Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
This is a true rendering of the facts. I have always maintained the Archbishop Lefebvre signed all the documents and thus was as responsible as any other who did the same thing for the crisis.  He did do a lot to battle against certain documents implementation during the ensuing years but as pointed out here, there were others who took a truly took a stand opposing the council and the new mass. That they did not achieve his notoriety is not important. That they took the principled stand in favor of the Traditional faith is what counts.
We should give due where it is appropriate but always according to reality not mythologies. It is interesting, why did they lie about him signing all the documents? It was not a very Catholic thing to do for so many years.
Thia is how the modernists talked and why they changed the mass.  That is, their false reason.  The mass came from Christ, so if the TLM was imperfect, then I guess Christ is imperfect?

The Novus Ordo is SUBSTANTIALLY different than the TLM, a fact which you continue to ignore.  


Do you deny that Card Ottaviani and Bacci studied the “perfect” Novus Ordo and said it was doubtful in its validity?  Yes/no?

How do you know that the NO mass you used to go to was the one approved by Rome?  

How can you be sure that the freemasonic bishops/priests didn’t “experiment” with it, as is done at 95% of them?  

Answer: you don’t know.  Therefore you can’t go, because the doubts are too great and it’s a sin to act in doubt when it comes to the mass.  
I didn't mean that there was anything wrong with the TLM Mass, just that by nature it is changeable to some degree.  I do not ignore TLM is substantially different than the NO.  I do not deny that CO and B studied the NO and deemed it doubtful.  I think they did a great critique.  I agree with it mostly.  However, Popes since say the NO is valid and licit.  What do I do with that?  Ignore the Popes?  Declare CO and B Pope?  Declare post conciliar Popes non-Popes?  Call all recent Popes heretics and call it a day?  If Popes and bishops and priests failed us in doing and saying the NO then the Church failed us.  And that's not possible.  Rather, what was permitted was licit, (perhaps even good) and is not the Church's fault for spreading error that sprang from it, but bishops and priests who capitalized on it used new freedom to twist and turn what was permitted into what was not.  I've never said the NO was a good idea (from my humble perspective) just that it could not have been intrinsically evil.  If it really is intrinsically evil, the Church failed in an epic way and the gates of hell prevailed against 95% of it while insisting it was authoritative.  That's a pretty serious offense the Church is guilty of.  Rather, I suspect the Church did not fail, nor the Popes per se, but that liberal mindedness already in play, took the leap out of the Church by heretical acts and provisions.  Several Popes lamented and discouraged some of the anomalies and atrocities, although, by then, the laity and priests were awash in the "new church of because I can."  It was the people's fault, the bishops, even the Popes, but officially not the Church's.
The parish I attended the NO was as traditional as they come.  The pastor died a couple months ago kneeling in front of the Blessed Sacrament where he worshiped daily from 3:00 am to 6:00 am.  
I have not been to a NO in 10 years and have no need to attend one, nor desire to attend one.  You can keep trying to find liberalism in me but you won't.  I believe in testing the spirit as Scripture tells us and I'm not afraid to admit that the traditional movement is shattered as badly as any sect in the world.  I don't think it is their traditional philosophy at fault, but the message to work on self, rather than point fingers at others, is not being taught or received.  The movement has become overly political, and in many ways lost its charity in favor of its own agenda.  Consider Kentucky, the hardline sedes, and even some of the R&R's so willing to condemn others.  Ideas, philosophies, they should condemn, but not peoples.  They should take better care not to ignore the authority of the Church or further divide it.  If they do, get out and go with the sedes.  Pretty simple really.    
Is Msgr. Lefebvre the Prelate
 Predicted to Restore the Church?


Posted November 2,
Great find!  Thanks for posting this  AJNC.
A good assessment by Fr. Girouard regarding the situation with the two new positions in the SSPX. These two quotes stood out for me:

As Fr. Girouard says,.... "it's not far-fetched to believe that the two new positions were, in fact, CREATED ESPECIALLY FOR THESE TWO PEOPLE, so that they could work "behind-the-scenes" with Roman dignitaries, while having some level of credibility with Rome."

Fr. Girouard also says that..."They seem to have realized that the original statutes defining the administrative mechanisms of the Society were not adapted to the requirements of achieving a deal with Rome. Indeed, the tumults experienced since 2012 showed them that such negotiations had to be done more "prudently," in order to avoid an open resistance from the Society's rank-and-file members. Therefore, they changed the statutes, and chose Bp. Fellay and Fr. Schmidberger to fill the new positions."

IMO, even though the SSPX will likely now try to work on the sly for a reconciliation with unconverted Rome, hopefully the actions and meetings that Bp Fellay and Fr. Schmidberger will have with Roman officials will be made known to the members of the SSPX. I don't see how they'll be able to keep their meetings with Rome a secret, though I suppose it's possible.

I don’t think there is any need for Menzingen to keep their “discrete but not secret” accordist dealings with Rome
strictly confidential anymore:

The clergy of the SSPX have shown a tremendous capacity to ignore what info is passed on to them from the district superiors, through the priors.

For example: It was known by SSPX clergy that Fr. Angles was in Rome for an extended period, working with them to find the “acceptable formula” for the marriage issue (a formula which more or less reaffirms and accepts the invalidity of SSPX marriages, and acknowledges supplied jurisdiction does not apply, despite lip service to the contrary).

But the few who made any public show of disapproval demonstrated by the acceptance of their various punishments that they are all going to accept whatever Menzingen decides, regardless of what it is.

Menzingen knows this.

The only threat to them is now ad extra: The fence-sitting religious (eg., Morgan and Bellaigue) and the faithful.

But the SSPX clergy are generally good for nothing anymore except saying Mass and hearing confessions, and other things their conciliar brothers do.

But they have all accepted a severe constriction of their apostolates, and the crisis in the Church is persona non grata to them, even if they refer to it occasionally while speaking on some other subject.

Menzingen has nothing to fear from its own troops discovering its machinations.
N.O., New order is really NO ORDER.  No valid ordinations, Freemasonry/Jews, they are.  Christ and His Mother and followers were Jews and the Jews who rejected Christ to see His death.  Today,  Catholics who are remnant, who go through tribulations waiting for Christ to return, and Jews who hide in secret societies like masonry who kill Christ off the altars and they will bring on the anti-christ.  chapter 12 of Daniel.
I don't know how far back the pro-abortion leaders of Ireland go, but I recall that the notorious Mary Robinson (1997-2002) was a pro-abort president of Ireland.  The Jew World Order has a tight grip on Ireland as it does on much of the rest of the world including the JEW S.A. which is supported big time by the JewsMedia.
Catholic Living in the Modern World / Re: The Coyote Saint
« Last post by klasG4e on Today at 11:24:46 AM »

Jesus was not an illegal immigrant or refugee

Jesus was not an “illegal immigrant” nor “refugee” as many Progressive Christians like Russell Moore of the Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC) claim. The use of such terms on a world of pre-modern states before the rise of nationalism is likely an abuse of hermeneutics by applying contemporary terms on the ancient world. However, if we are to apply such terms, we should make sure to apply the terms accurately. Both the terms “illegal immigrant” and “refugee” have specific meanings for scholars of International Law and Political Science—definitions which clearly do not fit Jesus or his parents. This essay briefly defines the legal terms and the historical situation in Judaea, Galilee and Egypt during the life of Jesus Christ. Applying the modern terms, we find that Jesus would be the modern equivalent of a Roman national moving between Roman provinces, and thus not fitting either refugee or immigrant categories. First, the genesis of the controversy.

The biblical data regarding the flight into Egypt provides the context for the claims about Jesus. “After they were gone, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream, saying, ‘Get up! Take the child and his mother, flee to Egypt, and stay there until I tell you. For Herod is about to search for the child to kill him.’ 14 So he got up, took the child and his mother during the night, and escaped to Egypt. 15 He stayed there until Herod’s death, so that what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet might be fulfilled: Out of Egypt I called my Son.”[1]

Liberals claim this makes Jesus an “illegal immigrant” or “refugee.” Representative of these assertions are two separate offerings by Dr. Russell Moore. Moore claimed, Jesus lived as a “refugee in a foreign land, a land long hostile to his own.”[2] On a blog post, Moore claimed, “It’s horrifying to hear those identified with the gospel speak, whatever their position on the issues, with mean-spirited disdain for the immigrants themselves. This is a gospel issue. First of all, our Lord Jesus himself was a so-called ‘illegal immigrant.’ Fleeing, like many of those in our country right now, a brutal political situation, our Lord’s parents sojourned with him in Egypt (Matt. 2:13-23). Jesus, who lived out his life for us, spent his childhood years in a foreign land away from his relatives among people speaking a different language with strange customs.”[3]

Dr. Norman L. Geisler pointed out the Bible was a “prescientific” collection of writings, and a book written for every generation.  He cautioned against anachronistically imposing “modern scientific standards upon them.” (See: Are There Any Errors in The Bible?) It would likewise seem reasonable when dealing with pre-modern states and a multi-ethnic empire not to apply legal terms and standards arising out of our modern, post-Westphalian system.
Nonetheless, our progressive friends have done this, and it requires a careful examination of the terms and the political situation of the New Testament.

Was Jesus a refugee? Was Jesus an ‘illegal immigrant?’

There are many helpful things to keep in mind when discussing modern immigration and the ancient world. First, immigrant is best defined as an alien seeking entry to another state, where alien is defined by the United States Department of Homeland Security as “any person not a citizen or national of the United States.” Second, not everyone living in a state is a citizen of the state. This was true in antiquity and is even true in modern times. For the purposes of international law, these are typically defined as nationals. The 1948 UN Declaration of Human Rights declares, “Everyone has a right to a nationality.” According to one textbook legal case, “Nationality serves above all to determine the person upon whom it is conferred enjoys the rights and is bound by the obligations which the law of the State in question grants to or imposes on its nationals.”[4]

In essence, to be a national of a state is to be born under the sovereign jurisdiction of a power (this is obtained via either ius sanguinis or ius soli as determined by the law.)

Or, in the post-Westphalian world, nationality “was essentially a method of classification between those who owed allegiance and those who did not to a particular sovereign.”[5]

The IRS defines an American national as, “An individual who owes his sole allegiance to the United States, including all U.S. citizens, and including some individuals who are not U.S. citizens. For tax purposes the term ‘U.S. national’ refers to individuals who were born in American Samoa or were born in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands who have made the election to be treated as U.S. nationals and not as U.S. citizens.”  An alien, then is defined by the IRS in the same manner as the above DHS, “An individual who is not a U.S. citizen or U.S. national.”

A refugee is defined legally by international treaties. The best definition in International Law would be the United Nations Protocol on The Treatment of Refugees ratified by 146 countries in 1967. The Treaty declares a refugee to be a person, “owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.” (Read The Treaty Text).

Key to this definition of refugee is “country of nationality.” A refugee is someone who must flee their country of nationality over persecution. It is important to remember that a person can be a national of a country and not a citizen as we noted in the IRS publication regarding current American law.

Due to the political situation at the time of Christ, moving from Bethlehem to Aegyptus would not make Jesus a refugee.  Jesus was born a common provincial or a peregrinus[6] within the authority of the Roman Empire. Jesus would have been the modern equivalent of a Roman National; he was under the sovereign control of Rome but was not a citizen of the state. The peregrini were persons not subject to the Roman civil law, but when under Roman authority were judged by the general law or what came to be viewed as the natural law.

“Since the civil law of Rome could not be applied to noncitizens of Rome, the praetor peregrinus took to deciding these cases on the basis of what might be called general principles of law. That entailed the identification of rules that were common to states in general (or at least were thought to be). Once these were identified, they would be applied to the dispute at hand. This corpus of common or general rules of law, emerging from the adjudications of the praetor peregrinus, became the ius gentium —the law of peoples in general.”[7]

The political situation in Judaea at the birth of Jesus

Professor A.N. Sherwin-White noted a “tendency” on the part of everyone from scholars to the public to treat Judaea as something outside the Roman Empire.[8] Perhaps, this results from the use of client kingdoms and odd quirks or Roman terminology, but in any case, Sherwin-White explained that Judaea met key tests for being part of the Roman Empire: “permanent military occupation, regular taxation and Roman supervision of public order.”[9]

The permanent military occupation began after Pompey’s campaign in Asia around 63 B.C. At that time, “Pompey intervened in a civil war in Judea between Hyrcanus and Aristobulus; his brief campaign against the latter culminated in a three-month siege of the temple in Jerusalem and its capture.”[10] Roughly, the province of Judea, “included the territories of the tribes of Judah, Benjamin, Dan, Simeon, and part of Ephraim. Under the Romans it was a part of the province of Syria, and was governed by a procurator.”[11] This would include Bethlehem and Jerusalem.

Rome dealt with Judaea by installing client rulers. This was not unusual for Rome. “Client kings played their part in the process of romanisation for, Tacitus wrote, it was a very old Roman tradition to use even kings as instruments in the imposition of slavery, ‘ut habret instrumenta servitutis et reges.'”  (From Tacitus, Agr 14, 2).[12] The settlement of how to treat a newly conquered province rested with the conqueror, in the case of Judaea that was Pompey, and was submitted to the the Roman Senate or people for ratification via a lex provinciae.[13] According to one commentary on Matthew, “Herod is king only because it pleases the Romans to have him rule over this troublesome region peopled by the equally troubling Judeans. Herod is a pawn used by Rome to maintain order useful to Rome. Jesus is born in an occupied land, a small outpost, on the edge of a mighty empire.”[14]

The usefulness for Rome was a strong leader and help in the Parthian War (see Josephus, Wars of the Jews 1.14.4). Herod’s loyalty to Rome was absolute, according to scholars, “The rise to power of both Antipater and Herod was predicated first and foremost on their unswerving loyalty to Rome. Both father and son were convinced that, following the conquest of Judea by Pompey in 63 b.c.e., nothing could be achieved without the consent and aid of Rome. This principle was inviolable, and it guided their actions under all circumstances and at any price.”[15]

At the time of Christ’s birth, the Gospel of Luke declares that Jesus and his parents were under Roman jurisdiction. “There went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed” (Luke 2:1).  According to Schaff, this was a “head-tax” applicable to everyone in the Roman Empire who was female over the age of 12 and male over the age of 14. Stein in his Commentary on Luke points out two interesting points: that Jews were exempt from military service, but not from taxes. The fact that Jews were dependent on Rome for security and subject to taxation are important facts to establish the subjugation of the region to Roman political authority.

Chrysostom points out that it was difficult to leave home, but Jesus and his parents found a welcoming land of safety, “Isn’t this remarkable: While Palestine plots, it is Egypt that receives and preserves the One for whom the plots are designed! This is reminiscent of the patriarch Jacob, who also sought succor in Egypt, anticipating the coming of our Lord.”[16] Alexandria was a major location of Jewish settlement in Egypt, but it was by no means the only one as the collapse of the Jewish state detailed in Jeremiah revealed. “The narrative in Jeremiah states definitely that the large proportion of those who had rallied about Gedaliah after his death found a temporary asylum on the eastern borders of Egypt.”[17] This included the locations of Tahpanhes and Migdol, but there were other Jewish settlements know to Jeremiah and Ezekiel including the Jews at Memphis and Pathros. .[18]
When Mary, Joseph and Jesus fled Herod, they fled into another Roman province—Egypt, or as the Romans called it Aegyptus. Aegyptus was a province personally controlled by Augustus and administered on Caesar’s behalf by an appointed Praefectus Augustalis. With both provinces under Roman administration, and with a long history of Jewish settlement in Egypt (and likely the translation of the Hebrew scriptures into the Greek Septuagint happened in Egypt), it would appear to make the move of Jesus from Bethlehem to Egypt analogous to moving between parts of the European Union, such as moving from Poland to Portugal. It is worth noting both Judaea and Egypt were under Roman military occupation, subject to Roman tax policy and supervision of public order—all tests Prof. Sherwin-White identified as critical for determining status as a Roman subject.

Christians should hold progressives accountable for their misuse and abuse of the Gospel narratives to further their political agenda. Progressives like Dr. Moore and others use biblical, historical and political ignorance to promote their policies. Christians should reject such worldly and inappropriate use of the biblical narratives.

Simply, Jesus was not an illegal immigrant nor was Jesus a refugee.

SSPX Resistance News / Re: Bishop Fellay Back in Power (Kind of)
« Last post by hollingsworth on Today at 11:16:57 AM »
Without wishing to take anything away from the good job done by either of these men in the past, I'm sure the SSPX leadership can appreciate why some traditional Catholics are a bit apprehensive over this announcement, since they were looking forward to the fresh approach of a 'new coaching staff' rather than an apparent reshuffling effort that may mean 'business as usual' when it comes to a whole host of problems blamed, fairly or not, on the previous 'coaching staff.' And this includes ardent supporters of Bishop Fellay, who only want what is best for the Society.
Well yeah!  Some traditional Catholics are indeed apprehensive.  This whole "reshuffling effort" stinks, and anyone with even an ounce of probity knows it.  The addition of two "new" assistants in the waning hours of the GC makes even Michael Matt squirm a bit, apparently.  Unlike Matt, though, I believe the previous 'coaching staff'  did a terrible job, and has presided over the total, and well deserved, demise of sspx.  God, what a reeking mess these men have created!
Please, Bp Williamson, say something!  Please, Your Excellency, lay Part II of your artificial intelligence treatise aside, and go directly to commentary on the steaming, fetid pile of manure this latest GC  has produced.

End of tantrum. 
LOL, I knew someone who had been present at the consecration of Bishop Dolan.  Someone questioned the validity (due to the Thuc line controversy), and he responded with, "I felt the Holy Spirit there".

Now that is comforting thought............................. :laugh2:
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10