While we must pray for a truly Catholic spirit to reign in the upcoming meeting between Bishop Fellay and Cardinal Muller, one in which Our Lord Jesus Christ is placed at the forefront of every initiative and desire, it would seem to me to be naive to expect any such thing.
There’s no reason whatsoever to believe that the condition for the Society’s canonical regularity expressed by Pope Benedict XVI (namely, affirmation that the entirety of Vatican Council II is an integral part of the tradition of the Church) is going to change any time soon.
In fact, given the current pontificate’s posture with respect to the Council, this meeting is more likely to result in the introduction of conditions that are even more ridiculous still, if one can even imagine such a thing.
Just look at what has happened to the FFI; a faithful and thriving religious order shackled for the high crime of a suspected “crypto-Lefebvrean tendency.”
In this environment, can any good will be anticipated from these very same men as it concerns those who proudly, and without apology, display a full blown Lefebvrean tendency? Please.
So, what do I think is afoot?
I suspect that this meeting, if not immediately, will lead to an ultimatum that the Society cannot, and should not, accept. The result of which will be little more than additional bluster from Roman hierarchs wherein the Society will be verbally ostracized all the more for adhering to the truths of our Holy Catholic faith as taught and lived and practiced prior to an ecumenical council that every pope during and since has repeatedly claimed changed nothing of the content of said faith.
Sound nuts? That’s because it is.
To which I say, big deal.
Don’t get me wrong, I would like nothing more than to see the SSPX regularized, but the plain fact is that the current regime in Rome does not sentire cum ecclesia; i.e., it does not possess the conviction of faith necessary to set the conditions for making that happen.
And so the question is, what more can the Holy See, under the direction of men of weak and wavering faith, do to the Society?
The answer as far as I can tell is nothing other than belittle them for their faithfulness, which will only serve to add to the ledger of offenses they have been leveling against Christ the King for lo these past five decades, the same for which they will one day have to answer.
God help them and God help us.
I am not optimistic for the outcome of this meeting. The SSPX continues to claim that an Ecumenical Council of the Holy Roman Catholic Church taught error. As long as that is the case, there can be no reconciliation. Of course this is very sad as those poor people who attend SSPX chapels are deprived of the sacramental grace of confession as the priests of the SSPX lack the jurisdiction necessary to hear confessions or officiate at marriages. Let’s pray that the SSPX will, in the words of Pope Pius XI, “return to their common Father, who, forgetting the insults previously heaped on the Apostolic See, will receive them in the most loving fashion.”
Even V2 declared it had no intention of teaching infalliby…read the nota previa, and then come back and try to be a more clever troll….
I really doubt that this meeting will have any “Welcome” signs posted for the SSPX. It, more likely, is a trap wherein Newchurch will announce that they tried everything possible to “regularize” the SSPX but because of their stubbornness, they have no choice but to excommunicate. I have great faith in Bishop Fellay. He is wise to their tricks. Ganganelli, do you have any more “red herrings” up your sleeve?
I fear that this meeting will only throw fuel of the SSPX resistance fire.
my2cents, I agree with you, and I find it interesting that this call to Rome directly precedes the October Synod. Perhaps the thought is that if the Society acquiesces to the demands for regularization in September, then anything “off” that may happen during the Synod will be unopposed?
Yes, I also sincerely doubt there will be any welcome mat anytime soon although I would love to be wrong about this. After all, calling a holy institute “crypto-levbrerite” is almost like a curse considering what has happened to the FFI.
John Vennari at Catholic Family News informs us of another meeting that will take place in Rome. In this case all of the participants are in “good standing” with the Vatican….
This takes us back to Australia’s Bishop Geoffrey Robinson, who is a keynote speaker at a pro-homosexual symposium in Rome on October 3. The gathering, called “Ways to Love,” is an international group of homosexual, bisexual, transgender people “to discuss about how to renew the pastoral care with a view of fully including LGBT people, and same-gender couples and families.” The purpose of the symposium is to lobby the Bishops at the October Synod for what they call “appropriate pastoral care of LGBT people.” Father James Alison, a “Catholic” priest theologian, and Sister Antonietta Potente an Italian Dominican nun (both in “good standing” with today’s Vatican) will address the “Ways to Love” symposium, along with Bishop Robinson and various non-Catholics.
P.S. The rest of the article by Vennari deals with how the synod on the family is likely to attempt to dismantle Catholic teaching regarding the Natural Law and the impact this will have on teaching of the Church regarding morality — especially sexual morality. (… picture total destruction as in carpet bombing of the Vatican or torpedos hitting the Barque of St. Peter.)
Repost from an earlier thread.
S.Armaticus September 5, 2014 3:21 am Reply
…. and this is how the modernists deal with the weak:
Visitation on the Franciscan Sisters of the Immaculate:
“Sister, you really should get out more” said the modernist to the cloistered nun. 😉
One other angle that needs to be mentioned here is that the strategy of modernist Rome is played out on many levels.
On one level, there is a nasty game of trying to cause internal dissent within the Society. Playing on “suspicions” of the Catholic Faithful, the modernist try to drive wedges between different elements within as well as outside the Society.
A good case in point is the BXVI/Fellay negotiations in 2012/2013. Every time Benedict came up with what looked like a workable solution, the terms from Rome changed. Now if I had a suspicious mind, I would suggest that BXVI was playing good cop/bad cop with the SSPX. The “whispered” version was that BXVI really, really wanted an agreement, but those bad, bad Bugninites in the Curia were sabotaging his efforts. Now on the surface, one can ”buy this version of events”, if not for the most obvious of logical contradictions, i.e. Benedict was a supreme sovereign. And since he was a sovereign, he could have done whatever he wanted, since he was THE sovereign.
And Francis is also a supreme sovereign, therefore he can regularize the SSPX anytime he wants, or he can excommunicate them whenever he wants, or he can take off his cassock and bark at the moon claiming that it is the will of the Holy Ghost. But until the cardinals remove him form office, whatever the lower echelons think, don’t matter the proverbial “hill of beans”.
So why the game you ask?
Well here is my take. Francis wants to FFI (“to FFI” is becoming my favorite verb) not only the SSPX, but also the Ecclesia Dei Commission (EC) and the rest of the SP crowd. He can’t do that until he pacifies the SSPX. He can’t afford for the EC to “re defect” back to the SSPX because the SSPX will only be strengthened. (Remember, the FSSP STILL does not have their own bishop, despite the years of promises.) So that strategy is a non starter. And he can’t touch the SSPX, since the SSPX owns all of its property, therefore the modernists can’t get their grubby hands on it. Remember the golden rule, i.e. he who has the gold, makes the rules.
And that is the present state of play. 😉
Which begs the question, why is Muller reaching out to Fellay now?
Yes the Synod is an immediate need.
But I do not think it is the real reason.
The real motivation behind this move is the situation that is playing out in the US. What we are noticing is a massive undercurrent back to Tradition. The US bishops are losing control over their ‘subjects’ ( remember that the Church is a monarchy) and are starting to freak out. Their problem is also financial, in that they depend on benefactors to cover their operating cost. With dwindling mass attendance and depleted trust funds (think settlements for pederast priests), they have a serious funding problem. At last count, 8 US dioceses have declared bankruptcy. So where is the money coming from? Well, they US bishops found a new donor base. A non catholic leftist donor base, the same one that is driving not only the abortionist agenda but also the homo agenda. “Faustian pact”, anyone?
So to tie up the lose ends, the “new benefactors” of the US bishops are benefactors of the US bishops for one simple reason, they need those bishops to change the “Church teaching” on moral issues. Remember, leftists can’t win a rational argument, since they are not rational themselves. So what they do is they try to “eliminate the completion”. And since they can’t just go out and call the Catholics racist, they need to subvert them in a different manner. And the weak spot is money. And because of the destruction of the Church over the last 50 years, this anti-catholic money has found a new home.
Rant over. 😉
Dear Louie and all, This article gave us an idea of where his heart is…
(translated from French) Excerpts from Bishop Fellay interview April-May 2014
Published in “Le Rocher c’est le Christ” –( “The Rock is Christ” ) n°88
The Rock: “.. where you’re going with this Pope?
—Bishop Fellay: “It is a Pope praxis: .. he wants to have a free hand in action. This is why when talking about doctrine, he speaks vaguely, very blurry.. What matters to him is men. If he feels sympathy for someone, anything goes. Pope Francis has not taken any steps to improve the dire situation of the Church. For him the Council is a rereading of the Gospel in the light of contemporary culture.. modern civilization. But this is contrary to the faith..
— Francis told us that the best illustration of the effectiveness of the council, is the new mass. We agree. But he says that’s fine, and we say it’s wrong, that’s the difference. …We do not have a Pope that brings order, we are moving towards a more confusing situation.”
—“The great danger is that this situation is causing impatience among us: some are tired and conclude that the current pope is not the pope. This has already begun. priests who left told us at the time of the election of Pope Francis, they did not recognize the election.”
Rock: “It begs the question: “What would Archbishop Lefebvre do today? ”
—Mgr: “.. We can learn from his mind, but we can not do exactly the same thing.”
—“For me right now things are very simple: we remain as we are.”… “There are still people in Rome who say it is with the Tradition that the Church will be restored.”
—“The Church can not break with its past.”
—“When Vatican II says the opposite of what has been stated previously, there is no “hermeneutic of continuity”
—“Conservation of faith and our traditional Catholic identity is paramount and remains our first principle.”
— “I asked as the supreme principle the need for canonical recognition.”
The Rock: “There are people who claim that Bishop Fellay is desperate to an agreement with Rome.”
—Bishop Fellay: “That does not make sense! I had to consider the Roman proposal in 2011 / 2012. Now it would madness. Where do they get such ideas?”
We must do all the good we can to save as many souls. Whatever good we can do in Rome will then descend upon the whole Church, and do good to thousands of souls. We must try. It’s normal, it’s obvious. It is limited for now, but it’s in the hands of God.”
The Rock: “Finally, what advice do you give your faithful?”
—Bishop Fellay: “Amid these concerns, the good of the whole Church must remain dear to every Catholic heart.” “..In a world increasingly hostile to the fulfillment of the commandments of God, we must have genuine concern to form well-tempered souls who take to heart their own sanctification and salvation of all souls.”
Go ahead and be optimistic. Miracles happen..
Even Pope Francis partially – repented (March 20th) making a public confession of his once doing the bidding of the voice of “the little thief” in him, and stealing a cross from a dead priest’s rosary, which he carries with him in a little pouch to this day because it makes him feel better when he’s upset and touches it.. That’s a start, anyway.
–Now when he realizes he has to take the second step and make restitution for it, there’s at least a small chance he’ll notice the parallel between that and what needs to be done to help make up for the attempted theft of clarity and the hermeneutic of continuity from the faithful by the would- be enforcers of VII and the New Mass. Good thing Paul VI refused with such vigor, to declare the Council dogmatic, and that such big pastoral mistakes can be reversed.
I agree that this meeting is merely a maneuver to silence the SSPX before and after the Synod of Heresy and Abomination set for October….just read the websites and face book pages of priests and religious the world over and you find that many of them want open apostasy from Christ under the mask of following Rome…
If the Synod apostazies from the faith, I am going to regard Bergoglio and those bishops as heretics and schismatics…
Dear Roman Watcher,
We read that this is only part I of a two-part Synod, to be completed next year.
Would they be likely to vote finally or promulgate anything in the first half, do you know?
“Of course this is very sad as those poor people who attend SSPX chapels are deprived of the sacramental grace of confession as the priests of the SSPX lack the jurisdiction necessary to hear confessions or officiate at marriages…” You know something, it is very sad that those poor people who attend novus ordo masses are deprived of the Mass of Ages and given a “prefabricated liturgy, a banal, on-the-spot product” instead (Pope Benedict XVI). Others suffer clown masses, pride masses and other sacrileges. This applies to those that still go to mass, since Pew research tells us fewer than 20% of Catholics attend Sunday mass anymore. How sad they can’t go to confession anymore either, because modern parishes after 1990 are being ***built without reconciliation rooms*** as mine was. Why build them, since Pew research tells us fewer than 10% of Catholics go to confession at least once a year. The new ecumenical church has no need of confessions. As for marriage, well, the majority of couples are uncontrite cohabitants or fornicators for years before relatives pressure them to marry in church. When they do marry, they’re not predisposed to receiving marital graces anyway. Such unions are on par with valid civil services and nothing more. Parish priests are happy to marry them regardless of their current cohabitation. You won’t find traditional Catholics in the SSPX chapel with this level of moral turpitude who isn’t already on his way to confession. Let God be the judge of the validity of those sacraments—not you, and certainly not the corrupt pro-homosexual lobby that currently runs the Vatican.
Personally I hope they openly teach apostasy with the upcoming Synod.
Clear, black and white on paper undeniable, unspinnable, unnonfallibleble apostasy.
So that finally countless souls can wake up to the charade that is the Vatican II pretend-church.
Wouldn’t the Vatican II Council be null&void if:
a)Cardinal Siri was the real elected Pontiff promptly forced to resigned (unlawfully)
b)Either John XXIII OR Paul VI were not valid popes
c)Traditionalists are right and indeed it is not binding
d)all of the above
About “the sacramental grace of confession” etc. wouldn’t be the same hold true for countless millions of Novus Ordites if indeed the new rite of Ordination is invalid as some claim?
Let’s assume it is (and that would explain why new rite exorcists perform rather badly as Exorcists, ie the demons not recognizing their authority and therefore the authoritative Roman Rite being uneffective), would that mean that God wouldn’t grant those innocent (mostly) people remission from their sins, even though they, in good faith, are aspiring to it?
So, in my opinion, that’s a pretty harsh judgement on your part in light of such not-so-remote possibilities.
It seems nothing will “wake up” such people who do not by necessity believe in the unchangeable, universal, Divine Deposit of Faith that the successors of Peter are required to protect and defend.
Could you please reference ANY document before 1963 that taught that an Ecumenical Council could be pastoral, therefore not dogmatic, and therefore teach error?
I do not trust ROME -I pray for the good bishop and he should be very carefull, these men play for kepts.
Hilarity! What does what you’re asking for have to do with reality? You do not take the word of POPE PAUL VI himself, the promulgated pontiff, who declared Vatican II to be “pastoral”, and that it did not bind the faithful to any new teaching of faith or morals?
As I said to you once before: Since Pope Paul VI told us that the conciliar documents intent to bind the faithful to any specific teaching only when they specifically state to, and DH makes no such claims regarding its novelties, it would seem you are actually the dissenter. You refuse to answer the simplest of questions about the council (“What are its actual, binding teachings?”)
Paul VI: “There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification, the Council intended to give to its teachings, knowing that it *avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the Church’s infallible teaching authority*. The answer is known by those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964. In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, *it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility*.”
An interjection here: *anything* less than infallibility implies the *possibility* of error – that’s what infallibility means.
Paul VI: “In view of the conciliar practice and the ***pastoral purpose*** of the present Council, *this sacred Synod defines matters of faith or morals as binding on the Church only when the Synod itself openly declares so*.” (Walter M. Abbott, The Documents of Vatican II)
Gangenelli thinks he knows better than the council’s promulgating pope. But, not, really, because he can’t tell us one single actual – specific – *teaching* of Vatican II (that is therefore binding on the faithful). It’s all a mess of vagaries to him, but he knows he likes it.
You’re a troll. And I don’t say that lightly, or without great cause.
What does “openly” mean? Only an attempt to bind the faithful by promulgating anti-doctrine would prove what the dogmatic sedevacantists claim. Of course they long for that, but I don’t think it will happen.
By the way, Louie, I think exactly what you think (about the meeting). It’s a “setup”, so to speak, after which they’ll wring their hands and whine, “See – we tried! Oh, Lord, how we tried!”
Sedevacantist already think they can prove what they claim, otherwise they wouldn’t be… Sedevacantists.
It would only prove “it” for some, maybe most, Traditionalists (I lost any hope for regular Novus Ordites, as I have heard MANY times from them that the Magisterium isn’t infallible/Dogmas can be changed/we need MORE reform).
Maybe you meant Sedevacantists long for it, so that more and more souls can be shown the truth and be snatched from their slumber?
Anyway, to answer your inquiry, what I meant by open is clear, direct, contradiction of doctrine, possibly outright denying or refuting.
In such a manner that only the most ill willed individuals could read it and spin it into some semblance of normality or orthodoxy.
Of course, you are right, that will never happen. The deception has to endure, but as I already said many times, I believe God in His infinite Mercy is slowly letting more and more come to the surface, so you never know.
Let’s hope for the best.
A timely reminder about Bergoglio and his church -and why no Catholic should ‘sign’ away their faith.
One for the “not another case of misappropriation”category: “Catholic” charity funds aberrosexuals.
Link here: http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/09/catholic-leaves-estate-to-fund-catholic.html#more
To understand why these people do what they do, you have to “follow the money”. 🙂
And one for the “Francis as social engineer” category: change for the sake of change.
Link here via PewSitter: http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/pope-s-morning-homily-good-news-brings-joy-renewal?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+zenit%2Fenglish+%28ZENIT+English%29
“St. Paul clearly distinguishes the children of the law from the children of faith: new wine in new wineskins – and this is why the Church asks all of us to change certain things. She asks us to let go of decadent structures – they are useless – and to take up new wineskins, those of the Gospel. One cannot understand the mentality of these Doctors of the Law – for example – these Pharisaical ‘teachers’: the style of the Gospel is a different style, that brings the fullness of the Law – yes- but in a new way: it is the new wine in new wineskins.”
For the above statement to be credible, one has to assume that the Church/Faithful did not take up those new Fransciscian “wineskins” yet, (2000 years after the fact), and only know, thanks to Francis noticing it, will this happen.
I think we are dealing here with a modern day Savonarola.
“One of you might say to me: ‘But Father, don’t Christians have laws?’ Yes. Jesus said: ‘I do not come to [abolish the Law], but to fulfill it.’ – and the Beatitudes, for example – the law of love – total love – as Jesus loved us, are the fullness of the Law. Jesus, when he reproves these Doctors of the Law, is taking them to task for not caring for the people with the Law, but making them slaves to so many little laws, so many little things that had to be done.”
So if I understand the above correctly, since Jesus did not come to “abolish the law, but to fulfill it”, on what basis/evidence is Francis suggesting that the “law has not been fulfilled”?
And if the law has not been fulfilled, whose fault is it? Is Francis suggesting perhaps, that the VII concept of religious liberty is wrong? Didn’t governments in Catholic countries eradicate all traces of Catholicism from their constitutions post VII. Surely that ‘distanced’ these countries citizens from the “new wineskins” that Francis is referring to.
Or maybe it’s that Francis has his own wineskins?
The utterly confusing musings of an utterly confused man.
Thank you for the MilesChristi link.
Money quote with respect to my post under number 16:
” ….Our Lord prayed for Peter’s faith and gave him the mission to confirm the faith of his brothers: «Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift all of you as wheat. But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.» (Luke 22:31-32)
Pius IX quotes these words of Our Lord in the Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus, from the Vatican Council, on July 18th 1870:
«For the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might make known new doctrine, but that by His assistance they might inviolably keep and faithfully expound the Revelation, the Deposit of Faith, delivered through the Apostles. And indeed, all the venerable Fathers have embraced, and the holy orthodox Doctors have venerated and followed, their Apostolic doctrine; knowing most fully that this See of holy Peter remains ever free from all blemish of error , according to the Divine promise that the Lord our Savior made to the Prince of His disciples: ‘‘But I have prayed for you, so that your faith may not fail, and so that you, once converted, may confirm your brothers.’’
This gift, then, of truth and never – failing faith was conferred by heaven upon Peter and his successors in this Chair , that they might perform their high office for the salvation of all; that the whole flock of Christ, kept away from the poisonous food of error by them, might be nourished with the pasture of heavenly doctrine; that the occasion of schism being removed, the whole Church might be kept one, and, resting on its foundation, might stand firm against the gates of Hell.»
The above IS Catholic doctrine. It has very little to do with “caring for people” and everything to do with “caring for souls”.
In his encyclical written before VII ended-” Ecclesiam Suam” 1964, Paul VI___
43 stated what he saw as “the Council’s fruits–already visible-
“the remiss-become good, the good-become better..drawn toward sanctity ..holiness..Love..virtue and Christian heroism.”
44- the council’s purpose: not removing-heresies or remedying disorders-infusing- spiritual vigor into Christ’s Mystical Body-purifying it-urging it to virtue.
45.to achieve this: “First rules: -no reforming the essential nature of the Church or its basic and necessary structure.”
“To use the word reform in that context would be to misuse it completely- brand the..Church with the mark of infidelity.”
–“preserving intact the living heritage of the original apostolic tradition–is our boast…we must guard this treasure, this “deposit,” as St. Paul calls it.”
47. ” we speak about reform- not to change things, but to preserve all the more resolutely -(that)which Christ has impressed on His Church.”
“No one should deceive himself- thinking that the ..majestic temple built to the glory of God, should be reduced to–its earliest days, as though this minimal form were the only one-genuine and lawful…We must love and serve the Church as it is”.
48. “We must-avoid another danger- not so much in us pastors, who are restrained by the proper awareness of our sacred duty-as in many of the faithful, who think that the reform of the Church should consist- in adapting its way of thinking and acting to the customs and temper of the modern secular world.”
Since the pastors apparently forgot that restraint, and the faithful are protesting the adaptations to the modern world, while all hell broke loose on earth, obviously, his vision was not the fruits we see so clearly before us now.
We agree that God appears to be letting this evil grow into the ugly-tree the devil planted, and that more and more people who have had their eyes averted may be brought to finally admit what they didn’t want to see before about the mess our leadership has become (with some wonderful exceptions).
—But we don’t think it’s going to bring them or any large number of others, to a point of feeling able to make a decision about the validity of the Pope or whether or not he is a “formal and material, pertinacious etc. etc. ” heretic, which all but the sede’s agree is for a council to decide. The Sede’s have every motivation during all of this, to stay Sede, as you pointed out before, for the same reasons that brought them to being Sede.
But all the polls and statistics (and experience) show that the “average” Catholic is content with condoning or ignoring unconfessed, unrepented sin. So the proposed further condoning of that will just tickle their ears and sew more “cushions under their elbows” and confirm folks like us in the belief that we have really bad leaders in the hierarchy today, who need more prayers so they can convert before God removes them forcibly as Fatima predicted.
Dear Lynda, (and all who feel this same frustration)
God instructs us for these times in 2nd Timothy:
….in the last days, shall come dangerous times..when they will not endure sound doctrine;–will turn away from the truth, unto fables.
..Having an appearanced of godliness, but denying the power thereof– Ever learning, and never attaining to the knowledge of the truth.
corrupted in mind, reprobate concerning the faith…..evil men and seducers shall grow worse and worse: erring, and driving into error.
But they shall proceed no farther; for their folly shall be manifest to all men.
But Thou, continue in those things which thou hast learned, knowing of Whom thou hast learned them; -All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice–…Preach the word: ..in season, out of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine.
But be thou vigilant, labour.. do the work of an evangelist, fulfill thy ministry. Be sober.
Like Bishop Fellay said, he’s too focused on man and attracting him with novelties–like he’s in his second childhood or never grew up–(which may explain why he’s not ashamed of stealing and keeping a dead priest’s crucifix.).
Matthew 6:33 “Seek first the Kingdom of God”, hasn’t seemed to register as a reason to be more concerned with where souls are headed, than with being likeable to “attract” others to the Faith.
–It seems the height of presumptuous-especially in these dangerous times, to assume you’ll be given more than one encounter with another person, i.e. time to befriend them enough to warn them “later” of the dangers to their soul from not repenting of sin and turning to Our Savior through His Church-now, while there is still time.
We need Jesus and some more knotted rope….ASAP.
We can’t help wondering if he has ANY belief at all in Divine Justice requiring the eternal separation of those dead in Mortal sin to be separated from the Faithful forever, in hell.
What is more troubling is that the man shows no sign of having supernatural faith.
Reading his “Jesus is love” musings, it would appear that there is no citing of Almighty God the Father, Jesus is a “little invisible friend” who helps Francis on his journey through life – and which he cites selectively, and the Holy Ghost is a figurative Deus ex Machina who plops down from the heavens whenever Francis works himself into a polemical corner and needs to be bailed out. Now the reason Francis needs the Holy Ghost is that he can’t defend this positions based on the Magisterium. And frankly, it would appear that he makes the stuff up as he goes along. And for this, the stage prop from Greek mythology is indefensible.
Ïn the last, “indefensible” should be “indispensable”.
More good news, this time from Austria with a Hungarian overlap.
Solemn High Mass for St. Stephan of Hungary. Link here: http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/09/solemn-high-mass-for-feast-of-st.html.
Since the election of the present government (PM Viktor Orban), there have been very positive developments in Hungary. Presently, the Hungarians are the only government that is fighting the satanic EU wide culture of death. One example is the government decreed several years ago that “religious” organizations can take over administration of previously public (public in the US (not UK) sense of that term) schools. The Lutherans have been leading the charge and taking over every school that they can get their hands on. The Catholics (modernist hierarchy) have been dragging their feet with a bunch mealy mouthed excuses for why they cannot take over schools. Even the schools that were Church property before the communists confiscates them in 1945. However, there are large undercurrents within the Hungarian church trying to change that. And it looks like the general population is supporting these initiatives. The remainder of what is commonly referred to as Central and Eastern Europeans are closely following these developments.
In Poland, it is very likely that the next government is going to resemble the Orban government. And the Catholic/patriotic/natural law grass roots are organizing on the Orban model. So hopefully, there will also be some very positive developments in the near future. Having said that, however, it also needs to be noted that there is serious “leftist” money being poured into Poland to stop this progress. In Poland, the fight is on the gender ideology front. The narrative is “bad church;good progressives”. But to its credit, and in the face of vicious anti Catholic propaganda, the Catholic Church is leading the charge against the gender ideology and the funding monied interests. And with respect to the monied interests, the sources are the usual suspects, the same who have “shoved” the aberrosexual agenda onto the St. Patrick’s Day parade in NYC.
These folks who are figthing the good fight needs our prayers.
St. Michael Archangel, ora pro nobis
Archbishop Lefebvre, ora pro nobis
Blessed Fulton Sheen, ora pro nobis
PS W/r/t the situation in Poland, if the Polish hierarchy could only ditch the modernist’s “JPII cult of personality”, it could become a domestic “force for good” not seen in any other country on this planet. But I guess that is why the monied interests are throwing the kind of money that they are at this “problem”.
Dear Indignus, S. Armaticus,
I think it’s fair to say that Pope Francis is still reacting to the image of the Church he formed as a child: an oppressive institution full of stern priests and dour spinsters. In all likelihood, he would have defected to Charismatic Pentecostalism in his youth if his family hadn’t been so darned Catholic.
Maybe we will all be surprised. All the weirdos who tried to undo everything that Benedict did may be thrown for a loop. We can hope, we can pray!
I totally agree that it’s a setup to be able to lay more blame on the big, bad, SSPXers.
We agree, rebellious childhood attitudes have been mentioned by him a number of times in his speeches and writings.
But he’s gone so far beyond the “let’s pull down the ghetto walls” and be friends, mentality, in promoting “unity without conversion” that a far more sinister agenda has reared it’s ugly head in the time he’s been Pope.
The most charitable thing to assume, is that he doesn’t realize he adopted the “what would Satan do?” approach, as opposed to the popular “what would Jesus do?” one. We’re sure God’s greatest enemies are delighted with a Pope Ignoring the dire need for all souls to come to accept their need for The Real Presence, Sacramental Confession/ Sanctifying Grace Our Lady and all the other treasures of the Church ..
Can anyone refer me to a short, clear, concise document on basic SSPX positions on collegiality, religious freedom, new mass, false ecumenism, innovations, etc, that I could use to show my traditional Catholic friends the font of the wreckages in the Church? Thank you. Mike
Of course Indignus,
the average “catholic” won’t be aware of whatever comes out of the Synod or he’ll be too ignorant to understand its implication, or he won’t outright care a bit (lukewarm, cradle, “catholics” which I think are the majority).
In the event something groundbreaking does indeed come out of it, as I said it’s those self-describing themselves as Traditionalists that would benefit the most.
I am convinced a significant percentage may find the courage to “flee Rome” so-to-speak, like Fr. Kramer did, after reading Francis’ declaration on the Old Covenant, which he considered, I believe, an incontrovertible sign of manifest heresy (or as c.188 C.I.C. 1917 says “A fide catholica publice defecerit” possibly).
I believe Fr. Kramer now regards Benedict as the legitimate Pontiff, after having embraced the Sedevacantist position for a short while.
Where there is no intention to bind, no binding arises. Where the wording is unclear, ambiguous, not appearing to propound a doctrine or not clearly in accordance with the unchanging Deposit of Faith or morals – then the relevant text cannot bind in any way. To suggest otherwise is to suggest the absurd, the impossible.
The only propositions that are held by the Church to be free from error are those that are definitively held to be binding on all the Faithful.
The Devil deceives. The true doctrine of the Church is clear and does not lead to confusion and anguish.
Dear S Armaticus, Amen!
Yes, Indignus Famulus. But it’s hard for a weak soul such as myself when it means hatred of family, etc., being expelled from society, as it were. Thank you. God grant us the graces we need to do your will.
Of course Lynda,
one has been shaped and built with the guidance of the Spirit, all other organisations and doctrines have another guide, the one who mentioned in your comment.
Following this very line of reasoning, one can’t help but wonder who is guiding the Vatican II organisation (describing itself as “Catholic Church”)?
Isn’t the notion of an intermingling of sorts, between Satan and the Holy Spirit (occasionally dropping by) in the same Church a blasphemous thought, at the very least?
If you go to the following link: http://archives.sspx.org/sspx_and_rome/bishop_fellay_econe_sermon_11-9-2012.htm, you will find what you are looking for.
The page at http://sspx.org/en/articles-index is the general archive page of the SSPX.
On an aside, it appears there is a new book coming out in the US in which Francis is presented as the role model for corporate executives. The Faithful are seen as customers. It fits right in with the religion of man. And in that spirit, I commend you for being a “discerning customer”.
Very many thanks. Peace & Blessings.
That far off land called pre-Vatican II, when everything in the entire world was perfect.
One would think that the world was a better place then than it is now.
One might also think that all of the Popes up to Vatican II were fine fellows and were utterly Catholic.
Pope Alexander VI Pope Calixtus III Pope Innocent X are all worth reading about.
Julius III was the very incarnation of evil.
Perchance, since Pope Francis style is so whack he might just give the SSPX everything they ask for and they will be regularized soon.
One never knows with Pope Francis.