Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: BrJoseph on February 15, 2016, 05:52:39 PM
-
Please read in particular the English transcript linked in the first article:
http://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/2016/02/15/archbishop-marcel-lefebvre-on-the-novus-ordo-missae/
http://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/2016/02/14/concerning-bishop-richard-williamson-and-the-novus-ordo-missae/
-
Williamson is right.
First, Archbishop LeFebvre had no authority to "give permission" to attend or not to attend any Liturgy by anyone.
RE: Wiliamson's December 1996 letter. The question prior to the one concerning Michael Davies demonstrates that Williamson is consistent.
Referring to a person starting at the bottom in the mud and then discovering the Indult.
He points that someone fully in Tradition should not go to the Indult in his opinion because it's a trap to bring people into the Novus Ordo.
But what is a "halfway house" to bring a person down can be an escape hatch for someone already at the bottom to help them up.
Furthermore, with reference to Lumen Gentium as Williamson has said, "the language is ambiguous, so you can interpret it back on the high ground."
The traditional understanding of that description in Lumen Gentium is that the Holy Ghost is always offering grace to people both actual and in some cases sanctifying in order to eventually lead them into the Catholic Church.
For Lent, I happen to be reading the "The Life of Mary" as seen by the mystics.
There is an interesting phrase that was used to describe the prudential use and proper understanding of reading the writings of visionaries.
It described finding the proper balance between blind faith and blind scorn.
In the crisis we have the blind faith of the Neo-Catholics and blind scorn of the sedevacantists and certain cliques among "trads."
ps, it's interesting to note, that most of the complaints that Archbishop LeFebvre made about the Novus Ordo are not "intrinsic to it" He is complaining about innovations and experiments but not anything intrinsic to the Novus Ordo.
He ends up saying that there is a "spirit of Protestantism" impregnated into the Novus Ordo.
What he was never asked was can a spirit of Catholicism be impregnated into the Novus Ordo as well?
I think Williamson has been aware of that double edged sword over the decades and LeFebvre would not have understood the process of subjective and incremental conversion like Williamson does. This is despite his work as a missionary.
Obviously LeFebvre's biggest error was refusing Baptism to natives in Africa when they requested it, telling them they would be saved by Baptism of Desire if they were not Baptized.
-
Obviously LeFebvre's biggest error was refusing Baptism to natives in Africa when they requested it, telling them they would be saved by Baptism of Desire if they were not Baptized.
I don't think he refused, but delayed until they were fully catechised, not unreasonably. Did the Church ever baptise people immediately they asked for it (besides danger of death)?
-
A reluctance to reject Newchurch outright is based on a notion that things can be turned around. By definition Newchurch is supposed to mean something other than what went before and why should trad leaders invent this new terminology if it is not to drive home the seriousness of this sea change. Again, bullets have been manufactured for the trusting rank and file to fire.
This temporary state of emergency that trads thrive on without having to come to terms with the permanence of Newchurch and her underlying philosophy is wearing very thin. Instead of there being a crisis of the Church, we have a crisis among trads. Bp. Fellay resolves this by crawling back to Rome; others institutionalise the emergency by creating a confederation of resisting apostolates all claiming to be continuing the work of ABL.
The crisis among the children of ABL can be all about reading the archbishop's mind. Many would come unstuck by taking him too literally and then finding his meandering unbearable. Groupies like Bp. Wiliamson would swing with him and no doubt inherit an expectation that his followers would do likewise. If he is consistent, it is the consistency of the SSPX way of operating. Liturgical permissiveness, for example, may develop into some form of syncretism and still be regarded as being part of Lefebvre's mercurial agenda! Quite bizarrely, the archbishop is being seen as a vehicle going many places. One as a high church brand inside Newchurch; another as a protesting force to rival the Anglicans and Old Catholics in their detachment; yet another may succeed in becoming a floating church of the imagination dispensing her own spiritual graces and reassurances. It may be beyond the power of human expression to fully capture the essence of this post-V2 phenomenon; one that has invented its own school of logic to turn full circle.
-
wessex,
yet another may succeed in becoming a floating church of the imagination dispensing her own spiritual graces and reassurances. It may be beyond the power of human expression to fully capture the essence of this post-V2 phenomenon; one that has invented its own school of logic to turn full circle.
This would be the half rotten Church, which can still nourish the imaginers if they wish fervently enough, or are ignorant, but good willed enough not to know the difference.
-
The importance of the "TLM Trailblazers" (i.e. ABL, Bishop De Castro Meyer, Fr Wathen, Fr DePauw, among many, many others) is that they guided catholics through the murky waters of Vatican II, which was very new and very confusing.
But now, 50 years post-VII, it just seems that too many adult catholics haven't "grown up" and have not started to think for themselves. Yes, ABL is still important/relevent (as well as the rest of the "trailblazers") but not in the same way they used to be.
The crisis in the church has NOT changed, but the strategy needs to change, because the enemy has changed tactics. The indult of the 80s changed the game and now the motu proprio has further changed the game. In the 70s/80s Rome was trying to destroy/replace the TLM; now, realizing it won't be destroyed or replaced, they are trying to modify/cheapen it by putting it on the same level as the N.O.
I think it's a waste of time trying to dig up old quotes by ABL or whomever and try to fit their "thoughts" to the current situation. In a general sense, what ABL said 20 years ago still applies, but specifically, it does not. So, arguing about what ABL "might have said" today is a waste of time.
We all have 50 years of evidence to see the effects of VII and the N.O. We should all have enough knowlege to make judgements without consistently going back to 20 year old qutoes to support our stand against modernism. Those who are inching closer and closer to Rome (and it seems this number grows by the day) should be called out and rebuked but we don't need an ABL quote as authority to correct them; we can use our own words, our own evidence, our own mouths to speak! We all have just as much a call to defend the Faith as any of the "trailblazers". And it's time that more people speak up, or else all the hard work of the last 50 years is going to be lost.
-
Another thing to note is that a lot of the trailblazers eventually faded out or went off the rails themselves in one way or the other.
Fr. DePauw basically became a one man Church in which no other priest could properly offer the TLM. After he died, his port, pathetic congregation showed up on Sundays to watch videotapes of his celebration of Mass.
The fact of the matter is, the faith is the most important factor in the crisis. As Fr. Feeney was reported to have said, "Dogmas come before liturgies."
The reason Williamson is right is that there is still a minority of people in the Novus Ordo structure who hold every dogma of the Church, every article of the Creed, believe in the Real Presence, pray the Rosary etc.
The people pretending this is not the case are the blindly scornful.
They cling to the idea that the externals of traditional Catholicism constitute the actual faith of Catholciism in its entirety. (Conveniently ignoring development of tradition and the traditions of the Easte)
But just as the Council of Jerusalem and the Council of Trent produced a much different looking Church, the recovery of the post-Vatican II Church will be similar but not nearly identical to the pre-Vatican II Church. It won't be what the revolutionaries were trying for, but it won't be the same as it was in the 20th, 19th or 18th centuries.
-
wessex,
yet another may succeed in becoming a floating church of the imagination dispensing her own spiritual graces and reassurances. It may be beyond the power of human expression to fully capture the essence of this post-V2 phenomenon; one that has invented its own school of logic to turn full circle.
This would be the half rotten Church, which can still nourish the imaginers if they wish fervently enough, or are ignorant, but good willed enough not to know the difference.
No different than when the Church was more than half-rotten with Arianism.
-
there is still a minority of people in the Novus Ordo structure who hold every dogma of the Church, every article of the Creed, believe in the Real Presence, pray the Rosary etc. The people pretending this is not the case are the blindly scornful.
+W is setting up a "straw man" imo. I'm sure there are catholics left in the new-Church, but why is this a concern of a TLM Bishop? These good catholics don't care about him (probably don't even know about him), so why is he bending over backwards to rebuke his fellow TLM'ers who mourn the GENERAL loss of faith of Rome? Most TLM'ers are concerned about the dangers of ROME, not the few N.O. families out there.
-
+W is setting up a "straw man" imo. I'm sure there are catholics left in the new-Church, but why is this a concern of a TLM Bishop?
Isn't it simply to show the error of "Outside the TLM there is no salvation"?
-
Isn't it simply to show the error of "Outside the TLM there is no salvation"?
Yes, unfortunately, I believe so. Just like it's easier for a cop to "fight crime" by handing out traffic tickets instead of fighting drug dealers with guns, it's easier for +W to chastise TLM'ers for their apparent lack of charity than it is to fight the modernists and their never ending twisted logic and lies. What a shame.
-
Isn't it simply to show the error of "Outside the TLM there is no salvation"?
Yes, unfortunately, I believe so. Just like it's easier for a cop to "fight crime" by handing out traffic tickets instead of fighting drug dealers with guns, it's easier for +W to chastise TLM'ers for their apparent lack of charity than it is to fight the modernists and their never ending twisted logic and lies. What a shame.
We are trying to navigate a narrow road of truth during this Crisis in the Church, like a rock bridge going across a 5 thousand foot deep chasm.
Who are you to criticize +W for defining the RIGHT EDGE of that bridge with a fence, as well as the left edge? He doesn't want Catholics to fall off EITHER SIDE into the depths of ERROR.
Error is error. You can veer off the true path TO THE RIGHT just as easily as TO THE LEFT, and with just as disastrous results.
I'm not convinced that errors to the right (excessive conservatism, in this case home alone-ism) is any worse for souls than errors to the left (liberalism, Novus Ordo abuses, protestantism).
They both lead to destruction, and the devil will happily use EITHER to destroy traditional Catholics.
But I ask you: which one does the average Trad really have to watch out for?
Pharisaical self-righteousness and/or home alone-ism (being so picky about priests/groups that there are no longer any available to you in your area)
or
Going back to the Novus Ordo
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.
-
I'm sure there are catholics left in the new-Church, but why is this a concern of a TLM Bishop? These good catholics don't care about him (probably don't even know about him), so why is he bending over backwards to rebuke his fellow TLM'ers who mourn the GENERAL loss of faith of Rome? Most TLM'ers are concerned about the dangers of ROME, not the few N.O. families out there.
Why is +W spending time keeping Trads on the right road, avoiding extremes to the right? You give the reason yourself. The Novus Ordo Catholics aren't the ones following +W or his writings. +W primarily speaks to Trad Catholics.
And Trads need to be kept on the straight and narrow, avoiding error to the right AND to the left.
-
Most TLM'ers are concerned about the dangers of ROME, not the few N.O. families out there.
This needs to be clarified.
Yes, Trads are concerned with the Crisis ending someday, and soon. That is healthy, to be expected, and of course we all pray for that.
But the Novus Ordo poses no tantalizing temptation to the majority of Trads.
When it comes to WHERE DOES THE DANGER LIE for the average Trad personally, it is everything BUT the Novus Ordo. Except for a few recent converts from the Conciliar Church, over 90% of Trads wouldn't go back to the Novus Ordo even if all Trad priests were put to death tomorrow.
Maybe 90% is an optimistic estimate; maybe it's more like 70%. I'll give you an example. When the SSPX started to destabilize in Ridgefield, CT, about 300 people left the parish of 500. 100 went to the Resistance (Fr. Zendejas), 100 went to the Sedevacantists, and 100 went to the local Indult.
So there's your breakdown. If the SSPX shut down every chapel tomorrow, and every SSPX priest was taken out of the picture, about 2/3 would hold the course (Resistance) or head to the right (Sede), while 1/3 would go to the left (Indult).
So enticements to the left are NOT the only, or even the main, danger for Trads.
-
Bishop W. is addressing a poisonous spirit that is permeating sectors of traditionalism. It's the blind indiscriminate scorn for anything or anyone not yet a traditionalist of the Roman rite. It almost apes the Jєωιѕн concept of Gentiles. A term to describe anyone who is "not one of us."
The Remnant years ago pointed out the same thing. A lot of traditionalists seemed to be so fixated on being against errors that they start to take joy in the errors of others and the consequences they will face. They phrased it as trads being upset that Lutheran babies validly baptized might not go to Hell if they die before the age of reason.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
PaxVobis,
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.
-
PaxVobis,
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.
-
...the New Mass is barely done...
But it is done. So that's a problem. Unless it's ok to "barely" offend God.
-
Prayerful,
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
#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.
-
#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:
-
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
-
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.
-
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?
-
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?
No. That's not what's happening. What's happening is hardline trads are increasing their hardness to the point of becoming Donatists and Puritans. They are becoming what Neo-Catholics have caricaturized trads as being from more than a decade ago.
When Catholics apply the teaching of St. Thomas and can back it up with citations from the writings of St. Thomas, they are called "modernists," it becomes apparent that something is wrong.
The Neo Catholics adopt a blind faith and ignore the crisis, the Neo-Donatist trads and the sedevacantists adopt a blind scorn and see nothing Catholic but only the crisis.
-
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?
No. That's not what's happening. What's happening is hardline trads are increasing their hardness to the point of becoming Donatists and Puritans. They are becoming what Neo-Catholics have caricaturized trads as being from more than a decade ago.
When Catholics apply the teaching of St. Thomas and can back it up with citations from the writings of St. Thomas, they are called "modernists," it becomes apparent that something is wrong.
The Neo Catholics adopt a blind faith and ignore the crisis, the Neo-Donatist trads and the sedevacantists adopt a blind scorn and see nothing Catholic but only the crisis.
Hardline against the New Mass; compassionate towards people in the Novus Ordo of good will.
-
All this talk of "blind scorn" and a "pharisee" attitude towards non-trad catholics - where's the evidence? Give me proof it's even going on. Anytime I talk with indult catholics, i'm the one hearing snide remarks about being "outside the church" or "schismatic", etc.
Does it happen on the internet? Sure, but if you're debating on the internet, you open yourself up to frank discussions and you should brush off any "hurt feelings" and move on. In my experience, in real life, trads and indulters don't mix all that much.
-
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?
This is what I wrote and in blue I'll add more to make it clearer:
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, we have no effect on "Rome".
All those examples that you gave are examples of "affecting those around us", and insulating ourselves from "Rome", "Rome" can't affect us. We are neutralized and always have been to affect "Rome" and the 99.99% of Catholics around the world.
Lucia of Fatima said it would be this way, she said do not expect assitance from the pope and the bishops, each person is now responsible for his own salvation and those around them.
-
Lucia of Fatima said it would be this way, she said do not expect assitance from the pope and the bishops, each person is now responsible for his own salvation and those around them.
This is neither true historically about Sr. Lucia, nor is it true that we should now cease to look to submit to an authority.
-
F.E.,
No. That's not what's happening. What's happening is hardline trads are increasing their hardness to the point of becoming Donatists and Puritans. They are becoming what Neo-Catholics have caricaturized trads as being from more than a decade ago.
That is certainly not the case. Recalling the Novus Ordo apologists of more than a decade ago including the great John Paul II, we can easily remember being called "Integrists", schismatics, rigid, uniformed, having no idea what the Church teaches, etc. What you and the Bishop see as a hardening is not the reality, which is that what we were guessing about and hoping was not happening in those times, has now indeed happened and has come to pass in a irrefutable way. The revolution was proven real, the ambiguities have proven to be clear errors and heresies, and the conciliar church has shown itself as a counter church and an evil subversive enemy of souls and salvation.
When Catholics apply the teaching of St. Thomas and can back it up with citations from the writings of St. Thomas, they are called "modernists," it becomes apparent that something is wrong.
Applications of the Holy doctor's writings have been used to support all manner of odd ideas, it is all a matter of interpretation and application or misapplication.
The Neo Catholics adopt a blind faith and ignore the crisis, the Neo-Donatist trads and the sedevacantists adopt a blind scorn and see nothing Catholic but only the crisis.
The first analysis is correct, the second is not accurate as by and large, these folks see what is NOT Catholic and say that it isn't.
But, you have overlooked the middle of the roaders who hang in the lukewarm center of the pot, and justify their contradictions by excoriating the other two.
Principle is Principle, and one commits to it and perseveres within its bounds. With God's help that man holds to the truth of that principle and makes no accommodation against it, no matter how much time passes.
To the mind which believes in progress of principles and truth interpreted by subjectivism, the constancy of a principled man does indeed come to him as a hardening, simply because he will not give in to contrary ideas.
I and many Catholics who I know, have the same level of rejection for those things which are not of the Church and which war against souls, as we did ten years ago, fifteen years ago, forty years ago, but we know the enemy much better now, and we have no reason now to give him a way out.
Heterodoxy, heresy, error, and evil are not like fine wine, the do not get better with age, but rather they fester and corrupt and grow in their power over the minds of men.
Hardening no, fidelity in the face of intensified evils yes. There can only be one true way, not three.
My JesusMercy!
-
All this talk of "blind scorn" and a "pharisee" attitude towards non-trad catholics - where's the evidence? Give me proof it's even going on. Anytime I talk with indult catholics, i'm the one hearing snide remarks about being "outside the church" or "schismatic", etc. Does it happen on the internet? Sure, but if you're debating on the internet, you open yourself up to frank discussions and you should brush off any "hurt feelings" and move on. In my experience, in real life, trads and indulters don't mix all that much.
I go to SSPX masses and several diocesan masses as well as special occasion TLMs when I can. I see the some of the same people at all of them.
Every few years, I go to a Novus Ordo and read the TLM while the Mass goes on just so I can see what the current temperature is in the Novus Ordo parishes.
The pastor of the nearest diocesan trad parish tells people to avoid the SSPX and people go anyway. The SSPX tells people one thing from the pulpit another thing on the one to one level. The SSPX was also helping local priests learn the TLM so they could say the "indult."
I also see people that I know on the internet as well.
So, the internet vs. real life is really a false distinction.
What I've pointed out is a trend of which you can see on this very site where people do not make cohesive arguments that concern the essence of the crisis.
They are only concerned with red-hot rhetoric and hurling invective. They speak very little about holiness or charity or even any kind of recuperation of the Church.
They overtly want to see the people in the Novus Ordo punished for being in the Novus Ordo.
Now, if you were to call them on it, and you point out that the situation is not as cut and dry as they want it to be. They give you the same insane exaggeration they give the Conciliar Church.
Any disagreement with them that says they exaggerate the crisis, i.e.…the Novus Ordo Mass, no matter who says it is always "intrinsically evil." Well disagreeing with them on that is not just disagreement, it is promoting the Novus Ordo.
You can look at the back and forth between J.Paul and myself to see how he can't actually be rooted in reality, he has to accuse me of positively promoting the Novus Ordo because I don't buy his broad brushed empty rhetoric damning anyone who goes and equating it with Satanism. It has all the honesty of a presidential campaign commercial.
I don't buy Fr. Nicholson's nonsense about the SSPX masses being the same as Black masses, and I'm not going to buy that same crap from the other side.
Fr. Cekada has simply not gotten his fill going after the Novus Ordo, now he wants to cannibalize TLMs. If you go to a valid TLM and the name of the "antipope" is mentioned, that's a mortal sin for you to attend.
This isn't about "hurt feelings" in any way. This is about a rash judgment and the ridiculous caricaturizing of the Crisis to the point where it simply doesn't look rational.
Williamson continues to say what he's said for 30 years. He applies Thomistic principles of culpability when he addresses attendance at the Novus Ordo and the comprehension of people in the Novus Ordo concerning the crisis.
That becomes Williamson "has softened" and Thomism is "modernism" and if he says "subjectivity" that's 'subjectivism."
Let's face it, some trads are simply lying now in order to simply raise Hell about the Church. They ignore docuмented instruction, they don't concede when proven wrong and they contribute nothing but a war cry and propagandize and dehumanize the crisis in the Church.
-
That is certainly not the case. Recalling the Novus Ordo apologists of more than a decade ago including the great John Paul II, we can easily remember being called "Integrists", schismatics, rigid, uniformed, having no idea what the Church teaches, etc.
First, it certainly is the case. Second, I remember those times very well and what was not true in great numbers concerning those accusations is becoming the reality as time goes on.
What you and the Bishop see as a hardening is not the reality, which is that what we were guessing about and hoping was not happening in those times, has now indeed happened and has come to pass in a irrefutable way.
No. The docuмents of Vatican II have not changed since they were foisted on the Church in all of their glorious ambiguity and verbal slobbery.
The revolution was proven real, the ambiguities have proven to be clear errors and heresies, and the conciliar church has shown itself as a counter church and an evil subversive enemy of souls and salvation.
The revolution was proven real right after 1965. The ambiguities are still ambiguities. Those who choose to take them as errors and heresy are guilty of error and heresy. The docuмents themselves simply present a choice of interpretation according to the orthodoxy of the interpreter.
Using a vague and ambiguous statement like " the conciliar church has shown itself as a counter church and an evil subversive enemy of souls and salvation" is just as detached from anything concrete as any docuмent of Vatican II. It's gobbledygook worthy of John Paul II himself.
Applications of the Holy doctor's writings have been used to support all manner of odd ideas, it is all a matter of interpretation and application or misapplication.
Perhaps, but no such misapplication is contributed by Williamson on this topic.
The Neo Catholics adopt a blind faith and ignore the crisis, the Neo-Donatist trads and the sedevacantists adopt a blind scorn and see nothing Catholic but only the crisis.
The first analysis is correct, the second is not accurate as by and large, these folks see what is NOT Catholic and say that it isn't.
Unfortunately, the Novus Ordo is not offered uniformly enough to make an all inclusive statement.
No trad and no Neo Catholic can make a uniform praise or condemnation of every Novus Ordo Mass offered.
The trads we are discussing go on a tear about the "intrinsic evil" of the Novus Ordo and then they catalogue a series of errors and abuses that have nothing to do with the official rubrics of the Novus Ordo promulgated by Paul VI or even the GIRM.
But, you have overlooked the middle of the roaders who hang in the lukewarm center of the pot, and justify their contradictions by excoriating the other two.
I haven't overlooked the Hegelians but that doesn't condemn the Thomistic formulation as expressd by the SSPX and other trads for decades, "It is, however, a moral virtue, since it is a part of justice, and it observes the mean between excess and deficiency. Excess thereof is measured in respect, not of quantity, but of other circuмstances, in so far as a man obeys either whom he ought not, or in matters wherein he ought not to obey, as we have stated above regarding religion."
Principle is Principle, and one commits to it and perseveres within its bounds.
The trouble is one has to apply the proper principle.
With God's help that man holds to the truth of that principle and makes no accommodation against it, no matter how much time passes.
Again, he has to be holding the correct principle. One could hold the principle of non-contradiction and deny the Virgin Birth. But if one holds to the principle of the paradox, one can be consistent, reasonable and hold to the dogma of the Virgin Birth.
To the mind which believes in progress of principles and truth interpreted by subjectivism, the constancy of a principled man does indeed come to him as a hardening, simply because he will not give in to contrary ideas.
But to the mind that can make the distinction between subjectivism and subjectivity and objectivity and objectivism, is, the moderate rationalism of St. Thomas, it's no problem at all.
I and many Catholics who I know, have the same level of rejection for those things which are not of the Church and which war against souls, as we did ten years ago, fifteen years ago, forty years ago, but we know the enemy much better now, and we have no reason now to give him a way out.
That's absolutely just rhetoric. I don't know what specifically you are referring to.
Why should anyone believe that statement detached from any specific accusation?
Heterodoxy, heresy, error, and evil are not like fine wine, the do not get better with age, but rather they fester and corrupt and grow in their power over the minds of men.
I guess the minds of men might not even see it coming. They might think they haven't hardened their position, narrowed their understanding or failed to make distinctions and discernments correctly.
Hardening no, fidelity in the face of intensified evils yes. There can only be one true way, not three.
Fidelity can be held in the face of intensified evils and decreasing evils as well.
There are numerous areas of improvement in pockets of Catholicism compared to the 1970s and 1980s.
Is the increase in the use of the St. Michael Prayer after being thrown into obscurity an intensification of evil? Is the higher standards in some pockets of the Novus Ordo for chastity and purity far greater than it was in the 1970s and 80s an intensification of evil? Is the restoration of tabernacles to the center of the Church an intensification of evil?
Christ rebuked the Apostles when they wanted to stop a man from casting out demons in Jesus' name because he was not one of the Apostles.
Christ essentially told them to praise the good that he was doing and not shut him down for what he was not doing in order to bring him to the fold.
-
F.E.
I go to SSPX masses and several diocesan masses as well as special occasion TLMs when I can. I see the some of the same people at all of them.
This is common now. What does that mean?
Every few years, I go to a Novus Ordo and read the TLM while the Mass goes on just so I can see what the current temperature is in the Novus Ordo parishes.
Why would you do that and put yourself in such a place?
The pastor of the nearest diocesan trad parish tells people to avoid the SSPX and people go anyway. The SSPX tells people one thing from the pulpit another thing on the one to one level. The SSPX was also helping local priests learn the TLM so they could say the "indult."
Proving once again that the indult is still a conciliar instrument and that folks are losing the ability to discern and so now see them as interchangeable
What I've pointed out is a trend of which you can see on this very site where people do not make cohesive arguments that concern the essence of the crisis.
That is your opinion
They are only concerned with red-hot rhetoric and hurling invective. They speak very little about holiness or charity or even any kind of recuperation of the Church.
That is your assertion, and it is not true.
They overtly want to see the people in the Novus Ordo punished for being in the Novus Ordo.
That is your assertion and a malicious thing to say. We would like to see them leave the Novus Ordo as soon as possible, for the good of their souls and the Church.
Now, if you were to call them on it, and you point out that the situation is not as cut and dry as they want it to be. They give you the same insane exaggeration they give the Conciliar Church.
Can one exaggerate the evil of the conciliar church?
Any disagreement with them that says they exaggerate the crisis, i.e.…the Novus Ordo Mass, no matter who says it is always "intrinsically evil." Well disagreeing with them on that is not just disagreement, it is promoting the Novus Ordo.
Promoting Novus Ordo/indult ideas? yes. Trying to claim a legitimate place for the Novus Ordo beside the true Mass?, yes. Giving folks the idea that they might be alright in the Novus Ordo if it meets certain subjective criteria? yes
You can look at the back and forth between J.Paul and myself to see how he can't actually be rooted in reality, he has to accuse me of positively promoting the Novus Ordo because I don't buy his broad brushed empty rhetoric damning anyone who goes and equating it with Satanism. It has all the honesty of a presidential campaign commercial.
I believe in good and evil, things which tend towards God and Heaven, and those things which are impediments to these things. Mea Culpa!
I don't buy Fr. Nicholson's nonsense about the SSPX masses being the same as Black masses, and I'm not going to buy that same crap from the other side.
That is over the top. Isn't it.
Fr. Cekada has simply not gotten his fill going after the Novus Ordo, now he wants to cannibalize TLMs. If you go to a valid TLM and the name of the "antipope" is mentioned, that's a mortal sin for you to attend.
That is his opinion and why not for him? He is a sedevacantist.
This isn't about "hurt feelings" in any way. This is about a rash judgment and the ridiculous caricaturizing of the Crisis to the point where it simply doesn't look rational.
The crisis, so called is anything but rational, in fact this is no longer a crisis, it is in for the long haul, it is a war and the conciliar church is winning. Once the nature of this enemy was known, rationalization became ineffective.
Williamson continues to say what he's said for 30 years. He applies Thomistic principles of culpability when he addresses attendance at the Novus Ordo and the comprehension of people in the Novus Ordo concerning the crisis.
That becomes Williamson "has softened" and Thomism is "modernism" and if he says "subjectivity" that's 'subjectivism."
Too generous an application of subjectivity can be seen as subectivism.
Let's face it, some trads are simply lying now in order to simply raise Hell about the Church. They ignore docuмented instruction, they don't concede when proven wrong and they contribute nothing but a war cry and propagandize and dehumanize the crisis in the Church.
I would think that the loss of faith and souls is enough of a human face upon the conciliar "crisis" and while the word lying is upon your lips, please reconsider the slanders within that statement.
-
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).
Of course +Williamson doesn't condone the Indult. If he did, he wouldn't be opposing the NSSPX.
He doesn't condone the NO Mass even slightly. To be confronted with a women in tears, apparently not a traditionalist, at a public and recorded meeting, when she might have got hysterical or broken down if he'd told her she had to stop going to the NO, was a one-off situation. He couldn't take her aside to discuss it or talked to her in the confessional - so he answered as I think Archbishop Lefebvre would have done, given the circuмstances.
It's just being mischievous to turn his answer into a doctrinally or theologically considered position.
-
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).
Of course +Williamson doesn't condone the Indult. If he did, he wouldn't be opposing the NSSPX.
He doesn't condone the NO Mass even slightly. To be confronted with a women in tears, apparently not a traditionalist, at a public and recorded meeting, when she might have got hysterical or broken down if he'd told her she had to stop going to the NO, was a one-off situation. He couldn't take her aside to discuss it or talked to her in the confessional - so he answered as I think Archbishop Lefebvre would have done, given the circuмstances.
It's just being mischievous to turn his answer into a doctrinally or theologically considered position.
Thank you Raphaela! For such a simple explanation of a not so complicated matter. :applause:
-
Of course +Williamson doesn't condone the Indult.
If +W makes exceptions for the N.O., then he would certainly make exceptions for an indult latin mass. There's no way, logically, to argue that a N.O. can "nourish one's faith" but an indult latin mass could not.
- In my opinion, +W opposes the NSSPX because they want to "formalize" their back-and-forth condoning attitude towards the N.O./V2 (the sspx has been back and forth for decades). +W knows this formal recognition would be destructive so he opposes it, even if privately, he holds the N.O. "could be" ok. I hope and pray he will one day speak "yes, yes or no, no" but until then, he remains a man divided.
He doesn't condone the NO Mass even slightly.
Yes he does. Read his emails of the past 2-3 months. He had a chance to clarify himself from the "one off" situation with the lady at the conference, and he did not. He doubled-down on that stance and it made no sense.
so he answered as I think Archbishop Lefebvre would have done, given the circuмstances.
Your interpretation of ABL may or may not be accurate. But it goes to show that either he, or you, or both, condone the N.O. in some way. Either the N.O. is from the Church, or it is not. Either it is from God, or it is not. If it is from God/Church then we MUST accept it, and we must condone it. If it is a bastardized rite (to quote ABL) which was forced on the Church by revolutionaries and if it isn't a command to attend/condone it (which it isn't) then we must reject it, entirely, absolutely, and without hesitation. To accept it, even mentally, is a compromise of the Faith because we cannot accept things which aren't from God or his Church, especially things that go against that which we already know is good.
- No one is being mischievous; I am simply analyzing +W's emails. He says V2 and the new mass are dangerous to the faith, then he says the new mass could "nourish one's faith" in the right circuмstances. Which one is it? It's totally contradictory.