As most readers here are aware, the government of Argentina recently recognized the Society of St. Pius X as … get this … part of the Roman Catholic Church.
Big deal, right?
I mean, let’s be honest… If the Argentinian government had issued a statement saying that the SSPX is not a part of the Roman Catholic Church, most of us would simply roll our eyes since it’s not up to any government to say who is, and who is not, part of the Church.
And yet, on a certain level, this really is a big deal.
It must be, otherwise the good folks over at ChurchMilitant.tv wouldn’t be in damage control mode.
In case you missed it, CMTV put out a “special report” to make sure that no one gets the… ahem… “wrong” idea.
Take a look:
As the youthful on-air talent stated, even the Society issued a statement affirming that the situation amounts to “nothing more than a strictly administrative procedure in the restricted context of the Republic of Argentina.”
So what then is the big deal, and why does CMTV have its collective shorts in a knot?
It’s simple: The decision rendered by the government of Argentina states what is true and has always been true; the Society of St. Pius X is entirely Catholic.
More troubling still for those who harbor an unholy hatred for the SSPX is the fact that the Argentinian government was informed of this truth by Cardinal Mario Aurelio Poli, Archbishop of Buenos Aries, who simply requested that the truth be formally acknowledged.
According to the Argentinian government ruling (translation provided by Rorate Caeli blog):
Archbishop of Buenos Aires, Mario Aurelio Cardinal POLI, requests that the “FRATERNITY OF THE APOSTLES OF JESUS AND MARY” (PRIESTLY FRATERNITY OF SAINT PIUS X) be held, up to the moment in which it finds its definitive juridical framing within the Church Universal, as an Association of Diocesan Right, according to what is established by canon 298 of the Code of Canon Law, being in fieri [henceforth and in the meantime] a Society of Apostolic Life, with all the benefits that correspond to it, and complying with all obligations to which the same refers, also accepting all responsibilities that belong to the diocesan Prelate.
That to the aforesaid fraternity be accredited its character as a public juridical person within the ROMAN CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC CHURCH, according to the norms of the Code of Canon Law.
You see, it doesn’t matter one iota why the request was made, or for what purposes the determination was granted. What really matters is that both the request and the designation are based on the truth; the truth that the SSPX is part of the Roman Catholic Church.
For whatever reason, this particular truth stings Michael Voris.
In any case, if he really wanted to be consistent, he should promptly produce a hard-hitting Vortex (where lies and falsehoods are trapped and exposed ©) calling Cardinal Poli to task for propagating a “falsehood” that endangers innocent souls.
That’s not likely to happen; nor should it.
Michael knows very well that Cardinal Poli did nothing of the kind; he simply stated the truth and asked the government to acknowledge it, as well all of us should.
The question is, why won’t Michael?
Apparently Michael Voris would rather be associated with the likes of Cardinal Dolan and “the Church of Nice” (his words) than the SSPX. Maybe the SSPX is just a little too Catholic for him. Personally, I don’t listen to Mr. Voris. All he has ever done is say what is wrong in the Church ( I prefer more reliable sources), but never offers any solutions. Who needs that????
Dear Mr. Voris,
I am still waiting for you to interview a representative of the SSPX so that he could explain all the positions they take regarding the VII Council. Would not charity demand dialogue with your enemies Michael? So how about sometime in May, say like the 14th. I’ll be waiting for your video. Since you yourself were so recently rebuffed by Cardinal Dolan, perhaps you could show him how a bigger man acts by granting this interview.
Peace and blessings.
Your brother and faithful Catholic,
Michael F. Poulin
St. Paul’s Church
Did I hear correctly that Bergoglio started the process? 🙂
You think Mike would be all for it then. :-/
He doesn’t want to know or understand. The SSPX are too scary. Close proximity might be contagious.
No, the Pope didn’t start the process. It’s speculated that the Pope probably knew about it, is all. But that too is speculation.
If the SSPX were suddenly and fully accepted by the Vatican (the Pope) without compromise, would that mean that Voris is out of a job? After all, that would present a real solution to the crisis in the Church, a solution that Michael V. could not offer or accept. Just wondering!
In today’s Vortex, Voris taked about how “Church of Nice” media is “triumphantly” announced the increase in the number of newly ordained priest.
He feels that the news is distorted. His words:
“To trumpet a headline without digging deeper is irresponsible, reckless, misleading, and possibly even deceitful. The truth is what matters, not calming fears or advancing an agenda riddled wit falsities”
Yet the announcer in the CMTV “special report” on Argentina and SSPX, refers to SSPX as a “schismatic group”. Given that SSPX is not in fact “schismatic”, this report is what Voris calls: “irresponsible, reckless, misleading, and possibly even deceitful.”
If as Vois says: “truth is what matters”, shouldn’t CMTV stop referring to SSPX as “schismatic”. Or is he interested in “advancing an agenda riddled with falsities”?
This is a wonderful opportunity for Voris et. al. to publicly issue a mea culpa. “I was wrong, and I’m sorry for that.” How refreshing this would be.
Puppet on a string.
I applaud CMTV for its work in battling the various Luciferian gender ideologies, however Mr Voris is not intellectually honest in dealing with matters concerning traditionalists. The other day his outfit put together a segment accusing traditionalist Catholic media of reporting that Cardinal Burke said “I will resist the pope”. I follow traditional Catholic media and never read any account pitting Cardinal Burke against the pope using the words “I will resist the pope”. Cardinsl Burke will resist a change in doctrine/praxis in regards to divorce and remarriage of course and this was accurately reported in traditional Catholic media. But Mr Voris attempts to paint traditionalist Catholics as somehow disloyal to Rome.
CMTV affirm that this governmental decision, ‘Does not involve the Holy See…’ But didn’t Bergoglio, supposed current legitimate rep for the Holy See call, Tony Palmer a ‘brother bishop’. How can a ‘brother bishop’ not be inside the Church? And a Church, no less, which practically speaking, does not seek converts?
We’re puzzled by what you seem to be saying here, so please correct us if we’ve misunderstood your intent.
Even though the words “I will resist the Pope” didn’t come out of Burke’s mouth in that precise order during his Feb. 2015 French interview, he actually DID admit that he’d resist EVEN the Pope, IF the Pope were to go against dogma. He also later affirmed that to EWTN.
If Traditional media DIDN’T report that truth, they would have been doing a bad job. But many place we read, did report exactly that, which was said, and accurately. So Mr. Voris has no business criticizing anyone but himself and his organization for continuing to hide all things negative concerning Pope Francis, while claiming to be a source of News about all things Catholic..
Burke’s own words:
“I simply affirmed that it is always my sacred duty to defend the truth of the Church’s teaching and discipline regarding marriage,” Cardinal Burke told EWTN News Feb. 9.
“NO AUTHORITY can absolve me from that responsibility, and, therefore, if ANY authority, EVEN THE HIGHEST AUTHORITY, were to deny that truth or act contrary to it, I would be obliged to resist, in fidelity to my responsibility before God.” He went on to make it even clearer that the “highest authority” is the Pope (which we all know without him saying it):
–” Papal power is “at the service of the doctrine of the faith,” he explained, “and thus the Pope does not have the power to change teaching, doctrine.”
Cardinal Burke said his interview with the French television channel France 2, broadcast Feb. 8, was “accurately reported” concerning a question and answer ABOUT RESISTING POPE FRANCIS.”
So Nobody was left in doubt, and no Trad media needed to worry about saying he would resist the Pope if necessary. The Cardinal insisted it was a hypothetical question only because it WAS that.
Aren’t you defending the Trad media as being falsely accused by Voris, when you should instead be accusing Voris of trying to block people from knowing the Truth about what Burke actually said and meant and affirmed?
” The decision rendered by the government of Argentina states what is true and has always been true; the Society of St. Pius X is entirely Catholic.”
OUCH!!! (or as we say in South Africa EINA!!!)
For “Catholic” in this post, read “NO”.
The SSPX is part of the NO church in so far as it recognises the false “pope” of the NO church, but it is schismatic from the Imposter, so I suppose that really leaves it out on a limb all by itself ?
However, it is most certainly not part of the Catholic Church.
I hope nobody hates them. I don’t, I just wish they would use the brains Our Lord gave them and apply Catholic doctrine to their situation.
Peace to those who say this fella sounds like a cracked record. 🙂
Eric gajewski (resistence) on the sspx in Argentina
UPON THIS ROCK
On this earth
Beyond their worth.
Few are grateful
They won’t confess
When the waves
Break on the shore
What is before.
You stand on this rock
‘Gainst the gales
Fore those who mock
They cannot see
But all behold
Your bended knee.
Few will follow
They won’t comply.
Then a blue moon
With Holy Oil
You lift the Light…
Sun moon recoil.
But on this rock
You stand your ground
Between the storms
And sheep you block
The tempest winds
That hurt the flock.
With outstretched arms
The daily crux
You nail the Truth
So not in flux
Never will lie
Only can free
Upon this rock
SSPX – a Catholic would have to be pretty unCatholic to say they are ‘outside the Church.’
Yes Indignus, you are correct. I’m sorry for lack of clarity. CMTV wants viewers to believe that all is hunky dorey at the highest levels of Church power and that Cardinal Burke would never resist the pope. We know this is false. In his ham-handed attempt to smear traditionalists Mr Voris sets them up as the thugs promoting the discord when we know the discord came out of the pope-orchestrated synod. I wrote CMTV and told them as much–their response was to cut me off of receiving their e-mail announcements even though I still subscribe. They have a very low threshold for criticism.
It’s sad to consider how many lambs might be ingesting the Bergoglio-enriched pablum dished out daily by CMTV.
To repeat, I applaud much of the work done by CMTV and cheer when they expose so much rot in the Church, but the silence about the shenanigans at the very top is befuddling.
It’s all rather a bit of a mess. I really (not off my own bat but because of True clergy/Apostles) think we are on the down side of the ‘last days’. Who can say? Mr Voris seems to have a conviction that has a lot of blind spots. So does Bergoglio. If one had to convict Voris or Bergoglio of the ‘stain’ of Catholicism’ I would rather convict Voris.
I’m not so quick to blame Voris. It’s what we’ve been conditioned in as Catholics since the first Vatican council. That is …that the Pope is above everything and beyond judgement of any one of his “subjects”. It leads to conclusions such as Voris and sedevacantists. I think Voris sincerely fears that judging a Pope will have consequences on his soul.
It seems him and sedes are two sides of the same coin yet drawing different conclusions. Perhaps the Church needs to better clarify the role of the Pope. It sure seems like the Pope has become Tradition and the Church all to himself in the minds of many.
Wow. They cut you off their e-mail list for one letter. You should post it here.
🙂 🙂 We recognize the good Voris has done in the past, educating the badly catechized, denouncing the worst of the modernist public actions,, etc.
But it’s gotten too hard to give him a pass based on personal conscience about criticizing the Pope. He’s a newsman, or so he presents himself. With THAT big a conflict of interest, he needs to disqualify himself from claiming to be in that business and representing Truth. His editing of it, presents a FALSE picture of reality. That doesn’t help anyone, and can easily lead to a trust in this Pope’s every word and action, that will harm them.
God Bless you for trying to set him straight. These are tough times, but we haven’t yet had to shed our blood, as others are, somewhere every day.
Sadly not so. Archbishop Lefebvre roundly denounced the NO church as non-Catholic after his suspension by Paul VI in 1976:
“That Conciliar Church is a schismatic Church, because it breaks with the Catholic Church that has always been. It has its new dogmas, its new priesthood, its new institutions, its new worship, all already
condemned by the Church in many a document, official and
definitive…. “The Church that affirms such errors is at once schismatic and heretical. This Conciliar Church is, therefore, not Catholic.”
(“Reflections on Suspension a Divinis,” 29 July 1976.)
Imagine how much better we would have been off today if he had had the courage of his convictions and taken the logical next step and broken completely from the church he proclaimed to be heretical and schismatic! The SSPX would have been the centre and flagship of Catholic resistance, instead of being itself schismatic and saying a sinful una cum mass, seriously in breech of Magisterial teaching.
For those Catholics, who take their Faith seriously and really want to know and understand about the serious faults of the una cum mass, Father Cekada has written an excellent and detailed explanation: http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/SedesUnCum.pdf
Read this carefully and you will understand why the SSPX is not Catholic.
” … faithful Catholics dearly love the Mass and cherish it as the principal means by which God will lead them to holiness. But the Holy Sacrifice will never bear fruit for us if we purchase it at the price of
truth, faith, and holiness itself — at the price of a grain of incense offered to a heretic, a false pope and his false religion. For as Father Faber warned:
“The crowning disloyalty to God is heresy. It is the sin of sins, the very loathsomest of things which God looks down upon in this malignant world. Yet how little do we understand of its excessive hatefulness!…
“We look at it, and are calm. We touch it and do not shudder. We mix with it, and have no fear. We see it touch holy things, and we have no sense of sacrilege… “Our charity is untruthful because it is not severe;
and it is unpersuasive, because it is not truthful… Where there is no hatred of heresy, there is no holiness.”
( Fr. Cekada in the above link quoting F. Faber, The Precious Blood (Baltimore: Murphy 1868), 352–3.)
Dear James the Less,
Our thoughts on this problem concerning Voris, echoed yours almost exactly in the past. But now it has come to the point where in order to continue not saying anything critical of the Pope that may seem judgmental, he finds himself forced to ignore vital information–like Cardinal Burke’s saying he will resist -even if it means going against those “AT THE HIGHEST LEVELS” of authority. What will force him to do that, he says, is any attempt to go against Dogma.
So Michael has some tough decisions to make right now. We pray he comes to see that his current ‘solutions” to his problem of being a reporter and unwilling to report certain things, makes it impossible for him to do his job with the necessary integrity. He has become another part of the problems facing the Faithful, despite all the other good he does.
The Lord has to top all our loyalty lists. That’s the bottom line.
I can see your point and agree. I’m not attempting to give him a pass. But I don’t fully blame him. I think the wrestling in his mind over the Papal dogmas has lead him to believe that media must be twisting the Pope’s real meaning every time he speaks. Which is ridiculous. It seems like a defense mechanism of his to cope with what ultimately leads back to VI and the belief that a Pope can do no wrong. Sedevacantists also say a Pope can do no wrong, so they say… Well, this guy is wrong so therefore he’s not Pope at all.
One more thing… I think he believes he is being loyal to Christ because the Church tells us that being loyal to the Pope is being loyal to Christ. I don’t think he knows how far to take or not take that loyalty perhaps?
“In any case, if he really wanted to be consistent, he should promptly produce a hard-hitting Vortex (where lies and falsehoods are trapped and exposed ©) calling Cardinal Poli to task for propagating a “falsehood” that endangers innocent souls.”
When Poli was leading an interfaith ceremony in the Cathedral, and Argentine SSPX was arrested saying the rosary there, Voris did report on it (last item and see comments):
Seems you (and the SSPX) are more in danger of not being consistent here. Wonder if SSPX will be protesting any more interfaith ceremonies conducted by Poli in Argentina. Rolling your eyes when Poli (Bergoglio or Argentine Gov’t) say or do something you disagree with (minimizing the gravity of these actions), but then using them as authoritative clubs to beat other people with (and citing their actions as “huge”) when they agree with you is hardly a path consistent with going to heaven–especially when involve GRAVE matters of faith and morals.
P.S. That being said, I do believe there has been a change at CMTV. Can go on “Catholic Culture” for instance to see they caution people on Voris for his support of the traditional Latin Mass, but no longer true. Could be traced to money — about a year ago hired several people and kicked down some walls (all for $40k). But could be he truly doesn’t want to be responsible for leading people outside of the Catholic Church – which SSPX is no matter how you want to slice it (i.e. they believe can authorize people to disobey the Pope and their bishop. I am a sedevacantist so don’t fault them for it — only for not going all the way and presenting the full danger, but acting like they can work with devils who spew poison (which seems to me to be what you are doing also).
Why not call yourself a “Egressi sunt claves regni-ist”?
We think you’re right about what is driving Michael Voris, and while it doesn’t mitigate the problems, it does make us feel sympathy for his current state of mind and plight.
–We can easily relate to it, being raised with a very similar mindset. No Catholic among our parents generation would ever think of questioning anything a priest said, much less a Bishop-at least not aloud with other people present. The Pope was for all practical purposes , exactly like God.
It’s taken us a while to get up the nerve to speak up–in fact, it’s still a bit daunting every time we stop in or make an appointment to go to talk to a priest or Bishop about something that needs his attention. You’ve likely heard Michael speak of his deep respect and gratitude for his mother’s sufferings on his behalf, and how he credits her Faith with his conversion from worldliness.
We’re betting it was her teaching about respect for the Pope, that is at the bottom of all of this, coupled with his friendship with Cardnal Burke, who talks as if he were raised the same way. So there’s a lot of sympathy in us for both of them, even though we pray they rise to today’s challenges as we have learned is so necessary.
–You may be amused to hear this, but one of us went to Confession a few months after we started posting as a couple on line, and asked the diocesan priest (not known as a “Traditional” at all, BTW) if it was wrong to be posting opinions in com boxes on the internet, quoting some of the Cardinals and even the Pope and saying it sounded like heresy to us.
— There was about a 10 second pause, (which seemed like 5 minutes at the time) and the answer came back:
“Well, we DO have an obligation to witness to the truth.”
Not at all the expected answer, but a very encouraging one. There apparently are “thinking” priests still around. And there’s still hope for Michael Voris to come to grips with all this, and change his mind about what God wills regarding reporting on the Pope.
🙂 🙂 We continue to pray. (He’s consecrated to Our Lady of Fatima)
Work of human hands by fr cekada 1st part of 13 videos
A detailed look at how things have come this far.
Part 3 creation of the new mass 1948 – 1969 7mins
You suggested that Archbishop Lefebvre should have broken with the Conciliar Church, and we’d all be better off. We wondered why he didn’t, given all we’ve heard about his opinions of it. A Catholic Thinker shed some light on that for us, when he wrote about the Archbishop’s view of the Council and the root causes of the problems, essentially explaining that the Council documents can be “read” in many different ways, –which is why he signed them BTW–and viewed through the lens of Orthodox Church teaching they are one thing, but through the lens of modernism quite another.
After reading some of this, we’re wondering if we aren’t far more critical of the Council’s “as is” statements than he was.
LOL. and go figure… So apparently he thought he could stay within the main ruling body of the Church, submitting to the general authority of the Pope on every issue that was in line with the tradition, and resisting where he felt in good conscience, he must. This may explain the famous ” state of emergency” he felt bound to declare, when about to die without permission to consecrate Bishops, and after enduring years of Vatican promises it was coming, that never materialized. He saw his work in forming good priests as essential to carrying on the Traditions of the Church, in a Church invaded by modernist thinkers at the highest levels. Perhaps he believed God would help him convert them eventually, without creating the impression there are two Churches. We can’t speak for the SSPX or him, of course.
But we recommend A Catholic Thinker’s blog for researching these things further, if you’re interested. We pace ourselves and bite off small chunks at a time, periodically, because it overwhelms us hearing so many opposing viewpoints, that at times ALL seem to make sense. That leaves us staying as we are, attending both N.O. and TLM, and praying for God to resolve these crises soon.. There are very many sincere people looking for Truth in all of these current divisions—a heart-breaking situation, to be sure.
Second try on that link:
P.S. What Lefebvre said during those Episcopal Consecrations is also very interesting.
Rome sent a car to fetch him the night before, to try to prevent it, and he says they didn’t even tell him where they would be taking him–that he had spent a long time in Rome the year before, and never been given an audience with the Pope….etc….. sounds very politicized..
Tu es pastor ovium, princeps Apostolorum,
tibi traditae sunt claves regni coelorum.
Thou art Shepherd of the sheep, and Prince of the Apostles
and unto thee are given the keys of the kingdom of heaven.
Don’t hold your breath my friend.
Did not all those present at Vatican ll take the Oath Against Modernism ? Is it wrong to judge a tree by its fruit, which is now painfully obvious ? What else can one do but “HOLD FAST TO TRADITION”? 2 Peter 3:17 ” you have been warned ahead of time! So don’t let the errors of evil people lead you down the wrong path and make you lose your balance”.
The new liturgy is at war with liturgical tradition, ecumenism is at war with evangelization, dialogue is at war with the Church’s duty to teach with divine authority the truths necessary for salvation.
The Rothschild-Gutmann Money Behind the SSPX Kosher Imperative:
Rothchild money going to SSPX ???
Yes, Indignus. Very sadly and immorally, CMTV has been knowingly and consistently giving a false version of what’s happening in the Church at the highest levels, since Pope Francis apparently became pope.
Yes, it’s long gone past the point at which an argument could be made that it were prudent or tactically useful to completely ignore the evil attacks on the Faith and the Natural Moral Law by the Holy See.
sorry about repeated posts, computer going whacky !!!!!
God bless the Rothchilds! Or rather, God bless those Rothchilds. They’ve done a great deed that will go down in the history of the Church and bring honor to their name.
Hugh akins synagogue rising
Money masters history of the rothchilds
How so exactly? They give money to a group who, through their stubbornness/ignorance (maybe but not likely) first acknowledge a false pope (wrong) and then reject what this (false) pope, who they acknowledge as a valid pope, has to say (wrong). Yeah….those Rothchilds are doing a real bang-up job (smh).
We’re confused, can you help us out? What we’ve read about this Maurice Pinay –says its a pseudonym for a group of Spanish monks, who’ve written reams of stuff against the “synagogue of Satan, i.e. Talmudic Jews and all their conspiracies to infiltrate and destroy the Catholic Church. Are the Rothchilds supposed to be PART of that? And is there concern that the SSPX is being undermined and compromised by its association with these backers?
Or did we miss something?
Hind sight is always clear. He was a good and holy man and in those early days the enormity of breaking with the Pope must have seemed unimaginable. We are viewing the scene 30 years later, when the situation has developed much further and the apostasy very much more obvious. May he rest in peace and perpetual light shine upon him.
The point I wish to make is this:
He stated bluntly that the conciliar church was not Catholic, but schismatic in 1976, (a decade after VII). He recognised that fact. By the courage of his convictions, especially as a Catholic Bishop, he should have broken with it completely the moment he came to that conclusion. I understand he could well have hoped he could reform it from within, but by 1976, he ought to have realised that the assault was too premeditated, too orchestrated and too powerful to reform from within. More importantly, it is not Catholic to remain within, or to maintain ties with, or to seek recognition from, what one knows to be a schismatic church. (As the SSPX are still doing.) A Catholic HATES heresy, schism and apostasy! One neither dallies with them, nor seeks their approval.
The Catholic religion is immutable. It is absolute, not relative. It is based on authority, law, reason and intellect and not on emotion. What is the point of having convictions, if one lacks the courage to act upon them? There comes a time when one must man up, take a stand for the Faith and start fighting! There will be personal consequences, we both know that. One loses old friends, gets treated as a pariah. Too bad! If one knows the pope is a heretic, the NO mass is a sacrilege and the NO church is not Catholic – then one hates them and wills nothing to do with them! If one knows those things – and I am not talking about good souls who attend in innocence and ignorance – then it is scandalous, sacrilegious and sinful to attend a NO mass, be it in the ordinary, or extraordinary form. If it’s NO, it’s no no! Break with them!
Right, because Rothchilds care so much about the inner squabblings of Catholic groups and which one is “false”! LOL!!!
I think you are on to something. If anything it proves that the enemy is attacking the SSPX for holding to moral Truths which could influence the larger Church Universal and impede the enemies attempts at an open society. Of course, based on the replies of sedes it appears they believe the SSPX is some sort of set up Zionist front group.
Wow! What an eye opener. I still have plenty to read here. All very relevant to the recent post on Nostra Aetate.
I was shocked when I recently came across an exposure of the talmud. I had no idea that Judaism was so hostile to Catholicism:
THE TALMUD UNMASKED THE SECRET RABBINICAL TEACHINGS CONCERNING CHRISTIANS By Rev. I. B. Pranaiti (Roman Catholic Priest)
With Ecclesiastical Imprimatur
The Talmud Unmasked is down the dark box on the left of the web page when you click on the link.
Maybe this is another Masterstroke of Evil Genius? They gave us Benedict XVI, certainly one of the boys, but with a “conservative” facade, to throw a sop to neo-trads by giving them the moto mass and hopefully keeping them from walking out of the door. Very clever, but how diabolically brilliant it would be to then infiltrate and subvert the SSPX, thus recapturing a bunch of even more conservative neo-trads. From a Catholic point of view, it is impossible to explain the ludicrous position that the SSPX stubbornly cling to. Viewed from a judeo-masonic point of view, it makes brilliant sense?
Look what happened to Bishop Williamson for stepping out of line ???
Anyone from the Rothchild family who converted to the Catholic Faith is a member of the Mystical Body of Christ. That their family should support the SSPX is virtuous.
Well James, at least I made you laugh! 🙂
Remember what happened to Bishop Williamson ? If I tried to answer your question re: the Rothchild family, I would sound like a raving Jew hating conspiracy nut job which I am not, I DONT HATE ANYONE!!! The best I cant do if refer you to this very long video and let you make up your own mind? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuzkLbHb1Q8.
It may be that 90% of Proclaimed Jews are not Jews at all (check out KHAZARS Exposed) Could it be this is the cause of the DIABOLICAL DISORENTATION so often mentioned or am I a conspiracy nut ?
Rev 2:9 I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.
The problem with giant conspiracy theories about wealth-controlling secret societies, is that they are very hard to prove or disprove BECAUSE of the secrecy. So people are free to speculate about their plans and motives, which adds to the general distrust and confusion going on, without really proving anything.
–By the logic you propose above, “they” could now have “given” us Jorge, with his extremist side, to drive a group who is a growing thorn in their sides into sede-vacantism, but without promulgating a single word.
-You could be a pawn on their brilliantly diabolical chessboard.
-We’re not saying this to mock you, but to point out the futility of basing major decisions upon theories like these, which people seem to do these days.
There seem to be facts to support your idea.
Wickipedia has a list of famous converts to Catholicim from Judaism, including:
Marguerite de Rothschild, duchesse de Gramont (19 September 1855, in Frankfurt – 25 July 1905, in Paris)
–, was the daughter of Baron Mayer Carl von Rothschild (1820–1886) (Naples branch; son of Carl Mayer von Rothschild) and Louise Rothschild (1820–1894) (London branch; daughter of Nathan Mayer Rothschild).
“Margaretha’s father disapproved of her marrying a Catholic, the comte de Liedekerke, and her conversion to Catholicism and withdrew her from his will. Soon after her marriage, Count de Liedekerke died at a hunting party. She remarried with Agénor, 11th duc de Gramont (then duc de Guiche) in 1878 who was the son of Agénor de Gramont, an ex-ambassador of Emperor Napoleon III. Baron Carl Meyer von Rothschild refused to attend the wedding, because he had preferred his daughter to marry her cousin Edmond de Rothschild, and not a non-Jew.”
“The will of her father was revoked and she received her inheritance at her father’s death, in 1886, which was enormous.”
Peter, along from IF’s sound reasoning I would add it’s a not very wise idea to ascribe evil intentions to people without complete proof.
There is much in what you say that is true about conspiracy theories in general. You will notice I ended on a question mark, to indicate I was speculating. No, Jorge was not sent to make sedes, he is culminating the main advance. However, this conspiracy by masons to infiltrate and destroy (as if that were possible!) the Catholic Church is backed by much hard evidence:
The Permanent Instruction of Alta Vendita, the testimony of Bella Dodd, Fr. Luigi Villa, Pecorelli List, the warnings of several Popes etc. Please read the following and see that this is not just another conspiracy theory:
There is no lack of proof. Please see my reply to Indignus above and read:
Published in The Athanasian, Vol. XIV, No. 4, June 1, 1993
Editor: Fr. Francis E. Fenton, STL
A publication of Traditional Catholics of America
Freemasons And The Conciliar Church
John Kenneth Weiskittel
I have provided the link above.
You claimed Pope Benedict XVI’s intention of allowing wider use of the TLM was diabolical.
Your link seems well reasoned, and makes as much sense as many others we’ve read on Masonry infiltrating the Church–Bella Dodd being one we’ve quoted ourselves in the past, which we found very impressive. It’s likely they have infiltrated, in our view. But notice the limits admitted in the Preface:
“To answer these questions, as far as they CAN be answered (certitude of Lodge membership…requires hard evidence)”…
— We are not arguing that it’s unlikely many modernists are NOT masons as well, we were simply pointing out that this absence of hard, certifiable proof leaves people speculating endlessly about their plans and motives, and even about which ones ARE Masons, which can lead to false accusations and more confusion.
–Is it really worth it to go there? Maybe insofar as you bring out the similarities between stated Masonic objectives and those of the Modernists.. But since Pius X gave us so much information in Pascendi about how modernists think and act, and we know that is a combination of many heresies, and thus directly attacks the Church, isn’t it enough to concern ourselves about –when we hear modernist ideas and see modernist behavior coming from those who promote toleration of sin and change of practices which go against teachings of the past–without speculating about whether or not they are secretly Masons or anything else?
–They won’t be any MORE damned by that, than they will be by believing and promoting heresy without repenting before death. And heresy is something we can all learn about in great detail, and denounce without speculation of any kind.
The point is there IS plenty of proof about the matter. Read the reference sources I quoted. Fr. Luigi gives the date, the lodge, the number, the masonic code names of JXIII and PVI – we have certitude of their lodge membership. Why all of this is so important, actually essential to know, is because it explains where VII came from, why it happened, what its aims are, what NO is and why we are in the situation that we are in. It explains the essence and aetiology of modernism and modernists.
We are fighting a war. A war for the Church of Christ. The more we know about and understand about our enemies, the better we can fight!
Here’s another dilemma for Michael Voris -who has been diligent in denouncing the feminist agendas of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious :
-Rorate Caeli says the mainstream media got it right when they reported
after the meeting between Francis and the LCWR reps on Thursday in Rome:
–“The Vatican abruptly ended its takeover of the main leadership group of American nuns .. allowing Pope Francis to put to rest a confrontation started by his predecessor that had created an uproar ..”
“He did not speak publicly, but the sisters said afterward in a statement that they were “deeply heartened” by Francis’ “expression of appreciation” for the lives and ministry of Catholic sisters”
(Rorate continues) –The position of the new leadership of the Congregation for Religious, is made clear by its Secretary, Abp. Rodríguez Carballo days ago in Rome, who said about the identity of religious:
“A consecrated life, a life in God but inserted in the ecclesial family, in the church — inserted in the world.”
“NOT IN CONFLICT WITH THE WORLD, but inserted in continuity,” he said.
This is particularly galling to us, knowing the pro-abortion stance of feminist religious organizations in the U.S. – having corresponded with some of them who assured us of their support for “the rights of poor women to have equal access to abortion and contraception”
St. John tells us in Chapter 15 of his Gospel, that Jesus said:
 “If the world hate you, know ye, that it hath hated me before you.
 If you had been of the world, the world would love its own: but because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.  Remember my word that I said to you: The servant is not greater than his master. “
Agreed that knowledge of possible causes is helpful in understanding situations, but only up to a point. Was it Masonry that led to Modernism, or Modernist ideas that attracted people to Masonry? Heresy has been around since the Church first began, and Modernism is the “synthesis” of all of them, according to
Pope St. Pius X . Temptation to evil began with a snake in the Garden.
He fits the description of a Mason, too, because their ideas are inspired by his rebellion against God and natural law.
–Not trying to denigrate the importance of examining their ideas, and seeing where they are being applied. Just pointing out that attributing everything bad in the Church to that, or any single cause, is not necessarily accurate. The Devil has many tools, and much ingenuity. He’s just loses in the end.
Our question above may not have been worded clearly enough for you to understand what we were asking-sorry.
We were not challenging your statement or any beliefs you may have about this issue, we were simply asking what you were trying to say, i.e. did you see that as a conspiracy to undermine the SSPX, as in unwitting association with something evil; or rather as a deliberate CHOICE of the SSPX, as in getting in bed with the devil? We’re just wondering what YOU think, as it wasn’t evident to us.
Another way of looking at this, Ock. If those participants at VII who had taken a solemn Oath Against Modernism deliberately and formally broke that oath, did they not heap curses upon themselves?
Yip! I am. Gregorius pretty much says it all. Here is a quote from the introduction to “One and the Same Rite”? How Benedict XVI’s Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum Aims to Destroy the Traditional Latin Mass by Gregorius [Originally published Oct. 12, 2007; revised and expanded August 2, 2014]:
“After about a year of rumors, on July 7, 2007, Fr. Joseph Ratzinger (“Pope Benedict XVI”) finally released an “Apostolic Letter motu proprio,” entitled Summorum Pontificum, on the use of the Roman Missal of 1962, the liturgical rite that is referred to by many as the “Traditional Latin Mass.” This document grants a fairly wide permission to priests in the Novus Ordo Church to use the 1962 Missal (of John XXIII) instead of the 1970 Missal (of Paul VI) for their celebration of Mass, though it does not do away with all conditions and restrictions … Many dear and well-intentioned souls who seek to be good traditional Catholics had long been waiting for such a “universal indult” — or blanket permission — to “free” the Traditional Mass so that priests would no longer have to get special authorization from their local bishops first to be allowed to offer Mass according to the Missal of 1962, as many Novus Ordo bishops are vehemently opposed to this.
So, isn’t this a good thing? Shouldn’t we rejoice that Tradition is finally returning? Isn’t the “Pope” clearly showing that he is interested in “restoring Tradition”? Such were the sentiments then, and such they still largely are today, seven years on. But what many sincere but misled souls have hailed a major victory for Traditionalists, is in reality nothing but a most clever attempt at dealing a death blow to the true Traditional Mass and the Traditional Catholic resistance to the Vatican II Church … In fact, in May of 2005, only a few weeks after his election, Novus Ordo Watch predicted that Benedict XVI would reinstate the 1962 Mass into the ordinary life of the Novus Ordo Church. It is part and parcel of the Modernist Revolution’s modus operandi to placate Traditionalists, as it will help to keep people attached to the Vatican II Church and its false shepherds. … let us first understand something very important: The rite of Mass Benedict XVI just re-authorized on a large scale is the 1962 Mass of Pope John XXIII” (Cardinal Angelo Roncalli) — it is not the Traditional Mass properly so-called…”
This move by Benedict as predicted in 2005:
“As time goes on, Benedixt XVI will bend over backwards to appear conservative, even traditional; he will do everything in his power to reconcile with and fully regularize the Society of St. Pius X and similar traditionalist groups. He will allow all Novus Ordo priests to say the traditional Mass and perhaps even command that the traditional Mass be said on a regular basis in every Novus Ordo parish. (This reintroduction of the traditional Mass in regular parish life will be absolutely essential.) He will lure good-willed but confused and battle-weary traditionalists by letting them voice their concerns concerning Vatican II and the New Mass and fully accept their reservations concerning these. He may even reform the New Mass into a more conservative liturgy. He will say that it is time to come to the aid and comfort of the one faction in the Church still marginalized and neglected for so long, namely, the traditionalists. He will pretend to have an open mind and heart for them and do everything in his power to regularize their status, with the ultimate goal of having all traditionalists be part of the New Church, under the tacit banner, however, of “unity in diversity. ”http://www.novusordowatch.org/benedictsummorumpontificum.html
Peter, thank you for your thoughts. I have a few of my own.
First of all, I believe that Archbishop Levebvre was indeed a very holy man – and simply an honest Catholic – and played an indispensable role in what I believe is the greatest crisis the Church has ever faced (yes, its worse than Arianism).
Secondly, the archbishop never claimed infallibility for his statements and neither do I. 🙂 Further, when he stated that the “conciliar church” was “schismatic”, there are a number of possible interpretations. However, I do not believe he ever believed or meant to imply that those churchmen, including the pontiff, had lost their public offices. In fact, there is no doubt about that, for a number of reasons, the first being that he was too good a theologian to fall into that error, and the second being that his general behavior over the decades he lived through the crisis does not reflect that.
And since the pope did remain the pope, having not been deposed by the Church (as required by *all* the theologians who have spoken on such matters – yes, Bellarmine too), the archbishop, being Catholic, treated him as the pope, reconizing but resisting. To have done less would have been to imbibe a schismatic attitude, which he never did, the Society has never done, and, by the grace of God, I believe, it will never do.
So, I think he did exactly the right thing in his relations with Rome, where the See of Peter was founded and will always exist.
(IF – I owe you a response to “Why I left the SSPX milieu”. I have just finished my latest CFN article and will turn to that next. And thanks for recommending my little site, but honestly there’s not a heck of a lot there. God bless.)
Jews against zionism
Looks like Michael Voris has his knickers in knots right about now?
Dear “A Catholic Thinker”, Well said regarding Archbishop Lefebvre, supra.
Well, they’re all out tonight! Let’s stick to CMTV and the SSPX and not wander off into wacky conspiracy theories which give defenders of Tradition a bad name. I have, on occasion, attended Mass in Paris at St-Nicholas-de-Chardonnet. The mass is as it should be but outside are vendors for Orleanists, Bourbonists, “we were robbed in Algeria” etc. An irreverent friend of mine nicknamed it “Notre Dame des Fascistes”! There is NO automatic link between support for Tradition and all of this wacko nonsense and we try to disconnect as far as we can, it pollutes the message and contributes nothing.
Bishop Williamson when he addresses issues of the faith has always been cogent, persuasive, and gratifyingly Thomistic. His “Eleison Comments” usually continue this. Unfortunately, when he strays off into 9/11, the Holocaust, etc he sounds quite frankly barking (mad). He should stick to what he is good at and not embarrass others as well as denigrating from the seriousness with which his thought should be taken.
Dear Catholic Thinker,
I do know that Archbishop Lefebvre was considered a very good theologian and was a member of the original group who prepared the skemas for the council over a period of two years before the council and that all this work was set aside by Paul VI. What layman can imagine operating is the rarefied atmosphere of power, politics and intrigue of a council, especially VII? His Letter to a Confused Catholic was the very first article I read (and thought to be excellent) on my journey out of the NO church.
Anyway, schism is schism and there is only ONE interpretation possible of it. Abp. Lefebvre knew that for sure, but then he had to decide what he considered the best way to handle the situation. The decades he remained in the NO church would indicate to me that he thought the best way would be for him to fight it from within. I have read that he tended towards a break as time went on, but was a humble man who shied from the awesome responsibility of actually leading a break from “Rome”. Who knows that he would not have found that courage had he lived longer?
” … the archbishop, being Catholic, treated him as the pope, reconizing but resisting… ”
No Catholic may recognise and resist a Pope! Such an attitude is absolutely contrary to Catholic doctrine and is the very definition of schism!
“To have done less would have been to imbibe a schismatic attitude, …”
Absolutely incorrect! You can’t be meaning that if he recognised the Pope, but had NOT resisted him, he would be schismatic?!
The fact of the matter is that by 1976 he declared the conciliar church to be SCHISMATIC, HERETICAL and NOT CATHOLIC !!! So he knew what was going on alright. He did NOT recognise! He remained within to resist only.
The SSPX deny obedience to whom they recognise as Pope – again the definition of schism. The loss of Office does NOT depend on any declaration by the Church, it is automatic upon committing the sin (a breech of Divine Law) of manifest heresy according to Bellarmine and infallibly according to Paul IV.
A formal declaration is desired by everybody, but only to pronounce upon the crime of heresy (a breech of Canon Law) in the interests of good governance of the Church, by making the fall from Office public and apparent to all.
I don’t claim infallibility for my statements either, but I do claim Catholic doctrine. 🙂
Thanks for your responses here. We forwarded a copy of that essay you mentioned about leaving the SSPX , to a Mercedarian order friend -about to be ordained later this year- who loves the TLM (in an order that also says the N.O.) He emailed us recently to say he thought it well-explained and thorough. So when you are able to get to that project, we’ll be glad to forward your response to him as well–to help him see the view from the “other side”.
–Since the last newborn, we imagine your time is very limited, so no pressure.. Good marriages require quality time commitments.. 🙂 🙂
He thought it was a really
Vatican I conditioned no such sentiment into the Catholic masses. It’s definition of papal infallibility (de fide and infallible itself) is entirely measured and entirely congruent with the thinking on the subject since patristic times. There is not a hint papalotry or clericalism there.
I do not have much time for combox battles anymore, so this needs to be my last post here, but you should read the actual definition of schism, as it is not what you posted here.
In fact, the moral virtue of obedience is subservient to the theological virtues, and, unlike those, can be defective by excess – that is called servility. In fact all the theologians who ever spoke on the topic have made it quite clear that there are circumstances where a valid superior, including the pontiff himself, must be resisted.
If things were as clear-cut as you imply surely we would not have seen decades of multiple Vatican officials of the highest rank declare verbatin that the SSPX are not in schism!
Schismatics *do not recognize* the pope. That is the crucial element. They do not believe he has the God-given right to govern the Church. The Society do believe that; in fact, as is often pointed out, they allot the Vicar more power than do the Vatican II neo-modernists as they reject the novelty of collegiality. It is the pontiff and the pontiff alone who possesses surpreme jurical power.
This is why the Society has never and will never setup an alternative hierarchy, claiming jurisdiction, as all schismatics – such as the orthodox – do.
“No Catholic may recognize and resist a pope” – in fact, that is *exactly* the Catholic attitude to a pope who acts to harm the Church, and to deny *that* is the novelty.
I see the nowatch links flooding the comboxes here again; here is my general response to their errors:
A Catholic Thinker said: “And since the pope did remain the pope, having not been deposed by the Church (as required by *all* the theologians who have spoken on such matters – yes, Bellarmine too).”
NO. THE COMMON OPINION IS JUST THE OPPOSITE!
AFTER SIGNIFICANT RESEARCH ON THE MATTER, I CAN SAFELY SAY IT IS THE COMMON OPINION AMONG THEOLOGIANS, INCLUDING, I BELEIVE, ALL DOCTORS OF THE CHURCH WHO HAVE COMMENTED ON IT (BELLARMINE, DE SALES, DE LIGUORI) THAT AN HERETICAL POPE IPSO FACTO LOSES THE PONTIFICATE BEFORE ANY DECLARATION BY ANYONE. CAJETAN AND JOHN OF ST. THOMAS ARE NOTEWORTHY EXCEPTIONS, AND THERE ARE SOME OTHERS. BUT THESE ARE, ACCORDING TO MY CAREFUL EXAMINATION OF THE LANDSCAPE ON THIS QUESTION, AS WELL AS NOTABLE CANONISTS WHO HAVE SAID SO, IN THE MINORITY, AND ARE LESSER AUTHORITIES ANYWAY.
I am not currently a sedevacantist, but I will likely become one if Francis officially endorses communion for public adulterers. You see, it is impossible for the Catholic Church to send souls to Hell via it’s official (universal) policy. To argue that Francis would still be Pope in this case, until some percentage of the college of Cardinals declares the Roman See vacant, is nonsensical. First, it implies that there is a period of time (before supposed deposement) where the legitimate authority in the Church is leading souls to hell, which is impossible. Secondly, no one has the authority to depose a Pope. Even Mr Siscoe argues that the purpose of a declaration is merely to establish a fact that the Pope ALREADY lost the office. But we can already know that with moral certitude. We don’t need Cardinals Pell, Burke, BrandMuller, and the Polish Bishops, to say so (they would probably be the minority anyway).
IN MY VIEW, THE MAIN ARGUMENT AGAINST SEDEVACANTISM IS NOT THAT THEIR PRINCIPLES ARE WRONG, BUT THAT THEY HAVE JUMPED THE GUN BY SEEING FORMAL HERESY WHERE THERE IS NONE. THAT MAY BE WHY 99.9% OF THE CATHOLIC EPISCOPACY HAS NOT NOTICED A MANIFESTLY HERETICAL PONTIFF SINCE VATICAN II.
By the way, how are you going to prove that your opinion is officially the Catholic one? The Church has never taught that we must follow, and be in union with, a “Pope” who is a manifest heretic, and leading souls to Hell with his policies. Paul IV teaches the contrary (Cum Ex)… But, with probability, it is the most common opinion that the Pope is no longer Pope in this case.
THINK ABOUT IT: YOU WOULD CONSIDER FRANCIS TO BE CHRIST`S VERY OWN VICAR ON EARTH IF HE ORDERED PRIESTS TO GIVE COMMUNION TO PUBLIC ADULTERERS, LEADING, NOT ONLY THE PRIESTS, BUT THE COMMUNICANTS TOO, TO THE STATE OF MORTAL SIN?
A DECLARATION FROM GOOD CARDINALS THAT FRANCIS IS NO LONGER POPE WOULD BE ANTICIPATED. BUT THAT DECLARATION WOULD HAVE ZERO CANONICAL WEIGHT. IT WOULD MERELY HELP TO ESTABLISH A FACT, NAMELY, THAT FRANCIS IS NO LONGER POPE.