Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Machabees on December 12, 2012, 04:42:17 PM
-
It was told to me that in the SSPX, Post Falls Idaho chapel, the "Cross bearer" was removed from the liturgy during the High Mass; as with, it is no longer written on the serving schedule for the last two Sundays.
Can anyone confirm anymore details of this?
To my understanding, from many SSPX priests over the years, the cross bearer (in the many reasons of its symbolism), is a "standard" of Christ...
I do not know, nor have I ever seen, the cross bearer removed on a Sunday High Mass during the Advent season.
This new "change" is quite serious (...), and very symbolic also, for the NSSPX to remove the STANDARD of Christ -the King- as it continues in its recent desires to make a covenant with the Conciliar apostate Rome.
This removal of the Cross bearer, as it was told to me, was all the more shocking because it was not even announced ahead of time from the pulpit, or any other mediums, as to any kind of "explanation".
"So...go to sleep my little sheep", said the wolf. "We will have breakfast together in the morning...go to sleep."
-
To you my friends, in the name I have chosen, by the intersession of the Holy Machabees, the Faith and STANDARD of Christ will not fall on the floor without my bloody hands holding it it up...
So be it! Amen!
-
Even as a Novus Ordo altar boy we always had a cross bearer at Sunday Mass.
-
Novus ordo alert!, Novus ordo alert!
(Your getting us all excited)
Did you ask the priest who celebrated the High Mass about it ?
Sometimes when they are short on altar servers, they just don't fill the Cross Bearer position.
Although the Cross Bearer doesn't do much during the Mass, he is technically the highest ranked server.
Ranked over the Master of Ceremonies because he bears Our Lord's Cross.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_QsV16KSX2NE/SXdCoo08UPI/AAAAAAAAA-8/QPOLoHfbHjQ/s320/18-710358.jpg)
In celebrating a High Mass, Acolytes 1 and 2 are essential.
So, if they were short of people, for practical purposes, they can cut that position.
Maybe your chapel needs more altars servers, who can soon serve Masses for priests of the SSPX-Reisistance?
-
It was told to me that in the SSPX, Post Falls Idaho chapel, the "Cross bearer" was removed from the liturgy during the High Mass; as with, it is no longer written on the serving schedule for the last two Sundays.
Can anyone confirm anymore details of this?
To my understanding, from many SSPX priests over the years, the cross bearer (in the many reasons of its symbolism), is a "standard" of Christ...
I do not know, nor have I ever seen, the cross bearer removed on a Sunday High Mass during the Advent season.
This new "change" is quite serious (...), and very symbolic also, for the NSSPX to remove the STANDARD of Christ -the King- as it continues in its recent desires to make a covenant with the Conciliar apostate Rome.
This removal of the Cross bearer, as it was told to me, was all the more shocking because it was not even announced ahead of time from the pulpit, or any other mediums, as to any kind of "explanation".
"So...go to sleep my little sheep", said the wolf. "We will have breakfast together in the morning...go to sleep."
I wouldn't worry too much about hearsay. If and when it is certified then that would be a different story.
-
I would like to congratulate you, Macabees, for a very important observation.
There is a diocese parish in the Valley here, St. Bernardine of
Sienna, (after whom is named San Bernardino CA) where they have
resumed the use of the cross for processions after having
abandoned it for a number of years.
But the cross they use, or that is, try to use, is really stupid. The
worst part about it is that it is far too heavy to be practical. It
weighs about 40 pounds, and it is therefore too heavy for a
younger boy to carry. There is a real danger of him falling over by
trying to keep it upright with all his strength.
But also, it is a "Jerusalem cross," with the extra cross pieces on
the edges, and an overall square shape. It doesn't look like a
Roman Rite crucifix in any way. As I recall, it has no corpus. It seems
to be "different just to be different," not for any reasonable purpose.
Just different. Anything but traditional. A lot of the neighbors
surrounding this parish are Jєωιѕн, so it could be a sort of political
move.
You are correct that the standard of Christ the King is important.
No army would march into battle without the standard to lead the
way, for it provides a focus point for all the troops to follow with
confidence. And the Church Militant is fighting a spiritual battle here
on earth.
To my understanding, from many SSPX priests over the years, the cross bearer (in the many reasons of its symbolism), is a "standard" of Christ...
I do not know, nor have I ever seen, the cross bearer removed on a Sunday High Mass during the Advent season.
This new "change" is quite serious (...), and very symbolic also, for the NSSPX to remove the STANDARD of Christ -the King- as it continues in its recent desires to make a covenant with the Conciliar apostate Rome.
This removal of the Cross bearer, as it was told to me, was all the more shocking because it was not even announced ahead of time from the pulpit, or any other mediums, as to any kind of "explanation".
Can you imagine a priest trying to perform an exorcism without
having a proper crucifix? If it's not proper, the devil will attack the
priest without mercy, on that basis. If it is not very sturdy, the devil
will cause it to be bent or even broken during the exorcism. If it is
not made of wood, or there are no nails through the wood holding
the corpus on it, the devil will taunt the priest about those things,
and the priest will not be able to make progress in the exorcism.
It would seem to me that this is a sign that the NSSPX, or at least
the chapel in Post Falls (Immaculate Conception?) is preparing to
be unprepared for what is to come!
-
Novus ordo alert!, Novus ordo alert!
(Your getting us all excited)
Did you ask the priest who celebrated the High Mass about it ?
Sometimes when they are short on altar servers, they just don't fill the Cross Bearer position.
Although the Cross Bearer doesn't do much during the Mass, he is technically the highest ranked server.
Ranked over the Master of Ceremonies because he bears Our Lord's Cross.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_QsV16KSX2NE/SXdCoo08UPI/AAAAAAAAA-8/QPOLoHfbHjQ/s320/18-710358.jpg)
In celebrating a High Mass, Acolytes 1 and 2 are essential.
So, if they were short of people, for practical purposes, they can cut that position.
Maybe your chapel needs more altars servers, who can soon serve Masses for priests of the SSPX-Reisistance?
Good question Incredulous about the possibility of "lack" of servers.
It was told to me from this person that Post Falls is the second biggest chapel in the U.S. District with over 1,600 people. In addition, He said it has a large BOYS SCHOOL with LOTS OF SERVERS, and even lots of men who can't "get in" to serve because of the abundance of servers.
Further as I was told, in their serving schedule (which he said is in their parish bulletin) they cut the position on purpose. Two weeks in a row...and his boy is in their group of serves which he himself confirmed this! As with, he said, that it was confirmed by their Head M.C. (who didn't agree with it), that it is not on the serving schedule at all- gone! No typo! No mistake!
-
Yikes!...
Novus ordo alert... Novus ordo alert!
Suggest you use the St. Stephen's ArchConfraternity book of server rubrics and call a chapel meeting.
However, for Mass, there are rubrics where the Chapel pastor has authority to make the call. i.e, the bell rung at the end of the end of the Canon, the Minor Elevation, is in the French rubrics, but the pastor can allow it.
Not sure about ditching the Cross Bearer?
It sure doesn't sound right.
Sancta Missa (http://www.sanctamissa.org/en/serving/handbook-for-altar-servers-0.html)
-
I just got off the phone with another friend, who lives there, and I talked to him about this new event.
He said, that he heard a lot about it from others and was concerned himself; and he had called the M.C. He said, according to the M.C., "father (Fr. Vassal the Prior) decided to remove the cross bearer because 'it was not in the rubrics' to have one without a procession." And, "that there was not enough room for the cross bearer in the sanctuary."
My friend followed to say, that he thought that that was pretty lame for the fact that in his 20+ years being there, there had ALWAYS been a cross bearer in all of the Sunday Masses with and without a procession -it was their norm that everyone knew and loved.
Further he said, he also finds it more odd with the statement of the Prior (according to the M.C.), that "there was not enough room in the sanctuary for the cross bearer". He elaborated to say, that the chapel is HUGE with a very big (I think he said 3-step) sanctuary! So big that they have many Solemn High Masses and Pontifical Masses with the Bishop's throne in it, with all of the pomp and servers, including the cross bearer with plenty of room in between. Including any visiting seminarians and priests who want to sit in the sanctuary (...). In addition to, 6-torch bearers all of the time during those Masses, as within the High mass every Sunday!
He finished to say, no other Prior or District Superior, in all of those years have ever come out and say "it is not in the Rubrics..." and squash the "cross bearer"; and, if it is "not in the rubrics" as the Prior would have it, then why isn't the cross bearer gone in all the other SSPX Chapels...?
(I smell liberalism entering in...under the appearance of "law".)
How are we to teach the Faith...without the STANDARD of the Cross?
Wow...
-
I wouldn't worry too much about hearsay. If and when it is certified then that would be a different story.
This is not a fun post to write about -the crucifix being kicked out of the sanctuary...
Sspxbvm, I knew this information was a "fact" and NOT a "hearsay". The question is, how much more information is out there on this, and who else knows something more on it?
As Fr. Chazal said in one of his sermons (to paraphrase): If everyone depended on Menzingen in what they "handed down", then no one will understand what is going on. It is in all of the small pieces that come together, like a puzzle, that one can now "see" the picture. So this is a "piece" of information that I am adding.
For future reference. I do not believe, nor Post, anything unless it is a confirmed fact.
Instaurare omnia in Christo...
(To restore all things in Christ...)
-
Adding to this saga...on the point of the cross bearer no longer being in the (bulletin) serving schedule, I was just given, via fax, the last 3-Post Falls bulletins showing/confirming (on the back of it), what the head M.C. had said to my friend about the cross bearer (C.B.) being cancelled from the serving schedule -"it is no longer written on the serving schedule for the last two Sundays".
-
Hmm... what's the background on your SSPX priest ?
If he a "reformed" Novus ordo cleric?
We have an ex Novus ordo priest who didn't give a Latin or an English absolution durig the Sacrament of Confession. I think the news got back to his superior and only then he started giving us absolutions.
-
Hmm... what's the background on your SSPX priest ?
If he a "reformed" Novus ordo cleric?
We have an ex Novus ordo priest who didn't give a Latin or an English absolution durig the Sacrament of Confession. I think the news got back to his superior and only then he started giving us absolutions.
:shocked:
-
Hmm... what's the background on your SSPX priest ?
If he a "reformed" Novus ordo cleric?
We have an ex Novus ordo priest who didn't give a Latin or an English absolution durig the Sacrament of Confession. I think the news got back to his superior and only then he started giving us absolutions.
I know of a well-respected SSPX priest who is strongly opposed to this practice of using Novus Ordo priest-converts.
There have ben some spectacular duds.
-
Yes, we can't judge their intentions, but it is natural for us to be "on guard", as the French swordsman say.
We've been exposed to the Karl Rahner infection, to different degrees.
An SSPX-J supporter friend of mine recently described the SSPX-Resistance priests as "zealots".
Give me a zealous trad priest anyday.
They are the ones who will lead us to Heaven.
-
An SSPX-J supporter friend of mine recently described the SSPX-Resistance priests as "zealots".
....and the Neo-SSPX are "sellouts". :facepalm:
-
An SSPX-J supporter friend of mine recently described the SSPX-Resistance priests as "zealots".
....and the Neo-SSPX are "sellouts". :facepalm:
For sure...
If you read the latest TIA article, Fr. Ortiz, on the new SSPX Hermeneutics...TIA (http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f065_Ortiz_1.htm)
.... then consider that Msgr. Fellay hired a zionist lawyer who manages their 80 million Euro Jєωιѕн inheritance fund... its a trajedy so pathetic almost to be laughable.
How long does Msgr. Fellay and Father Rostand think they can keep their Barnum & Bailey circus running ?
-
How long does Msgr. Fellay and Father Rostand think they can keep their Barnum & Bailey circus running ?
They'll keep flogging it until either everyone believes it's "The Greatest Show on Earth!" or until people quit because they're so burnt out on the same dozen+ clowns spilling out of the little Menzingen car.
-
How long does Msgr. Fellay and Father Rostand think they can keep their Barnum & Bailey circus running ?
They'll keep flogging it until either everyone believes it's "The Greatest Show on Earth!" or until people quit because they're so burnt out on the same dozen+ clowns spilling out of the little Menzingen car.
NW,
Thank you for gracing this forum.
I always enjoyed your avatar and posts on IA.
The avatar reminded me of something out of Monty Python... but for the good, you're mocking the mockers of our Faith.
-
Adding to this saga...on the point of the cross bearer no longer being in the (bulletin) serving schedule, I was just given, via fax, the last 3-Post Falls bulletins showing/confirming (on the back of it), what the head M.C. had said to my friend about the cross bearer (C.B.) being cancelled from the serving schedule -"it is no longer written on the serving schedule for the last two Sundays".
So let me get this straight:
Three weeks ago
24th and Last Sunday After Pentecost (26th S.a.P.) ..... Cross Bearer
Two weeks ago
First Sunday of Advent ......................................... no Cross Bearer
This past week
Second Sunday of Advent ........................ ............ no Cross Bearer
And no announcement, but questions are answered confirming the
decision to omit CB is intentional, not a mistake.
Someone in a position of "authority" was looking forward to making some
changes this Advent season, that could apply to the whole year ahead,
and perhaps beyond (it seems to me). And now that the "new" 1962
missal is nowhere to be seen, it appears that his hankering for change
has taken the form of this unwarranted innovation. At best it is a "trial
balloon" to see if he can get away with it, and at worst it is a "test case"
assigned by the Menzingen-denizens to foist progressiveness on an
otherwise traditional community. IMHO.
I suspect they are not counting on the faithful being vigilant.
This is why they hate the Internet.
A recent sermon distributed on the Internet has: the bishops are
supposed to be the watchmen, and when the watchmen do not do
their job, the next line of defense is the guard dogs. It is a dog's
duty to bark.
We are the dogs.
In my experience, one of the features common to Novus Ordo parishes
is that they no longer use the Crucifix Standard in processions.
This is a Novus Ordo innovation, do not be mistaken. It is the kind of
thing that will be commonplace if a 'deal' is signed. So you need to
decide if this is the kind of thing you'll tolerate, or, will you do something
about it? How about a protest in front of the Church? Liberals get their
voices heard that way, maybe it's worth a shot!
-
A recent sermon distributed on the Internet has: the bishops are
supposed to be the watchmen, and when the watchmen do not do
their job, the next line of defense is the guard dogs. It is a dog's
duty to bark.
We are the dogs.
In the sermon I'm thinking of, the priests (Fr. Chazal et. al.) are the dogs, and we are the sheep.
-
Take note of Fr. Pfeiffer's sermon for 2nd Sunday of Advent at Post Falls:
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=21975#p3
In this sermon, he talks about the cross-bearer to be discontinued,
in context of the larger meaning of all the little changes like this
that are going on in the SSPX..
It's a different sermon than the one in Denver on their main site,
but it is very similar. Both given the same day, apparently.
-
Take note of Fr. Pfeiffer's sermon for 2nd Sunday of Advent at Post Falls:
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=21975#p3
In this sermon, he talks about the cross-bearer to be discontinued,
in context of the larger meaning of all the little changes like this
that are going on in the SSPX..
It's a different sermon than the one in Denver on their main site,
but it is very similar. Both given the same day, apparently.
FWIW - if you've already heard the VLC media player sermon for Dec. 9th
that you download from the site inthissignyoushallconquer.com then you
should not think there is a mistake, because Fr. P. does not mention the
cross-bearer problem in that sermon. He only mentions it in the Post
Falls ID sermon for the same day, and that one is only available on
YouTube so far, linked in the OP of the thread for which the above link
takes you to one of the posts. Go to that thread and go back to the first
post to get the link for the sermon with the cross-bearer dishonorable
mention.
Link for Post Falls ID sermon
(http://youtu.be/K7AdNuL93r8)
-
Here is an update on the Post falls –cross bearer (crucifix) being removed from the sanctuary.
I just spoke to someone who lives there and attends that chapel. He said:
• Since Dec. 2, except for Christmas day, there has not been a cross bearer in any of the (normal) Sunday processions they regularly have.
• That the Prior, Fr. Vassal, is continuing his stance...amongst opposition.
• That a number of people have written letters to him…still awaiting a response.
Didn’t the Vat. II, New Order Church, also get rid of the crucifix -the standard of Christ- from the sanctuary, and from the mind’s eye of the faithful…?
-
there is no sanctuary in the novus ordo... what need of a crucifix....
-
Here is an update on the Post falls –cross bearer (crucifix) being removed from the sanctuary.
I just spoke to someone who lives there and attends that chapel. He said:
• Since Dec. 2, except for Christmas day, there has not been a cross bearer in any of the (normal) Sunday processions they regularly have.
• That the Prior, Fr. Vassal, is continuing his stance...amongst opposition.
• That a number of people have written letters to him…still awaiting a response.
Didn’t the Vat. II, New Order Church, also get rid of the crucifix -the standard of Christ- from the sanctuary, and from the mind’s eye of the faithful…?
I mentioned this issue to a friend and suggested that having parishioners
gather in front of the Church before Mass, using a procession with a
cross-bearer in front of protesters carrying signs might get the Prior to
re-consider his "stance." My friend told me that "Mother Theresa was
opposed to participation in protests." Now, holding a Rosary rally might be
acceptable.
This is a great example of the kind of problems that will become every
day problems once the 'deal' is done. Can you imagine a year down the
road, someone saying, "Man, can you believe it? When we were told
that the cross-bearer would be discontinued, we thought we were
having problems then! If only we could have known what was coming
down the pike!"
It seems to me that Fr. Vassal needs something more than gentle
"prodding" from the real men in the congregation. Keep in mind, he was
probably put up to this by Fr. Rostand, to become a test case. They're
trying to get ready to make a 'deal' with Rome, bottom line.
-
It seems to me that Fr. Vassal needs something more than gentle
"prodding" from the real men in the congregation. Keep in mind, he was
probably put up to this by Fr. Rostand, to become a test case. They're
trying to get ready to make a 'deal' with Rome, bottom line.
The good news is, Post Falls already has more "prodding" going on in the works. My friend did mentioned that he will let me know of the out comes... There are many who are fighting this beastly decision.
Remember... No Prior or priest, can make any liturgical changes without permission coming from the top.[/b]
-
In a more general sense, the laity are being forced into a kind of religious
persecution by the clerics of the SSPX, for this situation of having to beg
their pastors to remain faithful to tradition and not succuмb to the
unclean spirit of Vatican II is something that is an inversion itself of the
proper order of things. For it is not the place of the subjects to form the
superiors. Yet, you may notice that this is precisely what the Menzingen-
denizens would have us anticipate in the 'deal' they propose would take
place with Modernist Rome. It is not the place of the SSPX operating
from under the authority of the local bishops and subject to them, to
effect any "conversion" of the Roman apostates from the "inside out." That
would not happen, but rather quite the opposite would take place.
It is up to us to learn these principles of reality and keep them in mind,
such that when we hear things contrary to this in the Sunday sermons,
we will know what we are hearing is not in harmony with objective truth,
and therefore is not of God. The writing is on the wall.
Bishop Williamson addresses this topic in the recent conference Q&A after
the confirmations in Toronto December 15th, the Octave Day of the
Immaculate Conception.
Our Lord said: "Watch ye and pray" (Matt. xxvi. 41). Our first duty is to
watch. And while we watch, we should have our wits about us, so as to
take notice of irregularities, such as the cross-bearer missing in the
procession, which is an objective departure from the tradition which has
been handed down to us, the tradition we have received...
TRADIDI QUOD ET ACCEPI
-
Great post Neil Obstat. You are absolutely correct that the SSPX would not change modernist Rome and the conciliar church, but would itself be assimilated. Rather than "beg" priests to do the right thing, I propose that it would be more effective to take stronger actions such as refusing to financially contribute and public protest.
Why would the SSPX laity go along with being assimilated into modernist Rome? Why would it be any more acceptable now than 50 years ago? Is modernist Rome just ahead of its time rather than wrong? I think not!! The laity needs to make it clear beyond any doubt that they won't be going along under any circuмstances. Maybe that will make some of the priests bolder in doing the right thing who are on the fence.
Why would the SSPX laity be so dumb to let the EXACT same thing happen to them today that happened to the conciliar church 45 years ago? They saw this and evaded it back then? Now fall to a nearly EXACT replica of the same trap?????
-
Update:
This issue of removing the Cross-Bearer from the sanctuary is really BIG for the whole Catholic world. Little by little the Devil is trying to kick out Jesus Christ. As a baptized Catholic, I am not giving up without a fight!
Remember the two “reasons” Fr. Vassal gave to remove the Cross-Bearer? According to the Head M.C. (who by the way, as I am told, is the President of the St. Stephen’s Archconfraternity at that Chapel, and the one who does the serving schedule for both ICC and the Carmelites), he said:
• Fr. Vassal, the Prior, decided to remove the cross bearer because it was not in the “rubrics” to have one without a procession.
• And, that there was not enough room for the cross bearer in the sanctuary.
If that lame excuse of Fr.Vassal doesn’t make your hair stand on end…!
The second one, “that there was not enough room for the cross bearer in the sanctuary”, is pitiful enough given to know that the Post Falls sanctuary is really BIG (see the other posts that describe this).
However, this first one of, “Fr. Vassal, the Prior, decided to remove the cross bearer because it was not in the “rubrics” to have one without a procession”, is a clever tactic. Firstly, I do not know the specific “rubric” that he wants to state; however, if Fr. Vassal wants us to believe “his new change” to submit to a rubric, then objectively, if this is true, then the superiors all of these years, and in many different countries have got it wrong. If so, then it stands to reason, objectively, it should be removed throughout the country in all chapels and seminaries… I do not see it! Therefore it is -subjective. Of course we knew that!
So in this case let’s describe what a liturgical Procession is. Simply, a liturgical procession is any procession with Cleric(s) that originates “outside” of the sanctuary (the Holies’), which is divided by the communion rail, and proceeds/enters into the Sanctuary.
So the update:
• As I have been told, there have been 7- High Masses in Post Falls since Dec. 2 up to today Dec. 30, 2012 (includes Immaculate Conception and Christmas).
• All of these High Masses did have processions that originated “outside” of the Sanctuary with the Cleric. 3- Of the High Mass processions started from the side door of the faithful’s area, then into the Sanctuary, through the opening in the middle of the Communion rail. 4- Of the High Mass processions started from the back of the Church, down the aisle, then into the Sanctuary, through the opening in the middle of the Communion rail.
• Therefore, all 7- of these High Mass processions originating “outside” of the Sanctuary with the Cleric, and preceded into the Sanctuary, are in definition -real Processions!!!
• So what High Masses had, and what High masses had not the Cross Bearer? Fr. Vassal only allowed the Cross Bearer to be in the Christmas procession; which is only one of the four High Mass processions that originated from the back of the Church! The other 6- High Mass processions were denied regardless where the procession had originated –the Cross bearer was KICKED OUT! Also, the Thurifer was not allowed in all of these times to carry the thurible with incense; whereas, both the Cross-Bearer and the Thurifer were ALWAYS apart of the High Mass in the Post Falls Parish since its years of existence – until Fr. Vassal came!!!
• Additionally, as I found out, Fr. Vassal removed -KICKED OUT- the Cross Bearer from the Carmelite's High Masses also!!!
Remember… No Prior or priest, can make any liturgical changes without permission coming from the top.
To KICK OUT the Cross-Bearer from the Sanctuary, coming from our own SSPX priests, is really a GROSS fight! What would Archbishop Lefebvre say to you?
How are we to teach the Faith...without the STANDARD of the Cross?
I was a boy when Vatican II was going on. The Faith and (SSPX) Mass that I go to now, someone else fought for, and was given to me. It is my turn now to fight these battles…to pass it on to the next generation.
To all souls with good will, do we not fight for the Faith, and for our Lord and Lady, or do we cower in a corner under the cult of false obedience?
The Saints and Angles in heaven -always cry out to fight- the world, the flesh, and the Devil!!!
This Cross-Bearer issue is not going down without a fight!
There is a line in the sand…and my blood will be on it!!!
-
I was a boy when Vatican II was going on. The Faith and (SSPX) Mass that I go to now, someone else fought for, and was given to me. It is my turn now to fight these battles…to pass it on to the next generation.
Indeed! Like the traditionalist Catholics who responded as the betrayal of Vatican II became apparent, this current generation of traditionalist Catholics must respond to the Menzingen sellout.
-
I need to add in the updates above one more “piece of the betrayal” that I forgot to include (a lot is going on):
• In the 4- High Mass processions from the back of the Church, as was written above, one of them was Christmas and got the Cross-Bearer (Deo Gratias…it was only for our Lord’s birthday right Fr. Vassal?), the added part to this is, as another one of the four processions came from the back of the Church today with Fr. Haynos, and no Cross-Bearer my friend said, though he didn’t know why (?); however, of the other remaining two processions left that had happened, with again no Cross-Bearer, one of them that did come from the back had a very BIG procession that included the Eucharist Crusades Chapter, and the Holy Name Society Chapter –That is very formal, along with the uniforms he said, to process in with two of the Church’s Social action groups! Bottom line –the Cross Bearer was kicked out of that procession as well!
How are these neo-SSPX priests going to answer to God…?
-
Yes, the Sunday High Mass Cross Bearers at IC Post Falls, St. Dominic's Girl's School AND the Carmelites in Spokane Valley have been eliminated as per Fr. Vassal.
FOLKS, WHEN WILL YOU WAKE UP???????
Welcome to the Church of Fellay™. :dancing-banana: :dancing-banana:
-
Yes, the Sunday High Mass Cross Bearers at IC Post Falls, St. Dominic's Girl's School AND the Carmelites in Spokane Valley have been eliminated as per Fr. Vassal.
FOLKS, WHEN WILL YOU WAKE UP???????
Welcome to the Church of Fellay™. :dancing-banana: :dancing-banana:
Have the parents removed their sons from serving Mass, in protest? I would think if everyone stood together and removed their sons from serving when the Cross Bearer is absent, that might get some "re-thinking" from the prior?
Have the parents thought of any other type of protest?
Have the Carmelites and Dominicans protested? Are they talking to Bishop Williamson about this?
-
I need to add in the updates above one more “piece of the betrayal” that I forgot to include (a lot is going on):
• In the 4- High Mass processions from the back of the Church, as was written above, one of them was Christmas and got the Cross-Bearer (Deo Gratias…it was only for our Lord’s birthday right Fr. Vassal?), the added part to this is, as another one of the four processions came from the back of the Church today with Fr. Haynos, and no Cross-Bearer my friend said, though he didn’t know why (?); however, of the other remaining two processions left that had happened, with again no Cross-Bearer, one of them that did come from the back had a very BIG procession that included the Eucharist Crusades Chapter, and the Holy Name Society Chapter –That is very formal, along with the uniforms he said, to process in with two of the Church’s Social action groups! Bottom line –the Cross Bearer was kicked out of that procession as well!
How are these neo-SSPX priests going to answer to God…?
But I guess we should wait until something concrete "happens" in the SSPX before we take action. :rolleyes:
(For the sarcasm-challenged: I was being sarcastic!)
My question:
Do they use a Cross Bearer in processions in the Novus Ordo?
-
I need to add in the updates above one more “piece of the betrayal” that I forgot to include (a lot is going on):
• In the 4- High Mass processions from the back of the Church, as was written above, one of them was Christmas and got the Cross-Bearer (Deo Gratias…it was only for our Lord’s birthday right Fr. Vassal?), the added part to this is, as another one of the four processions came from the back of the Church today with Fr. Haynos, and no Cross-Bearer my friend said, though he didn’t know why (?); however, of the other remaining two processions left that had happened, with again no Cross-Bearer, one of them that did come from the back had a very BIG procession that included the Eucharist Crusades Chapter, and the Holy Name Society Chapter –That is very formal, along with the uniforms he said, to process in with two of the Church’s Social action groups! Bottom line –the Cross Bearer was kicked out of that procession as well!
How are these neo-SSPX priests going to answer to God…?
These neo-SSPX priests may manage to avoid the carrying of their cross in
this life, but they won't be able to avoid it in the next life!
But I guess we should wait until something concrete "happens" in the SSPX before we take action. :rolleyes:
(For the sarcasm-challenged: I was being sarcastic!)
My question:
Do they use a Cross Bearer in processions in the Novus Ordo?
My answer:
No,
-But, the Novus Ordo always bears a conspicuously HEAVY cross in the
underworld processions! And talk about LONG! Those things go on
FOR-EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE-VER!
-
An update on Fr. Vassal’s liberal tactic of removing the cross bearer.
I received information from a friend in Post Falls, in which he spoke to Fr. Vassal after one of the Masses there, for about 20-minutes on the subject of why did he (Fr. Vassal) remove the Cross bearer.
He wrote down, in summary, the exchange of their conversation.
The question that was asked of Fr. Vassal, was: Fr. Vassal, why did you remove the Cross bearer from the Mass. Fr. Vassal responses follow:
- It is a Law of the Church. A Canon Law. The cross bearer in the rubrics is only for a Bishop.
- It is in my conscience that I need to remove the “abuse”.
- The “use” of the cross bearer in procession was actually started in France in revolt to the Bishop in France; from there it went everywhere.
- (Question) Well, it is still in France today. It is still in Saint-Nicolas-du-Chardonnet and other places.
- Yes, but the priest over there does not want to do it. I do not think it is a problem.
- Many people may not understand. So we will have it on Holy Name Society Sunday; and some big feast days.
- (Question) If it is “objective” as you say, and it is the Law, then why do you have it sometimes? Why not get rid of it altogether?
- I would like to. But we can do it sometimes in procession.
- (Question) Did you ask the district superior about removing the Cross bearer?
- No. (With a shrug of his shoulders, shaking his head, squinting his eyebrows). I don’t think that I need to.
- I do not see a problem. It is just a small thing. (Fr. Vassal held his fingers up with a very small gap between his fingers.)
- (Question) Well isn’t that subjective to do it sometimes?
- Well maybe. But it is just a small thing.
- If it is “objective”, why isn’t it done in the rest of the district? It is not removed in the seminary?
- I don’t know. (Shrug of shoulders.)
- (Question) Isn’t it true in the Church, that if there is a Custom already established, not to remove it?
- Well, yes, that is true. But it is a Law; so I need to remove it. It is still only a little problem. I do not think that people will mind once they know.
- (Question) I mind! And many people in the parish are talking about this.
- Why haven’t they come to me and say something? Then I will need to give a sermon on “rash judgment”. (It was Fr. Vassal that did not communicate this; and it was Fr. Vassal that caused the confusion; which caused in his view – people having a rash judgment!).
- It is just a little problem.
- (Question) No, Fr. Vassal, it is a very big problem!
- Well you are the only one that spoke to me. Why did you come to me so late to speak of this?
- (Answer) Because you have not been here often doing masses; nor, when you were here, you did not come out after mass as you usually do.
- That is right. I have not been here much lately.
- (Question) Fr. Vassal, you did not even announce it from the pulpit that you were going to remove the Cross bearer. You did not even write it in a newsletter. You did not say anything about it. You just did it. I know you are a foreigner in this country; but in this country when the Novus Ordo came out, the new church also made these changes little by little without telling anyone…and you are doing the same thing. So yes, it is a big problem!
- Well maybe it was not prudent to do it without telling anyone. Maybe when I get back, I will think about it. But it is just a little thing. (Shrug of shoulders.) I do not think it is a problem.
- (Question) Isn’t it important to teach people and the children about the cross and the importance of it? There is a boy’s school here. I know that many of the boys who serve are confused; and do not know what is going on. Isn’t the Crucifix the standard of our religion; of the Faith; of the Mass. Isn’t it the standard bearer, like in the earlier days where ever the standard bearer went, it was a message of communication. To get rid of the Cross bearer, the crucifix, is detrimental to the faith.
- There is still a cross on the altar. I do not think it is a problem.
- (Back and forth…back and forth…each of them saying the same thing. Neither of them budging. Fr. Vassal kept looking at his watch; and said at many times that he is trying to find someone. He needs to go. Then he left).
Conclusion.
My friend said that he is going to write a letter to Fr. Rostand, the District Superior, with what took place in their conversation and see if he will do anything about it.
So yes, Fr. Vassal, to remove the Crucifix of Jesus Christ is a BIG problem!
It is fervent Catholics that adore the Cross; it is liberals that want to get the Cross out of the way!
This is a fight…Viva Cristo Rey!
-
- The “use” of the cross bearer in procession was actually started in France in revolt to the Bishop in France; from there it went everywhere.
I wonder what year this was.
-
An update on Fr. Vassal’s liberal tactic of removing the cross bearer.
I received information from a friend in Post Falls, in which he spoke to Fr. Vassal after one of the Masses there, for about 20-minutes on the subject of why did he (Fr. Vassal) remove the Cross bearer.
He wrote down, in summary, the exchange of their conversation.
The question that was asked of Fr. Vassal, was: Fr. Vassal, why did you remove the Cross bearer from the Mass. Fr. Vassal responses follow:
- It is a Law of the Church. A Canon Law. The cross bearer in the rubrics is only for a Bishop.
- It is in my conscience that I need to remove the “abuse”.
- The “use” of the cross bearer in procession was actually started in France in revolt to the Bishop in France; from there it went everywhere.
- (Question) Well, it is still in France today. It is still in Saint-Nicolas-du-Chardonnet and other places.
- Yes, but the priest over there does not want to do it. I do not think it is a problem.
- Many people may not understand. So we will have it on Holy Name Society Sunday; and some big feast days.
- (Question) If it is “objective” as you say, and it is the Law, then why do you have it sometimes? Why not get rid of it altogether?
- I would like to. But we can do it sometimes in procession.
- (Question) Did you ask the district superior about removing the Cross bearer?
- No. (With a shrug of his shoulders, shaking his head, squinting his eyebrows). I don’t think that I need to.
- I do not see a problem. It is just a small thing. (Fr. Vassal held his fingers up with a very small gap between his fingers.)
- (Question) Well isn’t that subjective to do it sometimes?
- Well maybe. But it is just a small thing.
- If it is “objective”, why isn’t it done in the rest of the district? It is not removed in the seminary?
- I don’t know. (Shrug of shoulders.)
- (Question) Isn’t it true in the Church, that if there is a Custom already established, not to remove it?
- Well, yes, that is true. But it is a Law; so I need to remove it. It is still only a little problem. I do not think that people will mind once they know.
- (Question) I mind! And many people in the parish are talking about this.
- Why haven’t they come to me and say something? Then I will need to give a sermon on “rash judgment”. (It was Fr. Vassal that did not communicate this; and it was Fr. Vassal that caused the confusion; which caused in his view – people having a rash judgment!).
- It is just a little problem.
- (Question) No, Fr. Vassal, it is a very big problem!
- Well you are the only one that spoke to me. Why did you come to me so late to speak of this?
- (Answer) Because you have not been here often doing masses; nor, when you were here, you did not come out after mass as you usually do.
- That is right. I have not been here much lately.
- (Question) Fr. Vassal, you did not even announce it from the pulpit that you were going to remove the Cross bearer. You did not even write it in a newsletter. You did not say anything about it. You just did it. I know you are a foreigner in this country; but in this country when the Novus Ordo came out, the new church also made these changes little by little without telling anyone…and you are doing the same thing. So yes, it is a big problem!
- Well maybe it was not prudent to do it without telling anyone. Maybe when I get back, I will think about it. But it is just a little thing. (Shrug of shoulders.) I do not think it is a problem.
- (Question) Isn’t it important to teach people and the children about the cross and the importance of it? There is a boy’s school here. I know that many of the boys who serve are confused; and do not know what is going on. Isn’t the Crucifix the standard of our religion; of the Faith; of the Mass. Isn’t it the standard bearer, like in the earlier days where ever the standard bearer went, it was a message of communication. To get rid of the Cross bearer, the crucifix, is detrimental to the faith.
- There is still a cross on the altar. I do not think it is a problem.
- (Back and forth…back and forth…each of them saying the same thing. Neither of them budging. Fr. Vassal kept looking at his watch; and said at many times that he is trying to find someone. He needs to go. Then he left).
Conclusion.
My friend said that he is going to write a letter to Fr. Rostand, the District Superior, with what took place in their conversation and see if he will do anything about it.
So yes, Fr. Vassal, to remove the Crucifix of Jesus Christ is a BIG problem!
It is fervent Catholics that adore the Cross; it is liberals that want to get the Cross out of the way!
This is a fight…Viva Cristo Rey!
Actually, Canon Law supports both sides of this argument:
Pro Fr. Vassal:
1) If it is in fact a rubric of the Mass that a processional cross is only to be used in the procession of a bishop, then Post Falls (and almost all other SSPX chapels) have been in violation of the rubrics of the Holy Mass for 2 generations!
2) St. Teresa of Avila said she would rather die than violate a single rubric.
Contra Fr. Vassal:
1) A local custom in effect for 40 years abrogates the prohibition against processional crosses for simple priests.
Judgment:
1) In which locales has there been a processional cross for 40+ years (i.e., since 1973)?
2) Those which have maintained this custom since 1973 may continue to do so.
3) Those which have introduced it after 1973 may not do so without violation of the rubrics of the Holy Mass.
Pretty simple, actually.
PS: I make no judgment on the MOTIVE of Fr. Vassal for having introduced this change. I only point out the canon law and rubrics in place pertaining to the issue.
-
All that said, can anyone find the rubric prohibiting processional crosses in Masses celebrated by simple priests?
-
there was always a cross bearer at a sung Mass in my chapel, unless they were short a server..... :surprised:
-
Here are the rubrics for the celebration of the Holy Mass, as regards the procession or approach of the priest to the altar.
There is no mention of a processional cross one way or the other.
Not sure if that is tantamount to a prohibition or a permission:
http://www.sanctamissa.org/en/rubrics/
-
All that said, can anyone find the rubric prohibiting processional crosses in Masses celebrated by simple priests?
I would also like to know about this. Is it in Fortescue? Or one of the French rubric books?
Using custom can be a double-edged sword for it may be used to justify long-standing abuses.
-
Here are the rubrics for the celebration of the Holy Mass, as regards the procession or approach of the priest to the altar.
There is no mention of a processional cross one way or the other.
Not sure if that is tantamount to a prohibition or a permission:
http://www.sanctamissa.org/en/rubrics/
I am guessing that no mention of a processional cross = prohibition, since were it tantamount to a permission, every abuse imaginable would be permitted on the same grounds.
-
- It is a Law of the Church. A Canon Law. The cross bearer in the rubrics is only for a Bishop.
- It is in my conscience that I need to remove the “abuse”.
- The “use” of the cross bearer in procession was actually started in France in revolt to the Bishop in France; from there it went everywhere.
- (Question) Well, it is still in France today. It is still in Saint-Nicolas-du-Chardonnet and other places.
-
- (Question) If it is “objective” as you say, and it is the Law, then why do you have it sometimes? Why not get rid of it altogether?
- I would like to. But we can do it sometimes in procession.
- (Question) Did you ask the district superior about removing the Cross bearer?
- No. (With a shrug of his shoulders, shaking his head, squinting his eyebrows). I don’t think that I need to.
- If it is “objective”, why isn’t it done in the rest of the district? It is not removed in the seminary?
- I don’t know. (Shrug of shoulders.)
... it is a Law; so I need to remove it. It is still only a little problem. I do not think that people will mind once they know.
- (Question) Fr. Vassal, you did not even announce it from the pulpit that you were going to remove the Cross bearer. You did not even write it in a newsletter. You did not say anything about it. You just did it.
- Well maybe it was not prudent to do it without telling anyone. Maybe when I get back, I will think about it. But it is just a little thing. (Shrug of shoulders.) I do not think it is a problem.
For the sake of argument, let's assume Fr. Vassal is right, and that
1) to have a Cross-bearer is a violation of Canon Law,
2) It is in his conscience that he needs to remove the “abuse”, &
3) it is “objective”, then:
1) Why has the SSPX done it for over 40 years?
2) Now that someone realized it is an "abuse, and it is an "objective" matter of "conscience" to use it as they have, why doesn't the entire SSPX change it now, across the board, and announce why they must make the change?
3) How is something that is an "abuse, an "objective"
matter of "conscience" and a matter of "Canon Law" also at the same time "just a little thing"? :confused1:
Sorry, these arguments just don't hold water. And if we had a dollar for every time a change was made in the Novus Ordo, especially early on in the 1970s, we were told "it is just a little thing", we might all be rich.
-
For the sake of argument, let's assume Fr. Vassal is right, and that
1) to have a Cross-bearer is a violation of Canon Law,
2) It is in his conscience that he needs to remove the “abuse”, &
3) it is “objective”, then:
1) Why has the SSPX done it for over 40 years?
2) Now that someone realized it is an "abuse, and it is an "objective" matter of "conscience" to use it as they have, why doesn't the entire SSPX change it now, across the board, and announce why they must make the change?
3) How is something that is an "abuse, an "objective"
matter of "conscience" and a matter of "Canon Law" also at the same time "just a little thing"? :confused1:
Sorry, these arguments just don't hold water. And if we had a dollar for every time a change was made in the Novus Ordo, especially early on in the 1970s, we were told "it is just a little thing", we might all be rich.
Yes, these arguments just don't hold water.
The answer is evident and clear in the "nonchalant" attitude of Fr. Vassal, like all liberals, they try to skirt the issue and put "blame" on something else to get their agenda going.
If Fr. Vassal was really a true "pastor" of souls, he would not remove the Grace of the Cross for learning and education of our Religion; especially in this crisis of the Church. Rather, he should be supporting it; NOT put it in the trash bin!
These liberals always live behind a mask...
-
The Cross-bearer isn't an abuse; it is the custom in the US. Outside of the US, though, it belongs only to the Prelate to have a CB. Still, this SSPX priest should not take it to himself to change custom just because he is from Europe or some other place not accustomed to having CBs. The reference to this is The Celebration of Mass, by J.B. Connell, 1962, p. 462.
-
Remember in the earlier posts that Fr. Vassl had also said to the Post Falls Head M.C.:
He said, that he heard a lot about it from others and was concerned himself; and he had called the M.C. He said, according to the M.C., "father (Fr. Vassal the Prior) decided to remove the cross bearer because 'it was not in the rubrics' to have one without a procession." And, "that there was not enough room for the cross bearer in the sanctuary." [/i]
And that others had talked to Fr. Vassal about this issue:
Here is an update on the Post falls –cross bearer (crucifix) being removed from the sanctuary.
I just spoke to someone who lives there and attends that chapel. He said:
• Since Dec. 2, except for Christmas day, there has not been a cross bearer in any of the (normal) Sunday processions they regularly have.
• That the Prior, Fr. Vassal, is continuing his stance...amongst opposition.
• That a number of people have written letters to him…still awaiting a response.
Didn’t the Vat. II, New Order Church, also get rid of the crucifix -the standard of Christ- from the sanctuary, and from the mind’s eye of the faithful…?
And that:
Remember... No Prior or priest, can make any liturgical changes without permission coming from the top.
And that Fr. Vassal threw out of the Cross bearer from the St. Dominic's Girl's School AND the Carmelites in Spokane:
Yes, the Sunday High Mass Cross Bearers at IC Post Falls, St. Dominic's Girl's School AND the Carmelites in Spokane Valley have been eliminated as per Fr. Vassal.[/b]
FOLKS, WHEN WILL YOU WAKE UP???????
Welcome to the Church of Fellay™. :dancing-banana: :dancing-banana:
So yes, there is a quiet agenda; just like Fr. Rostand has one, to also integrate the faithful into the conciliar church!
Did you ever notice, that since the Motu Proprio, the SSPX has been slackened in their "militancy"? You first start by not talking about things; then start to get rid of things; then you start talking like them; then you start to look like them; then you are absorbed into them!
Effective communism...!
Didn't our Lady of Fatima warn us of this...that Russia will spread her errors (communism)? It goes to all peoples; to all lands; and to all minds!
Our Lord said, Watch and Pray...!
-
Remember in the earlier posts that Fr. Vassl had also said to the Post Falls Head M.C.:
He said, that he heard a lot about it from others and was concerned himself; and he had called the M.C. He said, according to the M.C., "father (Fr. Vassal the Prior) decided to remove the cross bearer because 'it was not in the rubrics' to have one without a procession." And, "that there was not enough room for the cross bearer in the sanctuary."
And that others had talked to Fr. Vassal about this issue:
...I just spoke to someone who lives there and attends that chapel. He said:
• Since Dec. 2, except for Christmas day, there has not been a cross bearer in any of the (normal) Sunday processions they regularly have.
• That the Prior, Fr. Vassal, is continuing his stance...amongst opposition.
• That a number of people have written letters to him…still awaiting a response.
...- Well, yes, that is true. But it is a Law; so I need to remove it. It is still only a little problem. I do not think that people will mind once they know.
- (Question) I mind! And many people in the parish are talking about this.
- Why haven’t they come to me and say something? Then I will need to give a sermon on “rash judgment”.
- It is just a little problem.
- (Question) No, Fr. Vassal, it is a very big problem!
- Well you are the only one that spoke to me. Why did you come to me so late to speak of this?
- (Answer) Because you have not been here often doing masses; nor, when you were here, you did not come out after mass as you usually do....
So, am I understanding this right, that a while ago, it was said that "a number of people have written letters to him [Fr. Vassal?] …still awaiting a response", and now Fr. Vassal says "Well you are the only one that spoke to me"? :confused1:
-
The Cross-bearer isn't an abuse; it is the custom in the US. Outside of the US, though, it belongs only to the Prelate to have a CB. Still, this SSPX priest should not take it to himself to change custom just because he is from Europe or some other place not accustomed to having CBs. The reference to this is The Celebration of Mass, by J.B. Connell, 1962, p. 462.
You hit the nail on the head.
The lack of cross bearer is NOT Novus Ordo. They still use cross bearers.
It's a custom in America to have one.
Unfortunately, it highlights another problem -- the "occupation" of all positions of power in the United States district of the SSPX by Frenchmen or other foreigners -- as if we don't have enough senior priests in this country to fill those positions.
The fact is: we used to. So they can't claim otherwise.
Bishop Fellay doesn't trust us Americans. That's why I'm amazed at some Accordistas gushing, "I trust Bishop Fellay". Why? He doesn't trust you!
Trust is earned!
-
Remember in the earlier posts that Fr. Vassl had also said to the Post Falls Head M.C.:
He said, that he heard a lot about it from others and was concerned himself; and he had called the M.C. He said, according to the M.C., "father (Fr. Vassal the Prior) decided to remove the cross bearer because 'it was not in the rubrics' to have one without a procession." And, "that there was not enough room for the cross bearer in the sanctuary."
And that others had talked to Fr. Vassal about this issue:
...I just spoke to someone who lives there and attends that chapel. He said:
• Since Dec. 2, except for Christmas day, there has not been a cross bearer in any of the (normal) Sunday processions they regularly have.
• That the Prior, Fr. Vassal, is continuing his stance...amongst opposition.
• That a number of people have written letters to him…still awaiting a response.
...- Well, yes, that is true. But it is a Law; so I need to remove it. It is still only a little problem. I do not think that people will mind once they know.
- (Question) I mind! And many people in the parish are talking about this.
- Why haven’t they come to me and say something? Then I will need to give a sermon on “rash judgment”.
- It is just a little problem.
- (Question) No, Fr. Vassal, it is a very big problem!
- Well you are the only one that spoke to me. Why did you come to me so late to speak of this?
- (Answer) Because you have not been here often doing masses; nor, when you were here, you did not come out after mass as you usually do....
So, am I understanding this right, that a while ago, it was said that "a number of people have written letters to him [Fr. Vassal?] …still awaiting a response", and now Fr. Vassal says "Well you are the only one that spoke to me"? :confused1:
YES! I personally know of one person who wrote to Fr. Vassal; and received a reply from him.
-
UPDATE: Post Falls has an outbreak of sodomy among the boys there.
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Sodomy-Scandal-in-Post-Falls-ID-SSPX-Immaculate-Conception-Academy
Now Fr. Vassal can perhaps see that when he attempts to introduce innovations
like deleting the Cross Bearer, he sows doubt among the Faithful, and when it
adds up enough, they'll invite their own bishop to come and give Confirmations.
I would suppose that +W used a Cross-Bearer in his procession! No?
-
Now Fr. Vassal can perhaps see that when he attempts to introduce innovations
like deleting the Cross Bearer, he sows doubt among the Faithful, and when it
adds up enough, they'll invite their own bishop to come and give Confirmations.
I believe that is what happened with the SSPX priest in Corsica. He was on the point of defecting but called in the diocesan bishop to confirm some of his flock who then left with him. If priests of the Society are taught that they must recognise diocesan bishops (a charge Fr. Pfeiffer makes when Bp. Fellay demands total obedience), perhaps it is not surprising when these same priests start to to use their services!
-
I have just received two important news items from a friend regarding the removal of the Cross bearer from the Traditional Mass in Post Falls by the Prior Fr. Vassal, SSPX.
For those who remember this whole ordeal, this is the latest developments.
The first important development is one of “apparent” good news: Since Easter, the Cross bearer has been noticed to be put back into the parish bulletin as a “regular” inclusion. Whether this is by a “change of heart”, done under pressure from many people complaining, or from a “conversion”, I do not know. However, the Cross bearer just showed back up within the serving scheduled inside the parish bulletin.
To find out, my friend had called the head M.C. (again) to see what is going on with this. In brief, the head M.C. had said that: “Yes, it has been on the serving schedule lately. But it will now only be on feast days and holidays.” (That is extremely sad.) The question was posed back to him that, “Well, all Sunday’s are first class feast days, and therefore should have the Cross bearer ”. He did reply to say that, “The cross bearer is there like a ‘sacramental’. You bring it out to use it at times”. My friend surprised at this, mentioned, “The Cross bearer is more than a ‘sacramental’, it is the standard of the Faith; and should be there for every procession to proclaim that faith. So it should be on all Sundays and processions”. He replied to say, “Well thanks for the call. Not many people call with good things.” (?).
So what is the bottom line? Fr. Vassal has moved with a lot of liberal persuasion to even alter the “meaning” of our Holy Faith to get what he wants.
Life was good with the Cross bearer for the last several weeks over Eastertide.
What a disaster and a shame…for the SSPX to purposely sow the “anti-cross” mentality. What is next in Fr. Vassal’s agenda?
The second important point of news happens to involve the U.S. District Superior, Fr. Rostand, in all of this.
Below, is a series of 3-Letters addressed to Fr. Rostand, from one of the faithful that attends that Post Falls Chapel. He wrote in his letters the concerns of the Cross bearer being removed from the Post Falls liturgy, along with his conversation he had with Fr. Vassal about this. The 3-letters were mailed to Fr. Rostand since Feb. 27, 2013, April 2, 2013, and May 25, 2013. The importance of these letters, and why they are being revealed, is that Fr. Rostand, as the District Superior has NOT at all responded to any of his valid concerns.
Up to this date, since Feb. 27, 2013, 16-weeks have gone by without a response from Fr. Rostand. Nothing! Nada! Not a peep! Not a single show of responsibility from the U.S District Superior to address this scandal.
Is Fr. Rostand in conspiracy with Fr. Vassal of encouraging this betrayal of the Traditional Mass; to slowly “neuter” it like Vatican II had done? I do not know. However, he is certainly responsible for the actions that have taken place and his silence that contribute to this overall scandal.
Note: My friend had given me these letters to put on Cathinfo; not to show any kind of “disrespect”, to the contrary, he wants others to know what is going on within the chapel of Post Falls and in the SSPX U.S. District at large for others to “pay attention” in their chapels if this is going to be a “trend” of abuses; and to try and prevent any other abuses to happen within the Traditional Mass.
He also has said that if Fr. Rostand, as the District Superior, was responsible in his duties to respond to this scandal of the Cross bearer over these 16-weeks of trying to correspond to him, regardless of the outcome at this time, he would not have revealed these letters in the preference to try and take care of this with Fr. Rostand. It is ONLY because Fr. Rostand, the top Superior of the United States, has not responded, and is continuing to show he is irresponsible in his duties.
If scandals are happening at the highest levels, my friend believes that word needs to get out to stop these abuses to the Traditional Mass, and any other betrayals that may creep in.
Here are the letters:
=================================================
Feb. 27, 2013
Fr. Rostand
SSPX District Superior, USA
Regina Coeli House
11485 N. Farley Road
Platte City, MO 64079
Dear Fr. Rostand,
In result from a recent conversation I had with the Prior of Post Falls Idaho, Fr. Vassal, that with reflection, prayer, and time in passing, I am writing to you with a valid issue taking place here in the priory/parish of Post Falls. Namely, Fr. Vassal had removed on his own initiative, the Cross bearer from the Traditional Liturgy since Advent, December 2012.
I spoke to Fr. Vassal on Feb. 17, 2013, after a Sunday Mass, about his reasons for this; as Fr. Vassal had never announced it from the pulpit, nor informed us faithful in a newsletter, or even posted it in the vestibule. In addition he said, when I asked him if the District Superior knew of this, he said: “No.”
My concerns, outside of the obvious in changing the liturgy the way we have known it all of our lives, is that Fr. Vassal had done this removal privately, under the “radar”; which, as I mentioned to him, is the same thing that the Novus Ordo had done in changing the Liturgy after the Vatican II Council to promote their new religion.
Also, other than many people here that are talking about this, as well as many of the children and altar servers are confused, is that Fr. Vassal in my conversation with him is very nonchalant about this whole issue.
Below, I have written down the exchange of our conversation to bring out the context.
************************
In the exchange between us, Fr. Vassal responses follow:
• I asked Fr. Vassal, Why did you remove the Cross bearer from the Mass, the Liturgy?
It is a Law of the Church; a Canon Law. The cross bearer in the rubrics is “only” for a Bishop. It is in my conscience that I need to remove the “abuse”. The “use” of the cross bearer in procession was actually started in France in revolt to the Bishop in France; from there it went everywhere.
• Well, it is still in France today. It is still in Saint-Nicolas-du-Chardonnet and other places.
Yes, but the priest over there does not want to do it. I do not think it is a problem. Many people may not understand. So we will have it on Holy Name Society Sunday; and some big feast days.
• If it is “objective” as you say, and it is the Law, then why do you have it sometimes? Why not get rid of it altogether?
I would like to. But we can do it sometimes in procession.
• Did you ask the District Superior about removing the Cross bearer?
No. (With a shrug of his shoulders, shaking his head, squinting his eyebrows). I don’t think that I need to. I do not see a problem. It is just a small thing. (Fr. Vassal held his fingers up with a very small gap between his fingers.)
• Well isn’t that subjective to do it sometimes?
Well maybe. But it is just a small thing.
• If it is “objective”, why isn’t it done in the rest of the District? It is not removed in the seminary?
I don’t know. (Shrug of shoulders.)
• Isn’t it true in the Church, that if there is a Custom already established, not to remove it?
Well, yes, that is true. But it is a Law; so I need to remove it. It is still only a little problem. I do not think that people will mind once they know.
• I mind! And many people in the parish are talking about this.
Why haven’t they come to me and say something? Then I will need to give a sermon on “rash judgment”. (It was Fr. Vassal that did not communicate this; and it was Fr. Vassal that caused the confusion; which caused in his view, people having a rash judgment!). It is just a little problem.
• No, Fr. Vassal, it is a very big problem!
Well you are the only one that spoke to me. Why did you come to me so late to speak of this?
• Because you have not been here often doing masses; nor, when you were here, you did not come out after mass as you usually do.
That is right. I have not been here, and after mass, much lately.
• Fr. Vassal, you did not even announce it from the pulpit that you were going to remove the Cross bearer. You did not even write it in a newsletter. You did not say anything about it. You just did it. I know you are a foreigner in this country; but in this country when the Novus Ordo came out, the new church also made these changes little by little without telling anyone…and you are doing the same thing. So yes, it is a big problem!
Well maybe it was not prudent to do it without telling anyone. Maybe when I get back, I will think about it. But it is just a little thing. (Shrug of shoulders.) I do not think it is a problem.
• Isn’t it important to teach people, and the children about the Cross, and the importance of it? There is a Boy’s school here. I know that many of the boys who serve are confused; and do not know what is going on. Isn’t the Crucifix the standard of our religion; of the Faith; of the Mass? Isn’t it the standard bearer, like in the earlier days where ever the standard bearer went, it was a message of communication? To get rid of the Cross bearer, the crucifix, is detrimental to the faith.
There is still a cross on the altar. I do not think it is a problem.
************************
The conversation went back and forth with each of us saying the same thing. Fr. Vassal kept looking at his watch; and said at many times that he is trying to find someone. He needs to go. Then he left.
As you can see Fr. Rostand, along with two weeks that had passed and the Cross Bearer is still removed, that Fr. Vassal intention is to continue on. I find this quite an abuse; especially since we are in a crisis of the faith in the Church today; and we are to uphold the tradition of our faith.
I have enclosed one of the Parish bulletins that also shows the Cross Bearer (CB) is removed from the serving schedule. In addition, I was told that Fr. Vassal removed the Cross Bearer from the Liturgy at the Carmelite Sisters in Spokane, as with the Dominican Sisters (the girl’s school) in Post Falls.
Can you please help me understand? Would it also be in your intention that the Cross Bearer be removed from the Traditional Liturgy?
I look forward to your correspondence in what your decision will be on this matter. Thank you.
In Jesu et Maria,
(Name.)
(Address.)
=================================================
April 2, 2013
Fr. Rostand
SSPX District Superior, USA
Regina Coeli House
11485 N. Farley Road
Platte City, MO 64079
Dear Fr. Rostand,
Happy Easter to you.
I have mailed to you a letter dated Feb. 27, 2013 in regards to Fr. Vassal, in Post Falls, changing the traditional liturgy in removing the Cross Bearer from the ceremonies; it is very confusing to all of us, especially in this crisis of the Church.
Since 5-weeks have past, I have not heard from you with a response. Can you please respond back to me of your intentions as the District Superior in this matter?
I will enclose the Feb. 27, 3013 Letter with this mailing.
Thank you.
God bless you,
(Name.)
(Address.)
=================================================
May 25, 2013
Fr. Rostand
SSPX District Superior, USA
Regina Coeli House
11485 N. Farley Road
Platte City, MO 64079
Dear Fr. Rostand,
I have mailed to you a letter dated Feb. 27, 2013 in regards to Fr. Vassal, in Post Falls, changing the traditional liturgy in removing the Cross Bearer from the ceremonies.
Since 5-weeks had passed in not hearing from you with a response, I had written a second letter to you dated April 2, 2013, over 7-weeks ago (totaling 12-weeks), and I still have not heard from you. I am baffled and concerned with your silence.
I am baffled because, as you are a “District Superior”, you have a responsibility before God to address this serious issue. One of your priests in this District has changed the Traditional Catholic Liturgy without your knowledge, nor consent. I am concerned because, as you are a “District Superior”, your silence in not responding to this, is thus acting to encourage it, and to endorse it. Is that what you would like us to believe from your silence on this serious matter?
I may be signing my name “singularly”; but there are many of us who are waiting for your response.
As the District Superior, can you please respond back to me of your intentions in this matter?
This is my third and last letter to you regarding this serious issue before I would have to go to the next level. I am hoping you will be faithful in your duties as a District Superior in that you will respectfully respond. I will enclose again the Feb. 27, 3013 Letter with this mailing.
Thank you.
God bless you,
(Name.)
(Address.)
=================================================
Still NO response! The scandal grows bigger...
-
.
Thank you Machabees for this information.
In a recent communique from Fr. Rostand (or maybe it was
one of his associates in the Society leadership), he
complains that the Faithful are doing wrong by making
private correspondence public. Let this be a lesson for him,
then, that if he does not want letters like this to be made
public, then perhaps he ought to ANSWER them instead of
ignoring them.
We could speculate as to why he hasn't answered them, but
all we need to realize is, that his reticence is the same kind
of thing EVERYONE gets from B. Fellay, who does not answer
mail that asks questions of him that he apparently does not
want to answer; because, if he did want to answer them
he would do so. But he does not.
And it is the superiors who form the subjects, so we can
expect the same of Fr. Rostand that we get from his S.G.
But it is a little encouraging to see that Fr. Vassal was at
least willing to meet with this layman who wrote the
letters, and to answer his questions honestly.
He does seem to contradict himself, though, saying that
it's "a little problem," but that he "had to do something."
If the 'problem' (what problem??) is so 'little' then why do
anything at all?
I would recommend a different approach, that of asking
him if he thinks that the cross is not a symbol of the
Faith, and what it is he thinks it does to people to see
the crucifix being carried in front of a procession. Ask
him if he believes that there is no crisis of faith going on
today, or whether he believes that carrying a crucifix
before a procession in some way harms the Faith of
Catholics.
Ask him if he is aware that non-Catholics criticize the
Church for displaying a cross with the corpus of Our Lord
on it, and many who call themselves "Christian" think
that the mere sight of a plain cross without any corpus is
most offensive for them to see. It might be interesting
to see what he thinks of that.
Tell him that in Los Angeles County a few years ago they
spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to REMOVE the
tiny cross from the County Seal officially. The California
Missions are a part of the state's history, and the Seal
used to show a small cross on top of the facade of a
Mission Church, but no more -- the church is still there
but the tiny cross has been removed, and it never came
up for any kind of vote. There was a brief public outcry
when it went into effect but that made no difference.
And tell him that in numerous cemeteries and public
places all across the country, crosses are being removed
at the expense of the taxpayer without their consent,
and it's not made public until it's too late -- and this can
easily be seen as one of the ERRORS OF RUSSIA that
was foretold in 1917!
Perhaps he does not mind having the Faithful wonder if
their pastor is more like those FALSE 'Christians' who find
the cross offensive, than he is like a real Catholic! Let
him think about that for a while.