Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => General Discussion => Topic started by: Augstine Baker on August 21, 2011, 02:55:27 AM
-
Traditionalist Bishops Celebrate the Immemorial Mass With 1500 WYD Pilgrims
(Madrid) Msgr. Marc Marie Max Aillet, the Bishop of Bayonne, Lescar and Orlon since 2008 in France will celebrate the Holy Mass in the Extraordinary Form at the Parish Church of San Eduardo in Madrid with more than 1500 youth. This church has been allocated to the youth who are attached to Tradition from France. The Bishops of Bayonne and Frejus-Toulon have been celebrating Holy Mass in the Tridentine Rite.
In addition, young Catholic pilgrims who are bound to Tradition also use the churches of the Terceer Monasterio de la Visitación (Salesians)and the parish church of San Francisco de Sales.
http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2011/08/traditionalist-bishops-celebrate.html
-
This sounds like good news, so why do 3 people dislike this statement?
:thinking:
-
This sounds like good news, so why do 3 people dislike this statement?
:thinking:
Individuals who think the Church is an "apostate church".
-
Some people do misuse the word Apostate. Apostate means someone who was baptised who loses all Christian Faith.
-
Some people do misuse the word Apostate. Apostate means someone who was baptised who loses all Christian Faith.
Yes, the presumption is pretty intense and it's stuff like that which kills forms off if it's not checked.
-
Some people do misuse the word Apostate. Apostate means someone who was baptised who loses all Christian Faith.
That happens with a lot of people these days, unfortunately.
-
Some people do misuse the word Apostate. Apostate means someone who was baptised who loses all Christian Faith.
That happens with a lot of people these days, unfortunately.
You're one of the biggest culprits.
-
Some people do misuse the word Apostate. Apostate means someone who was baptised who loses all Christian Faith.
That happens with a lot of people these days, unfortunately.
You're one of the biggest culprits.
The biggest culprit of what?
-
This sounds like good news, so why do 3 people dislike this statement?
:thinking:
I am a little puzzled too. At least there will be one Mass there that is not a travesty.
-
Some people do misuse the word Apostate. Apostate means someone who was baptised who loses all Christian Faith.
That happens with a lot of people these days, unfortunately.
You're one of the biggest culprits.
The biggest culprit of what?
If find this last sentence to be a bold statement and from what I understand, you made it:
Which means virtually nothing if you're a deceiver and are leading people to the Vatican II apostate "Church".
-
Traditionalist Bishops Celebrate the Immemorial Mass With 1500 WYD Pilgrims
(Madrid) Msgr. Marc Marie Max Aillet, the Bishop of Bayonne, Lescar and Orlon since 2008 in France will celebrate the Holy Mass in the Extraordinary Form at the Parish Church of San Eduardo in Madrid with more than 1500 youth. This church has been allocated to the youth who are attached to Tradition from France. The Bishops of Bayonne and Frejus-Toulon have been celebrating Holy Mass in the Tridentine Rite.
In addition, young Catholic pilgrims who are bound to Tradition also use the churches of the Terceer Monasterio de la Visitación (Salesians)and the parish church of San Francisco de Sales.
http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2011/08/traditionalist-bishops-celebrate.html
This is what makes it irritating to me.
Also, this. Let's use the pagan board to "celebrate" the "Holy Mass in the extraordinary form."
(http://www.katholisches.info/wp-content/uploads/Msgr.-Gall-Bischof-von-Toulouse-zelebriert-die-Heilige-Messe-beim-Weltjugendtag-2011-in-Madrid-300x225.jpg)
Thumbs down. :whistleblower:
-
A girl in Madrid (homeschooled and raised Catholic) complained about the incessant loud chanting and the importunate behavior of young men wearing the Juventud de JMJ t-shirts.
World youth day does not seem to draw people back to authentic religion, but it's good if there are true masses being said.
-
Traditionalist Bishops Celebrate the Immemorial Mass With 1500 WYD Pilgrims
(Madrid) Msgr. Marc Marie Max Aillet, the Bishop of Bayonne, Lescar and Orlon since 2008 in France will celebrate the Holy Mass in the Extraordinary Form at the Parish Church of San Eduardo in Madrid with more than 1500 youth. This church has been allocated to the youth who are attached to Tradition from France. The Bishops of Bayonne and Frejus-Toulon have been celebrating Holy Mass in the Tridentine Rite.
In addition, young Catholic pilgrims who are bound to Tradition also use the churches of the Terceer Monasterio de la Visitación (Salesians)and the parish church of San Francisco de Sales.
http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2011/08/traditionalist-bishops-celebrate.html
This is what makes it irritating to me.
Also, this. Let's use the pagan board to "celebrate" the "Holy Mass in the extraordinary form."
Is that forbidden?
-
Is this a problem too?
(http://thesprucetunnel.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/war-jeep-mass-2.jpg)
-
Some people do misuse the word Apostate. Apostate means someone who was baptised who loses all Christian Faith.
That happens with a lot of people these days, unfortunately.
You're one of the biggest culprits.
The biggest culprit of what?
If find this last sentence to be a bold statement and from what I understand, you made it:
Which means virtually nothing if you're a deceiver and are leading people to the Vatican II apostate "Church".
I did make that statement, yes, but I still don't see what point it is that you're trying to make.
-
Some people do misuse the word Apostate. Apostate means someone who was baptised who loses all Christian Faith.
That happens with a lot of people these days, unfortunately.
You're one of the biggest culprits.
The biggest culprit of what?
If find this last sentence to be a bold statement and from what I understand, you made it:
Which means virtually nothing if you're a deceiver and are leading people to the Vatican II apostate "Church".
I did make that statement, yes, but I still don't see what point it is that you're trying to make.
Sure, you're saying that the Catholic Church is apostate. Is that a fair assessment?
-
Some people do misuse the word Apostate. Apostate means someone who was baptised who loses all Christian Faith.
That happens with a lot of people these days, unfortunately.
You're one of the biggest culprits.
The biggest culprit of what?
If find this last sentence to be a bold statement and from what I understand, you made it:
Which means virtually nothing if you're a deceiver and are leading people to the Vatican II apostate "Church".
I did make that statement, yes, but I still don't see what point it is that you're trying to make.
Sure, you're saying that the Catholic Church is apostate. Is that a fair assessment?
No it isn't, and I have a feeling that you're purposely distorting my statements just for the sake of distorting them. Be honest with me: Are you a troll? I'm just curious. You're making it seem like it the more you post.
-
The Catholic Church cannot apostatize from the truth.
But the majority of its members can.
This Bishop IS a valid priest, he was ordained by Cardinal Siri, so he can validly offer the holy sacrifice, beyond any shadow of a doubt.
However, the 1968 episcopal rite of Consecration is sacramentally flawed in its form, therefore it cannot be confected as a real sacrament. THerefore, he is no Bishop, and all his ordinations are invalid.
The Reason is, is that it no longer signifies what it effects. It no longer signifies the establishment of a bishop to rule and govern the faithful, ordain priests, and administer the sacrament of confirmation.
THerefore, due to inadequate form, it is invalid.
"Pius XII declared that the form for
Holy Orders (i.e., for diaconate, priesthood and episcopacy) must univocally
(=unambiguously) signify the sacramental
effects — the power of Order and the
grace of the Holy Ghost.
(4) For conferring the episcopacy,
Pius XII designated as the sacramental
form a sentence in the traditional Rite of
Episcopal Consecration that univocally
expresses (a) the power of the Order that abishop receives and (b) the grace of the
Holy Ghost."
I.E. "The Paul VI form for episcopal
consecration appears in a special Preface
in the rite, and the complete text of the
form is as follows:"
“So now pour out upon this chosen
one that power which is from you, the
governing Spirit whom you gave to your
beloved Son, Jesus Christ, the Spirit given
by him to the holy apostles, who founded
the Church in every place to be your temple for the unceasing glory and praise of
your name.”
While it seems to mention the grace of
the Holy Ghost, the new form does not
seem to specify the power of the Order
supposedly being conferred. Can it confer
the episcopacy?
No.
THis is why I do not like this Thread. Just being honest. :)
-
Some people do misuse the word Apostate. Apostate means someone who was baptised who loses all Christian Faith.
That happens with a lot of people these days, unfortunately.
You're one of the biggest culprits.
The biggest culprit of what?
If find this last sentence to be a bold statement and from what I understand, you made it:
Which means virtually nothing if you're a deceiver and are leading people to the Vatican II apostate "Church".
I did make that statement, yes, but I still don't see what point it is that you're trying to make.
Sure, you're saying that the Catholic Church is apostate. Is that a fair assessment?
No it isn't, and I have a feeling that you're purposely distorting my statements just for the sake of distorting them. Be honest with me: Are you a troll? I'm just curious. You're making it seem like it the more you post.
It sounds like you don't like my questions, that's all.
I asked you to substantiate what you were saying and you replied that it is supported in official SSPX docuмentation. Nowhere in the docuмentation is there anything about "an apostate, post-conciliar Church".
You cite a link which doesn't back up what you're saying and you then accuse me of being a troll?
-
Well, the problem here is that the so called "Conciliar Church" aka Newchurch is not identical with the Catholic Church.
If I understand Daegus, that is what he means. When he's saying that the "Conciliar Church" is schismatic and heretical, well he's just quoting our appreciated Archbishop Lefebvre.
Let's quote some traditional experts:
And if we apply to today's Church also the second part of the comparison with a rotten apple, we can say that it is genuinely useful to speak of two churches, the "Conciliar church" and the Catholic Church, because Conciliarism is to be found in real life all through the Church, although in their pure state Conciliarism and Catholicism exclude one another like apple and rot. But they are not in real life separable any more than are the rot from its apple or any parasite from its host. In real life there is only one Church, the Catholic Church, suffering today all over from the Conciliar rot.
(EC 200: Apples rotting, 14 May 2011 (http://eleisonkommentar.blogspot.com/2011/05/ec-200-verfaulende-apfel.html))
And Bishop Williamson also quoted a famous sentence of Archbishop Lefebvre just recently:
When Archbishop Lefebvre was threatened for the first time with "excommunication" from the Newchurch, we remember his reply: "How can I be put out of a 'church' to which I have never belonged?"
(EC 214: Greek Gifts, 20 August 2011 (http://eleisonkommentar.blogspot.com/2011/08/ec-214-griechische-geschenke.html))
Archbishop Lefebvre talked very radical and direct about the conciliar church, and we traditional catholics love it. Please have a look at Archbishop Lefebvre's circular letter on 29 July 1976, for example. If somebody has got the official English translation, please quote it. Meanwhile I'm going to translate the regarding part of his letter's official German translation:
This conciliar church is a schismatic church, because she broke with the catholic Church, i.e. with the Church of all times. The conciliar church has got her new dogmas, her new priesthood, her new institutions, her new liturgical cult, which have been condemned by several official and final docuмents. [..]
The church which confirms such errors is schismatic and heretical at the same time. [..]
The pope, the bishops, the priests and the laity breaks with the catholic Church in so far as they cling to this new church.
Official German version was:
Diese konziliare Kirche ist eine schismatische Kirche, weil sie mit der katholischen Kirche, mit der Kirche aller Zeiten gebrochen hat. Sie hat ihre neuen Dogmen, ihr neues Priestertum, ihre neuen Institutionen, ihren neuen Kult, die von der Kirche schon in gar manchen amtlichen und endgültigen Dokumenten verurteilt sind. [..]
Dieses Recht auf Religionsfreiheit ist blasphemisch, denn es bedeutet, daß Gott Absichten zugeschrieben werden, die Seine Majestät, Seine Glorie, Sein Königtum zerstören und dieses Recht schließt die Gewissensfreiheit, die Gedankenfreiheit und alle freimaurerischen Freiheiten mit ein. Die Kirche, die solche Irrtümer bejaht, ist zugleich schismatisch und häretisch. [..]
In dem Maß, als der Papst, die Bischöfe, die Priester oder die Gläubigen dieser neuen Kirche anhängen, trennen sie sich von der katholischen Kirche.
-
Meanwhile I'm going to translate the regarding part of his letter's official German translation:
This conciliar church is a schismatic church, because she broke with the catholic Church, i.e. with the Church of all times. The conciliar church has got her new dogmas, her new priesthood, her new institutions, her new liturgical cult, which have been condemned by several official and final docuмents. [..]
The church which confirms such errors is schismatic and heretical at the same time. [..]
The pope, the bishops, the priests and the laity breaks with the catholic Church in so far as they cling to this new church.
I'd like to emphasise again that this was not an official translation of Archbishop Lefebvre's words, but just my translation of the official SSPX German translation of his words which I quoted. But I hope I saved the meaning of his words. :-)
P.S. Is there an electronic version of (most of) the Archbishop's sermons and lectures in an official English translation? I'd love to have it.
If somebody is interested in an electronic version of the official German translation of the Archbishop sermons, lectures and letters, taken from the 1991 "big books" named "Damit die Kirche fortbestehe", please tell me and I'd be happy to forward it.
-
Very different from what Daegus actually said. Daegus called it an "Apostate" Church, which is all very different from what Archbishop Lefebvre said.
But I'll concede that he didn't really want to say that after all.
Well, the problem here is that the so called "Conciliar Church" aka Newchurch is not identical with the Catholic Church.
If I understand Daegus, that is what he means. When he's saying that the "Conciliar Church" is schismatic and heretical, well he's just quoting our appreciated Archbishop Lefebvre.
Let's quote some traditional experts:
And if we apply to today's Church also the second part of the comparison with a rotten apple, we can say that it is genuinely useful to speak of two churches, the "Conciliar church" and the Catholic Church, because Conciliarism is to be found in real life all through the Church, although in their pure state Conciliarism and Catholicism exclude one another like apple and rot. But they are not in real life separable any more than are the rot from its apple or any parasite from its host. In real life there is only one Church, the Catholic Church, suffering today all over from the Conciliar rot.
(EC 200: Apples rotting, 14 May 2011 (http://eleisonkommentar.blogspot.com/2011/05/ec-200-verfaulende-apfel.html))
And Bishop Williamson also quoted a famous sentence of Archbishop Lefebvre just recently:
When Archbishop Lefebvre was threatened for the first time with "excommunication" from the Newchurch, we remember his reply: "How can I be put out of a 'church' to which I have never belonged?"
(EC 214: Greek Gifts, 20 August 2011 (http://eleisonkommentar.blogspot.com/2011/08/ec-214-griechische-geschenke.html))
Archbishop Lefebvre talked very radical and direct about the conciliar church, and we traditional catholics love it. Please have a look at Archbishop Lefebvre's circular letter on 29 July 1976, for example. If somebody has got the official English translation, please quote it. Meanwhile I'm going to translate the regarding part of his letter's official German translation:
This conciliar church is a schismatic church, because she broke with the catholic Church, i.e. with the Church of all times. The conciliar church has got her new dogmas, her new priesthood, her new institutions, her new liturgical cult, which have been condemned by several official and final docuмents. [..]
The church which confirms such errors is schismatic and heretical at the same time. [..]
The pope, the bishops, the priests and the laity breaks with the catholic Church in so far as they cling to this new church.
Official German version was:
Diese konziliare Kirche ist eine schismatische Kirche, weil sie mit der katholischen Kirche, mit der Kirche aller Zeiten gebrochen hat. Sie hat ihre neuen Dogmen, ihr neues Priestertum, ihre neuen Institutionen, ihren neuen Kult, die von der Kirche schon in gar manchen amtlichen und endgültigen Dokumenten verurteilt sind. [..]
Dieses Recht auf Religionsfreiheit ist blasphemisch, denn es bedeutet, daß Gott Absichten zugeschrieben werden, die Seine Majestät, Seine Glorie, Sein Königtum zerstören und dieses Recht schließt die Gewissensfreiheit, die Gedankenfreiheit und alle freimaurerischen Freiheiten mit ein. Die Kirche, die solche Irrtümer bejaht, ist zugleich schismatisch und häretisch. [..]
In dem Maß, als der Papst, die Bischöfe, die Priester oder die Gläubigen dieser neuen Kirche anhängen, trennen sie sich von der katholischen Kirche.
-
Is this a problem too?
(http://thesprucetunnel.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/war-jeep-mass-2.jpg)
No, because that's all that was available. In a Catholic Church, in order to say the Mass, there needs to be an ALTAR with relics in them to say Mass. The Freemasons have systematically had these removed.
Going to quote this because it's important.
A "plan Masonic" for the destruction of the Catholic Church
Directives of the Grand Master of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ to the Bishops Masons:
effective from 1962 (update of Vatican II) reworked in 1993 as a progressive plan for the final stage.
1. Permanently remove any statue from the church, beginning with those of St. Michael the Archangel, patron the Catholic Church, saying that (they) distract (from the) adoration of Christ.
10. Returning to what is stated in paragraph 1, do not just remove the statues from the churches. Remove all the relics altars, and later, the altars themselves. Replace with pagan boards, no dedication, which can be used for human sacrifice during Satanic ceremonies. Eliminate the canonical laws which force to celebrate only on the altar containing relics.
11. Discontinue the practice of celebrating Mass, direction, or, at least, the presence of the Blessed Sacrament in the tabernacle. Do not admit any tabernacle on the altar that are used for the celebration of mass. The board should have the look of a kitchen table. It must be transportable to express that it is not sacred, but must serve more than one purpose, for example, conference or play cards. Further on, place at least one seat (by) this table. (SEE THE CHAIRS IN THE BACKGROUND?!?!?!) The priest must take place to indicate that, after Communion, he rest as after a meal. The priest must not ever do genuflections, kneeling, or standing. At meals, in fact, there never (is) kneel(ing). The chair of the priest should be (in the) place (of the) tabernacle. Encourage people to have the feelings of veneration and worship towards the priest that should (be) had towards the Eucharist, this would be "good thing" obey like Jesus in person. Place the Tabernacle in another room, out of sight. (I DO NOT SEE THE TABERNACLE EITHER! DO YOU?)
(http://www.katholisches.info/wp-content/uploads/Msgr.-Gall-Bischof-von-Toulouse-zelebriert-die-Heilige-Messe-beim-Weltjugendtag-2011-in-Madrid-300x225.jpg)
The thread is here:
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/A-Chiesa-Viva-worth-reading
-
Very different from what Daegus actually said. Daegus called it an "Apostate" Church, which is all very different from what Archbishop Lefebvre said.
Well, it's a fluent passage from the "schismatic and heretical" Newchurch to an "apostate" one.
But I think the main point here is, that Archbishop Lefebvre distinguishes between the real Church and the conciliar church, which Bishop Williamson names "Newchurch".
The Archbishop said that the "conciliar church" is schismatic and heretical, and Deagus apparently says that the Newchurch is apostate. Not so much of a difference in the result, I think.
By the way, both bishops several times spoke about the "apostates in [New-] Rome". The Archbishop even said that Newrome is occupied by anti-christs.
So I think we could say, Daegus is in good company. :-)
It's just that so many catholics today who think they're traditional -- including Menzingen and Stuttgart, alas -- don't want to hear the clear words of Archishop Lefebvre (or Bishop Williamson) anymore. What they said is handled as "controversial" today and censored. But censoring the truth always results in a crash landing.
Eleison Comments CXCIV
2 April 2011
Now where? (http://eleisonkommentar.blogspot.com/2011/04/ec-194-wohin-jetzt.html)
[..]
Then back to our original question: where now for the SSPX? The answer is clear. It must continue along the path set for it by its Founder, namely firm resistance to the (at least objective) apostates in Rome, making known as widely as possible the Archbishop's diagnosis of the otherwise insoluble problems of Church and world. His solution is simply to maintain Catholic life in accordance with the pre-Conciliar Catholic doctrine and morals of all time, for the greater glory of God and for the salvation of as many souls as possible.
Kyrie eleison.
-
It's just that so many catholics today who think they're traditional -- including Menzingen and Stuttgart, alas -- don't want to hear the clear words of Archishop Lefebvre
I think we can still refer to them as "traditional," but that they do not want to hear the clear words of the Archbishop seems to be the only reasonable conclusion which one can draw. I don't say that Bp. Fellay & Co. are not traditional anylonger, but nevertheless, they seem to be pursuing a path of tradition which diverges greatly from the one forged by their founder. The Archbishop and his senior bishop, in all of their sermons and writings that I know anything about, made a clear distinction between New and Old Church. They told us in no uncertain terms that they were two different churches. Under the direction of this present regime, i.e. the successors of the Abp. that distinction seems to be blurred. Herein lies the rub, from my point of views anyway.
-
Very well said, Hollingsworth. Herein lies the rub!
-
Is this a problem too?
(http://thesprucetunnel.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/war-jeep-mass-2.jpg)
No, because that's all that was available. In a Catholic Church, in order to say the Mass, there needs to be an ALTAR with relics in them to say Mass. The Freemasons have systematically had these removed.
Going to quote this because it's important.
A "plan Masonic" for the destruction of the Catholic Church
Directives of the Grand Master of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ to the Bishops Masons:
effective from 1962 (update of Vatican II) reworked in 1993 as a progressive plan for the final stage.
1. Permanently remove any statue from the church, beginning with those of St. Michael the Archangel, patron the Catholic Church, saying that (they) distract (from the) adoration of Christ.
10. Returning to what is stated in paragraph 1, do not just remove the statues from the churches. Remove all the relics altars, and later, the altars themselves. Replace with pagan boards, no dedication, which can be used for human sacrifice during Satanic ceremonies. Eliminate the canonical laws which force to celebrate only on the altar containing relics.
11. Discontinue the practice of celebrating Mass, direction, or, at least, the presence of the Blessed Sacrament in the tabernacle. Do not admit any tabernacle on the altar that are used for the celebration of mass. The board should have the look of a kitchen table. It must be transportable to express that it is not sacred, but must serve more than one purpose, for example, conference or play cards. Further on, place at least one seat (by) this table. (SEE THE CHAIRS IN THE BACKGROUND?!?!?!) The priest must take place to indicate that, after Communion, he rest as after a meal. The priest must not ever do genuflections, kneeling, or standing. At meals, in fact, there never (is) kneel(ing). The chair of the priest should be (in the) place (of the) tabernacle. Encourage people to have the feelings of veneration and worship towards the priest that should (be) had towards the Eucharist, this would be "good thing" obey like Jesus in person. Place the Tabernacle in another room, out of sight. (I DO NOT SEE THE TABERNACLE EITHER! DO YOU?)
(http://www.katholisches.info/wp-content/uploads/Msgr.-Gall-Bischof-von-Toulouse-zelebriert-die-Heilige-Messe-beim-Weltjugendtag-2011-in-Madrid-300x225.jpg)
The thread is here:
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/A-Chiesa-Viva-worth-reading
All altars have relics in them, including the one being used in that picture.
Are you aware of how long that altar has been there?
I'm asking because I"m trying to destermine whether you're condemning all free-standing altars, just those after the council, or what.
Not sure what principle you're clinging to here.
-
Very different from what Daegus actually said. Daegus called it an "Apostate" Church, which is all very different from what Archbishop Lefebvre said.
Well, it's a fluent passage from the "schismatic and heretical" Newchurch to an "apostate" one.
But I think the main point here is, that Archbishop Lefebvre distinguishes between the real Church and the conciliar church, which Bishop Williamson names "Newchurch".
The Archbishop said that the "conciliar church" is schismatic and heretical, and Deagus apparently says that the Newchurch is apostate. Not so much of a difference in the result, I think.
By the way, both bishops several times spoke about the "apostates in [New-] Rome". The Archbishop even said that Newrome is occupied by anti-christs.
So I think we could say, Daegus is in good company. :-)
It's just that so many catholics today who think they're traditional -- including Menzingen and Stuttgart, alas -- don't want to hear the clear words of Archishop Lefebvre (or Bishop Williamson) anymore. What they said is handled as "controversial" today and censored. But censoring the truth always results in a crash landing.
Eleison Comments CXCIV
2 April 2011
Now where? (http://eleisonkommentar.blogspot.com/2011/04/ec-194-wohin-jetzt.html)
[..]
Then back to our original question: where now for the SSPX? The answer is clear. It must continue along the path set for it by its Founder, namely firm resistance to the (at least objective) apostates in Rome, making known as widely as possible the Archbishop's diagnosis of the otherwise insoluble problems of Church and world. His solution is simply to maintain Catholic life in accordance with the pre-Conciliar Catholic doctrine and morals of all time, for the greater glory of God and for the salvation of as many souls as possible.
Kyrie eleison.
There's a pretty big chasm between apostate "Church" and identifying those who may or may not be apostates in the Curia and elsewhere.
In any case, I don't agree that Voris is encouraging people to follow an apostate "Church" as some of the intransigents here suppose.
-
Is this a problem too?
(http://thesprucetunnel.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/war-jeep-mass-2.jpg)
No, because that's all that was available. In a Catholic Church, in order to say the Mass, there needs to be an ALTAR with relics in them to say Mass. The Freemasons have systematically had these removed.
Going to quote this because it's important.
A "plan Masonic" for the destruction of the Catholic Church
Directives of the Grand Master of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ to the Bishops Masons:
effective from 1962 (update of Vatican II) reworked in 1993 as a progressive plan for the final stage.
1. Permanently remove any statue from the church, beginning with those of St. Michael the Archangel, patron the Catholic Church, saying that (they) distract (from the) adoration of Christ.
10. Returning to what is stated in paragraph 1, do not just remove the statues from the churches. Remove all the relics altars, and later, the altars themselves. Replace with pagan boards, no dedication, which can be used for human sacrifice during Satanic ceremonies. Eliminate the canonical laws which force to celebrate only on the altar containing relics.
11. Discontinue the practice of celebrating Mass, direction, or, at least, the presence of the Blessed Sacrament in the tabernacle. Do not admit any tabernacle on the altar that are used for the celebration of mass. The board should have the look of a kitchen table. It must be transportable to express that it is not sacred, but must serve more than one purpose, for example, conference or play cards. Further on, place at least one seat (by) this table. (SEE THE CHAIRS IN THE BACKGROUND?!?!?!) The priest must take place to indicate that, after Communion, he rest as after a meal. The priest must not ever do genuflections, kneeling, or standing. At meals, in fact, there never (is) kneel(ing). The chair of the priest should be (in the) place (of the) tabernacle. Encourage people to have the feelings of veneration and worship towards the priest that should (be) had towards the Eucharist, this would be "good thing" obey like Jesus in person. Place the Tabernacle in another room, out of sight. (I DO NOT SEE THE TABERNACLE EITHER! DO YOU?)
(http://www.katholisches.info/wp-content/uploads/Msgr.-Gall-Bischof-von-Toulouse-zelebriert-die-Heilige-Messe-beim-Weltjugendtag-2011-in-Madrid-300x225.jpg)
The thread is here:
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/A-Chiesa-Viva-worth-reading
All altars have relics in them, including the one being used in that picture.
Are you aware of how long that altar has been there?
I'm asking because I"m trying to destermine whether you're condemning all free-standing altars, just those after the council, or what.
Not sure what principle you're clinging to here.
I'm saying that by observing the setting of the place, it is obviously a reflection of what the Freemasons intended. It's really nothing to rejoice about.
Anyone that doesn't smell a rat at the supposed "re-introduction of the Mass" into the post-conciliar Church is likely going to be one of the frogs in the pot of cold water, with a flame underneath it, just like (from my generation, anyway) my parents were, as the Church was destroyed via incrementalism right before their eyes, without them even realizing it.
-
It's just that so many catholics today who think they're traditional -- including Menzingen and Stuttgart, alas -- don't want to hear the clear words of Archishop Lefebvre
I think we can still refer to them as "traditional," but that they do not want to hear the clear words of the Archbishop seems to be the only reasonable conclusion which one can draw. I don't say that Bp. Fellay & Co. are not traditional anylonger, but nevertheless, they seem to be pursuing a path of tradition which diverges greatly from the one forged by their founder. The Archbishop and his senior bishop, in all of their sermons and writings that I know anything about, made a clear distinction between New and Old Church. They told us in no uncertain terms that they were two different churches. Under the direction of this present regime, i.e. the successors of the Abp. that distinction seems to be blurred. Herein lies the rub, from my point of views anyway.
And yet, they pray for the Pope and the local ordinary.
There's even a photograph of Benedict XVI in the foyer.
-
Is this a problem too?
(http://thesprucetunnel.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/war-jeep-mass-2.jpg)
No, because that's all that was available. In a Catholic Church, in order to say the Mass, there needs to be an ALTAR with relics in them to say Mass. The Freemasons have systematically had these removed.
Going to quote this because it's important.
A "plan Masonic" for the destruction of the Catholic Church
Directives of the Grand Master of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ to the Bishops Masons:
effective from 1962 (update of Vatican II) reworked in 1993 as a progressive plan for the final stage.
1. Permanently remove any statue from the church, beginning with those of St. Michael the Archangel, patron the Catholic Church, saying that (they) distract (from the) adoration of Christ.
10. Returning to what is stated in paragraph 1, do not just remove the statues from the churches. Remove all the relics altars, and later, the altars themselves. Replace with pagan boards, no dedication, which can be used for human sacrifice during Satanic ceremonies. Eliminate the canonical laws which force to celebrate only on the altar containing relics.
11. Discontinue the practice of celebrating Mass, direction, or, at least, the presence of the Blessed Sacrament in the tabernacle. Do not admit any tabernacle on the altar that are used for the celebration of mass. The board should have the look of a kitchen table. It must be transportable to express that it is not sacred, but must serve more than one purpose, for example, conference or play cards. Further on, place at least one seat (by) this table. (SEE THE CHAIRS IN THE BACKGROUND?!?!?!) The priest must take place to indicate that, after Communion, he rest as after a meal. The priest must not ever do genuflections, kneeling, or standing. At meals, in fact, there never (is) kneel(ing). The chair of the priest should be (in the) place (of the) tabernacle. Encourage people to have the feelings of veneration and worship towards the priest that should (be) had towards the Eucharist, this would be "good thing" obey like Jesus in person. Place the Tabernacle in another room, out of sight. (I DO NOT SEE THE TABERNACLE EITHER! DO YOU?)
(http://www.katholisches.info/wp-content/uploads/Msgr.-Gall-Bischof-von-Toulouse-zelebriert-die-Heilige-Messe-beim-Weltjugendtag-2011-in-Madrid-300x225.jpg)
The thread is here:
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/A-Chiesa-Viva-worth-reading
All altars have relics in them, including the one being used in that picture.
Are you aware of how long that altar has been there?
I'm asking because I"m trying to destermine whether you're condemning all free-standing altars, just those after the council, or what.
Not sure what principle you're clinging to here.
I'm saying that by observing the setting of the place, it is obviously a reflection of what the Freemasons intended. It's really nothing to rejoice about.
Anyone that doesn't smell a rat at the supposed "re-introduction of the Mass" into the post-conciliar Church is likely going to be one of the frogs in the pot of cold water, with a flame underneath it, just like (from my generation, anyway) my parents were, as the Church was destroyed via incrementalism right before their eyes, without them even realizing it.
You started off by saying that the altar wasn't consecrated, and now you are insisting that the way the altar is laid out that it's something the Masons would approve of.
A Mass can be said anywhere as I've pointed out.
In fact, there's an SSPX video that shows how to build a Catholic altar in one of those denuded sanctuaries in under fifteen minutes.
-
You and a few others might see the inside of a Masonic Lodge, but most everyone else simply sees a Catholic Sanctuary and an altar where the Immemorial Mass of All Ages is being said.
Will the Bishop encourage the Parish Priest to restore the sanctuary to its proper condition, assuming the original high altar was removed? I hope so.
-
You and a few others might see the inside of a Masonic Lodge, but most everyone else simply sees a Catholic Sanctuary and an altar where the Immemorial Mass of All Ages is being said.
Will the Bishop encourage the Parish Priest to restore the sanctuary to its proper condition, assuming the original high altar was removed? I hope so.
Seeing neomodernists reverting "back to tradition" all of a sudden should make everyone that knows what's been happening over the years very suspicious, especially if they're keeping the aesthetics of modernity intact within the sanctuaries, and encouraging the "coexistence" of the novus ordo abomination, and the "extraordinary form."
Anyone that honestly thinks that Rome is miraculously going "back to the way it was" will be incredibly disappointed.
Our Lady has indicated that things will get so bad, that it will appear that the enemy has won before the miraculous "revertere" will happen. THIS is NOT that time, and I, for one, won't be fooled by this faux display of mixing tradition with modernity.
-
You and a few others might see the inside of a Masonic Lodge, but most everyone else simply sees a Catholic Sanctuary and an altar where the Immemorial Mass of All Ages is being said.
Will the Bishop encourage the Parish Priest to restore the sanctuary to its proper condition, assuming the original high altar was removed? I hope so.
Seeing neomodernists reverting "back to tradition" all of a sudden should make everyone that knows what's been happening over the years very suspicious, especially if they're keeping the aesthetics of modernity intact within the sanctuaries, and encouraging the "coexistence" of the novus ordo abomination, and the "extraordinary form."
Anyone that honestly thinks that Rome is miraculously going "back to the way it was" will be incredibly disappointed.
Our Lady has indicated that things will get so bad, that it will appear that the enemy has won before the miraculous "revertere" will happen. THIS is NOT that time, and I, for one, won't be fooled by this faux display of mixing tradition with modernity.
That's a completely different argument.
If you don't like Catholic Liturgies being said in Catholic Churches, that's your prerogative.
If you wish to see evil in that, I'm guessing you're going to see evil wherever you want to see it.
-
Jesus said, "When you see the abomination of desolation in the holy place, the the Prophet Daniel spoke of...then you will know that the time is near."
INteresting. Daniel fortold an abomination of desolation, and it was fulfilled when Antiochus invaded Jerusalem and set up ANOTHER altar in the temple from whence to offer profane sacrifices. So, you had the unused Jєωιѕн altar, and the new Pagan altar.
Now, Jesus references this saying that "When you see the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place..."
What is he referring to? Obviously NOT the temple; it would no longer be a holy place after his ressurection, and after 70.ad. It was destroyed.
Also, this is a sign of the END being near. SO it is in our times, or later.
SO, what kind of "alternate altar" (abomination of desolation) setup will be used near the end of time, in a holy place to offer false worship to God; the work of human hands?
I wonder..
-
Jesus said, "When you see the abomination of desolation in the holy place, the the Prophet Daniel spoke of...then you will know that the time is near."
INteresting. Daniel fortold an abomination of desolation, and it was fulfilled when Antiochus invaded Jerusalem and set up ANOTHER altar in the temple from whence to offer profane sacrifices. So, you had the unused Jєωιѕн altar, and the new Pagan altar.
Now, Jesus references this saying that "When you see the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place..."
What is he referring to? Obviously NOT the temple; it would no longer be a holy place after his ressurection, and after 70.ad. It was destroyed.
Also, this is a sign of the END being near. SO it is in our times, or later.
SO, what kind of "alternate altar" (abomination of desolation) setup will be used near the end of time, in a holy place to offer false worship to God; the work of human hands?
I wonder..
I wonder too since that altar was probably there before the Council.
-
Jesus said, "When you see the abomination of desolation in the holy place, the the Prophet Daniel spoke of...then you will know that the time is near."
INteresting. Daniel fortold an abomination of desolation, and it was fulfilled when Antiochus invaded Jerusalem and set up ANOTHER altar in the temple from whence to offer profane sacrifices. So, you had the unused Jєωιѕн altar, and the new Pagan altar.
Now, Jesus references this saying that "When you see the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place..."
What is he referring to? Obviously NOT the temple; it would no longer be a holy place after his ressurection, and after 70.ad. It was destroyed.
Also, this is a sign of the END being near. SO it is in our times, or later.
SO, what kind of "alternate altar" (abomination of desolation) setup will be used near the end of time, in a holy place to offer false worship to God; the work of human hands?
I wonder..
I wonder too since that altar was probably there before the Council.
What altar? The chopping block in the middle of the sanctuary? That wasn't there "before the council." That was put there AFTER it, and where the chairs were, is where the REAL altar USED to be! The REAL altar was probably broken up and destroyed and used for firewood, and the marble is probably out in the parking lot getting hit by cars.
-
Jesus said, "When you see the abomination of desolation in the holy place, the the Prophet Daniel spoke of...then you will know that the time is near."
INteresting. Daniel fortold an abomination of desolation, and it was fulfilled when Antiochus invaded Jerusalem and set up ANOTHER altar in the temple from whence to offer profane sacrifices. So, you had the unused Jєωιѕн altar, and the new Pagan altar.
Now, Jesus references this saying that "When you see the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place..."
What is he referring to? Obviously NOT the temple; it would no longer be a holy place after his ressurection, and after 70.ad. It was destroyed.
Also, this is a sign of the END being near. SO it is in our times, or later.
SO, what kind of "alternate altar" (abomination of desolation) setup will be used near the end of time, in a holy place to offer false worship to God; the work of human hands?
I wonder..
I wonder too since that altar was probably there before the Council.
What altar? The chopping block in the middle of the sanctuary? That wasn't there "before the council." That was put there AFTER it, and where the chairs were, is where the REAL altar USED to be! The REAL altar was probably broken up and destroyed and used for firewood, and the marble is probably out in the parking lot getting hit by cars.
Looks like it's made of marble to me.
-
Really? You have x-ray vision? 'Cause I can see the altar cloth there, covering up whatever it's made out of.