As presumably readers are by now well aware, news of another “Black Mass” has been making the rounds for the last several weeks; this one scheduled for September 21st at the Oklahoma City Civic Center where a consecrated host is allegedly going to be desecrated.
On August 19th, the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City filed a lawsuit against the organizers of the event.
“Our contention is that they are in possession of stolen property,” Archbishop Coakley told the National Catholic Register. “We are asking the court to order them to return it immediately to me. We hope this is a way that we can prevent the desecration of the Eucharist from taking place…”
Well, apparently the threat of legal action was enough to force Adam Daniels, the organizer of the satanic event, to reconsider. Yesterday, he returned the host to the archbishop through his attorney.
Adams denies, however, that the host was stolen.
The Oklahoman reports:
He said he acquired the host from a Catholic priest in Turkey who consecrated it and mailed it to him. Daniels said the priest, whom he refused to name, was killed recently by Muslims in Turkey because of his satanic beliefs.
I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that this disciple of the father of lies is probably telling tales.
I’m also going roll the dice here and say that Archbishop Coakley’s desire to protect the Blessed Sacrament from desecration, while perhaps realized in the present case, is very difficult to reconcile with the way in which Holy Communion is distributed throughout his diocese.
Consider, for example, how Holy Communion is given at Christ the King parish in Oklahoma City (in the video below); a parish that by all indications appears to be a model of “neo-conservative” Catholicism:
While there doesn’t appear to be any theft of the Blessed Sacrament taking place in this video, anyone paying attention cannot help but notice just how easy it would be if one was so inclined. Just look at the number of people who take the Eucharist in their hands and then briskly walk away; neither the priest, nor the “Extraordinary Laywoman” have any clue what is happening next.
There’s no telling how many times Our Blessed Lord in the Most Holy Eucharist has been pocketed, only to be desecrated by some spiritually dead moron like Adam Daniels.
Needless to say, this isn’t a problem in Oklahoma City alone, and Daniels is just one of God only knows how many depraved souls who are involved in satanic activity. Is anyone really so naïve as to think that every time such people plan a “Black Mass” they also necessarily rent a public facility and advertise their wicked intent?
Sure, it is conceivable that a person could take communion on the tongue only to remove it from their mouth shortly thereafter, but let’s not pretend that the risk of profanation in both cases is equal. Even Pope Paul VI – the great destroyer of the sacred liturgy and soon-to-be saint of newchurch – knew better.
Look, it’s all well and good that so many in the Catholic world were moved to pray and fast as the spectacle of the Black Mass in Oklahoma City approached, and I’m pleased to see that the host has reportedly been returned, but until we cease handing out the Most Holy Eucharist like Halloween candy to every Tom, Dick and Harry that sticks out his unconsecrated hand like so many Trick-or-Treaters, please spare me the victory dance.
You do know that wasn’t the CONSECRATED Host they returned, don’t you?
Many will be terribly upset with this obvious statement cause, of course, it would be totally beyond satanists to get a pack of communion wafers and hand over one of those while retaining Our Lord for later desecration; moral pillars of society that they are.
They handed over a blank….DO NOT STAND DOWN.
Communion on the tongue!!!
We should use occasions such as this to educate Catholics on the importance of receiving the Blessed Sacrament on the tongue directly from the consecrated hands of a priest and over a paten to ensure that any lost fragments are ultimately consumed. We should also petition our Bishops to discontinue the practice of communion in the hand altogether. Although we would like to think that Bishops would be sympathetic out of nothing other than the desire to show fitting reverence to our Eucharistic Lord, the instance of Black Masses – which, I think, will only become more common in the future – demonstrate clearly that we are not doing all we can to prevent such acts of sacrilege. While the outrage directed at satanic tools like Adam Daniels is entirely justified, we should not be afraid to express righteous indignation when Bishops are not doing everything in their power to prevent such things from happening in the first place.
Louie,
You make an excellent point (as usual). The post-conciliar church either doesn’t believe in the Real Presence or does believe and doesn’t care. They will never openly admit to their unbelief. They will only behave to show their unbelief (Modernism!!) If the New Order Church DOES believe, they are even more at fault for allowing the desecration you describe. I don’t know which scenario is worse! That is why the Rite of Benediction makes no sense in the N.O. church. This beautiful ceremony gloriously proclaims the True Presence of Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament on exposition to be adored by the faithful. Why would you do that when the Sacred Host is manhandled at every “mass”??
How many Novus Ordo Masses are simply black masses of another kind? And every single Sunday in a so called ‘catholic parish’ at that.
–
Sixteen Century Protestant Martin Bucer: “Something introduced [communion on the tongue] out of a double superstition: first, the false honour they [Catholics] wish to show to this sacrament [the Body of Our Lord], and secondly, the wicked arrogance of priests [Catholic clergy] claiming greater holiness than that of the people of Christ [laity], by virtue of the oil of consecration…although a time of concession can be made to those whose faith is weak [Faithful to Christ and His Bride] by giving them the Sacraments in the mouth when they so desire, if they are carefully taught [boiled like frogs] they will soon conform themselves to the rest of the Church [Protestant heresy] and take the Sacraments in the hand.”
–
Fast forward to the spirit of Vatican II. Montini and his successors, dancing alongside their ‘alien to the faith’ theologians, granted indults for communion in the hand until it was ‘universal’; whilst at the same time deceitfully upholding the ‘idea’ of the Real Presence they promulgated the idea of multiple dilluted ‘presences’ – dissolving Christ and therefore doing the work of antichrist. Wojtyla presided over ‘youth masses’ where plastic bags of consecrated hosts were thrown around the crowd. By their fruits.
–
At least since the days of St Gregory the Great the Roman Church received our Lord on the tongue and there is ample evidence that this practice was universal before the high Middle Ages; why? Because communion on the tongue was a sign of the Real Presence, that the consecrated Body of Our Lord should not be touched by anything not consecrated to Almighty God – be it corporal, chalice or priest’s hands.
–
Whatever the practice of reception of our Lord in the early Church, in ‘Work of Human Hands’, Fr Cekada wisely points out that, ‘Communion in the hand (like communion under both species) conveyed no heretical message in the Church’s earlier days. But the advent of Protestantism and modernist heresies on the nature of the Eucharist and the adoption of communion in the hand by heretics in order to spread those errors [transfinalization, transignification (that is diluting the True Real Presence to mean various ‘presences’ in the assemly and the things of the mass)] has changed the context forever…the gesture of communion in the hand conveys just one idea: I repudiate the dogma of transubstantiation” Work of Human Hand: Rev. Anthony Cekada, Philothea Press.
p.s. in my parish communion on the tongue is not permitted.
That is an interesting quote from Fr. Cekada. It seems to echo in spirit Pope Pius XII when the latter writes, in Mediator Dei (#62):
“But it is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device. Thus, to cite some instances, one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive tableform“ (emphasis added).
Well the Satanic Masses spreading round, might at last cause some Bishops to rethink “Communion on the hand” and see that the old practice of “Communion on the tongue” was actually prudence and devotion in action!
So much for the pastoral theology of Vatican II era!
This article says it all!!
http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/944-mass-confusion-why-all-valid-masses-are-not-equal
Hi Friends,
I forgot to add (re above comment) to especially read the Paul VI quote in red under Novus Ordo Missae.
The question is WHY? –any takers out there, including you Louie!!
Dear my2cents,
–
I read the whole of Paul VI’s 1969 address and, frankly, I’m sickened. After painting a nightmarish image of the wanton destruction of our liturgical patrimony which, as Paul VI himself ensures us, accepting the new Missal will necessarily entail, he offers two reasons for pressing ahead:
–
1. Obedience to the Council.
2. Renewal of prayer.
–
It’s so bad it makes my head hurt. You can read it here:
–
http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P6691126.HTM
Dear Louie and all,
On a small note of hope–what this post describes is no doubt what led to the turn-around in Cardinal Ratzinger’s stance on the new liturgy in the first 25 years after the council. In the preface to “Reformers” 1992 he wrote: “[We] have a liturgy which has degenerated so that it has become a show”.
__
Its heartening to see his other comment becoming a reality too: “Consequently the trend is the increasingly marked retreat of those who do not look to the liturgy for a spiritual show-master but for the encounter with the living God in whose presence all the ‘doing’ becomes insignificant since only this encounter is able to guarantee us access to the true richness of being.”
===
Matthew 24:31 says, “And he shall send his angels with a trumpet, and a great voice: and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds.” “Trumpet” (as a verb) means “a resounding call”. And that best describes what we heard from our own hearts the first time we attended a TLM as adults, after 40 years of the N.O. Perhaps this ongoing ” rapture” from N.O. pews on Sunday, is a major part of God’s hidden-in-plain-sight- plan to retore His Church -simply by calling us back to remain liturgically faithful to our “first love” where we most easily find Him.
___
And God bless every dedicated priest who works so hard to make this possible. As Matthew 24:45-46 also reminds us “Who, thinkest thou, is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath appointed over his family, to give them meat in season. Blessed is that servant, whom when his lord shall come he shall find so doing.”
Dear salvemur,
This is very informative and so true. We remember the scandalous photos of young adults passing the Eucharist back over their shoulders at some of Pope John Paul II’s youth meetings. But you put the whole picture together here.
Dear Matthew,
Amen to all you say here with special thanks for the reminder that Catholic action is needed now more than ever. Ignore all battle fatigue and press on to finish the race–just as pro lifers have been doing for 41 years without giving up despite apparently insurmountable odd..
Dear All,
–
Please watch the following short but powerful video.
–
http://youtu.be/YVjVNb4bSnU
Then, if I may be so bold, why is it your parish? Find an ICK or FSSP or even an indult Mass, or best yet, an SSPX chapel.
—–
(If you reply with any sede stuff I’m not going to respond so have at it. :))
Catholic parishes are not permitted to not permit the receipt of the Blessed Sacrament on the tongue. Practically, I find closing one’s eyes as one prepares to receive means that the priest cannot try to force you to receive in the hand (which, of course, are joined together) or engage in any kind of conversation. The worst he can do is just not give you Holy Communion. I think the vast majority would just give the Blessed Sacrament on the tongue in such a situation. If a priest doesn’t, one may complain to the relevant bishop who is bound to correct him.
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/kazakhstan-bishop-urges-greater-devotion-to-eucharist/
In most churches, the Blessed Sacrament is treated in a way that strongly conveys a disbelief in the consecrated hosts being the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord and Saviour. The treatment of the Blessed Sacrament at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass ought to bring people to conversion, repentance and a stronger Faith.
Dear Lynda,
If only all our Bishops sounded like this one in your link.
“When I recognize all the richness and deepness and divinity of the Eucharist of the Lamb of God, before whom the angels prostrate themselves in heaven – as we read in the Apocalypse – then I also have this spontaneous, natural desire to prostrate myself when I receive Him.”
–As 30% of the population of Moslem land these days, they need our prayers.
It’s a novus ordo ‘parish’ which i no longer attend. I also no longer participate in any mass that pretends before God Almighty that Bergoglio is a ‘servant of God’. Some people accept this exile, most don’t.
Bergoglio is not a ‘true believer and professor of the Catholic and Apostolic Faith’ – who with a wit of faith would dare to argue in the positive? his words and deeds and fruits declare him to be no faithful servant of God and His Church – therefore how can any priest justify lying before God during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass each Sunday? Word is there are many SSPX who do not include this lie, and good on them.
St Basil The Great: “Religious people keep silence, but every blaspheming tongue is let loose. Sacred things are profaned; those of the laity who are sound in their faith avoid the places of worship as schools of impiety, and raise their hands in solitudes, with groans and tears to the Lord in heaven…Only one offence is now vigorously punished—an accurate observance of our father’s traditions.” Worth repeating, “Sacred things are profaned; those of the laity who are sound in their faith avoid the places of worship as schools of impiety, and raise their hands in solitudes, with groans and tears to the Lord in heaven…” I ‘avoid’ such ‘places of worship as schools of impiety’, simply because that’s what the Church tells us to do. The only difficult thing about all this is not fighting the Faith but simply following it.
–
“It is not a sin to miss Mass due to great distance or other serious excusing circumstances.” A mass offered ‘in union’ with the followers of Belial qualifies, don’t you think?
–
p.s. none of this is about Bergoglio himself. I don’t hate him. I pity him, as if someone rather dodgy had just got tasered, excepted he hasn’t. It is about the honouring of representatives of a false-faith – modernism, universalism, religious indifferentism, the traitors against the Truth, the promoters of sin (basically ‘Judas’) – before Almighty God during the most holy thing on earth, the Sacrafice of the Mass. It should not happen. The liturgy is now such an optional creature, why doesn’t every single priest who thinks Bergoglio is dodgy simply choose to leave out his name and the name’s of any faithless bishops? Imagine how pleasing stopping indulging in this lie before God might actually be?
p.s. the above comment related to #4.
The trouble is that when a practice is accepted as ‘universal’ by the ‘church’, a priest has every ‘right’ to base his decision upon the wieght of that. Communion in the hand is the standard practice of Newchurch. It’s not for nothing that Benedict coined the phrase ‘Extraordinary’ for a form of liturgy that was and remains the closest thing to an authenic ‘natural’ liturgy left in Newchurch – what a contradiction.
God never closes a door without opening a window:
–
http://www.fathercekada.com/2014/07/31/what-to-do-if-you-have-no-mass/
With due respect, we disagree with the conclusions of this priest, and think his advice is harmful to souls. We’re sure he is not under condemnation from God for being “luke warm”, but his beliefs have led him to reject available reception of the Sacraments so necessary for life of the soul, that he imperils his own and others, IOHO.
salvemur,
Please be careful that you don’t succumb to getting your ears tickled. Finding excuses to avoid what we really really dislike, may be making our yoke too light. We must remember that the way is narrow. From my point of view, that means we could stray on either side. IMHO, Fr. Cekada and his like are straining at gnants to justify themselves. However he doesn’t stop there but accuses those who disagree of various grave sin.
— From: Forum › Sacred Liturgy › Do you ever attend the Novus Ordo?
Sheildmaiden offered the following quote from a pre-Novus Ordo Catholic:
“The only cure for sagging or fainting faith is Communion. Though always Itself, perfect and complete and inviolate, the Blessed Sacrament does not operate completely and once for all in any of us. Like the act of Faith it must be continuous and grow by exercise. Frequency is of the highest effect. Seven times a week is more nourishing than seven times at intervals.
“Also I can recommend this as an exercise (alas! only too easy to find opportunity for): make your communion in circumstances that affront your taste. Choose a snuffling or gabbling priest or a proud and vulgar friar; and a church full of the usual bourgeois crowd, ill-behaved children – from those who yell to those products of Catholic schools who the moment the tabernacle is opened sit back and yawn – open necked and dirty youths, women in trousers and often with hair both unkempt and uncovered. Go to communion with them (and pray for them). It will be just the same (or better than that) as a mass said beautifully by a visibly holy man, and shared by a few devout and decorous people. It could not be worse than the mess of the feeding of the Five Thousand – after which our Lord propounded the feeding that was to come.”
– The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, Letter to his son.
—– Abuses to, with and at the liturgy are not confined to the Novus Ordo innovations.
Re.: quote from St Basil: Four years after he writes: “Matters have come to this pass: the people have left their houses of prayer, and assemble in deserts, – a pitiable sight; women and children, old men, and men otherwise infirm, wretchedly faring in the open air, amid most profuse rains and snow-storms and winds and frosts of winter; and again in summer under a scorching sun. To this they submit, because they will have no part in the wicked Arian leaven.” Ep. 242. Again: “Only one offense is now vigorously punished, – an accurate observance of our fathers’ traditions. For this cause the pious are driven from their countries, and transported into deserts.” Ep 243.
–N.B. It appears they’re not missing Mass, but going to some rather extraordinary lengths to attend.
–N.B.2 – Catechism of Trent teaches form & matter are required. The words of the consecration are the same, “This is My Body–This is My Blood–(even many vs. all is not required). Also, with the rite of ordination, essentials are still present.
P.S. The Irish valued the Mass so highly, they braved torture for themselves and their Children rather than skip one Sunday:
—Ireland, 1649. The Catholic faith is banned…churches are desecrated, then closed. A bounty of ten pounds is placed on each priest’s head. Those captured are hung until nearly dead, their stomachs cut open with cleaving knives, disemboweled while still alive and then beheaded. Finally, their bodies are chopped into four pieces. Anyone found harboring a priest is hanged immediately.
— Nevertheless, it is Sunday and you owe an obligation to God that is higher. Arising at midnight, your wife readies the children for the long, chilly walk outdoors. In darkness the family silently marches.. toward the mountain- into the thick green trees.
— Before a massive rock, Irish men, women and children kneel on the heather. Sentries stand watch.. A curtain is pulled around an altar built of loose stones.. book, tablecloth, wine, water, bread. No one can see those behind the sanctuary curtain — and thus could never be forced to identify who offered them the Blessed Sacrament. In the black stillness, “Introibo ad altare Dei,” intones the older voice. “Ad deum qui laetificat juventutem meam,” replies a younger one.
— After the consecration, a line forms quietly behind a protruding rock near the sanctuary curtain. Each takes a turn kneeling on the cold stone, as a voice says, “Corpus Domini nostri Jesu Christi custodiat animam tuam in vitam aeternam. Amen.” A hand reaches out from behind the veil and places a Communion Host on every tongue.
— After the reading of the Last Gospel, most scatter in different directions to escape detection. A few stay behind to have their confessions heard. Afterwards, only a boy and a man remain, hiding any evidence of what occurred. With the man’s blessing, the youngster heads off into the woods. Finally, the man, his priest’s kit stowed safely under his arm, slips into the forest, disappearing like a thief in the night.
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=6414
“A mass offered ‘in union’ with the followers of Belial qualifies, don’t you think?”
——-
Have you approached your Parish Priest about him offering worship to Satan? Or do you just like to talk tough on forums? —–
Your dabbling in sedevacantism has sent your pride and holier than thou attitude into hyperdrive. You claim to not hate but you sound like someone struggling with anger and hate. It never fails. That’s how I can tell sedevacantism is false. All the adherents turn into angry, foul mouth, bitter, pride filled folks that judge and condemn others. I have never met a sedevacantist that displays patience, meekness, humility, love, kindness, etc.
One for the “spirit of VII” category:
_______
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/deaconsbench/2014/08/another-catholic-newspaper-ceases-publication/
_______
Coincidence? Causality? Either way it shakes out, the result is the same.
Self mutilation, anyone?
_______
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2014/08/nyc-whats-up-at-our-savior-church-where-fr-rutler-used-to-be-pastor/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wdtprs%2FDhFa+%28Fr.+Z%27s+Blog+-+What+Does+The+Prayer+Really+Say%3F%29
_______
Take that Ratzingarians. 😉
The SSPX recommend avoiding ICK, the Indult and the FSSP.
Could you clarify your question? Why what?
The Orthodox Mass is Valid, but not licit, and it is a Mortal Sin for a Catholic to attend an Orthodox Mass. Likewise Father Hesse has stressed it is a serious offense to attend the Novus Ordo. Your error is in comparing the two as if they are equal when they are not.
Fr. Hesse, demonstrating through Canon Law, and so forth, demonstrate that attending the Novus Ordo is dangerous.
And finally, those early Christian ceremonies were NOTHING like what those nice old ladies at the LCWR would have us believe….
________
http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2014/08/two-recent-articles-of-interest.html#.U_omhGM0dKo
_______
nor like those claimed by Bugnini and his protestant periti! 😉
P.S. salvemur, I don’t know your situation, I’m not judging what effort you would need to exert to attend Mass. I was just offering encouragement to seek out the sacraments as best you can…
Christopher,
I would submit that the Church has determined the penalty for attending a schismatic Orthodox Mass. Fr. Hesse, (may he rest in peace), could only offer an informed opinion born out of a well-formed conscience, but an opinion nonetheless.
The Church also condemns attending Anglican services, and given the nature of the Novus Ordo with the admission of it being a representation of the Lord’s Supper, and deliberate Protestantisation, it would be logical to conclude that the Novus Ordo would be dangerous to attend. Hence why the SSPX state that it would be sinful.
–
‘The Lord’s Supper, or Mass, is a sacred synaxis, or assembly of the people of God gathered together under the presidency of the priest to celebrate the memorial of the Lord. (Pope Paul VI, Institutio Generalis, §7, 1969 version)’
‘They [the keys handed to Saint Peter] will never cease to be durable, they will last forever, and they will never break’ God the Father’s words to St. Catherine of Siena against Sedevacantism
As it’s very ON topic to discuss these differences due to Louie’s bringing up major defects in the N.O in his above post, we’d just like to say thanks to all who have shared their viewpoints with passion, about the N.O, the indult Mass, FSSP, SSPX, Sede vacantism, etc. as personal representation is much more informative than most other forms of learning about them.
—-We’ve observed that each group here, obviously believes their ideas are clear and certain, and that all the others are wrong for various reasons; while there exist enough twists and turns and overlaps in the theologies behind all of them, to make sorting this all out not nearly as easy as it might seem to them. To the “average”(whatever that really means) less-informed Catholic, that may be an impossibility. We clearly see a great need for Divine intervention to re-unite us all–the likes of the Miracle of the Sun, and continue to pray for all of us, with passion.
—These things really matter, so we’re inclined to excuse some of what looks like bitterness, as the fruit of legitimate frustration, as we’ve had to work at keeping ourselves in check for the same reason, quite often, but this is intended as just another view, not a refutation of James the Lesser’s last comment. God Bless us all. 🙂
Dear Christopher, and A Catholic Thinker …
Does the SSPX really consider it sinful to attend the N.O.? We got the opposite impression a while back from A Catholic Thinker. Is that our mistake or are there opposing views within the SSPX on that matter, do you know?
___
In either case, we personally do not believe it to be so.
Well, of course they do, when an SSPX Mass is available. They do *not* teach the faithful not to attend Tridentine liturgies when the other option doesn’t exist.
—–
As I have posted here a number of times, my family & I attended an ICK parish for five years – it was our main introduction to Tradition. I feel for ICK priests who understand the root causes of the crises, because none of them are free to speak frankly about such things, even though the good of the faithful requires it.
What unites Traditionalists are: the criticism of Vatican II, and the criticism of the Novus Ordo. What divides the Traditionalists is whether or not they are willing to accept Vatican II and the Novus Ordo.
–
It is thus, in a summarised breakdown: SSPX vs FSSP, Indult Mass, ICK, and the N.O. One against Four. And the question to any Traditionalist is simple: Can you really accept teachings in Vatican II that are contrary to the Faith, and are blasphemous? If not, then you will find the SSPX to be a sanctuary, else, go to the others. If you notice, the SSPX are really the only ones who are at odds with Vatican II, they are the only ones who cannot accept the Doctrinal Preamble. And that is not a viewpoint, but an objective assessment of the facts, personal opinions are quite irrelevant.
–
Sedevacantism is not Catholic.
‘If the Novus Ordo Missae is not truly Catholic, then it cannot oblige for one’s Sunday obligation. Many Catholics who do assist at it are unaware of its all pervasive degree of serious innovation and are exempt from guilt. However, any Catholic who is aware of its harm, does not have the right to participate. He could only then assist at it by a mere physical presence without positively taking part in it, and then and for major family reasons (weddings, funerals, etc).’
http://sspx.org/en/faq-page/what-wrong-novus-ordo-missae-1987
–
‘Now, a “protestantized” (in itself) and a “protestantizing” (for the mentality of those attending) Mass cancels the obligation to hear Mass on Sundays and holy days.
The Church imposes the obligation to hear Mass “in the Catholic rite,”[3] but a protestantized rite cannot at the same time be characterized as Catholic. Moreover, a “protestantizing” rite exposes the faithful to “considerable spiritual harm,” which is one of the strongest reasons exempting from the Sunday obligation of assistance at Mass. And as it involves danger for our own faith and for that of our dependents, for whom we are responsible before God, we must say that whoever is conscious of this danger, insofar as he is conscious of it, far from satisfying the Church’s precept, rather commits a sin against faith [by attending the N.O.M.].’
http://sspx.org/en/must-catholics-attend-new-mass
They condemn them on the grounds of the silence of the clergy, and the potentiality of modernism being preached in the sermons and intentions of those within the FSSP, ICK and of the celebrants of the Indult Masses.
Mea Culpa, forgot the link: http://sspx.org/en/archbishop-lefebvre-indult-mass
My experience of the FSSP has been that the problematic parts of Vatican II and the Novus Ordo circus are acknowledged as such when the situation calls for it, but no effort is spent in ferreting them out. Instead, there is an emphasis on true doctrine and the hope that, at some point in the future, the current issues will be clarified and/or rectified so as to make them consonant with what the Church has always taught. In practice, Vatican II is simply ignored, unless it is to point out why the traditional practice is better and should be continued. The faith taught from the pulpit and in catechism classes is orthodox. Traditional devotions are also very much supported.
–
Personally, I don’t have any problems with the SSPX. They clearly uphold the faith, and have the best interests of the Church in view. Yes, they tend to look down upon the FSSP, but I don’t take it as an attack. I’m greatly pleased every time I hear of SSPX ordinations, new seminaries, etc., and I pray for their continued growth. The same goes for ICKSP and similar groups. At the same time, I have a lot of respect for those priests who celebrate both the Old Mass and a truly reverent New Mass, like the FSJC. Those guys are fighting a tough battle, and need our prayers.
–
I think there can be at times too much focus on Vatican II and technicalities. They are certainly important, and the problems need to be resolved, but over-emphasis on them can obscure the fact that what unites us is not criticism of Vatican II, but rather genuine love of Christ, His Church and the authentic teachings of her Magisterium. If I find those things in a person, I don’t care if they are SSPX, FSSP or Novus Ordo. I see them as a brother or sister in Christ with whom I can cooperate in the work of saving souls.
Bishop Athanasius Schneider is the only apparently-holy priest I have ever met in person. His simple books on the Eucharist are beautiful – they speak to the soul. If 10% of priests/bishops had the Faith and did their duty as this bishop does, the Church would come back to its proper state in not many years. Blessed Michael protect Bishop Scneider and all holy priests.
In Hillaire Belloc’s 1938 book “The Great Heresies” he dedicated the last chapter to the “modern” phase and amazingly predicted a new-level of totally pagan cruelty, as a more devastating threat to the future, than the sexual revolution. After discussing material atheism, governments, and attacks on the moral order and Tradition, he offers only two options left for the Church:
1.–her being reduced to a small band of mostly ignored Faithful Catholics, following the Pope and awaiting Judgment day;, or
2. –her strong reaction, (as she did to the “Mohammedan threat), joined with “a “small minority of men of strong character” “who can think best and feel strongly”..,”who have mastery of expression” are.,” powerful in human affairs, who..”take the risk to accept the Faith, proclaim themselves defenders of it , and battle against her enemies–now that the issues have become so “black and white”, with the Catholic Church on one side, and her enemies on the other. “There is no Christian religion”, he says, (referring to an imaginary unity with Protestants in our cause) there are not many churches, there is only one. It is the Catholic Church on one side, and its mortal enemies on the other.
=====
It seems God has allowed the devil to combine those two scenarios to form an even greater chaos, with the Chair of Peter occupied by a man not leading against these enemies Belloc describes, but telling us as the Council and much of the Hierarchy also directs, to leave them unconverted, and “walk with them”. It is any wonder the small band of still-reasoning faithful are divided? ——Our Lady said at Fatima, “only I can help you”, and her Divine Son has threatened His ministers because they fail to carry out His wishes and do as she requested. Apparently we need to persevere and pray, with the assurance that in the end, both these irrevocable gifts of God, Faith and reason, will triumph together..
Re: a few comments above regarding the ‘mortal sin’ of missing a protestant mass !?!
–
The church that was born upon the elevation of Roncalli is an increasingly naturalistic ‘ethical’ society. Its ‘popes’ have repeadetly taught that any false religion is salvific (now even atheism?!), that any ‘christian’ service/mass/worship is of value (according to Bergoglio of equal value) to a so-called Catholic Mass – its ‘popes’ frequently worship with false religionists, pray with them, encourage their false religions. This Newchurch ethical society is in direct contradition the Church of Christ and Her mission.
–
Look, any Catholic who has not, at some point since the reign of Pius XII, found themselves in a state of Catholic ‘aporia’, never knew the Faith to start with (unless of course they belonged consciously to the enemy) – these people are not metaphorical sheep but simply ‘real’ sheep, wantonly blind. The way I see it most Catholic’s who did experience aporia at the dismantling of the Catholic Church, her doctrines, disciplines and liturgy right in front of their eyes simply allowed their anxious disbelief to become ‘intellectual indolence’ – or ‘Faith indolence’. Archbishop Lefebvre, the recongise and resist, and later those who came to be labelled ‘sedevacantists’ are the ONLY ONES who did not succumb to this ‘indolence’ of the faith and intellect. The arguments against the validity of ‘recognise and resist’ put forth by sedevacantists are sound. Therefore those who have succumbed to ‘indolence’ in the least measure are the sedevacantists.
–
Pope Pius XI stated that to bring in converts to the True Faith is the Highest Form of Charity, which fulfills more than any other Christ’s command that we ‘love one another’. This charity has been utterly perverted by the Newchurch ethical society ‘popes’ as has the whole mission.
–
To state before God and His worshippers that Bergoglio is a faithful servant is a lie. If there are to be any prayers for the Newchurch post-papal ethical society’s ‘pope francis’ it should be for the conversion of that ‘perfidious (without the faith)’ Bergoglio, for the saving of his own and the souls he has misled.
–
What i would guess from some of the above comments, their point of view is that it was wrong for St Athanasius and St Basil to forgo the ‘schools of impiety’. The irony being that the new ethical society known as Newchurch has aggiornmento-ed ‘the faith’ beyond such ‘silly’ ideas as EF or OF mass attendance being in any way related to ending up or not ending up in hell.
All Catholics know, or should know, what the ‘power of keys’ is. This power was given by Christ to His Apostles who handed it on to those authentic sons of the Apostolic Body. A few weeks ago, Bergoglio insisted that a protestant, a layman, be given a ‘Cathlolic’ Episcopal Requiem Mass. Bergoglio has consistently taught that the ‘power of the keys’ is non-apostolic (irrefutably non-apostolic by any authentic Catholic teaching) – perhaps his aim is simple to deny the ‘power of the keys’. Newchurch and its doctrine of ‘assembly as the real presence’ has created disciplines and a liturgy that implicitly and explicitly teach that if there is a ‘power of the keys’ it is non-apostolic – even the reading of the Gospel used once to require the oil of consecration, now such readings, and other priestly actions (power of the keys) are ‘handed over’ to the unconsecrated. One can claim that Newchurch’s main thrust is to dissolve the Apostolic Body and proclaim religious indifference and universalist teachings. This is not Catholic. It is not the successor of the Faith of the Apostles. Most ‘catholic parishes’ now have ‘liturgy of the word’ communion where, barring that attempty at least of consecration, every ‘apostolic’ action is taken over by lay people – and if one’s conscience refuses to participate in these actions, one either leaves or is bullied out. I advise people suffering from the novus ordo ‘sin’ of piety to simply leave; shake the dust off your sandals and leave; no one (I presume) has a gun to your head.
–
Surely the black heart of Newchurch is the destruction of the Real Presence – belief in the Real Presence and the actual Real Presence by tampering with the prayers of consecration and by creating new ‘rites of ordination’, both priestly and episcopal, thereby actually destroying Apostolic Succession and placing in parishes with the name ‘catholic’ the world over, layman who niether have the power to consecrate nor the power to absolve – there is no wonder that people who call themselves Catholic are weakening into protestants, atheists, pseudo-jews, muslims, and pagans as we speak. And often becoming haters of the True Faith and the True Church. They niether have the Body of our Lord to heal or sustain them, nor the balm of asbolution to restore God’s grace in them – and the new ‘rites’ themselves reflect this ‘absence’. Sister Lucy wasn’t lying when she predicted that for many all they would have is the Holy Rosary and the Sign of the Cross.
p.s. some important Ignatian (of Loyola) points:
–
1. God punishes spiritual lukewarmness, indifference and negligence.
2. God tests us, showing us how we are utterly dependent on Him.
3. God cuts short our pride by humbling us.
–
How could the Bride of Christ have been seemingly eclipsed/desolated by this increasingly naturalistic-non-apostolic ‘ethical’ society called Newchurch and its ‘popes’? Because the Faithful neglected to hold to the obvious and long proclaimed Truth they knew and practiced which had been Faithfully given to them by two millennia of the ‘power of the keys’; instead they preferred and prefer to follow the ‘pleasing’ words (doctrines, disciplines and liturgy) of false shepherds.
A link for the “future reference” tabs:
______
http://www.pblosser.blogspot.com/2014/08/is-gay-sex-good-for-anyone-brute-facts.html
______
Money quote:
“Gay activists deliberately pain a picture of homosexual life, especially among men, that is the counterpart of heterosexual life. Their purpose is to avoid alienating support from sympathetic heterosexuals who constitute the vast majority of people. For example, one activist handbook [M. Kirk and H. Madsen, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays, 1989] advises: “In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be portrayed as victims…. Persons featured in the media campaign should be … indistinguishable from the straights we’d like to reach.” Another [M. Kirk and E. Pill, “The Overhauling of Straight America,” Guide, November 1987, p. 24] advises: “The masses must not be repulsed by premature exposure to homosexual behavior itself.”
_______
Destructive lifestyle choices…..
‘Re: a few comments above regarding the ‘mortal sin’ of missing a protestant mass !?!’
–
No, it’s a sin to attend a protestant mass.
perhaps someone should tell one of the recent ‘popes’.
Dear salvemur,
We can only speak for ourselves, but none of the arguments we’ve reviewed so far, have convinced us that the position you promote so vigorously is right, and if the N.O. Mass is able to provide the reception of the Real Presence, it seems harmful to urge people to avoid it when they have no other alternative where they live.
—Because these challenges and divisions exist, we are still reading the argument-pro and con, and since we are honestly and always seeking to know the truth, if we ever become convinced we were wrong, we will readily admit it.
.
They’re back…. again. 🙂
_______
The proper schemas of V II. Link to the story here: http://thewandererpress.com/frontpage/vatican-ii-the-rejected-schemas/
_______
Money quote:
“The primacy of the father as head of the family is taught and explained. “Although as human persons the man and the woman have the same dignity before God and enjoy full equality of rights in the matters that constitute the essence of the marriage contract, still the man naturally presides over the whole family, over the wife as the companion to be especially honored and loved, and over the children who are to be nourished and educated” (n. 25).
_______
Real reality. 😉
We live in ‘interesting times’. I would hazard to guess, even more ‘interesting’ than that of the Arian heresy. I understand that all earthly authority is ordained or permitted by God Almighty; and St Paul tells us we should submit to this in as far as it does not endanger our souls/put us against Christ. There has never been a teaching in Christ that demands we submit to a false shepherd – we are commanded to eschew false teachers and prophets as ‘anathema’, to have nothing to do with them; most certainly not to pray with them, not to say ‘God speed’ to them, not to associate with them. Here’s a question, which ‘Vine’ are we cleaving to? Putting aside the ‘validity’ of the manufactured mass and ordination ‘rites’ of Montini which have everthing to do with protestantism and nothing to do with the Faith, those who simply believe that Bergoglio is a true shepherd (Christ’s Vicar and protected by the Holy Ghost) must admit that Bergoglio niether requires nor asks that anyone convert, let alone attend mass. He niether repudiates sin nor encourages natural morality, let alone holiness. He niether expounds the True mission of Christ’s Bride nor adheres to the Truth proclaimed by the (at least obvious) Successors of St Peter, and he most certainly does not require that you or I do so. So if anyone permits that Bergoglio is a fruitful branch of the True Vine, that person must have no argument with sedevacantism whatsoever in principle because the ‘new’ branch of the ‘true’ vine does not ‘papal’ fidelity. Then again, if a person does not believe that Bergoglio is a fruitful branch of the True Vine, that person must know that if Bergoglio ever was ‘faithful/fruitful’ he is cut off and thrown ‘into the fire’ so to speak, at least until he convert while he still draws breath. For myself, the true branches belong to the True Vine. The ‘species’ of today can be no different than yesterday. The Church is not up for ‘genetic modification’, neither is our Faith. But by the standards of the new ethical society, sometimes termed the post-concilliar or Novus Ordo or Newchurch, ‘schimastism’ is an outdated term – a notion and belongs to a defunct ‘catholicism’.
p.s. that should be ‘does not require ‘papal’ fidelity’.
Dear Matthew, a few problems emerge:
–
1) ‘My experience of the FSSP has been that the problematic parts of Vatican II and the Novus Ordo circus are acknowledged as such when the situation calls for it, but no effort is spent in ferreting them out. Instead, there is an emphasis on true doctrine and the hope that, at some point in the future, the current issues will be clarified and/or rectified so as to make them consonant with what the Church has always taught. In practice, Vatican II is simply ignored, unless it is to point out why the traditional practice is better and should be continued. The faith taught from the pulpit and in catechism classes is orthodox. Traditional devotions are also very much supported.’
–
The silence on Vatican II is one of the great issues that really needs to be addressed. The faithful at the FSSP will not have the slightest clue if they adhere to Traditional teachings Regarding Religious Liberty versus Modernist teachings, and wording such as ‘why the traditional practice is better’ merely makes the issue sound like personal preference. EWTN not so long ago had a show which showcased the Tridentine Latin Mass, and the impression that it gave was as if the Tridentine Latin Mass was just another form equal to the Novus Ordo. That is condemnable given it’s nature (more below). There is the potentiality of the condemnation of Modernism and it is precisely that reason why the SSPX avoid those masses.
–
2) ‘Personally, I don’t have any problems with the SSPX. They clearly uphold the faith, and have the best interests of the Church in view. Yes, they tend to look down upon the FSSP, but I don’t take it as an attack. I’m greatly pleased every time I hear of SSPX ordinations, new seminaries, etc., and I pray for their continued growth. The same goes for ICKSP and similar groups. At the same time, I have a lot of respect for those priests who celebrate both the Old Mass and a truly reverent New Mass, like the FSJC. Those guys are fighting a tough battle, and need our prayers.’
–
They look down on the FSSP because of their compromise, and the potentiality of modernism. There is no truly reverent New Mass, a truly reverent New Mass is still Protestant. The SSPX are not just criticising the abuses that occur in the N.O. but are criticising the way it was intended, in the Latin, as Pope Paul VI wanted it. ‘The Novus Ordo Missae, even when said with piety and respect for the liturgical rules, …is impregnated with the spirit of Protestantism. It bears within it a poison harmful to the faith (An Open Letter to Confused Catholics, p. 29) ‘ http://sspx.org/en/faq-page/what-wrong-novus-ordo-missae-1987
–
3) ‘I think there can be at times too much focus on Vatican II and technicalities. They are certainly important, and the problems need to be resolved, but over-emphasis on them can obscure the fact that what unites us is not criticism of Vatican II, but rather genuine love of Christ, His Church and the authentic teachings of her Magisterium.’
–
Vatican II is just like the Arian Crisis, it’s the Elephant in the room that cannot be ignored. Yes, the genuine love of Christ, His Church and the authentic teachings of her Magisterium unite Traditionalists, but Traditionalists, despite their love, are still at odds with one another. The reason is simply Vatican II.
–
4) ‘ If I find those things in a person, I don’t care if they are SSPX, FSSP or Novus Ordo. I see them as a brother or sister in Christ with whom I can cooperate in the work of saving souls.’
–
Even though the Novus Ordo is basically Protestant, of which attending can place a soul in sin?
Salvemur, you must demonstrate how material heresy equates formal heresy, simply because they do not. And given that there has been no formal declaration, and the Pope is never 100% infallible, you are simply in error on the issue of Sedevacantism. Your position is simply the polar opposite of Neo-Catholicism, and neither are Catholic.
It would simply be more straight forward to demonstrate how a ‘pope’ is capable of being ignorant of the Faith and teaching against the Faith in ‘innocence’. It would also be more straight forward to show where in Church teaching the Faithful are required to eschew Christ and become disciples of any heretic. Further, unless anyone is willing to accuse the Holy Ghost of being a consistent formal heretic (it is beyond reason to insist that a ‘bishop of rome’ is ignorant of the fundamentals of the Faith) the only conclusion is, ‘sedevacante’.
Christopher,
–
In my experience of the FSSP – I’m in Europe, so I don’t know how things are in the US except from reports – there isn’t any kind of forced silence on the issue of Vatican II. As I said, when necessary, the problems are pointed out and contrasted with tradition. In adult catechism, which almost everyone in the parish attends, our priests demonstrate a clear grasp of the issues involved. When a question arises as to the interpretation of some point of Vatican II, Father first makes sure that everyone understands the traditional teaching, then discusses any apparent differences between tradition and Vatican II. The most palpable difference between the FSSP and the SSPX in this regard, as far as I can tell, is that, whereas the SSPX priest would then go on to say, “And this is where Vatican II teaches error,” the FSSP priest instead says, “And this will require further study and clarification from Rome.” I have never seen one of our priests twist himself into knots trying to explain problematic passages from Vatican II so as to cosmetically smooth over any difficulties. They are acknowledged, but there is always hope that the situation will eventually be rectified.
–
As for the liturgical abuses so common in the Novus Ordo – and in my part of the world, they run rampant – our priests openly warn against participating in such things. No, they will not condemn the Novus Ordo rite in toto, because, when it is properly said, it is a valid Mass. And, unless I’m mistaken, the SSPX admits as much. Where they differ, as far as I can tell, is that, while the SSPX maintains that the Novus Ordo rite is inherently detrimental to the faith, the FSSP maitains that it is only conditionally so.
–
Ignoring any legitimate points of disagreement, I think the thing that really rubs the SSPX the wrong way is that the FSSP gets the traditional Latin Mass, the freedom to teach orthodoxy, and the full approval of the Holy See. All they have to do in return is remain obedient to the Magisterium and preserve hope that the situation will eventually be rectified – the very same things to which Archbishop Lefebvre originally agreed in the 1988 Protocol. For this, the FSSP is accused of everything from having compromised the faith to being in bed with Satan. Fine. I understand that the SSPX fears intervention if they were to make a similar agreement – in fact, one could say that the fate of the FSSP is closely tied to the position of the SSPX – so I sympathize greatly with them. And it is nice to see the occasional demonstration of solidarity on the part of the SSPX towards the FSSP, as was shown after the tragic death of Fr. Kenneth Walker. But whereas there is a real ecclesiological dispute to be had with sedevacantists, I think any doctrinal differences between the SSPX and the FSSP are more imagined than real. The ways in which the two fraternities have chosen to deal with the Vatican II crisis diverge greatly, but I don’t see any reason to beat each other up over it.
Dear Salvemur,
From what you wrote above, it seems one basic disagreement is centered on the idea that Church authorities are meant by God to get the same treatment by the faithful, as those who are officially outside the Church who bring in false teachings–which we easily recognize regarding St. John’s quote about not opening the door–in your remarks..
—But when it came to their own Church leaders, Jesus told the Jews just not to imitate them, but to continue to obey. And we all know those are the same leaders He personally denounced as “whitened sepulchers” and “hypocrites” and “brood of vipers”. So unless He wanted a different standard of judgment applied to them -by a higher authority, why would he tell the people to obey them, even though they plotted to kill him, which not only made them murderers, but rejecters of their own salvation, and a grave danger to the Faith of those who would follow them?
—: Yet He also said about those not in authority who taught false things:
(Matthew 7:15) ‘Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.[16] By their fruits you shall know them. —And St. Paul says about a brother who refuses correction–take them to the Church, and if they reject the Church, let them be (anathema) treated like tax collectors…
Are these not clearly different standards for the laity to follow, depending on who is doing the evil?.
whereas there are apparently many other different ways that “insiders” were dealt with by the faithful in Church history, including what Jesus taught about obeying them in all that they t aught you that is good, but not imitating them–the instructions Our Lord gave the Jewish people regarding their hypocritical leaders who wanted to kill Him. Interesting that He didn’t tell them to flee them, and find other faithful pastors, applying the same strictures as St. John does in your quote. Perhaps he was leaving their fate to Divine judgment, but warning the flock to keep to the laws as usual, until that time?
Please ignore the last paragraph below, editing error. Sorry.
That last paragraph was a repeat. sorry.
I had to attend Mass on Sunday evening in a town I am unfamiliar with as I was travelling to see a doctor. The homily of the priest on St Peter, the Papacy, and the fixity of the Deposit of Faith, was actually doctrinally sound, very good even (though perhaps could have applied the lesson explicitly to the terrible crisis in the Church and the apparently-false statements from the Pope and many bishops and priests). However, so many things about the conduct of the Rite, not least the casual treating of the Blessed Sacrament by the “Eucharistic Ministers” even unto replacing the Blessed Sacrament in the Tabernacle, and the general reception of Holy Communion, as well as the secularised symbolism of the modernistic, hemispherical building, the altar, the tabernacle, the non-sanctuary, etc., was starkly contradictory.
You make things too black/white and either/or. Everyone, including the Pope must cooperate with grace. Every one of us sometimes feels we know what is best. Every one of us is a sinner. Every one of us has a free will. Every one of us is tempted. Sometimes we fail. We can’t prescribe intrinsic evil to every one of the Pope’s actions. Even if we can see what he is doing is not in line with Tradition, while he may not. He may ACTUALLY believe that what he says and does is bringing people closer to Jesus. You simply don’t know and can’t judge. We get it, you don’t like him. But you draw erroneous conclusions. We’re fighting a spiritual battle and the Pope has a much larger target on his back than anyone on here. I think you can see this because you obviously know the influence he has. That’s why he needs prayer.
Dear Salvemur,
Isn’t it possible that not everything which occurred in Athanasius’s time is directly equitable to our situation today? Did they require a new creed based on the arian heresy, for example? Just wondering.
‘Christopher,
–
In my experience of the FSSP – I’m in Europe, so I don’t know how things are in the US except from reports – there isn’t any kind of forced silence on the issue of Vatican II.’
–
European also, the FSSP agreed to accepting Vatican II and the Novus Ordo as part of the condition of the recognisation of the order, it cannot be criticised.’
–
‘ As I said, when necessary, the problems are pointed out and contrasted with tradition. In adult catechism, which almost everyone in the parish attends, our priests demonstrate a clear grasp of the issues involved. When a question arises as to the interpretation of some point of Vatican II, Father first makes sure that everyone understands the traditional teaching, then discusses any apparent differences between tradition and Vatican II. The most palpable difference between the FSSP and the SSPX in this regard, as far as I can tell, is that, whereas the SSPX priest would then go on to say, “And this is where Vatican II teaches error,” the FSSP priest instead says, “And this will require further study and clarification from Rome.”’
–
Vatican II however does teach error, there is no way that anyone can somehow reconcile Religious Liberty with the constant condemnation of said Liberty by five and more Popes.
–
‘As for the liturgical abuses so common in the Novus Ordo – and in my part of the world, they run rampant – our priests openly warn against participating in such things. No, they will not condemn the Novus Ordo rite in toto, because, when it is properly said, it is a valid Mass. And, unless I’m mistaken, the SSPX admits as much. Where they differ, as far as I can tell, is that, while the SSPX maintains that the Novus Ordo rite is inherently detrimental to the faith, the FSSP maitains that it is only conditionally so.’
–
However the SSPX have clearly demonstrated how it is inherently detrimental to the faith.
–
‘Ignoring any legitimate points of disagreement, I think the thing that really rubs the SSPX the wrong way is that the FSSP gets the traditional Latin Mass, the freedom to teach orthodoxy, and the full approval of the Holy See. All they have to do in return is remain obedient to the Magisterium and preserve hope that the situation will eventually be rectified – the very same things to which Archbishop Lefebvre originally agreed in the 1988 Protocol.’
–
‘I waited until June 5th to write to the Pope: ‘I regret, but we cannot go along with this. You do not have the same goal as us. In making an accord, your goal is to bring us back to the Council. Mine, on the other hand, is to keep us outside the Council and your influence.’ – Abp. Lefebvre, France, December 1988.’ If the SSPX are jealous, as you seem to imply, they simply would follow the FSSP, they however have not, because they see the Novus Ordo and the Council as something unagreeable.’
–
For this, the FSSP is accused of everything from having compromised the faith to being in bed with Satan. Fine. I understand that the SSPX fears intervention if they were to make a similar agreement – in fact, one could say that the fate of the FSSP is closely tied to the position of the SSPX’
–
Hardly, FSSP have agreed, the SSPX have not. And quite frankly, thanks to the SSPX, I’m aware of the issues with Vatican II with no help from the FSSP.
–
‘But whereas there is a real ecclesiological dispute to be had with sedevacantists, I think any doctrinal differences between the SSPX and the FSSP are more imagined than real. The ways in which the two fraternities have chosen to deal with the Vatican II crisis diverge greatly, but I don’t see any reason to beat each other up over it.’
–
The reason of the conflict is because the FSSP have accepted Vatican II and the Novus Ordo in the preamble. They are thus a potential threat in the terms of the presence of Modernism.
Christopher,
–
The FSSP agreed to commit the Fraternity to a positive attitude of study and communication with the Holy See in regard to Vatican II. If you don’t want to acknowledge the difference between this position and that of your regular Novus Ordo priest, that’s fine.
–
As far as Dignitatis Humanae goes, I’m aware of the position of the SSPX, as there have been several notable exchanges on this topic between the SSPX and the FSSP in the German-speaking world. The SSPX usually argues along the lines that Dignitatis Humanae more or less fell out of the sky and represents a radical break with everything which went before it; the FSSP usually argues that, properly understood, it can be viewed as a development of doctrine going back at least as far as Leo XIII, roughly analogous to the development which occurred in regard to the issue of usury. That is, it is not the doctrinal position which has changed, but rather the application of the doctrine to a situation radically different than that of the 18th century. However, Rome needs to underscore the fact that no objective right has been given to error as such, and that the state is still obliged to recognize and promote none other than the Catholic religion. The SSPX responds by saying that Dignitatis Humanae was written so as to preclude historical contextualization (despite the fact that they also accuse the Council of promoting ‘Marxistic Materialism’). The FSSP argues that Dignitatis Humanae itself contradicts this, as can be seen in its opening paragraphs. And on it goes. The issue is by no means settled, and there continues to be lively discussion within the FSSP, but, again, always with a view towards continuity with tradition and without polemics. It was, however, noted with interest when Fr. Schmidberger, SSPX Superior for Germany, publicly acknowledged in 2010 that the declaration had “seized anew upon a deeply rooted legacy of the Church” (“ein tief verankertes Erbe der Kirche wieder aufgegriffen”). Apparently, we’re not as far apart as one might think.
–
I wouldn’t go as far as to call it ‘jealousy’. More of an annoyance. If you re-read my comment, you’ll see that I give the SSPX the lion’s share of the credit when it comes to accounting for the change of heart at the Vatican in regards to the traditional Latin Mass, and I fully acknowledge that, were the SSPX to yield to Rome at this point it would likely suffer suppression, and the FSSP would suffer the same fate. In the meantime, however, the restoration of tradition continues.
–
I can understand the political reasons for maintaining clear lines of separation between the SSPX and the FSSP, and while I take the issues seriously, I see them as largely academic as far as these two fraternities go, and no reason for disavowals among parishioners of either group. That is, I can live with you thinking of me as being “potentially infected” with Modernism – whatever that might mean.
I have shaken the off my booties from that parish – they ant handle original sin, communion on the tongue and converts -for the traditional stances I held I was bullied out anyway. p.s. also think a forum is a very congenial place to introduce truths to people whereby it might be safe enough so they don’t have a meltdown but have time to pray and read about this. I never found the sandwich man – y’all going ta hell approach very dignified.
I don’t recall any teaching suggesting the Pharisees were under the aegis of the holy ghost. – notice our Lord gave them permission not to follow even their falsehhod.
I’d say the crisis today has no worthy precedent. This is a Church founded upon the Rock of St Peter who’s successors are guarded by the Holy Ghost to uphold the doctrine disciplines and liturgy of Christ’s Church. What has no precendednce is these supposed authorities dismantling all of the above and in essence rebulding in the image of heresy. Not only is it reasonable and faithful to hold that there has been no St Peter for decades and that this could well have been a deliberate thing; but further without the sanity of sedevacantism how can one even begin, given latest ‘pope’ to defend the Primacy of St Peter, denied by the Orthodox and protestants?
–
How to destroy papal infallibilty? simply parade someone as pope upon whom such grace was never bestowed. wouldn’t satan love such a puppet? anyone in white would then ‘reign’ unimpeded by Grace and unprompted by the same. Some people believe papal authority was bestowed upon someone who was then prevented from ruling in 1958. Whatever – these ‘popes’ who have dismantled authentic Catholicism before our eyes and built a naturalistic ethical society with a weekly assembly are evidence of one of two possibilties – the chair is as yet empty (sedevacantism), or papal infallibilty and possibly even Petrine primacy are errors.Since the latter cannot be, the former must be.