What Can Catholics Do To Signal Disapproval to the Bishops – including the Bishop of Rome?editor
Here are just a couple of shocking reports about bishops to hit the headlines this week alone:
“In a stunning and breathtaking letter, the Most Rev. Michael Olson, the newly-ordained bishop of the Fort Worth Diocese and the second-youngest bishop in the United States, has fully and totally banned the offering of the Traditional Latin Mass in the chapel of Fisher More College, where it has been offered for the last three years on a daily basis by chaplains all approved by his predecessor bishop according to the college. This blow comes after the students of the college raised $300,000 in about a week to keep the school open for the spring semester (see here). Source
Next up this one:
(CNN) – Pope Francis reaffirmed the Catholic Church’s opposition to gay marriage on Wednesday, but suggested in a newspaper interview that it could support some types of civil unions.
The Pope reiterated the church’s longstanding teaching that “marriage is between a man and a woman.” However, he said, “We have to look at different cases and evaluate them in their variety.” Source [NB Click on photo for another report about Pope Francis).
We are obliged to respect every human being, for the simple reason that they are created in the image and likeness of God. We are not obliged to respect people because of their job, career or position within the Church. Catholics have traditionally made the distinction between respecting “the man” and “the office”.
Since today’s hierarchy, generally speaking, do not appear to respect their own episcopal / papal office, is there any need for the laity to make such a distinction any more?
Way back at the very beginning of the post-Vatican II era, in correspondence with the author Evelyn Waugh, Cardinal Heenan (Westminster) expressed concern that the faithful might lose respect for the Bishops. I think he would be amazed today if that question still hung in the air. Does any informed Catholic in Scotland, for example, truly respect any of the Bishops here? And what about Bishop Olson (see above report). Who could possibly respect him? As for the new Bishop of Rome, Pope Francis – I, personally, am speechless right now but determined to get it together in time for the next newsletter editorial…
Of course, when they uphold the authentic teaching of the Church, Catholics must accept the authority of the Pope and Bishops. But, “respect”? With all that’s going on in the current crisis? You kidding?
The frustrating thing for Catholics today is that, while we can vote with our feet when discontented with any other institution, it’s not so easy to “vote with our feet” to express our concerns about the Church. We can’t just pop along to the nearest Kirk or Episcopalian place of worship – so what to do? IS there anything we can do to leave the hierarchy in no doubt as to our concerns? Or do we simply keep on doing what we’re doing, which means that, as the old saying goes, we’ll keep on getting what we’re getting. Is there really nothing we can do to signal our disapproval to the Bishops and Pope about the worsening crisis caused by their statements and behaviour?
“Is there really nothing we can do to signal our disapproval to the Bishops and Pope about the worsening crisis caused by their statements and behaviour?”
Yes there is but it depends on who “we” is. If “we” are those who are already among the SSPX faithful, then those “we” can pray and make reparation for this passion of the Church, esp. during Lent, and do everything they can to strengthen the position of the Society. For those “we” who are in the so-called mainstream, assuming that they actually care about the state of the Church and the state of their souls, they can indeed vote with their feet, by leaving their mainstream parishes and finding themselves an SSPX chapel, where they will find Catholic sanity as it has always existed and always shall exist.
I think that one very noticeable effect of this disastrous Papacy, which has almost reached the point of an anti-papacy, will be an influx of the horrified and disgusted into the SSPX (probably not Michael Voris though). And that includes religious like the FFI, and perhaps also the TLM-goers at Fisher More College in Texas.
Got it in one. I refrained from saying again, in the blog article, what I’ve said so often on this blog in recent times, that all informed Catholics who love the Faith, should now be throwing their weight behind the SSPX, so clearly God-given to see us through this crisis. That’s one vitally important way to send a clear signal to the Bishops and to the Pope.
Those who still talk about “schism” or even an “irregular situation” when there is nothing more schismatic, nothing more irregular than popes and bishops who cause such enormous public scandal, are either seriously deficient upstairs or wilfully content to sit it out, endangering their own Faith and the Faith of others, including even their own children, in the process. They – these so-called informed Catholics – are a major part of the problem.
One of our extended team has – he tells me – absolutely no time for those Catholics who continue to support the revolution, whether or not they pay lip-service to orthodoxy. I’m increasingly of the same opinion, and find myself using the rather naughty description “numpties” in conversation about them, more and more. Am I a bad girl or what 😯
And here’s yet another idiot clergy who thinks that the SSPX is sedevacantist:
“But even if this is so, it seems strange to penalise the students if the faculty is at fault. Surely the effect will be to drive students and staff more firmly into the hands of the Society of St Pius X or some more extreme Sedevacantist body.”
(Commenting on the Fisher More College controversy)
It is precisely idiot clergy like the one you quote, who have the ear of the so-called “orthodox” Catholics, who may be orthodox (up to a point – only truly “traditional Catholics” can, by definition, be truly orthodox) but who are not sufficiently informed to challenge such nonsense. Priests like him publish a position on the SSPX which no pope has ever held. Indeed, in one interview, Cardinal Hoyos, speaking on behalf of Pope Benedict, answered a question about the SSPX “schism” by saying that those who think the SSPX is in schism “do not understand the situation.”
It’s a very true saying, though, that there are none so blind as those who will not see.
I think as Catholics we ought to still respect the office regardless of who occupies it – even if the occupant shows no respect for his office. I, too, was speechless when I saw the Pope with a clown nose! It’s depressing, really. It’s as if the hierarchy is in a race to see who can denigrate the office he holds,most efficiently and thoroughly. Most of the bishops are doing a good job and the competition is stiff, but even they are having a hard time keeping up with their leader who gains speed at every twist and turn.
I liked your point about being obliged to accept the authority of the bishops when they uphold Church teaching, but that respect is another matter. Respect has to be earned.
I honestly don’t think there is a way we can get them to even acknowledge our displeasure at their antics, let alone heed anything we have to say. I think too, that the world is moving towards a society that wants equality in the worst way and is embarrassed by ranks, titles and marks of respect that might have belonged to an outdated and old world order. In some misguided way, they think by bringing the Church into conformity with the world, more souls will be saved, because the Church now would be able to reach out to more people
I don’t know what we can say but I think we have to say something, just incase a Catholic or two out there is struggling and wondering if the Church really has changed – but especially because I know Editor would withhold my paycheck if I said otherwise 😀
I’ve just read over my comment in the blog article and realise that I may not have expressed my meaning on “respect” and “office” clearly enough.
I did cover this in a recent edition of the newsletter, so allow me to clarify; we must, of course, respect the “episcopal office” and the “papal office” (papacy). But not necessarily the man holding that particular office.
For example, while I respect the episcopal office I do not respect a single office-holder (i.e. Bishop) in Scotland. Not one.
And why is that? Because there’s not a Bishop John Fisher among them. I keep being told about this or that (Scots) Bishop who is a nice man, who did this or that kind thing, so he’s not all bad etc
That’s not enough. We’re in a major crisis right now. We have a pope who is publicly insulting Christ, in all sorts of ways. This latest nonsense about accepting bad laws (civil unions) because the State deems it necessary for legal reasons, is a flagrant insult to Christ the King, whom Pope Francis should be reminding these bad legislators must be the head of every nation under heaven, to comply with God’s will. It’s a patent nonsense to support civil unions but not same-sex marriage. Utterly ridiculous, and I’ve said this since civil unions were first mooted.
Yet, instead of the Pope’s scandalous comment (reflecting his support for civil unions in Argentina) providing us with a bishop who will speak out to defend Catholic doctrine and morality, we’ll now witness a flood of priests following the dreadful example of this pontiff, or Bishop of Rome, as he prefers to be known, and quoting him in support of their dissent.
Thus, I do not respect any Bishop, including the Bishop of Rome, who is inflicting serious damage on the Church. Of course his office is to be respected but we do not have to respect “Pope Francis” just because he holds that office. I hope that’s clearer.
“Respect has to be earned.”
In that case, Pope Francis will have his work cut out to earn any respect from thinking Catholics. He’s really made a fool out of the papal office.
I agree,the SSPX is the only answer, but many dioceses will never allow them in. You are lucky if you have a chapel nearby. We do not have the SSPX within 300 miles! The FSSP aren’t invited into every diocese either. They are at the mercy of the mainstream bishops, most of whom are opposed to the TLM. Evil.
That’s a terrible situation, re. the distance, similar to the situation of our Shetland readers who are desperate to find an SSPX priest to serve them.
However, the SSPX don’t seek permission from the Diocese – if there are sufficient people willing to support a chapel, or other accommodation for Mass, they will do all they can to provide a priest anywhere.
That’s why it’s an irregular situation – if they were welcomed into your Diocese, you could breathe easily and know there is no crisis there. The SSPX represents not just the Traditional Latin Mass, but the traditional Catholic Faith and so they are hated by modernist bishops. Forget about the Diocese. I suggest (if I may) that you contact the nearest District of the Society (Google) and ask if they can provide a priest, even monthly.
Thank you, Editor! Didn’t think it would be as simple as asking the nearest District of the Society to see if they can provide a priest.
You are dead right when you say most of the so-called “orthodox” Catholics aren’t sufficiently informed to challenge the nonsense going around. It is truly amazing, how many stand behind the pillar of ‘obedience’- to the Pope even when he is being more like Judas than Peter.
You made yourself very clear in the article you posted 😀 Respect the office unconditionally. Respect the man holding the office if he lives up to the demands of the office!
I frequently think of Archbishop Lefebvre’s profound observation about “obedience” in the context of the current crisis in the Church; he said that “it was Satan’s masterstroke to get Catholics to disobey the whole of Tradition, in the name of obedience.”
In fact, the only time “obedience” is mentioned in the Church today, is in the context of the SSPX. All of a sudden “obedience” (to the revolution) is an issue. Obedience to Catholic Tradition, is now regarded as a heresy.
Jobstears, I agree with the Editor (there’s a first time for everything) that you should contact the nearest SSPX priory. You could perhaps put out feelers to see if there are any like minded people near you and if you can get together a small group then pull your resources and offer to pay the priests travel expenses. Mass can be celebrated in someone’s house to start off with and if numbers grow you can move to somewhere bigger. As the Editor says, the SSPX don’t ask permission from local Bishops to enter diocese because they know what the answer will be. Instead, they answer the call of ordinary Catholics who need their help. Regarding not asking the local Bishops permission, this is not a new thing. it’s not commonly known that in the 1800s the Jesuits entered the Diocese of Aberdeen without the local Bishops permission and opened a chapel in the city of Aberdeen. The local Bishop issued a statement telling the faithful that under no circumstances should people attend the Jesuit chapel but nobody paid any attention and the chapel flourished.
“SSPX don’t ask permission from local Bishops to enter diocese because they know what the answer will be. Instead, they answer the call of ordinary Catholics who need their help”, very reassuring, thank you. I will start making inquiries.
How very interesting that the bishops tried to stop the Jesuits from opening a chapel in Aberdeen and that nobody paid the least attention to him! Now, if we could rouse enough Catholics to follow suit, the Vatican would be forced to change their stand on the SSPX.
Daphne McLeod in her recent newsletter urges Catholics to write to bishops in the UK, to the various congregations in Rome and to Catholic papers. Daphne has been a gallant defender of the faith.
I am unsure how much effect these all have any more……. if they ever did. It seems there are very few bishops loyal to orthodox teaching. There is a great swathe in the middle who would bend with the prevailing wind, some for what they see as giving loyalty to the Church and others because, sadly, that is how they are. Then there is a considerable group who have been burrowing away for a long time now, just waiting for the time when they would be given their head.
Of course such positions are not the monopoly of bishops; they apply to priests and influential lay people.
Those who would hold to orthodox teaching are very much believed to be in the minority. I am beginning to believe that is true.
On the Morning Call this week, the two ladies who were vociferous in challenging John Deighan with regard to gay people adopting or fostering children,were Catholics and believed themselves to be such absolutely. When John Deighan said to one lady that he was sorry she was disregarding the teaching of the Church, i felt he might have well been speaking in a foreign language. The concept of obedience to what have been the truths of the faith, has been lost.
When traditional Catholics write, I think they are considered by many bishops, as being ‘out of touch’ with the REAL new evangelisation. There is a problem too with letters that are written, expressing concerns of a traditional mindset, in that they are often not published. They are perceived as being troublesome and ruffling the ‘smoothing over” being all things to all men process that seems to be prevalent at the moment, anyway, in the SCO.
Yet articles by Monsignor Loftus, have been,and are still, published regularly. This says it all.
There is a problem too with letters highlighting the concerns of the traditional mindset being published at all. I think there is a subtle smoothing over of concerns taking place, certainly in the SCO.
“Those who would hold to orthodox teaching are very much believed to be in the minority. I am beginning to believe that is true.”
That is very true. Years ago, Pope John Paul II spoke of “a silent apostasy” across Europe. Well, it’s anything but silent now.
I hope John Deighan pointed out to those ladies that they are not, in fact, Catholics at all if they reject even a single teaching of the Church, and rejecting moral teachings is, at once, rejecting God’s natural moral law AND the divinely authorised teaching authority of Christ’s Church. So, it’s a bit more serious than John Deighan being “sorry she was disregarding the teaching of the Church”.
I agree that Daphne has been a gallant defender of the Faith but I think we’re way beyond writing polite letters to the bishops and Vatican. They pay no attention.
I think it’s time every truly informed Catholic moved to the SSPX – no excuses (beyond, of course, the kind of distances Jobstears talks about.)
After all, Our Lady of Good Success told Mother Mariana in the 17th century to “pray that My Son will send a prelate to restore the priesthood” (in the 20th century) – who on EARTH could that be, Spero, except Archbishop Lefebvre? Hardly Monsignor Loftus! And so, I believe we have a duty, at this stage in the crisis, to tell the Bishops we’ve had enough. We want the Mass that the martyrs died for but we want more; we want parishes where we are protected from ecumenical activities designed to encourage indifferentism; we want parishes where the poisonous Catholic papers are not on sale. We want parishes where the priest preaches the undiluted Catholic religion, without one eye on the local Bishop for fear of annoying him. There is, frankly, only one place where that Catholic oasis is to be found – and it’s your nearest SSPX chapel.
I’m told that, in her resignation letter, Daphne recommended her readers to visit sound Catholic websites, naming Catholic Truth. Daphne knows our position on the SSPX, so my guess is that she, too, realises that something more than merely writing letters to faithless (frankly) bishops and Vatican officials, is required. Remember, Daphne didn’t just write to the Vatican and to the Westminster Archbishops/Cardinals. She met with them in person.
As Sr Lucia of Fatima said – we mustn’t wait for the Bishops; we must act, both spiritually (Mass, daily rosary, brown scapular) and physically – by voting with our feet. Of course, write letters if you feel moved to do so but – as you say – getting published in the SCO is almost impossible for anyone outside of the “liberal” circle. Anyone who writes to challenge Mgr Loftus, for example, will find his reply published alongside or the following week.
I repeat – if you want to really make a difference (not least to your own spiritual life) in this crisis, get to an SSPX chapel, without delay, at least for Sunday Mass.
Yes indeed. The SCO and other “Catholic” press do not do their job at all, but sadly, seriously believe that they are acting correctly by publishing falsehood, lies and errors (amongst the pretty pictures of elderly clergy retiral parties etc.) instead of publishing the Truth.
The bishops are solely to blame for these little monopolies being allowed to promulgate their sycophantic drivel in all Catholic parish churches.
Nobody here will disagree with anything you’ve said. However, this thread is devoted to asking what, in fact, we could and should do about it? Should we head for the God-given SSPX lifeboat or continue (however reluctantly) to support the revolution in the Church?
many of us have little option than to attend the Catholic parish for Mass. I for one live far too far from Edinburgh of Glasgow (or Newcastle).
I hope and pray. Our little country parish has very nearly doubled in size in the last 6 or so months. Our young priest says and does thing that trouble me greatly, however he also does much good. So i do not know the full answer. Arch-bishop Cushley has to start doing his job in building up his brothers ( the priests) and confirming them when they do right and firmly and gently correcting them when they continue in the garbage (that is sadly a pile too high to list).
I know that answer will not satisfy the city dwellers but us country folk don’t have lots of choices. I must go the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass ( and endure the piffle and non-sense) and I also must pray that St Michael crushes the Devil and all his works ( that are only too clear to see). I pray for the Holy Father and Arch-biship Cushley at every Mass and I hope and trust in God’s Mercy.
After reading about the Pope’s support for Civil Unions, a (horrified) friend of mine down south, emailed the following message which I think is worth posting here:
What has been said flies in the face of the 2003 Vatican document on civil unions:- which says:-
“Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil.In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, CLEAR AND EMPHATIC OPPOSITION IS A DUTY (emphasis mine). One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection.” END.
Hands up all those who would expect Pope Francis to know that?
This support for civil unions is horrifying! He should be forced to resign after a statement like that. I note that he’s made this horrendous statement and then left Rome for six days.
Could we organise a demonstration in St Peters Square to demand the Pope’s resignation?
I just LOVE that suggestion. Really love it. Let’s see what other bloggers say – unfortunately, we have a very small pool from which to draw, since the neo-Catholics double as papolatrists and just refuse to criticise the pope – any pope – no matter what. Michael Voris – who could probably organise such an event in the twirl of his pencil – is a case in point.
I’m definitely in favour of the idea if it could be arranged. We are very small fry, here at Catholic Truth, and so if some other organisation with more personnel and more resources wish to take the lead, we’ll gladly follow and give it our support. If not, let’s see what other bloggers think of your brainwave. I – I must repeat – love it!
Perpetuafelicitas, I think that is a very good suggestion about a demonstration in St Peter’s Square – and if we could not afford a trip to Rome we could make one to Westminster and confront the new Cardinal there. Someone has to say and do something. This Pope is abusing his position by trying to destroy the dignity of the office of Pope. He has done that from the very beginning with his false and ostentatious “humility”.
I completely agree about the Pope’s “false and ostentatious “humility””
I’m not sure that a trip to Rome would be manageable for most people, financially and to get time off work etc. but I do agree something big needs to be done if possible to show that not everyone approves of this pope’s antics.
I am in absolute agreement over the Pope’s “false and ostentatious humility”, it has irritated me since he first took office.
I also agree that something needs to be done to show that not everyone approves of with this pope’s ‘antics’. If we could afford to demonstrate infront of the Vatican, that would be fantastic!
Who knows, maybe this last move of the Pope may be just the shake-up Catholics need, an incentive for them to stop and think, and perhaps go back and look at Church teaching and reconsider the question of obedience. After all, even very young children are taught that one must obey lawful superiors ‘in all that is not sinful’.
Hello. I followed your link on CH to here. It’s my first time coming here. Yes, I agree we need to vote with our feet and go to SSPX where possible. I am in the process of making the move. I am already more often at SSPX than my local parish, just fulfilling some commitments till the end of this school year. My decision is made. It is so difficult….it is natural to have qualms about it…but I am thinking like you….it is the only way to get the message across. If enough people turn to SSPX the Vatican will have to consider more carefully the necessity of full reconciliation with SSPX, making it possible. We are not leaving the Church….we are trying to restore Her. If enough people do it, maybe it will tip the balance.
Brilliant! I am SO pleased to read your post. Am I glad I commented on the CH blog tonight!
I fully understand what you say about it being natural to have qualms. Nobody wants to be “outside the walls” but just as St Athanasius saw the necessity in the fourth century (being twice excommunicated for his fidelity) and is now held up to us a role model, saint and Doctor of the Church, so, too, Archbishop Lefebvre will one day be raised to the altars, and those of us who could and should have thrown our weight behind the “lifeboat” he supplied, will be hanging our heads in shame at our failure to do so, through a false notion of obedience.
As you rightly say: “We are not leaving the Church….we are trying to restore Her. If enough people do it, maybe it will tip the balance.”
Absolutely spot on. I’m so glad you have made your decision – let’s pray that many others do the same, and soon.
A huge welcome to the Catholic Truth blog. Stick with us – we need you!
Just wanted to note my appreciation of Doncurlyhorne’s blogger name, which is obviously a variation on “Don [Vito] Corleone,” i.e. the Godfather. As for a demonstration in Rome, it seems unrealistic, but you would think, in this age of cyberspace, that someone could figure out how to organize a cyber-protest that actually got in Pope Francis’ face…and stayed there.
Perhaps Michael Voris’ “Vortex” can pick us all up, like Dorothy’s tornado in The Wizard of Oz, and deposit us in front of St. Peter’s. Without Michael’s personal involvement, of course…:-)
Thank you for the welcome 🙂 Yes, I will pop in from time to time. I used the idea of an anchor recently on CH to explain SSPX position….chucked overboard to anchort he boat in troubled waters. I often comment on CH. That was where I learned, so I like to “give something back”. I am a convert, and felt something was wrong, but didn’t have enough background knowledge to put the pieces of the puzzle together into the bigger picture by myself. It was the Trad commenters on CH who pointed me in the right direction.
I was in your position exactly about a year and a half ago. I am so happy I ‘made the move’. I don’t regret it. I no longer suffer from the cognitive dissonance from all the doublethink. The impression I have gotten from the Catholic blogosphere is that more and more people are indeed coming to the same conclusion about the SSPX. The last remaining difficulty for me was the issue of SSPX confessions. I attended Mass for a while before going to confession at my SSPX chapel, but I have now even become reassured about this now. Your anxieties are understandable to the people here, because we have all mostly been in the same position.
I read your comments on CH about them deleting your posts. At least they gave you some kind of explanation why. In the past, when they have deleted mine, I have contacted them for a reason and they have emailed me straight back saying “it is their policy not to give reasons for deleting comments”. More recently, after leaving about three comments on one blog post, they deleted all of them and have banned my IP address from ever leaving comments ever again! From a Catholic, moral point of view, I don’t believe there was anything just in doing that based on what I wrote. A lot of the posters there are getting quite frustrated about all the deleted posts. What the CH don’t seem to understand is that while their governors and contributors are very status quo, their readership is mainly conservative, trad or borderline trad, and a lot of regulars in their comm-boxes are beginning to show sympathies towards the SSPX. Trashing your punters is a really bad business model! I won’t buy the CH ever again.
They absolutely detest anything you post about homosexuality, or the SSPX when it’s positive. The reason this comment was deleted IMHO is that it made the connection between homosexuality and other problems in the same theme, i.e. contraception, extra-marital sex:
I am pretty certain one or more of the moderators are struggling with same sex attraction and get upset when they read things like that because they are in a tormented state. That’s understandable, because some of the chaste SSA Catholics I have known in the past are still tormented, even though they are chaste. I am fairly sure the reason my IP address got blacklisted is because the last comments I made suggested Catholics with SSA can receive healing through psychological therapies (the Church does not oppose this, and one recent Vatican document on priestly formation even intimates it), because healing for this issue goes beyond mere chastity. And I don’t say this based on ‘homophobia’, I actually know a man in England who went through this and he is married to a woman with kids now.
Amazing avatar. Is that a Blue Dutch rabbit? My mother is a rabbit fancier, we have about 30. I think it was the menopause.
I was informed some time ago by a person I know who moved in CH circles occasionally, that there were “pink” elements at work there, I’m not sure if this is still the case. I’m sure this is why posts on homosexuality get deleted. My advice:- stop taking ALL the ‘Catholic’ papers, stop going on their websites/blogs, and everyone should vigorously campaign for anyone they know to stop buying the ‘Catholic’ papers and reading the ‘Catholic press’ blogs, and if you know Catholic apostolates who advertise with them, GET THEM TO STOP ADVERTISING – as advertising revenue is their lifeblood. I’m convinced it’s money chucked down the drain anyway. Years ago I worked for an apostolate and we advertised with the ‘Catholic’ press and got little or no response, but we did using other avenues. I think they are all in a precarious state financially, it probably wouldn’t take a lot for them to fold up.
That’s something I’ve heard before, that the Catholic Herald has homosexual elements in there. I completely agree about not reading those papers or visiting the CH blog. I long ago stopped buying any Catholic papers.
Yes, I was a bit worried about confession. People told me it’s better not to. In the end I tried….because I was unhappy with the response from my pp in confession…so I went as a “test situation” to see if I got the same/different response. It was very different, and it felt right. I came around to accepting that it’s fine.
I have been banned from CH before. There are ways round it. I prefer not to post it for obvious reasons, but ask a friend who is good with IT.
There has been quite a rumpus on CH comments about the deleted post with most supporting the comment.
My avatar? hahahaha. I was originally scary goat (just a mixture of other funny nick-names used by my kids for me) but that was the one that got banned. I like goats and I like Godfather3 and the idea of Don Curlyhorne popped into my head. The pic is a small fluffy goat toy I have dressed as the goatfather 😀
I genuinely thought it was a Dutch rabbit, and in that colour it would be a blue Dutch.
You wouldn’t be the first to think it is a rabbit 😀
Miles Immaculatae, you put my two little rabbits to shame! You must have a very lively house with 30 rabbits hopping around.
I too, followed Editor’s link from her post on CH and ended up here!
Glad you made it here. Except for Editor, I might still be one of those NO Catholics driving myself insane trying to make sense of the rampant nonsense!
So, thank you, Editor!
Thanks. Yes, this is why it is worth persevering on CH. I sometimes post links to Rorate Caeli as well. There must be a lot of people out there who are uneasy and the more information can be provided for them, the better.
I agree – I dip into their blogs from time to time for that very reason. Most of the time the editors have left my comments intact. Occasionally not, but it’s worth keeping a finger that that particular pie, since it’s one of the few blogs not pre-moderated.
I have emailed Church Militant to ask if they will help organise a demonstration. I’ll let you know Editor if I get a response.
As much as I share the concerns of this blog, I can’t see how going to an SSPX Chapel would change the situation in a positive way. If more faithful Catholics start going to the SSPX will it not mean that the Church will end up filled with faithless modernists and there will be no one left in the Church who actually knows its true teachings. Do you think that as Doncurlyhorne suggested it would lead Rome to seek fuller communion with the SSPX? I don’t. I think the current lot would be glad to get rid of the orthodox Catholics so there would be no one in the Church to raise any objections to their heretical teachings.
That’s great that you’ve emailed Church Militant. I just can’t wait to hear their reply!
When I once suggested to a Scots priest, who was struggling due to trying to keep a foot in both camps, that he join the SSPX and the bishop would be horrified, want to keep him and allow him to preach the Faith in its fullness etc., he replied that far from this being the case, the bishop would clap his hands and cry “good riddance – one less problem to deal with.” So, your point along the same lines, about the Modernists being glad to see the back of the lay faithful is well taken.
However, that’s not really the main point. Sure, I’ve presented the case for attending the Society chapels as a means of signalling to the bishops that “enough is enough” – and that is true. But there’s a lot more to it than that.
We each have a duty to protect our Faith. Every time a Catholic sets foot in a diocesan church, attends a novus ordo Mass, picks up a parish bulletin, browses the Catholic papers in the church porch, he/she is imbibing Modernism – the synthesis of all heresies. It’s that simple. The Faith is being poisoned, drip, drip, drip. Even where the diocesan approved Summorum Pontificum Masses are permitted, the whole Faith is not preached. Cannot possibly be – the bishops would not allow it. I heard recently about a supposedly traditional priest in a Scottish diocese who preached a very good sermon on the four last things “but carefully…” Anxious not to have anyone contact the bishop with a complaint. Compromise over the truths of the Faith is the price of being “in good standing”.
As we know from the Quito apparitions, Our Lord has provided a means of safeguarding our Faith during this crisis. We have an obligation to make use of that means. In so doing, we not only fulfil our immensely important duty to preserve our Faith unspoilt, but we also signal to the Bishops that we are not going to risk our Faith in his parishes. No matter how good the diocesan priests may be, they are – like it or not – part of the problem because, to a greater or lesser extent, they are going along with the revolution in the Church.
The priests, for example, who – under the provisions of Summorum Pontificum (now being stamped on by Pope Francis) – took the trouble to learn the Traditional Latin Mass, nevertheless continue to administer Communion in the hand at their novus ordo Masses and even have lay people in the sanctuary, helping to distributing the Eucharist. This “foot in both camps” situation doesn’t stand up to any serious examination. Yet, the minute they’d try to restore kneeling/Communion on the tongue, or eliminate the use of EMHC, they’re be accused of developing a “schismatic” mindset. Incredible.
Nowhere, except in an SSPX chapel, will you hear the Catholic religion, and good morals, taught undiluted. Nowhere. Every other allegedly traditional group is, to some degree, compromising with the revolution. That’s why they are permitted, where they have been permitted, to operate in some dioceses.
So, I repeat: Catholics who seriously love the Faith, and who wish to make a really meaningful contribution to the restoration of the traditional Catholic religion, should do everything in their power to attend an SSPX chapel. We can’t stay in the parish church, risking the integrity of our Faith, in order to somehow answer heresies, challenge the priest etc. It’s very clear that most Catholics are in an apostate condition; they truly have lost the Faith and – in truth – don’t really believe in the God of divine revelation, so they tend to regard those of us who seek to correct errors from the pulpit/papers etc as extremists/eccentrics. I’ve been called both (and worse!) In any case, explaining, when the opportunity arises, why we have chosen to attend an Society Mass on Sundays, serves the same purpose and can be more effective.
I remember an occasion when my then parish priest publicly, in his homily, attacked the Pope (John Paul II) for defending celibacy. It made a change from his attacks on marriage. I got up and walked out to await the end of the “homily”. A passkeeper at the back ambled over to me as I approached the church porch and enquired “why do you come here?” All I could think of to say in response was “I come here NOT to listen to Father X’s anti-Catholic personal opinions” but now I’d be saying “well, worry not, I’m not coming here any more. I’m going to find an SSPX Mass and go there from now on.”
And believe me, if he replied “good riddance”, he wouldn’t be half as glad to see the back of me, as I would be to see the back of him and the whole Modernist set up. No use keeping our heads down and hoping it will all pass soon. We need to be part of the restoration. Without a moment’s delay
So… get thee to an SSPX chapel – now ❗
You should have answered, why do YOU come here?
Wish I’d thought of that. He’d probably have said what all the EMHC say when challenged about their handling the Blessed Sacrament: “Oh, Father needs me….”
What “Father” fails to realise is that the day is almost upon us when they’ll be asking “But do I need Father?”
Aside from the modernists wanting rid of us from mainstream canonical structures, more pertinently, and I think this is a fantastic idea, why doesn’t the Church of England establish an ordinariate of their own for the special cases on our side of the Tiber, like Radcliffe and Loftus for example. I must contact the Archbishop of Canterbury immediately!
Wouldn’t they be happier being in communion with Cantabury? They could preserve their liturgical patrimony with total freedom. (By liturgical patrimony, I refer to the old translation of the Roman Missal, rainbow chasubles, and their rich repertory of ‘cod-celtic’ folk guitar music.) And they would be more faithful to their conscience on the issue of homosexual and women priests.
No. They’ll never leave though. They want to stay in the Catholic Church and create Her in their own image.
The only solution is discipline. This is the only possible solution. The re-formation of malformed priests of good will, and the suspension or laicisation of priests of bad will. And the excommunication of those who don’t cooperate at all.
Church Militant have issued a statement saying they will never criticise the pope so I doubt if they will sponsor a protest demonstration asking him to resign.
“If more faithful Catholics start going to the SSPX will it not mean that the Church will end up filled with faithless modernists and there will be no one left in the Church who actually knows its true teachings.”
You are forgetting 2 things, PF: one, the SSPX is not outside the Church, despite the ceaseless attempts of wicked men to place it there; two, SSPX clergy do actually know, teach and live Church teachings quite thoroughly, and in my experience, so do its faithful.
So if the mainstream Church has to become a hollow shell, or should I say even more of a hollow shell than it already is, so be it. The mainstream Church, frankly, has not pleasing to Our Lord and Lady since VII, so she is being stricken with wickedness, stupidity, cowardice, corruption, perversion, and malice.
The Church Militant is now mostly the SSPX. The Church Effeminate, on the other hand, occupies Rome; it is a different religion altogether. In fact, it is not even a religion; it is the cult of man.
You know as well as I do where the true Faith is.
I think PerpetuaFelicitas means that there will be no one left in the diocesan parishes… etc. I’m sure she realises that the SSPX is not outside the Church. Only the most ignorant people argue that position now and PF is not one of those – I’m sure of it.
Thank you for your reply editor. Yes I did mean there would be no one left in the diocesan parishes, although I must admit I was one of those ignorant people who was unsure of the SSPX status. A priest who says the traditional Mass (and I assure you that this was not a priest in Scotland) told me to stay away from the SSPX because they were outside the Church and I should remain in the Church and and go through her suffering with her. Leo’s posts though make it very clear that the Society is within the Church.
There are, unfortunately, priests who – whether through ignorance of malice, I don’t know – persist in peddling the falsehood that the SSPX is in schism. I’m delighted that Leo has been able to clear up that matter for you.
I knew he’d come in useful, eventually 😀
According to Church Militant the Pope says the SSPX Masses are illicit, his specific words are “no canonical status and cannot legitimately exercise any ministry”. Can you please tell me if this is correct and which Pope said it. I have read Leo’s post but he does not refer to the words of the Pope.
Thank you for clarifying, PF and Editor. But the question remains: if the diocesan parishes are not practicing the Faith, or rather the “reformed, revised, updated, latest” faith which attempts and fails to masquerade as Catholicism, then what is wrong with them emptying out of everyone who takes the Faith seriously and is looking to save his soul? Does that thought frighten you, PF? Better they should be empty than that they should lead souls astray, and better they should be empty than to claim falsely that they are practicing the religion founded by Our Lord. They are not; they are practicing a “religion” founded by Bugnini and Paul VI.
I think you have a point, and I have worried about that myself, but I came to my conclusion for several reasons.
1. A lot of prayer….and the way I feel I am being led.
2. Attempts at standing up for Tradition in my parish which were thwarted.
3. If it weren’t for SSPX we wouldn’t have the concessions we do have. (ie the diocese opens a TLM where SSPX become a threat.)
4. Demographics. Looking at my parish as well as others, I think the Church will take a nose-dive in the next 20 years. The oldsters, the group older than me, the VII hippie generation will not be around for ever. They are the majority filling pews at present. The in-betweeners, either side of my generation, are conspicuous by their absence. The vast majority are to all intents and purposes lapsed, at best Baptism + FHC/ Christmas and Easter. There are only a handful of regulars, one or two ultra-liberals, and the others conservative ish? There are a few young families, but catechesis is poor…and they are an unknown quantity yet to develop. I think in 20ish years time what are now 3 reasonably populated parishes will become probably 1 “surviving” parish.
5. SSPX do have influence. For example the diocese opening a TLM where SSPX are active. It’s something like SSPX hold the balance of power.
6. See what is happening to the “mainstream” Trads…FFI/Fisher More.
7. We can fight better from the fringes by voting with our feet than inside with hands tied. And as the mainstream declines further, SSPX numbers will be more significant, so the influence will increase.
8. It’s something like planting a tree for my children/grandchildren to enjoy the fruits, although I will probably not see them myself.
9. Later generations will not have the “emotional involvement” with VII and will be more able to analyse it. A time will come (I hope and believe) when they will need SSPX back in to help sort it out.
10. Personally, I feel more comfortable there and am seeing the fruits already for my son. My daughter hit teens and has lapsed from the NO parish. (please pray that she will come back). I moved my pre-teen son to SSPX to try to catch him before he went the same way. It is working. He loves it and doesn’t want to go back to the normal parish. He said last week that he understands the Latin Mass better than the NO. He finds the NO boring. Big difference in the sermons too…something to get your teeth into.
I hope and pray I am doing the right thing…who can ever be sure? Difficult times.
Interesting Doncurlyhorne what you say about your pre teen son and the TLM. My pre teen daughter has had the same reaction. She says she can actually understand the sermons at the TLM because they are ‘clear’ whereas the sermons at the NO were ‘all fuzzy’.
Great Pretender, the thought of the diocesan parishes being empty doesn’t frighten me, it saddens me. But I take your point that it’s better that they’re empty than that they’re leading souls away from the truth.
Editor, I have had a reply from Church Militant. They directed me to their statement on not criticising the Pope. In further emails with them they have said their April Dispatches programme will be on the ‘grave problems of the SSPX’.
Spero, I can see your point that ‘if all the Orthodox Catholics leave the diocesan parishes there is no hope for it. ‘ As I can attend an FSSP Mass I will keep going there for the meantime. If what has happened to the Franciscans of the Immaculate and Fisher More college comes to our neck of the woods, then I will go to the SSPX.
It’s not so much what happens to the FSSP – apart from all the other considerations set out on this thread, we should support the SSPX because without them there would BE no FSSP.
The FSSP priest in Edinburgh, interviewed in the Catholic Herald some years ago, publicly sang the praises of Cardinal O’Brien even though, at that time, the Cardinal had refused to allow him to offer a public Sunday Mass. Yet he, typically of the FSSP and other “approved” groups, was quite happy to praise him loudly in a major Catholic newspaper. This is sending the entirely wrong signal to the laity who obviously draw the conclusion that it’s no big deal of the local bishop won’t allow Sunday traditional Masses.
Can you imagine that FSSP priest explaining the errors of Vatican II in the pulpit, as our SSPX priests do to make sure we are not led astray? Can you imagine HIM remarking the Pope is wrong to support Civil Unions? Can you imagine him setting out the problems with the forthcoming canonisations in April, as our priest did a couple of weeks ago? How informed are Catholics attending the FSSP Masses? If they are depending on the FSSP priests to inform them, then they are no better informed that they would be attending the local diocesan parish.
And thus you are, with respect, settling for compromise. Yes, of course, the Mass is the Mass so it is good that you have decided to attend the TLM rather than the novus ordo. But it’s just a pity that – especially if you have children – you are settling for the compromise Catholicism offered by every other priest outside of the Society – certainly in my experience, and from reports coming to me from various quarters, the SSPX priests are the only priests who are preaching the whole – undiluted – Faith. And so, they deserve our active support.
Thanks for that update on Church Militant.
Can’t WAIT to see their analysis of the SSPX “grave problems.”
Their linking of their policy of non-criticism of the Pope with the SSPX proves what I’ve been convinced of for a long time: that the battle in the Church right now is essentially a battle between Modernism and the SSPX (the only group representing pure and undiluted Catholic Tradition)
I’ve cancelled my subscription to their emailing list so hope there is some way I can see their dispatches programme. I could use a laugh 😀
I have Church Militant friended on my FB. Last night I checked my FB and there was a post from CM about fake Rosaries. Ridiculous scare-mongering nonsense. At the time of checking there were 94 comments most of which were saying MV must be nuts to fall for that. I’m afraid in my eyes he lost credibility…irrespective of anything else.
I heard about those rosaries before. In fact I discovered that I had several of them, and I must admit I threw them out. The serpent’s open mouth at the head of Jesus is quite disturbing. I still don’t know whether the scare about them is a hoax or legitimate because I’ve also heard that they were made by an Italian company that made them in good faith and has now gone bust because nobody wants these rosaries anymore.
I am glad to see you have appeared on this blog from the Catholic Herald – welcome! It was via discussion on the Herald that I first came to this site too.
I agree with your points in your insightful post above.
What you say about the number of parishes shrinking is already happening in the diocese where I live. As an example, the local deanery is talking about going from 14 parishes, down to a suggested 6 or 3 or even 1 single parish(es); some of which might have more than one Church building.
(The sole positive in this is that it likely spells doom for at least some of the horrific modernist Church buildings built from the 60s onwards. Every cloud, eh?)
Sadly, the official dialogue coming from the Archdiocese seeks only to discuss how best to manage decline. There does not seem to be any interest from them in understanding (or admitting) why trends are as they are, much less reversing them.
You are right, too, that younger generations will not feel so defensive of Vatican II – they wont feel it is their “baby” which must be fiercely defended, encouraged and favoured.
The signs are encouraging, already (in 2011) Bishop Athanasius Schneider – an ethnic German prelate, based in Kazakhstan – has called for a “syllabus of errors” to be drawn up regarding Vatican II. Such an exercise could even involve SSPX representatives – what better vehicle to smooth out remaining issues? +Schneider is only 52, incidentally.
Although I am likely much older than your son, I had a similar experience to him after discovering the traditional mass. Even as a newcomer without much understanding, it immediately looked and felt much more like a religious experience should (compared to the new mass with its hubbub of chatter and mobile phones ringing etc).
I too was struck by the substance you hear from the pulpit from the SSPX and also the fact that their priests are mostly young men. The age thing was a revelation for me – at the novus ordo I had known only “grandfather figure” priests, with the rare younger priest who would inevitably be obviously homosexual.
I am sorry to hear your Daughter has lapsed, prayer and exposure to the latin mass will help!
To give some encouragement: I too lapsed from the Novus Ordo in my teens. The Church had never made itself any more than a bland piece of the background in my life, and I was happy to ditch it when I got my first weekend job, aged 16.
I never resented or disliked the Church, but it sold itself so short that it felt similar to standing at a bus stop – killing time via an inoffensive but disinteresting fashion, when you really have better things to do.
And that was that, for many years. And while I did still pray privately at times – in my, at the time, very basic and crude fashion – I never missed the Church nor any aspect of Church life.
It was only much later in life, from my mid 20s onwards, that I started to feel a longing to actually practice the Catholic faith. I credit this to God’s grace entering my life as I matured and started to consider what was really important in and about life – after all the distracted intoxication with the new earthly freedoms and experiences which young adulthood brings; cars, women, booze, travel, university etc.
I did eventually go back (to a novus ordo parish) in my late 20s and I am glad I did. I soon found my way to traditional Catholicism – God bless the internet!
I think I was lucky at the point of my return – I ended up in a parish which boasted a magnificent Church building and also a wonderful and capable choir. It was from this setting where I first heard Gregorian chant, which is when a light first “came on” in my head – “why isn’t this everywhere?” thought I? Why did they give us cheesy “Christian Rock” (guitars solos and everything) at primary school in the 80s, when the Faith can boast this depth and magnificence?
If I had ended up in a parish with a modern building, which had a priest who fancied himself as a comedian, and – of course – a dodgy pop singer backed by keyboard and guitar, perhaps my return would have been short lived.
I like to consider these fortunate outcomes as great examples of Divine Providence 🙂
Pray for your daughter and try to get her to experience the traditional mass with the family – even if only at special times, at first, Christmas, Easter etc. Even if she goes just once, it will plant a seed, especially if she has only known the new mass.
You are quite right in saying that all Catholics should be seeking sanctuary with the Society in this unprecedented storm. If the blizzard of scandal blowing in the faces of faithful Catholics does not indicate an Emergency situation in the Church I don’t know what does. Saint Hilaire of Poitiers, Saint Vincent of Lerins, and Saint Athanasius, to offer but three extremely reliable witnesses, all spoke of the importance of adhering to Tradition in times of crisis.
The accelerating disaster in the Church today brings to mind those images of Hiroshima or Nagasaki, with hardly a solid building standing. If anyone thinks that’s over the top, just look around, think of all the lapsed and religiously illiterate “Catholics” you know.
From what I have read, the story from Fort Worth mentioned at the top of this thread offers a perfect example of the overall picture regarding the Mass, canonical regularisation and the struggle for Tradition. The local bishop seeks to forbid the Mass of All Time. A US novus ordo blogger who appears to regularly blow a gasket at the mention of the Latin Mass and “traditionalist” Catholics has, not unexpectedly, pointed out the frequently highlighted conditions for the application of Summorum Pontificum which the Bishop might be likely to cite in trying to prevent the Mass of All Time being offered. In other words criticise or repudiate the New Mass and the Council documents, and you can forget about any “approved” Latin Mass.
The FSSP have shown very clearly that don’t intend breaking any lances, or endangering their “regularised” status. And, God help us, Father Gruner’s good name gets thrashed one more time.
I can’t and don’t judge individuals, and I appreciate there are other priests who are struggling valiantly for the True Faith and the sanctification of souls, but the Society are the ones who are effectively doing the hard fighting for Tradition. Many Catholics are prepared to march in parades and enjoy the results obtained by the Society, while tut-tutting about imaginary “schism”, and “good standing”. Spare us, please. Make no mistake, without the Society there would be no Latin Mass anywhere.
My belief, for what it’s worth, is that once the madness has ceased, Archbishop Lefebvre and the priestly Society he founded will have an honoured place in Church history until the end of time. These are priests who look like priests, talk like priests, and act like priests. I see in the Society priests, men who would unhesitatingly follow the example of the martyr priests of the Tudor and Cromwellian persecutions, or the priests who offered the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass at Mass Rocks on windswept mountains or in distant glen, or the priests of the Vendee and elsewhere in France, who at the time of the satanic Revolution refused to swear an oath to the Civil Constitution of the Clergy. The Bishops and priests of the Society are truly, absolutely loyal, in the proper Catholic way, to the papacy: as loyal as anybody and a great deal more so than many, from the highest levels down.
“In condemning us, you condemn the Church of all times. For what is there that She believed and taught that we also do not believe?”
– Saint Edmund Campion, Martyr
Here’s a question for the audience. Can anyone name any diocesan Bishop, who, like Archbishop Lefebvre, is willing, for the sake of the Catholic Faith, to stand in front of the tanks and cry halt to the madness? Seriously, can anyone name names? Would they all fit in the one car?
Firstly, I think, we must not be push-overs. It’s not a Christian virtue. (Not that this blog is, at all.)
The Franciscans of the Immaculate have been slavishly obedient to their persecutors in the false belief no doubt that God would reward them and rescue them for their pious, although inaccurate, imitation of Padre Pio’s own martyrdom of the will. God hasn’t rescued them. Their situation has gotten worse and worse. In fact, the order is being exterminated, literally. They won’t exist this time this year.
The FFI superiors who led this action of ‘obedience’ have failed their subordinates: like well meaning but incompetent officers they have led their spiritual children into a steep-sided pit only to be picked of by machine gunners, and consequently, numerous religious and priestly vocations have been lost. I feel sorry for the FFI, I genuinely do. But they need to understand this is where false obedience gets them. I apologise for using this kind of language, but when one is raped, one does not consent to the violation, even if the perpetrator be a bishop or the Pope.
Is ‘spiritual rape’ a crude an excessive allegory? I don’t believe so. The Church once used the same analogy in one of her rites*. Consider this: Their founder has been libelled personally by Volpi (personally chosen by Pope Francis), libelled with financial and administrative corruption. He himself has been coerced into solitary confinement, without contact from even his own family. The other superiors have been dismissed and replaced by Volpi’s associates. Their seminaries have been closed. They are forbidden to offer the 1962 Rite of their own accord (an illegal measure according to the universal law of the Church), there publishing houses have been closed, their media outlets (including their websites) have been taken control by third parties. The third order has been dissolved. The female branch is forbidden contact from priests from their own order. All FI members have been spiritually coerced into making an oath expressing material heresy. And there’s probably more that isn’t public…
What they think of the above is ‘obedience’, I call masochism. I would like to know how many young friars and novices have actually left during the past few months, completely disillusioned. I reckon it’s quite a lot.
This is what would have happened to the SSPX. Those who claim Lefebvre should have been ‘obedient’ simply haven’t grasped the fact that Lefebvre did what he did to exist, Tradition to exist, for the Mass of All Time to exist, for Catholicism to exist.
* “Rightly do we pull off thy ring, the sign of fidelity, since thou hast made bold to rape God’s own bride, the Church.” etc. The Rite of Degradation of a Bishop
In that list I forgot to mention the leaked threats of forced incardination of all its members into an alien order, and the consequent corporeal disintegration of an entire Institute of Religious Life with Pontifical Right in the absence of any known or alleged canonical infractions by any member of that order.
Your example of the FFI and their false obedience is crystal clear and an excellent example. You are correct to say that they have failed their subordinates and that is what all priests and bishops guilty of false obedience are doing to the people in the pews – they are letting us down, hugely.
What can we do? This is what was asked.
Well I have attended parishes where Protestant priests led people, who seemed to be completely unaware of what the agenda was.
However there are now a substantial number of priests, most of them young or youngish, who are orthodox in their beliefs; who radiate goodness, are hard working, and may be worried right now; and………….wait for it, celebrate the Novus Ordo Mass!
I have been in parishes where the Protestant priests were in control, and there is no comparison with what this new breed of fine priests live out.
I would feel a disloyalty in leaving the Novus Ordo where it is celebrated in holiness by a holy priest.
If all those who want orthodoxy in the mainstream church, just leave it, there is ho hope for it .At this time I still have hope that the Pope and those who want to change the Church’s teaching will not actually do this.
If core beliefs are cast aside then I will have to think again.
As is often pointed out on this blog and has been said already on this thread by editor, priests who have the name of being orthodox but are still saying the novus ordo Mass are responsible for the sacrileges of Holy Communion in the hand and EMHC. I fail to see how they can be called “holy” priests.
Have a look at this video and then tell me where “holiness” is:
And just to emphasize the point, this is a Novus Ordo Mass being celebrated faithfully.
“Loyalty”: what has this got to do with living in Truth?
“Leaving the mainstream Church”: see my response to PerpetuaFelicitas above. Leaving the mainstream Church and going to the SSPX is NOT, in fact, “leaving the Church.”
“If core beliefs are cast aside…”: Good God my friend, what on earth do you think is happening, has been happening, before your very eyes?
That is an absolutely wonderful video. It is all the more powerful because its contrasting a priest who is not doing all sorts of nonsense during the Mass but saying it properly. The difference is just stark. Thank you for posting that.
That’s a beautiful video. I’ve posted the link to a couple of NO priest friends.
One lives in hope…
Thanks for posting the video, Greatpretender. It reminds me of those ads on TV where, in attempt to show the efficiency of some gadget or another, they contrast two situations one using the cheaper gadget (the background is all grungy and disorganized and the characters dishevelled) and the other where the superior gadget is used (background is clean and very tasteful, the character immaculately dressed) – the results are dramatic!
I agree with MM,The videos did a great job contrasting the New Mass with the Mass of All Ages!
I have seen the NO offered even considerably better than in this video. It still cannot be compared with a TLM.
I hope the length of the following posts is not off putting. Regulars here will be familiar with the contents.They might, hopefully, help those of good will who, in the face of the perpetual giving of scandal, are discovering sites such as this one which defend Tradition and the full Catholic Faith. I hasten to add that these little efforts of mine are no substitute for reading the articles and resources available on the Society’s own sites.
No doubt many Catholics have reservations about attending the Society’s chapels precisely because they have been treated to the rash judgement of others, and because the Society is denied a canonically regular status. The latter is a fact, the alleged grounds for which have been inextricably bound up with the Crisis in the Church for almost four decades. The price for “regularization” is also very obvious: don’t step off the reservation and don’t ask awkward questions. In other words “regularization” of the Society is being held as hostage at the price of the Society accepting the New Mass and the novelties, ambiguities, and contradictions of previous constant teaching contained in documents of the Second Vatican Council, at which the Extraordinary Magisterium was consciously not exercised. With that in mind, the issue of true obedience as against servility has been discussed here numerous times.
“We must realize, however, that if there was question of a danger for the faith, the superiors would have to be rebuked by their inferiors, even in public.” Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, IIa, IIae, q.33, art. 4, ad 2)
A common canonical adage is that “against necessity, there is no law,” or “necessity knows no law.” In his constitution “Exiit qui seminat” of August 14, 1279, Pope Nicholas III confirmed this principle: “one is to be excused from every [positive] law on account of extreme necessity”. Many neo Catholics, not only in effect deny this principle, but actually pontificate that the opposite holds: “against law there is no necessity”. And, irony of ironies, some accuse “trads” of being “legalist” and Pharisees”.
“A tyrannical law, through not being according to reason, is not a law, absolutely speaking, but rather a perversion of law.” – Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I, II, q.92, a.1, ad 4.
To state the obvious, under canon law, the supreme law is the salvation of souls. Power in the Church is that of Christ, which means that all power is vicarious, even that exercised by the Pope and also the Bishops. The fullness of power that belongs to the authority of the Pope can only be rightly exercised in accord with the principle set forth by the Fourth Council of Constantinople and reaffirmed by the First Vatican Council, that is, “Our first salvation is to guard the rule of right faith” (Ds 3066).
The questions of true and false obedience, the fact that Catholics are under no obligation whatsoever to obey unjust commands, no matter who from, has been dealt with on other threads. Catholics theologians of the standing of Aquinas, Bellarmine, Suarez, and Vitoria have explained this very clearly and have been quoted on this blog.
On matters of doctrine, Saint Paul, could not have been clearer.
“But though we, or an angel from Heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.” (Galatians 1:8).
Neither the Pope or anyone else in the Church has the power to simply make someone an excommunicate, a schismatic, a non-Catholic, without just cause. If that’s the case, we are into the territory of Pope as capricious tyrant.
“It is necessary to obey a Pope in all things as long as he does not go against the universal customs of the Church, but should he go against the universal customs of the Church, he need not be followed.”
– Pope Innocent III, De Consuetudine
The Society, unlike many episcopal enemies of Tradition, accepts fully and unhesitatingly all teaching which has been taught by the Church consistently, continuously and unwaveringly. That’s the universal bit in the “ordinary and universal magisterium”. Here’s an idea: why doesn’t the Pope nominate a day for all Catholics to profess the Athanasian Creed or the Profession of the Catholic Faith, of the Council of Trent. I’m sure the Society would be glad to help supply copies.
I do not expect that anyone will take issue with the principle that obedience comes from duties and the existence of authority, and that all authority comes from God. As stated above, the supreme law of the Church is the salvation of souls. No human authority in the Church, including Popes and bishops, has a right to use its power or command obedience in contravention of the divine law on which that authority is based.The hierarchical authority of the Church cannot but be ordered towards the purpose of the glorification of God and the salvation of souls, and any exercise of papal authority in opposition to that purpose cannot command obedience. Our Lord said to Peter, “feed my sheep”. He did not say “these are now your sheep to do whatever you like with”.
“If [the Pope] gives an order contrary to good customs, he should not be obeyed; if he attempts to do something openly opposed to justice and the common good, it will be licit to resist him; if he attacks by force, by force he can be repelled, with a moderation appropriate to a just defence” (Fr. Francisco Suarez SJ, one of the foremost theologians and Scholastic philosophers of the 16th-17th centuries).
“Now sometimes the things commanded by a superior are against God, therefore superiors are not to be obeyed in all things.” – St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theoligica II-II, q. 104, art. 5, ad. 3
In other words, no authority in the Church can demand obedience to commands contrary to the divine law and the good of souls. Saint Thomas Aquinas addressed the issue of the obedience in Summa Theologica, II, II, Q. 104, Art. 5 (just quoted from). Here the Angelic Doctor states that outside of those things which relate to his mode of religious life, a professed religious, with the highest duty of obedience in the Church, is only bound by obedience if “such things be not contrary to God or to the rule they profess, for obedience in this case would be unlawful.” Any command contrary to divine law removes a duty of obedience. In other words, the principle according to which one must “obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29) applies to religious superiors, just as to any other authority on earth.
The Pope has not been invested with supreme authority in order to destroy the Church but in order to build her up; not to prevent souls from being saved but to enable them to be saved, to be protected from error, and to be fed true doctrine.
In short, the Angelic Doctor insists that laws that are unjust or require a man to do evil are not binding on the conscience of the faithful, because they are not from God and carry no weight. A man must never obey an order that entails committing sin; and he need not obey a law that causes him unjust harm, unless disobeying would give scandal or would cause a more serious problem.
Rather than joining in destroying the Church and trying to build some tower of Babel like Church of Man, the Society carry out their mission for the glory of God and the salvation of souls, many of which would otherwise have fallen into the hands of the modernists, modernists in mitres. In his 1923 encyclical Studiorum Ducem, Pope Pius XI stated that the salvation of souls is the “chief task and peculiar mission of the Church” (paragraph 1). If the Church were ever to fail in this, she would have failed in her primary reason for being.
One day justice will be done and the insults and calumny will end. In the meantime the Society will continue in its work of defending the Faith, forming good and holy priests, and playing its part in the restoration of the Social Kingship of Christ. One day, the Successor of Peter will unequivocally make known to all, the Church’s debt of gratitude to the Priestly Society founded by Archbishop Lefebvre.
On that day, Catholics will ask themselves how Bishops and priests who held to the Mass of All Time and the true Faith were ever denied canonical regularity.
The false accusation that the Society has been schismatic since 30 June 1988 appears very difficult to dispel, no matter how much evidence is produced. As far as I know, it has yet to be explained how Bishops and priests who are not excommunicated, are outside the Church. An article by Christopher Ferrara, published in the Remnant Newspaper, and which has been posted more than once is worth reading:
Saint Augustine stated that against facts there is no argument. Well, those Catholics take it upon themselves to try and bind the consciences of Catholics to their own private judgement and who declare that the Society is schismatic have some rather awkward facts to deal with.
. But the Code of Canon Law nowhere says that illicit consecration of bishops is a schismatic offense. In the 1983 Code of Canon Law, episcopal consecration without papal mandate is not found under the section of “Offences against Religions and the unity of the Church.”
Since schism is defined by the same Code as “the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him” (Canon 751), Archbishop Lefebvre could only be accused of schism if he had by the consecrations sought to start his own church or attempted to give jurisdiction to the bishops he consecrated. That was manifestly not the case. Facing the end of his life, and after strenuous and long lasting efforts in the struggle for Tradition, the Archbishop wanted to provide the means to ensure that the Mass, the orthodox priesthood and the means of preserving and protecting Tradition would be passed on. His concern was for the salvation of souls.
During his sermon at the episcopal consecrations, Archbishop Lefebvre made it very clear that there was no intention or spirit of schism involved:
“We are not schismatics! . . .There is no question of us separating ourselves from Rome, nor of putting ourselves under a foreign government, nor of establishing a sort of parallel church as the Bishops of Palmar de Troya have done in Spain. . . . It is out of the question for us to do such things. Far from us be this miserable thought to separate ourselves from Rome!”
It’s worth reading the magnificent sermon in full.
If the Archbishop was schismatic and rejected the Pope’s authority to command or the primacy of the See of Rome, then why on earth would he have spent years in contact with Rome, and travelling there whenever requested? If he was schismatic and desirous to set up his own “church” the Archbishop wouldn’t have been one bit concerned with Rome and would no doubt have consecrated plenty of Bishops long before ill health and impending death closed in on him.
It’s a statement of fact that the episcopal consecrations were against the will of the Pope. That in itself does not constitute schism. A lot more is required.
“Schismatics properly so called are those who willfully and intentionally separate themselves from the unity of the Church.” – St Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica, II-II, q. 39, a.1
Other Dominican theologians such as Pruemmer and Merkelbech further confirm that mere disobedience does not constitute schism.
“Mere contempt of a precept or law of the Pope, no matter how grave or obstinate, is mere disobedience of a precept, and therefore not schismatic in its essence, and hence, does not separate one from the Church.” – Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II-II, q.12, a. 1 ad 3
That the consecration of bishops cannot be an intrinsically schismatic act is evident under canon law. Under the 1917 Code of Canon Law, the punishment for illicitly consecrating bishops was not excommunication but mere suspension (this was changed to excommunication in 1951). However, if consecrating bishops without papal mandate were an inherently schismatic offense, then the 1917 Code would have had to require excommunication for this offense, because the very same Code teaches, as the 1983 Code does, that schismatics incur latae sententiae excommunication (Canon 2314 in the 1917 Code; Canon 1382 in the 1983 Code). Therefore, consecrating bishops without papal mandate is not an inherently schismatic offense. To state otherwise lacks foundation.
There is a very significant point that needs to be made in relation to the episcopal conscecrations on 30 June 1988. When Archbishop Lefebvre was sent the canonical warning by Cardinal Gantin on June 17, 1988, the warning did not include mention of schism anywhere. Don’t anyone tell me that that was some accidental oversight and omission.
The Pope, as supreme legislator, can add new canons to the Code. But he cannot make something schismatic that is not inherently so.
Archbishop Lefebvre knew that when he acted, as a true Catholic Bishop, out of grave concern for the salvation of souls, and “handed on what I have received”.
Canon 751 of the 1983 Code, as stated previously, defines schism as “the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him”. The Catholic Encyclopedia teaches this manifestly: “Not every disobedience is a schism; in order to possess this character it must include besides the transgression of the commands of superiors, denial of their Divine right to command” Neither Archbishop Lefebvre nor the Society has ever denied the Pope’s authority to command. I think the Archbishop’s attitude has been spelt out. If anyone thinks the Society’s position has changed one iota, they ought to read the Declaration of the Society’s General Chapter last year. It includes the following:
“We reaffirm our faith in the Roman Catholic Church, the unique Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ, outside of which there is no salvation nor possibility to find the means leading to salvation; our faith in its monarchical constitution, desired by Our Lord Himself, by which the supreme power of government over the universal Church belongs only to the Pope, Vicar of Christ on earth…”
How many of those Bishops and priests who declare the Society “schismatic” would put their names to that Declaration?
The introduction to the Remnant article which you posted by link, is the answer to the critics of the SSPX priests: “Archbishop Rembert Weakland: Notorious dissenter from Church teaching, suspected heretic and admitted homosexual—enjoys “full communion” with the Church.”
“But the Code of Canon Law nowhere says that illicit consecration of bishops is a schismatic offense”
I’ve had people argue black was white with me when I say this. The lie that the SSPX is in schism is almost impossible to get out of people’s heads. They seem to be brainwashed on this.
Thanks yet again for your informative posts.
The best, most succinct description for this ‘brainwashing’ I have ever heard is ‘legal positivism’. I think I read it in the Remnant.
I think many people are hindered from approaching the Society by the finger wagging neo Catholic pharisees who set themselves up as some sort of parallel magisterium with the power to declare faithful Catholics anathema. A common canonical adage is that “against necessity, there is no law,” or “necessity knows no law.” In his constitution “Exiit qui seminat” of August 14, 1279, Pope Nicholas III confirmed this principle: “one is to be excused from every [positive] law on account of extreme necessity”. Many neo Catholics, not only in effect deny this principle, but actually pontificate that the opposite holds: “against law there is no necessity”
The old chestnut of the “excommunications” is probably at or near top of the list when it comes to lingering disinformation about the Society. A great many of those Catholic who give the issue any amount of thought appear not to be aware that the priests of the Society and the laity to whom they minister were never excommunicated. Speaking as a very ordinary layman, I would also say that neither were Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop Castro de Mayer, or any of the four bishops ever excommunicated.
The principle that an excommunication without proper cause is null and void is explained by Saint Thomas Aquinas. He writes:
“An excommunication may be unjust for two reasons… Secondly, on the part of the excommunication, through there being no proper cause, or through the sentence being passed without the forms of law being observed. In this case, if the error, on the part of the sentence, be such as to render the sentence void, this has no effect, for there is no excommunication . . .” –Summa Theologica Supplement to Part 3, Q. 21, Art. 4
Those who claim that the issue is cut and dried will point to canon 1382 which states that both the Bishop who, without a pontifical mandate, consecrates a person a Bishop, and the one who receives the consecration from him, incur a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.
Well they seem to ignore the fact that canon law comes to the defence of Archbishop Lefebvre and the other Bishops. Leaving aside the fact that before 1951, consecrating a bishop without papal mandate (canon 2370, 1917 Code of Canon Law) was punishable by suspension and not excommunication (which applies in the case of schism by the way), canons 1323 and 1324 of the 1983 Code provide a very firm basis for saying that latae sententiae excommunications were not incurred on June 30 1988.
Canon 1323 clearly states that those acting “out of necessity” are “not subject to penalties” i.e. not subject to any penalty, and canon 1324, #3 states that “one is not bound by an automatic (latae sententiae) penalty”…who erroneously yet culpably thought” (1324 #1,8) that he was acting out of the compulsion of grave fear, even if only relative, or by reason of necessity or grave inconvenience…” (1323,4)
Canon 1324 #3 states that, “an accused is not bound by an automatic penalty (latae sententiae) in the presence of any of the circumstances enumerated in #1”. These include the violation of law or precept “by one erroneously yet culpably thought one of the circumstances in in canon 1323, nn. 4 and 5 was verified” (see immediately above).
In short, canon law states that automatic penalty is not incurred when one even erroneously yet culpably considered himself to be acting out of necessity. The questions of whether or not there was a grave necessity, and whether or not the Archbishop was right in thinking there was a grave necessity, are not relevant. What is relevant as far as the issue of the excommunications being unjust and therefore void, is that the Archbishop sincerely (and very reasonably) believed that there was a grave necessity.
Surely, anyone who is any position to express an opinion on this matter, cannot in good faith doubt the Archbishop’s mind on the crisis facing the Church after everything he had done and said, and written for years, and the lengths he had gone to find a proper and just solution to that crisis.
Neither the Pope or anyone else in the Church has the power to simply make someone an excommunicate. If that’s the case, we are into the territory of Pope as capricious tyrant. Whether someone is excommunicated latae sententiae depends on whether they have committed an offense that incurs such an excommunication.
How can it be reasonably doubted that canon law was very much in Archbishop Lefebvre’s favour, to say the least?
After reading your superb apologia, I don’t know see how it is possible to be anywhere but with the SSPX!
Thank you for posting such an outstanding and thorough explanation of the Society’s position.
With the latest banning of the Mass in Texas, and the imminent demise of the FFI, I think even those traditional Catholics in good standing with the Church, may be sufficiently worried and more likely to be nudged in the direction of the SSPX.
Everything I need to know is in this post of yours. Your penultimate paragraph is one I will not forget. It’s so difficult to argue with people who keep on about “schism” re. the Society of Saint Pius X. My own gut instinct is that it cannot possibly be that the only priests who have stuck with the full Catholic faith are the ones in schism. Thank you very much for your clear posts – all of them are fantastically informative.
Thank you Margaret Mary, Jobstears and Fidelis for all your very kind words.
I think it bears repetition once more, that it must be included as just one more item on the list of scandals when Catholics have to go researching canon law or theology for themselves in order to do the right thing towards saving their souls, and those of their families. Past generations, I’m sure, just wouldn’t have believed such a requirement possible, ever.
No Catholic should ever underestimate the extreme gravity of the whole issue of schism, and what is at stake. It’s definitely not an area for casual ignorance. Never has been and never will be.
“Whataboutery” isn’t always a satisfactory tool of debate. Nevertheless, arguments directed at the Society on the matter of faculties ring rather hollow in light of the fact that Hans Kung claims to have faculties, as a priest in good standing, and his former bishop in Switzerland now holds a very senior post in the Curia.
Mention of faculties and schism brings to mind the Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association (CPA) which is a human institution founded by the Chinese communist government and which does not recognise the Pope as its head: in other words genuine, thoroughgoing schismatics, by any standard. And yet in the past CPA priests were granted faculties in the diocese of San Francisco. In an Open Letter to the Vatican, Joseph Kung from the Cardinal (not Hans!) Kung Foundation complained that the CPA priests “were allowed to offer Holy Mass publicly in Roman Catholic Churches and to administer other sacraments openly in parishes. No specific mention was made in parish bulletins that the priest in question belong to the CPA and no explanation was made about the schismatic nature of the CPA.”
And who was the bishop of San Francisco at the time? None other than Archbishop (as he was then) William Levada, Archbishop Mueller’s predecessor as Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. I’m not subjectively judging anyone’s intentions here, but the objective reality leads to a rather obvious and safe conclusion about double standards.
I’d like to ask a question regarding the new Mass, following some email correspondence I’ve had recently with a diocesan priest.
Some years ago, a priest told me that he (and his fellow seminarians) had been taught to make eye contact during Mass, with, if possible, everyone in the church. I immediately replied that this instruction came from the devil.
When I repeated that in this recent email correspondence, the priest replied that he’d never heard that said before about the devil, that Jesus would have made eye contact with the apostles at the Last Supper and that liturgically and culturally eye contact is “essential” adding that this was not necessarily the case during the Eucharistic Prayer but during Gospel and prayers, eye contact “essential”…
Does anyone understand why I would say that for seminary professors to instruct priests to make eye contact with the congregation during Mass is diabolical ?
Editor, would very much like to know the answer to this. It must have something to do with the eyes being the direct gate to the soul ..?
Good try… but try again 😀
My father told me this years and years ago but I cannot remember his explanation. Tell us, please.
For some reason your latest comment went into our SPAM box, from whence I have just retrieved it. Have no idea why. The mysteries of technology, in my view, are far more incomprehensible than any mystery of Faith.
To answer your question…
Some years ago, a friend in the south of England took to sending me the publication of a radical feminist group (at that time they were listed in the national Catholic directory of England & Wales, despite (or because of?) their battle for women’s ordination. I THINK they’ve now been removed, following complaints.)
In that publication I was horrified to read stories of women whose affairs with priests began in precisely this way.
Anyone who knows anything about the subject knows that such attraction begins through the eyes. For any seminary rector to explicitly encourage eye contact between priests and every member of the congregation, is diabolical. I’ve had a priest try to convince me otherwise these past few days (by email) – will never work. I know all about fallen human nature, me. I read about it somewhere once.
When I raise my head to adore Our Lord at the elevation, I find it very distracting to see the priest looking at me, but have learned to block him out. Apart from that I keep my eyes closed throughout the Mass.
I have always found it the only way to pray.
That always shocks me, too. Why is any priest looking around the congregation at that point in the Mass? It’s ridiculous.
I’m getting more and more disillusioned with Pope Francis. His latest public act of “humility” is to confess to stealing a dead priest’s rosary. How on earth are we supposed to respect this man?
I am putting in a link to a really interesting article about Bishop Olson who banned the Latin Mass because it’s a really interesting article with three very short but excellent videos at the end.
Agreed. I once had the awful experience of having a PP who used to raise the Host way above my head at Communion. I refused to lift my eyes and waited until he brought the Host down to administer. It was very distracting and when possible I went elsewhere for Mass. It’s a wonder the clergy seem to have forgotten that “He must increase and (they) must decrease.”
Sorry, just catching up with this one. There’s eye-contact and eye-contact. When you give a talk to a number of people, it’s better to look at them than read from notes, head down. This would apply to priests’ homilies as well, and may be all that was meant by the ‘eye-contact’ instruction. However, ogling someone in particular is definitely not on!
I don’t think anyone minds the priest looking round during his homily.
I really only answered Benedict’s question on this to … well answer his question, but it’s not really something I’m keen to pursue. The point has been made and I think we should leave it there. The fact is, the new Mass is full of distractions and it doesn’t afford either priests or people the same protections as the old rite Mass. Still, Cardinal Ranjith said that the new Mass will be gone in a generation so my message to all and sundry is, “hang on in there – not long to go now!” 😀
PS – love your avatar and wish you’d come on more often to cheer us all up!
I really do wonder what these “prelates” do all day. He would bore me to death if that is his teaching style. What a waffler! It reminds reminds me of the retired bishop (in Ireland) who went on national television to tell that he had not believed in God for years.
The bishops are really, in too many cases, just careerists. Do not trust them.
‘I, personally, am speechless……’
😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀
No one on this thread appears to have asked the question’ WHAT WOULD JESUS SAY/DO??. In fact Jesus is not mentioned once; and after all if it hadn’t been for Jesus we wouldn’t have these daft bletherings!!! Just wondered folks!!!!!!!!!
What do YOU think Jesus would say or do?
Editor, Jesus would have loved even a pharisiacal hypocrite like you !
Ed: You don’t say. Shucks, thanks.
In fact He did to the extent of dying on a cross for YOU.
Ed: no! Howdayeknowthatthen?
The sooner you open your heart and mind to this fact the sooner you will come to understand the fullness of truth. Then and only then will you be able to truly call CT an apostolate leading others to the ONE TRUE FAITH of our Fathers. If you continue to preach the apostasy which you do and lead others in the same error, your eternal soul is in grave danger.
Ed: thanks for caring, Sugar Plum. Ah do decleah – I had no idea 😀
Talking about Pharisaical hypocrites, I’m curious as the line of your reasoning. How do you come to the conclusion from the thread Editor posted- which incidentally, is not something she made up, not one teeny tiny bit- that she is leading souls to apostasy?
As for CT not being an apostolate, well, my friend, hadn’t you better leave that to God to judge? Seems to me you’d be better off following our Pope’s example and asking instead, “Who am I to judge?”.
Sorry, I should have warned you to ignore Chasdom’s personal attacks on me – water off a duck’s back.
I have been away from my computer all day so released his post without too close scrutiny – I’m now going to remove my name from his post. He’s been warned not to use people’s real names, He doesn’t give his own so it’s rather odd to insist on using mine (he seems keen to give the impression that he knows me personally 😀 A fan, at last ❗
Anyway please don’t worry about coming to my defence although I very much appreciate your charity – the cheque is in the post!
Wow! I am a student but also a thinking Catholic, and nothing, absolutely NOTHING Editor has said anywhere on CT has diminished my respect for the Church or for the offices of the Pope and bishops within it.
May I respectfully suggest that you open your mind and heart to the truth so that you could understand what Editor is saying rather than going around criticising her for what she hasn’t done.
My post to Jobstears is intended for you, as well. With bells on!
I’ve now inserted a little editorial comment into Chasdom’s post. Enjoy!
Editor, you can always be relied on to reply in a sarcastic manner when ever anyone(not just myself) takes issue with your very small minded view of the catho!ic faith. You never let me down on that score!!!!! And your own admission of having ‘no idea’ speaks volumes: just how true that is!!!!!!
Oh do be quiet.
At least Editor is reliable and can spell 😉
“Pharisiacal hypocrite” would be a more serious insult if it was spelled correctly my dear friend 🙂
When there’s no content it’s of utmost important that at least the shell has the proper trappings.
Yes, speling has always been my strong suite – oops, sweet. I used to be terrible at sentence structure, but right I’m now all.
😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀
I started my Catholic blogging life about six years ago on Damian Thompson’s Telegraph ‘Holy Smoke’ blog, from which I was eventually banned for the last time some three years ago along with a group of others who Damian could no longer stomach (one of us, “Mundabor”, has his own blog now under that name).
I moved to the Catholic Herald and did some good work there too I thought – but I have now been banned by them too several times. The moment they realise that a new ID is actually me, that ID is banned and every single post made by that ID deleted from the entire site. That process has happened about five or six times now I think.
It’s a metaphor for Anti-Church’s hatred of Catholicism: any strong Traditionalist voice is attacked, mocked, spat upon (just like Our Lord) and in the end “killed” by wholesale deletion.
And the Catholic Herald is supposedly a Catholic … well, you know the rest.
Here, may I finally say what I really think?
I think the thing that passes for the visible Catholic Church in the world today is a devilish cuckoo born of Marxism, Modernism and Masonry. It is a Church eviscerated by deliberate entryism in decades past by Communists and homosexual militants, no doubt directed by the monsters of the Lubyanka. I’ve even met some of them, having lived in Russia for getting on for thirteen years. Monsters they were and monsters they remain, albeit nowadays with Gucci suits.
The evidence is available that this entryism was real and of course was planned and brilliantly executed deliberately to destroy the Church at its heart: the priesthood and the Sacraments. Ruin those and the Faith would fall. As indeed has happened.
Father Malachi Martin said even as long ago as the middle 1970’s that the institutional Church no longer existed, it had already been destroyed. One can only agree. When the Catholic Church starts persecuting Catholics for simply wanting to remain Catholic, one knows that it is no longer faithful to Jesus Christ but is apostate. And don’t we see this with this Argentinian? Who knows what he believes? Maybe he doesn’t know himself. But I see only an oafish buffoon, jibbering and jabbering Vatican II platitudes and causing scandal to the Catholic Faith every time he opens his mouth. The attacks on the Old Mass again gather pace: it cannot be allowed to exist!
I go further: Fr. Martin thought that the collapse of the Church globally in the ten years from 1965 could theologically speaking only be due to the withdrawal of Grace by Our Lord. I am tempted to believe this, really tempted. Where is our Church? Where is the defence of the Faith? Where are the men, the courageous men, to stand up and tell this faithless and haughty generation the truth? Absolutely nowhere to be seen or heard. No courage, no manliness, no bravery, no intellectual content to these men, no interest in doctrine (except to find a way around it), no seriousness, no transcendence, no beauty, no holiness dare one say.
The Catholic Faith reduced to the level of Grange Hill and East Enders.
If what passes for the Church hates the Catholic Faith, then ipso facto it must be in the hands of the devil. No, not every cleric and not every layman: we all know some good and mostly orthodox priests and laity exist amongst the rubble. But in general “Great Apostasy” (as foretold by Our Lord Himself, bu Our Lady, by the stigamtics, the mystics, the Saints) is written all over it. Faithless, full of heresy, weak, dysfunctional, lost. Like a lost soul. Scripture gives us enough warning of all this – if we believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God.
Garabandal. No, it has not been approved. Nor has it been condemned. Fatima. These two places hold the key.
It’s all a monstrous attack by all the forces of hell on the Church, starting as far as I am concerned from the time of the great vision of Pope Leo XIII. We are now within the filthy, swift-moving waters of the demonic tsunami, tossed about like so much debris and rubbish. I am convinced that the truth about Fatima has been deliberately hidden. I am convinced that the events foretold at Garabandal will occur in my lifetime.
Where does a soul come to rest in this maelstrom? Clearly, with the Old Mass and with priests who have not changed an iota of the Catholic Faith. No, the SSPX is not the Catholic Church, but while we await the Pope who will finally drive out the myriad heretics, false theologies, false philosophies and the apostates and homosexual devils who pass for our clergy in these End Times (for living in the days of the St. John’s Apocalypse we surely are) I know that with the SSPX I am with the Catholic Church insofar as it exists in pure form in this world today.
Here is a First World War poem by Richard Aldington (killed in action) that beautifully sums up my vision of the poor, almost-invisible bride of Christ at the present moment. And it stands for each of us, too. Let us keep the Faith to the end. We are a remnant, a lucky few. There can be no giving up.
Why should you try to crush me?
Am I so Christ-like?
You beat against me
Immense waves, filthy with refuse.
I am the last upright of a smashed breakwater,
But you shall not crush me
Though you bury me in foaming slime
And hiss your hatred about me.
You break over me, cover me;
I shudder at the contact;
Yet I pierce through you
And stand up, torn, dripping, shaken,
But whole and fierce.
Of course you are welcome here and I’m astonished that you’ve been blocked by the Catholic Herald. That’s amazing. I’ve praised them in the past for not pre-moderating posts, so I can’t imagine why they blocked yours which were always excellent. You did, indeed, do a great deal of good over there at the CH. They’re probably getting nervous as the realisation dawns that the only people really blogging with any knowledge on the subject of the crisis in the Church, are SSPX Mass-goers. Must be pretty hard to swallow.
There’s only one point of disagreement in your comment above – and it is about Garabandal, which you say has not been condemned.
In fact, “Not only did the Bishop in 1965 condemn Garabandal, but five bishops after him have condemned it…” Source
The manifest signs of diabolical activity there (walking backwards etc) are so obvious that I’m sorry to say I am always dumbfounded when otherwise intelligent and discerning Catholics say they believe it. In any case, I cannot comprehend why anyone would bother about unapproved apparitions (condemned or not) when Fatima is clearly the key to ending the crisis in both Church and world. However, this is not the place to have that discussion – you are, of course, welcome to comment on it, if you wish, on the Garabandal thread – click here while I go and find my boxing gloves.
As for the rest – you are right about the dire state of the Church. I didn’t know that Fr Malachi Martin had remarked that God had withdrawn grace from the Church so I’m feeling very self-important that I’ve made that observation myself many times. I had the good fortune to befriend an old priest in the Diocese of Middlesbrough, now deceased (both priest and diocese!) who – although he said the novus ordo Mass himself – once asserted that: “the new Mass does not sanctify like the old Mass does…” Another way of saying the same thing – that, without detracting at all from the truth of the indefectibility of the Church, grace has been withdrawn from the Church in our times. Tends to happen when we decide we don’t need God and/or Catholic Tradition, and will do our own thing.
Anyway, welcome aboard, Benedict, I know your posts here will be as helpful and insightful as anything you’ve posted at the Telegraph (not my favourite place) and Catholic Herald.
I believe Fr Malachi Martin’s statement about the withdrawal of grace from the Church was that it was Heaven’s response to John XXIII’s failure to release the Third Secret and perform the Consecration, as requested by Our Lady. He was, after all, the “Pope of 1960.”
That makes a lot of sense. The thought that God would withdraw grace from the Church is worrying but what you say makes sense, definitely.
“The thought that God would withdraw grace from the Church is worrying ..”
A bit more than “worrying” I think. Without Grace we cannot get to Heaven.
My own view I think is that Grace IS available but maybe (i) only to the Elect; (ii) or available but sparingly so.
Well I have no problem believing God has withdrawn his grace from the Church. It wasn’t Malachi Martin’s idea, St Paul is the first to mention it:
2 Thessalonians 2:10 in the Douay.
I’ve just read the quote by Miles below and it’s a bit scary. My view on this is to err on the side of caution, as the first verses of that passage suggest. We none of us really know so I think it’s better not to jump to any conclusions. It’s all speculation at this point….end times…not end times yet…who knows?
My feeling is that God would not withhold grace….because He promised to be with us till the end of time….so until we get to the end of time (which of course might be tomorrow) I think it’s fair to assume that grace is still available. I would guess that grace is pretty thin on the ground, but I would look at that as a bottom-up thing not a top-down thing. I mean how many people no longer believe in the Real Presence? How many people don’t bother to go to confession? How many people consider themselves to belong to the Church but do not live by Her rules? (or at least try to…we are all sinners). It is my belief that grace is available but that grace has to be honestly accepted…if people are not open to it, in that sense it is withheld.
I have a bit of a weird experience, that I have never mentioned before, worried that people would think I’m nuts, but maybe I can mention it here in this context. In the Cathedral in my city, I cannot feel the Real Presence in the main body of the Cathedral. I have never liked the Cathedral for that reason…it feels wrong, cold and empty. The Blessed Sacrament is reserved in a small side chapel. When you go searching for it and find it, yes, in the area of that small chapel you can feel His presence, like having a small paraffin heater in a massive hall…you can only feel the warmth when you draw near. The only explanation I can find for that might be something like we have put Him to one side, out of sight, out of mind, (the Cathedral is sort of round, so if you can imagine, the side chapel is not even visible from the main seating area). I am thinking if you go looking for Him, He is there, but if you just go about your business without worrying,” where is He? ” maybe He will not make Himself clearly available.
I don’t know if I’m being silly…but that’s how it feels. I have seen so many people attend events at the Cathedral and walk straight past the chapel where the Blessed Sacrament is reserved without stopping to genuflect on their way out…and to be honest, if you didn’t know it was there you could easily miss it, it is very un-obvious. And people coming to sit in the main part of the Cathedral, it feels very odd, how are you going to genuflect in front of a Tabernacle that you can’t even see?
I think maybe grace is something like this. It is available if you go looking for it, but how will grace get in to hard hearts?
I think your comment is full of wisdom.
It’s nothing new, the idea that God withdraws His grace. We need to keep reminding ourselves that grace is entirely unmerited – it is a free gift of God. If He chooses to withhold that unmerited gift, there must be good reason for it. Here’s one reason – quote from the Douay Rheims Bible:
1:26 For this cause, God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature.
God delivered them up. . .Not by being author of their sins, but by withdrawing his grace, and so permitting them, in punishment of their pride, to fall into those shameful sins Source
There can be little doubt that grace is notably absent in the modern Church. Clearly, individuals receive grace and I made a point of saying in my original comment on the matter that this belief that God withdraws His grace has nothing at all to do with the Church’s indefectibility – a unique grace guaranteed by Christ until the end of time. But, that said, unless you think God is pleased with the way the Church has taken a diabolical disorientation about which He sent Our Lady to warn us in 1917, then it shouldn’t come as any surprise that God has chosen to withdraw grace from the Church at this time of outright heresy and blatant disobedience to His moral laws.
I really don’t think there’s anything speculative about it, if you compare what Scripture and the sermons of the great saints have to say on the matter.
Editor, I am finding this all rather confusing, not being a theologian. I am just trying to make the best sense of things that I can. I agree that God can withhold grace…in the sense you use in your quotation….which seems to me to have the same sense as what I wrote above. If people are hard hearted, yes God will allow them to fall into sinfulness…but surely as individuals? Or peoples? I do not see how God can withhold grace from the Church without affecting the concept of the Church’s indefectability. Yes, I cannot imagine that God is happy with the state of things, but if grace is withheld from the Church how can any individual receive God’s grace?
I agree that perhaps using the term “the Church” is what is causing some confusion. It seems obvious that there is a spiritual blindness among the clergy and hierarchy, including the upper hierarchy, so perhaps it is more accurate and less confusing to speak about them – having manifestly turned their back on Catholic Tradition – having had grace withheld.
I suggest we leave it at that and agree, simply, that there is a diabolical disorientation within the Church today, which will be ended the minute the Pope obeys Our Lady’s request to consecrate Russia to her Immaculate Heart.
Deal or no deal?
Oh yes….I definitely agree there is a diabolical disorientation….at all levels. If there wasn’t, there would be no need for us to be here quibbling about exactly what it means or how it works etc etc. One thing for sure that I think we can all agree on….there’s something badly wrong! It seems quite clear that a lot of people (including in high places) are thinking like politicians not holy men. One has to doubt their faith. It seems to me that what is needed is men of faith who are prepared to stand up for their faith (including the Consecration of Russia) but also in general.
I attended The Holy Rosary procession from George Square in Glasgow which ended in Glasgow Cathedral for Mass last summer.
I had never been to the Cathedral before, I won’t be back in a hurry. I really thought I was in a protestant church.
I couldn’t bless myself on entering His Presence.
I couldn’t find Our Lord in the tabernacle. I found the whole experience very disturbing. I never did find the tabernacle, but I did find the holy water font, it is ridiculous and in a stupid position halfway up the center ailsle. I couldn’t beleive it!
I wrote to the organisers of the anti abortion event explaining that I would be back next year, but that I would not be attending Mass in such a disgraceful place. I asked that they arrange for Mass in one of the many beautiful city center churches where Our Lord is front and center – but I didn’t receive a reply. I live and learn.
Yes, Editor, BC is repeatedly blocked on CH. He was the one most directly responsible for educating me and that is the reason I feel it necessary to keep going….to give something back. I could have been floundering in confusion for years if it hadn’t been for him…and I think there may be others out there like me…they need access to the info.
Just a couple of weeks ago, my comments on CH were all deleted. Not only that, but they have banned my IP address! Strange thing is, all the comments that are deleted usually get the most numerous and positive responses from other commenters, including yours of course. I am fairly sure I was banned because I wrote something that would have offended the gay moderators at Catholic Herald. One woman was deleted for merely mentioning ‘homosexuality’ in the same paragraph as ‘abortion’ and ‘divorce’, to the bemusement of everyone else.
I used to read DT’s blog on the Telegraph when I was a teenager. I remember both yourself and Mundabor back in the day and you said some very encouraging things to me. Thank you. I naively thought DT was a champion for the faith! I saw him as a role model! How ridiculous when I look back now. I was duped because he would comment on the situation in the English Church with “the Magic Circle”. He was pro-Traditional Mass. He criticised +Conti and accused him of having an “Avignon-on-Clyde” mentality for his “philistine” hatred for the Traditional Mas and Summorum Pontificum. And he blasted folk music in Mass and rainbow chasubles etc.. He really won me over. These things made me think DT was very legit. But his blog has really gone down the toilet since then. I even detected liberal and pro-gay undertones. I know it’s true he attends Mass at the London Oratory, but now that I am clued up on the crisis, those kind of superficial details don’t fool me. He represents that kind of camp, Tory, ‘gin-and-lace’ Catholicism that I find absolutely revolting. You find a lot of those types at indult Masses. They often despise the SSPX and the authentic Traditional types, usually because they find them ‘homophobic’.
I need some help. I wrote to Church Militant and mentioned the video which clearly showed that Pope Francis was making the same errors that Church Militant castigated certain bishops for. I received a quick reply from Terry Carroll but his position was that we cannot criticize the Pope and went on to insist that the SSPX were in schism. I replied with the 2007 article I found on this blog where Cardinal Hoyos specifically stated that the SSPX were not in schism. Carrol’s argument was that the 2007 article was earlier than a more recent statement “statement by Pope Benedict XVI that the SSPX have “no canonical status and no legitimate ministry””. I am not sure of the theological niceties but can anyone comment on this and give me some ammunition because I feel they are taking a very legalistic approach and have just come up with a fixed formula which no amount of reasoning can get through. I mentioned that Benedict and John Paul II had both asked for a generous application of the Tridentine Mass and that the bishops disobeyed but he did not answer that or any of the particular points where Francis had clearly got it wrong. Francis after all was one of the bishops who disobeyed. I feel we are living through the prophesies made by Sr Catherine Emmerich around 1820 in which she talked about the “New and odd looking Church which they were trying to build with their own hands”. I think she accurately predicted Vatican II.
That’s insane, considering it was Benedict XVI who lifted the excommunications and did more to remedy the situation than anyone else. He even went as far to promulgate Summorum Pontificum, which was requested by the Society. No other Pope would have done this. Would Francis have done this if he’d been elected in 2005? Doubt it. And CMTV is using Benedict XVI as ammo to uphold their take on the ‘schism’ narrative. Mad.
“No canonical status and no legitimate ministry” does not even equal ‘schismatic’, not in the slightest.
They’re not being legalistic because their interpretation of the law is not even remotely accurate!
CMTV fail to realise that Our Lady of Fatima said the crisis would go all the way to the top. CMTV are just dishonest. They using their pretend affection to the Petrine ministry to take the moral high ground. Ugh
No wonder. CMTV has never mentioned Fatima in regards to the Crisis. Ever. Their coverage of the crisis is superficial.
They make the fatal error of criticising without giving a resolution. That doesn’t get by in the world of business…
It is they who cause scandal. Because they blast every priest and bishop pretty much, and scare and disillusion people. But unlike the SSPX, they don’t give a solution. They don’t give hope. They don’t give justification to their bashing like we do…
Fatima. The consecration of Russia. That’s it. That’s all. What do CMTV propose we do? They have not once in their history suggested a remedy. Apart from give them more money, and a pathetic call to “learn the faith”. That’s the advice he gave all of us when he came to Scotland. That’s when I saw his true colours.
CMTV are not concerned about the Church. I think they’re insincere. I think they’re misleading people and I think Voris & Co. are playing a sick game. It will all come out soon.
Hear hear! I couldn’t agree more. What a straight talking post. I, too, am disillusioned with Michael Voris. He’s turned out to be a real damp squib.
The only people who gave CMTV the time of day were Trads. Now he’s sold us out. Voris is becoming a billy no-mates. The only people who will subscribe to his enterprise will be the ‘neo-Trad’ crowd, a very tiny insignificant party indeed who are pretty much despised by everybody, neo-Catholics and Traditionalists alike. Fr Nicholson, Fr Z and E Michael Jones, you know the type.
When he wrote that letter about us being spiritual pornographers and children of Ham, he basically wrote the most theologically pompous suicide note in history.
Voris waffles on about the ‘church-of-nice’, but accuses us of being ‘un-charitable’. He himself is a nice-church whiner. The sad thing is, he’s not even nice.
His videos have become very shallow, unoriginal and repetitive. We get the point Michael, the Church is America is bad. Can you move on to something else now.
Your post Miles prompted me to write to MV this morning as follows:
You have lost it, it seems. The plot, that is.
I am increasingly sure, as are others, that your presentation of the nature of the crisis in the Church is false. You never, ever mention Fatima (an analysis of the Church in our times is impossible without doing so) while the ‘Church of Nice’ paradigm is well past its sell-by date.
It isn’t ‘niceness’ that’s the problem, it’s a wholesale apostasy from the Faith. Dogmas are at stake, not just this or that ‘pastoral praxis’.
Recently, I have heard, you have decided to chart a course which involves refusing to criticise this very strange and disquieting Pope while at the same time claiming that the SSPX is in schism.
If that is your line now, you have become part of the problem, not part of the solution.
I shall not be watching any more of your material. Skating aroubd the edges of the Crisis is no longer adequate.
It’s laughable to think that Michael Voris will condemn this Cardinal for his shocking endorsement of a celebrity “gay” ‘coming out’, while remaining silent on the Pope’s “who am I to judge” [“gays”] remark which set the scene for the Cardinal’s shocker.
Makes no sense whatsoever. I wonder what Voris puts in his tea?
Some hairspray probably finds its way into teacups, saucers, plates, bowls and anything else within a mile of the CM studio I would think.
I am glad to see you posting on this blog, I have long admired your posts on the CH and elsewhere. (Indeed you once gave me advice which I appreciated).
I see you mention Mundabor in another post – I read his blog too; I like his robust manner!
I look forward to hearing your thoughts, unbridled from Catholic Herald-style moderation!
Editor – sorry, posted these on the wrong thread! So here you go:
Thank you for posting that (i.e. your correspondence with Terry Carroll of CMTV), but may I suggest your last sentence should read “They don’t DARE that’s why.”? Ultimately, they are sycophants.
I had some correspondence with this Terry Carroll some years ago, in which he claimed to have studied and understood the SSPX position literally overnight, in the midst of our correspondence. He contradicted himself several times and in fact ended up espousing outright heresy! He is a shallow fraud, though perhaps well-intentioned; someone with the appropriate lack of depth to match Voris’ hairspray/unbuttoned shirt approach to the crisis in the Church.
I don’t know if you get Fox News on the other side of the pond, but I would describe CMTV as the Fox News of the neo-Catholic apostolates. That is, they purport to be conservative and to expose liberal corruption and duplicity up to a certain level and point, but ultimately they are completely silent about the real cause of the corruption (and the programming of that network is full of soft pornography). In the case of Fox News, the real cause of political corruption – the New World Order and the institutions through which it works – is never addressed. In the case of CMTV, the real cause of the corruption and crisis in the Church is the disorientation in the Papacy, most esp. the current Papacy and its three immediate predecessors (not counting the Papacy of JPI), and the hierarchy. But no, those sources of corruption are untouchable…which makes one wonder whose money is keeping this apostolate propped up, and why. I think I’ll have a look at CMTV’s tax records to see what I can glean.
Meanwhile, the only answer to this crisis, the SSPX, is marginalized and even vilified as toxic, because it dares to identify and expose the true sources of the crisis! Very interesting.
I’ve thought all along that it’s the money which holds the answer to Voris’s policy.
I’ll be very interested if your tax investigation throws any light on the matter. “Follow the money” is always a good idea.
On the subject of the SSPX’s so-called “schsim”, the facts are as follows:
The Society is not in schism but in a state of “canonical irregularity”. Thus the three Bishops and its priests are real Bishops and real priests but without any canonical place in the scheme of things. The Sacraments given by the Society are valid but not licit (a joke, given the Clown, Papier Mache, Dump-Truck and Tango Masses offered by nu-Church). The Bishops have no territorial jurisdiction nor did Archbishop Lefebvre want them to have any.
If the SSPX are in schism, then every Catholic from 33AD to 1970 AD were in schism. Whatever Cardinal Mueller may say. They cannot say directly that the Society is in schism, so they use mealy-mouthed terms like “not in perfect communion”.
You are either in the Church or outside it: these new half-in or half-out states of communion do not exist, except in the fevered minds of the Anti-Church’s clerics.
What about the statement by Pope Benedict XVI that the SSPX have “no canonical status and no legitimate ministry”. It seems to me they do have a ministry but I don’t want to rely on my opinion when I answer. If the SSPX sacraments are valid why are they not licit and if they are not licit why should we receive them?
It’s true, they don’t have canonical status, and the Society has never pretended otherwise. And everybody who chooses to go to SSPX chapels know that. And non of us pretend otherwise. But did Benedict XVI say they were schismatic, ever? ‘Legitimate ministry’ as far as I understand, means canonically established ministry.
In my simplistic understanding (and I shall never understand canon law, I find it very tedious and dull), in canon law necessity gives valid sacraments legality. An example of this would be ‘supplied jurisdiction’ in the case of Confession. So I suppose, based on the state of the Church, that is why we receive them. The Society does not prefer its current canonical state. Hell no. But it’s an emergency situation that calls for it.
For example, in my diocese, the only Traditional Mass is offered by a priest whose disposition towards the Traditional Faith is highly dubious.
In general, there are many reasons why a valid sacrament is illicit. For example, the Mass offered by a suspended priest.
The statement of Pope Benedict to which you refer is not new, as Miles Immaculatae has pointed out. The SSPX is in an irregular canonical situation, while outright heretics are applauded and promoted, precisely because we’re in a crisis – the worst ever.
Read this article on SSPX confessions which is a response to the numpties over at Catholic Culture who warned the clueless faithless not to attend SSPX chapels, at least for Confession. It covers the question of “illicit” and explains the place of Canon Law very clearly.
If you’ve read through the posts on this thread alone, Charles, then you’ll know the answer to your own question – technically “illicit” or not, we should attend the Society chapels in order to preserve our own Faith. The law is at the service of the Faith. It doesn’t replace it. The good of souls is always primary.
Thanks, that will help. If anyone else wants to criticise Church Militant on this issue I would say go ahead. Let’s get them to answer our questions.
Yes I got the same reply from Church Militant about no canonical status and no licit ministry. I can now reply to it thanks. I wonder if their position comes from the Church landscape where they are geographically. Perhaps in that part of North America there are many FSSP and ICK parishes with good faithful traditional priests. Perhaps if that option is widely available to you, you would see the SSPX in a different light.
PerpetuaFelicitas & Charles McEwan,
You might find this article helpful and this one…
I don’t think the animosity of Church Militant & others to the SSPX has anything to do with the availability of other traditional groups – all of whom compromised with the authorities to get where they are. The hatred towards the SSPX is from the devil because the devil hates the traditional Catholic religion. That’s what the SSPX represents. That’s why it’s hated.
The extreme angst reflects deep seated psychological problems?.
No, I’m fine thanks. Honestly 😀
“No, I’m fine, thanks. Honestly.”
In the current climate of rampaging modernist madness, I think the neocon papolatrists will inevitably suffer a total black out caused by the repeated mental gymnastics involved in defending and excusing the constant barrage of scandal being unleashed under this papacy.
It’s not unreasonable to suggest that before long many Catholics will abandon any resolutions to combat the assault by the powers of darkness on the One, True, Faith. Many others will just quietly walk away in disgust at the complete refusal of the shepherds to lead, teach and sanctify souls.
Amongst those Catholics who haven’t been rendered complete theological imbeciles by Modernist Mind Rot, the levels of bewilderment must be rising towards the limits of tolerance.Such is the price of the papolatry of recent decades. Many are going to fall out of the runaway train.
It is getting increasingly likely, indeed inevitable, that only Catholics with a traditional and true understanding of the Church’s teaching on the papacy and the Magisterium, and the limits of papal infallibility and power will be able to maintain clear, untroubled Catholic heads and a firm, secure faith. The fact that there is still such a remnant of Catholics who hold the Faith held “everywhere, always, and by everyone” is due in great measure to Archbishop Lefebvre and the priestly Society he founded.
The following story told by Bishop Fellay gives a rather vivid example of why the Society may rightly be described as the conscience of the Church.
Many will recall the scandal caused at Pope John Paul II’s funeral when the then Cardinal Ratzinger gave Communion to the Protestant head of the Taize community, Roger Schultz. Bishop Fellay was very reliably informed that in the aftermath, the Cardinal was asked what was going through his mind as he walked towards Schultz. I don’t suppose any of the Society’s slanderers would guess what the future Pope was thinking:
“I wonder what the Society are going to say about this”.
The Society are in the Church alright. Right at the heart of the Church. And they aren’t moving.
I’ve never heard that story before about Cardinal Ratzinger/SSPX. Says it all, really.
The sudden return of the neo-Catholics to charging the Society with schism etc. is a sign of their desperation. As you rightly say, they are having to turn somersaults to defend this shocking pontiff, and so, since there’s nothing unites like a common enemy, their best bet is to turn their ire and fire on the SSPX.
You have to sympathise. Smile and sympathise 😀
If that’s really what Pope Benedict said to himself upon distributing Holy Communion to a Protestant, then I must say that he was no better than the current Modernist stooge/prop, despite his sympathies with the traditionalists. He should have thought to himself: “What does the Church say about this?” Well no, he actually shouldn’t have thought anything to himself, he should have automatically known that this was forbidden, and acted accordingly!
I am no defender of Taize, believe me! BUT, as I have posted on here before, Bro. Roger had been received into the Church several years before the incident you menton, Then- Cardinal Ratzinger was well aware of this. Continuing to peddle an untruth on Catholic Truth website does none of us any good.
Is there any verifiable source for your claim that Bro Roger converted to Catholicism? I remember hearing that, now that you mention it, but if, as I vaguely remember, the decision was made to hush it up in the interests of ecumenism, I would doubt that he was any more Catholic than Ian Paisley.
And if the public at large were deliberately left in ignorance of this alleged conversion, then there should not have been any public Holy Communion – Cardinal Ratzinger should have known better.
Nobody is “peddling untruth on Catholic Truth” – I know of no official statement of Bro Roger’s “conversion” – perhaps you can provide one to settle the matter, please and thank you!
As I stated in my previous comment on this subject, I personally interviewed Brother Roger, and some other senior members of his community. I still have those interviews on tape. It may be fun to lambast the then-Cardinal Ratzinger for giving Holy Communion to a supposed Protestant, but whatever his failings (and we all have many) he HAD been at the CDF for many years at that point. He had also produced Dominus Jesus. Why on earth, at such a world-wide prominent event, would he want to give Holy Communion to a Protestant? I’m not going to labour the point any further. Suffice to say that I posted the relevant facts on here last time this issue was raised. If a collective chosen amnesia reigns among CT blog readers then I’m afraid, as I wrote earlier, that it does none of us any good.
Please try to appreciate the fact that we just may have forgotten your last visit here – people come and go all the time and we can hardly be blamed if we don’t remember everything. It’s most uncharitable of you to presume the worst. I only vaguely remembered this subject when you first came on to correct us, for which we are, of course, grateful, but what is coming back to mind is the fact that a decision was made to keep the (alleged) conversion of Bro Roger a secret in the interests of ecumenism – and with that I am seriously unimpressed.
It’s also extremely uncharitable of you to say that “it may be fun to lambast the then Cardinal Ratzinger for giving Holy Communion to a supposed Protestant” – there’s nothing funny about it. Nor is there anything funny about agreeing to keep Bro Roger’s (alleged) conversion a secret. If, in fact, Cardinal Ratzinger participated in such a cover-up, he should be heartily ashamed.
Does it not bother you in the slightest that millions of people watched that event and were scandalised? And scandalised because they were deliberately kept in the dark? Your assertion that YOU interviewed the brother and that YOU knew about his alleged conversion, doesn’t wash. With all due respect to you, nobody should have to rely on someone who, for whatever reason (? journalist/author/whatever?) interviewed the brother and thus is able to tell us that he had converted at the time of receiving Holy Communion. That’s typical of the chaotic modern Church but it’s not good enough. A statement should have been issued by the Vatican prior to the event to notify us that Bro Roger had been received into the Church and any other relevant details.
So, please forgive us (a) for forgetting that you had shared this information with us (when? a couple of years ago? On our old blog?) and (b) being less than impressed with the secrecy surrounding this alleged conversion.
As a matter of interest – what is your own opinion of the decision to hush up the “conversion”. Do you approve?
Even if you do approve of the decision to keep the alleged conversion secret, would you accept that a lot of people were genuinely and legitimately scandalised at the sight of Cardinal Ratzinger apparently administering Communion to a very well known Protestant?
Finally, what happened to your taped interviews? Were they broadcast anywhere and were the transcripts published anywhere?
Postscript: please note that I will publish the relevant part of your interview with Brother Roger in Catholic Truth – then there would be a public record of him talking about his conversion, for, as I say with all due respect, nobody should have to take the word of any individual person, whether lay or ordained, who happens by a blog discussion on the topic, with claims of a conversion of such a well known (some would say “notorious”) ecumenical figure, that is not on the independent public record.
Over to thee…
Editor, yes I do accept the points you make. I certainly did not intend to be uncharitable. I guess it’s just a turn of phrase. But I still don’t understand why one would jump to the conclusion that the then Prefect of the CDF would publicly or otherwise give Holy Communion to a Protestant. Perhaps there are things that we DON’T know. (I know this is highly unlikely in the case of your good self!) Perhaps even there are things which involve a person’s private interior life and we have no business to know?
As it happens, I think that the prudential decision/ instruction to the several members of the Taize community to keep their conversion quiet was not only silly but possibly damaging (viz the apparent taking of scandal by said person publicly receiving Holy Communion.
I was not there so cannot say what formula etc was used when the Bishop of Autun carried out the ceremony receiving Roger et al into the Church.
as for your kind offer to publish parts of the said interview – I’ll have a think about that. Slight problem is that the subject is now dead and cannot give consent.
Being somewhat long-in-the-tooth, I distinctly recall JP11 bringing Bro Roger into The Church (Catholic Herald and Daily Telegraph) circa 20 years ago (?). He was to retain the status quo at Taize in order not to disturb the community there.
I’m afraid his own words, as quoted by Great Pretender, give the lie to this alleged conversion, no matter what the spin put on his relationship with Pope John Paul II by the Catholic Herald and it’s partner in nonsense Daily Telegraph.
” I still don’t understand why one would jump to the conclusion that the then Prefect of the CDF would publicly or otherwise give Holy Communion to a Protestant”
I find that remark from you, almost incomprehensible. I think you’ve fallen for the “Ratzinger Rottweiller” propaganda.
Cardinal Ratzinger, as Pope Benedict, followed in the footsteps of his predecessor by inviting every pagan and heretic in the world to Assisi for another scandalous prayer event. Why you are aghast that we more or less don’t turn a hair at the thought of him giving Communion to a Protestant, beats me.
I’ve already said that if there was something we don’t know – such as a prior conversion, we should have been told. You can’t tell us not to be scandalized at what appears to be a public scandal because “there might be something we don’t know.” That’s crazy. Were the Catholics in Dublin wrong to campaign to have the invitation to Fr Timothy Radcliffe, homosexual activist, to speak at the recent Divine Mercy Conference, withdrawn or should they have – by your definition of charity – presumed there was something they didn’t know to make this scandal not a scandal. That’s nonsense, Delacruz.
I’ll tell you of what your attitude to this issue reminds me. It reminds me of a discussion I had with a friend one day, some years ago, when I was telling her of my surprise that a young man I knew had “outed” himself as a homosexual. Immediately, his very Catholic mother began a campaign to help the mothers of Catholic youth who were “Catholic & gay” – suddenly, it was OK to be “gay”. My friend who was listening to me telling this story, said that she wasn’t at all surprised. “It’s one thing” she said “to be able to see that something is objectively evil, but quite another when the person perpetrating that evil is your own son, your own child, or someone very close.”
You’ve met Brother Roger. Who knows, you may have met Cardinal Ratzinger. Thus, a scandal like this which may in any other situation, shock the socks off you as it shocks us, is suddenly not a scandal at all. Bro Roger was nice, he was well meaning and he sort of, kind of became a Catholic. I met him. He told me stuff. It must be true because, well… I met him.
No he didn’t become a Catholic Delacruz. Nobody can just drift into the Church on their own terms. He has to repudiate his previous false beliefs and according to Great Pretender’s documented post at 11.51pm yesterday, Bro Roger, far from doing that, actually said he “did not break fellowship with anyone” (i.e. change his Protestant beliefs) when he drew progressively closer to Catholicism, or some such similar euphemism.
As for your remark about him now being deceased so you’d have to think about allowing me to publish the relevant transcript from your taped interviews – sorry, but those tapes belong to you. Did Bro.Roger think you were taping the interview for your own use? Had he no idea that they may be published somewhere? What was the point?
Whatever, he certainly has nothing to lose by having them published now. I, personally, do not believe that he “converted” to Catholicism and I never will unless there is something indisputable on your tape to prove otherwise.
Let me know what you decide. You can contact me by email at email@example.com, attaching any transcript either by Word document or pdf.
Delacruz, your reply sounds a bit evasive. Here is an excerpt from the Wikipedia article on “Bro Roger”:
“From a Protestant background, Brother Roger undertook a step that was without precedent since the Reformation: entering progressively into a full communion with the faith of the Catholic Church without a “conversion” that would imply a break with his origins. In 1980, during a European Meeting in Rome, he said in Saint Peter’s Basilica in the presence of Pope John Paul II:
I have found my own identity as a Christian by reconciling within myself the faith of my origins with the mystery of the Catholic faith, without breaking fellowship with anyone.
Brother Roger received the Catholic sacrament of the Eucharist at the Catholic Mass celebrated every morning in his monastery, and he received the sacrament from both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, seemingly in contravention of canonical prohibitions on administering the sacrament to those not in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church. According to Cardinal Walter Kasper, this was accomplished as though there was a tacit understanding between Brother Roger and the Catholic Church “crossing certain confessional” and canonical barriers through what Brother Roger called a gradual enrichment of his faith with the foundations of the Catholic Church including “the ministry of unity exercised by the bishop of Rome.”
Please note the absurdity, not to mention the outright impossibility, of entering into full communion with the Church without a conversion from Protestantism. Of course, he himself put it slightly differently, that he had not broken fellowship with anyone. Hmmm…could he have been reading the vague documents of Vatican II and mastered their obfuscatory linguistic style? What exactly do his words mean, do you suppose?
Thanks for this – as I suspected, there was no conversion. Scandalous.
So, my offer to Delacruz to publish a transcript of Bro Roger’s claimed conversion to the Catholic religion, is all the more important now.
Let’s see if Delacruz takes up my offer.
You’re welcome Editor…and btw, this passage also exposes the meaninglessness of the term constantly used to beat the SSPX over the head: “full communion.”
I too believe the obstruction of the Tridentine mass is from the Devil and as this obstruction has been very successful and widely pervasive we have to consider the words of Jesus in Matthew 24 – Wars and rumours of wars, nation against nation, famines, earthquakes, delivering up the faithful for affliction and death, you shall be hated on my account, many false prophets, iniquity abounding, the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel set up in the Holy Place …etc.” and consider that maybe we are in these times now.
When I ask about the end times I’m always told, by priests and lay people, that this could be the end times but does not mean it will end anytime soon. The end times can refer to a long period of time, 100 years or more, before the actual end.
I can’t find tax records for any of Michael Voris’ organization names (presumably his organization is a nonprofit), but I did find this interesting tidbit from the Wikipedia entry on him:
“On September 1, 2008 he partnered with RealCatholicTV.com, which is owned by Marc Brammer (a business developer for Moody’s) who lives in South Bend, Indiana and is a member of Opus Dei.”
Update: St. Michael’s Media, the apparent parent organization of CMTV, and which identifies itself on its website as a 501(c)(3) – i.e an IRS classification for nonprofits, and therefore eligible for tax-deductible contributions – is not listed on Guidestar, which lists tax returns for all US nonprofits….when I search under the name “St. Michael’s Media,” an entirely different nonprofit comes up based in California, the “Voice of Virtue International,” whose tax return was completed by a Barbara McGuigan, President of the Board.
Can you explain the significance of this? Is CMTV not being transparent about its finances? That would be very worrying indeed.
Can someone please tell me where I can get some information about where a priest can learn the TLM?
Traditional religious orders are the largest producers of latin mass-saying priests.
But if you refer to a priest who has known only modern liturgy and wishes to learn the latin mass retrospectively, then there are various training courses run by some Catholic Dioceses around the UK (e.g. Westminster) and (jn England) the Latin Mass Society (LMS).
Priests from elsewhere can travel to attend these, if there is nothing available local to themselves. I am aware of one Glasgow Priest who was trained by the Westminster Archdiocese, and another by the LMS.
A range of self-teaching materials can also be bought online; I have seen instructional DVDs, books and other materials.
And I daresay that any priest who can already say the mass – and can spare the time – would be glad to act as a teacher.
Assuming you are in the UK, the Latin Mass Society run courses, as suggested by Gabriel Syme. Click here for details.
Or you can contact any priest of the Society of St Pius X – I know the Society priests in Scotland have said they are willing to help any diocesan priest who wishes to learn the traditional Mass.
Gabriel / Editor
Thank you for the information which is really helpful.
I know at least 2 priests who have said that they will attempt to learn the TLM as part of their Lenten observance – but then realised that they hadn’t done their homework and weren’t sure where they could get the necessary instruction. Catholic Truth to the rescue.
I find that one of the things that put priests off is that they have absolutely no Latin at all, so they need to learn the pronunciation – as indeed will I. But it can be done.
I’m new here and grateful to have had such a prompt and helpful response. Thank you again.
Delighted to be able to help. We’d love to know how you and your priest friends get on, whether you attend any of the courses etc.
You’re (obviously) also welcome to participate in any or all of our discussions here.
YouTube has some pretty good free lessons for a whole lot of languages, including Latin. There’s also a video on YouTube for learning to offer the Mass in Latin. Just search “how to say the Mass in Latin”.
3littleshepherds & Editor
I looked on the LMS link – and the first thing on their website is a notice saying that there’s no training conference in 2014. But YouTube will be a good place to start. Thanks again.
I’m sorry – I didn’t see that notice, in my haste.
I know a priest who has signed up for a course this year so have just emailed him to ask for details. Will let you know when he replies.
The priest has replied as follows:
Go to Latin mass society then chairman’s blog and he’ll find
LMS Priest and Server Training, Hedley Lodge at Belmont Abbey:28 April – 2 May
He adds that presuming you are Scottish, you would be welcome to accompany him and another priest who are booked. So, if you would like to do that, I can put you in touch if you email me on firstname.lastname@example.org
Unless you’re a bishop, you have nothing to fear 😀
This linked page has some more info (including costs and details etc) about the course which Editor has discovered:
Thank you for all the information. I can assure you I’m not a bishop, thankfully!
I’m happy to travel on my own if those dates work but please, thank your priest friend for his very generous offer.
Have passed on your message of gratitude to the priest. You’ll probably meet at the course if you manage to book. Glad to be of some help.
Thank you again for the help.
A question: Can someone tell me if the Church owns the property that the Archbishop of Glasgow lives in? And does it also own the property that the Archbishop Emeritus lives in?
And finally, would someone like to hazard a guess at what the total cost for both comes to??
I can’t but help think it’s a scandal that so much money is spent on these properties when neither of them have a clue what it means to go out to work, do the weekly shop, feed a family and pay a mortgage!!
It’s always a struggle to get information about financial matters from the Archdiocese of Glasgow. When I asked for copies of the accounts some years ago, it took umpteen attempts – and a complaint to the Charities Commission – before they arrived (the Charities Commission told me they were late receiving them as well) and when they did, they told us nothing. There were no specifics. So, in relation to your question, the information would be listed as “properties = £XXX amount.”
However, there must be a way to find out. No use asking the media office, though. I emailed them a while back to ask if Peter Kearney, on public record as planning to vote for Scottish independence, still planned to do so following the shocking legislation undermining marriage and the family (both same-sex marriage and the appointment of State Guardians for every child with power to over-rule parents) and I’m still waiting for a reply (which won’t come – signalling a “yes” vote in the referendum.)
Having said that, I did receive a reply way back when I asked if the rumours were true that Archbishop Conti was refusing to leave the house to allow the new Archbishop (Tartaglia) to move in. I was told that there was no house attached to the office of Archbishop so +Conti would remain at Newlands while the new Archbishop would move into another property – presumably owned by the Archdiocese.
If there is any way to double-check this, and if nobody else beats me to it, I’ll see what I can find out later.
Your final paragraph requires no reply – the hierarchy need somewhere to live, of course, and even, perhaps a spare room for the occasional guest. What people struggling to pay mortgages etc would certainly NOT understand is why they need spacious, high-spec accommodation in one of the leafy suburbs. That should be reserved for, say, the editor of Catholic Truth 😀 I only said I was a simple gal. I didn’t say I don’t have expensive tastes ❗
Thanks for the reply. I too had heard that +Conti had said he was staying put and as a result (and I’m open to correction if I’ve got this wrong) the house in St Andrew’s Drive was purchased for the new Archbishop.
I agree that they all need somewhere to live. But that house that +C occupies is far too big for one man and I bet it’s paid for by the good people of the Archdiocese. There’s no reason why he couldn’t have moved into a nice wee bungalow somewhere or even better, into a presbytery where he could done some work.
And as for +T, why didn’t he buy something in the same vein?
I’ve had a look on Zoopla.co.uk which gives the going rate for houses in that area. Type in the postcode – but make sure you sit down when you look at the cost of detached houses for both Archbishops. Goodness knows what the council tax is.
On a positive note, I heard that the new Bishop of Paisley is moving into…wait for it…a presbytery,
If that’s true it’s a good sign – and a good start.
Just had a look on ‘rightmove’ – and it lists +T’s as being bought for £725,000 0n 5th Dec 2013. Here’s the link:
simply type in the postcode from the Catholic Directory.
It doesn’t list +C’s – but those surrounding it are roughly in the same price range, so that would make almost £1.4M between them.
Utterly shocking. Absolutely inexcusable And these two men will be gushing praise for the “simplicity” advocated by Pope Francis.
There are a lot of reasons why Catholics in Scotland ought to be sending a clear signal to the Bishops that we’ve had enough. This is well up on the list.
Why are these two not following the example of Pope Francis and living in the basement? Or even the example of Pope Benedict XVI and living in a converted shed in the back garden?
If all the people in the diocese stopped putting money in the plate there would soon be an imbalance in the books.
Re: Learning the Latin Mass, I wonder whether you are aware of this series of web pages showing the TLM and all the associated rubrics? http://sspx.co.uk/page_mass_pictures.htm ?
That link is exactly what I’m after. Thank you. That’s given me some bedtime reading to do!
We have the Mass in Pictures on our website.
Doesn’t anybody READ it?
No, they just look at the pictures.
Speak for yourself ❗
PS I’ve not had a minute to rewrite the lengthy post which I lost last night. But I will… why should you escape?
😆 That was a good one Vianney. I can’t tell who’s funnier, Frankier or Vianney!
Sorry Editor, I’m new and haven’t had the time to explore the website properly. I’ve just arrived and I’m in the dog-house already!
But both of those links help. What would REALLY help is somewhere that I can find that will give phonetics to the Latin. I’m learning from scratch, so the pronunciation is a bit of a problem. But I’ll get there I hope!
I’ll ask our sacristan about that – I know he had phonetics (text) to help my little nephews learn Latin for serving. I know there are audios to help with pronunciation, too, but will see if there is anything in writing to help you.
Unless some pesky smart alec beats me to it 😀
Talking about learning to serve, I used to have a little book for helping servers and it told you and what to do and when. It contained a great little bit of advice that I’ve never forgotten, “if in doubt, genuflect.”
I’m a pesky smart alec! I think you would find the FSSP videos online very useful for learning the traditional Mass whether you’re a priest or a server. There’s about twenty of them, so I’m copying just the first one.
You can find / obtain server cards with phonetics here:
I am sure there are many more sites but these two are a good place to start. Especially the second as you can save the pdf document and print it out by yourself.
What did I tell you? Not one, but TWO smart alecs… and that’s not even counting Vianney ❗ 😯
Looking at your earlier post concerning learning to offer the Vetus Ordo I have spare copies of an excellent DVD produced by the FSSP especially for priests to learn the Tridentine Mass. Contact me through the editor if you wish to explore this further.
Thank you everyone for all the information. Editor, better to have quick smart alecs than none at all!
Benedict, I think I’ve got enough material now to be going on with, but I’ll keep your very kind offer in mind.
Editor, to come back to the discussion about diocesan funds etc. Who would have signed off the purchase of this house at £725,000? There seems to be no connection to reality here – and the Archdiocese is awash with empty rooms in presbyteries which were often built for three or four priests – to say nothing of empty presbyteries.
I am absolutely astounded that +Conti would stay put in the house he occupied as Archbishop – and even more astounded that anyone would see the solution to run out and spend almost three quarters of a million on a house for the new Archbishop! Or am I missing something here?
Listen, you can not expect the right very rev +Conti to leave “his” house. Remember the right rev +Conti is the same “prelate” who a weeks after concelebrating Mass with the Holy Father in Glasgow, wrote in the SCO that Catholics should ignore the Pope and stand and receive Our Lord in the hand.
So if you think for a minute that the very rev. +Conti, who contradicts Christ’s Vicar, is going to listen to the Catholic peasantry and move into an empty parish house rather than give up the Arch-bishops residence, then, I am afraid your a dreamer. The very rev. +Conti expects the peasants to keep him in the luxury he has been accustomed to, after all he has reached the top in his “career”, he deserves to live in a three quarter of a million pound house and we should be honoured to keep him in it. Keep your collections coming.
Another wee heads up, these very rev “prelates” have a plan:- to sell of some of those empty parish houses and the proceeds will easily balance the budget to keep the very rev. +Tartaglia in his new three quarters of a million pounds house, it is only right after all, as he too has reached the top of his “profession”. You really are very judgemental. If you had worked hard all your life wouldn’t you too, deserve to live in a three quarters of a million pound house ( till death do we part), I mean, come on! Be fair! Show some respect!
Comments are closed.