Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: stevusmagnus on July 09, 2013, 08:52:16 AM
-
http://www.catholicvirginian.org/archive/2013/2013vol88iss18/pages/article8.html
Traditionalist seminary in Buckingham not in communion with Holy See
The St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary in a rural area of Buckingham County is operated by the Society of St. Pius X, a schismatic sect which is not in communion with the Holy See.
Catholics who attend Sunday liturgy there do not fulfill their Sunday obligation and the sacraments offered are not valid in accordance with the Vatican.
There is an element of confusion among some Catholics about the validity of the liturgy and the sacraments at the seminary which opened a year ago.
Father Anthony Morris, pastor of St. Theresa Parish in Farmville, says that his church office frequently gets calls from people, some of whom express excitement, and want to know if the seminary Mass is an alternative to the regular Sunday Mass at a Catholic parish. It is not.
“I have announced it from the pulpit to our parishioners,” Father Morris told The Catholic Virginian.
In addition to St. Theresa’s in Farmville, Father Morris is pastor of the adjacent parishes of Immaculate Heart of Mary in Blackstone, Sacred Heart in Meherrin, and Nativity in Buckingham.
The seminary in Buckingham is affiliated with the Society of St. Pius X, an international sect founded in 1970 by the late French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.
Pope Benedict XVI has declared that, for doctrinal rather than disciplinary reasons, the Society of St. Pius X has no canonical status within the Roman Catholic Church and the ministries exercised by its ministers are not legitimate.
-
+JMJ+
+Lefebvre preached the same doctrine after Vat2 as before.
+Lefebvre offered the same Holy Sacrifice of the Mass after Vat2 as before.
Those who came out of that bastard council adopting new 'memorial meal' services and the heresy of an EQUAL 'priesthood of all the faithful' along with other heinous obfuscations and denials of dogma were preaching and offering things never before recognized, accepted or countenanced by Holy Church.
Now, WHO belongs to the 'schismatic sect'?
St. John Vianney, pray for us.
Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!
Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us.
-
Absolute wolves in sheep's clothing, it makes me nauseated.
-
+JMJ+
+Lefebvre preached the same doctrine after Vat2 as before.
+Lefebvre offered the same Holy Sacrifice of the Mass after Vat2 as before.
Those who came out of that bastard council adopting new 'memorial meal' services and the heresy of an EQUAL 'priesthood of all the faithful' along with other heinous obfuscations and denials of dogma were preaching and offering things never before recognized, accepted or countenanced by Holy Church.
Now, WHO belongs to the 'schismatic sect'?
St. John Vianney, pray for us.
Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!
Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us.
An individual who claims he belongs to the "Catholic Church" but refuses to hold any of the diocesan bishops as having any authority, they would be schismatic. When they reject essentially everything about the "Church" and claim to still believe their "pope" is a true pope, that would be schismatic.
If the novus ordo is the Catholic Church then anyone who refuses communion with their hierarchy, but accepts their "head" as the real head of the Church, then they are schismatic.
One has to reject the false head also if they want to be true Catholics. He teaches and endorses every change and abomination that has been introduced since Vatican II.
To accept a manifest heretic as the pope is schismatic.
It is illogical.
-
(FTA): Catholics who attend Sunday liturgy there [SSPX seminary] do not fulfill their Sunday obligation and the sacraments offered are not valid...
How delicious is this irony? :ready-to-eat:
-
:smoke-pot:
The Bishop of the Diocese of Richmond says the SSPX 's Masses and Sacraments are invalid,
so they are. Take heart, because all the faithful need do is relocate to the Diocese of Rockville Center where Bishop McGann said in 1985, that Catholics may fulfill their Sunday Mass duty and receive valid Sacraments from the SSPX. Furthermore, in the same year, the papal nuncio wrote a letter to a couple in that diocese saying the same thing. So you see, one needn't get upset. In the Newchurch of Vat. II, all that is needed is to find the Bishop with whom you agree! In this respect, Newcatholics have it as good as Protestants! If you don't like what the pastor teaches, change churches!
-
It's much like Conciliar Church "confessional hopping," Frances. Don't like what Fr. O'Grady said in the Reconciliation Room? Why, just go to Fr. Bill at Paul VI Catholic Community down the street!
-
Someone is inhaling a little too strongly over at the "diocese" - me-thinks.
:smoke-pot:
You are either an incompetent idiot or smoking something mightily too strong to swallow this little piece of "news".
You kind of wonder if these people actually attempt to be educated beyond hysterics and 5th grade name calling.
Obviously not.
-
That is one thing the Vatican has never said that the Sacraments
administered by the Priests of the SSPX are not valid.
This is a Bishop of a diocese acting thinking that he is the
Pope.
The Pope of his diocese.
What do he say about the schismatic sects of the Eastern and
Russian Orthodox Churches in which the Vatican has said that
their Sacraments are valid and Roman Catholics are encouraged
to attend.
-
.
At first glance these two posts would seem to be unrelated - as if one
or the other is off-topic. But they are very much related, in fact..........
That is one thing the Vatican has never said -- that the Sacraments
administered by the Priests of the SSPX are not valid.
This is a Bishop of a diocese acting & thinking that he is the Pope -
the Pope of his diocese!
What does he say about the schismatic sects of the Eastern and
Russian Orthodox Churches -- in which the Vatican has said that
their Sacraments are valid and Roman Catholics are encouraged
to attend!?
This question of Eastern Orthodox is the Achille's Heel of the New Order!
It's much like Conciliar Church "confessional hopping," Frances. Don't like what Fr. O'Grady said in the Reconciliation Room? Why, just go to Fr. Bill at Paul VI Catholic Community down the street!
I have a little story to tell, and I hope it doesn't scandalize anyone.
This was the last time I went to Confession at a NovusOrdo parish.
A traditional priest had told me that the sacrament of Penance is
one of the things that NovusOrdo priests still have intact, so it's fine
to go there. I took his advice and I would then later regret it.
I took my daughter with me. She was in line ahead of me. When
she came out of the confessional, she was crying. She was about
12 years old. I took her aside, out of earshot of the others in line,
and asked her what was wrong. She told me that the priest in the
confessional said she had committed a mortal sin by attending an
old Mass using the old liturgy because it is not approved (this was
before Summorum Pontificuм), and so he said it was not valid and
it did not fulfill her Sunday obligation and she missed Mass so it was
a mortal sin. I assured her I would deal with this, and she was not
to worry about it. This calmed her fears. I returned to the queue.
When it was my turn, I went into the weird room, which was open
on the right where the penitent has the option to sit face-to-face
with the priest instead of behind the screen like Catholics have done
for centuries, and like all the saints have done for ages and ages.
But we're smarter than them, now, or so it would seem.
I confessed my sins, and the last thing I mentioned was that I had
taken my daughter to Sunday Mass where it was "one of those
old style liturgies." I heard him sit up straight to take notice. I
said that it was a concern to me that she had been worried that
this attendance did perhaps not fulfill her Sunday obligation, for it
was not an Indult Mass, and was offered by a priest who is not
from the diocese. He responded with a sharp tone, as if getting
ready to "rip me a new one." I recall thinking how ironic it was that
I could tell all of this without having seen his physical posture or
countenance in reaction to what I had said like I could have if I had
chosen the "face-to-face option" to the right, over there. So the
option would have been of no advantage at all, even in this case.
From the tone of his voice I could tell without question that he was
eager to take pleasure in showing me how wrong I was for daring
to attend the 'old Mass' (instead of the diocese version!).
He was really getting into this. I could almost hear the gears
spinning, and it would seem the sky would be the limit for my
penance - such a terrible offense - or, would absolution be withheld!?
I let it go on as long as I dared, until there was nothing more to
add or anything more of substance to obtain by way of counsel from
this confused priest. And then I let him have it. If he was 'confused'
before, what would you call the following?
I told him that this "old Mass" was an Armenian Orthodox Divine
Liturgy, and my daughter had been worried because everything was
so different, she had thought that it wasn't really Sunday Mass.
The confessor stopped breathing. It would seem his complexion
turned pale white from the sound of his utterance and the sound
of him slumping in his seat, deflated, as it were. At this point, I
almost regretted not having chosen 'the option' but for me, that
would have been an abuse.
The fact was, that I had actually taken my daughter to an Armenian
Orthodox rite Divine Liturgy, some time before that, without having
been specifically aware that it would not be okay, since we had been
hearing words of ecuмenical sharing with all manner of alternative
liturgies. So I wasn't telling him anything untrue, literally, it was only
the manner in which I said it that gave him the lead into presuming
something that was inaccurate at first.
He changed his attitude entirely. Suddenly, what I had done was not
such a terrible thing. There had been no sin, he said. While it is best
for us to attend our normal diocese Mass on Sunday, it is also not
a bad thing to experience the rich diversity in culture that is here in
our area, and the Orthodox liturgies are a vast source of such
experience available for us to enjoy, so as to appreciate the culture
of other rites, and on, and on. I asked him if we had fulfilled our
Sunday obligation at this schismatic sect's service, and he was a
bit shocked by the question, as if it was now him on the side of
defensiveness, and he had to hunt for an excuse. He hemmed and
hawed, as if befuddled. I was aware then and there that he was
now confronting the reality of his own self-contradiction. And that's
where I left it. He gave me a simple penance and I received
absolution.
After that, I decided that this is not what I go to confession for, to
put the priest on the spot and to make him re-consider his
outlook so as to be less critical of the penitent or anything like that.
It's not an opportunity to match wits. It is not the place to show
the priest that he has been wrong. The priest is not there to
confess to me. As a result, I have only confessed to traditional
priests ever since.
But it was rather telling, that this priest had been most critical of
what he thought was the Canonized Traditional Latin Mass because
it was independent and not under the authority of the local Roman
Rite bishop.
But he was in NO WAY critical of the Armenian Orthodox Divine
Liturgy, which is obviously independent of the authority of the local
Roman Rite bishop.
IOW what's good for the goose is not good for the gander, or else,
it has NOTHING TO DO with so-called authority under the
local bishop, and EVERYTHING to do with political correctness,
appearances, ecuмenism, religious freedom and cultural diversity.
Please show me that topic in your moral theology handbook!
-
You should try living in this Diocese :mad: The Catholic Virginian is contraband in this house!
Pax,
Tarpeian
-
It is not just Virginia. This is preached at majority of no dioceses. They tell people that Archbishop Lefebvre is "wacko heretic schismatic. Rebel. Renegade. Hates the pope etc. this what no teaches as they love all religions.
-
.
At first glance these two posts would seem to be unrelated - as if one
or the other is off-topic. But they are very much related, in fact..........
That is one thing the Vatican has never said -- that the Sacraments
administered by the Priests of the SSPX are not valid.
This is a Bishop of a diocese acting & thinking that he is the Pope -
the Pope of his diocese!
What does he say about the schismatic sects of the Eastern and
Russian Orthodox Churches -- in which the Vatican has said that
their Sacraments are valid and Roman Catholics are encouraged
to attend!?
This question of Eastern Orthodox is the Achille's Heel of the New Order!
It's much like Conciliar Church "confessional hopping," Frances. Don't like what Fr. O'Grady said in the Reconciliation Room? Why, just go to Fr. Bill at Paul VI Catholic Community down the street!
I have a little story to tell, and I hope it doesn't scandalize anyone.
This was the last time I went to Confession at a NovusOrdo parish.
A traditional priest had told me that the sacrament of Penance is
one of the things that NovusOrdo priests still have intact, so it's fine
to go there. I took his advice and I would then later regret it.
I took my daughter with me. She was in line ahead of me. When
she came out of the confessional, she was crying. She was about
12 years old. I took her aside, out of earshot of the others in line,
and asked her what was wrong. She told me that the priest in the
confessional said she had committed a mortal sin by attending an
old Mass using the old liturgy because it is not approved (this was
before Summorum Pontificuм), and so he said it was not valid and
it did not fulfill her Sunday obligation and she missed Mass so it was
a mortal sin. I assured her I would deal with this, and she was not
to worry about it. This calmed her fears. I returned to the queue.
When it was my turn, I went into the weird room, which was open
on the right where the penitent has the option to sit face-to-face
with the priest instead of behind the screen like Catholics have done
for centuries, and like all the saints have done for ages and ages.
But we're smarter than them, now, or so it would seem.
I confessed my sins, and the last thing I mentioned was that I had
taken my daughter to Sunday Mass where it was "one of those
old style liturgies." I heard him sit up straight to take notice. I
said that it was a concern to me that she had been worried that
this attendance did perhaps not fulfill her Sunday obligation, for it
was not an Indult Mass, and was offered by a priest who is not
from the diocese. He responded with a sharp tone, as if getting
ready to "rip me a new one." I recall thinking how ironic it was that
I could tell all of this without having seen his physical posture or
countenance in reaction to what I had said like I could have if I had
chosen the "face-to-face option" to the right, over there. So the
option would have been of no advantage at all, even in this case.
From the tone of his voice I could tell without question that he was
eager to take pleasure in showing me how wrong I was for daring
to attend the 'old Mass' (instead of the diocese version!).
He was really getting into this. I could almost hear the gears
spinning, and it would seem the sky would be the limit for my
penance - such a terrible offense - or, would absolution be withheld!?
I let it go on as long as I dared, until there was nothing more to
add or anything more of substance to obtain by way of counsel from
this confused priest. And then I let him have it. If he was 'confused'
before, what would you call the following?
I told him that this "old Mass" was an Armenian Orthodox Divine
Liturgy, and my daughter had been worried because everything was
so different, she had thought that it wasn't really Sunday Mass.
The confessor stopped breathing. It would seem his complexion
turned pale white from the sound of his utterance and the sound
of him slumping in his seat, deflated, as it were. At this point, I
almost regretted not having chosen 'the option' but for me, that
would have been an abuse.
The fact was, that I had actually taken my daughter to an Armenian
Orthodox rite Divine Liturgy, some time before that, without having
been specifically aware that it would not be okay, since we had been
hearing words of ecuмenical sharing with all manner of alternative
liturgies. So I wasn't telling him anything untrue, literally, it was only
the manner in which I said it that gave him the lead into presuming
something that was inaccurate at first.
He changed his attitude entirely. Suddenly, what I had done was not
such a terrible thing. There had been no sin, he said. While it is best
for us to attend our normal diocese Mass on Sunday, it is also not
a bad thing to experience the rich diversity in culture that is here in
our area, and the Orthodox liturgies are a vast source of such
experience available for us to enjoy, so as to appreciate the culture
of other rites, and on, and on. I asked him if we had fulfilled our
Sunday obligation at this schismatic sect's service, and he was a
bit shocked by the question, as if it was now him on the side of
defensiveness, and he had to hunt for an excuse. He hemmed and
hawed, as if befuddled. I was aware then and there that he was
now confronting the reality of his own self-contradiction. And that's
where I left it. He gave me a simple penance and I received
absolution.
After that, I decided that this is not what I go to confession for, to
put the priest on the spot and to make him re-consider his
outlook so as to be less critical of the penitent or anything like that.
It's not an opportunity to match wits. It is not the place to show
the priest that he has been wrong. The priest is not there to
confess to me. As a result, I have only confessed to traditional
priests ever since.
But it was rather telling, that this priest had been most critical of
what he thought was the Canonized Traditional Latin Mass because
it was independent and not under the authority of the local Roman
Rite bishop.
But he was in NO WAY critical of the Armenian Orthodox Divine
Liturgy, which is obviously independent of the authority of the local
Roman Rite bishop.
IOW what's good for the goose is not good for the gander, or else,
it has NOTHING TO DO with so-called authority under the
local bishop, and EVERYTHING to do with political correctness,
appearances, ecuмenism, religious freedom and cultural diversity.
Please show me that topic in your moral theology handbook!
Excellent post. It does reveal the inconsistencies of the new church.
-
Heh, reminds me of a story I heard from one of my cousins who now has 6 children and is using "NFP."
The priest where she went to the novus ordo for years, told her that it was good for a couple to "move in together" so that they could "get to know each other." He's still in good standing with the diocese with this advice by the way.... but the couple wasn't very happy hearing this.
So, they just went to another church instead.
:laugh1:
I have to laugh because any other novus ordo modernist couple would not only have stayed at that church, moved in together and actually go -searching- for these kinds of priests, but also would have recommend them to friends that are already living together, with the bad advice rather than moving away from them.
It's really too bad the rest of my extended family is all out in lala land as far as the the Church goes. At least they have some sense of right and wrong through it all, though.
-
+JMJ+
+Lefebvre preached the same doctrine after Vat2 as before.
+Lefebvre offered the same Holy Sacrifice of the Mass after Vat2 as before.
Those who came out of that bastard council adopting new 'memorial meal' services and the heresy of an EQUAL 'priesthood of all the faithful' along with other heinous obfuscations and denials of dogma were preaching and offering things never before recognized, accepted or countenanced by Holy Church.
Now, WHO belongs to the 'schismatic sect'?
St. John Vianney, pray for us.
Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!
Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us.
An individual who claims he belongs to the "Catholic Church" but refuses to hold any of the diocesan bishops as having any authority, they would be schismatic. When they reject essentially everything about the "Church" and claim to still believe their "pope" is a true pope, that would be schismatic.
If the novus ordo is the Catholic Church then anyone who refuses communion with their hierarchy, but accepts their "head" as the real head of the Church, then they are schismatic.
One has to reject the false head also if they want to be true Catholics. He teaches and endorses every change and abomination that has been introduced since Vatican II.
To accept a manifest heretic as the pope is schismatic.
It is illogical.
Therefore you agree with the NO bishop that the SSPX is schismatic, including the Resistance SSPX.
-
Isaac Jogues, you do know that calling the SSPX heretical or schismatic is forbidden here, as far I remember (it's been so long since I posted here). Continue posting like that and I can guarantee you won't be here much longer. Disagree with the SSPX if you want, but don't make these grave accusations!
-
Isaac Jogues, you do know that calling the SSPX heretical or schismatic is forbidden here, as far I remember (it's been so long since I posted here). Continue posting like that and I can guarantee you won't be here much longer. Disagree with the SSPX if you want, but don't make these grave accusations!
I don't know what you are referring to.
-
This:
An individual who claims he belongs to the "Catholic Church" but refuses to hold any of the diocesan bishops as having any authority, they would be schismatic. When they reject essentially everything about the "Church" and claim to still believe their "pope" is a true pope, that would be schismatic.
If the novus ordo is the Catholic Church then anyone who refuses communion with their hierarchy, but accepts their "head" as the real head of the Church, then they are schismatic.
One has to reject the false head also if they want to be true Catholics. He teaches and endorses every change and abomination that has been introduced since Vatican II.
To accept a manifest heretic as the pope is schismatic.
It is illogical.
-
This: An individual who claims he belongs to the "Catholic Church" but refuses to hold any of the diocesan bishops as having any authority, they would be schismatic. When they reject essentially everything about the "Church" and claim to still believe their "pope" is a true pope, that would be schismatic.
If the novus ordo is the Catholic Church then anyone who refuses communion with their hierarchy, but accepts their "head" as the real head of the Church, then they are schismatic.
One has to reject the false head also if they want to be true Catholics. He teaches and endorses every change and abomination that has been introduced since Vatican II.
To accept a manifest heretic as the pope is schismatic.
It is illogical.
I didn't make any accusations toward a certain group. I'm just stating the truth.
-
This: An individual who claims he belongs to the "Catholic Church" but refuses to hold any of the diocesan bishops as having any authority, they would be schismatic. When they reject essentially everything about the "Church" and claim to still believe their "pope" is a true pope, that would be schismatic.
If the novus ordo is the Catholic Church then anyone who refuses communion with their hierarchy, but accepts their "head" as the real head of the Church, then they are schismatic.
One has to reject the false head also if they want to be true Catholics. He teaches and endorses every change and abomination that has been introduced since Vatican II.
To accept a manifest heretic as the pope is schismatic.
It is illogical.
I didn't make any accusations toward a certain group. I'm just stating the truth.
So what you're saying is that when a pope spreads heresy, in contradiction to past infallible teachings, creates a schismatic rite of the Mass, with the help of 7 protestants, in order to supplant the True Mass, and then has his authority challenged by disobedient bishops who say that he is nothing but the first among equals, then we have to accept his illegal, schismatic rite, recognize his heresies as truth, and acknowledge the authority of bishops who will not promulgate the True Mass, or else we are schismatic. Is that pretty much what you are saying?
-
I heard there's a retraction to this, or at least a "clarification."
http://www.catholicvirginian.org/archive/2013/2013vol88iss19/pages/article2.html
Diocesan statement regarding article on the Society of St. Pius X
A recent article in the Catholic Virginian on the Society of St. Pius X and the seminary it is constructing in Buckingham County contained inaccuracies.
The article correctly stated that the society was founded in 1970 by the late French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary is one of several seminaries operated by the society. The society is not in regular communion with the Holy See (or the Bishop of Richmond).
These points need to be clarified:
The seminary is currently located in Winona, Minnesota and is relocating to Buckingham County. Mass is not regularly offered at the Buckingham location at present.
Our former Holy Father, Benedict XVI, never personally declared that doctrinal differences stand in the way of regularizing the canonical status of the society; nonetheless, the regularization has yet to take place.
The Masses offered by priests of the society are valid. Other Sacraments celebrated in the chapels of the society are considered valid, with the exception of Penance and Matrimony, which are, at best, doubtfully valid.
It is not clear that the society is in schism, and it is not properly called a “sect.” In recent years the Holy See has recognized the society’s expressed desire for regular communion with the Roman Pontiff and the Church he shepherds, and the Holy See’s dialogue with the society since 2009 demonstrates the Church’s commitment to unity.
Several additional points should be made when discussing the Society of St. Pius X:
It is necessary to distinguish between the priests, brothers, and sisters of the society, on the one hand; and the lay faithful who attend Mass at society chapels, on the other hand. The former are clearly in an irregular status. In regard to the lay faithful who attend Mass at society chapels, there has never been a statement by the Holy See that these people are in schism. In fact, the Holy See acts toward them as it does toward all the Catholic lay faithful.
It’s also necessary to distinguish between acts that are invalid and those that are illicit. Acts are illicit when they go against the Church’s law. Still, acts that are canonically illicit may be valid, and, in the case of the society, the ministerial acts of their priests may be illicit and still be considered valid by the Church.
Finally, a comment should be made regarding the Sunday Mass obligation of Catholics. The faithful do not properly fulfill their Sunday Mass obligation in chapels of the society, as the celebration of the Eucharist presupposes not only communion with the Lord, but also communion with the Church He founded, and the hierarchy who govern the Church by Divine mandate.
The Church’s unity is best served when the whole truth is communicated. We regret the errors in the article. Let us pray for restoration of the unity of all Christians in Christ, and that the Society of St. Pius X will be reconciled with ecclesiastical authority.
-
Someday SSPX will realize the Holy See, the episcopal see of Rome, dates back to early Christian times. Vatican II does NOT!
I anxiously await that day!