Lover of Truth
(Likers: 0 / Critics: 0)
One thing we have not elaborated upon, as far as I know, regarding what Pius XII allowed between 1955 – 1958 and what Montini “Paul 6” did in 1969 is the following:
1. Pius XII, without realizing it, we must hope, while not binding anything anti-Catholic in the liturgy upon us, did allow what would open the door to the new Mass during his reign. A valid Pope can do this. We all can agree that, while he was living, as long as he actually binded those changes on the Church, and so long as he was in fact a valid Pope, we were in fact obliged to accept and follow them. Father Cekeda, the rest of the nine and the original 12 and all the SV Priests outside of CMRI and none-SV Priests who follow the pre-Bugnini changes would agree. Here we all, including those who hold to the 1958 liturgy, are unified. We have no idea what Pius XII would have allowed or not allowed, or rescinded had he lived until the year 1969, but there would be no new “mass” as we know it today, I believe we can agree on that as well.
2. The Novus Ordo or “New Order” as we know it today. Too painful to elaborate upon. These were not the cosmetic changes, that, in and of itself, and apart from the grand scheme of Bugnini, were not something a valid Pope could not allow. The nightmare of the new order foisted upon unsuspecting and loyal Catholics is known to all. No valid Pope would promulgate, allow or maintain such a thing. The devil used this false Pope [Montini/Paul 6] as his most primary vessel, in the history of the world, to undermine the Church and he succeeded grandly. And there is not the slighted bit of exaggeration in that statement. In regards to actual damage to the Church Montini was worse than all the heretics combined. If Satan had one hero, he’d be the guy.
What some of us are unsure of, or debate, is whether, hindsight being what it is, if a good Priest can in good conscience forgo the free-masonic Bugnini changes which only lasted a short time rather than just avoid the nonsense entirely, and go back to the sure thing until the next valid Pope rules on the issue. Must we hand down de fide condemnations against one another over the issue? As it stands, we cannot do anything about the Mass we attend anyway, apart from not going or moving right?
We know a valid Pope will not allow and bind anything anti-Catholic in the liturgy, but we should also know that Popes are not guaranteed to be perfect, or to always do the most prudent thing, or always to make the very best choice, or to always have the very best advisors, or never to cower and avoid doing what should be done. Am I correct? We know a valid Pope will protect the deposit of Faith and not contradict it, but will he always affirm it when he should, or resolve controversies when he should, can he speak at times when he should be silent or be quiet when it would be better to raise his voice? I think we would all agree about the answers to those questions. We all must submit to what a living Pope has bound on the Church. Here too we all should be in agreement. Like it or not, subjective culpability aside, our salvation depends on it.
So when I get my family out of here, and locate at a stable CMRI Mass, will I complain about the 1958 liturgy? No bleepin’ way!!! One thing about being 70 miles from a “recognize and resist” parish is that I will no longer take the Mass and sound doctrine from the pulpit, for granted. Even if the sermons are boring or lack substance, I will be floating in the air because they will not be mixed with falsities, thanks be to God.
Now say I’m an ardent 1958 guy and I claim, from the rooftops, there is no flippin’ way that a Priest should offer the pre-1955 liturgy, and the only Mass that was available to me was a pre-1955 liturgy. Do you think I would avoid the infinite amount of sanctifying grace made available to me each and every day over what that particular Priest thinks is the most pure, stable and traditional Catholic Mass that can be offered? No bleepein’, bloomin’, blinkin’, bloody way!!! I’m going man. Heck yes, and dancin’ in the streets about it.
Let’s get a Pope first and then worry about whether the Priests who offer the pre-1955 liturgy are doing the right thing or not. After all, God has put the decision in their hands, not ours. What say you?
As an aside what John 23 allowed, regarding the 1961/2 missal, apart from breaking the unbreakable canon with the insertion of the name of Saint Joseph into that canon, is something a valid Pope could have done. I’m not sure about the 1964 liturgy either way, but the picture is becoming obvious by then. And the 1967 liturgy, fahgeet about it! And it got even worse in 1969, and thereafter.
I have not always been a big fan of Father Cekeda, but to the extent that he stood up against V2, the Bugnini liturgy, compromising with the modernists, allowing “annulments”, the anti-Thuc line people, the heretical code of canon “law”, and all the doubtful and invalid Sacraments, he is a hero. Without people like him, many of us would have been content to attend the costume party known as the indult/moto which is where grown-ups pretend to be clergy and pretend to attend a “valid” “traditional” Mass. Even archbishop Lefebvre would have been content with this, had he, according to some, been given three Bishops of his chosing, instead of one.
Read the following and correct me if I am wrong. Charitably, if possible:
But those who lament this and look longingly at the SSPX empire do not see the dangers: a centralized organic entity like this can be subverted with one stroke of a pen and draw thousands of unsuspecting souls into the ecumenical One-World Church. Exhibit A: On May 5, 1988, Abp. Lefebvre signed an agreement with Ratzinger that, even apart from the matter of recognizing JP2 as a true pope, accepted the teaching authority of Vatican II, the validity of the new sacraments, and the legitimacy of the 1983 Code of Canon Law.24 The archbishop sold priests and laymen out to the false church of Vatican II on the principles, but reneged on the deal the next day only because he wanted the heretics to give him a better price25 — the full thirty pieces of silver, as it were. His successors could indeed not only cut a deal like this, but also carry it out.
I. Text of the Doctrinal Declaration
I, Marcel Lefebvre, Archbishop-Bishop emeritus of Tulle, as well as the members of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X founded by me:
1. Promise to be always faithful to the Catholic Church and the Roman Pontiff, her Supreme Pastor, Vicar of Christ, Successor of Blessed Peter in his primacy as Head of the Body of Bishops.
2. We declare our acceptance of the doctrine contained in number 25 of the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium of the Second Vatican Council on the ecclesial Magisterium and the adherence which is due to that magisterium.
3. With regard to certain points taught by the Second Vatican Council or concerning later reforms of the liturgy and law, and which seem to us able to be reconciled with the Tradition only with difficulty, we commit ourselves to have a positive attitude of study and of communication with the Holy See, avoiding all polemics.
4. We declare in addition to recognize the validity of the Sacrifice of the Mass and of the Sacraments celebrated with the intention of doing that which the Church does and according to the rites indicated in the typical editions of the Roman Missal and the Rituals of the Sacraments promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John Paul II.
5. Finally, we promise to respect the common discipline of the Church and ecclesiastical laws, especially those contained in the Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope John Paul II, without prejudice to the special discipline granted to the Society by particular law.
(There is more, but we have already thrown-up by now)
24 See “Protocol of Agreement between the Holy See and the Priestly Society of St. Pius X,” May 1988, www.unavoce.org/protocol.htm.
25. Permission from the modernist heretic John Paul II to consecrate three bishops for SSPX instead of just the one agreed upon. His weaseling out of this agreement, by the way, illustrates why we put point (7) in front of him at our meeting with him on April 27, 1983.
You will notice that he signed the protocol in 1988, after all the craziness he witnessed the past 40 years, including Assisi (!!!). He may have given another reason than not getting his three bishops he wanted from the Vatican, but the fact is he not only considered such an agreement, but signed it!
It is true, for the none-sedevacantist entity, that they can get sucked in with the stroke of the pen.
Though, I disagree with Father Cekeda’s claim that we should not have a large organized body, because “we could also get sucked in by one stroke of the pen”, as the SVs do not sit down with the beast to negotiate. They know if you sit with the lion you get eaten. They do not put themselves in an impossible position by insisting that the thing with two horns over there is the head of their Church. But they, in particular, Bishop Pivuranus, need our prayers, now, more than ever. They are already going after the sedevacantists in Germany. After the SSPX we are the only thing left on the radar of those who do the bidding of the Beast, and we are on their radar, despite the “fact” that we are all “crazy” and have such small numbers. We have to hold together. Better to not fight over the 1954 or 1958 liturgy, or the “una cum heretic” or whether we should fast from midnight or for three hours before Mass, if it rouses bitterness and dissension. There are things where can agree to disagree on without being cowards or false to the cause. We have bigger fish to fry.
I speak from experience, our tongues, or keyboards, can get us in more trouble with God than we can imagine, as Saint James says, it is like the tiny rudder on a ship, but it controls the direction the whole massive thing goes. Our souls, in a manner of speaking, are the most valuable thing we have, they are the “massive things” that are going to go to Heaven, or Hell, and our eternity is the ONLY thing that matters. Saving face or looking good in front of our peers is not what matters, but rather, how we look in front of God.
Before we take it upon ourselves to definitively resolve, with all the laymen authority we can muster up, debates such as the one this thread is about, we must get the following right:
“I give you a new commandment: That you love one another, as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another.” (Spoken by The Second Person of the Holy Trinity)
"I receive Thee, redeeming Prince of my soul. Out of love for Thee have I studied, watched through many nights, and exerted myself: Thee did I preach and teach. I have never said aught against Thee. Nor do I persist stubbornly in my views. If I have ever expressed myself erroneously on this Sacrament, I submit to the judgement of the Holy Roman Church, in obedience of which I now part from this world." Saint Thomas Aquinas, the greatest theologian in the history of the Church
|Posted Aug 14, 2012, 7:18 pm
Ignored by: 0