(Rome)  The past five years the existing parishes, groups, societies and movements have shown themselves to be strongly alive.  The various traditional lay groups in Rome founded  the Coetus Internationalis Pro Summorum Pontificuм. The first concrete accomplishment of Coetus Internationalis is the formation of an international pilgrimage of Tradition to Rome, which will take place during Pope Benedict XVI's proclaimed year of faith.  The public statement for the event has planned for the 10th of September.  The international pilgrimage of the Pro- Summorum Pontificuм -- groups will conclude on the 3rd of November with a Pontifical High Mass in St. Peter's  Cathedral.

http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2012/08/will-pope-say-upcoming-pontifical-high.html

Almost certain it's not the same person Maria.

*Newsflash* Pope to say Catholic Mass.

More table scraps to the dogs I fear. I'm still holding out for the renewed condemnations of Ecuмenism and the New Theology as a whole.

Interesting.  The pope may/will say an invariably and undoubtedly valid Catholic mass.  Maybe people could chime in and say why they wouldn't attend?  Assume all expenses are paid for.  The pontifical TLM comes to you.  Why don't you go?

Let's read every Eleison Comments by the Athanasius of the 21st century who resists the modernistic Newpope. These Comments strengthen our faith and answer most of our questions. I'm sad so many "traditional" Catholics don't read them. Bold by me:


http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/ELEISON-COMMENTS-CCLXII-Conciliar-Infection

CCLXIII: Conciliar Infection, 28 July 2012

May Catholics who wish to keep the Faith attend a Tridentine Mass celebrated by a priest who is part of the Conciliar Church, for instance by his belonging to the Institute of Christ the King or to the Fraternity of St Peter? The answer has to be that, as a rule, a Catholic may not attend such a Mass, even if it is a Tridentine Mass, and even if it is worthily celebrated. What can be the justification for such a seemingly strict rule?

The basic reason is that the Catholic Faith is more important than the Mass. For if through no fault of my own even for a long time I cannot attend Mass but I keep the Faith, then I can still save my soul, whereas if I lose the Faith but for whatever reason go on attending Mass, I cannot save my soul (“Without faith it is impossible to please God” - Heb. XI, 6). Thus I attend Mass in order to live my Faith, and, belief going with worship, I attend the true Mass in order to keep the true Faith. I do not keep the Faith in order to attend Mass.

It follows that if the celebration of a Tridentine Mass is surrounded by circuмstances that threaten to undermine my faith, then depending on the gravity of the threat, I may not attend such a Mass. That is why Masses celebrated by schismatic Orthodox priests may be valid, but the Church in her right mind used to forbid Catholics to attend on pain of grave sin, because, belief and worship going together, the non-Catholic worship threatened the Catholics’ faith. Now Orthodoxy has in the course of centuries caused huge harm to the Catholic Church, but can anything compare with the devastation wrought upon that Church within mere tens of years by Conciliarism? If then Catholics were forbidden to attend Mass in Orthodox circuмstances, would not the same Church in her right mind forbid to attend a Tridentine Mass celebrated in Conciliar circuмstances?

Then what is meant by Conciliar circuмstances? The answer must be, any circuмstances which, over a shorter or longer period of time, are going to make me think that the Second Vatican Council was not an utter disaster for the Church. Such a circuмstance might be a charming and believing priest who has no problem with celebrating either the new or the old Mass, and who preaches and acts as though the Council presents no serious problem. Conciliarism is so dangerous because it can so be made to seem Catholic that I can lose the Faith without - or almost without - realizing it.

Of course common sense will take into account a variety of special circuмstances. For instance a good priest trapped for now within the Conciliar church may need encouragement to start on his way out of it by my attending his first celebrations of the true Mass. But the general rule must remain that I can have nothing to do with even the true Mass being celebrated in a Conciliar context. For confirmation, notice how Rome began by allowing the Institute of the Good Shepherd to celebrate exclusively the true Mass, because Rome knew that once the Institute had swallowed the official hook, eventually Rome could be sure of pulling the Institute into their Conciliar net. Sure enough. It took only five years.

That is the danger of any practical agreement without a doctrinal agreement between Rome and the Society of St Pius X. So long as Rome believes in its Conciliar doctrine, it is bound to use any such agreement to pull the SSPX in the direction of the Council, and the context of every SSPX Mass would become Conciliar, if not rapidly, at least in the long run. Forewarned is forearmed.

Kyrie eleison.

Bishop Richard Williamson

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Interesting.  The pope may/will say an invariably and undoubtedly valid Catholic mass.  Maybe people could chime in and say why they wouldn't attend?  Assume all expenses are paid for.  The pontifical TLM comes to you.  Why don't you go?

You should really start reading Eleison Comments by the Athanasius of the 21st century who resists the modernistic Newpope. These Comments strengthen your faith and answer most of your questions. Bold by me:

http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/ELEISON-COMMENTS-CCLXII-Conciliar-Infection


CCLXIII: Conciliar Infection, 28 July 2012

May Catholics who wish to keep the Faith attend a Tridentine Mass celebrated by a priest who is part of the Conciliar Church, for instance by his belonging to the Institute of Christ the King or to the Fraternity of St Peter? The answer has to be that, as a rule, a Catholic may not attend such a Mass, even if it is a Tridentine Mass, and even if it is worthily celebrated. What can be the justification for such a seemingly strict rule?

The basic reason is that the Catholic Faith is more important than the Mass. For if through no fault of my own even for a long time I cannot attend Mass but I keep the Faith, then I can still save my soul, whereas if I lose the Faith but for whatever reason go on attending Mass, I cannot save my soul (“Without faith it is impossible to please God” - Heb. XI, 6). Thus I attend Mass in order to live my Faith, and, belief going with worship, I attend the true Mass in order to keep the true Faith. I do not keep the Faith in order to attend Mass.

It follows that if the celebration of a Tridentine Mass is surrounded by circuмstances that threaten to undermine my faith, then depending on the gravity of the threat, I may not attend such a Mass. That is why Masses celebrated by schismatic Orthodox priests may be valid, but the Church in her right mind used to forbid Catholics to attend on pain of grave sin, because, belief and worship going together, the non-Catholic worship threatened the Catholics’ faith. Now Orthodoxy has in the course of centuries caused huge harm to the Catholic Church, but can anything compare with the devastation wrought upon that Church within mere tens of years by Conciliarism? If then Catholics were forbidden to attend Mass in Orthodox circuмstances, would not the same Church in her right mind forbid to attend a Tridentine Mass celebrated in Conciliar circuмstances?

Then what is meant by Conciliar circuмstances? The answer must be, any circuмstances which, over a shorter or longer period of time, are going to make me think that the Second Vatican Council was not an utter disaster for the Church. Such a circuмstance might be a charming and believing priest who has no problem with celebrating either the new or the old Mass, and who preaches and acts as though the Council presents no serious problem. Conciliarism is so dangerous because it can so be made to seem Catholic that I can lose the Faith without - or almost without - realizing it.

Of course common sense will take into account a variety of special circuмstances. For instance a good priest trapped for now within the Conciliar church may need encouragement to start on his way out of it by my attending his first celebrations of the true Mass. But the general rule must remain that I can have nothing to do with even the true Mass being celebrated in a Conciliar context. For confirmation, notice how Rome began by allowing the Institute of the Good Shepherd to celebrate exclusively the true Mass, because Rome knew that once the Institute had swallowed the official hook, eventually Rome could be sure of pulling the Institute into their Conciliar net. Sure enough. It took only five years.

That is the danger of any practical agreement without a doctrinal agreement between Rome and the Society of St Pius X. So long as Rome believes in its Conciliar doctrine, it is bound to use any such agreement to pull the SSPX in the direction of the Council, and the context of every SSPX Mass would become Conciliar, if not rapidly, at least in the long run. Forewarned is forearmed.

Kyrie eleison.

Bishop Richard Williamson

I read it on another forum.

His Excellency is right that we should aim to attend the TLM at a place that's orthodox through and through.  But what of those who don't have a "choice?"  What of those who are stuck between a diocesan sanctioned TLM or NO (in other words, nothing)?  And that's what I meant in the question I asked which was thumbed down.  I mean that if one's only option to fulfill the Sunday obligation was to hear a tridentine mass said by Benedict XVI (Or Fr Ratzinger, depending on where you're coming from) would you go?  

Was that Eleison posted here?  I have some comments for it but I don't want to derail.

Quote from: Ethelred

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Interesting.  The pope may/will say an invariably and undoubtedly valid Catholic mass.  Maybe people could chime in and say why they wouldn't attend?  Assume all expenses are paid for.  The pontifical TLM comes to you.  Why don't you go?

You should really start reading Eleison Comments by the Athanasius of the 21st century who resists the modernistic Newpope. These Comments strengthen your faith and answer most of your questions. Bold by me:

http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/ELEISON-COMMENTS-CCLXII-Conciliar-Infection


CCLXIII: Conciliar Infection, 28 July 2012

May Catholics who wish to keep the Faith attend a Tridentine Mass celebrated by a priest who is part of the Conciliar Church
[..]

I read it on another forum.

His Excellency is right that we should aim to attend the TLM at a place that's orthodox through and through.  But what of those who don't have a "choice?"  What of those who are stuck between a diocesan sanctioned TLM or NO (in other words, nothing)?  And that's what I meant in the question I asked which was thumbed down.  I mean that if one's only option to fulfill the Sunday obligation was to hear a tridentine mass said by Benedict XVI (Or Fr Ratzinger, depending on where you're coming from) would you go?

Of course not. B16/Ratzinger is a rank heretic (see Bishop Tissier's proof) and so there would be extreme "Conciliar Circuмstances".

Was that Eleison posted here?  I have some comments for it but I don't want to derail.

You even quoted my link to this very Eleison Comment. Just click on the link and you'll be in the Eleison Comment's very own thread.

 If a heretic says the True Mass that doesn't change his heresy. Ditto with the pope. Let a future pope judge whether he is a pope or not let our Faith detect his heresies.

Ratzinger maybe doing this for showmanship?!  Amongst the communist is the ever going "confusion".  This is their "mark".  And for the post by Bishop Williamson, I say Thank You.  Very well needed to be posted.  If we don't judge then we do exactly as this post said, we put our Faith at stake!