Terry Carroll said on October 26, 2012 on Philothea on Phire

Quote

Please take seriously my comment left on the other post: http://bit.ly/RnkcGZ

I could not be more sympathetic to the SSPX as a temptation for those suffering through the insults to Our Lord at so many Novus Ordo Masses. But it is terribly easy to rationalize one's participation on a regular basis as if we were recusants during the period of the English Reformation. The Church Herself has not declared a "state of emergency" and it is hubris to assume that WE can.

SSPX priests are validly ordained, their Masses are valid, but they are in all cases acts of disobedience to the Church. SSPX priests do not have faculties to hear confessions. I, personally, do not wish to "gamble" on "Deus supplet" on a matter so urgent. I, personally, experience even MORE pain at the idea that a priest of God offers the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in persona Christi disobediently than I do at the worst excuses for Mass that I have experienced in Novus Ordo settings.

Suffer through Novus Ordo Masses, even refrain from receiving Holy Communion, rather than rationalize your participation in a Mass that quite likely is even more insulting to God than the Masses you now endure. The cry of Satan was "Non serviam," the penultimate act of disobedience. It is conceivable that SSPX Masses are as offensive to God as Black Masses. God is not mocked, and God does not bless disobedience. Stay with the Church and, in the best traditional sense, "offer it up" as an act of redemptive suffering within the divine chastisement that we all so painfully experience.

The SSPX are not formally in schism. But the consecration of bishops was declared by Pope John Paul II as "schismatic." This is just a case of hearing "quacks" before definitively concluding that it's a duck. SUFFER through the Novus Ordo Mass and fulfill your obligation to keep holy the Lord's day. Don't pamper your spiritual needs with rationalized disobedience. Pray that the SSPX responds to grace and enters into communion with the Church. This is what the Holy Father asks. As faithful Catholics, THIS is what we should be doing, not reinforcing disobedience.

Philothea on Phire

Mr. Carroll, do you still hold this belief regarding SSPX masses?  Is it not hubris for you to assume this?

Yes, Drumshanbo, nice find.

Based on MV's videos, CMTV certainly still holds to this way of thinking. Fr. Z and CMTV are (at least wanted to be) in the same boat. I plan to reply to this post you found later.

Rather than write a long winded post, suffice to say that the post from Philothea on Phire accurately exemplifies the problem with CMTV.

In the Conciliar Church, which CMTV supports, you can be either a Mason, or a Communist, a Protestant, or an atheist, and still be in perfectly good standing - since we choose who we want to be in company with, and the Conciliar Church is the choice of CMTV, this conciliarism is what comes through in CMTV's videos.


 

I think it's outrageously unjust for CMTV's representatives to make such statements about Society Masses, contradicted both by reason and by Rome.

Here's what Rome said about the possibility of attending and financially supporting Society Masses.

In the strict sense you may fulfill your Sunday obligation by attending a Mass celebrated by a priest of the Society of Saint Pius X ... a modest contribution to the collection at mass could be justified

Since you mentioned confessions,

Then there are painful cases that concern sins so severe they are penalized by excommunication reserved only to the Pope.

SSPX priests who confront these cases in the confessional absolve the penitent from the sin, and from the excommunication. According to Church policy, the priest must then send the case to Rome to be examined, and the excommunication formally lifted.

Bishop Fellay says, “Every time – absolutely every time – we have received an answer from Rome that the priest who took care of this confession did well, that it was perfectly in order, and it was both licit and valid.” Rome would then comment on the penance, whether it was sufficient or not enough.

In other words, Rome does not say the confession was invalid. Rome accepts the validity of the SSPX confession.

I think Mr. Voris is a good and convincing speaker and presenter and often offers persuasive facts and arguments and plays a positive role in informing Catholics about problems in the Church today and the way to resolving them. He's also right not to attack the Vicar of Christ or treat him as if were on par with just any other cleric or bishop. He should continue doing that.

All the same, every Catholic who loves and attends the TLM owes a great deal to Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop Fellay and the Society and should recognize that. Just leave the Society alone if you disagree with them, it's not as if they don't recognize the Roman Church or the Pope and his authority, and in fact Rome has already promised them a canonical structure, possibly a personal prelature or apostolic administration with more or less independence from diocesan Bishops, once the doctrinal questions are sorted out, and if they hadn't insisted on the doctrinal discussions, they would already have it. There are far bigger problems in the mainstream Church as the Roman authorities recognize and, as Bishop Fellay said, it is by properly and fully solving those problems that the "problem of the Society" will cease to be such.

Quote from: Iuvenalis

That's a pretty interesting opinion to hold while deciding to register and post here.

I decided to register and post here because you were engaging in discussions about Michael Voris and CMTV.  I, personally, don't care whether people like or loathe Michael Voris or CMTV, but I do care that judgments be grounded in facts and truth rather than conjecture.

I saw the question about why we don't criticize the post-conciliar Popes and I have answered that.  A question about why I, personally, posted something in a combox somewhere else should not be part of a discussion about Michael Voris or CMTV.

However, the first line of the comment you quoted is germane to any discussion of Michael Voris and CMTV because it contains a link to the verbatim quote (minus links) of the response we (CMTV) send to those who ask our opinion regarding the SSPX. I will be happy to address THAT in this discussion thread should you care for further elaboration.

Related to the relatively brief response on the SSPX is our "Sedevacantism: General Response" where we defend the importance of visible union with the visible Church.

So what you are saying - and this comes through in MV's videos - is that union with the Conciliar (visible) Church is so important that you support Her enemies which are within Her, while holding to the idea that in so doing, you support the Church, lest you risk disobedience to the pope.

CMTV shows a distinct disregard for why traditional groups like the SSPX were formed in the first place. CMTV also disregards the fact of how all traditionalists  were left no option whatsoever in order to preserve the true faith and Mass even though it meant being disobedient in order to do so.

CMTV needs to do an episode on the accurate history of what exactly transpired to spur the birth of the SSPX and all the other traditional, therefore disobedient groups. Then CMTV has the opportunity to elaborate on how the modernists in charge of the Church have changed for the better since those days - and that there is no reason any longer for the "dissident" and "radical"  traditionalists to be disobedient.
 
 

The crisis in the Church today is beyond description.  It's important that people know this.  It's not important to know what (sic, that?) they can do nothing about.  We maintain union with the Holy Father and encourage others to do the same.  We don't see any other alternative as either workable or consistent with Our Lord's promises to His Church. We seek to fraternally correct our brothers and sisters, which includes elder brothers and sisters in authority, but we are not leaving the family or attacking the head.

Does this help?

Dear Terry Carroll,

Maybe you and Michael Voris cannot see a way.

Certainly the way to deal with apostasy, heresy, etc is not to pretend it does not exist at the top as well as the lower levels. The lower levels of authority get away with it because it has been sanctioned by the highest authority.

Are you not protecting yourselves while claiming to protect those you see as unable to cope with reality? Is it not yourselves who cannot deal with reality? Folk usually are quite capable of developing their own defense mechanisms. We do it all the time. And we in the traditional movement observe it in our family members and friends.

We are absolutely aware of things that we choose not to report.  We (CMTV) were attacked during "The Assisi Events" for not criticizing them.  We know as well as anyone that those "Assisi Events" were capable of causing (and did cause) great scandal because, even if not intended, those events looked like "religious indifferentism on display."

In my opinion, in acting this way you are only destroying your own credibility.

We deliberately ignore "Uncle Billy"moments out of a desire to maintain as much unity as possible within the rather fractured Catholic family.

 

You cannot maintain "as much unity as possible". The Church is either One or it is not the Church. Sticking your heads (or others' heads) in the sand will do nothing at all for unity.

To say that CMTV's "response to the SSPX" is contained within a docuмent titled "Sedevacantism: General Response" is an embarrassing distortion of what was actually said.

I said that a link at the very beginning of the quote from the other blog site contains CMTV's "official response" to those who ask our "opinion" about the SSPX.

I then said that our "Sedevacantism: General Response" is "germane" to the discussion of the SSPX because, in that "General Response," we focus on the importance of visible unity with the visible Church.  It is impossible to conclude, from our "official response" on the status of the SSPX and our discussion of the importance of visible unity with the visible Church that we think the SSPX is sedevacantist.  We know that is not true and we have said so.

Our "Sedevacantism: General Response" is too long to copy here as a posting, but our "official response" to the SSPX is not, so I am going to copy it here.  No one here has given any evidence of having read either docuмent but everyone seems to have an opinion of what it must say. Here is the CMTV "official response" to inquiries about the SSPX:

The position of ChurchMilitant.TV concerning the SSPX is that of the Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, as expressed in his motu proprio Ecclesiae Unitatem, issued July 2, 2009:

Quote

In the same spirit and with the same commitment to encouraging the resolution of all fractures and divisions in the Church and to healing a wound in the ecclesial fabric that was more and more painfully felt, I wished to remit the excommunication of the four Bishops illicitly ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre. With this decision I intended to remove an impediment that might have jeopardized the opening of a door to dialogue and thereby to invite the Bishops and the "Society of St Pius X" to rediscover the path to full communion with the Church. As I explained in my Letter to the Catholic Bishops of last 10 March, the remission of the excommunication was a measure taken in the context of ecclesiastical discipline to free the individuals from the burden of conscience constituted by the most serious of ecclesiastical penalties. However, the doctrinal questions obviously remain and until they are clarified the Society has no canonical status in the Church and its ministers cannot legitimately exercise any ministry.

There are two important points here:

1) The SSPX are not in full communion with the Church and are invited by the Church to rediscover this path.

2) The SSPX has no canonical status in the Church and its ministers cannot legitimately exercise any ministry.

We are well aware of ongoing dialog between the SSPX and Rome.  It is to be fervently hoped that these dialogs result in a return of the SSPX to full communion with the Church, granting their bishops and clergy canonical status and the authority to exercise ministry.  Until such time as this occurs, our judgment must remain that of the Holy Father.

I realize that there are many who dispute the use of phrases like "full communion" saying that there is no such thing as "partial communion" just like there is no such thing as "a little bit pregnant."  Christopher Ferrara defends this position rather vigorously and concludes that since there is no such thing as "partial communion," then the SSPX can only be in "full communion," the Holy Father's words notwithstanding.  Another possibility is that since there is no such thing as "partial communion," and the Holy Father invites the SSPX to "rediscover the path to full communion," then the SSPX is not in communion with the Church at all!  I accept that this can be debated by intelligent people, but I don't think it is either dishonest or unfair for CMTV to quote the Holy Father in an "official response" to inquiries about the SSPX.

Now, if I can convince you to read that other docuмent, then maybe we can have a meaningful discussion based on what CMTV actually says, not what you think they have said.

As for whether or how CMTV values "the true Mass," the only Masses offered in our chapel are TLM.

 but I don't think it is either dishonest or unfair for CMTV to quote the Holy Father in an "official response" to inquiries about the SSPX.

Well, *you* have been quoted regarding a previous response regarding the SSPX which you've refused to address for, what 3 or 4 posts and half a dozen people who've asked you to clarify.

 

Now, if I can convince you to read that other docuмent, then maybe we can have a meaningful discussion based on what CMTV actually says, not what you think they have said.

Now if I can convince you to answer the question you've been asked repeatedly...

Regarding what you've "actually said", how about that? How about you address what you "actually said".

I have another idea, how about instead of posting a link to a lengthy docuмent about your response to sedevacantism "generally", wherein you ramble about the SSPX and *say* really nothing (if anyone bothers to read that far?) you just post your answer, you pasted the relevant section finally, how hard was that? Why should I go to a link? I don't care about your 'official position', click the post button and paste, chief, but your official position (whatever it actually is, your official statement reads like a post-Conciliar encyclical) doesn't answer the question about whether an SSPX offends God as much or more than a black Mass.

Now again, you've inserted yourself into the conversation (but you do not control the terms), how about them Black Masses re:SSPX Masses, huh?

There's not many answers coming from Mr Carroll.

Juvenalis and Hermengild, please stop holding your breath!

The cement has not yet dried. When I wrote these last two sentences for some reason Mr Carroll' s response was not showing, Mr Carroll's response wherein he claims that his Vat2 beliefs are not relevent. It seems you cut too close to the bone for comfort, Hermengild. What could be more relevant than Vat2?