Author Topic: Fr. Wathen takes on the New Mass  (Read 2336 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline OldMerry

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 239
  • Reputation: +197/-39
  • Gender: Male
Fr. Wathen takes on the New Mass
« on: January 06, 2017, 09:30:19 PM »
  • Thanks!7
  • No Thanks!0
  • THE LOSS OF THE OLD MASS

    It is Well knoWn that I am one of the few priests alive who have raised the issue of the morality of the Novus Ordo Missae. It is rather curious that most Traditionalist priests avoid this issue as if it were an infectious virus. The issue, however, cannot be avoided because it is absolutely basic and essential to our unhappy situation as disenfranchised Catholics; basic, because the morality of any act is the first thing a human being, as a creature of God, must determine: is this act a sin or not? After this question has been answered, other questions can be addressed: is this act advisable, dangerous, ridiculous, etc.?

    The question is essential because every Catholic of the Roman Rite must decide what he is going to do in the present crisis in the Church, and where he is going to Mass is the central question. That every Catholic must go to Holy Mass is a most serious obligation; those who exempt themselves will have to answer God for it, and He will not be bedazzled by anyone’s homegrown theology. I repeat for the sake of emphasis that everyone must assist at Mass on all Sundays and holydays, if he can reasonably do so.

    The most often he cannot, the more urgent it is that he do so the following Sunday. A person may not exempt himself if Mass is available, that is if Mass is being offered with due reverence by a validly ordained priest. The priest’s faulty theology does not exempt the lay person, as priests cannot be expected to be infallible and, whatever their real or imagined learning, lay people, with proper humility, must put it aside, in order to offer due worship to almighty God.

    The single exception is a case in which the priest requires that those in attendance formally assent to some theological aberration, such as “the three baptism,” or “Sedevacantism,” or the priest’s juridical authority over all present, or the authority and Catholicity of the Second Vatican Council, or the acceptableness of the New Mass, or something of this kind. Any theological reasoning which exempts a Catholic from attending Mass when he could and should be there is of the Devil.

    In 1970, despite my theological limitations, I presumed to treat the morality of the New Mass in the book, The Great Sacrilege. Since, then, I have made an effort to convince everyone I spoke to that, under pain of mortal sin, he must not go to the New Mass for any reason whatsoever, even for weddings, funerals, and such things. The number of traditionalist Catholics who accept this position is probably in exact proportion to the priests who maintain it, which is very few.

    I bring the subject up here on the chance that some read these e-mails who have never come to grips with the issue, because their priests refuse to do so. I have simplified my argument over the years, because the question has been reduced to this: either saying the New Mass or attending is a mortal sin of sacrilege, or it is not. If it is a mortal sin, then it is a mortal sin always, like perjury and grand larceny. There are no situations nor conditions when attendance is not sinful. If saying the New Mass, or attending it, is not mortally sinful, then it is a good and obligatory act, and all are bound to be content with it, regardless of its innumerable faults.

     If the New Mass is not intrinsically bad, it is intrinsically good – it is now in all its renderings and evolutionary mutations the Mass of the Roman Rite, and the Church has the right to command us to accept it as such. Interestingly, priests who refuse to pronounce the New Mass a sacrilege protest that they would not offer the New Mass under the threat of death, presumably because to do so would be a grave compromise of their faith. They must answer why offering the New Mass is a totally different moral species from attending it. Such priests advise against, even warn against, going to the New Mass, but they do not forbid it under pain of serious sin.

    They classify the New Mass as “an occasion of sin,” by which they mean that at the New Mass, attendants hear things and see things which could be detrimental to their faith. Our arguments against the New Mass, the reasons we contend that it is a sacrilege, may be termed external and internal. The external argument is the Apostolic Constitution Quo Primum of Pope St. Pius V. For the honest person, there is not the slightest chance that the rulings and anathemas of this pontifical bull do not apply to the Novus Ordo Missae; if the law can be broken, those who gave us the New Mass broke it!

     Neither can the condemnations issued therein be construed as anything other or less than authoritative and mortal. The only counter argument that revolutionists in the Church ever brought against this conclusion is that “what Pope Pius V established, Pope Paul VI could legally put aside, override, abrogate, annul, etc.” This argument puts most people to silence, because they did not know how to say, or that they could and should say: this defense is entirely false! One pope cannot annul any and every law promulgated by any and all his predecessors back to St. Peter. As anyone with any sense would say: obviously, there are some things which a pope may change and some things he may not. The seriousness of the matter decides the case.

     Pope St. Pius V indicates in the strongest language possible that this law could most certainly never be contravened or set aside by his successors. I give a couple of examples:

    Furthermore, by these presents, in virtue of Our Apostolic authority, we grant and concede in perpetuity that, for the changing or reading of the Mass in any church [of the Roman Rite] whatsoever, this Missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment, or censure, and may freely and lawfully be used. Nor are superiors, administrators, canons, chaplains, and other secular priests, or religious, of whatever order or by whatever title designated, obliged to celebrate the Mass otherwise than as enjoined by Us. We likewise declare and ordain that no one whosoever is to be forced or coerced to alter this Missal, and that this present document cannot be revoked or modified, but remain always valid and retain its full force. Therefore, no one whosoever is permitted to alter this letter or heedlessly to venture to go contrary to this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, precept, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition. Should anyone, however, presume to commit such an act, he should know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul [the special patrons of the Roman Rite]. – Apostolic Constitution Quo Primum of Pope St. Pius V; July 14, 1570


    Anyone who says that these words do not mean what they say and have no perpetual binding force is saying that there are no words which have such force. He is saying, furthermore, that a sinister and revolutionary pope, such as Pope Paul VI was, can legally, though not morally,
    abrogate all the laws of the Church, except those relating to the natural law and the Ten Commandments, and every Catholic is bound in conscience to accept this. In a word, the Church has no way to establish anything in perpetuity, nor any way to defend itself against enemies within its bosom.

    It should not be necessary, but I insert here that, with regard to the Mass, one should not introduce the subject of papal infallibility, as it is non-applicable in this case. Papal infallibility has to do with teaching, not deciding liturgical matters, even the Divine Liturgy itself. The internal argument against the New Mass is a consideration of what the New Mass is. It should be sufficient to say that the New Mass is not the Old Mass; it is not merely a translation of the Old Mass; it is not a revision or an update, or a modernization of the Old Mass. It is not even a corrupted form of the Old Mass. It is a new thing, a new form, a new creation.

    Regardless of its resemblance to the Old Mass, it is not a “Mass” at all but a weapon! The reason we are able to say this is that the theology of the New Mass is completely different from the Old Mass. Its purpose – its reason for being – is completely different and positively antithetic to the Old Mass. Unless a person is able to grasp and accept this fact, he will continue to deny that it is a sacrilege, and maintain that he and everyone else may attend it as his whimsy directs him.

     The purpose of the Old Mass is to offer the sacrifice of Calvary anew in a sacramental ritual. The central and supreme purpose of the New Mass is to destroy the Old Mass by muscling it out of existence. A second and ancillary purpose of the New Mass is to teach the people the anti-religion of the Conciliar Revolution: the humanism, modernism, liberalism, and anti-Catholicism of the Council. That it has accomplished its purposes is proved by the condition of the Church today.

    That it is what those who instituted the New Mass intended is proved by the fact that, in the face of the destruction of the faith of the people, they continue to promote and protect the New Mass with their juridical power, and to persecute those who hold fast to the traditional Faith. And they continue adamantly to perpetuate the lie that the old and true Mass has been banned.

     The great problem many people have is seeing things that they are looking at. There is little or no harm in such blindness or obscurantism in the case of lesser matters, such as not perceiving that “modern art” is anti-art, or not recognizing that America is a socialist police state. Not seeing the deliberate and determined drive to destroy the Mass, when the fact is so blatant and undeniable, is gravely culpable. The chief difficulty in not seeing the obvious in this case is that the perpetrators are the popes, bishops, and the priests of the last thirty-six years. One must put aside all consideration of the supposed eminence and honorableness of those who have brought such evils upon us and focus on the evils themselves, beginning with the Novus Ordo Missae. A much more serious problem is that many people, even at this late date, do not know of the existence of the World Conspiracy which is masterminded by Satan himself. Satan wants to destroy all things good, but especially the supernatural life of men who are one with Christ in the Church. The way to destroy this life of grace is to destroy their faith and the holy Mass, which is our primary source of grace. The Mass is that act by which the mystical Christ, the “Whole Christ,” to use St. Augustine’s expression, Christ, the eternal high priest, with all those who are one with Him by Baptism and the Eucharist, offers His incarnate divinity to the Father in adoration and love.

     This ritual act, celebrated in countless places all over the world, was the source of all the grace which men received through the Holy Ghost for their conversion and salvation. Before the New Mass, this Mass was offered in hundreds of thousands of churches and chapels everywhere. “From the rising of the sun till the going down thereof,” Christ offered Himself for men, in atonement, in supplication, and in worship. Due to the New Mass, with the exception of those priests and people who dare to defy the True Mass-haters who have temporary control of things, the true Sacrifice has been swept from the earth.

     What is called the New Mass is more offensive to God than all the Protestant services and pagan rites of the world, because it mimics and mocks the all-holy Sacrifice, and perfidiously deceives those in attendance at the same time. It is the superlative act of lawlessness and hypocrisy, pretending to be a prayer, when it is nothing but a burlesque and a charade.

     That is what it is, regardless of the good intentions of the presiding clergyman and his trusting people. A great degree of the evil of the New Mass is in its deception of well-meaning people, although after so long a time very little excuse can be made for them. If all the light throughout the world were to be extinguished, so that there was only darkness both day and night, it would not be a greater tragedy than the suppression of the true Mass. This has been the Devil’s ambition and goal since the Last Supper: to rid the world of the hated Sacrifice, against which he is powerless.

     Nothing could be more offensive to God or injurious to men than what our religious superiors have done. Consider all the sins of the world: all the blasphemies, the impurities, the cruelties, the incessant, needless wars, the murders, the divorces, the abortions, the lies, the betrayals, the abandonment of God, and on and on. All these things are nothing compared to the loss of the Holy Mass, because it is through the Mass that forgiveness and mercy is gained for the world; it is through the Mass that God is worthily honored despite all.

    Offline Jovita

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 274
    • Reputation: +154/-23
    • Gender: Female
    Fr. Wathen takes on the New Mass
    « Reply #1 on: January 06, 2017, 10:03:27 PM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!0
  •  "...every Catholic of the Roman Rite must decide what he is going to do in the present crisis in the Church, and where he is going to Mass is the central question..."

    I switched rites, and have almost given up hope that a legitamate Roman-rite mass will ever be normative. There is a faint hope I shall see its return before I die. May it be so.

    Thank you for posting Fr. Wathen's words.


    Offline OldMerry

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 239
    • Reputation: +197/-39
    • Gender: Male
    Fr. Wathen takes on the New Mass
    « Reply #2 on: January 06, 2017, 10:38:24 PM »
  • Thanks!4
  • No Thanks!0
  • He and Fr. Feeney are the the twin lights that God has given us as guides through this Modernist malaise, debacle, punishment - all of it.

    Offline Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 10083
    • Reputation: +3945/-946
    • Gender: Male
    Fr. Wathen takes on the New Mass
    « Reply #3 on: January 07, 2017, 07:24:05 AM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Fr, Wathen

    I have simplified my argument over the years, because the question has been reduced to this: either saying the New Mass or attending is a mortal sin of sacrilege, or it is not. If it is a mortal sin, then it is a mortal sin always, like perjury and grand larceny. There are no situations nor conditions when attendance is not sinful. If saying the New Mass, or attending it, is not mortally sinful, then it is a good and obligatory act, and all are bound to be content with it, regardless of its innumerable faults.


    When he writes, his words cut like a knife right to the core of the issue, exposing plain truth, bringing it out with wonderful clarity.

    Thanks for posting this!
    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man." - Fr. Hesse

    Offline Cantarella

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7782
    • Reputation: +4568/-575
    • Gender: Female
    Fr. Wathen takes on the New Mass
    « Reply #4 on: January 07, 2017, 12:12:22 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Does someone know what were Fr. Wathen thoughts on the Tridentine Missal of 1962 (used today by the SSPX, FSSP, Indult and others), which already contained significant modifications to the Tridentine Mass as codified by St. Pius V?
    If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ" Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" (Jn 3:5) let him be anathema.


    Offline TKGS

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4624
    • Reputation: +3950/-395
    • Gender: Male
    Fr. Wathen takes on the New Mass
    « Reply #5 on: January 07, 2017, 12:25:21 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Cantarella
    Does someone know what were Fr. Wathen thoughts on the Tridentine Missal of 1962 (used today by the SSPX, FSSP, Indult and others), which already contained significant modifications to the Tridentine Mass as codified by St. Pius V?


    I've never heard Fr. Wathen say anything about it, but I do know that at least one chapel founded by Fr. Wathen used the pre-1962 Missal (with the changes to Holy Week) until it was given to the SSPX and they brought in a new 1962 Missal.

    Offline OldMerry

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 239
    • Reputation: +197/-39
    • Gender: Male
    Fr. Wathen takes on the New Mass
    « Reply #6 on: January 07, 2017, 05:01:15 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • TKGS - Fr. Wathen was not happy that the 1962 missal came into existence and knew the foreboding of what it meant, but he didn't feel it affected validity. He did not teach that people should not attend a "1962" Mass. Fr. Feeney, though elderly, was very upset about the changes in the Canon, even though it be the addition of St. Joseph. He responded with alarm, "They should NEVER touch the Canon!"  

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5378
    • Reputation: +3094/-1376
    • Gender: Male
    Fr. Wathen takes on the New Mass
    « Reply #7 on: January 08, 2017, 10:51:49 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    Yet, it's okay to remain in communion with the novus ordo?

    What does it mean to be "in communion with the novus ordo"?  Where did Fr Wathen say such a thing?

    The new mass isn't binding on anyone to attend, at any time, for any reason.  There is no such church law.  The new mass is offered and accepted by 95% of catholicism, but it's a choice, it's not obligatory (see Paul VI's constitution).  There is no command to attend or say it and no penalty for avoiding it altogether.  In fact, to attend or say it is a sin against Quo Primum, the current liturgical law of the Church, as Pope Benedict told us in his motu.


    Offline Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 10083
    • Reputation: +3945/-946
    • Gender: Male
    Fr. Wathen takes on the New Mass
    « Reply #8 on: January 08, 2017, 11:44:43 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: GJC

    Is it possible Fr Wathen unwittingly believed the V2's definiton of the "Church of Christ"? Lets face if he considered atheists, destroyers of the faith, apostates, heretics as this fifth column (or traitors) IN the Catholic Church, then who is to say that all Protestants and Greek Orthodox are not in the Catholic Church also?


    I think you misunderstand Fr.'s "fifth column".

    First, wikipedia's definition:

    A fifth column is any group of people who undermine a larger group—such as a nation or a besieged city—from within, usually in favor of an enemy group or nation. The activities of a fifth column can be overt or clandestine.

    Fr. Wathen is speaking about the Catholic Church of today, that is, the Catholic Church since the revolution of V2 *within* the Church - "which gave birth to the conciliar church". One of the things the revolution begot was that the enemies got themselves right into key positions *within* the Catholic Church  - see wiki definition above.

    This is what he means when he says: "...the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church, though it is within it, like a fifth column." A few hundred pages later, he explains: "....it is within the Conciliar Establishment that one finds the historical and structural continuity of the True Church; even though they are serving Satan, those who hold ecclesiastical offices hold them legitimately."

    This is of course contrary to sedevacantism which is the reason that most (all?) sedevacantists either reject it or cannot understand it. While initially, it may or may not be challenging even for non-sedevacantists to accept, such a thing as a "fifth column" within the Church is an incomprehensible impossibility to most, if not all sedevacantists.

    Basically, the fifth column is comprised of legitimate or "true" hierarchy who are in key positions *within* the Catholic Church, preaching conciliarist heresies (again, here see wiki definition above) which have fooled and still fool most people into believing that *that's* what the Catholic Church teaches, always taught and/or approves of.      

    In Pascendi dominici gregis, pope Saint Pius X described this one and the same "fifth column" of Fr. Wathen, thus:
    For as We have said, they put their designs for her ruin into operation not from without but from within; hence, the danger is present almost in the very veins and heart of the Church, whose injury is the more certain, the more intimate is their knowledge of her.

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man." - Fr. Hesse

    Offline Cantarella

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7782
    • Reputation: +4568/-575
    • Gender: Female
    Fr. Wathen takes on the New Mass
    « Reply #9 on: January 08, 2017, 01:23:46 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Merry
    TKGS - Fr. Wathen was not happy that the 1962 missal came into existence and knew the foreboding of what it meant, but he didn't feel it affected validity. He did not teach that people should not attend a "1962" Mass. Fr. Feeney, though elderly, was very upset about the changes in the Canon, even though it be the addition of St. Joseph. He responded with alarm, "They should NEVER touch the Canon!"  


    I think the change introduced to the Prayer for the Jews, in Holy Friday, is extremely significant because it was an evident concession to the world and the rulers of, after Word War II. It opened the doors to a slippery slope of liturgical abuse which ended up with the NOM. I don't think these changes are to be taken slightly. In fact, it was a former Chief Rabbi of Rome, Eugenio Zolli, a "convert" (perhaps a marrano) to Roman Catholicism, who asked Pope Pius XII to change from the Good Friday liturgy the adjective "perfidus" in relation to the Jews. That is very suspicious. Pope Pius XII did not do it at the time; but 15 years later, Pope John XXIII did it in 1960. What has been progressively happening after WWII with these concessions is so obvious, that do not need much research or thought to see it through.

    The form used before 1955:

    Quote
    Let us pray also for the faithless Jews: that Almighty God may remove the veil from their hearts 2 Corinthians 3:13-16; so that they too may acknowledge Jesus Christ our Lord. ('Amen' is not responded, nor is said 'Let us pray', or 'Let us kneel', or 'Arise', but immediately is said:) Almighty and eternal God, who dost not exclude from thy mercy even Jewish faithlessness: hear our prayers, which we offer for the blindness of that people; that acknowledging the light of thy Truth, which is Christ, they may be delivered from their darkness. Through the same our Lord Jesus Christ, who liveth and reigneth with thee in the unity of the Holy Spirit, God, for ever and ever. Amen.[8]


    The prayer in the 62's Missal already suppressed the word "faithless" for being offensive to the Jews. That is a radical change in the traditional approach of the Church toward them for centuries, right from the start.

    This is what we have today, in the 62's Tridentine Missal:

    Quote
    Let us also pray for the Jews: That our God and Lord may illuminate their hearts, that they acknowledge Jesus Christ is the Savior of all men. (Let us pray. Kneel. Rise.) Almighty and eternal God, who want that all men be saved and come to the recognition of the truth, propitiously grant that even as the fullness of the peoples enters Thy Church, all Israel be saved. Through Christ Our Lord. Amen.


    But wait!

    "Even the new formulation met with reservations from groups such as the Anti-Defamation League. They considered the removal of "blindness" and "immersion in darkness" with respect to the Jews an improvement over the original language in the Tridentine Mass, but saw no reason why the prayer in the rite as revised by Paul VI was not used instead." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Friday_prayer_for_the_Jews)

    This is the NOM Pauline revision:

    Quote
    Let us pray for the Jewish people, the first to hear the word of God, that they may continue to grow in the love of his name and in faithfulness to his covenant. (Prayer in silence. Then the priest says:) Almighty and eternal God, long ago you gave your promise to Abraham and his posterity. Listen to your Church as we pray that the people you first made your own may arrive at the fullness of redemption. We ask this through Christ our Lord. Amen


    If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ" Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" (Jn 3:5) let him be anathema.

    Offline Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 10083
    • Reputation: +3945/-946
    • Gender: Male
    Fr. Wathen takes on the New Mass
    « Reply #10 on: January 08, 2017, 03:11:00 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: GJC

    I think you believe since St Pius X used the word "within" it means they literally are "within".


    Yes, that's how I take it. What other way is there to understand it?

    He exclaims first: "as we have said"... meaning he already described the fifth column in the preceding paragraph (paragraph #2)

    I believe that the quote from Pascendi below is actually describing the same fifth column of which Fr. Wathen wrote.

    Second, he explicitly said "not from without, but from within" - certainly he can only mean, "not from without the Catholic Church, but from within the Catholic Church."

    Quote from: Pope Pius X

    2. That We make no delay in this matter is rendered necessary especially by the fact that the partisans of error are to be sought not only among the Church's open enemies; they lie hid, a thing to be deeply deplored and feared, in her very bosom and heart, and are the more mischievous, the less conspicuously they appear. We allude, Venerable Brethren, to many who belong to the Catholic laity, nay, and this is far more lamentable, to the ranks of the priesthood itself, who, feigning a love for the Church, lacking the firm protection of philosophy and theology, nay more, thoroughly imbued with the poisonous doctrines taught by the enemies of the Church, and lost to all sense of modesty, vaunt themselves as reformers of the Church; and, forming more boldly into line of attack, assail all that is most sacred in the work of Christ, not sparing even the person of the Divine Redeemer, whom, with sacrilegious daring, they reduce to a simple, mere man.  

    3. ....For as We have said, they put their designs for her ruin into operation not from without but from within;


    So yes, he can only mean, within the Church, literally, is where they lie hid in her very bosom and heart spreading error - the fifth column.
    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man." - Fr. Hesse


    Offline Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 10083
    • Reputation: +3945/-946
    • Gender: Male
    Fr. Wathen takes on the New Mass
    « Reply #11 on: January 08, 2017, 03:53:40 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Cantarella
    Does someone know what were Fr. Wathen thoughts on the Tridentine Missal of 1962 (used today by the SSPX, FSSP, Indult and others), which already contained significant modifications to the Tridentine Mass as codified by St. Pius V?


    I have not found where he said a whole lot regarding the Holy Week change, mostly he devoted his efforts exclusively toward the Mass itself far as I know.

    In Who shall Ascend?, speaking about changing the words of the Consecration, Fr. wrote:
    Quote from: Fr. Wathen
    What we have said before, we say again: There has to be a reason. They took a great chance making this alteration [to the words of Consecration]. The whole Church should have risen up to demand an explanation. (All the changes which were made beginning with the New Holy Week Liturgy, from 1956 to 1969, conditioned everyone to accept this completely new formula.)


    He somewhat reiterates what he said above here in this 1.25 minute snip from an interview.

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man." - Fr. Hesse

    Offline OldMerry

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 239
    • Reputation: +197/-39
    • Gender: Male
    Fr. Wathen takes on the New Mass
    « Reply #12 on: January 08, 2017, 09:32:51 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • He felt the Hierarchy had the jurisdiction to alter the Holy Week liturgy (1950s) - but not the Mass.

    When he says "the Novus Ordo" - he means the Mass.  

    If he says, "Novus Ordo CHURCH" or such like, he means the New Church, Modernist Rome, whatever you want to call it.

    He was never Sedevacantist.  He never tried to take authority to himself which he did not possess.  He always used the Prayer for the conversion of the Jews in Holy Week.  He was ahead of most regarding the work of the Communists, Zionists and Masons in the Church and preached accordingly.    

    Offline MarylandTrad

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 201
    • Reputation: +216/-49
    • Gender: Male
    Fr. Wathen takes on the New Mass
    « Reply #13 on: January 10, 2017, 06:05:17 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Merry
    TKGS - Fr. Wathen was not happy that the 1962 missal came into existence and knew the foreboding of what it meant, but he didn't feel it affected validity. He did not teach that people should not attend a "1962" Mass. Fr. Feeney, though elderly, was very upset about the changes in the Canon, even though it be the addition of St. Joseph. He responded with alarm, "They should NEVER touch the Canon!"  


    I remember listening to one of the Fr. Feeney Update Radio Programs where Br. Francis M.I.C.M. said that Fr. Feeney's tone was exactly as you emphasize when he heard that they dared to touch the Canon. Br. Francis thought that Fr. Feeney would be filled with joy when he heard the news because Fr. Feeney had a great devotion to St. Joseph, but instead Fr. said that they should NEVER touch the Canon. Here is the link to the program where Br. Francis briefly talks about Fr. Feeney's thoughts on the Novus Ordo if anyone wants to download it (for a small price). http://store.catholicism.org/fr.-feeney-update-radio-programs-1.html

    I remember reading in I Know Mine and Mine Know Me Volume I that Fr. Wathen did not think what missal a traditionalist priest chooses to use is any of the layman's business. Fr. Wathen had an understanding of man's weakness and his need for the graces that come from assisting at Mass and receiving the sacraments and he was emphatic that traditionalist priests make sure that they do not do anything to scandalize the people and discourage them from going to a true Mass. The only legitimate reasons to avoid going to a true Mass being if a priest: 1. Leads one to schism (i.e. a sedevacantist). 2. Binds on the "three baptisms." 3. Is a public sinner (i.e. an indult priest who also celebrates the Novus Ordo).
    "The Blessed Eucharist means nothing to a man who thinks other people can get along without It. The Blessed Eucharist means nothing to a communicant who thinks he needs It but someone else does not. The Blessed Eucharist means nothing to a communicant who offers others any charity ahead of this Charity of the Bread of Life." -Fr. Leonard Feeney, Bread of Life

    Offline Incredulous

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5131
    • Reputation: +5873/-530
    • Gender: Male
    Fr. Wathen takes on the New Mass
    « Reply #14 on: January 10, 2017, 09:19:48 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Stubborn
    Quote from: GJC

    I think you believe since St Pius X used the word "within" it means they literally are "within".


    Yes, that's how I take it. What other way is there to understand it?

    He exclaims first: "as we have said"... meaning he already described the fifth column in the preceding paragraph (paragraph #2)

    I believe that the quote from Pascendi below is actually describing the same fifth column of which Fr. Wathen wrote.

    Second, he explicitly said "not from without, but from within" - certainly he can only mean, "not from without the Catholic Church, but from within the Catholic Church."

    Quote from: Pope Pius X

    2. That We make no delay in this matter is rendered necessary especially by the fact that the partisans of error are to be sought not only among the Church's open enemies; they lie hid, a thing to be deeply deplored and feared, in her very bosom and heart, and are the more mischievous, the less conspicuously they appear. We allude, Venerable Brethren, to many who belong to the Catholic laity, nay, and this is far more lamentable, to the ranks of the priesthood itself, who, feigning a love for the Church, lacking the firm protection of philosophy and theology, nay more, thoroughly imbued with the poisonous doctrines taught by the enemies of the Church, and lost to all sense of modesty, vaunt themselves as reformers of the Church; and, forming more boldly into line of attack, assail all that is most sacred in the work of Christ, not sparing even the person of the Divine Redeemer, whom, with sacrilegious daring, they reduce to a simple, mere man.  

    3. ....For as We have said, they put their designs for her ruin into operation not from without but from within;


    So yes, he can only mean, within the Church, literally, is where they lie hid in her very bosom and heart spreading error - the fifth column.


    Great discussion.  

    Please check my understanding:

    So, now, the Holy See is occupied", by the Fifth (heretical) Column, from within.

    And they have created a schismatic Novus ordo structure, from within the Church, as Father Hesse has explained.

    And the Seat is visibly occupied by an anti-Pope.

    Technically, this is not a sedevacantist position... correct?

    This seems in-line with St. Francis of Assisi's deathbed prophecy:  A non canonically elected Peter, who is a destroyer, not a pastor.



    Like Caiaphas, Our Lord is allowing this corrupt leadership to test His Church remnant.








    "Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it underfoot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Our Lord Jesus Christ will send them not a true Pastor but a destroyer."  St. Francis of Assisi


     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16