The Introit for Sexagesima Sunday could not but resonate deeply with those of us who, with Christ, suffer at the hands of that scourge on His Mystical Body known as “Francis.”
Arise, why sleepest Thou, O Lord? arise, and cast us not off to the end. Why turnest Thou Thy face away, and forgettest our trouble? our belly hath cleaved to the earth: arise, O Lord, help us and deliver us. We have heard, O God, with our ears: our fathers have declared to us.
We will return to this Scripture passage momentarily.
I must admit that every time we enter the Canon of the Mass, I am compelled to cry out to the Lord for deliverance from the crisis besting the Church; not just as it has existed since time of Vatican Council II, but more specifically as it concerns the papacy in recent years:
We therefore, humbly pray and beseech Thee, most merciful Father, through Jesus Christ, Thy Son, our Lord, that Thou wouldst vouchsafe to accept and bless these gifts, these presents, this holy Victim without blemish, which in the first place we offer Thee for Thy holy Catholic Church; vouchsafe to preserve and govern her in peace and union throughout the world, together with Thy servant N., our Pope, and N., our Bishop, and all who follow and foster the Catholic and Apostolic Faith.
Thy servant N., our Pope…
Something tells me that I am not the only one who isn’t entirely certain how to fill in the blank; thus leaving it to God to decide.
That said, the portion of this prayer that I find the most striking is what follows:
…and all who follow and foster the Catholic and Apostolic Faith.
The question that has crossed mind in relation to these words is simply this:
Does this imply a condition of some sort?
In other words, are those who do not follow and foster the Catholic and Apostolic Faith excluded from this particular offering?
If that is the case, then it really doesn’t matter whether one mentions “Francis” or “Benedict” as neither one of them qualifies.
Let’s be perfectly honest:
If the prayer “For the Church and Ecclesiastical Authorities” is conditional upon their following and fostering the Catholic and Apostolic Faith, then there hasn’t been a man worthy of being mentioned at “N., our Pope” for more than 50 years, and very few at “N., our Bishop.”
Now, that is not to say that there is no place in the Mass to formally offer prayers for these men; might I suggest that the Nobis quoque peccatoribus is perhaps most appropriate.
In any case, each of us would also do well to make prayers for their conversion a permanent feature of our private Mass intentions.
Then there are certain propers for “Various Commemorations” that seem most fitting for men like Francis.
For example, the Church provides propers that can be prayed “Against Persecutors and Evildoers”:
O Lord, we beseech Thee, crush the pride of our enemies and humble their insolence by the might of Thy hand.
O Lord, by virtue of this Mystery, may we be purified from our own hidden sins and delivered from the snares of our enemies.
O God, our Protector, look down, and defend us from the perils of our enemies: that all trouble being removed, we may freely serve Thee.
There are similar propers that may be offered “Against the Persecutors of the Church” that are equally as applicable to the machinations of Francis (e.g., “overcoming all hostility and error” and protection from “human dangers” that “we may ever cleave to what is Divine”).
Returning now to the Introit for this past Sexagesima Sunday…
After beseeching the Lord for deliverance from our trouble, it concludes with the following:
We have heard, O God, with our ears: our fathers have declared to us.
This verse comes from Psalm 43:2, and if we place it context we will discover exactly what “our fathers have declared to us.”
The work thou hast wrought in their days, and in the days of old. Thy hand destroyed the Gentiles, and thou plantedst them: thou didst afflict the people and cast them out. For they got not the possession of the land by their own sword: neither did their own arm save them. But thy right hand and thy arm, and the light of thy countenance: because thou wast pleased with them. (Psalm 43:2-4)
The lesson for us should be clear:
We are unable to deliver ourselves from the present crisis; rather, it will take place only by Divine intervention.
What we can and must do on a personal level, however, is to strive, with the aid of God’s grace, for righteousness; that is, to be pleasing to God, knowing that He stands ready to deliver His faithful ones – be it in this life or the next.
As for “the Church and Ecclesiastical Authorities;” most notably the men who would be pope, the Blessed Virgin Mary made it known at Fatima precisely what must be done in order to please God.
May the Lord soon afflict and cast out from the sacred hierarchy His enemies, that His will may be done, placing devotion to the Immaculate Heart alongside devotion to His Sacred Heart, bringing about the period of peace that Our Lady promised at long last.
Once again Louie about 50 years too late on an issue. What Louie is describing is the “una cum”(together with) controversy and there are literally hundreds of articles on the internet for both the pro and anti-una cum issue going back to at least the 1970s.
Please Louie, do try and keep up.
Bp. Fulton Sheen: “The church is not a continuous phenomenon through history. Rather, it is something that has been through a thousand resurrections after a thousand crucifixions. The bell is always sounding for its execution which, by some great power of God, is everlastingly postponed.”
….somebody is paving the road to ‘sedevacantism’….it is a serious sin, the consequence of too much pride. A sedevacantist, presumes to make judgments that only a future Pope or legitimate future Church council have the authority to make.
The ‘son’ of perdition is claiming many Catholic souls as his own, let us beware, lest we become his ‘prey’…..God forbid!
Saint Michael the Glorious Archangel, pray for us Catholics!
I know that I always try to bring the views of Archbishop Lefebvre into the conversation. Hopefully this isn’t too annoying for most folks here.
The Archbishop said, shortly after the 1988 consecrations, that Rome is in Apostasy, and that they (the hierarchy) had effectively left the Church. Perhaps not in a formal sense, but at the very least materially. However….he still prayed for them in the canon of the Mass. The Archbishop had no qualms about calling a spade a spade. He was quite outspoken about the errors of Pope John Paul ll. He had, after all, been excommunicated by Pope John Paul ll, yet he still prayed for him.
We may be extremely saddened by lack of proper fathership, both by our familial fathers, whom we were raised by in our families, and by our Pope. Our disappointment in them can cause a certain amount of anxiety and stress.
The Popes are human, and therefore subject to human error. Infallibility of the Popes can only be carried so far. They can err; it’s just that it was not so very common before the Council.
Our Lord commanded that we should love our enemies and pray for them. Perhaps part of why he commanded this is so that we do not fall into despair about our persecution. The modernists are certainly enemies of the Faith. We should point out their errors, but we MUST pray for them, too.
God is allowing this horrible crisis through His permissive will. We don’t know exactly why, but it’s likely due to the terrible sins of mankind in the last century.
Well said, From Poland!
Judgment belongs to God; “Man sees the face, but God sees the heart.”
Our Lord did not appoint ‘angels’, nor ‘saints’, for the ‘sacred hierarchy’, but fallen men, who because of ‘free will’ are always tempted, prone to be deceived, by Satan and his hirelings.
Is there one amongst us, who does not need His mercy, His grace, His correction, for many faults, defects that stem from our bad will, that are committed (daily), through our frailty.
For we are our ‘brothers keepers’, we are bound by God to ‘discern’, but above all, to love one another, forgive ‘always’……pray for each other. Let us remember that the mission of the holy Church, has always been to ‘save souls’, especially, our own.
After all the Mother Church has suffered over the centuries, let us remember, she has not only survived but managed to flourish…..as she will continue to do until the end of time. The Church, after all, is Christ in the world, and He will not be vanquished…….so do not despair, but Trust God!
The Modernists, and each one of us, are at the ‘threshold’ of ‘eternity’,……Known only to God!
Keep the Faith!
I can’t imagine a faithful Catholic not having pause at this portion of the Mass. I have included Jorge Bergoglio, included Pope Benedict instead and at times included both of them…just in case. Sometimes I just say, “the pope.” But it is very difficult to include someone who an increasing number consider an anti-pope in any reference in Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. The Collect, Secret and Post Communion prayers you offer should prove most valuable in this regard.Thanks, Louie. Frankly, I’m amazed there are still traditional Catholics who think this poses a threat of sedevacantism. C’mon. There’s a huge difference about having questions about mentioning Francis in Mass and any of the other popes since VII while a pope in white still resides in the Vatican. And the reference to “too much pride?” Yes, that describes Jorge Bergoglio perfectly, not those who want to pray the best Mass we can. Although Barnhardt’s description of diabolical narcissism is probably more apt.
…… those who want to pray the best Mass we can.’
When I enter the Catholic Church of the Society of Saint Pius X, in the entrance is hanging a big portrait of Pope Francis. I can assure you, that all of the faithful in full confidence know who is the Pope, accordingly, we pray the best Mass we can.
In spite of many who are gnashing their teeth.
We do not suffer from the fury of the hirelings of Satan, instead we pray, without any desire for vengeance.
“That Thou wouldst humble the enemies of Holy Church.” “May the blind SEE, and the lame ‘walk!”
I don’t usually read the Remnant these days, but there’s a very good little video of a recent sermon that seems appropriate to this subject. The sermon (which is anonymous, but that’s okay) concludes with this from St Paul:
“Let us glory in our sufferings that the glory of God may dwell in us.”
As bad as Pope Francis may be it almost seems blasphemous not to pray for him. Didn’t Jesus tell us “with God ALL things are possible” and what about St. Paul who hated and executed Christians? Wouldn’t we be obligated to pray for him if he was around today even though he was so “bad.” Which reminds me of the article from “novus ordo watch” posted by Katherine in another recent AKA posting which implies that Jesus prayer for Peter applied to EVERY Pope that ever existed. But if that’s true than why would the Church have always encouraged and stressed how critically important (even offering indulgences and don’t forget the seers at Fatima “pray MUCH for the Pope”) it is for Catholics to pray for the Pope if it was impossible for them to fall into error to begin with? Plus, if Jesus’s prayer did apply to all Popes than didn’t it fail?
I wonder, too, when I’m at the Divine Liturgy and the priest prays: “Among the first, O Lord, remember our holy father N., pope of Rome, our most reverend metropolitan N., our God-loving bishop N.; preserve them for your holy churches in peace, safety, honor, and health for many years as they faithfully impart the word of your truth.”
The same question you have, Louie: what happens when they are not “faithfully imparting”?
You claim that “an increasing number CONSIDER [Francis] an anti-pope” – and then that this has nothing to do with sedevacantism? And then, in the next breath, opine that, well (at least not yet) this doesn’t really apply to the *other* popes that (many/most) sedes have declared deposed? Honestly, you aren’t seeing the irony?
Look, we get, completely, why so many want to be able to say Francis isn’t the pope! Of course. It’s exactly the same “argument” the boy who hates his father uses when he claims that he’s not really his father. It’s emotional and it’s satisfying
What’s your field of study, professor, if I may inquire?
Louie says, “If the prayer ‘For the Church and Ecclesiastical Authorities’ is conditional upon their following and fostering the Catholic and Apostolic Faith, then there hasn’t been a man worthy of being mentioned at N., our Pope’ for more than 50 years, and very few at ‘N., our Bishop.'”
Maybe Louie will continue to stay a step or two ahead of you on the path to full on sede-ism. This sure sounds like it.
I abhor what Francis is doing to the Church, I am fairly certain (because I can’t judge the internal forum) he will face punishments we cannot begin to imagine should he not repent (especially since he IS a priest and IS the pope), and I pray for him every Mass like everyone in my SSPX chapel, where his image hangs, because he is the pope and that’s what Catholics do.
During the course of the argument over who may receive Holy Communion, I have noticed a particular claim being made repeatedly by the liberals, a claim that never seems to be answered by those on the traditional side of the argument. This is the claim that Holy Communion is a medicine, one which may not be denied without violating the demands of mercy.
Holy Communion is not simply a medicine, a benefit to all who partake. For some, Communion is a deadly poison, the taking of which is a guarantee of damnation. Are Catholics even aware of this consistent teaching tradition?
I don’t see anyone batting back the mercy =medicine=Communion argument, but the subject was well covered in the Summa by Aquinas who said that the Eucharist becomes a road to perdition; if received unworthily, the unworthy “purchases damnation” and he quotes St Paul’s admonition in 1 Cor 11:29 .
( This is why the liberals don’t wish to teach Aquinas in the seminaries – he has answered all their stupid ideas already…)
Also in general the Scriptures, and the older Saints generally teach a basic incompatibility between light and darkness, such as in this quote from a treatise by St Gregory of Nyssa, (on virginity, but it applies generally):
St Gregory of Nyssa On Virginity
….as the Scripture tells us, into the malicious soul Wisdom cannot come Wisdom 1:4 . It may, in a word, be truly said that the Good Husband cannot come to dwell with the soul that is irascible, or malice-bearing, or harbours any other disposition which jars with that concord. No way has been discovered of harmonizing things whose nature is antagonistic and which have nothing in common. The Apostle tells us there is no communion of light with darkness 2 Corinthians 6:14, or of righteousness with iniquity, or, in a word, of all the qualities which we perceive and name as the essence of God’s nature, with all the opposite which are perceived in evil. Seeing, then, the impossibility of any union between mutual repellents, we understand that the vicious soul is estranged from entertaining the company of the Good.
Here is St Thomas Aquinas on how the Eucharist becomes a deadly poison when received unworthily:
Summa Theologiae Third Part
Question 79 Article 3. Whether the forgiveness of mortal sin is an effect of this sacrament?
On the contrary It is written (1 Corinthians 11:29): “He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself”: and a gloss of the same passage makes the following commentary: “He eats and drinks unworthily who is in the state of sin, or who handles (the sacrament) irreverently; and such a one eats and drinks judgment, i.e. damnation, unto himself.” Therefore, he that is in mortal sin, by taking the sacrament heaps sin upon sin, rather than obtains forgiveness of his sin.
Question 80 Article 4. Whether the sinner sins in receiving Christ’s body sacramentally?
Objection 5. Further, it happens sometimes that the sinner is unconscious of his sin. Yet such a one does not seem to sin by receiving the body of Christ, for according to this all who receive it would sin, as exposing themselves to danger, since the Apostle says (1 Corinthians 4:4): “I am not conscious to myself of anything, yet I am not hereby justified.” Therefore, the sinner, if he receive this sacrament, does not appear to be guilty of sin.
On the contrary, The Apostle says (1 Corinthians 11:29): “He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself.” Now the gloss says on this passage: “He eats and drinks unworthily who is in sin, or who handles it irreverently.” Therefore, if anyone, while in mortal sin, receives this sacrament, he purchases damnation, by sinning mortally.
Reply to Objection 5. The fact of a man being unconscious of his sin can come about in two ways. First of all through his own fault, either because through ignorance of the law (which ignorance does not excuse him), he thinks something not to be sinful which is a sin, as for example if one guilty of fornication were to deem simple fornication not to be a mortal sin; or because he neglects to examine his conscience, which is opposed to what the Apostle says (1 Corinthians 11:28): “Let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice.” And in this way nevertheless the sinner who receives Christ’s body commits sin, although unconscious thereof, because the very ignorance is a sin on his part.
Question 80 Article 5. Whether to approach this sacrament with consciousness of sin is the gravest of all sins?
Reply to Objection 2. The sin of the fornicator receiving Christ’s body is likened to Judas kissing Christ, as to the resemblance of the sin, because each outrages Christ with the sign of friendship. but not as to the extent of the sin, as was observed above (Reply to Objection 1). And this resemblance in crime applies no less to other sinners than to fornicators: because by other mortal sins, sinners act against the charity of Christ, of which this sacrament is the sign, and all the more according as their sins are graver. But in a measure the sin of fornication makes one more unfit for receiving this sacrament, because thereby especially the spirit becomes enslaved by the flesh, which is a hindrance to the fervor of love required for this sacrament.
You presume to know too much about what sede’s think. Pride??? Seriously? Disgust, angst, anger, sorrow…yes. Pride? no. Siscoe and salza (and co) JUDGE every day what we CAN and CANNOT abide by when it comes to the words that francis (who is in their minds a true pope) utters. Sede’s dont do that. I dont like arguing my position on this site anymore, but when someone like yourself totally distorts what I believe, then I must take exception.
Since when were we obliged to have to judge the internal forum in order to declare one a formal heretic? Obviously NO earthly soul, but only GOD can judge the internal forum…..but yet many have been declared formal heretics. How does this happen? Obviously, the internal forum has nothing to do with formal heresy.
I pray for all outside of the Faith, but I dont acknowledge them as our Pope. When did Louie say not to pray for Jorge Bergoglio?
Wow, Rich, how widely you miss the point. Indeed, the internal forum has nothing to do with pertinacity in heresy *in the external forum*, which is where ecclesiastical office lies.
That’s why an ecumenical council of the Church condemned any Catholic that separates from a bishop without a judgement from THE CHURCH, no matter what he’s done…
And why the public acceptance by the Church of a pope at the time of his election constitutes a *dogmatic fact* that he IS pope…
And so on…
“because the VERY IGNORANCE IS A SIN on his part”, well, the same IGNORANCE that St. Thomas Aquinas defined as sin Pope Pius IX decided to “officially” stick the word INVINCIBLE in front of and it instantly made St. Thomas’s teaching above invalid. It was PPIX’s novelty use/meaning of the term “INVINCIBLE ignorance” that was the beginning of what many of the errors of VII and A.L. are now based on as far as I’m concerned. “Ignorance” is no longer seen as a sin but rather as an excuse to sin.
Because I believe Pope Francis is the Pope, since it hasn’t been proven to me otherwise especially by “novusordowatch” articles like the one I referred to above, (if anything “novusordowatch” article reinforced what I believe ) I assume we should be praying for the Pope when the Mass asks us to.
I dont miss your point. Ive been seeing your point for quite a while now. What ecumenical council can judge a POPE? I’ll wait for an answer…..just like ive been waiting, and waiting, and waiting…..
BTW, what Church accepted bergoglio as pope?
Thats where you and I must agree to disagree. If he’s a pope then the Catholic Church failed (which it cannot).
I dont think that the term “invincible ignorance” was meant to apply to the acts which man commits against the Natural Law. Im not sure that what PPIX said negated what St Thomas said.
So you have no point to make here other than a pathetically hilarious attempt to insult Louie because he wrote something about a common topic? How dare you Louie!
It is a well known tactic to attack those you disagree with, with what you yourself are guilty of. Like Obama calling conservatives racists. Hence resisters continuously call sedes “prideful.” Everytime I hear that hurled at me and other sedes, I am again convinced of the veracity of my “opinion” on the issue of the occupant of the See of Peter.
Apparently, the Cardinals who elected Bergoglio thought he was the BEST they had and when he began his reign of terror, they looked the other way. What is more frightening than that?? I make it a point never to debate a sede—-their reasoning cannot be denied regardless of rules and protocol. Is Our Lord bound by rules? He is a destroyer and a menace. He must go whether he is a true pope or false pope. The damage is the same.
Rich, I posted this (below) yesterday on OnePeterFive. The moderator removed my comment and then banned me from posting on the website.
Discussion on OnePeterFive • 156 comments
Archbishop of Malta Claims Fidelity to Pope on Exhortation Guidelines
Al The Silent Crusader
Al The Silent Crusader > Jafin • 19 hours ago
Jafin, the cold hard truth is that this man is tearing the Church apart- perhaps as irreparably as the Reformation did. It is very clear to me that we now have forming in our very midst two Churches- one traditional and faithful Church spearheaded in the West by the SSPX, and all of the Catholic Eastern rite Churches. What Bergoglio is doing is precisely what Martin Luther, et.al., did. That is the cold, hard truth. It seems that the main issue is what to do with such a “pope.” Yes, bad popes in the past and a handful of antipopes as well. However, this time around- historically- is the first time the Church has to deal with a heretical, apostate man on the Chair of Peter.
My observation is that most people think that folks like me judge the pope by the INTERNAL forum. The truth is just the exact opposite. My decision to call a spade a spade regarding Francis is based on EXTERNAL forum. Under the external forum, it is quite obvious that Francis’ oral statements and written documents point convincingly to heresy and apostasy. However, I am told, repeatedly, that I, as a layman, cannot make that “judgment.” Only a future Council or a future pope can do that. Am I right or wrong? I wish I knew.
A common topic that has been an issue with every pope post Pius XII once one holds the sedevacantist position. Is that now Louie’s position?
The Catholic Church hasn’t failed. And as awful as it is, Francis is the Pope. The situation is not be so black-and-white as sedevacantists make it out to be. They need everything to be totally clear and without any gray areas whatsoever. But in a Crisis, the situation we are faced with isn’t clear.
There is another explanation. Archbishop Lefebvre maintained that the Catholic Church is occupied by a modernist sect. Their conciliar church has its own set of beliefs, mass, etc., but it isn’t completely cut off from the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is still there, hidden among the faithful who still cling to the True Faith. During a severe crisis in the Church, the situation isn’t always clear. But we still have the true faith. The modernists cannot take that away from us. To believe in sedevacantism is to not want to deal with the crisis as it really is.
Louie has focused on a specific issue for many, an issue of which many of those born since say 1960 would be unaware and would want to examine with purpose and direction hereafter. Any meaningful debate or discussion or instruction begins with a razor sharp identification of the proposition to be argued in the affirmative or negative. Louie has done masterfully well here.
It is remarkably unhelpful of you, Ganganelli, to toss out a comment which effectively says ‘look it up people the answer is out there somewhere on the internet for you to find eventually…or maybe not’.
I was always advised that intelligence is best demonstrated in economy of motion, i.e. who can arrive at the desired goal with the fewest mis-steps.
Nice post, Louie. Peace, Ganganelli.
You ask a very good question, which is, why would the Church have always encouraged and stressed how critically important it is for Catholics to pray for the Pope if it were impossible for them to fall into error to begin with?
IMO, the sedevacantists seem to think that the Popes are like God after they are lawfully elected, in that once elected Pope (a true pope), they cannot err. It has a new-age connotation to it.
Rich asks what ecumenical council can judge a Pope. But has Rich read the writings of theologians from the past who have said that a Council can be convened in order to judge a pope who is in error or heresy?
St. Ballarmine and Suarez don’t have the last word on the matter.
Welcome to the 1P5 Banned Club. I give Louie lots of credit here. He doesnt remove posts or have them wait to be approved. Those other sites have an agenda and do not really tolerate an open discussion.
Caimbeul, like all Catholics sedevacatists have differing opinions on how to deal with the crisis. I do not advocate inaction. Quite to the contrary I want the remaining trad Bishops to step up and declare that Francis is no longer Pope not based on what we say but soley based on his own words. Then in some sort of council they need to elect a new Pope and condemn once again the heresy of modernism, vatican 2’s errors, and the NO. Of course this will lead to a schism, but it will be the modernists who will refuse to follow the Pope who professes the true faith. They will follow their pope who professes heresy. Waiting for heretics to correct heretics seems to be a position many in the RR camp advocate. That is never going to happen.
I suggest you read Pastor Aeternus from Vatican I. No one believes the Pope cannot err is minor non dogmatic issues. Of course he can. But when it comes to official teachings on faith and morals, he and the magesterium are infaillable. A Pope may err in a speech on some point and even say something heretical by mistake. But he can correct that.
Pastor Aeternus doesn’t deal at all with how to deal with a heretical Pope. It’s not even mentioned.
I would say that Pastor Aeternus implies that a Pope cannot be heretical.
If there is no possibility that a Pope can fall into heresy, then why did Pope Innocent teach the following:
“For me the faith is so necessary that whereas for my other sins I am only judged by God, for the slightest sin committed in the matter of faith I could be judged by the Church.”
Not always and necessarily ‘blasphemous’.
“If anyone sees his brother committing a sin not leading to death, he shall ask, and God will give him life—to those who commit sins that do not lead to death.
There is sin that leads to death; I do not say that one should pray for that.”
1 John 5:16
One is immediately made suspect by going to all the trouble to visit a blog, read an article, only to make snarky commentary in an anonymous combox.
I have not read “hundreds of articles” on this topic, so this is both introductory and interesting to me.
I do not think any prior era can be compared to this one, not by the level of apostasy we are seeing from the very top of our Church, nor by the number of clerical cheerleaders or enablers, nor by the number of poorly churched-Catholics who are being sucked into it, nor by the devastating transmission of said heresies and errors by a global social media that can spread those heresies and errors in seconds, around the world. In no way can this be compared to medieval villages where, by the time the peasants knew about a past heresy, the progenitor of it was often dead.
Souls are going to Hell because of this papacy. Ten Commandments are being distorted, Sacraments mocked, along with Catholic morality, teaching, and tradition. This is coming from the Vatican. The…Vatican.
No prior days compare to these. In light of this, we probably should be questioning prior rules.
Not to me Caimbeul, thank you for this. Can I ask your opinion on something? Why do you think the SSPX has nothing to say about the obvious apostasy we are witnessing?
That is pretty much how I feel. The argument about it seems academic. Nobody who can is willing to do anything about him, and the rest of us are hapless victims, so, does it make a difference. It does give us something to do while we wait for man/boy love to be the next point of “encounter” and “accompanying”.
Thats why I favor the opinion that a Pope cannot fall into heresy. A man can fall into heresy but he would not be doing it as the Pope. I know that there are many differing opinions on this matter, but it seems the most logical to me that God would have to depose the Pope prior the the man being a heretic in order to keep His promise of an indefectable Church.
I don’t really know exactly why the SSPX has not condemned the apostasy. I can only guess. It may be because of the liberal trend the SSPX has taken since they started negotiations in 2012. That’s when they changed their basic stance. Before that, they had stayed firm in that there would not be a reconciliation without a doctrinal statement from Rome. Now, they just want to be accepted “as they are,” but not as “what they were.”
It’s possible that they don’t want to rock the boat and jeopardize a reconciliation.
Also, Bishop Fellay was convinced, in the 1990’s, that the SSPX was mandated by God to “Save the Church.” It was a seer who had private revelations, named Madame Rosinierre, who convinced bishop Fellay of this. Thankfully, the other bishops put a stop to it. It’s a matter of record, since Bishop Fellay posted all of this in Cor Unum. You can do a google search for it. Perhaps Bishop Fellay still believes this. Last year he did say that the SSPX would “save the Church.” That’s why I think that he may still believe what Madame Rosinierre told him. What’s frustrating is that all of the other members of the SSPX are not speaking out. But they risk banishment if they do. That’s a matter of record also. It isn’t speculation. I don’t intend to unfairly criticize Bishop Fellay. Everything I’ve stated can be verified with google searches. God knows exactly why the SSPX has dropped the ball. I’m quite sure that the SSPX will reconcile within the year, or maybe next. They will then be completely ineffectual in the restoration of the Church, IMO. But God will raise up another, or perhaps others, as He did Archbishop Lefebvre.
I think I see what you’re saying, Tom. And you may be right. But what do you think about the idea that the Church is occupied by the modernist sect, as Archbishop Lefebvre believed? The Church is still the Church, and indefectible, but she is currently occupied. Bishop Tissier de Mallerais described it as thus: the conciliar church is like a parasite, in that it sucks its substance and life from its host (the true Catholic Church). There is a sort transfer of substance (Truth) from host to parasite, that’s why there is still some truth in the conciliar church, in that it hasn’t completely defected from the Catholic Church. Bishop Tissier also wrote that the Pope is the Pope of both churches – Catholic and conciliar.
Incidently, the Dominicans of Avrille (started by Archbishop Lefebvre in 1974) posted this study by Bishop Tissier de Mallerais – Bishop Fellay criticized them for it.
Tom, I too give Louie a lot of credit. Hopefully he will let me know if I step over the line in my criticism of the SSPX.
IP5 didn’t ban me, but they removed nearly all of my posts that showed why the SSPX shouldn’t reconcile, and I was quite charitable. I think that the main moderator is a charismatic who wants to reconcile charismaticism and tradition. He went to Stuebenville, as did Steve Skojec, though I don’t think that Skojec is a charismatic. They don’t understand Tradition.
Caimbeul, I held that belief for a while after reading many of Abp Lefebrves books. He is right in a temporal sense. The modernists do occupy the buildings and churches. But for me I see the Church as those that profess the true faith. As those who hold to tradition. We are visible and buildings are not necessary. In this way the Church remains pure as the bride of Christ since we have not deviated from the faith. I wish there were more bishops and cardinals who resisted in the 60s.
Some of us are speaking out, albeit anonymously, against the SSPX dictatorship https://psalm129.wordpress.com
Thanks…I’ll check out the blog.
I forgot to ask…is the blog that you linked to…are the articles there written by priests who are still in the SSPX?