affirmed with St. Augustine that to remain in the Church not only “with the body” but also “with the heart” is a condition for salvation
Even Ratzinger's Motu left it to the bishops.Yes, these are some of my same conclusions regarding this. I also found these remarks in the Letter to the Bishops noteworthy:
Only difference was:
Ratzinger: permitted unless denied.
Bergoglio: denied unless permitted.
So no PRACTICAL difference ... except for all priests ordained after the Motu have to get permission from ROME to be able to say the Tridentine Mass. So they hope to extinguish the Traditional Mass over time. So I wonder whether Xavier, if he gest ordained some day, will go to Rome to get permission.
But the real problem here is that Bergoglio:
1) claims that the NOM is the EXCLUSIVE expression of the Roman Rite (i.e. rejects Ratzinger's extraordinary form thing)
2) says the bishops are required to determine that any Motu groups do NOT reject the legitimacy of the NOM
So, R&R, is this guy still your pope?
Wow, this is gonna be really heavy-handed, when the Bishops start to "clean house". Basically, no more TLM in any parish churches; they can only be said at certain places, on certain days, by certain priests. Wow.
.
This is going to put major pressure on the FSSP. On the one hand, if many of these priests leave new-rome over this, that would be great. Hopefully they will join Tradition and be conditionally ordained. On the other hand, I hope they don't join the SSPX because I don't trust +Fellay.
But the real problem here is that Bergoglio:
1) claims that the NOM is the EXCLUSIVE expression of the Roman Rite (i.e. rejects Ratzinger's extraordinary form thing)
2) says the bishops are required to determine that any Motu groups do NOT reject the legitimacy of the NOM
Wow, this is gonna be really heavy-handed, when the Bishops start to "clean house". Basically, no more TLM in any parish churches; they can only be said at certain places, on certain days, by certain priests. Wow.This struck me as well. This seems to suggest that even if it is said it won't be on a Sunday.
.
This is going to put major pressure on the FSSP. On the one hand, if many of these priests leave new-rome over this, that would be great. Hopefully they will join Tradition and be conditionally ordained. On the other hand, I hope they don't join the SSPX because I don't trust +Fellay.
Yes, these are some of my same conclusions regarding this. I also found these remarks in the Letter to the Bishops noteworthy:
But I am nonetheless saddened that the instrumental use of Missale Romanum of 1962 is often characterized by a rejection not only of the liturgical reform, but of the Vatican Council II itself, claiming, with unfounded and unsustainable assertions, that it betrayed the Tradition and the “true Church”.
The path of the Church must be seen within the dynamic of Tradition “which originates from the Apostles and progresses in the Church with the assistance of the Holy Spirit” (DV 8). A recent stage of this dynamic was constituted by Vatican Council II where the Catholic episcopate came together to listen and to discern the path for the Church indicated by the Holy Spirit.
To doubt the Council is to doubt the intentions of those very Fathers who exercised their collegial power in a solemn manner cuм Petro et sub Petro in an ecuмenical council,[14] and, in the final analysis, to doubt the Holy Spirit himself who guides the Church.
Even Ratzinger's Motu left it to the bishops.Like you said, no practical difference. He's leaving the whole thing up to the bishops while pretty much saying he wants the TLM gone and we're all supposed to agree with him, without coming right out and actually saying it.
Only difference was:
Ratzinger: permitted unless denied.
Bergoglio: denied unless permitted.
So no PRACTICAL difference ... except for all priests ordained after the Motu have to get permission from ROME to be able to say the Tridentine Mass. So they hope to extinguish the Traditional Mass over time. So I wonder whether Xavier, if he gest ordained some day, will go to Rome to get permission.
But the real problem here is that Bergoglio:
1) claims that the NOM is the EXCLUSIVE expression of the Roman Rite (i.e. rejects Ratzinger's extraordinary form thing)
2) says the bishops are required to determine that any Motu groups do NOT reject the legitimacy of the NOM
So, R&R, is this guy still your pope?
Those bishops who allowed it before will probably continue to allow it. This Motu did make exception for FSSP and similar Ecclesia Dei groups ... as I predicted.
This struck me as well. This seems to suggest that even if it is said it won't be on a Sunday.
Yes, but these groups will now have to openly accept the NOM, say it, and force the laity to attend it. +Francis' whole point is that these TLM communities were being "divisive" and rejecting V2, so this is an attempt to "re-educate" them and force all the younger generations to accept the modernization. They can't be TLM only anymore.
I'm not sure what that'll mean to verify that these groups are not against the NOM. Will they be forced to sign something? It's going to probably depend on each bishop. I'm guessing that 90% of them will just continue on as before. Even with Ratzinger's Motu, the bishop STILL had to allow the Mass. It wasn't like a priest could just set up shop on his own initiative.And we are outside of the Church... the Anti-Church, the Novus Ordo sect.
Biggest thing about this AntiMotu is not the practical implications ... it's the DOCTRINAL ONES. Bergoglio just declared Traditional Catholicism to be outside the Church. Xavier, you listening?
I think that it's up the bishops entirely, that's all. Some bishops actually have the Motu Masses in poorer, struggling parishes to give them a financial boost. That's one of the reasons most Motu Masses are in the inner city.
And we are outside of the Church... the Anti-Church, the Novus Ordo sect.
Yeah, but I think this just formalized that. This is the official "excommunication of Tradition". Before now, they excommunicated specific Traditional Catholics; now he's teaching that Traditional Catholics are outside the Church.Agreed. He is telling the Traditional Catholics he is not their pope.
This isn't just about the practical details of how many Motu Masses there will be.
Edward Pentin | DIJON, France — A French archbishop who plans to expel a traditional priestly fraternity from his diocese because they won’t concelebrate Masses has said he took the decision in anticipation of a new decree, or motu proprio, that Pope Francis is reported to be preparing to publish.
Father Roch Perrel, the FSSP’s superior in Dijon, told CNA (https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/248015/why-is-a-french-catholic-archdiocese-expelling-the-fssp)that the archbishop had made the decision because the FSSP’s priests fail to follow a practice promoted at the Second Vatican Council of two or more priests concelebrating at the altar.
“[Archbishop Minnerath] wanted to concelebrate the Chrism Mass during Holy Week, but we haven’t done it for years, as we have reservations about the new [Paul VI] Mass and we don’t celebrate at the same pace,” said Father Perrel, who went on to emphasize that, according to Canon 902 of the Code of Canon Law, no one can be forced to concelebrate.
Agreed. He is telling the Traditional Catholics he is not their pope.
So ...Hmmm...so doesn't this mean that he is intimating that the SSPX will never be allowed in?
1) no more NEW Motu Groups
He needs to tell us something we don't already know.That’s absolutely right! I remember about 20 years ago an SSPX priest refused to give me a blessing when he found out I held the sedevacantist position. After about an hour of debate, I finally said to him; “OK , JPII is a Catholic, but I’m not?” ......... He gave me his blessing!
I think it's time for R&R just to throw in the towel here.
We have an Antipope here who approves of idol worship, sodomy, adulterous cohabitation, etc. and has just abrogated and excommunicated the Traditional Catholics movement.
It's becoming increasingly absurd to continue to maintain that this man is a Catholic and is inside the Church.
But according to people like Xavier and many dogmatic R&R, Bergoglio is a Catholic in good standing, whereas sedevacantists are schismatics and outside the Church.
They become ridiculouser and ridiculouser with each day that passes.
Let's examine the practical effects of this motu, in light of the French Bishop's expulsion of the FSSP from his diocese.
That’s absolutely right! I remember about 20 years ago an SSPX priest refused to give me a blessing when he found out I held the sedevacantist position. After about an hour of debate, I finally said to him; “OK , JPII is a Catholic, but I’m not?” ......... He gave me his blessing!I can hear dear Father Collins singing now....
According to this, TLM are banned from all parochial/parish churches.
They could have done this at any time.
The Church CANNOT lead you into error, period.
I'm not sure what that provision means. It'll probably be the cause of much confusion. On the face of it, 90% of all the diocesan Motu Masses would have to be shut down ... as of this coming Sunday. I doubt that's going to happen. But we'll see.I agree it's not going to happen overnight.
I believe that the intent is for the establishment of NEW groups and that the older ones seem grandfathered inNo, because the motu says that no new establishments are to be created. FSSP and ICK (and other smaller ones) are it.
... provided that the Bishop determines they're not hostile to the NOM. What that means is also vague. One bishop might just ask the priest, "Are you against the NOM?" Answer: "no". Bishop: "OK". I'm sure you'll find about 50% of Motarians who are hostile to the NOM. Will each attendee be investigated and forced to sign a paper pledging allegiance to the NOM, to Bergoglio, and to Pachamama worship?
But how will it be a test of Faith for the younger generations if they don't know the issues with V2? For them isn't the TLM just a liturgical "preference"?
The good conclusion of all this is that the battle lines are becoming more and more clear. The indult TLM is no longer a "middle ground" where you can attend and keep your distance from the new mass. For many indulters, this will be a big test of Faith, especially the younger generations, who don't know anything about V2.
.
Let us pray that they will accept God's graces, see the errors of the new mass, and leave new-rome for Tradition.
Even Ratzinger's Motu left it to the bishops.
Only difference was:
Ratzinger: permitted unless denied.
Bergoglio: denied unless permitted.
So no PRACTICAL difference ... except for all priests ordained after the Motu have to get permission from ROME to be able to say the Tridentine Mass. So they hope to extinguish the Traditional Mass over time. So I wonder whether Xavier, if he gest ordained some day, will go to Rome to get permission.
But the real problem here is that Bergoglio:
1) claims that the NOM is the EXCLUSIVE expression of the Roman Rite (i.e. rejects Ratzinger's extraordinary form thing)
2) says the bishops are required to determine that any Motu groups do NOT reject the legitimacy of the NOM
So, R&R, is this guy still your pope?
THIS^^^The sede thinks every new Roman outrage compels sedevacantism.
Not that EVERYTHING that comes from the hierarchy is infallible, but this crosses a line. They're clearly forcing the NOM on everybody.
So what of the R&R position that the NOM as never properly "promulgated" and the TLM never "abolished" and that's why the NOM is not an issue with regard to the Church's disciplinary infallibility?
In many ways, Bergoglio has unwittingly done much good. He's ripped off the mask and the veneer of Catholicism from the Conciliar Church.
To be clear, I’m not asserting that those who believe that Bergoglio is the pope are outside the Church. Where the danger presents itself is when they fall into the false notion that the Church can lead someone into error. This is heretical.Church, or churchmen?
I can hear dear Father Collins singing now....Father laughed every time I reiterated that story because he knew the priest well. 😂
I am interested to see the mental gymnastics that will follow with those who insist the man is a pope of the CATHOLIC Church. I don't really care if I'm outside of the NOVUS ORDO church, I've known that already. But there is absolutely no way that he is part of the one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church, let alone its head.We're already seeing it.
We're already seeing it.Yeah. I see that now. Anything but sedevacantism.
Church, or churchmen?
The latter can, have, are, and will continue to lead into error.
But how will it be a test of Faith for the younger generations if they don't know the issues with V2? For them isn't the TLM just a liturgical "preference"?I mis-typed. When I said they "didn't know about V2" I meant that they didn't have any connection with the turbulent times of the 60s/70s, and the totalitarian/dictatorship atmosphere when the TLM was outlawed and the new mass installed. They didn't see the lies of the Bishops at the time and the propaganda used.
No, if that monstrosity is the Church then those are the OFFICIAL liturgies, OFFICIAL sacraments and OFFICIAL laws. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. Sorry.Which church? Catholic or conciliar?
Yeah. I see that now. Anything but sedevacantism.Definitely.
Definitely.I'll pray for you.
I'll pray for you.“The sede cries in pain as he strikes you!”
What absolutely filth. This is nothing but an attempt to destroy the Traditional movement ... BY HIS OWN ADMISSION ... denouncing those who reject the "legitimacy" of the V2 "reforms"."With the heart" -that was exactly what I was going to address until I saw your post first. It was kind of Frank to define what that actually is- rejection of Vll, modernism and the apostasy of Bergoglio.
As with most Modernists, Bergoglio suddenly believes in EENS dogma, except that only Trads are outside the Church:
Of course, according to Bergoglio, practicing sodomites, adulterers, etc. can all be saved ... but not Traditionalists who are not united "with their heart" (i.e. accept Vatican II).
So the only thing that will put you outside of the Church and outside salvation is to be a Traditional Catholics.
.Vicar of Christ.
I mean, Bergs explicitly stated that any rejection of Vatican II was unacceptable last year. It was obvious this was coming. Now we're returning to the days like after Montini forced the new rite on everyone.It's really very simple - we have our souls to save, the status of the pope? - not our business.
I am interested to see the mental gymnastics that will follow with those who insist the man is a pope of the CATHOLIC Church. I don't really care if I'm outside of the NOVUS ORDO church, I've known that already. But there is absolutely no way that he is part of the one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church, let alone its head.
It's really very simple - we have our souls to save, the status of the pope? - not our business.Unfortunately, it became their business once a revolution came from the top-down. Priests trying to defend their flocks is precisely why the sedevacantist thesis arose as an answer as to why heresy and error were coming out of the Vatican. It became the business of the bishop, priest and layman once the hierarchy apostatized from the traditional Catholic faith. This is true also of the R&R camp of Catholics, and is why a traditionalist "movement" exists at all.
I came across this a few days ago while looking for something else in Who Shall Ascend?......
"...The divisive aberration of Sedevacantism is due to nothing else than certain priests' losing sight of their proper roles in our present malaise. To save the Church from an heretical pope was never their assignment. Securing the Apostolic succession of the Church was never their assignment. What was their assignment? It was to take care of the people whom God sent them as best they could, say their prayers faithfully, study and pray that they might not themselves fall victim to the spirit of Liberalism and worldliness, and keep their torment and speculations to themselves. The hierarchical structure of the Church and the papacy are not their business. Such high matters are the province of none other than Christ Himself and His Mother and the Apostles...."
§ 3. to establish at the designated locations the days on which eucharistic celebrations are permitted using the Roman Missal promulgated by Saint John XXIII in 1962.[7] In these celebrations the readings are proclaimed in the vernacular language, using translations of the Sacred Scripture approved for liturgical use by the respective Episcopal Conferences; [Emphasis added.]I'd be interested to hear how many people see this on Sunday. I'm sure the FSSP and ICK and other diocesan approved groups will see this. How many SSPX priests will be proclaiming the readings in the vernacular?
Unfortunately, it became their business once a revolution came from the top-down. Priests trying to defend their flocks is precisely why the sedevacantist thesis arose as an answer as to why heresy and error were coming out of the Vatican. It became the business of the bishop, priest and layman once the hierarchy apostatized from the traditional Catholic faith. This is true also of the R&R camp of Catholics, and is why a traditionalist "movement" exists at all.
Fr's point was simply that the Traditionalist movement is the necessary and end point of our reaction to V2. He would say it is an over-reaction to classify oneself as a "sedevacantist" because being a "traditionalist" is enough. If he were alive today, he would also chastise the new-sspx for their hopium mindset of "saving the church" and attempting to "make a deal" with new-rome.And I completely agree with that. I am not speaking as if sedevacantism is the only answer, or the correct answer, but the position I've found to be most logically consistent with the indefectibility of the Church. Just as others have found profession of these conciliar "popes" to be their most logically consistent position. Sedevacantist or sedeplenist, the line has been drawn in the sand through this move by Francis and we are all now considered "outside" of the Church.
.
Fr Wathen's mindset was always "Do what you can (stick with Tradition). Don't do more than this (don't go into extremes and let the devil divide Tradition). Try to work together." For the most part, in the 70s and 80s, Trads did work together. But then camps were created, unfortunately.
Sedevacantist or sedeplenist, the line has been drawn in the sand through this move by Francis and we are all now considered "outside" of the Church.I don't see this motu as any more extreme as the indult of the 80s. +Francis still admitted that the mass of St Pius V is not abrogated; for Trads, this has changed nothing. It's "business as usual".
I think we, as trads, could learn much from the cooperation of the 70s and 80s these days, as the division between the Novus Ordo and the Catholic Church has become that much more pronounced. I think a "never-sede" position is just as harmful to the Church as the "non una cuм".
I don't see this motu as any more extreme as the indult of the 80s. +Francis still admitted that the mass of St Pius V is not abrogated; for Trads, this has changed nothing. It's "business as usual".Yes, it certainly is "business as usual". That's why we need to stop with the diabolic divisions of things which cannot be proven at this time and reflect on what Our Lord said: "And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand."
.
Fr was not anti-sede, but only anti-"sede only". He was only against those priests who require sede views to attend mass. Such existed in the 80s and still do. I know many Trads who can't go to certain chapels because the priest has turned them away. I don't mention this to attack the sede theory, just attack extreme-ism (same as I attack FSSP/indult lukewarm-ism).
Which church? Catholic or conciliar?Ok, you tell me, is Bergoglio the head of the Catholic Church or conciliar church?
Ps: This cake tastes wonderful.
It seems that the traditional Mass will have a significant change that everyone will see immediately:SSPX already does this in parts of France.😡
I'd be interested to hear how many people see this on Sunday. I'm sure the FSSP and ICK and other diocesan approved groups will see this. How many SSPX priests will be proclaiming the readings in the vernacular?
Ok, you tell me, is Bergoglio the head of the Catholic Church or conciliar church?One pope for two churches (Tissier/Avrille)
Yes, it certainly is "business as usual". That's why we need to stop with the diabolic divisions of things which cannot be proven at this time and reflect on what Our Lord said: "And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand."
And I completely agree with that. I am not speaking as if sedevacantism is the only answer, or the correct answer, but the position I've found to be most logically consistent with the indefectibility of the Church. Just as others have found profession of these conciliar "popes" to be their most logically consistent position. Sedevacantist or sedeplenist, the line has been drawn in the sand through this move by Francis and we are all now considered "outside" of the Church.
One pope for two churches (Tissier/Avrille)That’s the best you’ve got? Aside from the fact that it doesn’t give an answer to the problem, how is it possible that you claim the sedevacantist position is untenable?
Ok, you tell me, is Bergoglio the head of the Catholic Church or conciliar church?
Well, you are far more magnanimous than many of the sedes who post here. For some of them, sedeism (and sedewhateverism) is the only answer, and those who don't agree are not Catholic. This is known as dogmatic sedevacantism.Whoa. If not, then what is?
Though their vocalization of this view has not been so dominant lately, it will rear its ugly head eventually. It always does. They create a lot of division; far more, IMO, than those of us who take +ABL's view of the Crisis in the Church. If Trads want to take the sede stance, that's fine, but don't be pushy about it with those who don't accept it (I understand that you yourself are not pushy).
The division in the trad world isn't going to go away. We are too stubborn. That's why I believe that traditional Catholicism isn't necessarily the answer to the Crisis in the Church. But we can still love God with all of our heart and soul, and strive to speak the truth with charity, no matter what stance we take.
I agree. This thread is proof that instead of all of us just proclaiming, "Screw you, new-rome, Quo Primum is the answer", it turns into a sede-non-sede argument, which really, is of secondary importance to the TLM. But such is human nature...
That’s the best you’ve got? Aside from the fact that it doesn’t give an answer to the problem, how is it possible that you claim the sedevacantist position is untenable?
Whoa. If not, then what is?
That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou hast given me, I have given to them; that they may be one, as we also are one: I in them, and thou in me; that they may be made perfect in one: and the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast also loved me. - St. John 17:21-23
What does this have to do with sedevacantism?🙈🙉🙊
Here's an official Magisterial act where Bergoglio:
1) abrogates the Tridentine Mass
and
2) declares that those who reject the legitimacy of the new reforms are outside the Church
We've had to put up with the R&R garbage about how it's "not mandatory," the "TLM was never abrogated" etc. etc. ad nauseam.
Now that ship has sailed, folks.
Bergoglio has just outlawed Traditional Catholicism, abrogated the Tridentine Mass, and made the NOM explicitly mandatory.
What does this have to do with sedevacantism?
Here's an official Magisterial act where Bergoglio:
1) abrogates the Tridentine Mass
and
2) declares that those who reject the legitimacy of the new reforms are outside the Church
We've had to put up with the R&R garbage about how it's "not mandatory," the "TLM was never abrogated" etc. etc. ad nauseam.
Now that ship has sailed, folks.
Bergoglio has just outlawed Traditional Catholicism, abrogated the Tridentine Mass, and made the NOM explicitly mandatory.
I can hear dear Father Collins singing now....I miss him and singing... 😔
abrogates the Tridentine MassThis didn’t happen. I don’t know what docuмent you read. As Sean said, this brings indult back to the 80s.
Whoa. If not, then what is?
Interesting how you quote Robert Bellarmine's book De Romano Pontifice but from the same book it is stated that Saint Robert Bellarmine claimed that no Pope had EVER taught heresy officially and that such was impossible. Have you ever read the whole thing?
The sedes think/pretend every new Roman outrage compels sedevacantism.
They’ve been saying the S.O.S. for 50 years.
In reality, the new situation only brings those who care back to 1984/8.
As far as not being able to resist a pope, here’s their (misappropriated) champion saying the opposite:
“Just as it is licit to resist a Pontiff who attacks the body, so also is it licit to resist him who attacks souls or destroys the civil order or above all, tries to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will. It is not licit, however, to judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior.” (De Romano Pontifice, II.29.)
PLEASE let one of them cite Fr. Cekada’s article as a rebuttal (which, whatever Fr. Cekada thought, did not accomplish nullifying this quote, as it set out to).
I really don't know. Unlike the sedes, I know I don't have all of the answers.We never claimed to have the answers. We just believe the see is vacant and the conclusions drawn from that. We don't know how this crisis will resolve, Fr. Jenkins, Cekada and Bp. Sanborn have all stated such. But we do know that cleaving to a false church is definitely not going to help get souls to heaven.
Though I don't think that we humans can solve the Crisis alone, without God's help. We need to somehow be dependent on Him, and not on just ourselves and our beloved opinions.
Interesting how you quote Robert Bellarmine's book De Romano Pontifice but from the same book it is stated that Saint Robert Bellarmine claimed that no Pope had EVER taught heresy officially and that such was impossible. Have you ever read the whole thing?
Interestingly... In this book he dedicates several chapters to claims of people that 40 different popes taught heresy and refutes EVERY SINGLE CASE.
It might be worth reading. 🙃
Especially:
Volume 4, Chapters 8-14.
Uh, yeah, it’s a direct answer to your question. But if you think the arguments in support of it are easily refuted, then I await your rebuttal.
In response to your second question, only an idiot can believe is a pope less church for 3 generations (and counting).
Interestingly, da Silveira notes that Bellarmine was humble enough to acknowledge that, though he did not believe it was possible for a pope to fall into heresy, the more common opinion was that he could, and therefore Bellarmine went on to articulate a HYPOTHETICAL argument (ie., in case he was wrong).
In other words, he believed sedevacantism was impossible, because a pope can never become a heretic.
You might want to check him out sometime.
Interestingly, da Silveira notes that Bellarmine was humble enough to acknowledge that, though he did not believe it was possible for a pope to fall into heresy, the more common opinion was that he could, and therefore Bellarmine went on to articulate a HYPOTHETICAL argument (ie., in case he was wrong).Yes, Saint Robert was humble... 😇
In other words, he believed sedevacantism was impossible, because a pope can never become a heretic.
You might want to check him out sometime.
Yes, Saint Robert was humble... 😇
But not too humble to write the book even though even though it contradicted many living at that time... 🙃
Wouldn't it seem more likely that he was right as he was so humble and yet dared to write what he did? 🤔
He is the doctor of the church after all. Not the others. 😏
And if Saint Robert's book should be ignored in some aspects, why quote it at all? 🤨
So, are you claiming Bergoglio is not a heretic?I’m saying Bellarmine believed it was impossible.
It's really very simple - we have our souls to save, the status of the pope? - not our business.Stubborn, DL was not discussing Francis's personal salvation. The salvation of every individual, including every priest and universally acclaimed and loved true Pope, is in main the responsibility of that man, aided only secondarily by the prayers of the faithful. There have been other hand-wringing discussions inordinately focused on what lay people should "do" about a heterodox, heretical, or obstinately sinful pope, but I don't think this discussion is centered on that.
I came across this a few days ago while looking for something else in Who Shall Ascend?......
"...The divisive aberration of Sedevacantism is due to nothing else than certain priests' losing sight of their proper roles in our present malaise. To save the Church from an heretical pope was never their assignment. Securing the Apostolic succession of the Church was never their assignment. What was their assignment? It was to take care of the people whom God sent them as best they could, say their prayers faithfully, study and pray that they might not themselves fall victim to the spirit of Liberalism and worldliness, and keep their torment and speculations to themselves. The hierarchical structure of the Church and the papacy are not their business. Such high matters are the province of none other than Christ Himself and His Mother and the Apostles...."
I’m saying Bellarmine believed it was impossible.
I really don't know. Unlike the sedes, I know I don't have all of the answers.You know, my question to you was sincere. The bolded was unnecessary.
Though I don't think that we humans can solve the Crisis alone, without God's help. We need to somehow be dependent on Him, and not on just ourselves and our beloved opinions.
This didn’t happen. I don’t know what docuмent you read. As Sean said, this brings indult back to the 80s.Where does JPII imply, like Bergoglio, that all Traditional Catholics are outside the Church?
Why would it be “more likely Bellarmine was right,” when his actual opinion (ie., a pope can never fall into heresy) was a minority view, while his HYPOTHETICAL ruminations are opposed by so many greats (Cajetan, John of St. Thomas, Suarez, et al)?Lol... Why believe anything anyone says?
Lol... Why believe anything anyone says?
For Saint Robert because he backed up his beliefs with research and undeniable facts. 😅
Which of any of those others you mentioned made it to sainthood and doctor of the Church? THAT itself should mean something in of itself. 🙃
Ever heard of Cardinal Louis Billot?
He apparently disagreed with with Cajetan as well. Yet, he was one of the most esteemed theologians of the 20th century before Vatican II. ☺️
Ah... The world we live in... 😩
See... This is why we need a pope who fully fills the office of the papacy and doesn't pretend anything. That is the ONLY thing that will EVER unite traditional Catholics...
Except maybe the end of the world. 😜
You know, my question to you was sincere. The bolded was unnecessary.
This didn’t happen. I don’t know what docuмent you read. As Sean said, this brings indult back to the 80s.
I take the firm decision to abrogate all the norms, instructions, permissions and customs that precede the present Motu proprio, and declare that the liturgical books promulgated by the saintly Pontiffs Paul VI and John Paul II, in conformity with the decrees of Vatican Council II, constitute the unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite. I take comfort in this decision from the fact that, after the Council of Trent, St. Pius V also abrogated all the rites that could not claim a proven antiquity, establishing for the whole Latin Church a single Missale Romanum.
“TRADITIONIS CUSTODES”
But Your Holiness, you are doing the exact OPPOSITE of what St. Pius V did...
... provided that the Bishop determines they're not hostile to the NOM. What that means is also vague. One bishop might just ask the priest, "Are you against the NOM?" Answer: "no". Bishop: "OK".In US, the vast majority of diocesan (not ecclesia dei) priests offering TLM also offer NO. They are patently not against the NO.
Uhm, it's right there in Bergoglio's letter.He didn't abrogate/outlaw the TLM, otherwise why is it still permitted to be said? Obviously, if one can use this missal, then it's not outlawed.
QuoteQuoteI take the firm decision to abrogate all the norms, instructions, permissions and customs that precede the present Motu proprio, and declare that the liturgical books promulgated by the saintly Pontiffs Paul VI and John Paul II, in conformity with the decrees of Vatican Council II, constitute the unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite. I take comfort in this decision from the fact that, after the Council of Trent, St. Pius V also abrogated all the rites that could not claim a proven antiquity, establishing for the whole Latin Church a single Missale Romanum.
Bergoglio just abrogated the Tridentine Rite.
Stubborn, DL was not discussing Francis's personal salvation. The salvation of every individual, including every priest and universally acclaimed and loved true Pope, is in main the responsibility of that man, aided only secondarily by the prayers of the faithful. There have been other hand-wringing discussions inordinately focused on what lay people should "do" about a heterodox, heretical, or obstinately sinful pope, but I don't think this discussion is centered on that.Yes, I understand that and understood he was "interested to see the mental gymnastics that will follow with those who insist the man is a pope of the CATHOLIC Church".
If so much as one soul perishes because of this contemptible docuмent, PF will be answerable to God Almighty. However, the docuмent is not a trivial or irrelevant matter to the rest of us, inasmuch as it affects the lives of Catholics without access to currently "approved" TLM's.
... champagne corks popping in Menzingen ...I doubt it. Most of the people who go to approved TLM’s do so because they have scruples regarding the canonical issues, and therefore, forced to choose between the SSPX or EWTN-style NOM’s, will choose the latter 8/10 times.
Cursus Theologicus of John of St. ThomasTome 6. Questions 1-7 on Faith. Disputation 8.~ Article 2 ~When a pope has been legitimately elected, is it de fide, either per se primo or per se secundo, that this particular person—for instance, Innocent X—is the pope?...Efficient Cause(Second Objection)
[Principal Argument/objection] We cannot know with the certainty of faith that these particular electors have a valid intention of electing, nor that they are true and legitimate cardinals, nor that they observed the form of ɛƖɛctıon required by law, such as the requirement that the pope be elected by a two-thirds majority of the cardinals, as well as the other conditions without which the ɛƖɛctıon is null. The faith does not teach us whether these conditions were met; for, when the ɛƖɛctıon of the pope is first made public, there is no guarantee, no way by which the truths of the faith are made known to us, no revelation or tradition that could make the Church certain, when she accepts the man as pope, that all the conditions were met that are required for a valid ɛƖɛctıon; but she relies on the trustworthiness of the electors themselves who are promulgating the ɛƖɛctıon; therefore, the Church never attains to the certitude of faith regarding the man chosen, that he was legitimately elected. (…)
This is because it is not necessary, whenever something of itself pertains to the faith, that all the propositions having a necessary connection with that truth of faith should also be de fide; on the contrary, this is precisely what a theological conclusion is; for theological conclusions are concerned with whatever things have a necessary connection, or logical implication, with de fide truths. For example, from the truth of faith, “Christ is a man,” proceeds the theological conclusion, “Christ is capable of laughter,” because the capacity to laugh is necessarily connected to being a man.
Likewise, because it is de fide that this man in particular, accepted by the Church as canonically elected, is the pope, the theological conclusion is drawn that there were genuine electors, and a real intention of electing, as well as the other requisites, without which the de fide truth could not stand. Therefore, we have the certainty of faith, by a revelation implicitly contained in the Creed and in the promise made to Peter, and made more explicit in the definition of Martin V, and applied and declared in act (in exercitio) by the acceptance of the Church, that this man in particular, canonically elected according to the acceptance of the Church, is pope. The certainty of faith touches this alone; and whatever is prerequisite to, or else follows upon, the fact of the ɛƖɛctıon, is inferred as a theological conclusion drawn from the proposition that is de fide, and is believed mediately. (…)
The Church accepts the ɛƖɛctıon and the elect as a matter of faith, because as she receives him as the infallible rule of faith, and as the supreme head to whom she is united—for the unity of the Church depends upon her union with him.
To the objection that there must be someone to propose this truth to the Church as de fide, I respond that the ɛƖɛctıon and the one elected are proposed by the cardinals, not in their own person, but in the person of the Church and by her power—for she it is who committed to them the power of electing the pope and of declaring him to have been elected. Wherefore they, in this respect and for this task, are the Church herself representatively. Thus the cardinals, or whoever else are electors legitimately designated by the Church (that is, by the pope), represent the Church in all that concerns the ɛƖɛctıon of her head, the successor of Peter. Just as the pope gathers the bishops together in a Council, and yet its confirmation and the ultimate sentence in matters of faith depend upon him, so the congregation of cardinals elects the pope, and declares that he has been elected, and yet it is the Church, whose ministers they are, that by its acceptance ultimately confirms as a truth of faith the fact that this man is truly the highest rule of faith and the supreme pontiff. Wherefore, if the cardinals elect him in a questionable manner, the Church can correct their ɛƖɛctıon, as the Council of Constance determined in its 41st session. Hence, the proposition is rendered de fide, as already has been explained, by the acceptance of the Church, and that alone, even before the pope himself defines anything. It is not any acceptance at all of the Church, but the acceptance of the Church in a matter pertaining to the faith, since the pope is accepted as a determinate rule of faith.
Reply to another objection. It was argued above, that none of the conditions necessary for the ɛƖɛctıon are externally visible, but that everything takes place in the company of the electors, on whose testimony the Church accepts the pope. To this I reply that it is not necessary that all those conditions, and the ɛƖɛctıon itself, and the intention of the electors be visible, but only that it be possible for a moral certainty to be had of their [the conditions] accomplishment. This moral certainty comes of seeing the electors gathered together for the act of electing, and peacefully proposing the man who has been elected, and declaring him such. As long as no reasonable doubt presents itself, this [i.e., the peaceful ɛƖɛctıon] already suffices for the Church universally to accept him, and, by this acceptance, to render the truth de fide.
[Note: the “peaceful” aspect of the P&UA, refers to the ɛƖɛctıon; the “universal acceptance” refers to the Church’s acceptance of the man as Pope; the former can render the latter unnecessary for the proposition to be de fide; the latter can supply for a defect in the former].
For it is not necessary, in order for something to be de fide, that all the conditions prerequisite to it be visible. It suffices initially to have a moral certitude of these conditions, which afterwards acquire the certitude of a theological conclusion. (…) prior to the ɛƖɛctıon, we can have only a moral certitude that all the conditions strictly necessary for a legitimate ɛƖɛctıon are being met. Once the ɛƖɛctıon is accepted, however, it becomes a theological conclusion that all the conditionswere met, since they have a necessary connection with, and are of their very nature prerequisite to, this truth of faith. (…) Hence, it is not merely a pious belief, but a theological conclusion (as we have stated), that God will not permit one to be elected and peacefully accepted by the Church who in fact does not meet the conditions required; this would be contrary to the special providence that God exercises over the Church and the assistance that she receives from the Holy Ghost. [This was echoed by what Cardinal Billot wrote[3] (http://sodalitium-pianum.com/universal-and-peaceful-acceptance-by-john-of-st-thomas/#_edn3)]
Interestingly, da Silveira notes that Bellarmine was humble enough to acknowledge that, though he did not believe it was possible for a pope to fall into heresy, the more common opinion was that he could, and therefore Bellarmine went on to articulate a HYPOTHETICAL argument (ie., in case he was wrong).
In other words, he believed sedevacantism was impossible, because a pope can never become a heretic.
You might want to check him out sometime.
... champagne corks popping in Menzingen ...I expect Eastern Catholic churches will see a few more Roman Rite Refugees as well if TLM places are forced to close.
I expect Eastern Catholic churches will see a few more Roman Rite Refugees as well if TLM places are forced to close.Yup
Why did he believe a pope could never become a heretic? He specifically said that under no circuмstances can we avoid the head. St Alphonsus said the same. They would never allow that Catholics could legitimately mount a systematic resistance to the Roman See. So he believed that a pope could never become a heretic because it would appear to contradict Our Lord's prayer for St Peter that his faith would never fail. And many sedes today would still affirm that. Fr Cekada towards the end of his life focused on the fact that none of the Conciliar "popes" were legitimately elected. So none of them were ever at any moment pope. It is also false to say that St Robert believed sedevacantism is impossible. There is a sede vacante after the death of every pope. And the fundamental principles of sedes today don't include anything novel. Even the idea that a sede vacante could be extended for decades isn't exactly novel. Some pre-V2 theologians talked about the possibility that there was no pope at all during the Great Western Schism. So a long sede vacante isn't contrary to Catholic doctrine.See previous post. The legitimacy of the pope is de fide.
I'm thankful to Whoregαy Bergoglio for making it more difficult for traditionalists to reconcile traditional Catholic doctrine with the doctrine of the Novus Ordo Sect. Even if the Novus Ordo Sect claims to be Catholic, at least they are honest enough to say that their religion is completely incompatible with traditional Catholicism. I also appreciate that he implicitly affirms that the Novus Ordo Sect's doctrine is more compatible with non-Catholic religions than it is with traditional Catholicism. That's great to know. These type of developments may even help sede vacantists and sede privationists to realize that a solution to the crisis will not be forthcoming from the Novus Ordo Sect.
I am not a dogmatic sedevacantist but boy the VII sect wants everyone to be.:laugh1:
See previous post. The legitimacy of the pope is de fide.Circular argument. You have to prove that he is the pope BEFORE you can claim his papacy is a dogmatic fact. Why isn't the claim of Pope Michael of Kansas de fide?
I doubt it. Most of the people who go to approved TLM’s do so because they have scruples regarding the canonical issues, and therefore, forced to choose between the SSPX or EWTN-style NOM’s, will choose the latter 8/10 times.
I really don't know. Unlike the sedes, I know I don't have all of the answers.Frankly, I think this is Meg's solution:
Though I don't think that we humans can solve the Crisis alone, without God's help. We need to somehow be dependent on Him, and not on just ourselves and our beloved opinions.
I am not a dogmatic sedevacantist but boy the VII sect wants everyone to be.THIS: ^
I doubt it. Most of the people who go to approved TLM’s do so because they have scruples regarding the canonical issues, and therefore, forced to choose between the SSPX or EWTN-style NOM’s, will choose the latter 8/10 times.
Circular argument. You have to prove that he is the pope BEFORE you can claim his papacy is a dogmatic fact. Why isn't the claim of Pope Michael of Kansas de fide?
As usual, the sede mind has it all backwards:Funny thing is...you already know that the sedevacantists have proven you false. You simply reject Truth.
What the whole world holds to be true, the burden is on you to refute.
Funny thing is...you already know that the sedevacantists have proven you false. You simply reject Truth.
//Do Eastern Rites have priests who are married with children?
//
Often yes
//Do Eastern Rites have priests who are married with children?
//
Often yes
Not one of you wanted to touch the JST quote (the legitimacy of the pope is de fide).I was going to just respond with a laughing head, because it is so funny. But someone else pointed out how round this argument is. I am puzzled you make such a strange argument. You are a smart guy and have studied logic. Come on, Sean, think about this one a little harder, please.
Nor did any of you attempt to refute the fact that Bellarmine was not among the authors writing major dissertations on heretical popes (but all 3 who did oppose him), but only commented upon what others had written..
Nor the Billuart quote, stating the more common opinion is that even a manifestly heretical pope maintains jurisdiction until his heresy is declared by the Church (with which Cajetan, Suarez, and JST -the only major authors to write dissertations on the subject- agree).
Enough reason to avoid the Eastern Rite.
A priest is not a part-time job, or something you can do 8-hours a day and then punch out and return to your normal life.
I was going to just respond with a laughing head, because it is so funny. But someone else pointed out how round this argument is. I am puzzled you make such a strange argument. You are a smart guy and have studied logic. Come on, Sean, think about this one a little harder, please.This (^^^) time wasting response contains not a single doctrinal argument.
.
St. Robert Bellarmine was a Doctor of the Church and a saint. Neither of the three guys you are talking about are either of those things. And you really think St. Robert didn't write a dissertation on heretical popes? St. Robert wrote an entire book -- a rather long book -- called De Romano Pontifice. You've never heard of this?
.
.
I guess if you define the people on your side to be the "only major authors" to write a dissertation on the question, you can win any argument, but it helps if you are not arguing against a Doctor of the Church.
Even if the doctrine of John of St. Thomas is someday defined by the magisterium, (note: since it's a doctrine of a theologian and not the magisterium, faithful Catholics can yet disagree with it and remain Catholic (this does not convict Sedevacantists)). It pertains to the actual election being valid and not the resignation being valid. Had Pope Benedict's resignation been valid, Francis's election would have been valid, according to this docuмent.Cursus Theologicus of John of St. ThomasTome 6. Questions 1-7 on Faith. Disputation 8.~ Article 2 ~When a pope has been legitimately elected, is it de fide, either per se primo or per se secundo, that this particular person—for instance, Innocent X—is the pope?...Efficient Cause(Second Objection)
[Principal Argument/objection] We cannot know with the certainty of faith that these particular electors have a valid intention of electing, nor that they are true and legitimate cardinals, nor that they observed the form of ɛƖɛctıon required by law, such as the requirement that the pope be elected by a two-thirds majority of the cardinals, as well as the other conditions without which the ɛƖɛctıon is null. The faith does not teach us whether these conditions were met; for, when the ɛƖɛctıon of the pope is first made public, there is no guarantee, no way by which the truths of the faith are made known to us, no revelation or tradition that could make the Church certain, when she accepts the man as pope, that all the conditions were met that are required for a valid ɛƖɛctıon; but she relies on the trustworthiness of the electors themselves who are promulgating the ɛƖɛctıon; therefore, the Church never attains to the certitude of faith regarding the man chosen, that he was legitimately elected. (…)
This is because it is not necessary, whenever something of itself pertains to the faith, that all the propositions having a necessary connection with that truth of faith should also be de fide; on the contrary, this is precisely what a theological conclusion is; for theological conclusions are concerned with whatever things have a necessary connection, or logical implication, with de fide truths. For example, from the truth of faith, “Christ is a man,” proceeds the theological conclusion, “Christ is capable of laughter,” because the capacity to laugh is necessarily connected to being a man.
Likewise, because it is de fide that this man in particular, accepted by the Church as canonically elected, is the pope, the theological conclusion is drawn that there were genuine electors, and a real intention of electing, as well as the other requisites, without which the de fide truth could not stand. Therefore, we have the certainty of faith, by a revelation implicitly contained in the Creed and in the promise made to Peter, and made more explicit in the definition of Martin V, and applied and declared in act (in exercitio) by the acceptance of the Church, that this man in particular, canonically elected according to the acceptance of the Church, is pope. The certainty of faith touches this alone; and whatever is prerequisite to, or else follows upon, the fact of the ɛƖɛctıon, is inferred as a theological conclusion drawn from the proposition that is de fide, and is believed mediately. (…)
The Church accepts the ɛƖɛctıon and the elect as a matter of faith, because as she receives him as the infallible rule of faith, and as the supreme head to whom she is united—for the unity of the Church depends upon her union with him.
To the objection that there must be someone to propose this truth to the Church as de fide, I respond that the ɛƖɛctıon and the one elected are proposed by the cardinals, not in their own person, but in the person of the Church and by her power—for she it is who committed to them the power of electing the pope and of declaring him to have been elected. Wherefore they, in this respect and for this task, are the Church herself representatively. Thus the cardinals, or whoever else are electors legitimately designated by the Church (that is, by the pope), represent the Church in all that concerns the ɛƖɛctıon of her head, the successor of Peter. Just as the pope gathers the bishops together in a Council, and yet its confirmation and the ultimate sentence in matters of faith depend upon him, so the congregation of cardinals elects the pope, and declares that he has been elected, and yet it is the Church, whose ministers they are, that by its acceptance ultimately confirms as a truth of faith the fact that this man is truly the highest rule of faith and the supreme pontiff. Wherefore, if the cardinals elect him in a questionable manner, the Church can correct their ɛƖɛctıon, as the Council of Constance determined in its 41st session. Hence, the proposition is rendered de fide, as already has been explained, by the acceptance of the Church, and that alone, even before the pope himself defines anything. It is not any acceptance at all of the Church, but the acceptance of the Church in a matter pertaining to the faith, since the pope is accepted as a determinate rule of faith.
Reply to another objection. It was argued above, that none of the conditions necessary for the ɛƖɛctıon are externally visible, but that everything takes place in the company of the electors, on whose testimony the Church accepts the pope. To this I reply that it is not necessary that all those conditions, and the ɛƖɛctıon itself, and the intention of the electors be visible, but only that it be possible for a moral certainty to be had of their [the conditions] accomplishment. This moral certainty comes of seeing the electors gathered together for the act of electing, and peacefully proposing the man who has been elected, and declaring him such. As long as no reasonable doubt presents itself, this [i.e., the peaceful ɛƖɛctıon] already suffices for the Church universally to accept him, and, by this acceptance, to render the truth de fide.
[Note: the “peaceful” aspect of the P&UA, refers to the ɛƖɛctıon; the “universal acceptance” refers to the Church’s acceptance of the man as Pope; the former can render the latter unnecessary for the proposition to be de fide; the latter can supply for a defect in the former].
For it is not necessary, in order for something to be de fide, that all the conditions prerequisite to it be visible. It suffices initially to have a moral certitude of these conditions, which afterwards acquire the certitude of a theological conclusion. (…) prior to the ɛƖɛctıon, we can have only a moral certitude that all the conditions strictly necessary for a legitimate ɛƖɛctıon are being met. Once the ɛƖɛctıon is accepted, however, it becomes a theological conclusion that all the conditionswere met, since they have a necessary connection with, and are of their very nature prerequisite to, this truth of faith. (…) Hence, it is not merely a pious belief, but a theological conclusion (as we have stated), that God will not permit one to be elected and peacefully accepted by the Church who in fact does not meet the conditions required; this would be contrary to the special providence that God exercises over the Church and the assistance that she receives from the Holy Ghost. [This was echoed by what Cardinal Billot wrote[3] (http://sodalitium-pianum.com/universal-and-peaceful-acceptance-by-john-of-st-thomas/#_edn3)]
Agree with the entire post.
A priest is not a part-time job, or something you can do 8-hours a day and then punch out and return to your normal life.
It is your WHOLE life. To do it well, you need to be celibate (single), as the apostles were.
As usual, the sede mind has it all backwards:
What the whole world holds to be true, the burden is on you to refute.
The whole world holds that CÖVÌD 19 is an existential threat to the human race. The whole world holds that the vaccines are safe. The whole world holds that Catholic doctrine can evolve and even contradict what was previously believed. No one is disputing that the Novus Ordo sect contradicts traditional Catholic doctrine. So the burden of proof is on you to prove that a true pope can overthrow Catholic doctrine. All the doctors of the Church say it is not possible. You have to prove that all the doctors are wrong. St Robert is not on your side. He believed that God would never allow a true pope to fall into heresy. But he admitted that if he were wrong about that, a heretical pope would ipso facto lose his office. But no doctor or father of the Church ever believed or taught that a manifest heretic could be ELECTED to the Roman See. That's insanity. Almost as insane as you calling Whoregαy, "Your Holiness". So you have to argue either a) Whoregαy isn't heretical or b) all the doctors of the Church were wrong when they taught that a heretical pope would ipso facto lose office. (See St Robert, St Alphonsus and St Francis de Sales among others). But how are you going to prove that a manifest heretic could be ELECTED to the Roman See? Or that once elected, the heretic's claim on the Roman See is a dogmatic fact? The gig is up, Sean. The notorious Siscoe and Salza are sunk. For the sake of your own sanity, you need to break out of the Stockholm Syndrome attitude that has entangled you with a disgusting perverted heretic who claims the Roman See. His claim is no more believable (nay, less believable) than Pope Michael's claim in Kansas. Anyone who thinks Whoregαy is the pope is certifiable.😂😂😂 👍👍👍
Even if the doctrine of John of St. Thomas is someday defined by the magisterium, (note: since it's a doctrine of a theologian and not the magisterium, faithful Catholics can yet disagree with it and remain Catholic (this does not convict Sedevacantists)). It pertains to the actual ɛƖɛctıon being valid and not the resignation being valid. Had Pope Benedict's resignation been valid, Francis's ɛƖɛctıon would have been valid, according to this docuмent.
If John of St. Thomas is correct, was he not trumped by Pope Paul IV who was dealing with invalid ɛƖɛctıons of publicly manifest heretics and schismatics? Those who dismiss that as not the magisterium have a lot of explaining to do. Since the magisterium already deals with the question of some of those who cannot be validly elected, how can John of St. Thomas define something contrary?
As far as intention, if it's not stated publicly ahead of time they did not intend to do what the Church does, it's valid even if privately they did not intend it to be. Otherwise, no Eucharistic miracle could occur when a priest privately doubts the dogma of Transubstantiation.
Where John of St. Thomas has some merit, is, if no cardinals are pointing out the rules of the ɛƖɛctıon have been discarded, but remain silent as someone is presented as newly elected, then you can have a valid pope with a privately invalid ɛƖɛctıon process.
The long-rumored Motu Proprio of Francis the Infelicitous restricting the Traditional Latin Mass was finally issued and it doesn’t disappoint – that is, if you’re like me and welcome anything that makes it more difficult for the sincerely blind to deny the reality that Jorge Bergoglio, far from being Holy Father, is an enemy of the Catholic faith.
Here, I will get straight to the highlights. I’ll have more to say on smaller details later.
Without even surfing the web for headlines, I’m rather certain that the big story as reported by most in Catholic media will be Francis abrogates Summorum Pontificuм!
Indeed, he has:
"Art. 8. Previous norms, instructions, permissions, and customs that do not conform to the provisions of the present Motu Proprio are abrogated."
As expected, however, the Devil is in the details (as well as in the Vatican). The real story here is that Jorge Bergoglio is “abrogating” (to the extent that a non-Catholic posing as a pope can do anything) the Traditional Roman Rite itself. Yes, you read that correctly:
"Art. 1. The liturgical books promulgated by Saint Paul VI and Saint John Paul II, in conformity with the decrees of Vatican Council II, are the unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite."
Pay close attention: unique expression…
According to the “pope” of the counterfeit church, there is only one form of the Roman Rite – the earthbound, man-centered, Novus Ordo.
So, what does that make the Mass of Ages?
It makes it not the Roman Rite. From this point forward in the conciliar church, it’s not even an “Extraordinary Form” of the Roman Rite, rather, it’s no rite of that church at all.
That’s called abrogation, folks.
Even so, there will be many deniers of the obvious. Let’s consider some of their objections.
But he never says, I hereby abrogate the Latin Mass!
I genuinely pity the poor fool who seeks shelter in this childish excuse. The Evil One and his minions don’t operate that way. The Devil is a liar and a deceiver, cunning at maneuvering in the shadows to avoid discovery, poisoning the naive in unexpected ways.
Even so, in his letter to bishops accompanying the Motu Proprio, Bergoglio states:
"I take comfort in this decision from the fact that, after the Council of Trent, St. Pius V also abrogated all the rites that could not claim a proven antiquity, establishing for the whole Latin Church a single Missale Romanum."
Again, pay close attention: “also abrogated all the rites.” In other words: My predecessor abrogated certain rites. I’m abrogating just one, the Traditional Roman Rite!
Still, the deniers will object:
But he will still allow it to be celebrated even if restricted!
OK, but exactly what is “it”? Answer: Not the Roman Rite but rather the former Roman Rite that is presently abrogated.
You see, for Bergoglio, this is like granting highly restricted, temporary permission for the faithful to participate in any non-Catholic rite.
This is the same guy who welcomed Pachamama idol worship into the Vatican! Does anyone really think that limited tolerance of the TLM until such time as it is fully banished from the dioceses bothers him? Of course not, it’s something he’ll put up with, but only for a time. His letter to the bishops makes this clear:
"…those who are rooted in the previous form of celebration and need to return in due time to the Roman Rite promulgated by Saints Paul VI and John Paul II. [Emphasis added]"
You know the drill, pay attention: need to return… It’s not optional.
Sure, the pseudo-trads and neo-cons will initially express outrage at the death of Summorum Pontificuм, followed by concern for the future, followed by hope for the future, followed by pep talks about how the faithful must soldier on in spite of these persecutions that Christ is allowing at the hands of His Vicar. What a mystery!
In short, many of them will shuck and jive their rear ends off in order to deny the plain reality of the matter: The man that they call “Pope Francis” has just officially abrogated the Traditional Latin Mass from the conciliar church over which he rules.
The reason they will twist themselves into knots denying this reality is because to acknowledge it is to acknowledge some difficult truths. For instance, how often has it been said “the TLM was never abrogated!” as if this supported the preposterous notion that the conciliar counterfeit church really is the one true Church of Christ, in spite of its corrupt faith and morals.
But there’s an even bigger, more uncomfortable truth staring the deniers in the face, if only they would open their eyes.
Any putative pope that would move to abrogate the Mass of Ages cannot be but an antipope. It’s time to acknowledge reality: Jorge Bergoglio isn’t a Catholic of any rank, much less is he the Vicar of Christ.
My most sincere hope, is that Francis will very soon leave office (one way or the other), and his successor will take this horrible motu proprio and put it right through the shredder, tell the faithful (in so many words) "forget this ever happened, think of it as a bad dream, we're going back to Summorum pontificuм".Actually that would be the worst thing to happen because then people will be tricked into remaining in the Vatican II sect. We don't need another "more conservative/less Modernist" "pope".
😂😂😂 👍👍👍I hope and pray that Sean makes his way out of the blasphemous and anti-Catholic position which holds that Christ's vicar can be a heresiarch like Mr Bergoglio. It's a horrible thing to say about the Papacy, and the Mystical Body of Christ. I do not mean to give offense in this, but it must be said.
Actually that would be the worst thing to happen because then people will be tricked into remaining in the Vatican II sect. We don't need another "more conservative/less Modernist" "pope".I am not a sedevacantist (not that I don't have my doubts), and I do not reject the visible, institutional Church of Rome as a non-Catholic sect. Much as I detest the thought, I accept Francis as Pope, wish I didn't have to, but you're either a sedevacantist or you're not (making allowance for some theories of "the see not fully vacant, yet not fully occupied either", materialiter-formaliter, Cassiciacuм thesis, et al), and I can't make that call in favor of sede vacante or ecclesia vacante. I very well could be wrong.
Uhm, it's right there in Bergoglio's letter.Agreed. I've read through both the Moto and the accompanying letter, and can't understand why some on this thread are insisting nothing really has changed, or that those celebrating the Mass of the Ages will be allowed to continue to do so. In his accompanying letter where he explicitly states his motivations, Bergoglio clearly outlines:
Bergoglio just abrogated the Tridentine Rite.
But you guys will desperately keep your blinders on and keep insisting that the Tridentine Rite was never abrogated, and that's why the NOM doesn't violate the Church's disciplinary infallibility.
"Indications about how to proceed in your dioceses are chiefly dictated by two principles: on the one hand, to provide for the good of those who are rooted in the previous form of celebration and need to return in due time to the Roman Rite promulgated by Saints Paul VI and John Paul II, and, on the other hand, to discontinue the erection of new personal parishes tied more to the desire and wishes of individual priests than to the real need of the 'holy People of God.'"
The whole world holds that CÖVÌD 19 is an existential threat to the human race. The whole world holds that the vaccines are safe. The whole world holds that Catholic doctrine can evolve and even contradict what was previously believed. No one is disputing that the Novus Ordo sect contradicts traditional Catholic doctrine. So the burden of proof is on you to prove that a true pope can overthrow Catholic doctrine. All the doctors of the Church say it is not possible. You have to prove that all the doctors are wrong. St Robert is not on your side. He believed that God would never allow a true pope to fall into heresy. But he admitted that if he were wrong about that, a heretical pope would ipso facto lose his office. But no doctor or father of the Church ever believed or taught that a manifest heretic could be ELECTED to the Roman See. That's insanity. Almost as insane as you calling Whoregαy, "Your Holiness". So you have to argue either a) Whoregαy isn't heretical or b) all the doctors of the Church were wrong when they taught that a heretical pope would ipso facto lose office. (See St Robert, St Alphonsus and St Francis de Sales among others). But how are you going to prove that a manifest heretic could be ELECTED to the Roman See? Or that once elected, the heretic's claim on the Roman See is a dogmatic fact? The gig is up, Sean. The notorious Siscoe and Salza are sunk. For the sake of your own sanity, you need to break out of the Stockholm Syndrome attitude that has entangled you with a disgusting perverted heretic who claims the Roman See. His claim is no more believable (nay, less believable) than Pope Michael's claim in Kansas. Anyone who thinks Whoregαy is the pope is certifiable.Dodge
😂😂😂 👍👍👍Hey, You’re very excited!
This strengthens the Sedevacantist position even further.
Right. The process was controversial, especially when Catholic kings and princes were meddling in it. So theologians were affirming that even if the process is corrupt, the end result is still good. But they never allowed that a manifest heretic could legitimately claim the office. That's absurd. But that's exactly what R&R has to argue today.But he could persist in it, which is exactly what JST, Suarez, Cajetan (ie., the only authors of note to discuss the matter in a major treatise) say.
I hope and pray that Sean makes his way out of the blasphemous and anti-Catholic position which holds that Christ's vicar can be a heresiarch like Mr Bergoglio. It's a horrible thing to say about the Papacy, and the Mystical Body of Christ. I do not mean to give offense in this, but it must be said.
Well, I guess these are more fruits of R&R. Despite the fact that the Church has always allowed married priests in the East, people know better. Married priests in the East are not some invention of the Modernists.Non-sequitur.
Yes. Indefectibility remains intact only if the Novus Ordo organization, spawned at Vatican II, is NOT the actual Catholic Church.It’s the conciliar church (which is not complete distinct from the Catholic Church).
"My faithful shil... errr... Servants at CI: Meg, Xavier, Sean etc: Thank you for supporting us. Your checks are on the way"Not a theological argument
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E6a84VTWYAQ2-ay?format=png&name=small)
Not a theological argumentI'm not sure how to formulate an argument that you don't have a cope for.
I'm not sure how to formulate an argument that you don't have a cope for.I have a cope for them all.
If you're going to ever seriously address his views on EENS that'd be great, no VIIer and few sedes take this dogma seriously.
I have a cope for them all.EENS.
But why would I care about anything sedes and Feeneyites say???
And what dogma are you speaking of?
"My faithful shil... errr... Servants at CI: Meg, Xavier, Sean etc: Thank you for supporting us. Your checks are on the way"
Wow, this is gonna be really heavy-handed, when the Bishops start to "clean house". Basically, no more TLM in any parish churches; they can only be said at certain places, on certain days, by certain priests. Wow.
.
This is going to put major pressure on the FSSP. On the one hand, if many of these priests leave new-rome over this, that would be great. Hopefully they will join Tradition and be conditionally ordained. On the other hand, I hope they don't join the SSPX because I don't trust +Fellay.
Actually forget debating anything with words, Sean. A picture will suffice.Sweet! Pictures!
Actually forget debating anything with words, Sean. A picture will suffice.Reminds me of those sub rosa video recordings made inside Mormon temples, where the men wear white robes, Masonic-type aprons, and what look like flat bakers' hats with that poofy thing on top.
Yes, but these groups will now have to openly accept the NOM, say it, and force the laity to attend it. +Francis' whole point is that these TLM communities were being "divisive" and rejecting V2, so this is an attempt to "re-educate" them and force all the younger generations to accept the modernization. They can't be TLM only anymore.Well, I won’t be forced to attend it or accept Vat. II, I cannot be re-educated, and no more TLM makes no practical difference in my life, at least. I have no access to true Mass or Sacraments as it has been intermittently since 2018, and entirely since March 2020.
You know, my question to you was sincere. The bolded was unnecessary.The same question was on my mind, and I am not a sede.
Reminds me of those sub rosa video recordings made inside Mormon temples, where the men wear white robes, Masonic-type aprons, and what look like flat bakers' hats with that poofy thing on top.Both are false religions made by man so it's unsurprising temporal evils stain them. The Masonic iconography/symbology seems to permeate these worldly cults.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpTrNXQXChI
Yuck.
The whole world holds that CÖVÌD 19 is an existential threat to the human race. The whole world holds that the vaccines are safe. The whole world holds that Catholic doctrine can evolve and even contradict what was previously believed. No one is disputing that the Novus Ordo sect contradicts traditional Catholic doctrine. So the burden of proof is on you to prove that a true pope can overthrow Catholic doctrine. All the doctors of the Church say it is not possible. You have to prove that all the doctors are wrong. St Robert is not on your side. He believed that God would never allow a true pope to fall into heresy. But he admitted that if he were wrong about that, a heretical pope would ipso facto lose his office. But no doctor or father of the Church ever believed or taught that a manifest heretic could be ELECTED to the Roman See. That's insanity. Almost as insane as you calling Whoregαy, "Your Holiness". So you have to argue either a) Whoregαy isn't heretical or b) all the doctors of the Church were wrong when they taught that a heretical pope would ipso facto lose office. (See St Robert, St Alphonsus and St Francis de Sales among others). But how are you going to prove that a manifest heretic could be ELECTED to the Roman See? Or that once elected, the heretic's claim on the Roman See is a dogmatic fact? The gig is up, Sean. The notorious Siscoe and Salza are sunk. For the sake of your own sanity, you need to break out of the Stockholm Syndrome attitude that has entangled you with a disgusting perverted heretic who claims the Roman See. His claim is no more believable (nay, less believable) than Pope Michael's claim in Kansas. Anyone who thinks Whoregαy is the pope is certifiable.The sedes look at this whole thing with sede eyes, By that I mean they engage a strictly sede mindset to all these things, and then they see only what they already believe, and what they do not believe, they do not see. That's just the way it is, I am not making this up.
Louis Verrecchio's take on Frank's Motu Proprio
via akaCatholic (https://akacatholic.com/breaking-bergoglio-abrogates-the-tlm-itself/):
Vatican Council II, while it reaffirmed the external bonds of incorporation in the Church — the profession of faith, the sacraments, of communion — affirmed with St. Augustine that to remain in the Church not only “with the body” but also “with the heart” is a condition for salvation.
This Motu is pure evil.
This Motu is pure evil.Of course, just like the guy who wrote it.
No. Ratzinger's motu was pure evil. He deceived people about the Conciliar Sect of Antichrist. With Bergoglio people have better chance to see what the Conciliar Sect is.
Well, they both were. Just because Bergoglio's manifestation of the evil makes it clear, this doesn't mean it wasn't an expression of evil.I tend to believe the official severing was in Lumen Gentium when Montini claimed the "Church" subsists in Christ's Church.
Regardless, we see R&R circling the wagons here and claiming that Bergoglio did not abrogate the Tridentine Mass. I think it's time to commit some of these folks to a mental institution. Whether Bergoglio was abrogating the Catholic Mass depends on "what the meaning of 'is' is". Their desperation is pathetic to behold.
This docuмent represents the OFFICIAL severing of the Conciliar Church from Tradition.
I tend to believe the official severing was in Lumen Gentium when Montini claimed the "Church" subsists in Christ's Church.
No, that was just bad doctrine. In fact, many Traditional Catholics (those who believe that non-Catholics can be saved) do in fact believe in a subsistence ecclesiology.Regardless of what many believe, how is it not an explicit denial of Outside the Church there is no Salvation? I still think that is when the actual moment the departure happened. Bergoglio is just wrapping it up in a pretty bow.
What I'm talking about is it being made explicit. Before you had JP2 and Ratzinger tripping over themselves trying to "reconcile" V2 with Tradition. At least they paid lip service to Tradition. Here Bergoglio explicitly and openly repudiates it.
Regardless of what many believe, how is it not an explicit denial of Outside the Church there is no Salvation? I still think that is when the actual moment the departure happened. Bergoglio is just wrapping it up in a pretty bow.
Here's why I think that the Modernist Heretics finally pulled the trigger.This seems like a good analysis.
They were getting increasingly concerned that the Motu crowd were growing in numbers. Originally it was intended as a fly trap to suck those back into the Conciliar institution who might otherwise be inclined to become Traditional Catholics. But it was working in the opposite direction.
It was intended to make Traditional Catholics less Traditional. Instead, it was causing Conciliar Catholics to become more Traditional, and it was also serving as a "gateway" to true Traditional Catholicism. That's why there's this huge emphasis on not having any more, not having newly-ordained priests offer the Tridentine Mass, etc. They were worried about the growth of the Motarian movement and its slouching toward Tradition.
This seems like a good analysis.
Well, I won’t be forced to attend it or accept Vat. II, I cannot be re-educated, and no more TLM makes no practical difference in my life, at least. I have no access to true Mass or Sacraments as it has been intermittently since 2018, and entirely since March 2020.PM me please
This lays out exactly what I've been saying.Same as all the conciliar popes, this is nothing new. The only thing new is he says it a bit more clearly than the other popes, but just a bit.
It's very obvious that Bergoglio was attempting/intending to abrogate the Tridentine Mass, and at the same time he declared those who considered V2 and the NOM illegitimate to be outside the Church.
Yeah, I notice that a lot of the provisions were deliberately geared toward prevent further growth in the Motarian movement.Very interesting story. I believe Father Carley is still around, is that correct?
I recall that some of the early Indult regulations permitted attendance only for older Catholics who were alive before V2.
When I first started attending the Tridentine Mass, it was an Indult Mass offered by an old priest. He told us that the bishop asked if any people under (I think the age was 30 at the time) were attending the Mass, and he said that he responded to the bishop, "I don't know, since I have my back to the congregation the entire time." So the Cleveland bishop wanted to limit attendance just to the older crowd and didn't want the younger generation exposed to the Mass. In fact, the Indult Mass was held in the chapel of a nursing home.
It was only once a month in the afternoon. One Sunday, an older gentleman approached us and told us that we could have the Tridentine Mass every week ... at the chapel of Fr. Carley in Akron. So we finally went, and never looked back on the Novus Ordo. There's enough of that going on where the Modernists are increasingly concerned.
And I bet they're also worried about the influence that a +Vigano might have on the Motarians, convincing them perhaps that it's OK for a Catholic to repudiate Vatican II and the NOM. I wonder, with regard to the timing of this, if +Vigano's emergence didn't play into it.
Very interesting story. I believe Father Carley is still around, is that correct?
I doubt it. Most of the people who go to approved TLM’s do so because they have scruples regarding the canonical issues, and therefore, forced to choose between the SSPX or EWTN-style NOM’s, will choose the latter 8/10 times.
Judging from the comments below the Remnant article (in which most are now contemplating heading for the Eastern Rite churches; not many saying they will go SSPX), I was right:
https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/5472-we-resist-francis-to-his-face-pachamama-pope-anathematizes-latin-mass (https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/5472-we-resist-francis-to-his-face-pachamama-pope-anathematizes-latin-mass)
No, I'm the one who said they would head toward Eastern Rite rather than the NOM.
I posted that the number going to SSPX would be higher than your prediction of 20% (that part remains to be seen) and that many of the rest would gravitate toward the Eastern Rites (rather than NOM).
You're even wrong about having been right.
If I had to guess numbers, I would say:My guess:
30% toward SSPX
50% toward Eastern Rites
18% NOM
2% Sedevacantist
Yes, he's about, I think, 85, and still offers daily Mass and confession ... solid as rock. Apart from when he was out for a few weeks with hip replacement (which is fatal to many elderly), I don't think he's missed a day in over 30 years. He still goes out to mow his own grass and do yardwork and gardening. Until recently, he would drive about 3 hours every Sunday to Wheeling, VA to take care of a small chapel there. He ran a school for about 15 years, but that's no longer in service.Sounds like a great priest. Not many of them left.
Until the SSPX consecrated bishops, he would get his holy oils from Bishop McKenna. He's not at all hostile to sedevacantism, believes that the NO is certainly invalid. When a Novus Ordo hospital chaplain tried to give Communion to one of his "parishioners", he excoriated him for bringing invalid hosts.
So, I was on his "Board of Trustees" for a while there, but I resigned after Father wanted us to sign papers leaving his chapel to the SSPX. He felt it was the best option to ensure that the people there would be taken care of. I warned him that the SSPX would likely sell the property and tell everyone to just go to St. Peregrine. He just felt as though he had no choice, but I politely declined to sign the papers and resigned from the Board.
So, during his hip surgery, he needed a replacement and asked the SSPX. SSPX hemmed and hawed and then finally offered to send a priest for like a 3PM Mass for a couple weeks. He threatened to take the SSPX off his property will. So on Christmas day, Bishop Tissier showed up for the 9AM Mass. Money talks for the SSPX. But Father was NOT happy, since that was a harbinger of things to come when he passes away.
So, I recently heard from my brother ... and I don't have all the details ... but the SSPX tried to extort $250,000 from Father Carley. SSPX St. Peregrine chapel is building a new church (quite a bit closer to his chapel) and evidently the rectory/priory there alone will cost $500,000. So they told Father they wanted half of that amount from him as a condition for taking care of his chapel in the future. St. Peregrine is another story. They had raised close to a million dollars over the years in various fund-raising campaigns for a new church, but those funds evaporated ("embezzled" away so to speak by the SSPX, probably diverted to the seminary project). So they had to start over again with a new fundraiser for the new chapel. Lots of shady stuff going on there. I'll try to get details on this latest extortion attempt.
Father Carley is incredibly frugal ... to a fault perhaps. I remember serving Mass and having to be alert lest his candles burned down so low that they would tip over (and potentially start a fire). He burned those things down to nothing. So Father has a lot of capital saved away from over the years, and the SSPX want to get their hands on it. Over the years, he acquired a couple of the homes adjacent to the church and used them for various purposes, such as where the Brothers who taught at the school lived, and at a different time a couple of sisters. One of them is a really nice house.
I should think that the Resistance might get in touch with him, since Father Carley is absolutely of The Resistance mindset (even borderline sedevacantist). He's actually on very friendly terms with Father Jenkins (who has a chapel in the Cleveland area). Not only does Fr. Jenkins not have any issues with his people going to Fr. Carley's for Mass, but a woman from his chapel actually taught at Father Carley's school for several years.
Father Carley is a very simple man, and not much for theological discussion. All he knows is "Novus Ordo bad and not Catholic. New Mass invalid and displeasing to God."
The only good thing about this is that hopefully (wishful thinking), the people who wanted the Society of St. Pius X to join Rome realize how bad of an idea it would've been.
Either that or they're a complete idiot.
No:You’re kidding right? You’re like a child. :facepalm:
On p.8 of this thread, I predicted that faced with SSPX vs EWTN-style NOM alternatives, most would opt for the latter because of hang-ups about canonical issues.
A couple posts later, Stanley predicted that many would go Byzantine, to which I agreed.
You’re kidding right? You’re like a child. :facepalm:
The sede cries in pain as he strikes you!You need to work on charity and pride, friend.
You need to work on charity and pride, friend.
The sede cries in pain as he strikes you!Pride. I'll pray for you.
Pride. I'll pray for you.
The sede cries in pain as he strikes you!
Father Carley is a very simple man, and not much for theological discussion. All he knows is "Novus Ordo bad and not Catholic. New Mass invalid and displeasing to God."Sounds like the essence of the Traditional Movement right there, from 1970 - present.
My guess:My guess, in short term a little will change https://www.ncregister.com/cna/archbishop-cordileone-traditional-latin-mass-will-continue-in-san-francisco
10% SSPX
35% Eastern
55% NOM
0% sede
0% Resistance
Here's why I think that the Modernist Heretics finally pulled the trigger.Young people who weren't around/don't remember pre-Summorum are going to be too blackpilled. I think the young people in particular are going to go SV or SSPX, a lot of older people who've had this whiplash multiple times will just go NO.
They were getting increasingly concerned that the Motu crowd were growing in numbers. Originally it was intended as a fly trap to suck those back into the Conciliar institution who might otherwise be inclined to become Traditional Catholics. But it was working in the opposite direction.
It was intended to make Traditional Catholics less Traditional. Instead, it was causing Conciliar Catholics to become more Traditional, and it was also serving as a "gateway" to true Traditional Catholicism. That's why there's this huge emphasis on not having any more, not having newly-ordained priests offer the Tridentine Mass, etc. They were worried about the growth of the Motarian movement and its slouching toward Tradition.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1GyCN_rDuwGetting fresh blood in the door that puts money in the plate is going to be an issue. In the next 20 years or so I wouldn't be surprised if they introduced some sort of Summorum thing again just to get a financial base situated once the boomers and silents are all gone. You'd think they would have been more worried about money rather than ideology but that shows just how wicked this motu is.
I didn't see if this was posted here, but everyone knows about TM. I had no idea there were 41 Latin Masses in Detroit. That's a lot! I thought New York was good with less than ten.
Question: I know that red pill and blue pill came from the decision to see reality from the Matrix movie. But what is black pill?A hopeless pill. In this case, they wouldn't be able to reconcile the VII sect with reality. Ultimately taking a blackpill conclusion but not despairing pushes you towards the right direction.
My guess:I don't know anymore about how things will go down than you but I will say that the CMRI chapel in Salem, NH has doubled in attendance in the past 18 months.
10% SSPX
35% Eastern
55% NOM
0% sede
0% Resistance
(https://akacatholic.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Bergoglian-Operation-2.jpg):laugh2: :laugh2: Thanks, for the laugh.
I wait in eager anticipation of +Vigano's responses.Yes, not to mention the reactions to said responses.
Also, I'm curious about what the SSPX will say about this.
Father Carley should call the CMRI.
Yes, he's about, I think, 85, and still offers daily Mass and confession ... solid as rock. Apart from when he was out for a few weeks with hip replacement (which is fatal to many elderly), I don't think he's missed a day in over 30 years. He still goes out to mow his own grass and do yardwork and gardening. Until recently, he would drive about 3 hours every Sunday to Wheeling, VA to take care of a small chapel there. He ran a school for about 15 years, but that's no longer in service.Er... Wheeling is in West Virginia. Totally different state. This said, it is in that weird skinny strip that juts up between Ohio and Pennsylvania. It borders Ohio, and Pennsylvania is about five miles away to the east. Conflating Virginia and West Virginia can cause issues if one ever visits the latter.
Until the SSPX consecrated bishops, he would get his holy oils from Bishop McKenna. He's not at all hostile to sedevacantism, believes that the NO is certainly invalid. When a Novus Ordo hospital chaplain tried to give Communion to one of his "parishioners", he excoriated him for bringing invalid hosts.
So, I was on his "Board of Trustees" for a while there, but I resigned after Father wanted us to sign papers leaving his chapel to the SSPX. He felt it was the best option to ensure that the people there would be taken care of. I warned him that the SSPX would likely sell the property and tell everyone to just go to St. Peregrine. He just felt as though he had no choice, but I politely declined to sign the papers and resigned from the Board.
So, during his hip surgery, he needed a replacement and asked the SSPX. SSPX hemmed and hawed and then finally offered to send a priest for like a 3PM Mass for a couple weeks. He threatened to take the SSPX off his property will. So on Christmas day, Bishop Tissier showed up for the 9AM Mass. Money talks for the SSPX. But Father was NOT happy, since that was a harbinger of things to come when he passes away.
So, I recently heard from my brother ... and I don't have all the details ... but the SSPX tried to extort $250,000 from Father Carley. SSPX St. Peregrine chapel is building a new church (quite a bit closer to his chapel) and evidently the rectory/priory there alone will cost $500,000. So they told Father they wanted half of that amount from him as a condition for taking care of his chapel in the future. St. Peregrine is another story. They had raised close to a million dollars over the years in various fund-raising campaigns for a new church, but those funds evaporated ("embezzled" away so to speak by the SSPX, probably diverted to the seminary project). So they had to start over again with a new fundraiser for the new chapel. Lots of shady stuff going on there. I'll try to get details on this latest extortion attempt.
Father Carley is incredibly frugal ... to a fault perhaps. I remember serving Mass and having to be alert lest his candles burned down so low that they would tip over (and potentially start a fire). He burned those things down to nothing. So Father has a lot of capital saved away from over the years, and the SSPX want to get their hands on it. Over the years, he acquired a couple of the homes adjacent to the church and used them for various purposes, such as where the Brothers who taught at the school lived, and at a different time a couple of sisters. One of them is a really nice house.
I should think that the Resistance might get in touch with him, since Father Carley is absolutely of The Resistance mindset (even borderline sedevacantist). He's actually on very friendly terms with Father Jenkins (who has a chapel in the Cleveland area). Not only does Fr. Jenkins not have any issues with his people going to Fr. Carley's for Mass, but a woman from his chapel actually taught at Father Carley's school for several years.
Father Carley is a very simple man, and not much for theological discussion. All he knows is "Novus Ordo bad and not Catholic. New Mass invalid and displeasing to God."
Enough reason to avoid the Eastern Rite.Wow. just WOW. This is rather off topic for this thread, but you said it.
My guess:
10% SSPX
35% Eastern
55% NOM
0% sede
0% Resistance
(https://im.rediff.com/sports/2021/jul/16maradona1.JPG?w=670&h=900)That’s Pablo, isn’t it?
IMAGE: A fan kneels at the entrance to the first Mexico's church in memory of soccer legend Diego Maradona. Photograph: Edgard Garrido/Reuters
A pair of large vases bearing soccer balls stand at the entrance to Mexico's first Maradonian church and an image of Diego Maradona wearing a charro hat welcomes worshippers.
Inside the church, the Catholic Stations of the Cross are recreated with photos of Maradona from his childhood to emblematic meetings with the late Cuban leader Fidel Castro and Pope Francis.
Wow. just WOW. This is rather off topic for this thread, but you said it.Eh?
So, because some priests in the Eastern Catholic Churches are married, which is traditional, that's enough reason for you to avoid all the Eastern Churches, and to say so in a public forum and de facto recommend that to your followers.
Just just judgements, Matthew.
The Roman Rite also has married priests. Including the SSPX.
And the Roman Rite lacks the culture the Eastern Churches has to facilitate married priests.
While the practical considerations you raise are valid, I have to disagree with your first statement.Furthermore, considering that the Church *HAS* (for better or worse) allowed this, presumably God can and will take their dual vocation into account when judging their soul.
Firstly, the Church has always allowed it for the Eastern Rites. Secondly, whether the priest can save his soul is between him and God.
In many Traditional Catholic chapels, the priests show up for two-three hours per week, hear Confessions, offer Mass, and then get on a flight to the next place.
So as far as that chapel is concerned, the priests is VERY "part-time". So what's the difference between that and having a priest for, say, 40 hours per week?
If people need the Sacraments, and if the priest has the Catholic faith, etc. then his being married is not "enough" reason to avoid the Eastern Rite.
There are in fact SOME pluses. Priests who have to deal with their wife and children might be in a better position to understand some of the dynamics involved when people come to them with marital problems and problems with their kids.
No. Ratzinger's motu was pure evil. He deceived people about the Conciliar Sect of Antichrist. With Bergoglio people have a better chance to see what the Conciliar Sect is.Got to ask, who's that guy in the upper right-hand corner?
(https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=62924.0;attach=15758;image)
Er... Wheeling is in West Virginia. Totally different state. This said, it is in that weird skinny strip that juts up between Ohio and Pennsylvania. It borders Ohio, and Pennsylvania is about five miles away to the east. Conflating Virginia and West Virginia can cause issues if one ever visits the latter.
But as to the important part, I have met Fr Carley before, he used to offer Holy Mass at the fire station in Cross Lanes, West Virginia (suburban Charleston), and I was traveling through the area and stayed overnight one time, 1996 IIRC. Outstanding priest. May he remain healthy in length of years.
I’m surprised that no one thinks the “resistance” will pick up faithful?
These resistance trads can be grouped as Resistance ex-SSPX and independent chapel trads.
Those Catholics who can discern the compromises of the indult Mass (including FFSP and ICK) and the corruption of the Society.
They are mostly independent chapel trads.
A couple of trad men I know have been courting conservative Novus ordo ladies. In each case, the women are negotiating for the indult Mass as a middle ground compromise.
I would think Bergolio’s TLM ban would destroy the indult option and prove to the ladies that newChurch is degenerate?
Lastly, if no Catholics are coming to resistance chapels, it can only mean we failed in communicating our position.
And WE are responsible from the top (Bp. Williamson) to the bottom (Sean Johnson).
Sorry to pick on you Sean :popcorn:
Yes, I know it’s WV. Just a typo as I was typing very fast. I drove Fr. Carley down there a couple times ... while he took the opportunity to pray his breviary.OK, it's just that people get that wrong all the time, and West Virginians are very militant about their identity and their unique way of life. It's about as "red state" as you can imagine.
We had a really great sermon on this MP today at my SSPX chapel - it was a great surprise as I did not expect so much as a word to be said about it - glad I was totally wrong! I personally was not the least bit concerned with it to begin with since it is nothing but old news that is simply repeated by another pope, but I am pretty sure if any people in the congregation were concerned, after this sermon they're not any more, or at least they shouldn't be.
Same.Not sure but it would surprise me if more than a few from my chapel would leave. But if the pope did that, I'd be looking forward to another fiery sermon ha ha!
But I wonder what would happen to those who showed up only because Francis gave jurisdiction for confessions, if now he revoked ordinary jurisdiction?
I think Bergolio’s dream scenario was to get all the Trads under the SSPX umbrella. He tried nicely initially, and when that got him nowhere, he decided to go Hardball.
I still believe he wants all the Trads under one roof, and once he does, he will excommunicate the Society.
It is rather telling when the SSPX’s “science” priest (Paul Robinson) announces recently, that the biggest threat to the Catholic Faith... is the trad Resistance.
Agree. The new-sspx is still filled with Modernists, who want to be part of new-rome, but have yet to convince the laity. Until the new-sspx leadership is ousted, we can't be sure what direction the organization will go.True, but who knows? Maybe the MP will/has emboldened formerly timid opponents of a practical accord? Reports are now coming in from all over that formerly docile yes-men priests are blasting Roman modernists and V2 today.
Thats funny. Because his sermon this morning at my chapel said nothing of the sort. Rather, he very passionately advocated for tradition despite the choice of Modernist Rome to attack tradition once more.
It is rather telling when the SSPX’s “science” priest (Paul Robinson) announces recently, that the biggest threat to the Catholic Faith... is the trad Resistance.
Thats funny. Because his sermon this morning at my chapel said nothing of the sort. Rather, he very passionately advocated for tradition despite the choice of Modernist Rome to attack tradition once more.
We had a really great sermon on this MP today at my SSPX chapel - it was a great surprise as I did not expect so much as a word to be said about it - glad I was totally wrong! I personally was not the least bit concerned with it to begin with since it is nothing but old news that is simply repeated by another pope, but I am pretty sure if any people in the congregation were concerned, after this sermon they're not any more, or at least they shouldn't be.Could you provide a brief rundown of the main points? I would have been interested to hear this sort of thing.
In fact, his offensive was warning sign that the SSPX had covertly regularized with Francis.I'm not convinced, especially based on what he said today. He preached the same conclusion that many of you have drawn: the SSPX is back to the position it had during the 70s and 80s. He denounced Francis's decision, promoted resistance to the conciliar Church, tore apart the New Mass as evil, and expressed his concern over how the FSSP and ICKSP are going to fare going forward. Nothing he said this morning betrayed a conspiracy of collusion with Francis and the Vatican.
It’s not a coincidence that this regularization was timed with Francis’s pulling the plug on the indulted TLM.
I'm not sure what that provision means. It'll probably be the cause of much confusion. On the face of it, 90% of all the diocesan Motu Masses would have to be shut down ... as of this coming Sunday. I doubt that's going to happen. But we'll see. I believe that the intent is for the establishment of NEW groups and that the older ones seem grandfathered in ... provided that the Bishop determines they're not hostile to the NOM. What that means is also vague. One bishop might just ask the priest, "Are you against the NOM?" Answer: "no". Bishop: "OK". I'm sure you'll find about 50% of Motarians who are hostile to the NOM. Will each attendee be investigated and forced to sign a paper pledging allegiance to the NOM, to Bergoglio, and to Pachamama worship?It certainly seems confused, barring it from regular parishes, limiting it to 'personal parishes' but most dioceses have no other churches but regular parish churches. Some places have big disused basilicas or oratories or chapels which might be given to ICKSP, but most don't. It might allow some to attempt a full suppression, especially for newer Francis appointees who found at lot of TLM in their new dioceses.
At the end of the day, it'll just be whatever the bishop wants to do ... as it always has been.
Could you provide a brief rundown of the main points? I would have been interested to hear this sort of thing.Main points he touched on the MP does not affect us nor does it affect faithful Catholics, the MP is just another assault aimed at ridding the True Mass for the new mass, which is a prot service, he really stressed we must strive to be strong in and wholly and faithfully Catholic, he spoke of the Scholastic Period, which is summed up in the Summa that we should read/study it to learn/strengthen our faith better. He explained why the latest attack on the true Mass via the MP does not affect faithful Catholics, we are not traditional Catholics, we are Catholics, they are conciliar but not Catholic, he went on in a little more detail about that. He talked about how there is no salvation outside of the Church so they (the conciliarists) don't stand a chance unless they convert before they die, being outside of the Church, they in fact are the ones who have the sword of Damocles hanging over their head and that's how we should view them, he went on about that for a bit. That we need to be firm in the faith to never have the slightest doubt that it's just a matter of when, not if the conciliar church will lose miserably and the MP aids them in this coming failure, that the gates of hell will never prevail.
Father Robinson came to St. Benedict’s Church in Louisville several summers ago to announce from the pulpit that there is no salvation outside the SSPX.I think I was there at that time, I know I met him, his mother introduced me to him, and yes I agree with you re: his idea of what tradition means - but per DL, it sounds as if he may have modified this idea. Hard to say for sure, this MP seems to have lit a fire under a few of the SSPX priests.
Therefore, when he uses the word “tradition” he means the Society’s version of tradition.
Even Ratzinger's Motu left it to the bishops.
Ratzinger: permitted unless denied.
We should pray that it is now time for the liberals to retreat.
With the hopes of a deal now gone, maybe they’ll just leave for the dioceses or FSSP?
I'm not convinced, especially based on what he said today. He preached the same conclusion that many of you have drawn: the SSPX is back to the position it had during the 70s and 80s. He denounced Francis's decision, promoted resistance to the conciliar Church, tore apart the New Mass as evil, and expressed his concern over how the FSSP and ICKSP are going to fare going forward. Nothing he said this morning betrayed a conspiracy of collusion with Francis and the Vatican.
I'm not a fan of his creation theology, but I'm not going to trash the man completely.
Nothing he said this morning betrayed a conspiracy of collusion with Francis and the Vatican.
Please provide the evidence for this.
Sermon of Fr. Davide Pagliarani (in Italian)No parlo italiano (beyond just a few words, I can hack my way through simple written Italian and kinda-sorta get the gist of it).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuSxocg9Wt4
Xavier has entered the thread.
Interesting discussion about what Tradition means.
So, the original Modernists held that Tradition can be understood differently as time goes by.
But the neo-Modernists put a layer of misdirection on it. "Yes, Tradition, but you have to understand it the way the Church understands it." ... and then proceed to impose their understanding onto it, claiming it's the Church's.
Thus you get where EENS actually means the opposite of EENS, so that if you hold fast to the actual words, it's heretical. If you say that heretics, schismatics, infidels, etc. cannot be saved, you're actually a heretic ... despite the fact that it's precisely what the text says. "See the Church understands by EENS that heretics and infidels CAN be saved, you silly heretic, you."
As various Modernist theologians put spins on things, that "theological consensus" became "how the Church understands it". Which is where Cekadism falls apart.
Sermon of Fr. Davide Pagliarani (in Italian)Why is he so happy? Soon to be an approved Pope Francis bishop?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuSxocg9Wt4
This is correct and and the lashing out by likes of Fr. Robinson is not likely motivated by faith, but bitterness and spite at having been jilted. The Neo-SSPX has spent the last decade pursuing a whore, only for that same femme fatale to tell him she is no longer interested in playing with him. "But look at all I have done (compromised) for you" said Bishop Beta, "surely I must have earned your approval to be let in."
Therefore, when he uses the word “tradition” he means the Society’s version of tradition.
It’s the compromised milieu of tradition that endorses soft-science computer geeks to proclaim the “Big Bang” theory as a valid interpretation of the book of Genesis.
Rome is in apostasy. It is the counter church of hell. It embraces mortal sin. Over 50 percent of Catholics in USA either don’t their faith or reject their faith. I don’t want any part of it. And it doesn’t make me or anyone sede because we didnt leave the Catholic Church;
The Catholic Church left us.
Over 50 percent of Catholics in USA either don’t their faith or reject their faith.
No, the number is over 90% ... based on various polling data.
No, the number is over 90% ... based on various polling data.NO. 100% of Catholic have the Catholic Faith. It's part of the very definition of being Catholic. It's that the Church is has only 10% of the membership it used to have.
Outer Court versus Inner Court Catholicism.(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse4.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.cL3TTbgLBDYnjj101VWMTgHaFY%26pid%3DApi&f=1)
Rome is in apostasy. It is the counter church of hell. It embraces mortal sin. [Well] over 50 percent of [supposed] Catholics in USA either don’t their faith or reject their faith. I don’t want any part of it. And it doesn’t make me or anyone sede because we didnt leave the Catholic Church; the [Novus Ordo antichurch] left us.