As I write, the nearly exclusive focus of many people regarding the SSPX concerns recently made allegations against it. Any number of readers have asked me to comment on them.
To be sure, the who, what, when and how in this case matters. Let’s hope and pray that the truth comes to light quickly so that justice – be it retributive, exculpatory or otherwise – can be served as may be appropriate. Following this, may our collective sight return to more important things, like seeing to it that Catholic tradition is faithfully taught, docilly received and vigorously defended – all for the glory of God and the salvation of souls.
With this in mind, at present, my focus remains on the degree to which the SSPX is upholding its duty to stand up for the Sovereign Rights of Christ the King – the same that Archbishop Lefebvre identified as the central issue affecting the post-conciliar age.
At this, I wonder how many readers will jump off in search of more salacious content?
BACKGROUND
On March 24, in a post titled, SSPX UK renounces the Kingship of Christ, I called attention to the fact that British Prime Minister Boris Johnson had issued an order that effectively prohibits the public offering of Holy Mass and the Sacraments, declaring:
We’ll stop all social events, including weddings, baptisms and other ceremonies, but excluding funerals … If you don’t follow the rules the police will have the powers to enforce them, including through fines and dispersing gatherings.
In response to this unlawful edict from the State, Fr. Robert Brucciani, SSPX, District Superior of Great Britain, dispatched a letter to Society faithful stating:
An announcement this evening by the British PM has left us with no choice but to cancel all public religious ceremonies… [Emphasis added]
Well-established Catholic doctrine (treated in some detail HERE , HERE and HERE) teaches that the State has neither the right nor the authority to so dictate to the Church.
Even so, Fr. Jurgen Wegner, SSPX, District Superior of the U.S. District, had issued a statement on March 14 saying, we will follow the lawful government orders and all unnecessary public gatherings will be canceled, including Holy Mass. Such orders, however, are not lawful.
The exclusive authority vested in the Church concerning things of a sacred character is a direct consequence of the Sovereign Rights of Christ the King; to deny one is to implicitly deny the other. In other words, the stakes are extremely high.
On March 26, I sent a letter to Fr. Davide Pagliarani (which may be read HERE) calling his attention to this matter and begging him to issue a statement making the traditional doctrine clear. Whether or not my efforts motivated a response from the SSPX, I cannot say, but a response did in fact come.
THE SOCIETY ISSUES A RESPONSE
On April 10, the SSPX published an article by Fr. Arnaud Sélégny titled, A Reminder Concerning the Relationship Between Church and State.
As readers will soon discover, it is truly nothing more than a verbose defense, not of the Sovereign Rights of Christ the King and His Holy Catholic Church in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, but rather of the State and its egregious encroachment upon the same.
Much of Fr. Sélégny’s essay is not directly relevant to the present discussion. Here, I will highlight those portions of the text that are. He begins:
The traditional ecclesiastical doctrine on the relationship between Church and State has been developed and tested over the centuries, sometimes in extremely difficult situations. It is useful today to avoid exaggerated or unsound judgements.
On this, every Catholic is in agreement. Fr. Sélégny continues, rightly pointing out:
…temporal things and temporal acts must be subject to supernatural acts. They must not only not oppose them, but even favour them by removing obstacles to the development of the spiritual life, and by providing it with everything morally necessary for its fulfilment…
Thus, temporal power must align itself with the spiritual power, not with regard to its temporal end, which is within its competence, but with regard to the spiritual end, in order to provide the Church with the help She needs for her own end…
She [the Church] received from her founder full authority over the baptised, to lead them to eternal life…
Fr. Sélégny then moves on to discussing “mixed matters,” which he describes as follows:
The mixed domain concerns matters which, in themselves, touch on the spiritual order, such as matters concerning worship, religious education, marriage and the religious state, but which are at the same time subject to civil legislation. Therefore, by their nature they are of interest to both the Church and the State.
He then rightly asserts:
In this mixed domain, it is in the name of its direct power over the spiritual that the Church acts and legislates.
Before we move on, Fr. Sélégny’s description of mixed matters demands a clarification inasmuch as the wording may be confusing to some. Catholic worship, religious education, marriage, etc. are not truly “subject to civil legislation.” One need only recall what Pope Leo XIII said about such a notion:
To wish the Church to be subject to the civil power in the exercise of her duty is a great folly and a sheer injustice. Whenever this is the case, order is disturbed, for things natural are put above things supernatural… (cf Immortale Dei) [Emphasis added]
In truth, worship, religious education, marriage, etc. are properly subject to the Church, not civil legislation, as if said legislation could lawfully bind the Church (e.g., Fr. Brucciani’s unfortunate comment: the British PM has left us with no choice!)
To be very clear, the State does indeed have care of religious matters, and it is called to legislate in such a way as to support the Church in carrying out her mission; it does not, however, have the authority to dictate terms to the Church regarding it.
At issue is the fact that matters may occasionally arise about which the powers of the Church and the powers of the State intersect and, therefore, mixed jurisdiction exists. Pope Leo XIII describes it as follows:
But, inasmuch as each of these two powers [Church and State] has authority over the same subjects, and as it might come to pass that one and the same thing – related differently, but still remaining one and the same thing – might belong to the jurisdiction and determination of both… (ibid.)
This is precisely what is taking place in our day as Catholic public worship is “subject to the power and judgment of the Church” (Pope Leo XIII, idib.) and yet the State does have the power to regulate public gatherings as necessary to safeguard the common good.
So, what if it should happen that the Church – to use a present-day example – exercises her power and judgment to rule “in spite of the current pandemic, the holy day obligation remains in force,” even as the State forbids any such public gatherings?
Pope Leo XIII spoke directly to this type of situation saying it would be a “deplorable contention and conflict” should “the Church and the State command contrary things” since, for the faithful, “it would be a dereliction of duty to disobey either of the two.”
The Holy Father then provided the answer, making it plain where the priority of power lies in such matters:
Wherefore, being, by the favor of God, entrusted with the government of the Catholic Church, and made guardian and interpreter of the doctrines of Christ, We judge that it belongs to Our jurisdiction, venerable brethren, publicly to set forth what Catholic truth demands of every one in this sphere of duty; thus making clear also by what way and by what means measures may be taken for the public safety in so critical a state of affairs. – Diuturnum
“For the powers that are, are ordained of God,” writes Poe Leo XIII, citing St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. The Holy Father tells us that when both the Church and the State rule in a manner that reflects their divine ordination, there exists “a certain orderly connection which may be compared to the union of the soul and body in man.” (ibid.)
Just as it is with respect to matters both spiritual and corporeal, whereby it is incumbent upon the body to be ruled by the intellect and the will, each of which are powers that “belong to the soul alone” (Aquinas, ST-I, Q. 77, Art. 8), so too is it incumbent upon the State in mixed matters to align itself with the rule of the Church.
Today, with respect to COVID-19, “deplorable contention and conflict” exist for two reasons, both the Church and the State are behaving in violation of their divine ordination; the Church by failing to assert her prerogatives, the State by overstepping its own.
Fr. Sélégny, having once rightly stated, “temporal power must align itself with the spiritual power,” proceeded to make a stunning about face. This, after all, is the only way he could mount a defense of churchmen who behave as if the State is well within its bounds to order the Holy Catholic Church to cease inviting the faithful to participate in the Mass and the Sacraments:
However, at the same time, the Church recognises the right of the State to legislate in these [mixed] matters as well, and, as long as it is not a matter of faith or morals, She is ready to adapt to situations in which the prudence of both parties is involved. For his part, the prince – i.e. the one who directs the State – does not have the same obligation of obedience as in other matters, according to his sound judgement.
Is Fr. Sélégny really suggesting that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments do not pertain to faith and morals, and so the Church should simply follow whatever the civil authority may decree?
Evidently, he would do well to consider the words of Pope Leo XIII who taught:
Whatever, therefore in things human is of a sacred character, whatever belongs either of its own nature or by reason of the end to which it is referred, to the salvation of souls, or to the worship of God, is subject to the power and judgment of the Church. (cf Immortale Dei)
Would he, in light of this unambiguous teaching, wish to insist that Holy Mass and the Sacraments are not of a sacred character and therefore are subject to the power and judgment of the State?
Fr. Sélégny then makes an attempt to convince readers that there is precedence for churchmen willingly conceding authority to the State in sacred matters, a rather lawyerly manner of arguing in favor (or against, in the present case) of Catholic tradition.
He begins by pointing to St. Louis, King of France, whom Fr. Sélégny tells us, “refused to intervene with his royal authority against lay people in conflict with bishops on temporal matters.” [Emphasis added]
As mentioned, temporal matters are the proper domain of the civil authority, and no one is arguing otherwise. He then gives another example from the reign of St. Louis:
When requested by Pope Gregory IX, and again by Pope Innocent IV, he refused to start a war with the Emperor Frederick II…
A war? Another temporal matter! Clearly, Fr. Sélégny is grasping at straws, but things swiftly go from bad to worse as he writes:
Finally, we should also add that the Church has sometimes had to suffer from abuses of temporal powers, in these mixed matters. For as long as these abuses were not opposed to her mission to save souls, she tolerated them, according to the prudential judgement of her superiors.
Yes, you read that correctly; Fr. Sélégny is suggesting that the State forbidding public access to Holy Mass and the Sacraments, even going so far as to forbid baptism by name (as in the case of the British Prime Minister) is not opposed to the Church’s mission to save souls and therefore, should be tolerated.
Would it also be Fr. Sélégny’s opinion that the Church should tolerate the police interrupting Mass in order to enforce the State’s stay-at-home order, as happened recently at a Novus Ordo parish in Paris?
CLOSING ARGUMENT
Fr. Sélégny, at long last, provides readers with his closing argument:
The regulation of public engagements, in this time of epidemic, is clearly a matter of temporal power. It so happens, that Catholic worship involves public gatherings. The question is therefore whether temporal power is within its right in making decisions with regard to Catholic worship, considered in its social dimension from the point of view of public meetings.
To ask the question is, in fact, to answer it, because it is clearly a mixed matter. To deny this right would be simply to obscure this chapter of Catholic doctrine.
One cannot help but wonder if Fr. Sélégny has any idea as to what Catholic doctrine (e.g., as briefly referenced above) actually states about matters of mixed jurisdiction.
Moving on, Fr. Sélégny then provides two specific historical examples of churchmen who, like so many of his SSPX brethren in our day, willingly submitted to the authority of the State during the Spanish Flu pandemic:
He informs readers that civil authorities in Switzerland had issued a decree stating:
Divine worship and religious gatherings may only be celebrated in the open air and far from built-up areas. Burials will take place without the public and only the next of kin may assist.”
In response, he tells us, “The ecclesiastical authorities complied with the decree issued by the civil authorities.”
Given the absence of any statements from the ecclesiastical authorities, it is impossible to say if this “precedent” truly resembles the current situation. One thing we can say for certain, however, is that even a dozen examples of churchmen behaving as if the Church is subject to the authority of the State in matters of mixed jurisdiction would not serve to make such behavior meritorious. It would still be irreconcilable with Catholic tradition.
Lastly, Fr. Sélégny cites what evidently is the only other precedent he could find; namely, that of Bishop John Regis Canevin of Pittsburgh who, in light of the Spanish Flu, stated:
When, in the judgment of the civil authorities, whose duty it is to safeguard public health, it becomes necessary to close churches and schools and take other strong precautions against epidemics of virulent disease, the only rule for pastors and people is to co-operate with the civil authorities of their district.
Might I remind readers that Pope Leo XIII had twice found it necessary to remind the episcopacy of the United States of Catholic tradition, via Encyclical Letter, concerning Catholic doctrine on matters of Church and State (see Longinqua and Testem Benevolentiae).
How telling it is that Fr. Sélégny turned to the example of an American bishop, with regard to matters of Church and State of all things, in his attempt to defend the behavior of the SSPX in its relationship with the civil authorities.
CONCLUSION
In all of my posts on the degree to which churchmen in our day have failed to stand up for the Sovereign Rights of Christ the King and the freedom of His Church, I have done so by citing papal magisterium at some length. It is striking that Fr. Sélégny’s 2,000-word essay includes no such citations in support of his conclusion. The reason is plain; none exist.
What Fr. Sélégny’s lengthy essay reveals is the extent to which the SSPX will go in order to defend its own, no matter how wrong they may be; in this case, turning its back on Christ the King, issuing blatantly contradictory statements, and ignoring entirely the “traditional ecclesiastical doctrine” it purportedly exists to preserve.
Well done, Louie:+) Although I do look forward to your hashing out the recent scandal and the horrible response from the leadership of the SSPX. Your headline applies there too: Defending their own no matter how wrong. If it’s not defending the wolves who raped children and destroyed families, the wolfish leadership that covered it up, ran for lawyers hiding behind “we didn’t have a duty to report per the law” junk, to endless downplaying and justifications…they will defend their own (even if an enemy of Christ) before ever admitting their error and crimes.
The lack of humility, courage, knowledge, wisdom, and true charity in the leadership of the SSPX is a cancer. May Our Lord and His Perfect Mother root it out brutally so as to serve the King in Truth, Purity, Bravery, and authentic love.
God bless~
St Thomas Becket gave his life for the principal that the State did not have authority over ecclesial matters.
The problem this epidemic brings out with the SSPX is the fact that the local Bishops had exercised their own authority and shuttered the Churches even when the State did not call for their closure. If the SSPX recognizes the authority in Rome and the authority of the local Bishops, why don’t they obey the local
Bishops in this practical matter that does not pertain to faith or morals or the new mass or V2? My question is rhetorical of course. We all know that the SSPX has been making their own rules since they were suspended in the 1970s. If the guy is your Pope, then you have to obey. At least the eastern schismatics had the honesty to say we don’t need a Pope, while the sedes correctly say we don’t have a Pope. But the SSPX has one foot in all camps. No wonder why anything they publish concerning ecclesiology sounds like modernist doublespeak.
There’s something odd going on in the orthodox/traditionalist Catholic world right now. I don’t believe any Catholic who isn’t a monster wants (in 2020) to sweep under the rug the abuse (of any kind) of children. So, I have faith the SSPX is going to take care of this — if only because the Society must. What is odd — and I don’t think this applies to AKA Catholic — is that it seems the knives are out for the SSPX. As this is the case just when this Pope has sent out a survey about the TLM, it seems ominous. Anybody else see what I mean?
I may be in Tom A’s camp once again. I may indeed now be a sede. Someone tell me, I can’t stand Jorge, he’s not my pope, I don’t know if a man who’s obviously more sinister than a mere pagan and hater of Christianity can be pope, but if he is pope, he’s not my pope. I’m also done with 99.9% of his Cardinals and bishops, and even the .1% that remain have .1% of my respect.
So tell me, where do sedes attend Mass? Currently I have a diocesan TLM, but I note that Jorge is gunning for it, so…it’s likely to vaporize. I refuse to be disheartened, he shall have no impact on my life if I can help it.
As it pertains to this topic, it is exactly what I would expect from the church today, the most disappointing lot possible, and I would never anticipate any of them would defend Christ as our Sovereign King and concern themselves with sacraments since they don’t believe in anything supernatural. They fear Covid-death, and act accordingly, like good little Communists, which is what they are in many cases.
I’ve not had experience with the SSPX. I do know their reputation, but have not been impressed since my impression is they do their thing and if you find them great but if not, well, they haven’t gone out of their way to find Catholics lost in the stream of FrancisChurch madness. They seem happy to do their thing and appear to have a deal with FrancisChurch not to try to sway anyone to come their way. It seems like they don’t make waves for FrancisChurch and FrancisChurch has agreed to leave them alone, maybe even invite them in, which makes me wonder how much money the SSPX may have in the coffers. Might they have homosexual predators just as FrancisChurch obviously does? Oh certainly, this should not be surprising. Maybe they will be transparent about the problem. Or not.
I have no more heroes except Jesus Christ.
Hi,
I found this forum recently via SSPX facebook group. What a great source of information and inspiration. This is my firsts post here. I am not sure if there is a custom of introducing ourselves here, but let me just mention that I discovered the Tradition in second half of my life 5 years ago and with a great help and guidance of priests of SSPX my faith started to live. In terms of the theology, my hero is Fr. Gregory Hesse.
As far as this article goes, I found this answer very very different https://news.fsspx.pl/2020/04/krotkie-rozwazania-na-czas-zarazy-posluszenstwo-czy-tolerancja. I do not have a ready translation but by the selection you can guess the content by the selection of quotes. I wonder why, the position in USA is so different, which seems to be kind of a compromise. Perhaps the crux is the fact, or part of the reason is assuming that covid is a real pandemic.
Best regards,
A.
One of my dearest friends worked in a rectory for over ten years as the Director of Religious Education.
She was put through hell the last five of those years . the pastor was an active sodomite with a boyfriend he assigned to work as a teacher in his Parochial school. I could fill a page with what he put her through in her late sixties /early seventies but for the sake of brevity ………..shortly after she quit and he raged at her, she was hit head on by a truck. Both a Extraordinary Minister and a priest popped their head in her hospital rooms on occasion. When the EM asked if their was a Catholic in the room she said ,”no”. she said the same when a elderly priest came around but he was curious enough to walk in and talk to her bedside……..
He listened intently and administered Extreme Unction at which point she asked if she was forgiven for leaving the Church. He said to her ,”My dear YOU did not leave the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church left you.”
She asked his name and he told it to her on condition she never mention he was there,…” because THEY will stop me from coming to visit the sick.”
The SSPX acknowledges Bergoglio as the Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church. Try defending that!
I hope she recovered. Hell hath no fury like a scorned woman or an angry homosexual, although I do feel narcissists are often in positions of authority. There should be no further illusions about the men who run our church. The book “Goodbye Good Men” gave us all a fine tutorial.
They are a vicious crowd.
Hi andy, you found a good location, Louie, who owns AKA Catholic, is a terrific blogger who writes thought-provoking material worth reading. You can count on lots of good information on actual Catholicism here. You may want to take a look at a subscription to the Catholic Inquisitor newspaper, which Louie created. The link is at the top right.
The TLM is the place andy, it’s good you found it. Keep in mind though, these are mere men we are talking about, sinful and imperfect, however good some can be. Only Christ is God.
Extremely vicious crowd fr sure! She wound up in an Assisted Living apartment for people in poverty in what she thought was a Catholic Nsg Home where she could attend daily Mass. Wrongo! The Diocese sold it to pay for the abuses of the largely sodomite boy loving clergy. after almost 2 decades of Diocesan employment she got a whopping 50 dollar a month pension.
Michael Rose made one glaring error in his book. He praised St Charles Borromeo seminary. MOST of our pansey priests were cultivated there and Bevilaqua was a one of the gardeners. Even his death wreaked of suspicion. He had cancer and claimed he could not testify about all the pervs in his files. On hospice he was given what is known as a “Comfort Pac.” in his “luxurious apartment” in the seminary.
A court rep visited him and deemed the recently seen golfing Cardinal capable of testifying. He died the night before he was supposed to .
First interview the Hospice nurse stated she held his hand at bedside when he passed. Second interview she claimed she was “outside the door”. Comfort Pacs contain multiple doses of morphine, ativan, tylenol suppositories and compazine or phenergan, usually kept in client’s own refrigerator.
His body was exhumed because the medications in his system came into question. The Judge ruled they were all appropriate for his condition…………
Sure , but in what levels ?
On Palliative care a lethal amount in suicide might not have been taken into consideration.
Truly satan and his minions have been very busy.
There is NO defense for Borgoglio.
Defensive. Always defensive. The SSPX ‘s S.O.P. is to defend themselves through denial then attack the messenger. Having attended chapels of the Society for 3 years, I have been taking mental notes, observing the behavior of Society faithful and keeping tabs on the communications coming from the District house and other sources. The disorganization is beyond irresponsible. Schools, camps, catechism classes, etc. could potentially be run by a predator, heretic or otherwise incompetent person. There seems to be little to no vetting of such positions. To be fair, many of these positions are held by competent individuals, including priests and religious, but if there are gaps to be filled, they will grab anyone with a pulse to fill them.
Hero worship of priests is prevalent with a cult-like attitude where they can do no wrong and no one is allowed to question them. Laity are to keep quiet because it is not their business to ask questions about how the organization is run. Those who do are considered dissenters. The Resistance priests and laity are considered such.
Something has been seriously wrong at the District level for some time. Perhaps it is because of the “branding” they underwent after hiring a secular advertising company to help them improve their image. Perhaps it is because of Fr. Wegner’s evasive and do-nothing attitude. What’s interesting is that he showed determination and strength in defending the perverted priest they invited to the Angelus Press Conference, despite the strong push back from the laity and the clearly scandalous nature of the speaker and talk. He really stood up for something then!
The Angelus magazine has become an example of Trad Light, and is nowhere near the calibre it once was.
The U.S. website is the same. There have been many embarrassing gaffes when it comes to what they have put out, only to retract when a reader calls attention to the absurdity of it. Two examples: advertising that hamburgers and hot dogs be served to the faithful after ordinations that were held on a Friday, and a picture of the female staff of the district headquarters office showing them all wearing tight pants. The resolution to both gaffes: a magical dispensation for the former and a cropped picture showing just head shots for the latter.
My point in sharing these things is to point out what I believe to be the true issue with the Society. They talk the talk but do not walk the walk. They are no different than their novus ordo counterparts. And with that comes the unfortunate reality that there are perverts among them and a cover-up operation to hide it from the laity.
People need to know the truth. There is no heaven on earth. The failed social experiment that is St. Mary’s, KS may be coming to a tragic end. Already they have announced an end to the boarding option at the school for next year. They are scrambling. The Plan to Protect program that they have just rolled out is a day late and a dollar short, not to mention that it is highly reminiscent of McCarrick’s similar attempt with the Dallas charter. Perhaps some will be fooled into believing that it’s to protect children and not just a legal way of protecting the organization. But, those of us who lived through the hell of 2002 know better.
On top of it all is the complete submission to the Plandemic and capitulation to the unjust and anti-Catholic “laws” that are being imposed. If we question the narrative, we’re conspiracy theorists!
The situation is disappointing and depressing. Where do we go and whom do we trust? Our Lady has foretold that all we’ll have left is the rosary and the sign left by her Son. That time seems to be quickly approaching. God help us.
Welcome Andy! God Bless you and yours. I encourage you to peruse Louie’s archives. You’ll get a good, Catholic education. Especially helpful are his commentary on Bergoglio’s “magisterium”.
Did you view this yet? Louie is certainly a Renaissance man! Enjoy and spread in this time of “pestilence”.
https://youtu.be/ZXh97lbuc9o
Thanks for bringing that up. The martyrdom of St. Thomas Becket didn’t come to mind as I read through the article, but this is a perfect case in point. I would add the memory of St. Thomas More, St. John Fisher, and the other martyrs of the English “Reformation” also.
Re. Where do Sedes attend Mass? Depends where one lives; if one is available, a sede Chapel; if not, a “Resistance” or SSPX Chapel. Never a Mass offered by a priest ordained by a bishop consecrated in the new rite of consecration. Some sedes will only attend Mass where the name of Francis is not mentioned in the Canon (“non-una cum”).
Welcome, Andy. These forums are often a good source of debate among people trying to lead a Catholic life during this time of apostasy and confusion, and Louie’s articles are often on the money.
–
In addition to A.K.A. Catholic, I would also recommend the website “Novus Ordo Watch” if you haven’t yet come across it. They have fantastic articles about Church news and Catholic teaching and an excellent podcast known as “Tradcast” that responds to many of the scandals of the Francis “pontificate”. All the best! Links:
https://novusordowatch.org/start-here/
https://novusordowatch.org/tradcast/
I’m delighted to see you use the word “peruse.” As you know, this word means the opposite of what most today think it means; that is, it denotes the act of reading closely, not casually.
Actually, a sede is free to go to mass anywhere they please or stay home if they please. There is no Pope, or Bishops with jurisdiction, or priests who have been appointed Pastors to govern the faithful in spiritual matters. Its a daunting reality that many traditionally oriented “catholics” find too unsettling so they stick with the indult groups or the SSPX. It took me a few years to leave the invalid indult masses and then a few months to leave the una cums of the SSPX. It is not an easy journey.
Thank you KyleOfCanada!
Yes, I came across NOW before but I am not so sure about the content and being sede myself. My reasoning is along of Fr. Hesse TBH https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGjNLFtWn3k
Best regards,
A.
Thank you Akita! I found this site as someone referred it while discussing MV background and the article “All the Men Behind the Opus Dei Curtain” by Randy Engel. It is an excellent one and sometimes I wonder if there is any follow-up to that specific story. In fact I posted a question there, but I am not sure if older posts are responded here to …
Theologically, I find myself on the very conservative side of SSPX teaching. It is far away from something which I call neo-trad movement. My lifeline and years of trying to reconcile myself with a legacy of JP2 and V2 ultimately failed when I discovered there is no real Catholic faith in me, and in fact never was before. That all worked as a giant spiritual vaccine and developed anty modernism antibodies in my mind. Happy to be here!
Best regards,
A.
Yes. Reading. A lot. The “The Holy Sacrifice Of The Mass V2: Dogmatically, Liturgically, And Ascetically Explained Hardcover” by Nicholas Gihr is an excellent book. I love reading older pure Catholic publications.
I will no longer assist at a mass in communion with a heretic. Only non una cum masses for me.
The SSPX nor any Catholic must obey a Bishop who closes Churches and denies the sacraments which are a right. The sad story is that they don’t realize this:+( God bless~
Yes, there has been much talk about the SSPX lately but surprisingly on the good side i.e. mainstream Trad leaders are learning and listening to SSPX arguments and agreeing with them. For Trad Dr. Taylor Marshall to attend a SSPX Mass and have SSPX priests on his show is showing progress for the Society. This is a huge win for the side of light thus the side of evil (with Our Lord’s permission of course) has allowed the SSPX to show their potential cancer with sex abuse. My hope is that the Society uses it as an opportunity to grow a spine and do the hard and right thing. Thus far, it hasn’t happened.
Bishop Sanborn had an interesting take as to why the SSPX has so many predators…he believes their desire to merge/come under a Novus Ordo Rome has influenced how they handle abuse cases and perverts in general. Their disastrous “soft approach” to criminal sex abusers reflect the Novus Ordo approach.
The war is heating up. I don’t think the SSPX leadership are monsters but they ARE ok with sweeping things under the rug. Why? B/c they have lost the sense of just how horrific sexual abuse by a priest actually is due to their connection to a corrupt Novus Ordo regime. That and they might be addicted to the power they have and picture of “purity” the Society has projected for many years. This is a leadership problem. If leaders were true Trads seeking holiness, they would have barred ALL sexual perversion from the seminaries and promoted brutal punishment (including public and secular) for those who attempt to harm the sheep.
God bless~
Welcome Andy:+) I enjoy Louie’s level of precision when writing. I hope you do too.
I’m not a fan of his recent leaning toward being Sede since that denies Our Lord’s promise to never leave us, that the gates of hell would never prevail and the practical consequences of the idea that 99.9% of even Catholics are heretics and doomed to hell due to lack of valid confession and the eucharist. Love doesn’t abandon. It stays, Just like Our Lady at the foot of the Cross. Thus Our Lord is staying with us in all of this, as is our wonderful Mother as the Passion of His Church continues.
I read many blogs including Ann Barnhardt and Mundabor. May God bless your journey into Truth and Tradition…and gear up for the battle…it’s a hot one:+) God bless~
Have you researched the BIP position especially presented by Ann Barnhardt. It makes total sense, explains the bat crazy we are enduring while still reflecting the character of Christ and His Church.
https://www.barnhardt.biz/the-bergoglian-antipapcy/
“Pope?” Francis is either an anti-Pope or the worst Pope in history. I am leaning more and more toward the former:+) I know it is hard to find true Catholic shepherds in this war but they are out there. One of them is Fr. Michael Rodriguez who Louie knows well:+) Another is Fr. Isaac Mary Relyea. I listen to them both when I need hope and encouragement:+) God bless~
My heart breaks to read your post. I too have dreamed of one day moving to St. Mary’s to finally be free of this godless, sick culture. Hearing these accusations has broken my heart too.
The priest’s homily this past weekend at the SSPX Chapel Mass online reflected what you noted too. *sigh* He basically said “Be quiet and be grateful you have the sacraments at all” along with “oh, it’s no big deal this happens everywhere” forgetting the sacredness of being a priest and the kicker? “your families have sex perverts too so you have no right to judge us.” Granted the above was couched in soft, “understanding” jargon and tone but the underlying message got thru…and on Good Shepherd Sunday no less? The priest is either utterly clueless, hyper defensive (of what? how is getting rid of the wolves a bad thing?), or a diabolical narcissist.
But I think you nailed it. This is a leadership problem. This is also an opportunity for the SSPX to grow a spine, rid the wolves, and be the example of Tradition it was supposed to be. My hope is that holy priests stand up and do something…and that St. Mary’s once again become the beacon of light for Trad Catholics it too was supposed to be. Our Lady of Sorrows, pray for us! God bless~
Hi,
I am not sure what rationale is behind an expectation towards SSPX to be perfect. But before I start, I must mention that it is going to be 5 years since I crossed the walls of their chapel. I usually attend one but in meantime I had been to more than 5 of their churches in USA and Canada and in general nobody I met or observed acted with that annoying pride, fake humility or subservience attitudes. I rather felt warmth, happiness and lifefulness. There was one priest, perhaps of some kind of colder or distanced nature, but he sincerely and patiently answered my questions and truly helped me to sort out my dilemmas. In fact, I later appreciated his somewhat distanced character. This is my experience.
But I also believe, to certain extend, the bad experience stories and testimonies. Let’s do a time machine rewind many centuries back when the NO Mass did not exist and TLM was just the only known Mass. The church back then experiences all kind of scandals, betrayals, heresies, false teachers, division, politics, schisms and all kind of evil one can imagine. The simple conclusion is that there is something else which matters here. And for the same reason SSPX is susceptible to that thing as well, in spite they are 1962. The questions is what it is?
Best regards,
A.
So on the human level,
Well said Catherine Sarto!
I was asked to work teaching at an SSPX Camp. Incompetence and poorly educated clergy puts it mildly. Children died thanks to ignorant priests emulating Hitler’s Youth Camps ……Little girls passed out en masse during sweltering outdoor activities in France. Purity meant keeping arms covered in 90+ degrees heat, most with layered clothing. Children drowned in the English Channel in a plastic dinghy without life jackets and unable to swim , thanks to Fr Cottard. Boys drowned at the Minnesota summer camp. Fr David Hewko had to be rescued with his boys (aka commandos) off of a New England mountain , many suffering from hypothermia.
Then Los Gatos brochures for camps, required parents to pre exonerate any priest , camp helpers and SSPX of untoward injuries and even deaths.
The problem with Ann’s thesis is that she’s already admitted Benedict’s a heretic anyway, so she’s torpedoed her own theory from the outside.
Ratzinger is certainly more eloquent and learned than Bergoglio, but that just makes his heresies less obvious. One example is documented here: http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=102&catname=15
Furthermore, as far as I’m aware, she’s never formally responded to N.O.W’s critique of her major video on the subject: https://novusordowatch.org/2018/11/benedict16-mysterious-resignation-reply-barnhardt/
Actually, having heretics as Vicars of Christ sounds more like the gates of Hell prevailing.
My heart is breaking too. Our family moved a great distance away from family and friends to be close to a priory with a school. We’ve also endured persecution for being associated with a group that is “outside the Church”. Now that the cult-like nature of the Society is beginning to surface, it becomes more difficult to justify our decisions. I am also having doubts about their stance. There are many inconsistencies due to their having one foot in and one foot out of the conciliar church.
As for your priest’s sermon, it may be helpful to understand that they will only preach what they are allowed to preach by their authorities when it comes to current events. What I have learned is that they all use the same talking points that are approved. Apparently, the talking point for this Plandemic is that it is not a chastisement, but rather a blessing. This rolling over to the communist takeover by civil authorities has been the most difficult thing to endure and we feel abandoned. This has removed the veil from my eyes. The Society may have some courageous and holy priests, but apparently they are being told to tow the party line. Some in good conscience will leave, but most will stay, as this type of control has been evident since the Bp. Fellay era.
To be fair, we have met and been spiritually nourished by several good and holy priests of the Society. The glaring problem I see is in the vow to fidelity to the Society that was once optional, but is now mandatory before they will be allowed to receive holy orders (subdiaconate). They are a priestly society of common life without vows, yet are required to make a solemn vow of fidelity to the organization. This is the problem, in my opinion.
May God bless you.
How tragic! These incidents could have been avoided with a properly organized and supervised camp, along with basic common sense.
My daughter volunteered at a camp and came back a bit scandalized by the immoral behavior of some of the girls. Eye opening to say the least.
I will never send my children to one of their camps. The bottom line is that the Society has families with serious problems just like the rest of the population.
“..being Sede…denies Our Lord’s promise to never leave us, that the gates of hell would never prevail”.
If you actually learned something about what you say is your faith (maybe you should try that?), you’d realise that that argument is completely spurious.
Dear Sweep and Catherine Sarto,
Your comments mirror my association with the SSPX. At first and for many years, I considered the SSPX to be the “savior” of the Holy, Roman Catholic Church. Every thing started to change around 2010. Some priests admitted they were “muzzled” with regard to their sermons. Their position re the N.O. church softened greatly. There also was a sense of pompousness which may have been instilled during their formation. Many priests were holy, dedicated and sincere until their mission seemed to change. It was no longer “restore all things in Christ”, but let’s go along to get along. Catherine, you comments really rang true for me. It’s really quite sad.
Adrian Vermeule would just kidnap their children and raise them as good Harvard Integralists.
It’s all fine and good to assert that the church is not subject to the purely secular authority and is even the watcher of the secular realm.
But what if the church- the human institution, that is- goes awry and into the wrong? For example, by promulgating a faith which is at odds with both reason and revelation as preserved in Tradition?
Or, what if the church is found to be engaged in great scandals contrary to natural law- like covering up the abuse of children and adolescents on a large scale?
What then? Who watches the watcher then?
I’d suggest that the problem with Ms. Barnhardt’s thesis is that she subscribes to what can simply be described as a highly ahistorical and downright fanciful notion of what the Roman papacy is.
“The simple conclusion is that there is something else which matters here.“
I’d suggest that what ultimately matters in
the midst of all the chaos these days is rediscovering the true foundation of our faith in Jesus buried under the rubble which the institutional church has been reduced to: Apostolic Tradition.
Typo- “rediscovering…” should read “recovering…”.
“And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” says Our Lord. The Church is a SUPERnatural institution. When things went wrong Our Lord raised up holy saints to address the problem i.e. St. Athanasius against the Arians, St.Catherine of Siena and St. Bernard against the Anti-Popes, St. Vincent Ferrer against the coming apocalypse, the Council of Trent against the Protestant heresies, Holy Popes against the Modernists and Liberals, Archbishop Lefebvre against V2 and the Novus Ordo etc. God will always keep His Word and protect His Church by sending His holy saints to speak the truth and fight for Him. We may be one of them:+) I think we all need to heed His call to fight the heresies and abuses in our day. God bless~
Whoops! Mistake there. It’s “The SSPX nor any Catholic must NOT obey a bishop who closes Churches…” Heck, our Catholic ancestors went from Church to Church processing with the image painted of Our Lady by St. Luke and the Eucharist to stop the plagues of Rome. We forget the power of the eucharist in protecting and preserving the physical body:+) In healing it too:+) God bless~
Fr. Hesse describes the heresies of the Counciiar Popes as being material not formal. And the Church has never formally announced via binding doctrine/dogma that a Pope who utters heresy is ipso facto out of the Church. Saints like Bellermine and other theologians might have considered the idea but consideration and dogma are too different beasts. If God willing their is a Vatican III after the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart, my hope is that the Church will settle this once and for all. God bless~
2Cents , you were Blessed as were all the sincere Catholics searching for a safe haven at St Mary’. I knew a family that wisely spent time out there for almost two months.Their eyes were opened big time.They heard Angles praising Hitler. He proudly claimed his parents bought Hitler’s Mercedes at auction ( a lie) .they were warned not to linger outside when Mass ended as Angles took note and accused anyone socializing after Mass o gossiping. They described the town as “The Twilight Zone” and their son was positive he met the next Unibomber there. A very nice and very Catholic family and very grateful to Our Dear Lord that they did not relocate there but decided to take the time to rent for two months talk to many residents and take a good look.
I think she takes into account several tributaries of what not only makes up the Chair of Peter but also of the Church in general. It’s more than just recent papal documents. It’s also Scriptural, historical and reflective of the character of Christ Himself. He IS the Head of the Church after all…it is HIS Body…thus we must take into account His words, character, and promises when considering the papacy and Church. The Sede position has consequences that are utterly horrific in scope and points to Christ abandoning the innocent of His flock who are clueless and weak from the diabolical disorientation of our time. The amount of hoops, education, understanding and access to information/resources necessary to even discover let alone live out the Sede position is ludicrous. So Ann’s theory might seem fanciful but it’s also true to the Deposit of Faith. A God who sacrifices every last drop of blood in His body for those He loves seems pretty fanciful too. But it’s true:+) God bless~
Disagree. Having 99.99999% of people who think they are Catholics, trying everything they can to be saints and participate in the sacramental and devotional life actually being in a state of mortal sin and on the road to hell is the gates of hell literally winning out…for they are getting ALL those souls. The idea that yes, we can have Popes who scurry around the precise protection of Vatican I’s infallibility and speak material heresy instead yet still have valid sacraments and people are in a state of grace is MUCH better. We’ve had material heretic Popes before. Francis is a whole other ball of wax…he is flat out formal…which is why there is a chance he is anti-pope…also due to their being two men in white claiming to be Pope. Wacky times. God bless~
I’ve spent the last 10 years learning the Traditional faith from old catechisms, papal documents, online classes, the saints, Scripture, the Fathers, Doctors etc. How can almost every Catholic going to hell b/c there is no Pope and thus no valid sacrament NOT be hell prevailing? God bless~
I agree…since +Fellay things have gone more Novus Ordo and centralized power and control. No wonder +Williamson left. On the one hand I am happy to hear that individual priests have helped and blessed you. On the other that the “cult” like atmosphere exists at all. I hope it’s just been the result of the leadership from +Fellay and his cadre (which have been reassigned from the headquarters). At this point I would just tell people who accuse you of leaving and cult following that you are just trying to find a safe place for yourself and your family spiritually in this time of chaos and darkness. What is better a Novus Ordo? Pfftt. NO. Some FSSP are ok but they are a mixed bag…some are way too Novus Ordo and I run from them. Maybe just finding a holy SSPX priest or two who you can trust and hope/pray not to have bad ones hit where you live in the future. It may get to a point where the sheep have to move every time their good shepherd gets reassigned to avoid the bad apples. But then again that is what sheep do, yes? Follow their shepherd…not vice versa. Oh what a world:+(
I’m reading a fabulous book on the saints called “Cultivating Virtue: Self Mastery with the Saints”. The month of April is on the virtue of Patience which really their wisdom on suffering. We are suffering SOOOO much not only from this evil society but especially from WITHIN the Church itself. Yet these saints are teaching me that suffering can be a great gift from God…a special sign of love from Him for it was the road He chose to take too. Hard to swallow but wisdom just the same.
I listen to priests I can trust online to get that sense of security back. Fr. Michael Rodiguez and Fr. Isaac Mary Relyea are my favorites. I hope you and your family find a holy shepherd who will give you peace too:+) God bless~
Yes, the muzzle. And every time Trads were desperate for someone in the Trad leadership to stand up to the evils within the Novus Ordo or world you would get the same limp response of “we are not here to fight the battles of the Church or world but only to support priests who wish to be Traditionalists”. Passive. And not a mention of us being the Church Militant, putting on the armor of God and fighting the good fight of faith. +Williamson saw it too which is why he wrote his letter to leadership condemning the change. He thinks they became enamored with the power and high living of Rome…the idea of being “regularized” and having access to the halls of power and privilege. And sadly all of us are paying the price. May the SSPX, it’s leadership wake up before it’s too late. There is no compromise with Satan…Our Lord proved that in the desert. God bless~
“The Church is a SUPERnatural institution.“
Only inasmuch as it was instituted by a Divine Person- Jesus.
Other than that, it is just as susceptible to sin, error and ignorance as anything else in human affairs.
That’s why the grounding of the institutional church has to be Apostolic Tradition- the tradition of God’s historical self-revelation in Jesus- and individual, manifest lives faith based upon that Tradition coupled with the natural moral law known by right reason.
I’ve noticed that far too many people, in trying to make sense of the ongoing scandal, crisis and confusion and even chaos in the institutional church, get hung up on things like hierarchy, formalism, devotionalism/pietism, and canon law. While all those are good things in their proper place and context, they are all secondary to Apostolic Tradition and are only legitimate inasmuch at they have their foundations in that Tradition. None of them are the foundation of our faith in Jesus by themselves, and therefore none of them will address the core problems we’ve been facing for so many years now.
For a list of sedevacantist Mass centres go to the Novus Ordo Watch website. Move the pointer to “Take Action” in the menu at the top and then click on “What Now?”. Scroll down to “Holy Mass, Confession, and the other Sacraments” and you will find links to Mass centres in the US and “the rest of the world”, as well as a map of them all.
MMC wrote:
“So Ann’s theory might seem fanciful but it’s also true to the Deposit of Faith. A God who sacrifices every last drop of blood in His body for those He loves seems pretty fanciful too.”
Respectfully, that’s a rather specious analogy. It’s also highly dubious that the papacy/Chair of Peter/Petrine Office-Ministry is in fact a part of revelation (which would make it part of the deposit of faith).
We base our faith in Jesus upon the eyewitness of His Apostles and disciples passed down in Tradition. The New Testament, primarily the four canonical gospels, is the preeminent part of this Apostolic Tradition which we receive.
I would argue that the Roman papacy on the other hand- such as it has been rendered into over the centuries culminating in the solemn declaration of infallibility at Vatican I- has no basis in that Tradition. It was a novel development which took place over the course of centuries. It is true, granted, that the Roman Church and in particular it’s bishop have enjoyed a certain prestige even from early times. But that prestige was based, I believe, upon the DUAL esteem which the early church had for both Peter AND Paul. To illustrate what I mean, consider all the parts in both the Ordo and Canon of the (traditional) Roman Rite which mentions “sanctis Apóstolis Petro et Paulo”. That phrase, I’d argue, contains the original sense which the early church has about its foundations in the Apostolic Tradition and how Peter and Paul expressed what was regarded to be the purest form of that Tradition.
Much more which could be written about this. But that’s all for now…
Evangeline, I assist at Mass at Most Holy Trinity Seminary in Florida. Go to CMRI.org website and check their directory. Also SGG.org and MostHolyTrinitySeminary.org and check theirs. Contact them because both organizations do a lot of mission work. There may be a chapel or mission within driving distance for you.
MMC, if V2 and the NO were propagated by the Holy Spotless Bride of Christ, then Hell also prevailed according to your logic. But Hell has not prevailed because there are still people with the Catholic Faith on Earth. They just don’t exist in the Novus Ordo sect.
@NobisQuoquePeccatoribus,
So what do you think the function of the episcopal office is in preserving apostolic tradition; and more specifically, what weight and authority do you attach to the declarations of ecumenical councils?
Playing devil’s advocate. Let’s say that a modern day unitarian / arian argues that the doctrine of the Trinity is not clearly set forth in the scriptures or the earliest church fathers. Yet he says that he fully recognises the messianic personhood of Jesus Christ and His atoning death and resurrection. Do you think that the Church still has the right (or even the duty?) to excommunicate this person based on the Trinitarian affirmations of Nicea and subsequent tradition in mainstream/orthodox Christianity?
In truth it is not Ann Barnhardt’s thesis. She expounds it very well. It is church law as promulgated by John Paul II. Benedict’s renunciation was invalid under canon law 332. He didn’t resign the munus which is mandated in the aforementioned canon. Hence his declaration, because it wasn’t a renunciation as such, was invalid and is null and void. There was no need for a conclave. The cardinals were remiss in not checking this, hence they were complicit in the Bergoglio regime coming to power. They all are now in schism. The man aka Francis is an antipope. Anyone with a sensus catholicus can see the horror of this communist devil. I understand that the sedes can maintain their position because they don’t accept that any of the popes since 1958 are popes, Bergoglio is just another one along the line. But those who are not sedes need to decide whose side they are on: Bergoglio’s or Pope Benedict XVI’s. If they believe, as do the vast majority of bishops and cardinals that Francis is Pope, they need to reconcile the fact that Christ lied, Peter can deny the faith, and that an infallible council V1 erred in its proclamation re a pope cannot be an heretic. I fall in line with BiP proponents, of which Brother Bugnolo at fromrome.info, is the most eloquent. He has his own videos explaining the case. For us non sedes it makes utter sense of the madness that has descended on the church. Bergoglio is an heretic, an heretic cannot be the pope, hence Benedict failed to renounce the papacy – and I would say deliberately so – then Benedict is still the pope. All the cardinals and bishops are in schism, for following an antipope. That is the horror that the world and the Church finds itself in today. But hold fast in the faith and the rosary
Like all the rest of the cardinals, bishops and clergy they are in schism from the true pope. Maybe this is a wake-up call for them to return to Peter, while the rest are too proud to do so.
paultdale wrote:
“…Christ lied, Peter can deny the faith, and that an infallible council V1 erred in its proclamation re a pope cannot be an heretic.”
I’d say that Jesus didn’t lie because He never said what both you and the sedevacantist camp claim that He said. Likewise I’d suggest that Vatican I did in fact err in declaring papal infallibility a part of the deposit of faith…much less a real thing in the first place.
Respectfully, both you and the typical sedevacantist proceed from a notion which I call a hyperpapalism.
Hyperpapalism reads back a meaning into the words of Jesus in Scripture which was never originally there in order to make them a sort of proof text that the Pope enjoys a divinely bestowed “infallibility” and an absolute, or perhaps better termed absolutist, primacy in all church affairs. Specifically “You are Peter…” from Matthew’s gospel and a few others, such as the episode in Luke’s gospel; “But I have prayed for you, Simon…strengthen thy brethren.”
It is highly dubious, at best, that these passages and others not mentioned here suggest anything of the like.
“ what do you think the function of the episcopal office is in preserving apostolic tradition…”
You sort of answered your own question.
“what weight and authority do you attach to the declarations of ecumenical councils?”
I’d say that that is a highly complex historical question more than a theological question per se. Sorry, there’s not enough time or space to write about it all in this venue. Plus, I’d probably be stretching the limits of my knowledge if I tried to.
“Let’s say that a modern day unitarian / arian argues that the doctrine of the Trinity is not clearly set forth in the scriptures or the earliest church fathers.”
I’d say that in this case your hypothetical person needs to do his homework.
“Yet he says that he fully recognises the messianic personhood of Jesus Christ and His atoning death and resurrection. “
Your hypothetical person has probably been drinking. LOL.
“Do you think that the Church still has the right (or even the duty?) to excommunicate this person based on the Trinitarian affirmations of Nicea and subsequent tradition in mainstream/orthodox Christianity?”
I’d say that Nicaea isn’t the ultimate basis for justifying any sort of legal sanction like excommunication when the issue is a core dogma of faith such as the one in question here. It is rather Apostolic Tradition, since what the synod
Constantine called at Nicaea did was reaffirm that specific part of Tradition. Furthermore, the symbol of faith we know today actually assumed its current form after a subsequent council at Constantinople.
Thank you all. Great discussion, and thank you Louie for having the blog and not censoring conversation.
@NobisQuoquePeccatoribus,
Thanks for your response. I suppose what I’m poking it is the standards of admission to Christian communion. Granted that Nicea/Constantinople were convened to articulate the Apostolic Tradition and their conclusions were Trinitarian, is that understanding of Apostolic Tradition now absolutely binding on the faithful for all time, such that any churches declaring themselves to be Unitarian ought to be excommunicated by the other churches; OR, should the Unitarians be tolerated as Christian brothers in the Church who simply have a defective understanding of the Tradition?
In other words, if the standard of admission to the Church is to be commitment to Apostolic Tradition, is there any authority which can define the epistemological limits/boundaries of said Tradition, or is it purely a matter of collaboration and consensus among the churches?
Obviously, Catholics appeal to the papacy, and both Catholics and Orthodox appeal to ecumenical councils, to set strict limits on our interpretation of the Tradition, the trespassing of which incurring the penalty of excommunication. Is this a legitimate use of papal/episcopal power, do you think? Are dogmatic definitions infallible, irreformable, and binding on the Christian conscience once and for all time; or are they something more like theological recommendations and guidelines?
NobisQuoquePeccatoribus
Being accused of hyper papalism from a novusordite? Now that’s rich! At least the sedes have a coherent position a as regards the pope, not one that I share BTW. But a liberal CINO coming on here not espousing sede/Bip and then not accepting that a validly elected pope, whom he must accept, JPII’s canons that he added early on in his reign. If you accept the validity of his papacy you must accept his canons because Christ does. You cannot pick and chose from the Catholic cafeteria to suit the weakest of all positions – recognise and resist. The extraordinary thing about canon 332 is that is deals with should the Pope resign/renounce. Why would JPII so early on in his then inspiring and invigorating position put that particular canon in the books when there hadn’t been such an event for over 700 years? Maybe it was the subtle hand of the Holy Spirit placing this into Church law ready for the very event in 2013. Because Christ is bound by those laws, and so is His Church; and that, I submit is the light that we should judge the current horror that sits on the throne of Peter. It is quite clear and rational that the declaration did not fulfil the canon governing should a Pope resign, hence it is null and void. Now the question is why did this happen? I do urge everyone to go to Brother Bugnolo’s site and watch/read. IMHO it is very compelling. All bar two of the episcopacy have fled for fear of the wolves, even ardent traditionalist bishops. Why, how did this happen? I submit that the degree of filth and evil and hatred for Peter in his pope was so great, that his life was threatened by the St Galen mafia, and Benedict knew how ecclesiastical masonry had killed JPI and that was the fate facing him. Brilliantly he sold them a dummy: they got their man on the throne, but they didn’t get the office. The man, Bergoglio, is an antipope, a devil, quite obviously not protected by the charism that Christ prayed for for those validly elected office holders, hence his apostasy. It is all clear as day. The See is not vacant, Benedict XVI gloriously reigns in his prison in the Vatican. He didn’t flee for fear of the wolves.
John Common- to answer your post briefly and concisely, I’d offer that Apostolic Tradition ITSELF coupled with the natural law are the dual final authorities in terms of institutional church affairs.
“Being accused of hyper papalism from a novusordite?”
It was much more of a remark than an accusation on my part.
That being said- after reading your post here, I double down on that remark.
For the record it is clear that you and I have radically different notions of what the papacy itself is. I’ve sketched out my notions of what it is (and is not) over time in the comment sections of various posts on this blog. Unfortunately comments are not aggregated by user so you’ll have to search for them (suggestion: select a post and press CTRL/⌘+F and type in my username), should you feel so inclined.
Apostolic Tradition includes all of the aspects of the Deposit of Faith i.e. Sacred Tradition (Oral), the Magisterium and Sacred Scripture. You write as if a) the Church herself is NOT indefectible b) the infallibility of the Chair of Peter as defined by Vatican I did not exist c) that the Church herself is not One, HOLY, Apostolic and Catholic. The Church may have members who are imperfect but she herself IS perfect i.e. her deposit of faith. She also has supernatural protection from error in the specific way Vatican I defined along with the promise that a) the gates of hell will not prevail against her b) that Our Lord would be with her always and c) that she would always be visible. All of these were prescribed to her by her Founder, giving her as well as her Founder a supernatural character. God bless~
The papacy not rooted in Tradition? Have you not read St. Ireneaus of Lyon’s “Against Heresies?” dated 180AD? Were you not aware that St. Clement, one of the early Popes, was called in by the Corinthians to settle a dispute when St. John the Apostle was still alive? Let alone Scripture itself via Our Lord’s own words proclaiming Peter as the Rock upon which His Church was built. Have you not read the histories of the saintly popes who saw visions, fought down the likes of Atilla the Hun? Apostolic Tradition MUST include those in the early Church who passed that Tradition onto us. God bless~
V2 was not a unanimous Council…if you read the history of it, +Lefebvre and other bishops fought back en masse against the modernists who took over. It’s why the documents spouts modernism AND orthodoxy at the same time. It was also a Pastoral Council, not a Doctrinal one. Thus the protection does not apply. And the Church didn’t give us the Novus Ordo…it wasn’t done in the proper way but on the sly. God bless~
MMC,
If you believe that Paul VI was a true Pope, then Vatican II is obligatory: http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=105&catname=10
Furthermore, a cursory reading of the documents of Vatican II and how they were promulgated afterwards suffice to show that they qualified to be an exercise of the universal ordinary magisterium, which is as equally binding as the extraordinary magisterium. In like manner, just because the Council called itself “pastoral” does not exclude doctrine in the slightest; after all, two of its decrees were labelled “dogmatic constitutions”.
To say that V2 did not speak doctrinally is to ignore the evidence.
One more thing.
MCC wrote:
“And the Church didn’t give us the Novus Ordo…it wasn’t done in the proper way but on the sly.”
This is also contradicted by the evidence: http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=19&catname=8
The Novus Ordo was not stealthily imposed on people piecemeal; it was publicly promulgated with language befitting actual apostolic authority. In other words, if Paul VI was a true Pope, then it follows – in light of Catholic doctrine about the Papacy – that the Novus Ordo *cannot* be intrinsically evil or harmful to souls.
That half a watt brain has let you down again. The SSPX Bishops aren’t perfect, but they are Catholic. The SSPX is the Church.
This post is close, but not quite over the target. In the course of this discussion we have the following from Leo XIII: “But, inasmuch as each of these two powers [Church and State] has authority over the same subjects, and as it might come to pass that one and the same thing – related differently, but still remaining one and the same thing – might belong to the jurisdiction and determination of both… ”
Believe it or not, this quote is Masonic, making a false distinction, as Leo does, between the natural and the supernatural in terms of jurisdiction, and acting as though the state has supreme jurisdiction over the natural, which it does not. This error derives from the chief malady of Russia as per Our Lady of Fatima, namely, Caesaro-Papism.
Even in the natural order, the Church is supreme. If the church builds a road or a monastery, the state has nothing to say about it. It can nowise enact any regulation or decree whatsoever concerning any church activity without any distinction whatsoever as to the spiritual or the material. Pertinent here is a long quote from the bull Unam Sanctum: ” We are informed by the texts of the gospels that in this Church and in its power are two swords; namely, the spiritual and the temporal. For when the Apostles say: ‘Behold, here are two swords‘ [Lk 22:38] that is to say, in the Church, since the Apostles were speaking, the Lord did not reply that there were too many, but sufficient. Certainly the one who denies that the temporal sword is in the power of Peter has not listened well to the word of the Lord commanding: ‘Put up thy sword into thy scabbard‘ [Mt 26:52]. Both, therefore, are in the power of the Church, that is to say, the spiritual and the material sword, but the former is to be administered for the Church but the latter by the Church; the former in the hands of the priest; the latter by the hands of kings and soldiers, but at the will and sufferance of the priest. However, one sword ought to be subordinated to the other and temporal authority, subjected to spiritual power. For since the Apostle said: ‘There is no power except from God and the things that are, are ordained of God‘ [Rom 13:1-2], but they would not be ordained if one sword were not subordinated to the other and if the inferior one, as it were, were not led upwards by the other.”
Concerning the issue of jurisdiction, this is necessarily a topic that falls under the issue of law. So let us review the hierarchy of law and order:
#1. Divine Law, as expressed in the Ten Commandments and the teachings of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
#2. The Natural Law, as expressed in the ontological order of creation and the relationships between creatures established after the fall of man.
#3. Customary Law and Tradition, as expressed in the immemorial doings of any given society, so long as they are not contrary to the divine or the natural law.
#4. The positive will of a the pastor, so long as it is not contrary to higher law. (Canon law is a derivation of this- though not by any means definitive, as ultimately a judge must decide if laws apply in particular circumstances.)
#5. The positive will of a person’s immediate superior, so long as it does not contradict higher law.
Now, the Church, in order to avoid conflict where prudent, may acquiesce to civil law (for example, following electrical codes) but it nowise has any absolute obligation to do so. Additionally, if a priest, God forbid, were to command against customary or natural law (for example, a monastery seizes private property to build a road), the state may duly interfere with such an illegality.
All that having been said, let us return to the issue at hand, namely, the Corona Beer Plandemic.If the Plandemic were real, the state of affairs as per the British Government and the SSPX would be bad enough. What nobody is addressing is the very real possibility that this is just a hoax to advance the Stalinist agenda that has been shoved down the collective throat of America since at least the end of WWI. Now, I understand that nobody wants to be labeled a tinfoil hat conspiracy nutjob, but who are the buffoons here, people doubting the official story of 9-1-1, or Dr Rachel Levine mandating people wear face masks when it says in black and white on the legal disclaimers of all surgical masks that one WILL NOT PROTECT a person from airborne pathogens?
Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us. You are our only hope.