chapel and the priest said he didn’t know anything about that. So, I guess I was validly absolved? The link below IS very helpful.
God bless you.
canonlawmadeeasy.com/2013/08/15/are-sspx-sacraments-valid-part-ii/
Father Paul Nicholson has a lot in common with this “Cardinal” who believes the pre-Vatican II Sisters who taught in Catholic schools were liars and fanatics simply because they were CATHOLIC!
http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/a-cnn/item/1720-vatican-spokesman-clarifies-statements-made-by-the-good-sisters-of-old
FATIMA
SINGS
We battle for Mass
Daily it’s said.
We battle for schools
Where God is not dead.
We battle for books
Published and read
We battle for peace
Retreats are priest led.
We battle to shield
Motherhoods’ plight
To let her nurse child
At home day and night.
We battle for men
Who quietly fight
Support them in prayer
To lead us to right.
We battle for truth
Professed in the Creed
Say “NO” to the wolves
Who twist it indeed.
We battle for grace
We drink it like mead
It quenches our thirst
Refreshed so to heed…
All that is said
By You-Tube “priestlings”
Corrupting the facts
With traditional slings.
But triumph is coming
Heart Immaculate brings
‘Cause the war ain’t over…
Till FATIMA sings!!
This explains the SSPX and supplied jurisdiction:
http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/supplied_jurisdiction/supplied_jurisdiction.htm
If you go to a priest who is co-operating with the revolution in the Church he will encourage you to do what he is doing. He will also try to scare you away from the SSPX. But Modernism is a sin, it was a hundred years ago, it was a sin during Vatican II and it’s a sin today and forever.
God bless you Louie for calling out the calumnies against the SSPX. It’s wonderful to know that strong, wise and holy priests will appear on his show to defend the truth about the society. It smells like they fear they are in the wrong. But it would bless them greatly to become humble enough to admit so, apologize and join the Society in fighting modernism.
For the record, I’m not SSPX. Never have been to their chapels. But it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize that they are the true heroes of our modernist revolutionary times. Michael Voris accuses them of hiding out from the problem, escaping from things. Pfffttt…far from it. Try being called “heretic”, “schismatic”, “protestant”, being refused and attacked by the modernist Church, and falsely excommunicated, all the while enduring it all with grace, truth, patience and a desire to help their lost/blind brothers in Rome. THAT is the cross writ large.
Somewhere along the line Michael Voris has lost his way. Truth is the only thing that sets us free, it is Our Lord personified. Yet MV is blind in this. Let us pray he will regain his sight and have the courage and humility to reach out to his fellow SSPX Catholics to repent, joining the fight with them in the true Traditionalist spirit:+) MV is blessed to have you love him enough to challenge him on this, Louie. You are his true brother:+) God bless~
BREAKING NEWS
Though I’ve no doubt Louie will post an update, please pray for the soul of Fr. Nicolas Gruner, the Fatima Priest. May he rest in peace.
http://www.cfnews.org/page88/files/6eb15beb906fea8f1575799aaf8d3758-375.html
Dear Louie,
Somethin’s definitely whacky here:
Father Nicholson’s video attempts to draw a close analogy between Archbishop Lefebvre’s claims of respect for the Papacy and loyalty to the Pope; and Berengarius’s claims of belief in the Real Presence–which history records as alternating between a number of retractions by him, claiming it was not the same body Our Lady bore into the world. Fr. Paul ends his video exclaiming “but you can’t have it both ways! It is either real, or it isn’t.” -and if it were real, then full submission should be the rule.
__
— Berengarius retracted his opinions in Rome’s council of 1059, signing a formula of faith, affirming the real and sensible presence of the true body of Christ in the Holy Eucharist. On his return, he attacked this formula and was vigourously opposed. Berengarius appealed to Pope Alexander II, who, though he intervened in his behalf, asked him to renounce his erroneous opinions. This Berengarius contemptuously refused to do. He then wrote his first book against the Council of Rome held in 1059. He was again condemned in the Councils of Poitiers (1075), and of St. Maixeut (1076), and in 1078, by order of Pope Gregory VII, he came to Rome, and in a council held in St. John Lateran signed a profession of faith affirming the conversion of the bread into the body of Christ, born of the Virgin Mary. The following year, in a council held in the same place Berengarius signed a formula affirming the same doctrine in a more explicit way. Gregory VII then recommended him to the bishops of Tours and Angers, forbidding that any penalty should be inflicted on him or that anyone should call him a heretic. Berengarius, on his return, AGAIN attacked the formula he had signed, but as a consequence of the Council of Bordeaux (1080) he made a final retraction. He then retired into solitude on the island of St. Cosme, where he died, in union with the Church.
====
Was not Archbishop LeFebvre, in great contrast to that, known to be a Priest who not only upheld the Church’s Dogmatic teaching, who conscienciously objected to pastoral practices which contradicted them? (such as false ecumenism). The SSPX history says, in 1970: ” The local bishop of Fribourg- convinced that this new seminary in Econe would bring great benefits to the Catholic Church- soon granted his official approval.”
___
” BUT many [in Rome] thought the archbishop had turned against the pope because he only permitted the old Latin Rite of the Mass at his seminary. ..Archbishop Lefebvre insisted he respected and honored the Holy Father, and was only continuing an unbroken Catholic tradition: he loved the Tridentine Rite of the Mass and knew from experience how beneficial, even crucial, it was in forming holy priests. [It had never been suppressed]
–“Two apostolic visitors conducted an official tour and inspection of the seminary at Econe in 1974. They were impressed with its high academic standards and the seminarians’ evident piety; their only complaint was that they did not see the new rite of the Mass being celebrated. They brought a positive report back to the pope.
___
Archbishop Lefebvre was soon called to Rome and was interviewed by three cardinals. A few weeks later, the new bishop of Fribourg suddenly suppressed the SSPX, May 6, 1975. Shocked, Archbishop Lefebvre issued an OFFICIAL APPEAL and asked for the reasons behind this drastic act. NEITHER Fribourg nor Rome RESPONDED. Additionally, in 1976 the archbishop was suspended ab ordinum collatione—from ordaining deacons and priests—and later a divinis—from all sacred functions, including saying Mass.”
___
“Confused by this abrupt suppression and inexplicable silence, the archbishop decided he must continue to fulfill his duties as rector of the seminary at Econe.
.. CANON LAW STIPULATED THAT NO SUCH SUPRESSION WOULD TAKE FORCE WHILE AN OFFICIAL APPEAL WAS LEFT UNRESOLVED– much less unanswered.”
=====
If this is true, shouldn’t Father Nicholson be questioning who exactly in Rome was guilty here, of wanting to “have it both ways” –since authorities went ahead and supressed him, without recognizing his legal rights to continue his work while appealing– under the Church’s own Canon Laws?
Rev. Nicholson is in ‘full communion’ with the system that condones funeral masses for dogs and unrepentant homosexuals, with the heirarchy that is seeking to officially allow adultery/grave sin/satan to mock the Body and Blood of Our Lord, the system that condones masses which include half naked people doing gymnastics before the altar of the Holy Sacrifice, invites all manner of scandal into the sanctuary, and, amongst a plethora of other abominations, reduces the Real Presence to something to be pawed and passed around (what’s to be expected after the JPII mega mass where consecrated hosts were being tossed about in plastic bags for ‘distribution’?). He is in full communion with all that. Meanwhile he presents himself as a ‘defender’ of worship by attacking the solemn and reverent worship celebrated by authentic Roman Catholic priests with authentic Roman Catholic Rites and who shepherd souls to heaven with authentic Roman Catholic teaching. It is 50 years since the very un-Roman Catholic Novus Ordo Group Mind imposed itself as the new, updated ‘official’ mind of the church. I guess it is no wonder that there are so many ‘Fr Nicholson’s’ who just don’t understand the Roman Catholic Faithfull.
–
Watching his commentary, he seems to look a little like someone who perhaps needs his meds adjusted. Only he can say if that is the look he is going for.
Very sudden. RIP. His work encouraged probably countless people to pray the rosary, to do penance and to love the Immaculate Heart.
WOW !!!! Indignus you certainly do your homework !!!!!
dear Salvemur,
Humility is required to first admit one is a mental case, (I ought to know,) let alone accept treatment for same. Although we judge not the interior of the man, going by what we see and hear, “Fr.” Nicholson does not even possess the **** to make such an admission. (BTW, nor does Voris, IMHO.)
Agreed. RIP Fr. Gruner. Another validly ordained priest departed. Gruner’s modesty of speech and comportment were exemplary. I’ve found that there’s almost no surer way to ignite vitriol coming from a typical VII sect priest than by mentioning Fr. Gruner’s name. An intersting thing to ponder, since we sedevacantists are supposed to be the haters and are calumnized constantly for supposedly being so.
It was, I think, not more than a year ago that Fr Gruner (70 or 71 years old at the time) was being forcably removed from St Peter’s Square because he posed a ‘risk’. That’s the merciful heirarchy of the Novus Ordo ‘legal system’.
Hello de Maria. In a recent vortex Voris taught heresy with regarding ‘sanctifying Grace’ and ‘actual Grace’. Having taught heresy publicly, once this is pointed out, one should put things right publicly by retracting the falsehood. It seems likely that Voris’ learnt his theology from post VII sources.
–
http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/heresy-in-voris-vortex.htm
Thank you for reminding me of this, dear salvemur.
I think it was prophetic that the above-referenced satire (The Remnant Newspaper-A-CNN Report) mentioned the Third Secret of Fatima. The N.O. “church” not only dismissed the requests of Our Lady, they were rude and physically abusive to Father Nicholas Gruner, “The Fatima Priest”. As Catholics, we must carry on his work by continually praying for the Consecration of Russia and letting everyone know that this was NEVER done as Our Lady requested. I believe that Father Gruner is now in good hands with Our Lady and that She has called him home so that he would be spared the terrible chastisements to come. We must keep Father Gruner in our prayers whether he be in Heaven or Purgatory. He, in turn, can pray for us during the terrible times to come if the Vatican continues to turn its back on Our Lady’s requests. RIP Father Gruner.
The onus is upon all of us to throw off those VII teachings and return to Roman Catholic teachings.
Eternal Rest grant unto him, O Lord. May Perpetual Light shine upon him. What great service, this good and faithful priest gave to the Church and for the salvation of souls.
What Fr Nicholson contended is absurd.
Does anyone know if Father Gruner ever mentioned anything about the alleged two Lucys?
http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/g12htArt2_TwoSisterLucys.htm
Dear Lady of Fatima, deliver his soul from Purgatory, as you promised those who wear the brown scapular, and pray your Holy Rosary daily, which he so faithfully did, and taught so many around the world, to do.
___
Father Gruner often quoted St. Catherine of Sienna–whose feast day was the day he died (on the new Calendar) ( today on the old one)
She said:
“We’ve had enough of exhortations to be silent! Cry out with a hundred thousand tongues. I see that the world is rotten because of silence.”
___
To us, his greatest gift was his fidelity to his calling as a Faithful Catholic Priest, and servant of Our Lady’s Fatima messages for the salvation of souls–never ceasing to speak the truth about them, in the face of opposition even from Rome; leading souls to greater personal holiness, steadfast Faith, Love of God, and neighbor.
Eternal rest, grant unto him, Oh Lord. May his soul, and the souls of all the Faithful departed, through Thy Mercy, Rest in Peace.
Dear ock,
We’ve got to these days. It’s the only way to sort out the facts from the opinions.
Amen!
This didn’t answer all our questions, but did address the issue:
https://youtu.be/9MZX8Bm-agc
“Follow the money”.
It is well known that Fr Nicholson is an “Opus Dei” priest, founded by “Saint” Josemaria Escriva.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Michael Voris has become a puppet pulled by the strings of the opus dei operatives controlling him. I don’t say this to suggest he is not culpable. God knows.
“Follow the money”. One doesn’t have to be a rocket scientist to connect the dots.
–
“Behold I send you as sheep in the midst of wolves. Be ye therefore wise as serpents and simple as doves.” Matthew 10:16
I, for one, I’m glad you said it again. Peace be to you.
The Evil One must have been mighty angry at Fr Gruner (RIP) for promoting Our Lady’s full Fatima message.
This is a report he himself submitted to the police of a violent attack perprated on his person on the very Sacristy of the Fatima Shrine:
http://www.fatimacrusader.com/cr43/cr43pg09.asp
–
Fr Gruner’s (RIP) death seems like an ominous signal of the end of an epoch. What will follow now? The future doesn’t seem any brighter than the past we are leaving behind.
TomV,
–
Short answer to your question:
The SSPX receives their authority to dispense the sacraments via “supplied jurisdiction”.
–
To put an example, if a priest meets someone on the road about to die from an accident who asks for the last rites, he is duty bound to provide him with the sacraments (assuming the person is catholic, of course), all provided validly without the explicit “jurisdiction” of the local bishop.
–
Catholics are being spiritually starved and are languishing in the wayside of NO-land (not to mention being fed spiritual poison by the local priests), and are begging for spiritual milk from true pastors, so why is it so difficult to believe that these priests would also be given “supplied jurisdiction”?
For Father Gruner:
O Gentlest Heart of Jesus ever present in the Blessed Sacrament, ever consumed with burning love for the poor captive souls in Purgatory, have mercy on the soul of Thy departed servant. Be not severe in Thy judgment but let some drops of Thy Precious Blood fall upon the devouring flames, and do Thou, O merciful Savior, send Thy angels to conduct Thy departed servant to a place of refreshment, light, and peace. Amen.
May the souls of all the faithful departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace. Amen.
I hope not to upset many here, but I must admit Mr. Voris is a real inspiration for me. One has only to listen to a few of his speeches in many conferences he has attended to know he is no slouch in his faith. In addition to his faith, Mr. Voris also seems to be a savvy business man — a rare quality indeed. However, before anyone should accuse Mr. Voris of ‘following the money’, I trust you may recall Mother Angelica’s regular send-offs when she was active in EWTN requesting that viewers include a monthly donation to her station between monthly utility bills. It takes a certain humility to ask for help, financial or otherwise. Having said that, I also greatly esteem Mr. Verrecchio, so his ongoing badgering of Mr. Voris is somewhat unsavoury. But I understand Mr. Verrrecchio wants a ‘debate’ on an important issue for the sake of truth.
The above is a mere preamble. I need help on a question I have now about Fr. Nicholson. On CMTV, Fr. Nicholson has a program called “God First” wherein Fr. Nicholson teaches The “New” St. Joseph Baltimore Catechism. Is there anything one should guard oneself from the “New” St. Joseph Baltimore Catechism. I only ask this because if it were not for Harvesting the Fruit, I would not have been warned about differences between the Roman Catechism and the CCC 1992, nor that between the 1983 Code of Canon Law from that of 1917. Is there anything a parent or teacher should be wary about the “New” (i.e. post VII) St. Joseph Baltimore Catechism?
One of Father Gruner’s frequent messages to the world, concerned the wearing of the Brown Scapular of Our Lady of Mt. Carmel and the Sabbatine Privilege attatched to it– which gives us cause for great hope with regard to his current circumstances, as tomorrow is First Friday and the Feast of St. Joseph the Worker, followed the next day, by the First Saturday after his death.
___
Our Lady said…” I promise to assist at the moment of death, with all the graces necessary for salvation, all those who, on the First Saturday of five consecutive months shall confess, receive Holy Communion, recite five decades of the Rosary, and keep Me company for fifteen minutes while meditating on the fifteen mysteries of the Rosary, with the intention of making Reparation to Me.
Sister Lucy was asked by her confessor, Father Concalves, why five Saturdays…?
–On May 29 while visiting the Blessed Sacrament, here is what was revealed to Sister Lucy by Our Lord:
My daughter, the reason is simple. There are five types of offenses and blasphemies committed against the Immaculate Heart of Mary:
1.Blasphemies against the Immaculate Conception.
2.Blasphemies against Her Perpetual Virginity.
3.Blasphemies against Her Divine Maternity, in refusing at the same time to recognize Her as the Mother of men.
4.The blasphemies of those who publicly seek to sow in the hearts of children indifference or scorn, or even hatred of this Immaculate Mother.
5.The offenses of those who outrage Her directly in Her holy images.
Notice that the first of the five blasphemies Sister Lucy conveyed was those committed against Our Lady’s Immaculate Conception.
====
This promise is found in a Bull of Pope John XXII. The Blessed Virgin appeared to him and, speaking of those who wear the Brown Scapular, said, “I, the Mother of Grace, shall descend on the Saturday after their death and whomsoever I shall find in purgatory I shall free so that I may lead them to the holy mountain of life everlasting.”
___
Our Lady assigned certain conditions which must be fulfilled:
1) Wear the Brown Scapular continuously.
2) Observe chastity according to one’s state in life.
3) Recite daily the “Little Office of the Blessed Virgin.”or:
3a) Observe the required fast of the Church as well as abstaining for meat on Wednesday and Saturday or:
3b) Recite the Rosary daily or:
3c) With permission, substitute some other good work.
Pope Benedict XV, granted 500 days indulgence for devoutly kissing your scapular.
For Father Gruner:
–
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xO3nT5cvaOo
–
Domine Jesu Christe, Rex gloriae,
libera animas omnium fidelium defunctorum
de poenis inferni,
et de profundo lacu.
–
Libera eas de ore leonis,
ne absorbeat eas tartarus,
ne cadant in obscurum.
–
Sed signifer sanctus Michaël
representet eas in lucem sanctam,
quam olim Abrahae promisisti
et semini eius.
=
Lord Jesus Christ, King of glory,
deliver the souls of all the faithful departed
from punishments of hell,
and from the deep lake.
–
Deliver them from the mouth of the lion,
may the abyss not swallow them up,
may they not fall into darkness.
–
But may the holy standard-bearer Michael
lead them to that holy light
which of old Thou didst promise Abraham
and his seed.
Thank you, Indignus. I thought the video was confusing and I’m not sure if the question was answered definitively. However, my observation (for all its worth!) is that Sister Lucia in the latter years just WASN’T SAD ENOUGH!! The REAL Sr. Lucia must have been VERY sad when she knew Our Lady’s requests were not obeyed.
I agree with all of you, that nun from 1967-2005 is not Sr. Lucia. Not in her facial shape, her eye placement, the proportions in her face, her chin, her complexion, her attitude, (I don’t think she was even Portuguese) and she was soooo Vatican II. I grew up thinking she was Sr. Lucia, I prayed for her and worried about her! Oh brother, stupid me.
I wonder what she told Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger!
Mr Voris started this thing a few months back accusing traditional organisations such as The Remnant, Catholic Family News, Harvesting the Fruit and anyone else who dare criticize the scandalous actions of the pope as being “spiritual pornogaphers”, and by constantly declaring the SSPX IS schismatic. That’s where this all started, and that’s where Voris lost all credibility.
As for your question on the “new” St Joseph catechism, I don’t know anything specific to point out there to be wary of, but…
“New” most likely means that it’s been re-written according to the New Orientation of Vatican II. That’s problem enough. What the hell was wrong with the original one? The modernists can’t leave their hands off of anything.
This is timely. Fr. Nicholson is a real class act.
http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=1723:father-paul-nicholson-blasts-father-gruner-on-the-day-of-his-death
Maybe we should all pray to Fr. Gruner to convert Fr. Nicholson. First miracle.
That’s a whole lot better than my first thoughts. Lord forgive me
Ya know, his reaction to Fr Gruner is the same as his reaction to the SSPX. It just doesn’t fit. It’s too much. It’s over the top. A person of good will, even if disagreeing with them, would not react this way.
There must be something about the Fatima message and about the SSPX that is very, very threatening to the V2 and the Opus Dei mindset.
Dear Alarico,
To know about the truth of your “New” Baltimore Catechism, look at questions # 166, 167, and 168. These questions have to do with “no salvation outside the Church.” I have found subtle differences in these questions between my 1945 Baltimore Catechisms and my 1962 version. I can tell you more specifically about the correct vs. modernized answers if you wish to know more.
Thank you, Mr. Verrecchio, for your brilliant video.
Your role of “clarity with charity” has become even more important to us now that we have lost Fr. Gruner.
Eternal rest grant unto him o Lord. And let perpetual light shine upon him. May he rest in peace.
Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.
Our Lady of Good Success, pray for us.
Dear Alarico,
I have multiple copies of Baltimore Catechisms #1, 2 and 3, some published 1945 and some 1962. I thought the differences in the questions were because of the years the books were published. On closer scrutiny now because of your question, I realize that it is only with the NEW ST. JOSEPH BALTIMORE CATECHISM that I can see a difference. You are correct to be “on guard” with the New St. Joseph version; there is a modernization of this version.
Correction: The differences I found were with the New Saint Joseph Baltimore Catechism #2, 1962. I do not have #3 (New St. Joseph)
________________________
Question # 167: What do we mean when we say, “outside the Church there is no salvation”?
1945 answer: When we say, “Outside the Church there is no salvation,” we mean that those who through their own grave fault do not know that the Catholic Church is the true Church or, knowing it, refuse to join it cannot be saved.
NEW St. Joseph 1962 answer: When we say, “Outside the Church there is no salvation,” we mean that Christ made the Catholic Church a necessary means of salvation and commanded all to enter it, so that a person must be connected with the Church IN SOME WAY to be saved.
Notice the changes.
______________________
The question # 168 was completely changed to a new QUESTION and a new answer.
Question #168: 1945 version:
Can they be saved who remain outside the Catholic Church because they do not know it is the true Church?
1945 answer: They who remain outside the Catholic Church because through no grave fault on their part they do not know it is the true Church can be members of the soul of the Church and can be saved by making use of the graces which God gives them.
_________________
Question #168 New St. Joseph Balt. Cat. How can persons who are not members of the Catholic Church be saved?
“New” St. Joseph Balt. Cat. 1962 answer: Persons who are not members of the Catholic Church can be saved if, through no fault of their own they do not know the Catholic Church is the true Church, but they love God and try to do His will, for in this way they are connected with the Church by desire.
You can purchase a good Baltimore Catechism here:http://www.setonbooks.com/viewone.php?ToView=P-RL09-11
I heard a priest once say that, in a pinch, it’s Church law (1917) the faithful are allowed to receive any of the Sacraments from a priest who has been excommunicated – that’s how important the Church takes, or at least used to take, reception of the Sacraments.
Abhorrent. True test of the mettle of the man.
I’m sure many of you have seen this. In Loving Memory of Father Gruner
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=an707xLF280
Compare him with Father Paul Nicholson–a priest “in good standing”. The N.O. “church” is upside down!!!!
Michael Voris and his associates like Father Nicholson, seem to be making use of “unofficial” statements made by high-ranking Churchmen, as a basis for their public stands against any person or group they categorize or perceive as harmful to the Faithful. We’d like to give them credit for “caring” about protecting the Faith, but they don’t seem to be as interested in finding out the facts, as much as they are in waging campaigns of condemnation based only on unofficial statements made by people whose words seem to back up their ideas.
___
A good example of this is the position they’ve taken that the SSPX is in “schism”.
Michael Voris apparently based his views on statements made by Cardinal Muller –in the interview he did with “Corriere della Sera” on Dec. 22, 2013, in which Muller answered the question: “With the failure of discussions, what is the position of the Lefebvrians?” by saying:
” “The canonical excommunication due to the illicit [episcopal] ordination was lifted from the bishops, but the sacramental one remains, de facto, for the schism; because they have removed themselves away from communion with the Church. That being said, we do not close the door, ever, and we invite them to reconcile. But they also must change their approach and accept the conditions of the Catholic Church and the Supreme Pontiff as the ultimate criterion of belonging.”
======
That perception was punctuated by the actions of some Italian Bishops ( and one American Cardinal in PA), who then threatened excommunication to anyone receiving Sacraments from the SSPX in their Dioceses.
___
It seemed to make no difference to them, that there has been no such official declaration of Schism by the Church to the SSPX, or that Cardinal Castrillón said in an interview with an Italian journalist published in 2007, that “while there may be a danger of schism and/or heresy for some priests and bishops within the SSPX, theirs is not a formal schism.”
=====
With that kind of ambiguity in play, it seems like bad journalism to go into attack mode.
This is not entirely true. In the comment section of his video for “Vision Chasers”, on his website, Voris gives a quote from Pope Benedict XVI, which can also be found on the Vatican website, apparently. I say apparently because he didn’t give a link and I have not searched it out yet.
My bad! He did give a link.
http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica.html
Dear James,
Thanks for the info and link. So if Michael Voris used that document, we still don’t see a basis for saying the SSPX is in schism –anywhere in it. Do you?
In fact, it talks about the reason for the excommunications–the consecrations of 4 bishops without papal mandate, as something that creates a “danger of schism”, but goes on to explain that it was possible to lift the excommunications because
“This gesture was possible once the interested parties had expressed their recognition in principle of the Pope and his authority as Pastor, albeit with some reservations….”
Do you get some other message from this document than what we see here?
–We can understand the arguments it raises about legitimate ministries while the “irregular” status remains, but where is there a declaration of Schism?
—We’re in no position to defend the SSPX overall, as we lack the knowledge to speak for them. We’re just questioning whether the very strong positions taken by Michael and Fr. Nicholson using the word schism repeatedly, are fair and accurate, and pointing out the benefit of their at least doing interviews with spokespersons for the SSPX, in order to get a better understanding of the actual situation.
—Please let us know if you think we missed something in Benedict’s document that you think makes the Voris position more legit.
I was merely pointing out that Voris did in fact use an official document.
The main problem for Rome with groups like the sedevacantists and schismatic mentality Catholics is that it is Rome who has scandalized these people.
Fr. Nicholson and Michael Voris should lay the blame where it belongs. The Popes have caused this. The Cardinals, bishops, and priests going along with the Revolution in the Church have scandalized the Faithful and driven many over the edge. And then Rome criticizes the victims that they have created!
The SSPX priests do all that they can to keep souls from going into schism, to keep souls balanced and faithful, they haven’t scandalized anyone. The causes of schism are the public objective sins of Sacrilege and Heresy that have been committed by the Shepherds with jurisdiction.
Archbishop Lefebvre begged the Cardinals to stand up and to defend the honor of the Church against an horrific objective sin against the First Commandment that John Paul II organized at Assisi in 1986. Now there’s a popular traditional priest who is working to make Pope John Paul II a Doctor of the Church! Hiding the facts about what the modern Popes have done wrong and pretending that they are all saintly is just feeding the Faithful lies. It is a bad method to keep souls balanced because it denies the truth and actually encourages them to accept sin as virtuous, which is just feeding them sugar coated wormwood.
Dear James and 3littleshepherds1,
With so many “irregular” things coming out of the mouths of the Pope and many modernist Bishops these days, (such as Communion for adulterers in the name of “Mercy”, and not proselytizing , in the name of ecumenical dialogue ala the spirit of VII, etc) the Church can greatly benefit from having our leaders engaged in dialogue with those who object strongly to these things that go against Dogma and Tradition. There is certainly a danger those objectors can also err, but it does no one any good for Catholic media persons to misrepresent the facts about their official status with the Church in an effort to discredit them. That’s why it’s important for Michael Voris to cite a document that actually says the SSPX is in Schism, if he insists they are. We’ still haven’t seen one that does. And this is the counter-claim we keep hearing from Louie, the SSPX, the Remnant, CFN etc.
——-It’s not such a cut and dried situation as it would be if the Hierarchy were not riddled with modernists, and creating a crisis of their own.
3littleshepherds1,
–
“there’s a popular traditional priest who is working to make Pope John Paul II a Doctor of the Church!”
INSANE!
Would you care to share the name of this “traditional priest” so that other readers of this blog may be on guard against this priest?
–
If NewChurch goes ahead with this insanity (not outside the realm of possibility – hey they’re already ramming through the “canonization” of Paul VI “The (hmm ‘Pure?’ ‘Protector of the Faith’ ‘Heroic’ ‘The Magnificent’??) ) it will only scandalize more and more catholics and drive many of them into as you point out a “schismatic mentality”.
I admire the SSPX too but if you claim to follow the Pope then this sentence below is s serious concern. Just labeling the Pope a modernist doesn’t make this go away. This is the man you claim to be subject to. Even the sedevacantists such as Sanborn have stated that such a position is schism by Catholic definition. Why do Voris and Fr. N get pounded on but sedevacantists get a free pass?
——
“even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church.”
——-
It’s all very confusing and disheartening.
There is no way to undo modernist new church.
The sedevacantist position is ludicrous.
The SSPX position makes little sense.
What is a Catholic to do?
This is the truth.
Hi James,
How is the sedevacantist position ludicrous?
Fr John Zuhlsdorf. He of the cookery blog ministry.
Pete,
Catholicism teaches that everyone must be subject to the Pope for salvation. So in my lifetime there has been no Pope?? The successors of the Apostles are gone forever? How do we get them back? How do we change society? How do we bring souls to the Church? Where is the comfort in that? The hope? Do you not see how cruel such a theory is? I just don’t get it. It makes no sense.
Lynda,
Fr “Z”? I see. Thanks for the info.
I guess that’s why I stopped following his blog a long time ago.
JamesTheLesser,
–
Stick to Our Lady and Her Immaculate Heart like you’ve never done before (good intention to have this month of May). For the moment, we all must stand at the foot of the cross with Our Heavenly Mother and the Beloved Disciple while Our Lord is crucified anew in the Passion of His Mystical Body, in the hope that the Church will be born “anew” from an apparent “death”.
When I was younger I’d ask my parents why the SSPX priests didn’t come out fighting all the time in their sermons. Compared to a lot of writers in various journals they just didn’t talk about it much. My parents said it was because their role was only to hold on to and protect the treasures of the Church until the revolution was over. Their position is defensive rather than offensive. As far as I can understand the SSPX considers itself to be temporary, an emergency crew that will no longer have a mission once the crisis ends.
James I really feel for you. You must be quite young i.e. born after 1958. Your generation is under a huge disadvantage in that the NO is all you know. Us oldies grew up before VII and well know what the Faith was then, so it is very much easier for us to really appreciate the difference between then and now, the real and the false. Confusing and disheartening for you it really must be. Pray for the Grace of Perseverance. I think it was the Cure of Ars who said that one won’t receive this Grace, unless one asks for it. Don’t worry about the situation too much. The Papal succession will be taken care of. Our Lord and Vatican I assure us of that. How will it be done? We don’t know, but the Lord does!
The NO is diabolical. We all know that and it is becoming obvious to more and more people every day. Stop having anything to do with it. It will only lead you further and further astray. The damage to the Church is far beyond the point that any human could fix it. Take comfort from the fact that all this is part of God’s plan. He knows about it, He is letting it happen and in due course He will fix it. Remember Our Lady warned us 400 years ago, and also since then, that exactly this would happen and that in the end the Immaculate Heart will prevail, that the Church will be gloriously restored and that She will then reign. So, we are in a tough spot right now, but the future is eventually very bright. Just see sedevacantism as the Catholic Faith as it has always been until 1958, because that is all it is. Then from that point blot everything from your mind. Then you will have certainty, security and peace, because there is nothing confusing in the Catholic Faith. It is immutable, reasonable and for all time. These days with instant communication, we are subjected to the problems of the whole world, in our own homes, every day. Some times it just gets too much for any shoulders to bear. Then its time to hit a ball, or go for a run followed by a hot shower and a cold beer. Remember we are to be judged individually. Wear the brown scapula, daily rosary, keep chaste, find a sedevacantist Mass, or watch St.
Gertrude’s, leave the world in Our Lord’s Hands and you won’t feel disheartened anymore.
I totally agree. Our Lord can raise it all back up in three days.
Peter Lamb, thanks for thoughtful post and encouraging words.
I think Voris actually leads more folks out of the church. He correctly points out the heresy of bishops but along with that promotes a vision of the papacy that borders on papalotry.
When his viewers do stumble across the numerous instances of the pope doing and saying the same things as the heretical bishops, these folks will have their faith shaken and be apt to bolt.
It’s much safer to be honest about the gravity of the current crisis. Honesty is always the best policy.
Thanks! I do. I believe she has played a big role in my life.
Dear James,
Very true, that statement does raise serious concerns, which we are fairly certain must be front and center when Bishop Fellay has his talks with the representatives of the Vatican.
The fact that modernist ideologies are abounding right now, doesn’t make this go away, but it does complicate matters enormously. We don’t have the answers as we said, we’d just like to see everybody on all sides be more careful with the facts they put out there about those they find themselves opposing . In the end, we want a united Church, united in Truth AND in love of our fellow Catholics.
I wouldn’t recommend going sede, though I sympathize with them. It seems a bit of an emotional response to the tough spot we’re all in. This short Q and A on sedevacantism from the SSPX might be helpful.
http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/sedevacantism/little_catechism_on_sedevacantism.htm
Other than “going sede”, PeterLamb’s advice above is good. Which can all be accomplished at any traditional parish. Learn the Faith, Love the Faith, and live the Faith. Simple as that. The Good Lord will straighten this mess out in due course.
IOf course, Craig. He is leading people astray. Everyone is aware of the Pope’s constant attacks on Faith and morals, his promotion and support of heretics, apostates and various enemies of the Faith, as well as the persecution of those upholding the whole of the Deposit of Faith and moral law – and then they look to Michael Voris who rails against the similar or lesser evils being perpetrated by cardinals, bishops, whilst, without the slightest blush, he and his operation pretend the Pope is not doing any of this but rather leading his people in the Faith. It is so flagrantly dishonest and cynical and contemptuous of Truth, and the Office of the Papcy that it is flabbergasting.
Diabolical disorientation is the only explanation.
Dear All,
According to the last letter we received from Father Gruner, he had just spoken with Gabriel Amorth (Rome’s chief exorcist) and wrote:
“His words shook me as few things ever have!” …”I have met and spoken to Father Amorth many times over the years. This is the first time he has ever told me in plain language how much time we have left – exactly – before the manifest chastisements of the world could begin!
Father Gabriel Amorth told me that unless the consecration of Russia is performed – as Our Lady asked-by the end of October 2015, the darkprophecies of Fatima may well come to pass any day after that.” He went on to say that he believes Father Amorth has special spiritual gifts.
His final words were: “The clock is ticking” Yours in Jesus, Mary and Joseph.
Father Nicholas Gruner
p.s. It was not that uncommon for Father to send out letters about the urgency of the Fatima message. And this one uses language that is still only saying it “may well come to pass” . Still, all the signs of apocalyptic events are here these days, with ISIS still making more and more martyrs, and an earthquake nearing a death-toll of 7,000 – the number of dead prophesied in Revelations, as the second woe ends with the death of the two prophets who wear sack cloth, and the world rejoices because these two had plagued them….and the third woe is about to come “quickly”.
We’ll know when it happens, but it doesn’t hurt to prepare, with spiritual house-cleaning. Sacramental Confession, prayer, and penance..
God Bless us all St. Joseph, pray for us. (Tomorrow is first Saturday)
It isn’t just that the Pope is a modernist, the problem is that the SSPX has been told to co-operate with principles that they know are sinful or else they will not be regularized. They can’t compromise.
Submission to authority, even to the Pope has its limits. No one is bound to follow the Pope when he orders you to sin. And we know what sin is, we don’t do what previous Popes have condemned.
Jean Guitton, the French philosopher and theologian, who was really good friends with Pope Paul VI once stated this:
“When I read the documents relative to the Modernism, as it was defined by Saint Pius X, and when I compare them to the documents of the II Vatican Council, I cannot help being bewildered. For what was condemned as heresy in 1906 was proclaimed as what is and should be from now on the doctrine and method of the Church. In other words, the modernists of 1906 were, somewhat, precursors to me. My masters were part of them. My parents taught me Modernism. How could Saint Pius X reject those that now seem to be my precursors?”
If one follows a false pope one will arrive at falsehood. Modernism is the ‘synthesis of all heresies’ and it is promoted by Novus Ordo popes. Bergoglio exhorts ‘adjustment of the Gospel to the needs of the people.’ This adjustment/adulteration’ is what Novus Ordo popes have done with the Faith all around; in worship, doctrine and discipline. The deceitful thing is that what the ‘people need’, in Truth, is the unadjusted/unadulterated Gospel, Faith, Worship. Without the resistence of the SSPX the Traditional Faith would have disappeared, therefore we can thank God that He protected the Faith by raising up the Society. With sedevacantists the Faith is preserved from all modernist ‘dialogue’. When the restoration of Faith and Worship occurs it will be those who are outside of the modernist communion who will be looked to in order to know ‘how’ live and worship as an unadulterated/unadjusted Catholic.
–
It is the Feast of St Athanasius who, like the SSPX and sedevacantist priest, had to find a place to minister the sacraments to the Faithful outside the structures of the majority church which had become infested with heresy.
–
In the fifth century the faithful of the diocese of Irene, under the heretic Nestorius, cut of communion with him, based on the open fact that he preached in contradiction with the ordinary universal magisterium of the Catholic Church (he preached that the Blessed Virgin was the Mother of Christ, not the Mother of God). The faithful were not under any obligation to wait for anyone else to give them permission to remove themselves from the influence of a heretic. We need no man’s permission in order to cease to make a ‘concord’ of Christ with belial. When Nestorius was finally excommunicated and deposed he was named the ‘New Judas’. There will come a day when a True Pope will excommunicate and depose many top level false shepherds who are the ‘aggiornamento’ Judases.
–
PS. In an article on the response of the faithful to the heresy of Nestorius, Bishop Sanborn lays out clearly the sedevacantist position: “[W]e have the right and obligation personally and even collectively to cut communion with heretical prelates, and to regard them as false prelates, we do not have the authority to declare the sees legally vacant which these heretical “popes” or “bishops” possess de facto. Only the authority of the Church can do that. We wait anxiously for the glorious day when the authority of Christ vested in a true pope will declare that the authors of Vatican II and all those who through their own fault adhered to its false teachings are excommunicated from the Catholic Church…until their designation to possess the authority is legally declared null and void by competent authority, the heretical “pope” or “bishop” is in a state of legal possession of the see, but without authority.”
Titus 3: A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid: Knowing that he, that is such an one, is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned by his own judgment.
Benedict XVI lifted JPII’s excommunication of the SSPX (one would guess a difficult day for Voris and his clergy). And when he met Bishop Fellay, Benedict described Archbishop Lefebvre as a ‘great man’.
–
I wonder what the Vorisites would make of the following. Monsignor Klaus Gamber, in his book ‘Reform of the Roman liturgy: its problems and background’ wrote with regards to the new missal (the Novus Ordo liturgy and its three year cycle): “But what possible advantage can be gained for the pastoral care of the faithful by changing the feast days of the saints in the Church calendar, changing the way of counting Sundays during the liturgical year, or even changing the words of Consecration? What possible advantage can be gained by introducing a new Order of Readings and abolishing the old one, or by making minor and unimportant adjustments to the Traditional Rite, and then finally, by publishing a new Missal? Was all this really done because of pastoral concern about the souls of the faithful, or did it not rather represent a radical breach with the Traditional Rite, to prevent the further use of traditional liturgical texts and thus to make the celebration of the ‘Tridentine Mass’ impossible–because it no longer reflected the new spirit moving through the Church?” —- Cardinal Ratzinger, after the death of the Monsignor, when the book was reprinted wrote in his preface to the edition: “Gamber, with the vigilance of a true prophet and the courage of a true witness, opposed this falsification, and, thanks to his incredibly rich knowledge, indefatigably taught us about the living fullness of a ‘true liturgy.” Cardinal Ratzinger praised ‘opposing this falsification’ and in doing so called the new missal a ‘falsification’ of the ‘true liturgy’.
CraigV, if only what you say were true! It would be so great, but very sadly it’s not. The conciliar popes are not valid. They were/are heretics. The NO is a false religion of diabolic origin with many invalid sacraments. These facts have been discussed repeatedly. There is not an iota of “emotional response” in it. Catholic doctrine is clear and objective. The SSPX are so close, yet so far. If only they would break with the pope, who they admit is a modernist, (the synthesis of all heretics), dump the una cum mass, (which is clearly in breech of Mortalium Animos and Iam Vos Omnes amongst others), they would be the vanguard of the Remnant with a great organisational infrastructure we could all build on. If you start choosing between “traditional” NO parishes and “non-traditional” NO parishes what kind of “catholicism” have you got? What is it that you are partaking in? It can’t be Catholic. The Catholic Church is ONE. There can not be different types of Catholic parishes, or different types of Catholics. Have the courage of your Catholic Faith and dump the wretches.
Amen to that.
PS My response in reply to CraigV’s comment.
Indignus,
–
I wouldn’t be surprised at all if Fr Amorth’s predictions were true, especially considering the attempt to undermine God’s moral law at the conclusion of the sin-nod this coming October. Having said that, I think it is good to remember that as Our Lord said, “You know neither the day nor the hour.” In other words, we should be spiritually prepared for any such calamity today just the same as when these apocalyptic events may take place.
–
Regarding the allusion above to the book of revelation, it is Fr Herman Kramer’s opinion (see the work “The book of destiny”) that “the two prophets” will be revealed during the time of the persecution by the Anti-Christ, and will be sent to preach to the Jews, who will kill them and rejoice.
I agree about the ‘feelings, nothing more than feelings’, idea. Our feelings have no authority. We must adhere to the teachings of the Holy Ghost through the Mystical Body of Christ. We must adhere to Eternal Rome, not modernist Rome; otherwise we are not following the teachings of the Holy Ghost but the zietgiest. So how do we do that? Some seek out a priest and a mass that appear to be on a Traditional continuum. Some seek out a Traditional Mass period. Some leave the Novus Ordo (which is about as ‘universal’ in its practices as a multicultural jig-saw puzzle with a lot of the pieces missing) and head for the SSPX, which, nonetheless, keeps open channels to the Novus Ordo experiment. Some, who conclude sedevacantism, are obliged to remove themselves from all communion with modernist Rome and the advent of true Pope. I presume, or would hope, all of the above Traditionalists pray for the conversion of Rome. It is the sedevacantist alone, however, who will be praying for a true Pope, since the ‘legal’ pope, however false his practices and preachings, is treated as if he were true by other Traditionalists. Which approach will prove to have been the most pleasing to God?
–
The pre-VII Popes taught clearly and plainly that Truth (Christ and His Indefectible Church) must never appear to be reduced to the same level as error (the world which itself is a synthesis of falsehoods carefully nurtured by the father of lies).
–
PS. Archbishop Lefebvre (and all authentic sons of the Church) upheld and uphold this teaching with all the means given them. In the documentary on Archbishop Lefebvre, a priest was talking about when the Archbishop learned of the Assisi gatherings in ’86 (a world wide message, courtesy of JPII, that Truth and error belong on a horizontal plane (But VII’s declaration on Religous Liberty did this earlier)). The Archbishop put his head in his hands and said, ‘it’s the end of the Missions’. One could say quite simply that the Assisi scandals had one message, ‘its the end of the Mission of the Church’. The priest then elaborated on the great sin of putting truth and error on the same level. He said it would be like putting health and sickness on the same level. If they have equality, we have no need of doctors. All souls need the True Physician. The VII revolution in its words and application denies that the True Physician is necessary for the salvation of souls.
That is Pope materialiter, but not Pope formaliter = sedeprivationism.
From an Elieson Comment ‘Vacancy Sense I’ on Bp Williamson’s site: “Can a Pope be deposed?—Answer, yes, because Catholics are obliged to separate themselves from heretics, after the heretics have been warned (Titus III, 10). Also, a heretical Pope puts the whole Church in a state of legitimate self-defence {(the Church must be pretty small now if the ‘whole Church’ is in a state of self-defence, since only a remnant are actually in a state of spiritual ‘self-defence’ over the proliferation of anti-Christness since VII)}. But the Pope must be warned first, as officially as possible, in case he would retract. Also his heresy must be public, and [his heresy] declared as officially as possible, to prevent wholesale confusion among Catholics, by their being bound to follow.”
–
Whether one views Bergoglio as ‘partly’ pope because he holds an office but is dead to the Faith (has no spiritual authority, simply holds a legal office), or properly pope because he holds the office and they don’t care about things like spiritual deadness, who in the Novus Ordo heirarchy would have the courage to “[declare his heresy] as officially as possible, to prevent wholesale confusion among Catholics”? Sedevacantist Bishops do, but they don’t belong to the legal structure of the Novus Ordo. The SSPX have pointed things out, but there seems to have been a growing silence. Cardinal Burke, as someone within the Novus Ordo heirarchy, has publicly condemned the heresy being courted by the synod, but has he or any other Novus Ordo Cardinal or Bishop ‘admonished’ Bergoglio’s litany of lies and deeds against the faith? Is there not complicity in that silence?
SSPX Sacraments are valid, but the problem is the “una cum” which is definitely proscribed, even forgetting about their selective submission to a Pope they recognise.
The problem with a NO TLM is that the “priest” offering it may easily have been invalidly ordained in the new rite by a bishop who was invalidly consecrated in the new rite. Remember Pope Pius XII defined the essential forms of the Sacraments. I think we should pay very much more attention to the Sacramental theology involved. There is a lot written in great detail about it. Very serious theologians have said that NO episcopal concecrations, ordinations, Eucharistic Consecrations and extreme unctions are invalid. So going to a NO TLM is in every probability a waste of petrol and time and gives scandal to others. I’m not trying to be pig-headed, or stubborn, I’m just looking at all the aspects as objectively as I can according to established Catholic Doctrine. Remember a NO TLM is PART OF THE NO. One MUST either accept the NO COMPLETELY, or NOT AT ALL. This SSPX business of accepting what one likes and discarding that which one doesn’t like – i.e. picking and choosing, is NOT Catholic.
Just in case anybody is confused about the sedevacantist versus sedeprivationist issue:
It is clearly established by Cum Ex Apostolatus that a heretical pope is immediately, automatically completely severed from membership of the Church by DIVINE law.
However he occupies the seat legally in terms of CANON law even though he has lost all powers of Office, so as quoted by Salvamur above, “until their designation to possess the authority is LEGALLY declared null and void by competent authority, the heretical “pope” or “bishop” is in a state of legal possession of the see, but without authority.”
So, for practical purposes, sedevacantism and sedeprivationism come to the same thing – in so far as both agree that there is no formal, empowered Pope in Office, who is able to fulfill the functions of a Pope.
PS. It is my understanding the Bp Sanborn concludes sedeprivationism.
Dear In Hoc,
Yes, we definitely need to hold back on interpreting or assuming anything about Revelations coming true in detail, agreed. (There are many details of the two prophets that have not been fulfilled yet)
We try to read the Apocalypse with a view to extracting the overall lessons it teaches, which seem to apply to every generation. –Such as that sin grows, and when unchecked and unrepented, eventually brings down the wrath of God, and while a remnant still exists on earth, they are called to live (and die) for the Truths He has revealed.
___
We see at least a prefigurement of the two prophets, in those who proclaim the Word boldly these days, which is why people like Father Gruner stand out in today’s world, facing persecution from those who would silence the Messages of Our Lady–especially about the serious consequences of unrepented mortal sin, i.e. Hell, and the need for conversion to the One, True Church, so obvious in the request for the Consecration of Russia. (Orthodox doesn’t do it) (It wouldn’t surprise us to learn that some of their enemies were rejoicing at news of their deaths, and giving presents to one another as Scripture foretells)
-This ongoing battle is one we ourselves are continually waging, and we’re not those prophets, either, but can learn from their perseverance. Our work is made much more difficult by the modernists who have infiltrated our Church, as the Arians did in the time of St. Athanasius. (Happy feast day -new calendar)
___
We are reminded in Psalm 140 (Douey) that King Saul was anointed as ruler, and when he went bad, David cried out to God for help, not wanting to rail against His anointed one in speech, but being forced to acknowlege the Truth. He prays to be kept from the snares laid for Him by those who work iniquity, and puts his faith in God, even if it means he will be “alone” till the day he dies, professing the sure belief that “The wicked shall fall”.
____
Good things for us to ponder right now, while all this confusion reigns around us, where the “disobedient” appear to be upholding 2,000 years of truth, while many post-conciliar modernists attempt to reverse the meaning of things like “go teach all Nations, Baptizing them” –a mandate from the lips of Our Lord, which reason tells us applies more than ever to our “modern” world.
___
The Fatima site has announced a Pontifical Mass next week for Father Gruner’s funeral, and Bishop Fellay is to preside.
Father Gruner and Archbishop Lefebvre have a lot in common both in their desires to preserve the Truths of our Faith, and in their wishes that fidelity to the Pope and magisterium be maintained, unbroken, while the Church weathers this terrible crisis from within.
We pray that those aims be accomplished, and that God grants us a holy Pontiff (whether it means converting or replacing the current one) who will reunite ALL the faithful. There should be no need for all these groups who are at odds with one another –sede’s SSPX, SFFP, and N.O. Catholics, and many more. May God hear our prayers, and come to our aid, ridding us of all the false teachers, leaving us only with His will being done in His One, True Church–one visible, identifiable body, present in every Catholic Church on the planet.
dear Peter,
Yes, attending a VII sect TLM does scandalize, and this is a very serious matter, with regard to the words of His Majesty Our Lord Jesus Christ Matt 18:6. This includes the SSPX because they agree with most of VII, including heretical disciplinary changes poured forth from those they acknowledge as pontiffs, current & past. This, heartbreakingly, from me -who prays for, who continues to love, who has met & spoke to the Archbishop.
To another point you made, in other words, Bergoglio occupies the Chair, but does not possess the Authority of the Keys.
Folks, watch out!!!
Mike Voris is starting to speak heresy in his “Vortex” shows!
In his “Vision Chasers” show he claims that there are those IN THE CHURCH, who DO NOT have the faith, and that there are those that have the faith, who are NOT IN THE CHURCH!? (5:13)
I thought the holy catholic faith was necessary for church membership? (St Athanasius Creed)
–
From a letter of St Athanasius to those Christians suffering under the Arian persecution:
“May God console you! … What saddens you … is the fact that others have occupied the churches by violence, while during this time you are on the outside. It is a fact that they have the premises – but you have the Apostolic Faith. They can occupy our churches, but they are outside the true Faith. You remain outside the places of worship, but the Faith dwells within you. Let us consider: what is more important, the place or the Faith? The true Faith, obviously. Who has lost and who has won in the struggle – the one who keeps the premises or the one who keeps the Faith? True, the premises are good when the Apostolic Faith is preached there; they are holy if everything takes place there in a holy way …
–
“You are the ones who are happy; you who remain within the Church by your Faith, who hold firmly to the foundations of the Faith which has come down to you from Apostolic Tradition. And if an execrable jealousy has tried to shake it on a number of occasions, it has not succeeded. They are the ones who have broken away from it in the present crisis. No one, ever, will prevail against your Faith, beloved Brothers. And we believe that God will give us our churches back some day.
I was looking through the latest Vortex shows regarding the “Judas” question. I didn’t hear anything objectionable, but I wonder whether he is aware of Bergoglio’s own comments regarding Judas Iscariot?
“Judas was not the one who sinned the most: I don’t know who sinned the most…”
http://www.cruxnow.com/church/2014/10/29/pope-francis-judas-was-a-sinner-but-no-worse-than-anyone-else/
mentioning Hans Urs von Balthasar as one of the leading proponents of the “
continuation to above…
Mike mentions Hans Urs von Balthasar as one of the leading proponents of the idea that Judas might be damned after all – but it was “Saint” JP II “The Great” who gave the cardinalate to this heretic!! And if that wasn’t bad enough, consider the following words of Cardinal Ratzinger at the heretic’s funeral:
“What the pope intended to express by this mark of distinction [i.e., elevation to the cardinalate], and of honor, remains valid, no longer only private individuals but the Church itself, in its official responsibility, tells us that he is right in what he teaches of the faith.” (!!??)
correction… “…as one of the leading proponents of the idea that Judas might NOT be damned after all”
This letter of St. Athanius could be applied exactly to us today.
dear In Hoc Signo Vinces,
Thank you for correcting that! I knew it ws not you quoting thus ! Anyway, as to your comment–I know. JPII & Ratzinger-Modernists par excellence.
Voris’ stance is unconscionable, IMHO.
Dear de Maria,
Yes, exactly! You have put it in a nutshell. I grasp the idea of sedeprivationism, but I don’t know how it conforms with 6. iii. of Cum Ex Apostolatus: (iii) “it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way;”
Is recognising a man as Pope “materialiter” affording him some degree of legitimacy? I just don’t know – it’s over my head. Perhaps someone with legal training could explain?
dear Indignus famulus,
I beg to differ with you, albeit with the utmost respect, & not attempting to take away focus from the point of your post, that of the departed Fr. Gruner, may God rest his soul. Sedevacantists are “at odds” with no one. We love in accord with the counsel of Our Lord himself. Within that context, upholding and adhering to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic religion, undefiled of the Heresy of Modernism. Period.
dear Pter,
with regard to your reponse to me & your query, perhaps you can find what you need on the posts on this blog here;
http://www.mostholytrinityseminary.org/bishopsblog.html
forgive me if not, i am not nearly as erudite as you & most here are,
If not, Bp. Sanborn can be reached at the MHT Seminary if you leave a phone message for His Excellency there. Do not hesitate to contact His Excellency.
http://www.mostholytrinityseminary.org/contact.html
May the Peace of Our Lord Jesus Christ, a Peace not of this world, be to you & all dear brethren here.
Dear de Maria,
Wow!!! Thank you very much! I had no idea Bishop Sanborn had a site. It looks great. I am gonna start reading now. Will let you know what I find out! 🙂
Dear de Maria,
I have just finished reading this article: http://www.mostholytrinityseminary.org/Explanation%20of%20the%20Thesis.pdf
It explains the Thesis of Bishop Guerard des Lauriers / Cassciciacum Thesis / sedeprivationism very clearly indeed. It looks a bit complicated, but if one takes it slowly and carefully it is understandable and makes very good sense to me. I have learned a lot I didn’t know before. What happened with VII is unique in the history of the Church and it took time for the magnitude and nature of the revolution to become generally apparent and so also for a valid theological assessment of the situation to be developed. This thesis certainly fits the bill, in my opinion, and answers the question I asked. Thank you again for leading me to this site.
dear Peter,
You are articulate and put words to paper well. Yes, the thesis requires one to think without emoting. Revisiting & reading again when one is prepared to face the issue after (and-if I may say-within,) prayer is helpful too, especially in order to be competent to offer the position to a Catholic who asks questions of us. It’s sad that many state that the situaion we face now has happened before. This is, as you state, simply false.
For God alone- God bless you.
Dear de Maria,
It’s possible we’re working with a different definition of “at odds” , than you are. Or is it that we were applying the term to the interactions we’ve observed here between folks here who have differing views about the status of the Chair of Peter, and you are considering it more as something which ideally should not exist, given the beliefs you hold? 🙂 🙂
dear Indignus famulus,
I think probably the former. It seems not quite so, to see Catholics engaging in cordial discourse ( which sedevacantists & other traditionalists do all the time) as being at odds. Moreover, the theological position sedevacantists hold involves the status not of the Chair, but of the man who is the occupant. This distinction is an important one.
Louie, all these postings by Sedevacantists are tiresome. We have a Pope, and as much as we find him appalling, Jesus has not abandoned us. The Church will continue to live in those who follow His teaching and in Tradition. We have a pope. We also have a pope emeritus and there is no little mystery in that! So do like Mundabor and banish all these Sedavacantist cranks from your site. Please!
I can understand not wanting to read discussions about unpleasant issues (such as the issue of one who has no spiritual authority claiming the See of Peter), but looking away from an unpleasant Truth, as Michael Voris advocates, causes a person to remain a part of a lie, however well intentioned – we have to pretend there really isn’t anything wrong. As de Maria numquam satis points out above, the Church has never known a crisis like this – a string of papal claimants promulgating heresy and suppressing the authentic Faith is absolutely unheard of in the history of the Church. What is one to make of this? Trying to answer that question has resulted in the various positions that exist among Traditional Catholics. None of these positions could ever advocate the belief that ‘Jesus has abandoned us’. Trials, on the contrary (if we don’t abandon God), cause us to cleave to Him all the more tenaciously.
–
If a papal claimant has abandoned Our Lord by publicly making ‘concord with belial’ and shows no public remorse, we have to step away from his influence and pray God will give us a True Pope, or bring about the repentence and conversion of the ‘beliacal’ pope. VII introduced a revolution against the Faith – the Faith that had hitherto been preached and defended in the Holy Roman Catholic Church. Again, what are we to make of this? We know the Faith. The ‘one voice’ of over 260 popes is still with us, and their voice stands in contradiction to the ‘new papal voice’ that arose in the 60s.
Dear Mr Lamb, I think this addresses the issue:
http://remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2013-0315-siscoe-sedevacantism.htm
Basically, that warnings and declarations are required before heresy becomes manifest and pertinacious.
Dear Lynda,
Yes, I am aware of Siscoe’s article and also of Speray’s point by point rebuttal of much of it:
https://stevensperay.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/steven-speray-responds-to-robert-siscoe-and-the-remnan1.pdf These chaps can certainly make one’s head spin and the issue of the necessity of warnings/declarations can be very confusing indeed.
I have come to understand it as follows:
One must constantly keep the distinction between Divine Law and Ecclesiastical (Canon) Law in mind. Heresy is a sin against Divine Law and a crime against Canon Law. The distinction between the sin and the crime is crucial.
Divine Law is promulgated by God and is immutable.
Canon Law is promulgated by men, by authority of God and is mutable, according to the contemporary requirements of good governance of the Church Militant.
The heretic is automatically severed from the Church the instant the mortal sin of heresy is committed, in terms of Divine Law. He is no longer a member of the Church.
However, although in fact (de facto) a heretic, he has yet to be tried, judged and found guilty of the crime of heresy, in terms of Canon Law, by the competent Church Authorities. That is, he is a murderer, but has not yet been found guilty of murder in court.
Now, once having been found guilty of the crime, the warnings and declarations come into play for the good governance of the Church.
The Doctrine of the Church is a constant prior warning to all her members of the dangers and consequences of manifest, formal, pertinacious heresy.
You say that “… warnings and declarations are required before heresy becomes manifest and pertinacious.”
But this is not possible. It cannot be known to man that warnings and declarations are necessary, until the heresy itself is made known, i.e. is made manifest, formal and pertinacious. The horse has to come first and then the cart can follow.
crank noun (PERSON)
1)a person who has strange or unusual ideas and beliefs
2)an unpleasant and easily annoyed person
Example : She’s always a crank first thing in the morning.
By definition a) every Catholic is a crank to the world. The trouble with anonymous comments on the internet its easy to miss a sense of humour or remain unaware of good will. There are a few different kinds of of the sin of scandal – two kinds being called ‘passive scandal’. The first of these is the ‘scandal of the weak’ where a person sees evil where there is none simply out of ignorance. The second is called ‘pharisiac scandal’ or scandal from a sense of arrogance or malice where someone decides something is evil against the evidence because it suits them.
–
When it comes to degrees of sedevacantist postitions in response to the crisis in the Church it is in response to genuine error in the words and deeds of papal claimants, there is no passive scandal there, simply a geniune Catholic response to the active scandal of papal claimants.
Well that lets me off the hook because my ideas and beliefs are Catholic! 🙂
That’s a relief! Life would be so much simpler if popes would be Catholic too.
–
PS. Even John Salza calls sedevacantists his ‘friends’ when he, from his interpretations of the arguments he engages in with sedevacantists, concludes the 100% authenticity of recent popes. On the subject of Salza, here is an interesting talk ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXj-atEETUY ) about the non-consecration of the Russia. At the end he addresses the ‘bishop in white; we had the impression he was the Holy Father’ words of Sr Lucy. Salza interprets this as a possible indication of an ‘anti-pope’ and not a real Holy Father (which had occured to me, obviously a lot of people think the text can be read that way).
Me too! You offered a coffee across the keyboard award calibur comment, dear Peter Lamb! (And quite honestly, I’m rarely let off the hook in recent decades, to be quite honest!)
In reading John Vennari’s posting regarding arrangements for dear Fr. Gruner, I was once again jolted by how I often thought of Gruner, beginning as far back as my early days of motherhood, as walking in the steps of St. Louis de Montfort, who was treated with vitriol often in his time.
Dear de Maria,
The point we were trying to make above, is how lamentable it is that all these divisions exist among us, who apparently each see ourselves as Faithful Catholics.
___
Just looking at the thread above and below this, -even just the one between yourself and Peter Lamb, demonstrates the complexity of the issues being raised over many years now, creating more and more divisions as time goes on, and both leaders and individuals in their flocks, find more and more stumbling blocks that they feel require them in good conscience, to break off into yet another splinter group.
___
Where has this all gotten us? We’re not saying God can’t make use of it for good, which He always does to whatever degree is possible. But that overall it doesn’t seem to us like it’s leading people to unity in the One, True Church. Too many cooks….
____
Your comment about sede’s also surprised us, BTW.
Sede vacantism literally means “empty chair” .
So how can it not be mainly about whether the chair is empty or not? (no disrespect or sarcasm intended, seriously)
Dear de Maria,
His holiness has always stood out to us, too.
One question for you–about something you mentioned earlier:
We keep finding statements on line that Fr. Gruner was ordained (1976) in the new rite of Paul VI, along with his friend Father Paul Kramer, and Fr. Hesse.
We’re wondering why you said of him: “another validly ordained priest departed.” ?
dear Indignus famulus,
Because many years ago I heard that Father was conditionally ordained in the old Rite from a reliable source. In the case of Fr. Hesse, however, it can be assumed-from what he himself publicly said with regard to the ceremony – (BTW always speaking objectively across the board here,) that Hesse’ ordination was invalid. I haven’t heard anyone, or read anything, detailing circumstances after the fact on Fr. Kramer.
dear Indignus famulus—-( May 3, 2015,)
I hope this reply appears in the right place, if not, please forgive, dear If,
In brief & in response to where it has gotten us –it has gotten thousands if not tens of thousands of Catholics worldwide, fleeing from the VII sect and others–those who sought and have found— the One,True, Catholic and Apostolic Church undefiled as said prior-with validly ordained clergy, valid Sacraments, Catholicism intact meaning whole & entire and much more. By the Grace of God. And more can be said, but would be so vastly OT, that not here.
It is of little concern that among persons there is much discussion and differing, the times require it. But this must not be confused nor seam to mean that somehow we are seeking a Truth that we do not have, nor to mean that Holy Mother Church is divided/lacking unity , for She is not/does not. Again, She exists whole and healthy indeed.
Regarding the Chair of Peter, I suppose that one could look at it in the way I (think) your are, dear If, that if what you mean by “status” is whether It is empty or not, you could speak thus. I was looking at it from the point of view as the Chair being eradicated somehow–which is, at least so far, not so.
Dear de Maria,
Thanks for these clarifications of your thoughts. This may help us better express what we were trying to say.
—
We understand very well that the Church cannot lose it’s Unity, which depends on God’s presence sustaining it, which in turn can never change.. The fact that each of the different “groups” represented here, -including sede vacantists–believes itself to be fully in possession of that unity, while it thinks each of the others is not–is the “disunity” of thought we were lamenting; as well as the fact that all the talk here and on line doesn’t seem to be clarifying it for the billions of people whose souls are at stake, but rather adding more and more divisions and splinter groups. We happen to disagree with your position, and believe our Sacraments and Masses are still valid. Therefore what you are doing appears to us to be trying to pull people away from fulfilling their Sunday obligations, and receiving Confession and the Eucharist. We’re not trying to get into the long OT discussion you mentioned, either. Just pointing out how sad it is to us, that this situation exists, and is so complicated, that 30 or more links don’t even begin to cover it.
____
We pray for Our Lord to intervene for the sake of every soul searching sincerely for the Truth, under these particularly trying circumstances.
Dear Indignus,
Thank you for engaging with me.
It is incorrect to say that we feel we are in possession of that which others are not. I do not recall anyone holding the position, who has posted here, ever, even alluding to that. That this may be your perception I respect, but that’s another matter.
As well, if you do not think that this is clarifying for others, that is one thing. But the fact is, it has clarified for multitudes.
When the sheep do not recognize he who perports to be the shepherd, they flee.
With regard to the Sunday obligation- this is fulfilled in the existing Traditional Catholic Churches worldwide, at very great, and often extreme, hardship sometimes-and this opportunity is open to all Catholics. Not just me, not just us, but all. Therefore, it is unjust to state that I, or anyone who holds the position is attempting, may God Forbid, to cause anyone to falter on their obligation to keep the observation of Our Lord’s Day holy. Indeed- we who hold the position are often accused of much, but are rarely accused of this.
You state that you “understand very well that the Church cannot lose it’s Unity,”-but elsewhere you also state -“In the end, we want a united Church,–” Implying sometime in the future She will be—–. These statements seem to contradict on another. So be it. Holy Mother Church is one, She is in no way suffering from disunity.
The situation being such that significant amounts of theological issues need to be addressed in these catastrophic times is a good thing, and is even a spiritual help, in requiring many who are prone to lukewarmness to rise to the occasion.
The statement I make now is not directed at you, dear If, but is a general one. It’s crucial that one know and become sufficiently educated on an opposing thesis, in order to attack said thesis. I have, sadly, seen numerous attacks- ad hominum & otherwise- on the position we are currently addressing, made by those who are not sufficiently equipped with the knowledge required to effectively engage in fruitful intellectual intercourse becoming of Catholics.
Closing, I beg your forgiveness and that of Mr. Verrecchio, in failing to abide by a request made very gently to commentors to keep on topic of Mr. V.’s postings and to run off topic into the Forums. In this I have failed miserably to say the least, and I am very sorry. I promise to abide by your guidlelines in future. Thank you for everything.
Dear Mr Verrechio
Could you please ask all your readers to pray the rosary, offer Masses and penances for Ireland, which is in the grip of Satan at this time (as exemplified by those behind below video, which people have free rein to assist in the tyranny and intimidation of truth speakers). The evil government and all the political parties, along with the usual European and UN-backed lobby groups, and anti-God and anti-marriage and anti-family groups are (who together run the “Media”, control “education”, etc. aim to subvert the Constitution, the objective truth of marriage, etc., on 22nd May, by “voting” to declare sodomy as “marriage” with concomitant status.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65D4f6IkbYY
Thank you and God bless.
Lynda,
–
Will add this to my rosary intentions.
I do believe that the wholesale acceptance of sodomy by large parts of the masses is, much like the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah, the final straw before God intervenes directly.
2017 is coming up soon. I don’t pretend to have a crystal ball or be a prophet but events seem to be building up to some sort of climax around the world.
Dear Salvamur,
I watched the Salza video – very good. One can easily understand why the conciliar popes refused to comply with Our Lady’s instructions, but why did Popes Pius XI and XII not do so either?
The more we are afflicted in this world, the greater is our assurance in the next
St Isidore of Seville
Dear de Maria,
As you say, we may have gotten wrong impressions from differing groups in the past, that they think they are “in” the True Church, while others who differ from them are “outside” of it. Example those who say the N.O. Church is a false Church, and sinful to attend seem to be implying this. Your statement that the Traditional Liturgy fulfills Sunday obligations world wide, has been contradicted by some even here on this blog, who claim their only recourse is to stay home and pray before a small alter (which we believe Salvemur and others have recommended links to -with “how to” instructions)
Peter Lamb has stated he watches a TV Mass, for another example, which fulfills the obligation if he is physically unable to attend, but not otherwise, if there is a Mass he can reasonably attain.
And the TLM is not available at all in many areas.
___
Regarding our two apparently contradictory statements you quoted us making, in the one- we recognize the unchangeable unity of the Church, while at the same time in the other we were attempting to talk about the disunity of beliefs among these various groups we mentioned, -about such things as the validity of Ordinations and the N.O. Mass–who all claim full membership in her.
Is it your idea that all are fully within the Church–whether sede, SSPX, N.O adherents? If so, we did get the wrong impression from the urgency with which people seem to feel the need to convince others to change their views about where they attend Church and which , Mass, for eg.. We’d not want to put words in the mouths of others, so to speak. Please accept our apologies if we have inadvertently done that to you.
We’ve never noticed you pushing your ideas forcefully on others, as we mentioned before.
__
Finally, we think these topics have been naturally coming up–flowing from what Louie has been posting, so they’re not really as O.T. as they may seem right now. But you’re right, they do require a great deal of discussion, to even begin to understand them—which we don’t claim to do. That’s one reason we expect Divine intervention on these matters, though. The degree of complication, seems to make them beyond the reach of too many who want to know what God desires.
–Hope this clarifies at least some of the above…
God Bless.
Thank you and God bless you, In Hoc (In the Irish language – Go raibh maith agat agus Beannacht De ort).
Your sister in Christ
Lynda
http://tradcatknight.blogspot.com/2015/05/vacancy-sense-ii.html?m=1
Dear Lynda,
At the same time, our Supreme Court here in the U.S. appears to be about to strike another blow against the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman, and we hear this time they’re discussing penalizing Churches which stand on principle -with loss of tax-exempt status.
Looks like our leaders will soon be having to choose whether to serve God or money– once again. We’re with you in praying for Ireland, too. Pray for us please, as well.
And this would never have happened had not the Church leaders become so corrupted first, and thus worked to destroy the Faith and morals of Catholics. Thank you.
Hello Peter. I listened to a talk about this topic and the conclusion was that, while Pius XI, Pope Benedict XV and Pope Pius XII were unassailable in their defence of the Faith, their approach to the political sphere was already being pressured into one of ‘dialogue’ rather than instruction. Others have concluded that, despite their orthodoxy they simply didn’t have enough faith to go ahead and follow through. Benedict/Ratzinger, according to Fr Gruner, said, ‘I’m too rationalistic to do such a thing.’
PS. You might be interested in this book: ‘The Anti-modernist Reader’:
–
http://sggresources.org/products/the-anti-modernist-reader-vol-1
–
‘This first volume, treats the question of the pope and the papacy: its enduring and necessary place within an integral Catholic Faith, and a comprehensive compendium of the errors of the papal claimants dating back to Paul VI.’
Perhaps Haydock had it right in 1811 in his Bible commentary
On blindness
We may here consider, if the blindness of the body be looked upon as a very great misfortune, how much greater must be the darkness of the soul.
The former is only a privation of the light of day, the other is a privation of the light of grace and glory.
The light of this world, though a great blessing, is enjoyed in common with the brute creation; it serves only to distinguish material objects.
The light which Christ communicates to the soul, enables us to know God and his sacred truths, as revealed to his holy Catholic Church;
it elevates us above all inferior creatures, it dissipates the spiritual darkness caused by sin and our unruly passions, and conducts us to the true light of eternal glory.
Oh what unspeakable joy must then fill and overwhelm the elect, when in the light of God they see light itself, the bright countenance of their loving and beloved Father!!!
Haydock Bible commentary
Dear Lynda,
There are few things I love and admire more than old Irish Nuns, Brothers and Priests. I have been thinking about your post all night and the horror of our current reality. I might be shot for being OT, but I’ll take the chance. I was educated at Loreto Convent and Christian Brothers’ College. Virtually all my teachers were Irish. We considered Ireland the most Catholic country in the world and its greatest export to be Nuns, Brothers and Priests. I was 5 years old, in grade 1 talking to Sr. Colombo on a gravel path outside the convent. I could take you now to the spot. She was bending down to my level. I have no recollection of what she was saying, but I was looking up into her large, soft brown eyes. They were pools of warmth and tenderness and love and I was just gazing into them. I can remember it as if it were yesterday. Many years later I was treating a nun from Loreto and I asked her if she had ever know Sr. Colombo. She told me that Sister was still alive, now very old and retired in a convent in Ireland. I got the address and wrote to her telling her about my life and that although she would not remember me, I had never forgotten her. I received the most beautiful letter in reply. She said that she treasured my letter and had given instructions that it was to be put in her coffin with her when she died.
Then there was Fr. Mac Fayden, our Military Chaplain. Every Sunday after Mass, the Kellys, the Conroys and the Lambs would crowd into his little dining room to eat Bovril toast and drink tea, while we watched Father eat his breakfast. He was with a convoy in North Africa during the war. The convoy had stopped for cha. Father dropped the tailgate of a truck and set up his altar kit to say Mass for the Catholic troops. Suddenly an enemy aircraft appeared and straffed the column. The troops scattered, but Father stood his ground and calmly continued saying Mass. Both altar candles, one on either side of him, were shot off by machine gun bullets. That’s how Ireland and Catholics used to be. God bless Ireland !!!
Those opposing aircraft were clearly not Catholic, as candles should not be extinguished before the end of Mass !
PS. This is really being naughty, but I must slip in a word about Fr. Willie Doyle S.J. who is about my all time greatest hero. He was chaplain to the 16th Irish Fusiliers in WWI. He wrote one of the best descriptions ever of life in the trenches. He had a deal with the Sacred Heart that he wouldn’t die until the Sacred Heart willed it so. Fr. Willie could be found, at the height of any battle, in nomansland giving last rites to wounded soldiers. If he hadn’t been Catholic he would have been awarded the VC a dozen times. He would walk quietly through an area of continuous barrage on his way to say Mass down the line. One day he collected the Fusiliers in a beautiful old church in a bombed out French village for Mass. There is a photo of the occasion taken from the gallery at the back of the church, looking down on a solid block of khaki. He had a Guard of Honour stationed around the altar who presented arms at the Consecration, whilst trumpeters sounded “Hail the Soverign”. I get a lump in my throat every time I think about it.
PPS. Now this is bad, but here is a very recent write up about him:
http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Blog/3752/fr_willie_doyle_sj_irelands_forgotten_saint.aspx
If you google Father Willie Doyle you will get the works.
Over and Out!
LOL! 🙂
Thank you, Mr Lamb, for your prayers for Ireland, and your grace-filled reminisces.
Bergoglio is a walking talking anti-Catholic action doll: “Make a mess!…There is no Catholic God…athiests can go to heaven…counting prayers (saying the rosary) is ‘pelagian’…God doesn’t judge sodomites…we shouldn’t obsess about sins against nature…’ Let’s not forget that the faux-papa condemns the work of the Holy Ghost for 1900 years as ‘sterile’ and ‘dead’. To put it simply, Bergoglio is a bad bad man.
Thank you for the link to such a wonderful man…I looked up quotes by Father Willie Doyle, and discovered a treasure trove !!
eg
“Easter Sunday 1908, on a mission in Yarmouth:
I had a strange experience which seemed providential. In my wanderings through the slums I came across by accident an old woman over ninety who had not entered a church for long, long years. ‘I have led a wicked life,’ she said, ‘but every day I asked God to send me a good friend before I died and I feel now my prayer is heard.’ The next day I came back and heard her Confession, and brought her Holy Communion on Easter Sunday. As the tears streamed down her old withered face she said, ‘Oh, Father this is the first happy day of my life, for I have never known what happiness is since I was a child.’ I could not help feeling that the opening of heaven to that poor sinner was a reward more than enough for all the long years of preparation now passed.”
Fr Willie Doyle
Well, if you are being naughty with off topic postings, I will match you with this one, regarding challenging resolutions…
RESOLUTIONS OF ST GABRIEL POSSENTI
(St Gabriel of Our Lady of Sorrows)
I will keep my rule, even the smallest thing.
I will not neglect any of my spiritual exercises.
I will shun idleness.
I will be punctual.
I will obey the sound of the bell as though it were the voice of God.
I will receive all things from the hand of God, as being sent by Him for my own personal benefit.
I will profit by every occasion for mortification that may occur.
I will fulfil exactly my ordinary duties, mortifying self in whatever would prove an obstacle to perfect obedience.
I will mortify my eyes and my tongue.
I will not leave my cell without necessity.
I will not inquire after anything through curiosity.
I will check my desire to talk.
I will increase the number of such like acts daily.
I will not take any food outside of mealtime.
I am poor and I should act accordingly.
I should be willing to put up with any inconvenience gladly.
I will not eat with avidity, but rather with reserve and with modesty, subjecting my appetite to reason.
I will mortify myself in ordinary things and whatever I feel inclined to do, saying in my heart: “O my God, I will not do this thing through mere inclination, but because it is thy will”.
I will be reserved toward those to whom I feel most inclined, prudently avoiding their presence and conversation.
I will not utter a word that might, in the least, turn to my praise.
I will not take pleasure in any praise bestowed upon me.
I will never excuse myself when I am blamed or corrected, nor even resent it interiorly, much less put the blame upon others.
I will never speak of the faults of others, even though they may be public, nor will I ever show want of esteem for others, whether in their presence or in their absence.
I will not judge ill of anyone.
I will show the good opinion I have of each one by covering up his faults.
I will consider everyone my superior, treating all with humility and reverence.
I will rejoice at the good done by others.
I will not permit myself to become interested in vain and useless things.
I will rejoice at the success of others.
I will practice charity and kindness, assisting, serving and pleasing all.
I will shun particular friendships, so as to offend no one.
Every morning and evening I will practice some act of humility, and gradually increase the number.
I will close my heart against disquiet of any kind.
I will suppress immediately all emotions of impetuosity and all affections that might cloud my mind, even lightly.
I will obey the voice of the Superior as if it were the voice of God himself.
In my obedience I will neither examine the why nor the wherefore.
I will conform my judgment to that of my Superior.
I will not employ time in conversing about purely worldly matters.
“Faithfulness in little things” is the motto I will always follow in my efforts to reach holiness.
I will try to reproduce in myself whatever I see edifying and virtuous in the conduct of others.
I will give to God the best that I have — the entire affection of my heart.
Dear Ever mindful,
[Regarding the list of Resolutions of St. Gabriel Pasenti]
There are many excellent maxims on his list, ideal for striving for personal holiness. And without intending to diminish those in any way, it is also good to remind ourselves that there’s an “other side of that coin” which can be too easily forgotten- especially if people get caught up in all the emphasis placed on remaining silent and passive in response to provocation, -which many Saints practiced heroically, in order to perfect their charity and self-denial. Such things were often promoted within settings of a monastic life or religious houses, where no public moral obligation was being neglected by choosing to forego a more active course of action, as order prevailed within ranks, and superiors were charged with watching over individual spiritual progress.
____
Pope Leo XIII provided us with words of caution on this matter, writing in Sapientiae Christianae, 1890 about the need for our vigorous responses to society’s increasing rejections of Revealed Truths:
“… there are other duties whose exact and religious observance, necessary at all times in the interests of eternal salvation, become more especially so in these our days. Amid such reckless and widespread folly of opinion, it is, as We have said, the office of the Church to undertake the defense of truth and uproot errors from the mind, and this charge has to be at all times sacredly observed by her, seeing that the honor of God and the salvation of men are confided to her keeping.
__
“But, when necessity compels, not those only who are invested with power of rule are bound to safeguard the integrity of faith, but, as St. Thomas maintains: “Each one is under obligation to show forth his faith, either to instruct and encourage others of the faithful, or to repel the attacks of unbelievers.” To recoil before an enemy, or to keep silence when from all sides such clamors are raised against truth, is the part of a man either devoid of character or who entertains doubt as to the truth of what he professes to believe. In both cases such mode of behaving is base and is insulting to God, and both are incompatible with the salvation of mankind.”
__
“This kind of conduct is profitable only to the enemies of the faith, for nothing emboldens the wicked so greatly as the lack of courage on the part of the good. Moreover, want of vigor on the part of Christians is so much the more blameworthy, as not seldom little would be needed on their part to bring to naught false charges and refute erroneous opinions, and by always exerting themselves more strenuously they might reckon upon being successful. After all, no one can be prevented from putting forth that strength of soul which is the characteristic of true Christians, and very frequently by such display of courage our enemies lose heart and their designs are thwarted.”
__
“Christians are, moreover, born for combat, whereof the greater the vehemence, the more assured, God aiding, the triumph: “Have confidence; I have overcome the world.” Nor is there any ground for alleging that Jesus Christ, the Guardian and Champion of the Church, needs not in any manner the help of men. Power certainly is not wanting to Him, but in His loving kindness He would assign to us a share in obtaining and applying the fruits of salvation procured through His grace.”
=====
We think it’s a great idea to meditate on both types of writings, for balance of thought about all these matters, in such trying times as these.
Very interesting article by Christopher A. Ferrara about the skullduggery perpetrated against Fr Gruner by Cardinal Sodono : http://www.fatima.org/apostolate/pdf/CF_Response_to_Archdiocese_of_Milan.pdf
To be fair to MV he is attempting to refute Fr. Robert Barron’s very dangerous belief
We all have a reasonable hope of salvation.
I am not sure what is more important but I agree with the content of your video, very well said.
I would dispute that Veronica Lueken and the messages of Bayside New York have been officially investigated and/or condemned.
Apparently Medjugorje was condemned but we still frequently here about it.
Not so with with Bayside you hardly here anything about it.
Sounds very contradictory. And suspicious if your familiar with content of these
messages.
Dear Topazx123,
We looked into “Bayside” when it was mentioned here a while ago and found:
On June 18,1988 it “prophesied”:
‘Look up, and see what lies beyond your windows: a Ball that is fast hurtling towards earth! It will be here within this century, if not sooner.’ For even the scientists have failed to recognize the speed of this Ball.” Obviously it failed.
=====
Bishop Mugavero – on November 4, 1986, officially declared Bayside completely lacking authenticity.
1. No credibility can be given to the so-called “apparitions”
2. “The “messages” and other related propaganda contain statements which, among other things, are contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church.”
__
His successor Bishop DiMarzio concurred:
” I write in order to dissipate lingering doubts–of the Diocese of Brooklyn and the judgment of Bishop Francis J. Mugavero..”
“This judgment has been maintained over the course of three decades… the alleged visions contain serious theological errors and contradict both Sacred Scripture.. including: the nature and identity of Christ, the identity and role of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Grace,….
http://thetablet.org/statement-from-bishop-dimarzio-on-the-alleged-apparition-of-our-lady-of-the-roses-and-the-bayside-movement/
=====
This same Bishop DiMarzio we found elsewhere reported as “blasting the New York legislature” when it voted in favor of gay-marriage, and leading an over 2 mile street procession on Good Friday. Both are indications to us of Faithful leadership, and while not certainty, at least give us additional reason to question the continued support of these alleged apparitions.
=====
Also in this case, the failed prediction was then repeated a number of times, over many years, with slightly altered details– a further indication of fraud.
Hope this helps you.
Not having a fridge to magnet this list to, no doubt the Saint would have had to have recite these from memory.
–
PS. It’s probably prudent to point out, given the current unprecedented crisis in the church, that the Saint would never include in his ‘I will’ list…’teach and act against the faith if a superior demands (we would have no martyrs if they did); refuse to acknowledge an evil for an evil if a superior demands (St Athanasius would have remained silent); assist at a mass that denegrates the Real Presence if a superior demands (Archbishop Lefebvre would simply have decided to ‘go with the flow’ – the True Mass would have disappeared).’ If those who have sutured themselves to the Novus Ordo group mind (what Joe Bagnoli has referred to as ‘Secular Catholicism…the new order church’) had followed God’s promptings, they would have been led to obey God first, and the current crisis might have become little more than a storm in a teacup.
Medjugorje has not been condemned. Only cautions have been issued to date.
http://youtu.be/NFb46ZlkCrE
yes, James, of course. I’m assuming the ecumenical “gospa” will be approved when martin luther is canonized in 2017.
The clip of the girl flinching is damning for the whole hoax.
Exactly.
Amen
Well said
dear salvemur,
Speaking of Mr. Bagnoli, has Voice of Catholic Radio ceased its programming? As far as I can tell, I don’t see any listed in 2015.
Hey, de Maria. That was from an interview he did back in 2014. It doesn’t look like there are any interviews loaded this year so far. Hopefully they will start up again. The Faithful need to be defended and protected from evil and error, we need all the Voices of Tradition we can get. Which is why, I guess, a lot of us gather around sites like Louie’s.
Dear Louie and all,
Pass the word on:
U.S. Petition begun (matching the English one) so far signed by 775 priests, for the upcoming Synod to uphold Traditional Church Teachings.
http://www.credopriests.org/
Thanks for the information. I am not convinced one way or the other at
this point. But one defending the apparitions might argue the predication
of either a comet hitting the earth or the Great Chastisement was contingent upon the response of men and women to penance; prayer and reparation. I believe I read that a limited response in terms of numbers of people and volume of prayer and penance may delay the Warning; Great Chastisement and three days of Darkness but not stop it.
My reasoning is given the overwhelming amount of evil and sin in the world starting with the most obvious, 40 million abortions worldwide per year (conservative estimate) just for starters.
Why would the Blessed Mother not appear in the most influential country in the world to inform; direct and warn the faithful.
Particularly with major chaos in the Church going on exactly at the
same time period of these apparitions. (1970-1995)
This is what is on one of the three websites:http://www.rosesfromheaven.com/church_status.htm
Note there are three pages.