Author Topic: ABL and the NOM (Read 5901 times)

Prayerful · « **Reply #15 on:** February 16, 2016, 01:38:42 PM »

Benedict XVI seemed to give Catholics hope that the Novus Ordo Pope would be Catholic. The Mass was again available, and his love of liturgical splendour is evident. Yet that would involve ignoring Assisi II which was a reprise of the lusty JP2 pagan festival, ignoring too his work Jesus of Nazareth which is pure Protestantism, ignoring moreover so many of his statements. Recall too that as Fr Ratzinger at V2, he was the sidekick of Fr Rahner SJ. What people think of as Bergoglian innovations like Communion for divorcees, were suggested by him at the time of the Council. The Benedict Papacy was an effort to both deepen Modernism, yet give the impression of Tradition. Now some Novus Ordo prelates evidently lost patience, but I think we will soon see a reprise of that mode of cunning.

Archbishop Lefebvre preaching at Lille in 1976 (in the wake of his suspension a divinis called the Novus Ordo rites of Mass, ordination and episcopal consecration, bastard rites born of an adultery between the Church and the Revolution. His Letter to Concerned Catholics and what's I've read and heard makes clear to me that the NOM was too great a risk. A low information Catholic who knows nothing of Tradition would not sin by assisting at a NOM, but that could not be so for any informed Catholic. Bishop Williamson is very careful in what he is saying, but I think 'keep clear' is surely the best policy. A Catholic in an isolated area can pray the Rosary, and follow other worthy and approved devotions, and perhaps set up a little shrine with the Sacred Heart, something to focus and increase devotion - there some excellent examples online. Now I cannot pretend to have a fraction of the Bishop's knowledge and discernment on the matter, but the NOM just seems too grave a risk to the soul.

Viva Cristo Rey · « **Reply #16 on:** February 16, 2016, 01:59:50 PM »

The problem is Rome and these ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ liberal priests. Under Pope Benedict XVI , the Latin Mass was growing and morality was being taught. Yes, Pope Francis needs prayers. He hardly talks about Jesus. In DC, he brings up liberals like Martin Luther King, Dorothy Day, thomas Merton and Lincoln. Then the Pope talks to the United Nations. As the vicar if Christ, he shouldn't give them the time of day. The pope goes out of the way to talk to the elite and ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs while neglecting the working class people. Yes, there are times he visits the poor and sickly. After the Papal visit , the lukewarm bishops continue to close down traditional Churches in Philadelphia, New York, NJ and DC.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #17 on:** February 16, 2016, 02:14:16 PM »

Quote

Well, as a life-long Trad who's seen 5 thousand trads come through CathInfo over the past 10 years, I'm here to tell you that Home Alone-ism is much more seductive and tempting to most Trads. The Novus Ordo is disgustingly repulsive and therefore no danger to most Trads.

Matthew,
I agree that most trads think the N.O. is repulsive. I also agree that some just want to give into to "stay at homeism". But, these are a small %, imo. The real danger is the INDULT mass! The real danger, is attending a TLM at your local parish, because then you are sucked into the Roman vortex and become neutralized...no more condeming V2, no more criticizing the pope, just go along and be quiet. That solves nothing, and it's exactly what Rome wants.

Rome is going after the younger generations who want to be "part of the group" and not be known as "crazy catholics". This is what will be the downfall of the sspx and this is the downfall of many, many trad catholics in their 20s-30s. I see it everyday.

But if +W condones the N.O. mass (even slightly), then i'd bet a large amount of $ that he'd condone the indult (he really has no logically way to be against it). So, if everyone migrates to the indult, what's left of traditionalism? Why are we all clinging to the "old way", if we can get it thru Rome? THIS is the real problem, and this is what needs to be fought.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #18 on:** February 16, 2016, 02:29:30 PM »

p.s. You need to distinguish between the "home aloners" who stay at home because they want to avoid a trad priest whom they don't like (or some other petty reason) and the "home aloners" who avoid the N.O./indult and who have no TLM available. The former are in error; the latter are not. +W's logic suggests that the latter are also in error. I would wholeheartedly disagree.

JPaul · « **Reply #19 on:** February 16, 2016, 02:56:16 PM »

PaxVobis,

Quote

The real danger is the INDULT mass! The real danger, is attending a TLM at your local parish, because then you are sucked into the Roman vortex and become neutralized...no more condeming V2, no more criticizing the pope, just go along and be quiet. That solves nothing, and it's exactly what Rome wants.

Two thoughts with a grasp of the realities of conciliarism, of which, the indult has always been a strategic part. It has taken a very long time, (not so long for the Remnant crowd) but, what it was created to do is now coming to pass, as more neo-traditionalists are beginning to see the varying groups as more or less the same, clinging to the moniker of the TLM as a certified credential for being safe.

The indult was created upon a lie, and for the purpose of drawing Catholics away from the SSPX and other Traditional groups, bringing them into conciliarism via the traditional appearing externals. After so very long, and now awash in such contradictory and mixed messages, Traditional leaning Catholics are quickly losing their ability to discern the dangers which are present, as the matter is further blurred by ambiguous Moto Proprios and increasingly subjective presentations and analyses of the ongoing crisis by clerics and laity alike.

Prayerful · « **Reply #20 on:** February 16, 2016, 04:07:41 PM »

Quote from: J.Paul

PaxVobis,
Quote
The real danger is the INDULT mass! The real danger, is attending a TLM at your local parish, because then you are sucked into the Roman vortex and become neutralized...no more condeming V2, no more criticizing the pope, just go along and be quiet. That solves nothing, and it's exactly what Rome wants.

Two thoughts with a grasp of the realities of conciliarism, of which, the indult has always been a strategic part. It has taken a very long time, (not so long for the Remnant crowd) but, what it was created to do is now coming to pass, as more neo-traditionalists are beginning to see the varying groups as more or less the same, clinging to the moniker of the TLM as a certified credential for being safe.

The indult was created upon a lie, and for the purpose of drawing Catholics away from the SSPX and other Traditional groups, bringing them into conciliarism via the traditional appearing externals. After so very long, and now awash in such contradictory and mixed messages, Traditional leaning Catholics are quickly losing their ability to discern the dangers which are present, as the matter is further blurred by ambiguous Moto Proprios and increasingly subjective presentations and analyses of the ongoing crisis by clerics and laity alike.

I have heard Mass in an Indult parish (the New Mass is barely done) and the curate certainly seems Catholic. Frankly, he must have a em, dossier on some NO bishops to be able to preach clearly on Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ and sodomy, among other things. The Administrator did grumble in a sermon that people were being mean to Pope Francis. The other priest seems to utterly ignore Pope Bergoglio and preaches on the Faith in an elegant and learned way. The choir is fantastic and the sanctuary ignores the False Council (a table is wheeled out for the NOM). Negatives include some dubious publications sold on their book stall. Take for instance Sacrosanctum Concilium, John M Cunningham OP with contributor like Cardinal Burke. It pushes the fake high of the Hermeneutic of Continuity. Largely it seems fine, but there are small, nagging worries.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #21 on:** February 16, 2016, 05:13:25 PM »

Quote

...the New Mass is barely done...

But it is done. So that's a problem. Unless it's ok to "barely" offend God.

JPaul · « **Reply #22 on:** February 17, 2016, 02:14:13 PM »

Prayerful,

Quote

I have heard Mass in an Indult parish (the New Mass is barely done) and the curate certainly seems Catholic. Frankly, he must have a em, dossier on some NO bishops to be able to preach clearly on Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ and sodomy, among other things. The Administrator did grumble in a sermon that people were being mean to Pope Francis. The other priest seems to utterly ignore Pope Bergoglio and preaches on the Faith in an elegant and learned way. The choir is fantastic and the sanctuary ignores the False Council (a table is wheeled out for the NOM). Negatives include some dubious publications sold on their book stall. Take for instance Sacrosanctum Concilium, John M Cunningham OP with contributor like Cardinal Burke. It pushes the fake high of the Hermeneutic of Continuity. Largely it seems fine, but there are small, nagging worries.

What you cannot see but is always present is the fact that the Masses are said by the permission of a sect which adheres to heretical doctrines and practices, and is the enemy of the True Faith as handed down by the Church. Adversaries who will stop it if it disturbs or disrupts the conciliar agenda.
This reality makes it much more dangerous than it appears to be on the outside and, as you point out, it becomes a vehicle for promoting the New Religious order and thus, it is certainly a cause for worry and suspicion.

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #23 on:** February 18, 2016, 03:49:06 AM »

Quote

The real danger is the INDULT mass! The real danger, is attending a TLM at your local parish, because then you are sucked into the Roman vortex and become neutralized...no more condeming V2, no more criticizing the pope, just go along and be quiet. That solves nothing, and it's exactly what Rome wants.

There are different reasons underlying why people do what they do, one has to understand these root reasons to understand why people do what they do.

I'll just give my root reason why I only attend the SSPX masses:

1) I have serious doubts about the Conciliar church consecrations of bishops and ordinations of priests.

2) I am not and never have been an SSPX "groupie" because they teach their seminarians that some Moslems, Bhuddists, Hindus, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox...... any non-Catholic can be saved. I consider that teaching the root cause of the Vatican II revolution.

What these roots produce is a person who is strictly seeking an undoubtably valid priest that can administer the sacraments, and that is all I can expect. I don't expect much more. I have no effect on anyone but those around me, so, I can't "affect Rome" in any way and "Rome" can't affect me. As lay people, we are all already "neutralized" and always have been.

If I am traveling tomorrow, and the only available mass choices are a sedevacantes mass by a non-SSPX ordained priest (I have doubts about the the validity of sedevacantes priests who were not ordained by the SSPX) and an Indult mass with a priest that I know was ordained pre-1968 or who was ordained by the SSPX, I will go with the Indult every time.

If I have a choice between a "Feeneyite" priest who is ordained in the new rite and a sedevacantes SSPX ordained priest who preaches salvation for Moslems...., I will go with the sedevacantes.

JPaul · « **Reply #24 on:** February 18, 2016, 09:57:19 AM »

Quote from: Last Tradhican

Quote
The real danger is the INDULT mass! The real danger, is attending a TLM at your local parish, because then you are sucked into the Roman vortex and become neutralized...no more condeming V2, no more criticizing the pope, just go along and be quiet. That solves nothing, and it's exactly what Rome wants.

There are different reasons underlying why people do what they do, one has to understand these root reasons to understand why people do what they do.

I'll just give my root reason why I only attend the SSPX masses:

1) I have serious doubts about the Conciliar church consecrations of bishops and ordinations of priests.

2) I am not and never have been an SSPX "groupie" because they teach their seminarians that some Moslems, Bhuddists, Hindus, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox...... any non-Catholic can be saved. I consider that teaching the root cause of the Vatican II revolution.

What these roots produce is a person who is strictly seeking an undoubtably valid priest that can administer the sacraments, and that is all I can expect. I don't expect much more. I have no effect on anyone but those around me, so, I can't "affect Rome" in any way and "Rome" can't affect me. As lay people, we are all already "neutralized" and always have been.

If I am traveling tomorrow, and the only available mass choices are a sedevacantes mass by a non-SSPX ordained priest (I have doubts about the the validity of sedevacantes priests who were not ordained by the SSPX) and an Indult mass with a priest that I know was ordained pre-1968 or who was ordained by the SSPX, I will go with the Indult every time.

If I have a choice between a "Feeneyite" priest who is ordained in the new rite and a sedevacantes SSPX ordained priest who preaches salvation for Moslems...., I will go with the sedevacantes.

#1) That is as it should be

#2) Also correct, most of the Traditional priests have been generated by the SSPX, or their Sedevacantist spinoffs, and share the same doctrinal errors to one extent or another, so all that you can concern yourself with is their validity and that of their sacraments.

In the case of the indult priest, you have been able to ascertain his lineage and validity which also impacts upon the likelyhood of his intentions being correct and sound.
But, in the general sense, the indult priests are produced within the Novus Ordo structure and therefore suffer from the same doubt as do the NO priests, although there it is more likely that they are valid, but again, you cannot be certain. This of course is setting aside the fact that they, many times celebrate Mass in a profaned Church and ascent to the heretical doctrines of the false council

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #25 on:** February 18, 2016, 01:19:06 PM »

Quote from: J.Paul

#1) That is as it should be

#2) Also correct, most of the Traditional priests have been generated by the SSPX, or their Sedevacantist spinoffs, and share the same doctrinal errors to one extent or another, so all that you can concern yourself with is their validity and that of their sacraments.

In the case of the indult priest, you have been able to ascertain his lineage and validity which also impacts upon the likelyhood of his intentions being correct and sound.
But, in the general sense, the indult priests are produced within the Novus Ordo structure and therefore suffer from the same doubt as do the NO priests, although there it is more likely that they are valid, but again, you cannot be certain. This of course is setting aside the fact that they, many times celebrate Mass in a profaned Church and ascent to the heretical doctrines of the false council

We are 100% in agreement.

I would not go to a non-SSPX ordained Indult priest for the mass and sacraments unless there was no other choice. I said I had serious doubts about the consecration of bishops, and there has not been one indult priest ordained by a bishop that was consecrated in the old rite in any of the indult groups like the FSP and ICK. If I have no choice, I will go to a Frat of St Peter or ICK mass and let God sort it out, He's the one that put me in that situation. Notice I say that I have serious doubts, I didn't say they are without a doubt not priests. The day they turn green when they are valid and red when they are not, then I'll know for certain.

JPaul · « **Reply #26 on:** February 18, 2016, 01:39:11 PM »

Quote from: Last Tradhican

Quote from: J.Paul

#1) That is as it should be

#2) Also correct, most of the Traditional priests have been generated by the SSPX, or their Sedevacantist spinoffs, and share the same doctrinal errors to one extent or another, so all that you can concern yourself with is their validity and that of their sacraments.

In the case of the indult priest, you have been able to ascertain his lineage and validity which also impacts upon the likelyhood of his intentions being correct and sound.
But, in the general sense, the indult priests are produced within the Novus Ordo structure and therefore suffer from the same doubt as do the NO priests, although there it is more likely that they are valid, but again, you cannot be certain. This of course is setting aside the fact that they, many times celebrate Mass in a profaned Church and ascent to the heretical doctrines of the false council

We are 100% in agreement.

I would not go to a non-SSPX ordained Indult priest for the mass and sacraments unless there was no other choice. I said I had serious doubts about the consecration of bishops, and there has not been one indult priest ordained by a bishop that was consecrated in the old rite in any of the indult groups like the FSP and ICK. If I have no choice, I will go to a Frat of St Peter or ICK mass and let God sort it out, He's the one that put me in that situation. Notice I say that I have serious doubts, I didn't say they are without a doubt not priests. The day they turn green when they are valid and red when they are not, then I'll know for certain.

:jumping2: :jumping2: :jumping2:...................... :really-mad2: :really-mad2: :really-mad2:

Kephapaulos · « **Reply #27 on:** February 18, 2016, 01:42:25 PM »

Tradhican,

I do not know for sure, but it is possible that some indult priests were ordained by Bishop Rifan who was co-consecrated in the old rite by Bp. Rangel who was consecrated in the old rite by three SSPX bishops. Any priests ordained by Bishop Rifan would be in Brazil though I guess. http://renegadetrad.blogspot.com/2012/06/episcopal-consecration.html?m=1

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #28 on:** February 18, 2016, 01:48:42 PM »

Quote

As lay people, we are all already "neutralized" and always have been.

I don't agree with this at all. How many lay people bought property, built/renovated churches, and organized things for the priests post V2? How many lay people wrote books or articles in protest of V2 and in favor of tradition? How many lay people kept alive the faith in their large families and gave their children as priests and nuns to the church, post V2? How many elderly lay people offered up their sufferings and prayers for all those who did all of the above? So, so many. You're only neutralized if you want to be, or you think you are. There is so much to do to defend the Faith nowadays and we can't quit or give up!

And aside from the doctrinal/compromise issues of the indult, the practical problem is that once people join an indult or fssp, or anything else, they stop defending tradition (fully) because their loyalities are now split between tradition and Rome. They want to have their cake and eat it too. But you can't support traditionalism and the novus ordo at the same time, so Rome will always win, just as if you try to love God and the world, the world will eventually suck you in.

JPaul · « **Reply #29 on:** February 18, 2016, 04:00:24 PM »

Indeed! This and other like threads point to how many are becoming neutral, or even hostile to what they now term "hardline" Traditionalists.

The goalposts, attitudes, and the very ground which has been held for so long is beginning to shift under our feet.

Might we not wonder if there will be an Ecclesiastical "Rodney King moment" looming in the near future?