Bishop Schneider: Schism Looming…

Bishop Schneider: Schism Looming…

Those who continue to insist: “crisis, what crisis?” and who think Archbishop Lefebvre acted without basis, read this Interview with Bishop Athanasius Schneider, Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana, Kazakhstan – and say, humbly, “I was wrong” …  source        

ImageInterview with Bishop Athanasius Schneider (BAS)  

“Only on the Internet can you spread your own ideas. Thanks be to God the Internet exists”       

BAS: ‘To my knowledge and experience, the deepest wound in the actual crisis of the Church is the Eucharistic wound; the abuses of the Blessed Sacrament.

‘Many people are receiving Holy Communion in an objective state of mortal sin…This is spreading in the Church, especially in the western world. There people very rarely go to Holy Communion with a sufficient preparation.

‘Some people who go to Holy Communion live in irregular moral situations, which do not correspond to the Gospel. Without being married, they go to Holy Communion. They might be divorced and living in a new marriage, a civil marriage, and they go nevertheless to Holy Communion. I think this is a very, very grievous situation.

‘There is also the question of the objectively irreverent reception of Holy Communion. The so-called new, modern manner of receiving Holy Communion directly into the hand is very serious because it exposes Christ to an enormous banality.

‘There is the grievous fact of the loss of the Eucharistic fragments. No one can deny this. And the fragments of the consecrated host are crushed by feet. This is horrible! Our God, in our churches, is trampled by feet! No one can deny it.

‘And this is happening on a large scale. This has to be, for a person with faith and love for God, a very serious phenomenon.

‘We cannot continue as if Jesus as God does not exist, as though only the bread exists. This modern practice of Communion in the hand has nothing to do with the practice in the ancient Church. The modern practice of receiving Communion in hand contributes gradually to the loss of the Catholic faith in the real presence and in the transubstantiation.

‘A priest and a bishop cannot say this practice is ok. Here is at stake the most holy, the most divine and concrete on Earth.’

Q  You are standing out on your own in this?

BAS: ‘I am very sad that I am feeling myself as one who is shouting in the desert. The Eucharistic crisis due to the modern use of Communion in hand is so evident. This is not an exaggeration. It is time that the bishops raise their voices for the Eucharistic Jesus who has no voice to defend himself. Here is an attack on the most Holy, an attack on the Eucharistic faith.

‘Of course there are people who receive Holy Communion in the hand with much devotion and faith, but they are in a minority. The vast mass, though, are losing the faith through this very banal manner of taking Holy Communion like common food, like a chip or a cake. Such a manner to receive the most Holy here on earth is not sacred, and it destroys by time the deep awareness and the Catholic faith in the real presence and in the transubstantiation.’

Is the Church going in the opposite direction from where you are going?

BAS: ‘It seems that the majority of the clergy and the bishops are content with this modern use of Communion in hand and don’t realize the real dangers connected with such a practice. For me this is incredible. How is this possible, when Jesus is present in the little hosts? A priest and a bishop should say: “I have to do something, at least to gradually reduce this. All that I can do, I have to do.” Unfortunately, though, there are members of the clergy who are making propaganda of the modern use of Communion in the hand and sometimes prohibiting receiving Communion on the tongue and kneeling. There are even priests who are discriminating those who kneel for Holy Communion. This is very, very sad.

‘There is also an increasing stealing of hosts, because of distributing Communion directly in the hand. There is a net, a business, of the stealing of Holy Hosts and this is much facilitated by Communion in the hand.

‘Why would I, as a priest and bishop, expose Our Lord to such a danger, to such a risk? When these bishops or priests [who approve of Communion in the hand] have some item of value, they would never expose this to great danger, to be lost or stolen. They protect their house, but they do not protect Jesus and allow him to be stolen very easily.’

In respect of the questionnaire on the issue of family – people are expecting big changes.

BAS: ‘There is on this issue a deal of propaganda, put about by the Mass media. We need to be very careful. There are the official anti-Christian mass media worldwide. In almost every country it is the same content of news, with the exception perhaps of the African and Asian countries or in the East of Europe.

‘Only on the Internet can you spread your own ideas. Thanks be to God the Internet exists.

‘The idea of changes in marriage and moral laws to be done at the upcoming synod of bishops in Rome, comes from mostly the anti-Christian media. And some clergy and Catholics are collaborating with them in spreading the expectations of the anti-Christian world to change the law of God concerning marriage and sexuality.

‘It is an attack by the anti-Christian world and it is very tragic and sad that some clergy are collaborating with them. To argue for a change the law of God, they use in a kind of sophism the concept of mercy. But in reality this is not mercy, this is cruel.

‘It is not mercy, for instance, if someone has a disease to leave him in his miserable condition. This is cruel.

‘I would not give, for instance, a diabetic sugar, this would be cruel of me. I would try to take someone out of this situation and give them another meal. Perhaps they won’t like it to begin with, but it will be better for them.

‘Those of the clergy who want admit the divorced and remarried to Holy Communion operate with a false concept of mercy. It is comparable with a doctor who gives a patient sugar, although he knows it will kill him. But the soul is more important than the body.

‘If the bishops admit the divorced and remarried to Holy Communion, then they are confirming them in their errors in the sight of God. They will even close down the voice of their conscience. They will push them more into the irregular situation only for the sake of this temporal life, forgetting that after this life, though, there is the judgment of God.

‘This topic will be discussed in the synod. This is on the agenda. But I hope the majority of the bishops still have so much Catholic spirit and faith that they will reject the above mentioned proposal and not accept this.

  What is this crisis you mention?

BAS: ‘This is a broader crisis than the reception of the Blessed Sacrament. I think this issue of the reception of Holy Communion by the remarried will blow up and show the real crisis in the Church. The real crisis of the Church is anthropocentrism, forgetting the Christocentrism. Indeed, this is the deepest evil, when man or the clergy are putting themselves in the centre when they are celebrating liturgy and when they are changing the revealed truth of God, e.g. concerning the Sixth Commandment and human sexuality.

‘The crisis reveals itself also in the manner in which the Eucharistic Lord is treated. The Eucharist is at the heart of the Church. When the heart is weak, the whole body is weak. So when the practice around the Eucharist is weak, then the heart and the life of the Church is weak. And when people have no more supernatural vision of God in the Eucharist then they will start the worship of man, and then also doctrine will change to the desire of man.

‘This crisis is when we place ourselves, including the priests, at the centre and when God is put in the corner and this is happening also materially. The Blessed Sacrament is sometimes in a cupboard away from the centre and the chair of the priest is in the centre. We have already been in this situation for 40 or 50 years and there is the real danger that God and his Commandments and laws will be put on the side and the human natural desiring in the centre. There is causal connection between the Eucharistic and the doctrinal crisis.

‘Our first duty as human beings is to adore God, not us, but Him. Unfortunately, the liturgical practice of the last 40 years has been very anthropocentric.

‘Participating in liturgy is firstly not about doing things but praying and worshipping, to love God with all your soul. This is true participation, to be united with God in your soul. Exterior participation is not essential.

‘The crisis is really this: we have not put Christ or God at the centre. And Christ is God incarnated. Our problem today is that we put away the incarnation. We have eclipsed it. If God remains in my mind only as an idea, this is Gnostic. In other religions e.g. Jews, Muslims, God is not incarnated. For them, God is in the book, but He is not concrete. Only in Christianity, and really in the Catholic Church, is the incarnation fully realised and this has to be stressed therefore also in every point of the liturgy. God is here and really present. So every detail has meaning.

‘We are living in an un-Christian society, in a new paganism. The temptation today for the clergy is to adapt to the new world to the new paganism, to be collaborationists. We are in a similar situation to the first centuries, when the majority of the society was pagan, and Christianity was discriminated against.’

Do you think you can see this because of your experiences in the Soviet Union?

BAS: ‘Yes, [I know what it is] to be persecuted, to give testimony that you are Christian.

‘We are a minority. We are surrounded by a very cruel pagan world. The temptation and challenge of today can be compared with the first centuries. Christians were asked to accept the pagan world and to show this by putting one grain of incense into a fire in front of the statue of the Emperor or of a pagan idol. But this was idolatry and no good Christian put any grain of incense there. They preferred to give their lives, even children, lay people, who were persecuted, gave their lives. Unfortunately there were in the first century members of the clergy and even bishops who put grains of incense in front of the statue of the Emperor or of a pagan idol or who delivered the books of the Holy Scripture to be burned. Such collaborationist Christians and clerics were called in those times “thurificati” or “traditores”.

‘Now, in our days the persecution is more sophisticated. Catholics or clergy are not asking to put some incense in front of an idol. It would be only material. Now, they neo-pagan world wants us to take over its ideas, such as the dissolution of the Sixth Commandment of God, on the pretext of mercy. If some clergy and bishops start to collaborate with the pagan world today in this dissolution of the Sixth Commandment and in the revision of the way God created man and woman, then they are traitors of the Faith, they are participating ultimately in pagan sacrifice.’

  Can you see a split coming in the Church?

BAS: ‘Unfortunately, for some decades some clergy have accepted these ideas of the world. Now however they are following them publicly. When these things continue, I think, there will be an interior split in the Church of those who are faithful to the faith of their baptism and of the integrity of the Catholic faith. There will be a split with those who are assuming the spirit of this world and there will be a clear split, I think. One can imagine that Catholics, who remain faithful to the unchangeable Catholic truth may, for a time, be persecuted or discriminated even on behalf of those who has power in the exterior structures of the Church? But the gates of the hell, i.e. of the heresy, will not prevail against the Church and the Supreme Magisterium will surely issue an unequivocal doctrinal statement, rejecting any collaboration with the neo-pagan ideas of changing e.g. the Sixth Commandment of God, the meaning of sexuality and of family. Then some ‘liberals’, and many collaborators with the spirit of this world, many modern “thurificati et traditores” will leave the Church. Because the Divine truth will unresistingly bring the clarification, will set us free, and will separate in the midst of the Church the sons of the Divine light and the sons of the of the pseudo-light of this pagan and anti-Christian world. I can presume that such a separation will affect each level of the Catholics: lay people and even not excluding the high clergy. Those clergy who accept today the spirit of the pagan world on morality and family declare themselves Catholics and even faithful to the Pope. They even declare extremists those who are faithful to the Catholic faith or those who are promoting the glory of Christ in the liturgy.’

  Do you feel you have been declared an extremist?

BAS: ‘I have not been declared as such formally. I would say such clergy are not in the majority but they have acquired a lot of influence in the Church. They managed to occupy some key positions in some Church offices. Yet this is not power in the eyes of God. Truly powerful are the little ones in the Church, who conserve the faith.

‘These little ones in the Church have been let down and neglected. They have kept the purity of their faith and they represent the true power of the church in the eyes of God and not those who are in administration. Thanks be to God, the numbers of these little ones are growing.

‘I spoke for instance with young students in Oxford [picture left – at source]  and I was so much impressed by these students, I was so glad to see their purity of faith and their convictions, and the clear Catholic mind. Such examples and groups are growing in the Church and this is the work of the Holy Spirit. This will renew the Church. So I am confident and hopeful also in respect of this crisis in the Church. The Holy Ghost will win this crisis with this little army.

‘I am not worried about the future. The Church is Christ’s Church and He is the real Head of the Church, the Pope is only the Vicar of Christ. The soul of the Church is the Holy Spirit and He is powerful. However we are now experiencing a deep crisis in the Church as it happened several times in two thousand years.

  Will it get worse before it gets better?

BAS: ‘I have the impression that it will be worse. Sometime the things have to go to the depths and then you will see the collapse of this anthropocentric, clerical system, which is abusing Church administration power, abusing the liturgy, abusing the concepts of God, abusing the faith and the piety of the little ones in the Church.

‘Then we will see the rising of a renewed Church. This is already preparing. Then this liberal clerical edifice will crash down because they have roots and no fruits.’

  Some people would say you are worrying about unimportant things, what about the poor?

BAS: ‘This is erroneous. The first commandment which Christ gave us was to adore God alone. Liturgy is not a meeting of friends. It is our first task to adore and glorify God in the liturgy and also in our manner of life. From a true adoration and love of God grows love for the poor and our neighbour. It is a consequence. The saints in two thousand years of the Church, all those saints who were so prayerful and pious, they were all extremely merciful for the poor and to care for the poor.

‘In these two commandments are all the others. But the first commandment is to love and adore God and that is realised in a supreme manner in the sacred liturgy. When you are neglecting the first commandment, then you are not doing the will of God, you are pleasing yourself. Happiness is to fulfil the will of God, not to fulfil our will.’

  How long will it be before the Church is renewed?

BAS: ‘I am not a prophet. We can only presume. But, if you look at the history of the Church, the deepest crisis was in the fourth century, that was Arianism. This was a tremendous crisis, all the episcopacy, almost all, collaborated with the heresy. Only some bishops remained faithful, you could count them on the fingers of one hand. This crisis lasted more or less 60 years.

‘Then the terrible crisis of the so-called Obscure century, the 10th century, when the papacy was occupied by some very wicked and immoral Roman families. They occupied the papal chair with their corrupt sons, and it was a terrible crisis.

‘The next period of harm was the so-called exile of Avignon and was very damaging to the Church, causing the great occidental schism. All these crisis lasted some 70-80 years and were very bad for the Church.

‘Now we are, I would say, in the fourth great crisis, in a tremendous confusion over doctrine and liturgy. We have already been in this for 50 years. Perhaps God will be merciful to us in 20 or 30 years? ‘Nevertheless we have all the beauty of the divine truths, of divine love and grace in the Church. No one can take this away, no synod, no bishop, not even a Pope can take away the treasure and beauty of the Catholic faith, of the Eucharistic Jesus, of the sacraments. The unchangeable doctrine, the unchangeable liturgical principles, the holiness of the life constitute the true power of the Church.’

  Our time is seen as a much more liberal era in the Church.

BAS: ‘We have to pray that God will guide his Church from this crisis and give to his Church apostles who are courageous and holy. We need defenders of the truth and defenders of the Eucharistic Jesus. When a bishop is defending the flock and defending Jesus in the Eucharist, then this bishop is defending the little ones in the Church, not the powerful ones.’

  So you don’t mind being unpopular?

BAS: ‘It is quite insignificant to be popular or unpopular. For every clergy the first interest is to be popular in the eyes of God and not in the eyes of today or of the powerful. Jesus said a warning: Woe of you when people speak good of you.

‘Popularity is false. Jesus and the apostles rejected popularity. Great saints of the Church, e.g. SS Thomas More and John Fisher, rejected popularity and they are the great heroes. And those who today are worried with the popularity of the mass media and public opinion, they will not be remembered in the history. They will be remembered as cowards and not as heroes of the Faith.’

  The media has great expectations of Pope Francis.

BAS: ‘Thanks be to God, Pope Francis has not expressed himself in these ways that the mass media expect from him. He has spoken until now, in his official homilies, very beautiful Catholic doctrine. I hope he will continue to teach in very clear manner the Catholic doctrine.’

  On sharing Holy Communion with Anglicans and others?

BAS: ‘This is not possible. There are different faiths. Holy Communion is not a means to achieve unity. It is the last step, not the first step. It would be a desecration of the Holy. Of course, we have to be one. Yet we have differences in belief, some substantial differences. The Eucharist is a sign of the deepest unity. It would be a lie, it would be contradictory to logic sharing Holy Communion with non-Catholics.

‘Ecumenism is necessary in order to be in contact with our separated brethren, to love them. In the midst of the challenge of the new paganism, we can and have to collaborate with serious non-Catholics to defend the revealed Divine truth and the natural law, created by God.’

‘It will be better not to have such a structure when the State is governing the life of the Church, such as for instance the appointments of the clergy or the bishops. Such a practice of a state church would damage the Church itself. In England e.g. the State is governing the Church of England. Such an influence of the State can corrupt spiritually and theologically the church, so it is better to be free from such an established state church.’

  On women in the Church.

BAS: ‘Women are called the weaker sex, given they are physically weaker, however they are spiritually stronger and more courageous than men. It is courageous to give birth. Therefore God gave the woman a courage that a man doesn’t have.

‘Of course, there were many courageous men in the persecutions. Yet God loves to choose the weak ones to confuse the powerful. For instance the Eucharistic women, about which I spoke in my book Dominus Est worked in their families and desired to help the persecuted priests in a very exceptional way. They would never have dared to touch the holy hosts with their fingers. They would refuse to even read a reading during Mass. My mother, for example who is still living in Germany, aged 82, when she first went to the West, she was shocked, scandalised, to see women in the sanctuary during Holy Mass. The true power of the Christian and Catholic woman is the power to be the heart of the family, the domestic church, to have the privilege to be the first who gives nourishment to the body of his child and also to be the first who gives nourishment to the souls of the child, teaching it the first prayer and the first truths of the Catholic faith. The most prestigious and beautiful profession of a woman is to be mother, and especially to be a Catholic mother.’  Source 

Comment

Catholic Truth has been saying for years now that there is already a de facto schism in the Church. Bishop Schneider seems to be trying to be a little more diplomatic, but he still warns of a schism to come, as a result of the current crisis in the Church. Is he correct? And what, in your view, is the most important thing about the Bishop’s interview? Is it something he said, or is it the fact that – at last – there is some leadership from a “mainstream” bishop who is clearly saying that “traditional” Catholics have been right, all along?

 

Comments (342)

  • crofterlady

    The whole interview is uplifting in these dreadful times in which we are living. If I had to choose one extract it would be this:

    BAS: ‘Unfortunately, for some decades some clergy have accepted these ideas of the world. Now however they are following them publicly. When these things continue, I think, there will be an interior split in the Church of those who are faithful to the faith of their baptism and of the integrity of the Catholic faith. There will be a split with those who are assuming the spirit of this world and there will be a clear split, I think. One can imagine that Catholics, who remain faithful to the unchangeable Catholic truth may, for a time, be persecuted or discriminated even on behalf of those who has power in the exterior structures of the Church? But the gates of the hell, i.e. of the heresy, will not prevail against the Church and the Supreme Magisterium will surely issue an unequivocal doctrinal statement, rejecting any collaboration with the neo-pagan ideas of changing e.g. the Sixth Commandment of God, the meaning of sexuality and of family. Then some ‘liberals’, and many collaborators with the spirit of this world, many modern “thurificati et traditores” will leave the Church. Because the Divine truth will unresistingly bring the clarification, will set us free, and will separate in the midst of the Church the sons of the Divine light and the sons of the of the pseudo-light of this pagan and anti-Christian world. I can presume that such a separation will affect each level of the Catholics: lay people and even not excluding the high clergy. Those clergy who accept today the spirit of the pagan world on morality and family declare themselves Catholics and even faithful to the Pope. They even declare extremists those who are faithful to the Catholic faith or those who are promoting the glory of Christ in the liturgy.’

    Yes, this split will come and sad as it will be to see the public fragmentation of the Church of Christ, it will be a relief to suffering faithful Catholics everywhere. In fact, the Church IS already fragmented the the sooner the thaw comes the better. He mentions perhaps this will happen in 20 or 30 years but I pray it will be sooner than that!

    Another thing: He mentions that this is the 4th great crisis in Church history and, whilst that is correct, this one is different in that it is taking place in a technological age where everything, good or bad, spreads like wildfire. For example, during the Avignon crisis I’m sure most of the world were completely unaware of what was going on and thus their Faith would not have been troubled. I mean Jeannie in the Highlands wouldn’t have had a clue!

    June 14, 2014 at 2:02 pm
  • fidelityalways

    The problem is The Bishop is giving one view, and is not exactly listening to The Bishop of Rome on practically any issue.

    Not only that, Francis has reminded his fellow Bishops that they are not to be an “airport Bishop” attended meetings, conferences and giving lectures, outside the Diocese they have been appointed to serve. The Bishop must have a very good nose if he can smell his flock on this side of The Pond.

    Can a good Traditional Catholic pick and choose what laws they observe? Canon ;Law restricts how much time a Bishop can spend outside his Diocese, and that time includes holidays.

    June 14, 2014 at 3:07 pm
    • crofterlady

      Are you a priest?

      June 14, 2014 at 3:10 pm
      • fidelityalways

        We all share The Common Priesthood of Christ by virtue of our baptism.

        June 14, 2014 at 3:11 pm
      • editor

        FA, you’re playing games.

        Crofterlady obviously asked if you are an ordained priest. How many (normal) people would make the answer you made to that question – are you a priest? It’s a bit like answering “on a street” if someone asks you where you live. Don’t worry, we don’t want to know that. It might entail hefty removal costs for some of us… 😯

        My prayer is that the answer to Crofterlady’s question is “no” – resoundingly “no”! Else the crisis in the Church is a great deal worse than any of us ever dreamt.

        No offence or anything. Not really… 😀

        June 14, 2014 at 4:24 pm
      • fidelityalways

        Crofterlady has no right, nor does anyone else, to pray into the personal lives of others.

        My personal piety, actions, vocation, way of life are all irrelevant on this blog.

        The issue is fidelity to Church Teaching and Church Law.

        Now just when were YOU given permission to present this blog as a source of authentic Catholic Teaching? That question, and the answer, ask Michael Voris, and Deacon Nick!

        June 14, 2014 at 4:42 pm
      • Margaret Mary

        fidelityalways

        what makes you think we need permission to have this blog?

        June 14, 2014 at 6:46 pm
      • fidelityalways

        Canon Law says people posing as authoritative “Catholic” sources need the approval of their Ordinary. They cannot use “Catholic” in their title, and writings about Faith and Morals needs an Nihil Obstat, and an Imprimatur – that is, it has to be approved by a Diocesan Censor. That is why Michael Voris had to change his website, and Deacon Nick whoever no longer publishes. If you have ever read a Catholic book, if not Canon law, you would know it is true. Strangely this website doesn’t have the approval of the only person who can approve it: The Local Bishop.

        June 14, 2014 at 7:14 pm
      • Michaela

        The Tablet is read by priests, bishops and cardinals around the world and it doesn’t have an Nihil Obstat or any authority at all but the priests and hierarchy pay money to read it. That’s because it dissents from Catholic teaching all the time. Deacon Nick and Michael Voris were criticising the dissenters, and that’s why they got the heavy handed treatment. It’s a wonder this blog hasn’t been banned because it’s only faithful Catholics who are punished these days, not the unfaithful ones.

        Canon Law doesn’t say anything about blogs as far as I know. I’d be amazed if it does. Yes, the bishops have to approve writings but they don’t ban dissenters from writing in the Tablet or the rest of the Catholic press. Recently we read on this blog about the letter from a priest in England who was praising the transgender winner of the Eurovision Song Contest. He said Cardinal Schonborn praised “her” too and said “she” was evidence of variety in God’s garden. He also attacked people in Russia for being “homophobes” all because they don’t want homosexual propaganda handed out to young people. Should his writings not have been banned by the bishop?

        This blog is full of people who want to know the truths of the faith. If you were not so mixed up you would see that.

        June 14, 2014 at 7:36 pm
      • fidelityalways

        It is a publication and blogs didn’t exist when The Code was revised. This blog concerns itself with Faith and Morals and should be sanctioned by Ecclesial Authority. The Tablet is a newspaper, but has ecclesial approval, and does not set out to teach. I don’t read The tablet and so I can’t comment on its content.

        June 14, 2014 at 7:42 pm
      • fidelityalways

        The Tablet, which I do not read, is a newspaper, and attempts to deal with news. This blog deals with primarily faith and morals.

        Canon Law clearly would mention the internet as it wasn’t an issue in the 1980’s, but as Deacon Nick and Michael Voris will point out. Canon Law impacts on such matters, and can be used effectively.

        It is however odd for a group of dissident Trad’s to accuse everyone from The Bishop of Rome down, of ignoring Church law, and to not follow Church Law in the process.

        June 17, 2014 at 4:09 pm
      • Fidelis

        The bishop is responsible for everything published and sold in his diocese so The Tablet falls under their authority. The Tablet writes about Catholic issues and is always dissident, pro-gay, pro-same-sex marriage, everything. It should be banned from being sold in parishes but it isn’t and the majority of priests pay to read it. It’s not cheap either.

        June 17, 2014 at 6:52 pm
      • fidelityalways

        The Tablet is a newspaper published with ecclesial authority, I think, but reports things and does not centre in on teaching on faith and moral. It may offer comment, but it does not claim to be an authoritative teaching document.

        I have even seen a copy for years, never mind read it, and so I cannot comment on what it is doing now.

        June 18, 2014 at 8:27 pm
    • Stephen

      “The problem is the Bishop is giving only one view”..

      Well yes, his! But under normal conditions they normally reflect those off the culture he speaks from.

      Pope Francis is the last person I would take lessons from in media matters, God bless him. He has been a walking talking disaster, God bless him.

      I pray that Francis does two things very soon.

      #1 Wake up to train crash headed towards us if we continue to try and model the Church on modern cultural indecency.

      #2 Retire Kasper.

      June 15, 2014 at 6:37 am
  • fidelityalways

    I realise the Bishop does listen to some things, which need to be heard by The Editor and others:

    ‘Ecumenism is necessary in order to be in contact with our separated brethren, to love them. In the midst of the challenge of the new paganism, we can and have to collaborate with serious non-Catholics to defend the revealed Divine truth and the natural law, created by God.’

    June 14, 2014 at 3:10 pm
  • mikidiki

    Fidelity Always

    Ecumenism is not a desire to remain in contact with our separated brethren. It is a campaign to dilute the Catholic Faith and make the resultant corpse amenable to those other Christian denominations which are in fact heresies condemned by the One, True, Church. Ecumenism is the opposite of evangelisation, and is the Masonic path to a single New World Order church.

    June 14, 2014 at 3:32 pm
    • fidelityalways

      So The Editor of this blog is promoting a Modernist who denies Church Teaching?

      June 14, 2014 at 3:45 pm
      • mikidiki

        Fidelity Always
        The Bishop, unfortunately, is loath to criticise Pope Francis. He sits on the fence by ignoring the off the cuff idiocies voiced almost weekly by the Pontiff, and the latter’s actions regarding a supposed inability to judge known homosexuals.
        However, the Editor is merely presenting for discussion the article’s main premise, whether the Church is heading for Schism. She is not signifying her agreement with, nor even commenting upon, every point raised by the Bishop.

        June 14, 2014 at 4:18 pm
      • editor

        Mikidiki,

        Spot on. Had the interview not been so lengthy, my comment at the end would have drawn attention to his apparent unwillingness to comment on the Pope’s ridiculous and scandalous remarks whereas he chose instead, the Bishop, to praise his “official homilies” (possibly overseen by someone with a better grasp of theology and Catholic doctrine than the pontiff himself.) I think it is clear that there is an implicit criticism in the Bishop’s use of the word “official”. He remains silent about Papa Francis’ “unofficial” remarks, all of which to date, it seems to me, are manifest patent nonsense.

        So, we await, either Bishop Schneider’s move forward to the next stage of his outspoken-ness OR another “mainstream” bishop with a tad more insight or courage or a combination of both – whatever it takes.

        These remarks from Bishop Schneider would have been a great start ten or fifteen years ago. Right now, all they really do is (as I said at the outset of the blog introduction) prove magnificently wrong, all those who criticise Archbishop Lefebvre for acting without good cause, and who claim that there is no crisis in the Church. For that, we thank Bishop Schneider, with bells on. But he still has some way to go. Let’s pray that he makes it and soon.

        June 14, 2014 at 4:29 pm
      • fidelityalways

        I think he is contrasting interviews with journalists, the alleged content of phone calls, with what The Bishop of Rome preaches and teaches. He makes a point of saying Francis isn’t saying what The Media expects when he preachers.

        The Bishop highlights ecumenism, and I suspect this blog doesn’t fit in with his understanding of the role of a woman in The Church. But some people cherry pick Church Teaching.

        Which Bishop has granted you the right to pose as an Official Source of Church Teaching, and granted this website a Nihil Obstat, and an Imprimatur?

        June 14, 2014 at 5:18 pm
      • mikidiki

        Athanasius

        Congratulations! If that does not educate FA nothing will.
        If this were a boxing match, those posts were a KO

        June 14, 2014 at 8:03 pm
      • editor

        You really don’t read very carefully, FA, do you? “Editor” is not promoting any Modernists. Editor noted that Bishop Schneider is showing “some leadership.” That is all. End of. Pay attention.

        Mikidiki is correct. All the ecumenical activities being promoted today are designed to whittle down the Catholic Faith. When was the last time you heard of an ecumenical prayer meeting where the rosary was recited.

        Get it, now, FA?

        June 14, 2014 at 4:19 pm
      • fidelityalways

        It would not be Ecumenical if The Liturgy reflected one of the Traditions present. Ecumenical Prayer by its nature has to be inclusive.

        The Bishop is speaking the same truths as every other Bishop, be he has a thing about certain Liturgical matters, which are acceptable, but out of step with The Bishop of Rome and his colleagues. That is the thing highly with personal, very subjective, opinions, they do not bind The Church.

        June 14, 2014 at 4:39 pm
      • Margaret Mary

        fidelityalways

        What do you say binds the Church? I am very confused by your comments because you seem to say that the Holy Spirit is always guiding the pope and so we must obey everything the popes says even if it is new like ecumenism, and that the Holy Spirit will sometimes say one thing is right and then another thing is right. The pope who wrote that ecumenical assemblies were banned to Catholics could not have been guided by the Holy Spirit if the Holy Spirit is now telling the pope that they are a good thing.

        I can’t follow your logic, I apologise.

        June 14, 2014 at 6:43 pm
      • fidelityalways

        I said personal opinion and highly subjective preferences cannot bind The Church.

        Papal Infallibility is very specific, and some Occupants of The See of Rome have over reached themselves in claiming it for some of their actions, and teaching.

        The Second Vatican Council, which was a teaching Council, teaches us Ecumenism is a work of The Holy Spirit, and that other faiths express some truths. Dominum Jesus published by the CDF spoke of some ecclesial groups not being a Church, and said other religions had serious defects.

        Bishop Schneider explains above why Ecumenism is central to the work of The Church.

        His views on Liturgy are that: HIS VIEWS, and a subjective opinion.

        June 14, 2014 at 6:52 pm
      • Fidelis

        Fidelity Always

        “Papal Infallibility is very specific, and some Occupants of The See of Rome have over reached themselves in claiming it for some of their actions, and teaching.”

        That is some statement from you. Can you point to an infallible teaching that you believe is wrong, which is obviously what you must believe if some popes “have over-reached themselves in claiming it for some of their teachings.”

        Can you give some examples?

        June 17, 2014 at 7:05 pm
      • fidelityalways

        I an using a broad brush, and thinking more along the lines that not every word has the authority dissident Trad’s attach to them.

        June 18, 2014 at 8:30 pm
      • fidelityalways

        I think it people like you he worries about. He said:

        ‘Thanks be to God, Pope Francis has not expressed himself in these ways that the mass media expect from him. He has spoken until now, in his official homilies, very beautiful Catholic doctrine. I hope he will continue to teach in very clear manner the Catholic doctrine.’

        June 14, 2014 at 4:51 pm
      • fidelityalways

        All ecumenical events today are to try to meet people with they are at.

        Did not Elijah invite those who believe in false God’s to pray to “them” before he showed the presence and power of the one true God. Elijah was a Prophet of God, and he appeared on a Mountain with Jesus.

        Did St Paul not use the altar of “The Unknown God” to lead people to faith?

        In 1949 The holy office sanctioned Ecumenical Gatherings.

        The precedents, in Holy Scripture, and Church documents, and actions, are many.

        Read Bishop Schneider about and Dominum lesus from 2000.

        And for World Mission Day 2014 The Successor to Peter says this:

        oday vast numbers of people still do not know Jesus Christ. For this reason, the mission ad gentes continues to be most urgent. All the members of the Church are called to participate in this mission, for the Church is missionary by her very nature: she was born “to go forth”. World Mission Day is a privileged moment when the faithful of various continents engage in prayer and concrete gestures of solidarity in support of the young Churches in mission lands. It is a celebration of grace and joy. A celebration of grace, because the Holy Spirit, sent by the Father, offers wisdom and strength to those who are obedient to his action. A celebration of joy, because Jesus Christ, the Father’s Son, sent to evangelize the world, supports and accompanies our missionary efforts. This joy of Jesus and missionary disciples leads me to propose a biblical icon, which we find in the Gospel of Luke (cf. 10:21-23) .

        June 16, 2014 at 8:42 am
    • fidelityalways

      Ecumenism is a work of The Holy Spirit to bring about what Jesus prayed for: That they may be one, as you and are one.

      June 14, 2014 at 6:16 pm
      • Margaret Mary

        fidelityalways

        Jesus made the Church united from the start so the mission is now to bring back those who left it and to help to convert outsiders, without force, of course.

        June 14, 2014 at 6:49 pm
      • fidelityalways

        As self proclaimed Trad’s on this blog show, divisions exist within The Church, and some who claim to be in the Church are merely renting rooms, and The E.F. was an attempt to reconcile dissident trouble makers. (As stated by Francis, Bishop of Rome, and reigning gloriously as Christ wills.)

        June 14, 2014 at 6:55 pm
      • Athanasius

        FIDELITYALWAYS,

        “Francis, Bishop of Rome” is by far a subordinate title to Pope Francis, Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the Universal Church. This should tell you something about mindset.

        Nevertheless, if His Holiness insists on “Bishop of Rome,” then perhaps as per his own advice, repeated earlier by you in reference to Bishop Schneider, the Bishop of Rome should stay within his own diocese instead of traveling the globe. Lead by example, that’s what I say!

        June 14, 2014 at 8:45 pm
      • fidelityalways

        Titles are not what decides the matter. The Conclave elects The Bishop of Rome, That is why the Cardinals have titular Churches, to emphasise that point. You should study what The Church says about such matters.

        June 14, 2014 at 8:55 pm
      • Athanasius

        fidelityalways,

        On the contrary, the conclave elects first the Vicar of Christ who becomes by default the Bishop of Rome, the primary See in the Church held by the successors of St. Peter. It has been a favoured trick of Protestants and revolutionaries since the XVI century to attempt to undermine the office of the Pope by referring to him merely as “Bishop of Rome,” as though he has no authority or jurisdiction outside of that small diocese.

        Sad to say, it seems Pope Francis is a proponent of the error of Collegiality, that is to say he sees himself as little more than the primary bishop in the Church sharing power with his brother bishops. This is a false understanding of the Petrine authority and that’s why no other Pope in history has consistently insisted on the subordinate title of Bishop of Rome.

        There may also be another reason for Francis’ insistence on Bishop of Rome. Read this interesting piece: http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/05/two-popes-has-papacy-become-diarchy.html

        June 14, 2014 at 9:31 pm
      • fidelityalways

        Quite definitely they elect The Bishop of Rome.

        As one might expect you are wrong.

        Titles of The Bishop of Rome:

        Papal Titles:
        – His Holiness The Pope;

        – Bishop Of Rome And Vicar Of Jesus Christ;

        – Successor Of St. Peter, Prince Of The Apostles;

        – Supreme Pontiff Of The Universal Church;

        – Patriarch Of The West;

        – Servant Of The Servants Of God;

        – Primate Of Italy;

        – Archbishop And Metropolitan Of The Roman Province;

        – Sovereign Of Vatican City State;

        To quote Francis, Bishop of Rome:

        “As you know, the duty of the conclave was to appoint a bishop of Rome. It seems to me that my brother cardinals have chosen one who is from faraway. …Here I am. I would like to thank you for your embrace.”

        June 14, 2014 at 9:43 pm
      • Miles Immaculatae

        These are all titles of the Successor of Peter. They are not titles of the Bishop of Rome, because ‘bishop of Rome’ is itself a title.

        You quote Pope Francis as if his words are the verbatim Word of God. Just because he says “the conclave was to appoint a bishop of Rome” doesn’t change Church teaching.

        The Pope is not a deity, he is not the leader of some cult as the Protestants make us out to be. I have read some of your comments and it is clear you are a papolotrist.

        June 14, 2014 at 10:39 pm
      • editor

        FA,

        Did it ever occur to you – given that the Pope is an admirer of Hans Kung, the heretical priest who has written books denying papal infallibility – that maybe Pope Francis shares Kung’s heresy? Just asking.

        Because… very recently, Kung sent Pope Francis a copy of his latest book and the Pope replied, sending a handwritten note of gratitude, saying he was looking forward to reading it.

        Could it be that he prefers to use his secondary title Bishop of Rome because he doesn’t actually believe in the whole papal thingy? As I say, just asking.

        June 14, 2014 at 11:22 pm
      • Miles Immaculatae

        That would cause an incredible existential crisis for neo-Catholic papolotrists. What if the pope were to deny papal infallibility? They would go insane, they wouldn’t know what to believe any more.

        June 14, 2014 at 11:33 pm
      • fidelityalways

        Hans Kung is a Catholic, and a human being, and so is Francis. Hans sent Francis a gift, and he in return thanked him for it. Benedict was wrong about the E.F, and The ordinariate, that doesn’t mean every other act was wrong.

        Fr Gruner has no faculties to minister in The Church, and yet he is the source of teaching for many here. Just which Bishop gives this website a Nihil Obstat and an Imprimatur.

        The title of bishop of Rome is to emphasise he is a collegiate member of the College of Bishops, the successors to The Apostles, However, he is well aware of his Petrine Ministry, as Head of that College, at his Inauguration Mass he pleaded ” Pray for me , he said, that the Holy Spirit may may accompany my Petrine ministry.” He frequently referencing his role as the Successor of Peter.

        June 15, 2014 at 6:08 am
      • Miles Immaculatae

        I am sorry. This just not true. The Church chooses a Supreme Pontiff, who then inherits the titular See of Rome by virtue of the fact the Supreme Pontiff is a bishop. He doesn’t inherit the office of Supreme Pontiff by virtue of him being bishop of Rome! Where did you learn this?

        The papacy was established before Our Lord or Peter had ever stepped foot in Rome!

        June 14, 2014 at 9:37 pm
      • fidelityalways

        The cardinals have titular Churches to emphasis the link with The Rome Diocese, and who it is they elect.

        Conceivably, The Holy See could move again, and the Primacy with it.

        The titles matter not one jot.

        June 14, 2014 at 9:47 pm
      • Miles Immaculatae

        You’re right, they don’t.

        Another reason why the Cardinal electors have these titles to represent their connection with Rome is because cardinals never used to elect a pope. I believe it was the high ranking clergy in Rome itself who did this, I think they were canons of the See of Rome or something. Cardinal elections are quite new.

        I don’t think the Pope will leave Rome voluntarily, because Rome is the Traditional home of the Pope. It’s tradition. The papacy has ‘sanctified’ Rome, and Rome is now the eternal city.

        I think ‘Bishop of Rome’ is an important title, just not the pre-eminent title.

        June 14, 2014 at 10:09 pm
      • Athanasius

        FIDELITYALWAYS,

        You’re quite wrong, the title matters very much to the enemies of Catholicism. Bishop of Rome for them is much more acceptable than Pope or Vicar of Christ. It confirms their argument that the Pope is little more than a local bishop with, at best, a tad more per-eminence than all other bishops. In other words, titles can be used to undermine the unique authority established by Our Lord Himself in the Petrine Office.

        June 14, 2014 at 10:26 pm
      • fidelityalways

        Francis using The Title to emphasise he is a Bishop, and his Diocese is Rome, but even at his inauguration, and many times since, he has spoken of his Petrine role. He began by pleading ” Pray for me , he said, that the Holy Spirit may may accompany my Petrine ministry.” Titles, and the use of them, are not what gives him authority. It is Christ, and he has accepted that burden for the good of the Church.

        Follow Peter, and not your own questionable scholarship.

        June 15, 2014 at 6:23 am
      • Miles Immaculatae

        Couldn’t agree more.

        What is this neo-Catholic obsession with the cult of Rome?

        Peter was a Gallilean, not a Roman! Our Lord established the Papacy, not the bishopric of Rome!

        If divine providence had led Peter to Constantinople, or Antioch, the Supreme Pontiff would have adopted a different title.

        Peter wasn’t bishop of Rome, until, erm, well, until he got to Rome, sometime after Matthew 16:18.

        The Bishop of Rome is a title, created by the Church, which is the possession of the office of the papacy, not the other way round, you are most correct Athanasius.

        All this Bishop of Rome nonsense is very contrived.

        Upon thee, the bishop of Rome, I will build my rock… It doesn’t say that in the Bible.

        Our Lord probably didn’t tell Peter to establish his See in Rome, ever. Peter ended up in Rome by providence, because it was the political and cultural centre of the Roman (hint) Empire, under which Our Lord and Peter lived.

        June 14, 2014 at 9:19 pm
      • Miles Immaculatae

        I mean, if the Popes decided to live in Sheffield for the end of time, they would still be Popes, because their authority comes from Christ, and not a man-made title.

        Bishop of Rome actually is not the most important of the Pope’s titles. He has a few: Vicar of Christ, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church.

        The reason the post-conciliar Church has put so much emphasis on ‘Bishop of Rome’ is to push collegiality on us all.

        June 14, 2014 at 9:31 pm
      • Miles Immaculatae

        Have you actually read a word of Summorum Pontificum?

        Pope Benedict’s reasons for promulgating SP are clearly outlined in it.

        Pope Benedict never said anything of the sort in the document itself, even if he did write it in response to requests from the SSPX. That does not per se make it bad, this is a logical fallacy.

        If you think the current Pope’s sentiments abrogate absolutely the sentiments of his predecessor, then you have a very twisted understanding of the papacy. Is the pope some kind of dictator now?

        God would not be so fickle and indecisive as to change his mind every few years. Unless you think Benedict wasn’t “gloriously” doing Christ’s work? In which case, you’re a hypocrite, because he was as much the Pope as any pope.

        The neo-Catholic concept of the papacy is totalitarian. And very modern. It was only after the reformation Catholics began to regard the Pope as this supreme emperor whose every word and command is sacred, ‘ultramontanism’ is the proper name I believe. Papal regalism I call it. He is a monarch, yes, but not a Stuart King. The Stuarts could not bear to accept that their power was limited. As it is with the Pope.

        The Traditional understanding of the papacy is not so self-assured, not so absolutist. It is moderate, and takes into account how the papacy was regarded to 19 centuries before now. I mean, in the middle ages, most people didn’t know who the reigning pope was, I shouldn’t think. The pope didn’t play much of a role in their spiritual lives. Ascribing more power to Pope than is given him by divine revelation is false piety, it verges on man worship.

        If the Pope sneezes during Mass, it does not become a rubric.

        June 14, 2014 at 11:00 pm
      • fidelityalways

        I have read S.P. many times, and Francis, Bishop of Rome has, himself, summarised it many times: it was a pastoral attempt Catholic dissidents who had difficult with change.

        If you think Pope Benedict didn’t let his emotions over rule his judgement at times, please explain The Ordinariate. Everything he said about that contradicts how you interpret Piux Xl on ecumenism. And yet you say he interpreted the issue of abrogation correctly! if he was one of nine Cardinals chosen to advice Saint John Paul on abrogation, then please explain why: 1. He doesn’t refer to that Commission. 2. Its advice wasn’t acted upon by J.P.. 3. The book The Spirit of The Liturgy written at the same time as the book by Stickler doesn’t hint at restoration?

        Tradition is interpreted, and applied, by The Magisterium, and not Catholics rushing into schism,

        June 15, 2014 at 5:52 am
      • Miles Immaculatae

        “Tradition is interpreted, and applied, by The Magisterium, and not Catholics rushing into schism”

        You see, this is precisely why are wrong. Your entire underlying philosophy is modernist. The current papal magisterium cannot change, adapt or reinterpret Tradition, otherwise it wouldn’t be Tradition. Tradition is Tradition.

        The past is not viewed through the lens of the present. The present is viewed through the lens of the past…

        Applying the this principle, we therefore interpret the council and the current papal magisterial through past teaching. Not the other way around.

        June 15, 2014 at 7:53 am
      • fidelityalways

        They are not reinterpreting anything, they are applying Tradition in the light of new knowledge and changing circumstances.

        For example, to have a greater appreciation, and knowledge, of sound ecumenism.

        The Magisterium, the successors to The Apostles, are there to do what they do as Jesus wills it., You have no such mandate to second guess them.

        June 15, 2014 at 8:03 am
      • Miles Immaculatae

        You seem to think that the Pope and bishops are some kind of magical oracle through whom God manifests his will.

        That’s really weird.

        June 15, 2014 at 8:07 am
      • fidelityalways

        No, I believe they are the living, authentic guardians, of Sacred Tradition and Holy Scripture, and they must apply that deposit of faith to each new age, int he light of our growth in understanding of the affairs of humanity.

        This thread is headed by an interview with a Bishop Trad’s think is sound because of his views on Liturgy, but that same man says: ‘Ecumenism is necessary in order to be in contact with our separated brethren, to love them. In the midst of the challenge of the new paganism, we can and have to collaborate with serious non-Catholics to defend the revealed Divine truth and the natural law, created by God.’

        June 15, 2014 at 8:29 am
      • Miles Immaculatae

        I never said I thought BAS was a ‘Trad’. Has anyone here said that? Has this been implied by anyone?

        He needn’t be a Trad for us to agree with him on this point or that point. We needn’t agree with him on everything.

        June 15, 2014 at 2:45 pm
      • fidelityalways

        On the contrary, as The Editor makes clear the interview is deemed to be good, and he a sound Bishop,

        To quote The Editor: “These remarks from Bishop Schneider would have been a great start ten or fifteen years ago. Right now, all they really do is (as I said at the outset of the blog introduction) prove magnificently wrong, all those who criticise Archbishop Lefebvre for acting without good cause, and who claim that there is no crisis in the Church. For that, we thank Bishop Schneider, with bells on.”

        And the first to comment, Crofterlady “The whole interview is uplifting in these dreadful times in which we are living. ”

        Please don’t deny that is why Trad blogs are awash with praise for this man, but they only disown the interview when loyal people, faithful to the Church, point up that his soundest teaching is when he isn’t talking about liturgy. He says Francis preaches the truth, and that ecumenism is central to our mission, for example.

        June 15, 2014 at 2:59 pm
      • Miles Immaculatae

        He deserves praise. Editor and Crofter Lady are correct.

        I really don’t understand what the problem is.

        People are wrong about all sorts of things. Doesn’t mean they are wrong about everything. If Adolf Hitler said the sky was blue, would you not believe him?

        June 15, 2014 at 3:04 pm
      • fidelityalways

        I think perhaps you might be more rational than the sycophants who see The Editor as the bulwark against Satan.

        June 15, 2014 at 3:09 pm
      • Miles Immaculatae

        Who is a sycophant of the Editor? Athanasius? You be surprised by the reality!

        June 15, 2014 at 8:30 pm
      • fidelityalways

        No really. This blog is hardly a place for surprises, Most commentators can’t grasp history, or recent events. With such a grasp on reality they can hardly unveil surprises.

        June 15, 2014 at 8:32 pm
    • catholicconvert1

      Fidelityalways,

      I have long been an admirer of Bishop Athanasius, but he is wrong when it comes to ecumenism. The brand of ecumenism extant does nothing more than keep protestants and others heretics steady in their errors. It waters down the revealed Truth of the Catholic Faith, and makes it ‘acceptable’ to protestants and their cohorts. This was the justification for the New Mass on the part of Mgr Bugnini, where he said all ‘stumbling blocks must be removed’. The fact is15,000 protestants a year converted up until the mid-1960s, nowadays, its only around 3,200. Current ecumenism is false ecumenism. It does not present Church teachings on dogmas such as the Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and other dogmas that protestants ‘don’t get’, such as the Mass or Marian dogmas.

      June 14, 2014 at 8:32 pm
      • fidelityalways

        Bishop Schneider is one Bishop, and in so far as he is in Communion with The Bishop of Rome, and The College of Bishops, the teaching has to be adhered to. They all say Ecumenism is central to our work and mission. If you don’t accept the teaching of The Magisterium is isn’t clear what you converted to.

        June 14, 2014 at 9:21 pm
      • Athanasius

        FIDELITYALWAYS,

        It is incumbent upon the Pope and bishops of the Church to exercise the ordinary Magisterium in fidelity to the extraordinary Magisterium before they insist on obedience from the faithful. Consequently, the Popes and bishops of Vatican II cannot insist on obedience from the faithful to doctrines such as ecumenism when such doctrines are condemned by the pre-Council Magisterium. Do you grasp what I’m saying? Obedience to God takes precedence to obedience to men when the latter contradict what has previously been taught. The Pope and the bishops are not empowered by God to introduce new and dangerous doctrines to the faith but merely to pass on without alteration what has been handed down. That’s why you’ll find that ecumenism has never been imposed formally on the faithful by the Magisterium since Vatican II.

        June 14, 2014 at 9:39 pm
      • fidelityalways

        I grasp what you are saying, but The Magisterium, who have the duty to teach these truths, would point out you, not they, are wrong.

        June 14, 2014 at 9:57 pm
      • Athanasius

        Then you have not spotted the obvious contradictions between the pre and post-Council magisterium that even senior prelates have questioned. Perhaps you are under the mistaken belief that the magisterial teaching of the Church is whatever a particular Pope and his bishops say it is. That would be a great error. Every Pope and bishop is bound to protect and hand down to successive generations what has been entrusted to them by Tradition. Now I’m sure that not even you would argue that the Catholic Faith of today is the same, certainly at parish level, as that held and practiced by all previous generations.

        June 14, 2014 at 10:20 pm
      • fidelityalways

        However, what has been handed down to them has to be interpreted by them, and applied to each new age. Either we believe the promises Jesus made to Peter, and The Church, or we don’t, and it is The Magisterium that hands on Tradition, and interprets it, and not dissident Catholics wedded to a Church, and a time, that never existed. Francis has warned such people they are excluding themselves from The kingdom even whilst they rent rooms in The Church. Listen, to Peter.

        June 15, 2014 at 6:27 am
      • Miles Immaculatae

        The Pope doesn’t own Tradition. It is not his property to play with. He is the servant of Tradition and he is restricting by Traditional.

        The Pope is not Tradition, Tradition is Tradition.

        June 15, 2014 at 8:02 am
      • perplexed

        Would you be surprised, I wonder, to know that Pope Pius IX (a very pre-Vat II Pope) said of himself: I am tradition?

        June 15, 2014 at 4:25 pm
      • Miles Immaculatae

        I know he did. That’s where I got the idea from when I wrote that. He is wrong of course. And it was a distorted legacy he inherited. The council has forced us to reconsider the authentic teaching of the Church on the papacy, and challenge this post-Reformation super ultramontanism that inclined pontiffs to say “I am Tradition” … if he could come back to the present, he would realise the tragedy, comedy and absurdity of his comment (which is probably out of context anyway), for indeed, the papacy is an institution in crisis. This is precisely what Bishop Williamson meant by ‘1950ism’, that the pre-conciliar generation were so self-assured, so self-confident, they thought they had it right, that Catholicism had reached a state of perfection, and somehow, it all came crashing down.

        June 15, 2014 at 8:28 pm
      • fidelityalways

        The Pope, and The Magisterium safeguard Tradition, and as Pope Paul Vl prophesied The Devil will use people like you to undermine the fruits of The Council. “We thought that after the Council there would be a day of sunshine for the history of the Church, and instead we found storms. – which comes to suffocate the fruits of the ecumenical Council. ………there is confrontation.”

        June 15, 2014 at 4:50 pm
      • Miles Immaculatae

        Good grief, the Devil is using me to undermine the Catholics faith. Well there you go.

        Not the first time a neo-Catholic has intimated I am under diabolic influence. He was quite subtle about it, and quite serious. Needless to say, I am no longer friends with that person, I found him quite obnoxious.

        Neo-Catholcism, or papolatry, is a fundamentalism. What else would cause people to say things like this: the pope prophesied that the Devil would use you, and he’s using you. It’s a nasty thing to say, it’s also weird, it’s the sort of thing a religious nut would say.

        June 15, 2014 at 8:07 pm
      • fidelityalways

        I am using the term prophesy loosely, as in the sense he foresaw the problems ahead, and in 1976 he went further:

        With regards Paul Vl, The SSPX, and The Council we read this from 1976 (two years after his speech in which he lamented the attacks on The Council):

        “Finally, about ten years later, in an allocution (also in Italian) to the secret consistory of cardinals on May 24, 1976, Pope Paul VI specifically addressed the distortions and disobedience of Archbishops Lefebvre and his followers with respect to the Second Vatican Council. This too is non-magisterial, but it is proper to round out the thought he expressed non-magisterially in the general audience so commonly cited:

        There are those who, under the pretext of a greater fidelity to the Church and the Magisterium, systematically refuse the teaching of the Council itself, its application and the reforms that stem from it, its gradual application by the Apostolic See and the Episcopal Conferences, under Our authority, willed by Christ.

        He even exclaimed in utter frustration:

        It is even affirmed that the Second Vatican Council is not binding; that the faith would be in danger also because of the post-conciliar reforms and guidelines, which there is a duty to disobey to preserve certain traditions. What traditions? Does it belong to this group, and not the Pope, not the Episcopal College, not an Ecumenical Council, to establish which of the countless traditions must be regarded as the norm of faith!”

        June 15, 2014 at 8:12 pm
      • Miles Immaculatae

        RE: last paragraph –

        Well he said it! He died in 1978. It is 2014 and we are proved right. If only Paul VI could have lived to see the fruits. He did to a certain extent, and died a broken man.

        June 15, 2014 at 8:18 pm
      • fidelityalways

        He is to be beatified in October.

        His life attests to the fact The Church is constantly being renewed, and that renewal will continue, and even internal, disloyal, dissent cannot overcome The Church.

        Each successive Papacy has been faithful to Tradition, and has carried forward the work he began.

        June 15, 2014 at 8:25 pm
      • Miles Immaculatae

        Beatification. I had forced that fact out of my mind, until now.

        According to the precedent set by the canonisation of John Paul II, he would be canonised roughly three years later, 2017.

        June 15, 2014 at 8:37 pm
      • Miles Immaculatae

        Also, how do you honestly know who the Devil is or is not using? What authority are you? It’s a profoundly proud, arrogant and self-righteous thing to say. You wouldn’t say it to anybody else but a Traditional Catholic. That’s a blindness. It’s a hypocrisy. Am I not your neighbour? Someone joked here that you might be Pope Francis. You certainly think a lot of yourself, and speak with the majestic tone of a pontiff.

        June 15, 2014 at 8:11 pm
      • fidelityalways

        Francis regularly speaks of the Devil, and people who seek to impose things, like liturgy on others, as renting a room in the Church. Paul VI was clearly talking about dissenters promoting confrontation, and attacking The Council as a work of The devil.

        June 15, 2014 at 8:14 pm
      • Athanasius

        FIDELITYALWAYS,

        No, the Magisterium of every age has not the power to interpret the deposit of faith. It has the duty solely to pass on what has been handed down without alteration. What you are suggesting, and certainly what we have seen since Vatican II, is this notion of evolution of doctrine to fit the times, what you call “interpreting.” Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever. His doctrine does not alter nor find re-interpretation to suit the fashions of different ages. Besides that, we have the proof that no interpretation of doctrine took place for nearly two thousand years up to Vatican II. Open your eyes!

        June 15, 2014 at 1:27 pm
      • fidelityalways

        Blessed John Cardinal Newman predated The Council by some distance, and he spoke of the development of doctrine. The Church must constantly grow in understanding of truths.

        I repeat again the problem is you read documents literally and removed from their historical, and cultural, context and impose a prejudiced view on them. That is exactly why The Church has been gifted with The Magisterium.

        For example, to misread Pius Xl on Ecumenism devoid of the problem he was actually addressing means you miss his point entirely. Dominum Jesus, in 2000, more accurately reflects he, and The Church, say.

        Likewise, Pope Benedict never once referenced the alleged meeting Cardinal Stickler was at on the abrogation of the Old Rite, whereas he listed every Indult relating to it, and yet you prefer to base your opinions on recycled falsehoods from dissident Trad’s or are the enemy within.

        June 15, 2014 at 1:40 pm
  • Athanasius

    FIDELITYALWAYS,

    For your correction re the falsehood of ecumenism:

    In his 1928 Encyclical Mortalium Animos, Pope Pius XI declares: “When there is question of fostering unity among Christians, it is easy for many to be misled by the apparent excellence of the object to be achieved. Is it not right, they ask, is it not the obvious duty of all who invoke the name of Christ to refrain from mutual reproaches and at last to be united in charity? Dare anyone say that he loves Christ and yet not strive with all his might to accomplish the desire of Him who asked His Father that His disciples might be ‘one’? (Jn. 17:21)….If only all Christians were ‘one,’ it is contended, then they might do so much more to drive out the plague of irreligion which, with its insidious and far-reaching advance, is threatening to sap the strength of the Gospel. In reality, however, these fair and alluring words cloak a most grave error, subversive of the foundations of the Catholic religion…”

    in the Encyclical Quanta Cura of 1864, Pope Pius IX writes: “They do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our predecessor, Gregory XVI, an insanity, viz., that ‘liberty of conscience and worship is each man’s personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed in every rightly constituted society’…But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching liberty of perdition.…”

    And now the teaching of Gregory XVI, who wrote in Mirari Vos: “With the admonition of the Apostle that there is ‘one Lord, one faith, one baptism’ (Eph. 4:5), may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever. They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself who said ‘He that is not with me, is against me’ (Luke 11:23), and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him. Therefore “without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and entire…’ ”

    You were also wrong earlier when you wrote of the common priesthood of the people. The common priesthood of the people, as the Church has long explained, is not remotely to be considered as in any way equal to the ordained priesthood. That means no lay person is permitted to indulge in those liturgical functions proper to the ordained priest, such as celebrating Mass and administering the Sacraments. As a publicly-commenting Catholic, you are obliged to educate yourself in such matters.

    June 14, 2014 at 7:19 pm
    • fidelityalways

      You presume too much. I made no claims as to what the baptised faithful, as members of The Common Priesthood, can or cannot do. I merely stated all the baptised share in it, and that do. The Church teaches the ordained priesthood differs in essence from the priesthood of all the faithful.

      As recently as 2000 in Dominum Jesus The Church wrote authoritatively about the status of other Christian Traditions, and Faiths.

      The Church is hierarchical, and The Magisterium, not me, would challenge your interpretation, and application, of earlier papal documents. You are out of step with the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, and falsely, and dangerously, cling to your interpretation, and application, of truths entrusted to The Church, under Peter, by Christ himself.

      Don’t presuppose what knowledge other people bring to the table you arrogant….

      June 14, 2014 at 9:34 pm
      • Athanasius

        FIDELITYALWAYS,

        You introduced the common priesthood theme without making distinctions. I made the distinction for you so that no one could be led astray by the ambiguity of your words.

        As to those “other Christian Traditions and Faiths” you mention, there are none. The infallible dogma, remember it is an infallible dogma, says: “extra ecclesiam nulla salus,” outside the Church no salvation. There is no mention of other Christian traditions and faiths in any Church document pre-Vatican II. That’s the teaching I go by since it is doctrinal and binding. Vatican II was a pastoral Council, not a doctrinal one. By the words of Pope John XXIII himself, Vatican II was to remain on a modest level, not treating of doctrine. I’ll take the Pope’s word on that and abide by his rule, which is in line with Traditional teaching. You may feel free to accept what others made of the Council’s ambiguous texts once the event was over.

        By the way, no authority in the Church today could take issue with what I say because I quote the Church’s formal authorities. That’s why every Traditional Catholic who has ever written to Rome to ask for justification for ecumenism in the Church’s pre-Council teaching has been met with silence. The fact is there is a breach between pre and post-Council teaching in respect to ecumenism, as is evident from my earlier Papal quotes.

        June 14, 2014 at 9:56 pm
      • fidelityalways

        I replied to a question about priesthood, and gave a suitable answer. As you introduce ambiguity in everything you say, and teach error with every word you write, please concern yourself with acquiring personal knowledge, and give up your claim to be The Vicar of Christ.

        June 14, 2014 at 10:02 pm
      • Athanasius

        FIDELITYALWAYS,

        Please try to maintain charity and patience in this exchange. Anger and insult are not conducive to the good of souls, which is what this debate is supposed to achieve. If you have teaching evidence from the Church’s centuries old teaching that shows modern ecumenism to be in line with Catholic doctrine, then please provide it in refutation of the Traditional Papal quotes I have made. Surely that’s how Catholics should debate?

        June 14, 2014 at 10:10 pm
      • fidelityalways

        It is you that presupposes to lecture individuals. I have made general comments, and then replied to those offering an alternative view. It is the tone of your replies you need to correct.

        There is a difference between Papal quotes from deceased Popes who were usually addressing a different issue to the one you propose, with your unhistorical literal interpretation of them, and the Tradition taught, and upheld, by the successors to The Apostles living, and in Office, and the true guardians of that Tradition. That is, they are in Office. You are not.

        Follow peter, and not some unhistorical, heretical, wish list.

        June 15, 2014 at 7:57 am
      • Athanasius

        FIDELITYALWAYS,

        My challenge to you on the back of your comments above is to delineate for me the particular issues those “deceased Popes” were addressing at the time of the Encyclicals I quoted that in any way invalidate their words today. And please explain what you mean by “unhistorical, heretical wish list.” You’ve lost me completely on that one.

        June 15, 2014 at 1:32 pm
      • Christina

        FIDELITYALWAYS.

        Will you for goodness sake stop writing ‘Dominum Jesus’. You’ve done it at the very least three times in your most recent effusions, and it’s really irritating me.

        June 16, 2014 at 12:09 am
  • Athanasius

    FIDELITYALWAYS,

    I should have pointed out that the Mass you call the E.F., that is, the Traditional Latin Mass, is the Mass of the saints and martyrs, the Mass that goes all the way back in its essentials to St. Peter himself. Surely then, it is the new vernacular Mass of 1969, the Mass that was constructed to disguise the sacrifice of Our Lord to please Protestants, the Mass that Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci declared represents “in whole and in its individual parts a grave departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass…”, that should rightly be called EXTRAORDINARY!

    June 14, 2014 at 7:41 pm
    • catholicconvert1

      Athanasius,

      Thank you for those two excellent responses. I’m glad you’re back on the blog. However, I would be interested to know if Cardinal Ottaviani and Bacci ever celebrated the New Mass?

      June 14, 2014 at 8:35 pm
      • Athanasius

        catholicconvert1,

        Thank you for your kind words. I felt it my duty to correct FA. Too many uneducated Catholics are getting off with making the nonsense statements that FA has made. This is a very serious business, the business of immortal souls, and yet they make the most uninformed declarations and accusations without having made any attempt first to check the facts by consulting the authority of Traditional Church teaching.

        As regards your question: I can’t say for sure about Cardinal Bacci but I did hear that Cardinal Ottaviani grudgingly celebrated the New Mass, doubtless out of fear and confusion and his advanced age at the time. Many elderly prelates were left in a state of confusion and crisis of conscience over the New Mass. It was not easy for them, or indeed any Catholic, to reject it when the Pope himself was promoting it. Again, it all comes down to a proper understanding of what constitutes true and false obedience to superiors. I am reminded here of the words of Archbishop Lefebvre: “The devil’s masterstroke has been to sow disobedience through obedience.”

        June 14, 2014 at 9:09 pm
      • editor

        Athanasius,

        Thanks for your very good attempts to correct FA but I fear that your words – like those of the rest of us – will fall on deaf ears.

        Over several threads, the others have tried to help FA see the light. Leo, for example, has written extensively, correcting FA’s every imaginable error quoting source after irrefutable source, but FA is not moved one bit. Just sticks to the FA party line.

        Thus, I’m torn between thinking that this is someone who is having a laugh, keeping us busy, either that or someone who is simply extremely badly formed in the Faith. Either way, it’s hard work, so thanks for helping out – much appreciated! Maybe your magic touch will do the trick!

        June 14, 2014 at 10:57 pm
      • Athanasius

        Editor,

        I kind of gathered from FA’s responses to my posts that this is a person who is not really interested in what is true or false in matters touching the faith. What a waste of energy, as I’m sure many here have sighed before me. Oh well, maybe the exchange will have helped the hidden viewer to see things a little clearer.

        June 15, 2014 at 12:01 am
      • mikidiki

        Editor

        Would it be possible to incorporate an IGNORE facility, and then in order to maintain an interest in a particular thread, one could ignore the distractions of posters such as FidelityAlways? Just asking ….

        June 15, 2014 at 12:36 am
      • fidelityalways

        It is simple really, you stop posting anti-Catholic heretical views, and I would have nothing to respond to.

        Follow Peter!

        June 15, 2014 at 8:33 am
      • Athanasius

        FIDELITYALWAYS,

        Follow Peter is generally good advice for any Catholic but there are limits, as all the great saint/theologians have taught. We are not obliged to follow Peter, for example, when he declares, either by word or example, “I know not the man.”

        Here’s is a little more education for you:

        St. Paul in Galatians 2: 11-13, recounts how he “withstood Peter to his face because he was to be blamed.”

        Commenting on this Scripture passage,
        St. Thomas Aquinas writes: “There being an imminent danger to the Faith, prelates must be questioned, even publicly, by their subjects. Thus, St. Paul, who was a subject of St. Peter, questioned him publicly on account of an imminent danger of scandal in a matter of Faith…” (Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 33, a. 4).

        St. Robert Bellarmine concurs with St. Thomas in this matter and distinguishes for us between legitimate resistance and forbidden judgment. He writes: “Just as it is licit to resist the Pontiff who aggresses the body, it is also licit to resist the one who aggresses the soul or who disturbs civil order, or, above all, who attempts to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and preventing his will from being executed; it is not licit, however, to judge, punish or depose him, since these are acts proper to a superior” (De Romano Pontifice, lib. 2, chap. 29, in Opera Omnia [Paris: Pedone Lauriel, 1871], vol. I, p. 418).

        In his Encyclical Letter Pastor Aeternus, Pope Pius IX gives a certain rule by which the faithful may gauge the fidelity of popes to the primary duty of their sacred office. He writes: “The Holy Spirit has not been promised to the successors of Peter to permit them to proclaim new doctrine according to His revelations, but to keep strictly and to expound faithfully, with His help, the revelations transmitted by the Apostles, in other words the Deposit of Faith.”

        June 15, 2014 at 1:41 pm
      • fidelityalways

        The Pope, and The College of Bishops, would be faithful to every teaching you outline above, and they undertake the Mission Christ called them to.

        There is one big difference between them, and dissidents like you, they are mandated to their role, and are part of the safeguards Christ set in place, whereas you are colluding with The Devil to promote schism, and have no mandate to teach.

        June 15, 2014 at 1:46 pm
      • Athanasius

        FIDELITYALWAYS,

        Speaking a few years ago, Canon Georg May, Professor of Canon Law at Gutenberg University in Maine, a well respected expert in Church/State relations and a priest of 40 years good standing, declared: “It is not the SSPX who refuse union with the bishops but rather the bishops who refuse union with the SSPX.”

        This was a very telling statement since it summed up a general episcopal rebellion against sacred Tradition. We saw this more clearly when Pope Benedict XVI attempted to make provision for the old Mass and was keen to resolve the SSPX situation. His Holiness came under immense pressure from the progressive bishops for this, ultimately convincing him that he should resign his office. So please, if you’re looking for schism and schismatics, look no further than your own local ordinary and ask whether he favours or hates Tradition. Does he permit Communion in the hand and extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion, for example, which heretical practices were introduced without Papal permission and against the will of the Popes? Does he prefer the new vernacular Mass, similar to Luther’s meal service, than the ancient Latin Mass that sanctified the saints and martyrs of nineteen centuries? That’s the kind of study you need to do if you wish to know about real schism.

        June 15, 2014 at 1:58 pm
      • fidelityalways

        Rewrite history as much as you want. Pope Benedict resigned because of reasons of increasing infirmity, and he confirmed that in an interview earlier this year.

        Bishop Fellay himself says they won’t sign the document they were generously offered as they reject the whole of the recent Council, and the revised liturgy.

        Pope Benedict accepted both. See Summurum Pontificum, and his constant praise for the work of The Council.

        Francis, Bishop of Rome, has summed it up well. To paraphrase him: Pope Benedict generously reached out to people, mistakenly, clinging to the Old Rite, and dissidents, and they slapped him in his face. They tell others how to think, believe, and pray but they are merely renting a room in the Church.

        June 15, 2014 at 2:06 pm
      • fidelityalways

        Your greatest duty would to be listen to The Magisterium who are there to safeguard you from the errors you have chosen to follow.

        You are part of the legion’s at the command of the Devil.

        June 15, 2014 at 8:35 am
      • Athanasius

        FIDELITYALWAYS,

        If you want to find the Devil at work today then you should listen to the words of Pope Paul VI, who lamented after Vatican II: “Through some fissure in the walls, the smoke of Satan has entered the Church and set her on a path of auto-destruction.” That path was Conciliar Modernism which has now almost completely wrecked the Holy Catholic Church and which continues apace under Pope Francis.

        June 15, 2014 at 1:46 pm
      • fidelityalways

        I see that if you attempt to trace the quote, the Editor of this blog says it may have been written by you, or others who stir the cauldron with her, and was in a letter published in some Scottish newspaper. Like the Stickler quotes on abrogation of the Old Rite, those promoting it are the onlt one’s saying it!

        June 15, 2014 at 1:51 pm
      • fidelityalways

        I apologise to you. I have now located the talk. It was on The Feast of S.S. Peter and Paul, and Pope Paul Vl was echoing the first Peter and warning about the devil being on the prowl. He was essentially saying The Second Vatican Council confounded The Devil, and The Devil will seek to triumph over the renewed Church once more. he was not criticising The Council, but saying renewed as we are we must be more vigilant.

        To quote him:

        “We thought that after the Council there would be a day of sunshine for the history of the Church, and instead we found storms. How did this happen? We will confide this thought to you . . . There was an adverse power, the devil, whom the Gospel calls the mysterious enemy of man, something preternatural – which comes to suffocate the fruits of the ecumenical Council. ”

        “One could say that from some fissure – the smoke of Satan entered into the temple of God. There is doubt, there is uncertainty, there is the problematical, disquiet, dissatisfaction….there is confrontation.”

        June 15, 2014 at 3:50 pm
  • catholicconvert1

    We will not go into schism in the next few months or years, nor in the next 30, 40 or 50 years. In fact, the Church experienced an ‘unofficial’ schism of sorts in the year 1962, when the Modernists unleashed their wickedness on the faithful, forcing many people to form ‘separate communities’ and place themselves under the protection of traditionalist Bishops such as Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and Bishop Antonio De Castro Mayer, in order to be taught the True Faith and receive the traditional Sacraments and the Mass, instead of Modernist impositions. The Modernists went into schism by separating themselves from the True doctrines of the faith. They are the true schismatics, whereas we are the ones in full Communion with the Faith of our Fathers. Yet we are called schismatics.

    June 14, 2014 at 8:42 pm
  • Athanasius

    catholicconvert1,

    Yes, indeed! It never ceases to amaze me that those who have changed nothing of the ancient faith, those who are loyal to the Church’s eternal doctrinal and moral teaching, faithful to the Mass of their forefathers, are called schismatic, while those who receive Holy Communion in objective mortal sin, as Bishop Schneider pointed out, not to mention those who pursue this destructive ecumenism which has resulted in a crisis in the priesthood and religious life, which has destroyed the Catholic missions and resulted in the closure of countless seminaries and churches, are declared to be “in good standing.” Truly a mystery of iniquity!

    June 14, 2014 at 10:47 pm
    • Miles Immaculatae

      From a strict legal perspective, they are indeed in good standing. Whereas the SSPX are not.

      But it must be remembered CC and Athanasius, that neo-Catholics are profoundly legalistic!

      Another word for neo-Catholics therefore is ‘legal positivists’. (i.e. pharisees)

      Lefebvre understood the spirit of Church law: the salvation of souls.

      June 14, 2014 at 11:10 pm
    • fidelityalways

      Bishop Schneider , promotes, praises and furthers th work of ecumenism and inter-faith dialogue. Listen to him: ‘Ecumenism is necessary in order to be in contact with our separated brethren, to love them. In the midst of the challenge of the new paganism, we can and have to collaborate with serious non-Catholics to defend the revealed Divine truth and the natural law, created by God.’

      June 15, 2014 at 8:31 am
  • Miles Immaculatae

    Arguing with neo-Catholics is often futile.

    Our two religions are founded on two different conceptual differences. Two different philosophical frameworks upon which our two different faiths rest.

    The neo-Catholic views all of Catholic teaching through the lens of the council. Whereas we view the council though of the lens of prior Catholic teaching.

    See the difference? This is hard to knock out of them. I don’t know where they got it from. They try to be orthodox Catholics as much as possible, but their philosophy is modernist (even though they deny they are modernists)…

    Bad philosophy leads to bad Theology.

    June 14, 2014 at 11:07 pm
    • fidelityalways

      Even Pius Xl permitted dialogue with Anglicans. What he opposed was false ecumenism which didn’t recognise differences existing. His position would be true to Dominum Jesus published by the CDF in 2000. You are wrong on every count.

      Follow Peter!

      June 15, 2014 at 9:26 am
      • Miles Immaculatae

        On every account? Oh come on now, you don’t even know me.

        We follow the successor of Peter with common sense, in the light of Tradition. Not like a pod of cetaceans, with blind and unquestioning loyalty to the leader whale, unto our deaths, beached and stranded.

        June 15, 2014 at 3:00 pm
      • fidelityalways

        No posts here by other commentators suggests they follow Peter. In effect they suggest The See of Rome is vacant, and has been for years.

        The point I was making is that if commentators misrepresent, and misquote, Pius Xl who they seem to idolise, then a Pope they disagree with will never be heard as he should be.

        Follow Peter, trusting in the promises Jesus made to his Church.

        June 15, 2014 at 3:07 pm
      • Athanasius

        FIDELITYALWAYS,

        That is an appalling reading of this blog and the Catholics who contribute here. There is absolutely nothing in any of the comments made by contributors that even hints at sedevacantism on this blog. Every single contributor acknowledges and prays for Pope Francis, the legitimate successor of St. Peter. You have crossed the line with your false accusation, completely unjustifiable and contemptible.

        June 15, 2014 at 5:01 pm
      • fidelityalways

        Not at all to dismiss every Pope as a modernist, and to claim the recent Canonisations of two Popes were not valid, is definitely suggesting the Church has no leadership if it is not put in terms of the See being unoccupied. However, for a loyal Catholic to write off every Pope is bordering on sinister.

        Then to misquote Pope’s and twist what they say! Paul Vl spoke of the fruits of The Council being under attack by the Devil fermenting dissidents to cause confrontation,. Now who could he mean?

        June 15, 2014 at 5:06 pm
      • Athanasius

        FIDELITYALWAYS,

        No, Pope Paul VI lamented the Council fruits as bitter in comparison to what had been expected. His comment about the smoke of Satan was quite clearly an indictment of Conciliar reform as it had unfolded. There was nothing in his words to suggest that he even remotely intended to take a swipe at Traditional Catholics, absolutely not a word. So I think it is rather you who twists the Pope’s words to suit your purpose, not the other way around. Pope Paul VI was perfectly clear in what he said.

        Now, as regards the recent canonisations of Popes John XXIII and John Paul II, let me first state that it is the first time in the history of Catholicism that canonisations have caused division, even consternation, amongst the faithful. Traditionally, canonisations have been a source of great joy to all Catholics, so why is it different this time?

        Well, if kissing the Koran, receiving the mark of a Hindu deity on your forehead, convoking a syncretist gathering of the world’s religions at Assisi, where Buddhists worshiped their idol atop a tabernacle while pagans ritually slaughtered chickens on a Catholic altar, is pleasing to Our Lord unto canonisation, then the entire Catholic religion up to Vatican II has been false, not least the infallible dogma ‘outside the Church no salvation, and the martyrs were mugs who died for nothing.

        Add to this the speed of the new and weakened process, just nine years for John Paul II, with miracles that have hardly stood the test of time, as per the Church’s traditional caution and wisdom, and one begins to understand why Catholics who know their faith have the greatest difficulty in accepting these canonisations, the more so because other venerable Popes such as Blessed Pius IX, whose cause is much older and more sound, have been ignored as if the Conciliar Popes are all especially blessed by God above their predecessors. That’s why many saw in these canonisations a ruse to breathe new life into dying and decaying Conciliar reform.

        Now, you should know that the infallibility of canonisations is not a defined dogma of faith. On the other hand, the greater majority of the Church’s theologians are agreed that a Papal declaration of canonisation is infallible, hence the alternative argument of “theological certainty.”

        But then there is the person of John Paul II as opposed to John Paul the Pope. We speak of the scandals of his Pontificate, which are true and verifiable in light of Church teaching, but none of us can say what was in his soul when he left this world.

        Archbishop Lefebvre once referred to John Paul as a personally pious man, but alas a liberal. In his favour, he did take a strong stand in defence of the Church’s moral teaching and he refused to “resign” the Papacy when prompted due to the extreme pain and incapacity associated with his last illness. “Christ did not come down from the Cross,” he responded to those who were keen to undermine the Papacy with the innovation of the first ever Papal “resignation.” So these things stand in his favour.

        For myself, I remain indifferent at this canonisation, waiting for healthier days in the Church to have the matter once and for all officially defined. What I will say is that it is hard to believe that the Almighty would permit such a destructive Papacy as that of John Paul II to be held up for imitation even if the man himself is in heaven.

        These are very confusing times in the Church, times bereft of sound leadership in which the faithful everywhere are split into opposing camps as a result of the Popes and bishops speaking to them these past fifty years in parables of Modernism.

        Just read any Encyclical Letter of any Pope up to Vatican II and compare the authority and clarity of those documents with the ambiguous double-speak that emanates from the Vatican today, and you will understand why unity in the Church is seriously fractured and the faithful are at each others throats. The shepherd has been struck (with Modernism) and the sheep are scattered. No wonder there’s confusion!

        June 15, 2014 at 7:00 pm
      • fidelityalways

        The actual quotes show he was lamenting the attacks of The Devil on the fruits of The Council.

        With regards Paul Vl, The SSPX, and The Council we read this from 1976 (two years after his speech in which he lamented the attacks on The Council):

        “Finally, about ten years later, in an allocution (also in Italian) to the secret consistory of cardinals on May 24, 1976, Pope Paul VI specifically addressed the distortions and disobedience of Archbishops Lefebvre and his followers with respect to the Second Vatican Council. This too is non-magisterial, but it is proper to round out the thought he expressed non-magisterially in the general audience so commonly cited:

        There are those who, under the pretext of a greater fidelity to the Church and the Magisterium, systematically refuse the teaching of the Council itself, its application and the reforms that stem from it, its gradual application by the Apostolic See and the Episcopal Conferences, under Our authority, willed by Christ.

        He even exclaimed in utter frustration:

        It is even affirmed that the Second Vatican Council is not binding; that the faith would be in danger also because of the post-conciliar reforms and guidelines, which there is a duty to disobey to preserve certain traditions. What traditions? Does it belong to this group, and not the Pope, not the Episcopal College, not an Ecumenical Council, to establish which of the countless traditions must be regarded as the norm of faith!”

        Amongst the faithful, as opposed to the dissenters who post here, the canonisations were welcomed, and the canonisation of Jose Maria Escriva caused worldwide condemnation. Not something, I subscribed to.

        June 15, 2014 at 7:21 pm
      • Miles Immaculatae

        Do you believe in Medjugorje?

        June 15, 2014 at 8:31 pm
      • fidelityalways

        There is no reason why I should, or for that matter Fatima. I accept, however, Fatima is approved by the Church.

        June 15, 2014 at 8:37 pm
      • Miles Immaculatae

        Just to be clear, nobody here believes in Medjugorje, absolutely not me. I suspected you might, not based on what you have said, but because your attitude is very similar to a Medjugorje person I know, so I was just curious.

        June 15, 2014 at 8:45 pm
      • fidelityalways

        My attitude is simple: seek to b faithful to Holy Scripture and Tradition, and give due assent to the guidance of The Magisterium.

        June 15, 2014 at 8:47 pm
      • Miles Immaculatae

        You don’t work for Catholic Answers by any chance?

        Are you American? You have that air of extremism about you. I love America, but it is a land of extremes.

        June 16, 2014 at 9:17 am
      • fidelityalways

        Biographical details are not pertinent here.

        June 16, 2014 at 9:24 am
      • Miles Immaculatae

        I knew it!!

        You’re Jimmy Akin aren’t you?

        June 16, 2014 at 9:26 am
      • fidelityalways

        I had to google the name, I must confess.

        I assume I would recognise my own name!

        June 16, 2014 at 9:32 am
  • Thurifer

    Miles,

    This is the result of the discarding of Tradition. A way of saying we keep Tradition is where you said, “we view the council through the lens of prior Catholic teaching.”

    To be Catholic one must be baptized, adhere to all Catholic dogmas and doctrines, and acknowledge the legitimate authority in the Church.

    The problem with so many who go to the Novus Ordo parishes is that Tradition is not passed down at all, or is only passed down entirely. So for example, they’ll teach them about the seven Sacraments, but not about the dogma Outside the Church, no salvation.

    Without Tradition, how can there be Faith? How can anyone profess to believe if what they believe is the wrong thing? It’s quite sad how many souls may be lost because of this.

    June 14, 2014 at 11:54 pm
    • fidelityalways

      You write “To be Catholic one must be baptized, adhere to all Catholic dogmas and doctrines, and acknowledge the legitimate authority in the Church. ”

      The legitimate is The Pope and The College of Bishops, as successors to The Apostles, and The wider Magisterium.

      The editor, and her groupies, don’t seem able to do that.

      She won’t say by whose authority, and mandate, she publishes this website claiming it to be “Catholic”, and no evidence of a Nihil obstat or Imprimatur.

      Above there is an interview from a Bishop whose views on Liturgy she endorses, and then she rejects, as do others, the teaching on ecumenism.

      To repeat we can agree that, to be Catholic one must be baptized, adhere to all Catholic dogmas and doctrines, and acknowledge the legitimate authority in the Church.

      June 15, 2014 at 9:43 am
      • Stephen

        One must follow faithfully the teachings of the tradition handed down by the Church Fathers.

        On Ecumenism the best understanding I have gleaned is from Christopher Ferrara…

        “…a virus is not in itself a living thing, but rather a mere particle of RNA or DNA. This particle cannot reproduce unless it finds a living cell whose machinery it can employ to make copies of itself. A virus contains just enough information to reproduce itself by finding cells to infect and turn to its purpose. In fact, the only purpose of a virus it self-replication.

        “By analogy, then, we maintain that certain verbal ‘viruses’ have infected the Mystical Body of Christ. These viruses are pseudo-concepts, which, like actual viruses, have minimal informational content. Just as a virus hovers between life and non-life, these pseudo-concepts hover between meaning and non-meaning. They seem to mean something, but upon close examination, we find no real meaning… These viral pseudo-concepts in the Mystical Body of Christ, like actual viruses, exist only to reproduce themselves, which they do by infecting the understanding of genuine concepts with precise meanings — namely, the perennial teachings of the Magisterium.

        “We contend that by introducing ‘ecumenism,’ ‘dialogue’ and various other ‘viral’ pseudo-concepts into the Mystical Body, Satan has found a means to confuse, divide and wreak havoc upon the human element of the Church, without the Church ever having taught an actual error of doctrine, which is impossible. Quite the contrary: the pseudo-concepts in question cannot be called doctrinal errors as such, because they are not reducible to a proposition whose words would signify the formal contradiction of an existing Catholic doctrine. Indeed, the terms ‘ecumenism’ and ‘dialogue’ contain nothing in themselves that contradict prior Church teaching; like actual viruses, these terms remain inert until they come into contact with something they can infect. That is why when neo-Catholics say that traditionalists ‘dissent from ecumenism,’ for example, they are unable to articulate precisely what it is about this notion that requires our assent. That is because this notion does not involve any intelligible Catholic doctrine.

        June 15, 2014 at 10:00 am
      • fidelityalways

        It is worrying you choose not to listen to The Pope, and The College of Bishops, and The Magisterium but those who seek to do the work of The Devil by rejection sound teaching from the lawful authority in the Church.

        June 15, 2014 at 10:06 am
      • Stephen

        I am more worried about telephone calls to Argentinian women, off the cuff media circuses and ‘Who am I to judge comments’.

        No, its worse. I forgot about his nominated Theologian.

        June 15, 2014 at 10:15 am
      • fidelityalways

        The transcripts of the telephone calls are never released, but usually the recollections of a family member not party to the calls.

        On more than one issue the reply has been quite succinct “I am a Catholic!”.

        You look at him through the lens of those who deny the legitimacy of his Office. Why not see him as The Conclave, who know him, who proclaimed to the world “we have a Pope”.

        June 15, 2014 at 10:25 am
      • Stephen

        I pray for our legitimate Pope to start acting like a legitimate Pope. That means stick to the Catholic doctrine, understand that the media are vermin and finally you will never have any success in a policy of popularity: eventually the backlash will come when you have to say no to something.

        June 15, 2014 at 10:28 am
      • fidelityalways

        You are using the WWW to attack The Church, and The Successor Prince of The Apostles, and you worry about off the cuff remarks from an experienced theologian, priest, Bishop, and teacher, who was elected by a lawful Conclave by those who know him?

        That is exactly what is the Church: laity who won’t listen to The Hierarchy and mouth off in the media.

        Show some humility, and follow Peter.

        June 15, 2014 at 10:33 am
      • fidelityalways

        Correction:

        You are using the WWW to attack The Church, and The Successor to The Prince of The Apostles, and you worry about off the cuff remarks from an experienced theologian, priest, Bishop, and teacher, who was elected by a lawful Conclave by those who know him?

        That is exactly what is wrong with the Church: laity who won’t listen to The Hierarchy and mouth off in the media.

        Show some humility, and follow Peter

        June 15, 2014 at 10:35 am
      • Athanasius

        FIDELITYALWAYS,

        Perhaps you just find the laxity in the modern Church more comfortable for your conscience? It is, after all, a much easier religion to the Catholicism of the past in that it places little or no emphasis today on duty, reverence, adoration, the Commandments and the judgment to come. Everyone just does his own thing and lets it all hang out, so to speak.

        The old Church, on the other hand, placed much emphasis of the true worship of God and the salvation of one’s soul. This is best summed up in the motto of the Redemptorists: “You have one life to live and one soul to save. Death with come soon, then heaven or hell for all eternity.” Now that’s what I call a missionary statement!

        June 15, 2014 at 2:19 pm
      • fidelityalways

        I don’t recognise The Church of today as being like the one you describe.

        The Church is proclaiming The Gospel and is working in every corner of the earth to make God better known, and countless dedicated people are making a difference in the lives of other.

        In case you missed it: when is it Pope Benedict to support the claims of Cardinal Stickler, who I was privileged to meet decades ago, when he was The Vatican Librarian, and why is it made up quote from Paul Vl only sourced on dissident, heretical blogs?

        Why does the entire Church, from The Pope down, for successive generations, reject the bizarre, blinkered, interpretation, you, and your fellow dissidents, place on Official Church Teaching. The simple answer is, we follow Peter, The Rock!

        June 15, 2014 at 2:27 pm
      • Athanasius

        FIDELITYALWAYS,

        That quote of Pope Paul VI is a recognised, uncontested quote that even Pope Benedict XVI spoke of. You will find it on every Traditional Catholic website because it is so astounding and condemning of the Conciliar reform. For the same reason you will not find it anywhere on a Modernist Catholic website.

        Now, if you think the Church is doing great at the moment, wonderful missionary work, as you suggest, then you really do have your eyes closed.

        The facts are that millions of Catholics, particularly younger ones, have abandoned the Faith completely while millions more, as Bishop Schneider indicated, remain in-house but live irregular moral lives. Literally thousands of seminaries and religious houses have closed down since Vatican II, as have tens of thousands of parish churches, the priesthood is decimated, irreverence towards the Blessed Sacrament is widespread, many not even believing in the Real Presence any more, Catechetical formation of the young is non-existent and almost every Catholic upholds the utterly false belief that other religions, called “faith traditions,” can save souls apart from the Catholic Church. In other words, they implicitly deny the infallible dogma: ‘outside the Church no salvation,’ which means they remain Catholic in name only. So much for the healthy Church you speak of.

        June 15, 2014 at 2:42 pm
      • Thurifer

        Right. But the legitimate authority can be wrong, on any number of topics actually. We don’t follow their errors!

        So for example, quite recently Pope Francis prayed with a Muslim immam and a Jewish rabbi. The Muslim prayed a very anti-Catholic, anti-Christian, horrifying prayer. He prayed that they (the Muslims) would defeat their enemies. The number one enemy of Islam is the Catholic Church. And also the Blessed Virgin Mary.

        Sick sick sick.

        The truth is, Pope Francis was wrong (and I mean deadly wrong) to pray with non-Catholics. This is a scandal, and a sin objectively speaking.

        I was under the impression that the blog’s title is Catholic Truth – meaning Truth that is Catholic – Truth that is universal, like the truth that everyone must be in the Church or they shall perish eternally in Hell.

        June 16, 2014 at 3:00 am
      • fidelityalways

        He didn’t pray with them. He prayed in their presence. Every Holy Mass, for example, is offered for the whole of humanity, because it is the perfect representation of Calvary. When exactly did God change his mind?

        June 16, 2014 at 5:49 am
      • Athanasius

        FIDELITYALWAYS,

        Yes, a Vatican spokesman, keen to subdue the genuine concerns of the Catholic faithful over these Papal syncretist gatherings, came away with this tongue twister: “They are not praying together, rather they have come together to pray.” How deceitful is that little line??

        There is absolutely no distinction to be made between praying together and coming together to pray, it amounts to the same syncretism, which is a recognition of the veracity of the prayers of non-Christians and non-Catholics before God. Divine truth is sacrificed in either case. Well did a senior prelate once observe as follows: “The martyrs sacrificed their lives for the truth. Now they sacrifice the truth.”

        June 16, 2014 at 11:49 am
      • fidelityalways

        It strikes me that a certain nation had a newspaper called “Truth”.

        And you reinforce my point that this website shouldn’t publish as “Catholic” without permission from The Local Ordinary, and a Nihil obstat, and an Imprimatur has ben granted.

        Thank You for flagging that up. This website has no official status in Canon Law, and it should not pose as a Catholic publication.

        June 16, 2014 at 6:41 am
      • Miles Immaculatae

        That’s sounds absolutely criminal. How dare they! Perhaps you should stop posting on their website…

        June 16, 2014 at 9:22 am
      • fidelityalways

        Better still accept what Benedict said and acknowledge his teaching or stop attending celebrations of The E.F..

        June 16, 2014 at 9:25 am
  • Stephen

    I’d rather think that I was rightfully materialising some concerns and so defending the Church. Nonetheless we shall not agree on much other than disagreement. I suspect you are an attention seeking Troll, thereby reducing your WWW comment to an irony.
    Cheerio

    June 15, 2014 at 10:37 am
  • fidelityalways

    The Vatican has released Pope Francis’ message for World Mission Day, which focuses on the continuing need for all Christians to proclaim the Gospel with joy to the many who have not heard of Christ’s saving work.

    “Humanity greatly needs to lay hold of the salvation brought by Christ. His disciples are those who allow themselves to be seized ever more by the love of Jesus and marked by the first of passion for the Kingdom of God and the proclamation of the joy of the Gospel,” wrote Pope Francis in his message for the 88th World Mission Day, which will take place on October 19.

    “All the Lord’s disciples are called to nurture the joy of evangelization,” he stressed in the text, which was released on June 14.

    Although the bishops as pastors are “primarily responsible for this proclamation,” there is “a growing awareness of the identity and mission of the lay faithful in the Church, as well as a recognition that they are called to take an increasingly important role in the spread of the Gospel,” he said.

    Christ, salvation, evangelisation. The Bishop of Rome is so modern and yet steeped in Tradition.

    June 15, 2014 at 12:23 pm
    • Athanasius

      Pew Catholic,

      No, even Pope Francis is not that ignorant of the truths of the Faith.

      June 15, 2014 at 2:00 pm
    • Athanasius

      FIDELITYALWAYS,

      It’s such a pity that Pope Francis does not practice this himself. When in the company of Jewish and Muslim audiences, His Holiness, like his immediate predecessors, says nothing of Our Lord Jesus Christ but rather speaks of them and us being the collective children of Abraham. But did not Our Lord Himself say: “Abraham saw my day and was glad?” And did He not say: “He who rejects me, rejects the one who sent me?” And again: “No one comes to the Father but by me?” Shouldn’t Pope Francis be preaching this to his Jewish and Islamic interlocutors as a true missionary and Vicar of Christ on earth?

      June 15, 2014 at 2:06 pm
      • fidelityalways

        It is a shame you reject the Church that welcomes you if your renounce your false claims, and false teaching, and return to the Fold of The One, Holy, Catholic Apostolic Church.

        June 15, 2014 at 2:14 pm
      • Athanasius

        FIDELITYALWAYS,

        Precisely the words the Holy Father and the bishops once addressed to non-Catholics and non-Christians, but now reserved exclusively for those who refuse to alter the Traditional Faith of our Fathers. Truly mysterious and tragic!

        June 15, 2014 at 2:29 pm
      • fidelityalways

        Follow Peter, rather that she who must be obeyed. Be brave, I have conquered the world, says Jesus.

        June 15, 2014 at 2:30 pm
  • pew catholic

    I think FidelityAlways is Pope Francis.

    June 15, 2014 at 1:32 pm
    • mikidiki

      Pew
      No, I do not think so. Papa Francesco is far too busy promoting New World ideas to have the time to comment on Catholic Truth, especially since it is unclear whether he actually comprehends the meaning of either of those words!
      I imagine Fidelity Always to be a sincere, dedicated, staunch advocate of the New Traditionalism which is, unfortunately, furthering the decline of the very Church which such an innovative appraisal is attempting to strengthen.
      However, when we all simply ignore him, he will go away and resume playing with his toys or Tarot cards.

      June 15, 2014 at 2:14 pm
      • fidelityalways

        I find recourse to The Sacraments, Prayer, living as an active member of The Church, listening to The Magisterium, is the model any sensible Catholic would follow.

        Sadly, some reject those things, and as Francis, Bishop of Rome rightly says, they seek to dictate to the Church, chase falsehoods, and merely put on an outward show of fidelity, whilst “renting a room” in The Church.

        Follow Peter!

        June 15, 2014 at 2:35 pm
      • Athanasius

        FIDELITYALWAYS,

        I quoted from several Encyclicals of the Magisterium of the Popes earlier and you dismissed them out of hand in favour of what St. Pius X warned against, that which is today called “living Tradition,” a clever play on words that equates to evolutionary Catholicism, in other words a claim to fidelity only to the present Magisterium without consideration of what has been taught by the Magisterium of the past.

        You should remember that Traditional Catholics are not the ones who have altered the Faith. It is not we who have changed anything of the Tradition handed down for two thousand years. Consequently, it is they who have altered things who should be looking at themselves and asking questions about fidelity and orthodoxy. Remember, “I was only obeying orders” didn’t wash at Nuremberg. It will wash even less with Our Lord.

        The Magisterium of the Church is much, much more than just the last few Papacies. By all means obey the Pope and the bishops when they declare or order something that is not dangerous to Faith. In fact, you are obliged to obey them on such occasions. But do not think for a second that you are obliged to go along with destructive ecumenism, inter-faith initiatives, Communion in the hand, the new Mass, or any of those other extremely dangerous, oft-condemned policies of the modern hierarchy of the Church. Pray for the Popes and the bishops who have fallen into these errors, but do not follow them if you value your salvation. Read what the Popes of old have said about dangerous innovations and then show your fidelity to God and the truth.

        June 15, 2014 at 2:58 pm
      • fidelityalways

        If I dismissed anything I dismissed your interpretation of the documents, as your use of them is not true to the way The Magisterium receive and teach them, and I also queried fabricated quotes from Paul Vl that are only quoted ny dissident Trad’s on their websites, and a quote from Cardinal Stickler which Pope Benedict appears not to agree with. Apart from that you are clearly wanting to come back to the One Truth Faith.

        Tradition and Holy Scripture are living as they are The Word of God, and both can only be received, heard, and understood in the household of faith.

        None of the abuses, or excesses, you speak of, and none can be condemned by The Church because they are signs of the Holy Spirit at work in The Church and The World. There is no such thing as New Mass, as there is only ONE Holy Mass, but there can be a New Rite, and has been at different times in the life of The Church.

        How sad it is that you broadcast your own apostasy.

        June 15, 2014 at 3:19 pm
      • Confitebor Domino

        The quote from Paul VI is most certainly not fabricated – you can see it here: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/homilies/1972/documents/hf_p-vi_hom_19720629_it.html

        “il Santo Padre afferma …’da qualche fessura sia entrato il fumo di Satana nel tempio di Dio.'” (start of para 13).

        June 15, 2014 at 4:30 pm
      • fidelityalways

        It is a partial quote in which he speaks of he fruits of The Council being under attack from The Devil. The Devil seeks to undo the Council by fermenting confrontation. The Council is good, and the work of The Devil bad. Not exactly a surprising conclusion.

        June 15, 2014 at 6:47 pm
      • Athanasius

        Thank you, Confitebor Domino!

        June 15, 2014 at 7:13 pm
      • Athanasius

        FIDELITYALWAYS,

        Ok, give examples of those new rites of Mass at different times in the life of the Church. And explain how the Church receives and interprets the Faith handed down and how that can somehow include ecumenism that was previously condemned by the infallible ordinary Magisterium. Time you went into a little detail instead of making these general nonsense declarations. I await names, dates, times and places. Otherwise, don’t bother responding.

        As for the New Mass, it’s chief author, Mgr. Annibale Bugnini, in L’Osservatore Romano, 19th March, 1965, declared as follows:

        “We must remove from our Catholic liturgy and prayers anything that can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren, that is for the Protestants.”

        What we got was a Mass that mirrored the Protestant meal service. Add to that the adoption of the Protestant practice of Communion in the hand distributed by lay people, the removal of altar rails to prevent kneeling before God, the priest turning his back on God at the high altar to face the people over a meal table, replacement in many cases of the tabernacle with a “Presider’s” chair as the Sanctuary centre piece, etc., etc., and I think we can very safely declare that it is not, in fact, anything like the old Mass of the Church.

        That’s why those two senior Roman Cardinals, Ottaviani and Bacci declared that the New Mass represents in whole and in its individual parts a grave departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as codified in perpetuity by the Council of Trent.

        Besides that, at no time in the history of the Catholic religion has any Pope removed a single prayer from the Mass. Prayers were added but none was ever removed. The New Mass removed many of the most ancient prayers of the Mass, particularly those which made clear the Sacrificial nature of the Mass which Protestants took issue with. You really do have to study these matters in more depth before commenting.

        I recommend you begin with the words of Pope Benedict XVI in regard to the New Mass, who called it “A banal, on-the-spot fabrication.” That is the most honest and accurate description of the New Mass I have heard any Conciliarist prelate make.

        Now, as I have pointed out before, Pope Benedict XVI made reference to those words of Paul VI about the smoke of Satan. It is a well established and proven declaration from Pope Paul that many Churchmen have recounted, nothing misleading or invented about it. I believe 1973 was the year His Holiness spoke those words, but I could be wrong on that date.

        June 15, 2014 at 5:24 pm
      • fidelityalways

        Paul VI was, in that talk, saying the fruits of The Second Vatican Council were under attack from the Devil, who was promoting confrontation. He was not criticising The Council. You gave a partial quot and twisted his meaning and intent. He was praising The Council and warning The Devil would attack a Church doing The Will of God. He said “There was an adverse power, the devil, whom the Gospel calls the mysterious enemy of man, something preternatural – which comes to suffocate the fruits of the ecumenical Council.” He was defending and promoting The Council, and attacking The Devil.
        Mgr Bugnini was expressing an opinion, and not giving a teaching. Cardinal Kasper, as you know, frequently expresses opinion, and they are not Church Teaching either. Clerics do that! Why then would Cardinals, Ottaviani and Bacci opinion hold more weight that that of Pope Benedict?
        You need to explain why Pope Benedict says the New Rite, which he calls The Ordinary Form is the norm for the Universal Church, and speaks of it as being part of the one great Liturgical Tradition. He also said anyone who denies that should be denied what he calls The .E.F. (See S.P. and the accompanying letter.)
        BENEDICT XVI: APOSTOLIC LETTER PORTA FIDEI

        FOR THE INDICTION OF THE YEAR OF FAITH: “5. I believe that timing the launch of the Year of Faith to coincide with the fiftieth anniversary of the opening of the Second Vatican Council will provide a good opportunity to help people understand that the texts bequeathed by the Council Fathers, “have lost nothing of their value or brilliance. They need to be read correctly, to be widely known and taken to heart as important and normative texts of the Magisterium, within the Church’s Tradition. I feel in duty bound to point to the Council as the great grace bestowed on the Church in the twentieth century: there we find a sure compass by which to take our bearings in the century now beginning.”

        With regards Ecumenism: DIRECTORY FOR THE APPLICATION OF
        PRINCIPLES AND NORMS ON ECUMENISM

        “9. The ecumenical movement seeks to be a response to the gift of God’s grace which calls all Christians to faith in the mystery of the Church according to the design of God who wishes to bring humanity to salvation and unity in Christ through the Holy Spirit. This movement calls them to the hope that the prayer of Jesus ‘that they all may be one’ will be fully realized.9 It calls them to that charity which is the new commandment of Christ and the gift by which the Holy Spirit unites all believers. The Second Vatican Council clearly asked Catholics to reach out in love to all other Christians with a charity that desires and works actively to overcome in truth whatever divides them from one another. For the Council, Catholics are to act in hope and in prayer to promote Christian unity. They will be prompted and instructed by their faith in the mystery of the Church, and their ecumenical activity will be inspired and guided by a true understanding of the Church’ as a sacrament or instrumental sign of intimate union with God, and of unity of the whole human race.’ “

        On March 25th, 1993, His Holiness Pope John Paul II approved this Directory, confirmed it by his authority and ordered that it be published. Anything to the contrary notwithstanding.

        You can misquote, and misrepresent Church teaching , but you have been by Pope Benedict if you reject what he calls The Ordinary Form you should be denied the so called E.F..

        June 15, 2014 at 5:56 pm
      • Confitebor Domino

        “He was defending and promoting The Council, and attacking The Devil.”

        It’s not clear to what point in time the past particple ‘venuto’ refers, whether during or after the council. So the Pope could just as easily have meant that ‘the Devil came along, infiltrated himself into the council and ensured that it produced only rotten fruit.’

        This interpretation seems much more likely, given that pretty much all we see is indeed rotten fruit.

        June 15, 2014 at 7:35 pm
      • fidelityalways

        With regards Paul Vl, The SSPX, and The Council we read this from 1976 (two years after his speech in which he lamented the attacks on The Council):

        “Finally, about ten years later, in an allocution (also in Italian) to the secret consistory of cardinals on May 24, 1976, Pope Paul VI specifically addressed the distortions and disobedience of Archbishops Lefebvre and his followers with respect to the Second Vatican Council. This too is non-magisterial, but it is proper to round out the thought he expressed non-magisterially in the general audience so commonly cited:

        There are those who, under the pretext of a greater fidelity to the Church and the Magisterium, systematically refuse the teaching of the Council itself, its application and the reforms that stem from it, its gradual application by the Apostolic See and the Episcopal Conferences, under Our authority, willed by Christ.

        He even exclaimed in utter frustration:

        It is even affirmed that the Second Vatican Council is not binding; that the faith would be in danger also because of the post-conciliar reforms and guidelines, which there is a duty to disobey to preserve certain traditions. What traditions? Does it belong to this group, and not the Pope, not the Episcopal College, not an Ecumenical Council, to establish which of the countless traditions must be regarded as the norm of faith!”

        June 15, 2014 at 7:39 pm
      • Confitebor Domino

        Fidelityalways,

        If you are going to cut and paste you might have the common courtesy to credit the author (Dr Jeff Mirus http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otc.cfm?id=886 – not a site I’d recommend by the way).

        ‘countless traditions’ there most certainly are and no-one here is arguing about those. However,there is only one Tradition and it is incapable of accommodating mutually exclusive propositions.

        Have you ever actually read anything written before 1962?

        June 15, 2014 at 8:48 pm
      • fidelityalways

        I think any site that fully quotes The Magisterium, as compared to a partial quote from Paul Vl on this one, can’t harm anyone.

        I have read countless things from many centuries past, and in particular Church documents, The world didn’t begin or end in 1962.

        June 15, 2014 at 8:52 pm
  • sixupman

    Madam Editor,

    Can you please explain the logic of your contributors pandering the the game by which “fidelityalways” seeks to misuse this forum. Surely, there must be a more rewarding activity for them in which to indulge.

    June 15, 2014 at 6:32 pm
    • editor

      Sixupman,

      I have been out all day and just this minute returned from lunching with Crofterlady and her lovely husband, so I’m not going to have caught up with everything for a while yet, this being a flying visit because – believe it or not – I have other things to which I must attend….

      However, while I fully understand why you are fed up with FA (so is one..!) he is serving the key purpose of helping us to educate those who read this blog but don’t contribute to it – and there are many such readers. And, happily, our bloggers are of a sufficiently Catholic and apostolic disposition to use the opportunity to educate others, even if FA is determined to remain in his ignorance. Given Our Lord’s injunctions to both “love our enemies” and “spread the faith” seems logical to me. But then, (you guessed it) I’m a simple gal 😀

      Someone – I think it was Mikidiki – asked yesterday if I could add an “ignore” facility to certain bloggers like FA, who may be merely time-wasters, but it’s not possible, I’m afraid – there is no such facility.

      I suggest, therefore, that those who are fed up with FA, just insert your own imaginary “ignore” button and… well…. ignore his comments. Add your own comment without responding to FA. Hopefully, there will be a fresh topic soon, later tonight or tomorrow, that will not interest dear old FA. One lives in hope.

      There will come a point anyway, in due course, when all the bloggers in Christendom will be unable to help FA. When that time comes, I trust each of them will announce that here on the blog and I will then have to give thought as to how best to deal with our friend. We don’t moderate posts unless absolutely necessary – for one thing, it’s more work for moi and if there is one thing that moi doesn’t like it’s more work – but if that is the only way to highlight, by editorial footnote, repetitious errors, then that is what shall be done. In the meantime…

      Peace! Patience!

      June 15, 2014 at 6:57 pm
    • Athanasius

      SIXUPMAN,

      I understand your frustration. You’re right, this person is not on the blog for serious reasons, although I also understand the logic behind Editor’s comments. For my own part, I think I have really gone as far as I can with FA and so I will not be responding to further comments by this person. There has to come a time when the line is drawn. Apologies for hogging the blogging, so to speak. And now to those rewarding activities you mentioned. I’ll start with a cream cake!

      June 15, 2014 at 7:12 pm
      • fidelityalways

        On the contrary you misquote Paul VI, ignore what Benedict himself said about what he call The Ordinary Form, and completely misrepresent every document you quote.

        You duck ,and dive, and don’t provide any rational reason for a loyal, traditional Catholic to ignore the authentic teaching of The Magisterium.

        June 15, 2014 at 8:01 pm
      • Miles Immaculatae

        Do you not get it? We don’t consider it to be authentic. Correction, the infallible and immemorial position of the Church herself has deemed it not authentic. You’re asking us to square a circle in the name of obedience.

        June 16, 2014 at 12:57 am
      • fidelityalways

        Well, you have no Holy Mass you can attend then. The Pope banned you. I guess being a loyal, traditional, Catholic, to the core, you will ignore that Papal writ, as you do all others.

        June 16, 2014 at 5:46 am
      • Miles Immaculatae

        So…

        A Catholic Pope has banned Catholic persons from attending a Catholic Mass, for them believing Catholicism.

        Well I wouldn’t be surprised.

        June 16, 2014 at 9:13 am
  • Dr John Dowden

    Athanasius seems pretty confident that it would be impossible to give dates or indicate changes over time in the western rites. The point that people seem utterly unwilling to grasp is that 1570 was, very much, a New Order, stamping on traditional forms. It may not be unreasonable in a blog allegedly concerned with Scottish Catholic Truth, to try some Scottish catholic history.

    Liturgical evidence for the Scottish Church for the generation between 1340 and 1380 is that it was normal for the people to receive communion in both kinds, that a ‘peace’ was given the by the whole congregation kissing an icon or gospel book one after another and the masses ended, on the principal feasts at least, by distributing what the early church knew as the eulogium. The normal service was high mass, served by a permanent deacon, the parish clerk reading the epistle. There was a rood but no altar rails. There was no tabernacle – the custom was to reserve the sacrament for the sick in a box or ‘pyx’. The vestments were classified by quality, not colour and Innocent III’s proposed system of colours was not adopted in the Scottish Church.

    Pick over that lot and it is obvious that, as compared to the Sarum Rite described, the New Order introduced, for the first time, by Pius V, scrapped a whole load of traditions and introduced a whole set of new features which over the years became “customs”. The key error (and is was a real mistake) was to imagine (Pius V was personally ignorant of liturgical history and his advisors made serious blunders) that ‘low mass’ was the normative rite and the pontifical rite an elaboration.

    The fundamental fact is that the average TradCath is bone ignorant of liturgical history and of any rite beyond the New Order of the Roman Rite promulgated in 1570. It is true that the Congregation of Rites did its best to turn this rite into some sort of fossil preserved in aspic and tried to do so as far as 1970. These 400 increasingly sterile years were the exception rather than the rule in the history of the Roman Rite, to say nothing of Sarum, Milan, Toledo or the eastern Rites.

    The key error is to think that what was current 1904-1964 (the good old days for the TradCaths) was in any sense ‘traditional’. That fact, and the lunacy of operating in a dead language not understood by the people (and a fair few clerics), resulted in reform – achieved by a return to traditions much older than 1570. The fact that the western reformers had been there and done that in the sixteenth century explains why the reformed Anglicans and the reformed Romans have ended up with a greater degree of similarity, in both independently rediscovering more ancient rites and customs – for traddies (who are, some of them, clearly deranged) this is a dark masonic plot hatched by some wicked monsignor.

    Anyone who knows liturgical history would have to agree with the old lady who announced she had the same brush for 70 years and it and only had four new shafts and nine new heads. Semper eadem.

    June 15, 2014 at 7:29 pm
    • fidelityalways

      Thank You for your intervention Dr John Dowden

      I assume Trad’s here are wilfully ignorant and have no problem in imperilling their own souls, and trying to drag others down too.

      June 15, 2014 at 8:05 pm
    • fidelityalways

      I might add that can’t remember the last Papacy and the very clear, and distinct, teaching on The Mass in Summorum Pontificum and the accompanying letter.

      In theory, they should be denied the E.F.!

      June 15, 2014 at 8:08 pm
    • Confitebor Domino

      S. Pius V allowed well-established (200 years plus) rites to continue unchanged.
      Perhaps it hasn’t occurred to you that the reason the Sarum rite disappeared was because the English and Scottish hierarchies had been hunted to effective extinction by a mob of insane malcontents!

      June 15, 2014 at 8:19 pm
      • fidelityalways

        The Rites have changed numerous times, and are not all Universal even today!

        June 15, 2014 at 8:30 pm
      • Miles Immaculatae

        Simply, the diversity within rites and of rites, whether it be the Dominican use, or the Mosarabic Rite, or whatever, is fully Catholic, all of them. The Novus Ordo is not a fully Catholic rite, it’s also Protestant, desacralised, anthropocentric, devirilised. Also, the reforms of Pius V were organic. Whereas the reforms of Paul VI were a “banal, on the spot fabrication” or whatever it was Pope Benedict said. They were not organic, they were not a reform, they were a destruction, they constitute a discontinuity.

        I used to fall for this kind of specious argument. Until I started attending the Traditional Mass for real, rather than just reading about it.

        June 15, 2014 at 9:45 pm
      • fidelityalways

        Pope Benedict, and The Magisterium, would beg to differ, and, in good conscience, you should not attend an E.F. celebrations if you do, because The Pope said you should be denied them.

        June 16, 2014 at 5:44 am
      • Miles Immaculatae

        Are you all there?

        June 16, 2014 at 9:11 am
      • Dr John Dowden

        Confitebor Domino

        I have to confess to you that it certainly was in my mind – that is why I specified Scottish customs older than 1370.

        Your potted history of the reform of the Scottish and English churches is, to put it mildly, tendentious – it is amazing how ignorant of history alleged ‘traditionalists’ can be. If memory serves, the Sarum Rite was simply translated into English by an archbishop appointed by Rome and it was a half-Spanish queen and a half-foreign cardinal who hunted the poor man to the stake.

        The Sarum Rite has hardly become extinct – the Walsingham Ordinariate has re-introduced with papal approval (and I imagine Cranmer smiled down at that one). Even out here in the wild east we had another quick run through the Sarum translation this morning – in a rather nice baroque chapel kindly supplied by our ecumenically-minded Roman neighbours. Baroque organs really suit the musical style of the English Church so Sarum shone in its firmament – as did the medieval Church of Salisbury

        Funny old thing liturgical history once you begin to know some actual history.

        June 15, 2014 at 8:52 pm
      • Miles Immaculatae

        I was under the impression that the Sarum rite being an old use, was not covered under the reforms of Pius V which had a limit of 200 years. So the Sarum use was safe until the Reformation wiped out Catholicism in England, so seminarians studied on the continent and visiting priests were foreign. I though this was the reason for the extinction of the Sarum rite?

        Then again I’m just another trad thicko.

        June 15, 2014 at 9:27 pm
      • Miles Immaculatae

        Not only that, English seminarians had to train abroad, Douay for example. Extinction was inevitable. You are correct, of course, there was a 200 year limit of the Pius V reforms. If the English Reformation had never happened, then the Sarum use would have been in place up until Vatican II.

        Don’t let these psuedo-intellectuals get you down.

        June 15, 2014 at 9:31 pm
  • 3littleshepherds

    “Jean Guitton, an intimate friend of Paul VI, related what Paul VI said at the final session of Vatican II: “It was the final session of the Council,” Guitton wrote, “the most essential, in which Paul VI was to bestow on all humanity the teachings of the Council.  He announced this to me on that day with these words, ‘I am about to blow the seven trumpets of the Apocalypse.’”

    June 15, 2014 at 9:29 pm
  • Dr John Dowden

    Miles Immaculatae

    Not extinct – just translated into a tongue understanded of the people and a Use still very much still in use. The little band of Walsingham renegades has their version. And there are fairly frequent “authentic” performances – Dr Conti tried it at Aberdeen and Merton does it in Oxford. And both the English and the Scottish Churches were reformed before Pius V took it upon himself to try Tridentine totalitarianism. Yes, the small and diminishing band of recusants had so little grasp of their own traditions that they fell in with foreign customs and when the hierarchy was restored the Roman-Catholic population was overwhelmingly Irish – not exactly fans of restoring English and Scottish custom. But just because foreign clergy dislike it, does mean it has disappeared. As I say, we had it in translation and in a modern version this morning. Variety is the spice of liturgical life.

    And our mouths shall shew forth ….

    June 15, 2014 at 9:43 pm
    • Miles Immaculatae

      You seriously can’t be referring to the Book of Common Prayer? You treat the lot of us like a load of simpletons, and then you come out with such superficial comparison as this?

      Although the Cranmer BCP (and the King James Bible) are a venerable part of English literary heritage, they cannot be compared to the Sarum use of the Roman Rite.

      A Catholic Rite is more than words: it has apostolicity, the use of valid sacramental matter and form, legitimate ministers etc.. The Anglican liturgy has none of these.

      You can hardly blame English Recusancy for “falling in with foreign customs”. They had to send their sons to the continent, Douay, in secret lest they be put to death.

      I heard +Conti had offered the Sarum Use (illicitly) and also the Traditional Roman Rite many times in the past. It’s a mystery why he became so vehemently against it.

      There have always been English Catholics. During the time of emancipation, and then when the hierarchy was restored, you give the impression the Catholic Church in England have always been tatty munchers. A snobbish, English prejudice of the ruling classes that regarded the Catholic Church as the “Italian mission to the Irish”. (I am English and from an Anglican family by the way). Have you ever heard of the Dukes of Norfolk. Of course you have, more English than the Windsors, very much extant, and Recusants.

      June 15, 2014 at 11:56 pm
    • Miles Immaculatae

      I find the idea of the Sacred Liturgy as a ‘performance’, the toy of a few antiquarian ponces in Oxford, absolutely revolting. Why not join a medieval reenactment society instead? I have never understood Anglo-Catholicism, for me it just historical reenactment, their is nothing spiritual about it, it is theatrical. Then there is that posh, homo, ‘gin-and-lace’ side to it that normal people find completely nauseating.

      June 16, 2014 at 12:04 am
      • Dr John Dowden

        Miles,

        Nothing quite like Catholic Truth to pass the time on a long jolting sleeper trip.

        Dr Cranmer took Sarum as the starting point of his translation and if the Ordinariate get to use it, the Roman experts must see something in its matter and form which you don’t. I wouldn’t get too worked up about Douay’s influence – Sarum died out among recusants mainly because their numbers were too small to make printing new editions viable for the book trade. I don’t know, however, that Sarum is the preserve of antiquarian ponces in Oxford – last I heard the recent Scottish Sarum CD was researched by a lady who used to do her bit to educate the natives up in Glasgow.

        But if you are worried about folk poncing about in lace – have a look at the LMS source given at the head of this thread. There is Dr Schneider in full kit, photographed with attendant clergy, also well-laced (and in white socks!). In fact the traddy hero is quite a snazzy dresser: Schneider by name and by nature. I am not quite sure how he finances such an extensive wardrobe on a assistant bishop’s stipend in the Italian mission to the Orthodox but he is one of the few modern Romans who likes to swish about the place with 10-foot trains trailing down the aisle. Scotland’s own dear Cardinal was another fan of the train-and-lace outfit. If the Anglican equivalents lace their post liturgical gatherings with gin, no harm in that. Some people behave themselves at drinks’ parties.

        I am not sure you understand Oxford, or indeed England’s Other University, but having regard to their founders and benefactors down the centuries college chapels – and the cathedral – do best to reflect in their litugries the different periods of the English Church. Brompton and Wesminster Cathedral try likewise to do their bit for the somewhat more operatic Italian mission although Pugin once complained that, in his Sarum chasubles, immigrant priests didn’t look like priests and what was worse his chasubles didn’t look like chasubles. Still, best not to be rude about Oxford: lots of good liturgy and lots of good music – the theological principle is that we are obliged to do out best.

        June 16, 2014 at 1:37 am
      • Miles Immaculatae

        It’s different when Bishop Athanasius does it, I can’t explain why, you either get it or you don’t.

        June 16, 2014 at 2:07 am
  • Leo

    Fidelity Always has put a rather interesting spin on the well-known and extraordinary “smoke of satan” remarks made by Pope Paul VI on 29 June 1972: “the fruits” of the Council being attacked by the Devil. Well, it’s a point of view.

    I’d like to see the papolatrist, neo Catholic spin on the following:

    “We refer to the immense dangers on account of the present age’s cast of mind alienated from religion. They are so full of snares, so that in the very bosom of the Church there appear works by several teachers and writers who while trying to express Catholic doctrine in new ways and forms, often desire rather to accommodate the dogma of faith to the secular modes of thought and expression than be guided by the norms of the teaching authority of the Church”.- Pope Paul VI, opening speech to the 1967 Synod of Bishops

    “Today the Church is going through a moment of disquiet. Some practice self-criticism, one would even say auto-demolition. It is like an inner, acute and complex disturbance such as no one could have expected after the Council”. – Pope Paul VI, Allocution to the students of the Lombard Seminary, December 7, 1968

    “At the root of this loss of hope is an attempt to promote a vision of man apart from God and apart from Christ….European culture gives the impression of “silent apostasy” on the part of people who have all they need and who live as if God does not exist”.- Pope John Paul II, Ecclesia in Europa, #9

    “Certainly the results (of Vatican II) seem cruelly opposed to the expectations of everyone, beginning with those of Pope John XIII and then of Pope Paul VI: expected was a new a Catholic unity and instead we have been exposed to dissension which , to use the words of Pope Paul VI, seems to have gone from self-criticism to self-destruction. Expected was a new enthusiasm, and many wound up discouraged and bored. Expected was a great step forward, instead we find ourselves faced with a progressive process of decadence which has developed for the most part under the sign of a calling back to the Council, and has therefore contributed to discrediting it for many. The net result therefore seems negative. I am repeating here what I said ten years after the conclusion of the work: it is incontrovertible that this period has definitely been unfavourable for the Church”. Cardinal Ratzinger, L’Osservatore Romano, 24 December 1984.

    “Should we not also think how much Christ suffers in His own Church?…What little faith is present behind so many theories, so many empty words! How much filth there is in the Church, and even among those who, in the priesthood, ought to belong entirely to Him! How much pride, how much self-complacency!…Lord, Your Church often seems like a boat about to sink, a boat taking in water on every side. In your field we see more weeds than wheat…”- Cardinal Ratzinger, Meditation on the Third Fall of Our Lord, Good Friday 2005

    Please, can we have no more of this New Pentecost, New Advent, New Springtime talk. I’m certainly not judging anyone’s minds or motives, but to call what has happened in the Church over the last five decades the work of the Holy Ghost, is to me, objectively speaking, blasphemy.

    Here’s one more rather apt quote, courtesy of Michael Davies:

    “When they create a wilderness they call it renewal”- Tacitus, Agricola, 30

    June 15, 2014 at 11:16 pm
    • fidelityalways

      Throughout history people have dissented, but as was made clear by Pope Paul in 1976 he was talking about people like Archbishop who went from criticising The Church, that is, self criticism, to outright dissent, and confrontation.

      It may have slipped your notice but we have just had a Year of Faith, promulgated by Benedict, to mark the beginning of the Council, and almost daily he parised the fruits of The Council (as did Paul Vl specifically on June 29th 1972.)

      Pope Benedict repeatedly spoke of the fruits, and blessing of the Council, and in a talk to the Curia, in 2005, he compared the difficulties that followed The Council of Nicea to the difficulties that followed the more recent Council A theological, and historical, perspective helps, and Benedict was one of our greatest scholars.
      He also compared the real Council to the one of the media, and enemies of, and fantasists, within The Church. (We can surely include self-professed Trad’s who, “rent a room in The Church”)

      MEETING WITH THE PARISH PRIESTS AND THE CLERGY OF ROME ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS POPE BENEDICT XVI Paul VI Audience Hall Thursday, 14 February 2013
      “We know that this Council of the media was accessible to everyone. Therefore, this was the dominant one, the more effective one, and it created so many disasters, so many problems, so much suffering: seminaries closed, convents closed, banal liturgy … and the real Council had difficulty establishing itself and taking shape; the virtual Council was stronger than the real Council. But the real force of the Council was present and, slowly but surely, established itself more and more and became the true force which is also the true reform, the true renewal of the Church. It seems to me that, 50 years after the Council, we see that this virtual Council is broken, is lost, and there now appears the true Council with all its spiritual force. And it is our task, especially in this Year of Faith, on the basis of this Year of Faith, to work so that the true Council, with its power of the Holy Spirit, be accomplished and the Church be truly renewed. Let us hope that that the Lord will assist us. I myself, secluded in prayer, will always be with you and together let us go forward with the Lord in the certainty that the Lord will conquer. Thank you!”

      And his letter to mark the Year of Faith:

      It seemed to me that timing the launch of the Year of Faith to coincide with the fiftieth anniversary of the opening of the Second Vatican Council would provide a good opportunity to help people understand that the texts bequeathed by the Council Fathers, in the words of Blessed John Paul II, “have lost nothing of their value or brilliance. They need to be read correctly, to be widely known and taken to heart as important and normative texts of the Magisterium, within the Church’s Tradition … I feel more than ever in duty bound to point to the Council as the great grace bestowed on the Church in the twentieth century: there we find a sure compass by which to take our bearings in the century now beginning.”[9] I would also like to emphasize strongly what I had occasion to say concerning the Council a few months after my election as Successor of Peter: “if we interpret and implement it guided by a right hermeneutic, it can be and can become increasingly powerful for the ever necessary renewal of the Church.”

      And before you mention banal Liturgy, Benedict, in Summorum Pontificum:
      “Art 1. The Roman Missal promulgated by Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the ‘Lex orandi’ (Law of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. Nonetheless, the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and reissued by Bl. John XXIII is to be considered as an extraordinary expression of that same ‘Lex orandi,’ and must be given due honour for its venerable and ancient usage. These two expressions of the Church’s Lex orandi will in no any way lead to a division in the Church’s ‘Lex credendi’ (Law of belief). They are, in fact two usages of the one Roman rite.”

      June 16, 2014 at 9:22 am
  • Leo

    Fidelity Always

    Lest you think that criticism is not permitted to Catholics or that it indicates an heretical, schismatic or sedevacantist mentality, I would like to put forward the names of the Romano Amerio (a peritus at the Council), Enrico Maria Radaelli and Monsignor Brunero Gherardini. There intellectual and theological qualifications are absolutely beyond question.

    The following is taken from the SSPX website dici.org.

    Vaticanist Sandro Magister wrote on 12 July 2010 as follows:

    “Precisely this (the dilemma of whether there has been continuity or rupture in the Magisterium of the Church before and after the Council), in the view of Amerio and Radaelli, is the cause of the crisis in the conciliar and postconciliar Church, a crisis that has brought it extremely close to its ‘impossible but nearly accomplished’ perdition: having tried to give up on a commanding Magisterium, on dogmatic definitions ‘unequivocal in language, certain in content, compulsory in form, as one would expect that at least the teachings of ac Council would be’.

    “The result, according to Amerio and Radaelli, is that Vatican II is full of vague, equivocal assertions that can be interpreted in different ways, some of them even in definite contrast with the previous Magisterium of the Church. And this ambiguous language is said to have paved the way for a Church that today is ‘overrun by thousands of doctrines and a hundred thousand nefarious customs.” In her art, music and liturgy as well.

    “If abandoning the principle of authority and a policy of endless discussion (‘discussionism’) are the sickness of the conciliar and postconciliar Church, getting over it- Radaelli writes- requires doing the opposite. The high ranking bishops of the Church must put an end to the discussion with a dogmatic, ex cathedra proclamation that is infallible and obligatory. It must anathemize those who do not obey, and bless those who obey.

    “And what does Radaelli expect the supreme authority of the Church to decree? Like Amerio, he is convinced that in at least three cases there has been an “abysmal rupture in continuity” between Vatican II and the previous Magisterium: where the Council declares that the Church of Christ ‘subsists in’ the Catholic Church instead of saying that it ‘is’ the Catholic Church; where it asserts that ‘Christians worship the same God worshipped by the Jews and Muslims’; and in the declaration on religious freedom, Dignitatis Humanae.”

    A similar appeal for clarification has been made by Thomist theologian Brunero Gherardini, canon of St. Peter’s, professor emeritus of the Pontifical Lateran University, and editor in chief of the journal Divinitas.

    His book entitled The Ecumenical Vatican Council II: A Much Needed Discussion is very is instructive. Here are a few quotations:

    “The purpose of Vatican II, in fact sets it apart from any other Council, especially Trent and Vatican I. Its scope was not to give definitions, nor was it dogmatic or linked to dogma; it was pastoral.” (55)

    “Not a few pages of the conciliar documents reek of the writings and ideas of Modernism-this can be seen above all in Gaudium et Spes.” (92)

    “This (the general guidance of the Holy Spirit at a Council) does not mean that the Holy Spirit may not encounter formal or material resistance from the free-willed men who give life to the conciliar event. It is from this possibility that it may even fail in some way. Someone has even gone further and asked if an Ecumenical Council can fall into error in Faith and Morals. The opinions are at variance…” (29)

    “Anyone who, quoting it (VII), puts it on a par with Trent or Vatican I, and accredits to it a normative and binding force which it does not possess in itself, commits a crime and, in the final analysis does not respect the Council itself.” (30)

    “None of its (VII) doctrines, unless ascribable to previous conciliar definitions, are infallible or unchangeable, nor are they even binding: he who denies them cannot, for this reason, be called a formal heretic.” (58)

    “It is licit, therefore, to recognize a dogmatic nature in Vatican II only where it re-proposes dogmas defined in previous Councils as the true Faith.” (59)

    “(After Vatican II a) missionary conception of the Church now freed from any form of or temptation to proselytism…this type of ecumenism, unfortunately, found a license to legitimacy from the spirit of Assisi, thanks to the ‘multi-religious’ meeting celebrated there…” (86-87)

    “A reform is not necessarily a development; it could also be its opposite.” (102)

    “How many times the very men, into whose hands Jesus had entrusted the sacred deposit of the Faith, solemnly and pompously said ‘no’ to this or that doctrine, like the Marian Coredemption, because otherwise it will prejudice ecumenical dialogue. It was as if to say, ‘There is no other truth or value besides ecumenical dialogue…” (122)

    “And if someone passed through that door to introduce into the Church a Liturgy subversive to the very nature and primary end of the Sacred Liturgy…the responsibility for this, in the final analysis, is none other than the conciliar text itself.” (171-172)

    “The content of DH (Dignitatis Humanae) and the contents of the previous Magisterium are different. So there is neither continuity nor development of the previous Magisterium in DH.” (217)

    In his book, Monsignor Gherardini made a very humble and respectful appeal to Pope Benedict for a magisterial clarification of the mass of confusion caused by the Conciliar documents. That filial and faithful appeal has to this day received no effective response.

    June 15, 2014 at 11:28 pm
    • fidelityalways

      I assume you think being a senior cleric is the main qualification for having authority to teach. I trust you will embrace Cardinal Kasper to your bosom. Archbishop Lefebvre was also at The Council and rejected The One Holy Catholic Church, and founded a Cult.

      However, a successor to Peter, holder of the Petrine Office, and called to confirm the faith of his brother was also at The Council.

      Pope Benedict repeatedly spoke of the fruits, and blessing of the Council, and in a talk to the Curia, in 2005, he compared the difficulties that followed The Council of Nicea to the difficulties that followed the more recent Council A theological, and historical, perspective helps, and Benedict was one of our greatest scholars.
      He also compared the real Council to the one of the media, and enemies of, and fantasists, within The Church. (We can surely include self-professed Trad’s who, “rent a room in The Church”)
      MEETING WITH THE PARISH PRIESTS AND THE CLERGY OF ROME ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS POPE BENEDICT XVI Paul VI Audience Hall Thursday, 14 February 2013
      “We know that this Council of the media was accessible to everyone. Therefore, this was the dominant one, the more effective one, and it created so many disasters, so many problems, so much suffering: seminaries closed, convents closed, banal liturgy … and the real Council had difficulty establishing itself and taking shape; the virtual Council was stronger than the real Council. But the real force of the Council was present and, slowly but surely, established itself more and more and became the true force which is also the true reform, the true renewal of the Church. It seems to me that, 50 years after the Council, we see that this virtual Council is broken, is lost, and there now appears the true Council with all its spiritual force. And it is our task, especially in this Year of Faith, on the basis of this Year of Faith, to work so that the true Council, with its power of the Holy Spirit, be accomplished and the Church be truly renewed. Let us hope that that the Lord will assist us. I myself, secluded in prayer, will always be with you and together let us go forward with the Lord in the certainty that the Lord will conquer. Thank you!”

      And his letter to mark the Year of Faith:
      It seemed to me that timing the launch of the Year of Faith to coincide with the fiftieth anniversary of the opening of the Second Vatican Council would provide a good opportunity to help people understand that the texts bequeathed by the Council Fathers, in the words of Blessed John Paul II, “have lost nothing of their value or brilliance. They need to be read correctly, to be widely known and taken to heart as important and normative texts of the Magisterium, within the Church’s Tradition … I feel more than ever in duty bound to point to the Council as the great grace bestowed on the Church in the twentieth century: there we find a sure compass by which to take our bearings in the century now beginning.”[9] I would also like to emphasize strongly what I had occasion to say concerning the Council a few months after my election as Successor of Peter: “if we interpret and implement it guided by a right hermeneutic, it can be and can become increasingly powerful for the ever necessary renewal of the Church.”

      And before you mention banal Liturgy, Benedict, in Summorum Pontificum:
      “Art 1. The Roman Missal promulgated by Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the ‘Lex orandi’ (Law of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. Nonetheless, the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and reissued by Bl. John XXIII is to be considered as an extraordinary expression of that same ‘Lex orandi,’ and must be given due honour for its venerable and ancient usage. These two expressions of the Church’s Lex orandi will in no any way lead to a division in the Church’s ‘Lex credendi’ (Law of belief). They are, in fact two usages of the one Roman rite.”

      June 16, 2014 at 9:40 am
    • lionelandrades

      Comment removed

      June 16, 2014 at 12:41 pm
  • Leo

    3 Little Shepherds’ quote from Jean Guitton reminded me of the following:

    “When I read the documents relative to the Modernism, as it was defined by Saint Pius X, and when I compare them to the documents of the II Vatican Council, I cannot help being bewildered. For what was condemned as heresy in 1906 was proclaimed as what is and should be from now on the doctrine and method of the Church. In other words, the modernists of 1906 were, somewhat, precursors to me. My masters were part of them. My parents taught me Modernism. How could Saint Pius X reject those that now seem to be my precursors?”

    -(Jean Guitton, Portrait du Père Lagrange, Éditions Robert Laffont, Paris, 1992, pp. 55-56).

    June 15, 2014 at 11:33 pm

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: