I'm tired of Bishops banning the Latin Mass. Just look up videos of people riding a bike around the Euchurist during Mass. A Priest using a garden hose to bless the people. It is like theyre almost trying to joke around with something very Holy and Sacred. Not all Churches do this of course but there's a good chance that if you go to a Novus Ordo that they'll be doing these hereticke things. How about instead of worrying about a Priest doing something bad like allowing gαy people to relieve the Euchrist in the future let's make Mass more stricter. Like the TLM. It is the last reverent way of celebrating Mass. 

So far, whenever any of the Sede minded posters refer to the 'Old' SPPX in support of their "invalid" stance with regards to New Rite Ordinations etc, they have asked me to read what Fr. Peter Scott of the SSPX had to say on the subject or His Lordship Bishop Tissier de Mallarais. So, in the name of fairness, I went on a hunt, and well, it proved to be a rather unsuccessful endevour. Perhaps these posters would like to share some concrete evidence that they have that is not on the internet?

For starters the only information I could pull up about Fr. Scott is the following: "Fr. Peter Scott has pointed out that a positive doubt about the per se validity of the 1968 form of ordination as promulgated does not exist, for the strictly essential part of the form is practically identical to that defined by Pope Pius XII in 1947. It may be invalid in specific cases, he said, owing to defect of intention or poor vernacular translation. " This is a comment summarising Fr. Scott's outline in the 2007 edition of the Angelus.

As for His Lordship, the only one I could find was his Ordination Sermon of June 29, 2016, published by the SSPX UK as an "unofficial translation". Now this sermon is expressed with great clarity. He opens with "...We remember the beautiful words of Pius X 'To restore all things in Christ'...especially by the Catholic priesthood." He then proceeds to outline what a priest is - a mediator between God and man - and how this is symbolized in the ordination ceremony. It is when he begins to outline the three rites that are performed after the candidate has been ordained a priest, that the New Ordination Rite is first mentioned: "...my dear faithful, this wonderful anointing of the priest's hands was (tampered with - 'truque') by the conciliar Church for the past 46 years. Paul VI instituted other words which do not speak of consecration or sanctification. This is why we preciously safeguard the treasure of these ordination prayers." This was followed later by " But this prayer (concerning the Chalice and Paten), once again, was tampered with...we cannot accept this new, tampered with ordination rite, which casts doubts on the validity of numerous (NOTE not all) ordinations according to the new rite....this new rite of ordination is not Catholic."

Strong words indeed! And he was right in every thing he said. But what he did not say was that the New Ordination Rite itself was invalid. The thrust of his comparison was to show how the modernists had stripped back a beautiful teaching rite, rich in symbolism, to the 'bare-bones' of what the Rite was enacting - which in turn, has lead to many priests losing a sense of who and what they are; stripping it back to the point it no longer projects a clear Catholic spirit. There is no doubt that His Lordship had doubts. But, as far as I have found, he has never declared them positive doubts. And he has always held that the Popes since 1958 were indeed Popes.

I highly recommend reading Archbishop Lefevbre's "Letter to Confused Catholics".  Here is a link to read it for free online. (He talks about the changes of the novus ordo to the various Sacraments):  https://archive.org/details/AnOpenLetterToConfusedCatholics

Concerning "New priests" and the new rite of Holy Orders he says:

"Everything is bound up together. By attacking the base of the building it is destroyed entirely. No more Mass, no more priests. The ritual, before it was altered, had the bishop say "Receive the power to offer to God the Holy Sacrifice and to celebrate Holy Mass both for the living and for the dead, in the name of the Lord." He had previously blessed the hands of the ordinand by pronouncing these words "So that all that they bless may be blessed and all that they consecrate may be consecrated and sanctified." The power conferred is expressed without ambiguity: "That for the salvation of The people and by their holy blessing, they may effect the Transubstantiation of the bread and the wine into the Body and Blood of thy Divine Son."

Nowadays the bishop says, "Receive the offering of the holy people to present it to God." He makes the new priest an intermediary rather than the holder of the ministerial priesthood and the offerer of a sacrifice. The conception is wholly different. The priest has always been considered in Holy Church as someone having a character conferred by the Sacrament of Order. Yet we have seen a bishop, not "suspended", write, "The priest is not somebody who does things that the ordinary faithful don't do; he is not 'another Christ', any more than any other baptised person. " This bishop was merely drawing the conculusions from the teaching that has prevailed since the Council and the liturgy."

Yes, I agree, as the Church IS the Body of Christ (the Hypostatic Union) it certainly will be - or is being - scourged and stripped, and there will come a time when this Body is crucified by Her enemies and hidden from sight for three and a half days. Scripture tells us this in Revelation:

"And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and it was said to me: Arise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar and them that adore therein.
² But the court, which is without the temple, cast out, and measure it not: because it is given unto the Gentiles, and the holy city they shall tread under foot two and forty months (three and half years):
³ And I will give unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred sixty days (roughly three and half years), clothed in sackcloth.
⁴ These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks, that stand before the Lord of the earth....

And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast, that ascendeth out of the abyss, shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them.
⁸ And their bodies shall lie in the streets of the great city, which is called spiritually, Sodom and Egypt, where their Lord also was crucified (Jerusalem).
⁹ And they of the tribes, and peoples, and tongues, and nations, shall see their bodies for three days and a half: and they shall not suffer their bodies to be laid in sepulchres.
¹⁰ And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them, and make merry: and shall send gifts one to another, because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt upon the earth.
¹¹ And after three days and a half, the spirit of life from God entered into them. And they stood upon their feet, and great fear fell upon them that saw them." - Rev. 1:11.

The Olive trees mean 'Anointed Ones' and traditionally believed to be the Holy Father and an Earthly Catholic king.
This means the visibly Body that has always been there, will be hidden from sight for three and half days for there is no Church, no Body of Christ without the Papacy, its head, as Pope Leo XIII teaches.

Keep in mind, Jesus was both God and man. So while he died as a man and 'gave up his human spirit', He never died as God. The divine nature - His divine soul - remained with the Body.

It is hard to interpret scripture as God intended.

I just have a couple more questions.   Is Pope Leo xiv the pope with full authority of the Catholic Church?  Would you attend a Faternity of St. Peter Mass?  If yes, why are you with the SSPX? 

Pope Leo XIV is going to use his authority to make  "St" John Henry Newman a doctor of the Church.  What is your opinion on this?

We can try to understand different parts of the Church and try to make sense of specific things, but the problem is that it all needs to make sense in a unified way.  I don't believe  we can accept the changes in the Sacraments (all we're changed after V2, see the book "lex orandi" by Daniel Graham) not accept the making of Saints (forgot the term) and Doctors.  We have to accept those, too.

It is very frustrating times for most of us.  We find our little corner of tradition and we hang tight.  People have many different opinions, but we know that we can find Church teaching in the Saint's writings and Church teachings before Vatican 2.  At some point in time, God will restore the Papacy, so their will be no more confusion.  The time is not now.

Have I understood correctly? Fr. Pivert says it’s too dangerous to the Faith to go to SSPX Mass, one should not use any of their priests even for Confession or other Sacraments because you cannot count upon them not being modernist. 

No, he's French, it's a language issue. He has the faith, don't worry. I'll clear it up:

Yes, he doesn't want people to go to the SSPX, except for confession if it's absolutely necessary (mortal sin). "It's a real sacrament" - he meant "valid", i.e. that the SSPX at least has true apostolic succession. With the FSSP and Novus Ordo, confession is a doubtful sacrament because they use Novus Ordo bishops. So, don't go to them for confession.

The SSPX priests in Germany are very, very liberal. And completely silent on the Crisis (I heard only 2 sermons in 2 years, most people there don't have a clue about what Lefebvre actually taught). They also like JPII a lot. I still go to the chapels after the Mass, to meet up with people, but for the Mass itself, I pray the "Sanctification of the Sunday" and take spiritual communion. The problem is, as he points out, the silence, the Novus Ordites influencing people badly, etc.

St. Thomas teaches that (a) whoever communicates with a sinful, heretical or schismatic priest becomes a sharer of his sin (ST III Q82 A9). And the spiritual communion is equally graceful, given that no physical communion is possible without sin (STIII Q80 A1). So nobody is "deprived of graces" as some "trads" like to claim. There is a PDF of the "old" SSPX on how to do spiritual communion: https://dubia.cc/static/pdf/SantificaoDoDomingoFSSPX.pdf - so I translated it into English here: https://dubia.cc/en/sanctification. Alternatively one can also pray the Missal, of course.

We are supposed to boycott priest that have a concubine, how much more priests that are intentionally silent on the biggest error in the Church today.

He says Sedevacantists are also not to be used by the Faithful. But he also criticizes “independent” for not having a bishop because their chapels won’t last.

No, he said they (the "True Resistance", Hewkoists) are saying this about us, the "Fake Resistance". They say that our Fake Resistance chapels won't last, that our bishops are silent, that we don't have bishops, that we will fail, that we've already failed, etc.

With sedevacantists - he has no problems with them, the problem is the dogmatism. He explained (outside of the interview) that the pope only comes after Faith and Tradition. The pope is just the final, highest, authority - if some problem of discipline or dispute cannot be resolved at the local or episcopal level, then the pope steps in. Sedevacantists like to pull the rhetoric trick of "the pope has failed" = "the Church has failed" (the best option IMO is just "sub conditione naming").

In the USA, this is not legally recognized, therefore, in the eyes of the world and for all civil purposes, financial, legal, etc. it’s shacking up. Kind of makes a problem for the kids, right?  

No, because one is the civil marriage, the other one is the religious marriage, which the state doesn't care about anyway. Civil marriage is required no matter what.

It is too late for any type of organization be it seminary, school, monastery, convent, fraternity. Catholics who cannot access him or priest(s?) who associate with him, should be content with baptism (implied lay baptism) and marriage (without a priest, the couple give the vows to one another before two Catholic witnesses). 

This was the opinion of BpW - basically that it's more about the formation received, not so much the "seminary" itself. So the point is to "study" for the priesthood, not that you went to an XYZ seminary. He said, when he was in Econe (under Lefebvre), there were seminarians with wildly different levels of education and prior training. So he was ordained after only 4 1/2 years, instead of the regular 6 years.

I personally highly disagree with this view, I still think that traditional seminaries (Dominicans of Avrille, Mosteiro da Santa Cruz, HJM Seminary with Fr. Chazal, Hewkos Farm, Viganòs attempts) are necessary in the long run, but in the short run the option is "convince a bishop that you're good enough to be ordained", until proper seminaries exist.

The translation of the letter is very awkward, at times, makes no sense, as in, use of the work “cork.”  I don’t think he means the wood of a tree shaped into the stopper of a wine bottle or used as a floatation device!  

It's just 1:1 transcoded and cleaned up. I think he meant either "quack", i.e. someone who talks a lot or "cork" as in "someone who still has the old sprit, pre Vatican II". My problem with this is that these old quacks were the people who sold us out and, especially in Germany, they're either already dead or actively support the NO.

It's going back to BpWs story of how he was converted by one of those "old priests who still had the faith", so BpW had a bit of romanticism and thinks we can still do the same 60 years later. I don't think it's a good idea.

At dinner later he said "If you want to be a priest, go to one of the bishops like Bp Stobnicki, he will tell you where to go, what to do". He likes Bp Stobnicki a lot.

I hope that cleared up the worst translation errors. He is 72, was ordained by Lefebvre and has a website at https://abbe-pivert.com

Reality is precisely what this is about. You can compile a veritable mountain of data, but that will only reflect a PART of reality, not the whole. See, for all the posts made bemoaning the impossibility of, well, pretty much EVERYTHING good, I know people in real life, dozens and dozens, who are making their way through this life in a very Catholic way. When I think about it, it's almost like our Lord was serious about His promises. /s

There's an old saying, "figures never lie, but liars always figure". Do you not recognize that you often promote the smug despair that the enemy desires? You mention "Jєωιѕн subversion" above, do you not recognize that maybe you've been more subverted than many? A jew agent couldn't do a better job of trying to discourage souls. In the midst of a group who, by definition of being Catholic, should be able to embrace any and every obstacle with joy, we have the liar's voice demanding that we see only impossibility? We should have a non-stop pity party and an entitlement mentality worse than any "boomer" I've ever met? Are we entitled in this "information age" to be so F***ing ignorant of how hard life was for our forebears that we should wallow in complaints?* If I really thought that was the Catholic Faith, I'd say, "to hell with It" in a heartbeat!

I'm the OP of this thread. All of the choices listed, including "other", are factors in why I do not spend as much time here as previous, but I had to take a day or two to consider what the primary reason is before I could choose. Number 1 was a close contender, but I finally chose no. 4. I've been very much guilty at times of every one of the faults mentioned above, but I'm starting to realize that life is too important to waste it with a doom-scrolling loser's mentality.

*For an example, thanks to modern technology, a couple of years ago I was able to find ~60 pages of docuмents detailing the effects on a direct ancestor of mine of being a prisoner of war.

Wow you have no compassion. The other poster didn't understand the use of 'boomer' so I explained it. No one denies that life wasn't hard for our ancestors but rather there is an out of touch group of people who refuse to recognise that hard work for most people today does not pay off. I know dozens of people in real life (e.g my coworkers) who are struggling in their lives. They work work work but despite it all they barely get by. This is not what the older generations had, especially not the boomers who were so handsomely rewarded it was ridiculous.

Another commenter said that 

You're taking it personally. How do you think Millenials and GenZs feel about being made fun of? If you're not that stereotype of a boomer, then it shouldn't offend you. Why are you offended for your generation? You should know the stereotype of Boomers within your peers. The fact that you're getting really offended maybe means that it's true and you're projecting. Or you lack thick skin. I don't care about the other insults but the fact that you're clutching your pearls means you're overthinking the situation. If what is said isn't true about you, then why does it affect you?

Seeing how you are acting it seems like my post has greatly effected you. If I wasn't living with my parents I would literally be homeless. Rental vacancies are taken so quickly by immigrants and the prices for rent are even worse than the over priced housing. 5 indians in 1 House can afford to pay the rent, I can't.

I could easily talk about how bad the job market it as well, but I won't and will simply mention that even a experienced and qualified guy like Mathew took months to find a job which he eventually got let go.

Pointing out these things doesn't cause demoralisation, ignoring it does. Nothing worse when the people around you don't care and have no compassion. Like my country men, most are happy that housing is a Ponzi and they have cheap labor. But most my kin are older. Not surprising since 30% of gen Z was aborted.

Talking about problems helps to educate people and make them aware of said problem. If I say nothing then nothing will change. Out of touch 'boomers' need a wake up check, they really don't understand how they pulled the rug from everyone.