Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: SeanJohnson on October 29, 2023, 07:05:19 AM
-
This morning before Mass, I gave my family a short sermon before departing to the church.
I explained to them what they likely would not hear at the chapel today on this great feast:
That the primary evil of Vatican II's Dignitatis Humanae was that it directly opposed the Kingship of Christ, and laid the axe to the root of Catholic civilization. I gave an historical lesson of the Vatican Secretary of State traveling the world to destroy the last remaining confessional states who still officially recognized the Catholic religion as the religion of the state, and ordered their laws and societies upon that basis, in orde to bring these societies into line with the new and condemned doctrine of Dignitatis Humanae (e.g., in the Syllabus, #15, 77-79). I explained that the Masonic concept of "religious freedom" uncrowned Christ the King (as +Lefebvre had said), and how Christ can never be King in countries where religious liberty is not merely tolerated when Catholics are in the minority, but which is instead touted as the ideal.
I then explained that 20 years ago, sermons combatting the evil influence of Dignitatis Humanae as antithetical to the Kingship of Christ were routinely combatted in SSPX chapels, but that now, especially for the last 10-15 years, the Society had embarked upon a policy of coexistence (en reoute to integration) with modernist Rome, and that the price the SSPX (and its faithful) paid for choosing that path was silence on the subject of religious liberty, since their goal or reintegration into the conciliar church presupposes acceptance of the conciliar teachings (at least in the long run).
Therefore, I told them they would likely receive, as every year, a great sermon on some aspects of the Kingship of Christ: The need for Christ to be king of our souls, of our families, and even of our societies, but omitting to explain why the conciliar church rejects this last aspect of Christ's Kingship.
Consequently, I told them that they'd likely hear something like this OTHERWISE excellent 2014 sermon by Fr. Daniel Themann, who, at 11:19, explains that he is deliberately and intentionally omitting to discuss the 6th point of Pope St. Pius X's 6-part program to institute the reign of the Kingship of Christ the King, stating:
"We could talk about St. Pius X's particular condemnation of certain laws which brought about the separation of Church and state, for example in Portugal, and in France, but I'm going to intentionally pass over that for the sake of time, and also because these interventions of St. Pius X were more the response to particular crimes of these nations, ratheer than integral elements of his program as such."
https://florida.sspx.org/en/media/audio/st-pius-x-and-christ-king-5333
So, in 36 minutes, there supposedly just wasn't time to mention the errors of religious liberty, Vatican II's Dignitatis Humanae, or how both are antithetical to the Kingship of Christ (even though such used to be commonplace on this feast every year). Nor has there been time in practically any other sermon, conference, speech, or article from the SSPX ever since the commencement of the branding campaign, by which the SSPX agreed to lay down its weapons at the feet of the conciliar church.
In truth, Fr. Themann could simply have stated that, "To enter into discussion regarding the separation of Church and state would unavoidably place the discussion upon a collision trajectory with Dignitatis Humanae, and I can't go there." Of course, he can't just say that, for the ccompromise would be exposed. Therefore, contrive other reasons for omitting the discussion.
Today, I can look around the chapel, and recognize many faces who used to hear such sermons, and marvel at their blithe acceptance of this new situation (i.e., a surrendered army, for whom Vatican II's religious liberty is no longer in their crosshairs). And then I marvel again at the new generation of SSPXers who never knew the pre-2010 SSPX: Would they have come had Rome not removed the legal obstacles in exchange for the SSPX's good behavior? Do they know anything at all about Dignitatis Humanae, and how it opposes the reign of Christ the King? Have they ever read Archbishop Lefebvre's polemical works (e.g., They Have Uncrowned Him, or I Accuse the Council)?
They have been drawn to a remade and softer Society. It is debatable whether they would have been drawn to the old Society. But what is not debatable is that they are not being innoculated against the conciliar errors, and expecially not against religious liberty and Vatican II (at least not from the pulpit).
Hence my little sermon, to supply for an anticipated annual omission.
-
Fr. Yves Congar, who himself helped draft the text of the Declaration [Dignitatis Humanae] itself, affirms that:
"...it cannot be denied that a text like this does materially say something different from the syllabus of 1864, and even almost the opposite of propositions 15 and 77-9 of the docuмent” (Challenge to the Church, London, 1977, p.44).
From the Syllabus of Errors, which condemns the following propositions:
III. INDIFFERENTISM, LATITUDINARIANISM
15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true. — Allocution “Maxima quidem,” June 9, 1862; Damnatio “Multiplices inter,” June 10, 1851.
X. ERRORS HAVING REFERENCE TO MODERN LIBERALISM
77. In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship. — Allocution “Nemo vestrum,” July 26, 1855.
78. Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship. — Allocution “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852.
79. Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all, of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism. — Allocution “Nunquam fore,” Dec. 15, 1856.
https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius09/p9syll.htm
-
Your Sundays sound stressful :(
-
Today, I can look around the chapel, and recognize many faces who used to hear such sermons, and marvel at their blithe acceptance of this new situation (i.e., a surrendered army, for whom Vatican II's religious liberty is no longer in their crosshairs). And then I marvel again at the new generation of SSPXers who never knew the pre-2010 SSPX: Would they have come had Rome not removed the legal obstacles in exchange for the SSPX's good behavior? Do they know anything at all about Dignitatis Humanae, and how it opposes the reign of Christ the King? Have they ever read Archbishop Lefebvre's polemical works (e.g., They Have Uncrowned Him, or I Accuse the Council)?
Yes, well . . .
Mark 6:6 And he wondered because of their unbelief, and he went through the villages round about teaching.
-
364 days of the year I will listen and participate in discussions such as Sean describes...
but today I just want to
WORSHIP AND ADORE MY KING
:pray:
-
How many threads are on this forum demonstrating that the SSPX is now conciliar?
-
Well, this year at least the bombs fell closer to the target:
There was still no mention or condemnation of religious liberty, DH, or religious indifferentism, but there were several references to Lefebvre blaming Vatican II for the destruction of the Kingship of Christ (which hadn’t been heard in years), just without explaining how or why.
These days, I think that’s as close as they’re going to get.
-
Your Sundays sound stressful :(
Well, that's the because he wants to look for things to criticize. The sermon I heard today mentioned Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ and President Garcia Moreno.
-
Well, that's the because he wants to look for things to criticize. The sermon I heard today mentioned Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ and President Garcia Moreno.
So what? Many SSPX priests were formed in the good old days. Many still do as much good as they can, given the new Administration and its new Direction for the neo-SSPX.
Good is being done by the SSPX today. It's a large organization comprising how many hundred priests and how many dozens of chapels? Nothing goes from "virtually 100% good" to "no good at all" overnight. Any wise man could have told you that.
The ISSUE is that the SSPX has fallen (past tense) and so its days are numbered. Good priests are NO LONGER BEING TRAINED, FORMED, OR ORDAINED. And the evil new direction is not just one bad leader, but a huge cabal who hold *all* the positions of power. Ergo, there is no HUMAN hope for the SSPX at this point.
Unless you're 75+ years old and alone (only having to worry about Mass for you, and a priest to visit you on your deathbed) you *need* to be making arrangements for where you will be attending a good, non-Conciliar-affiliated Trad chapel in 5 or 10 years. ESPECIALLY if you're under 50 and/or have children or grandchildren.
-
Sean, I'm not saying this to be mean, but rather for some peace of mind (maybe?).
Have you considered eventually starting your own Resistance location? You have people that agree with your stances who would come over there from the chapel.
-
Well, that's the because he wants to look for things to criticize.
I think most of us recognize that not every sermon is going to mention/condemn Vatican II. I know that is not the case at both my online and in person sede chapel. I think the issue is when it stops altogether (especially from those who are in communion with Bergoglio).
-
Well, that's the because he wants to look for things to criticize. The sermon I heard today mentioned Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ and President Garcia Moreno.
I agree. While it's true that some of the SSPX priests aren't mentioning the Crisis, Vatican ll, the problems with the new mass, as they should be doing, it seems as if many here believe that we can receive graces from a good and proper sermon. Is it true that we can receive graces from a good sermon that mentions Vatican ll, the new mass, or the Crisis in the Church? I don't believe that the Catholic Church has ever taught that we receive graces from a good sermon, however beneficial this might be. I'll bet that some here believe that we do receive graces from a good sermon, and that is preffered to receiving Holy Eucharist.
On the other hand, does the Catholic Church teach that we can obtain graces from receiving the Holy Eucharist? (provided the recipient is in a state of grace and properly disposed, of course). If the Catholic Church, therefore, teaches this, then shouldn't we strive to attend mass so that we can receive graces from Holy Eucharist? Or do some here believe that this is no longer important, and that the only important thing is that we hear a good sermon?
We know our Faith, and we can teach the Faith to our families if need be. Yes, the SSPX priests at some chapels, as well as the leadership of the SSPX, no longer teaches as to why we do not attend the new mass, or why we have a state of emergency during the Crisis, or the problems with Vatican ll. But that doesn't mean that we can do without the graces received from the Holy Eucharist....or maybe this is no longer important?
-
it seems as if many here believe that we can receive graces from a good and proper sermon. Is it true that we can receive graces from a good sermon that mentions Vatican ll, the new mass, or the Crisis in the Church? I don't believe that the Catholic Church has ever taught that we receive graces from a good sermon, however beneficial this might be. I'll bet that some here believe that we do receive graces from a good sermon
Meg, I certainly hope there are many here, if not all, who believe that we receive graces from a good sermon.
Priests are commanded by the Church to give them on all Sundays and Holy Days, and the faithful are commanded to hear them.
The Church richly rewards the hearing of them with indulgences (Raccolta 692).
It is important to understand the primacy of faith. Faith is the foundation of all the other virtues. Without the faith, there is no charity. Without the faith, says St Paul, it is impossible to please God.
"Faith, then, cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ" (Rom 10:17)
It is the mission of the Church, Our Lord's command to His Apostles: "Going, therefore, teach ye all nations".
He who loves truth, hates error. A good pastor of souls will not only proclaim the truth, but condemn the opposed errors which endanger souls.
It is enough for us to see the state of the Church today for us to understand the urgency of this. The vast numbers of Catholics today may receive the Holy Eucharist (God only knows), but do they still have the faith, in spite of the best of intentions?
Certainly, Meg, I agree, we need the graces of the sacraments, more than ever in this day and age.
However, the proviso is that there is no danger to our faith.
As Matthew points out, there is still much good in the SSPX, but it cannot be denied that they have changed direction and there are increasing dangers lurking in the churches of the Society for the unwary e.g. increasing silence on the dangers of the conciliar religion, doubtful priests, doubtful bishops, doubtful sacraments...
Sean gives an admirable example here of one means of protecting our families against some such dangers.
-
U.S. SSPX district published this today: "Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre on the Feast of Christ the King (https://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/archbishop-marcel-lefebvre-feast-christ-king-86555)"
Also, we should be thankful our liturgy doesn't have an anemic office for today's feast:
The Breviary Office of Christ the King (https://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/archive-christ_the_king.htm)
The hymn Te saeculorum Principem (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHkDKrtLjGQ) of First Vespers has had the following verses omitted:
The wicked mob screams out.
"We don't want Christ as king,"
While we, with shouts of joy, hail
Thee as the world's supreme King.
May the rulers of the world publicly
honour and extol Thee;
May teachers and judges reverence Thee;
May the laws express Thine order
And the arts reflect Thy beauty.
May kings find renown in their submission
and dedication to Thee.
Bring under Thy gentle rule our
country and our homes.
Glory be to Thee, Jesus, supreme over
All secular authorities;
And glory be to the Father and
The loving Spirit through endless ages.
The hymn Aeterna Imago Altissimi has been transferred from Matins to Lauds, and the following changes made. The last two lines of the second verse stated that the Father had entrusted to Christ, as His right, "absolute dominion over the peoples" (Cui iure sceptrum gentium Pater supremum credidit). This has been replaced by an admonition that we, as individuals, should willingly submit ourselves to Christ (tibi volentes subdimur qui iure cunctis imperas).
The following verses have, not surprisingly, been omitted completely:
To Thee, Who by right claim rule over all men,
We willingly submit ourselves;
To be subject to Thy laws
Means happiness for a state and its peoples.
Glory be to Thee, Jesus,
Supreme over all secular authorities;
And glory be to the Father and
The loving Spirit through endless ages.
A version of the Vexilla Regis (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svZTy5f1qr4) has been abolished completely. Originally found in Lauds, some of its verses read:
Christ triumphantly unfurls His
Glorious banners everywhere;
Come nations of the world, and
On bended knee acclaim the King of kings.
How great is the happiness of a country
That rightly owns the rule of Christ and
Zealously carries out the commands God gave to men.
The plighted word keeps marriage unbroken,
The children grow up with virtue intact and
Homes where purity is found
Abound also in the other virtues of home life.
Beloved King, may the light from Thee
That we desire, shine on us in all its glory;
May the world receive the gift of peace,
Be subject to Thee and adore Thee.
A number of readings from Quas primas (https://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_p-xi_enc_11121925_quas-primas.html) itself were included in the Office, and they explained the traditional teaching on Church and State with great clarity. They have all been removed, showing how blatantly the compilers of the new Breviary went about their task of eliminating liturgical references to the Social Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ. The removal of these readings from Quas primas (https://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_p-xi_enc_11121925_quas-primas.html) must certainly be seen as an affront to the memory and the teaching of Pope Pius XI, at whose behest the Office had been composed only forty years earlier, with the specific aim of reminding rulers that they are bound to give public honour and obedience to Our Lord. Could this great Pope possibly have imagined that within four decades he would have a successor who would totally mutilate the Office that he had approved so recently, and that this mutilation would have the objective of removing any suggestion that rulers are bound to give honour and obedience to Our Lord? Pope Paul VI stated explicitly to the rulers of the world that the Church asked no more of them than freedom to pursue its mission.
The thoroughness with which Archbishop Bugnini's Consilium expunged every specific expression of Our Lord's Social Kingship from the liturgy can hardly be denied. Its members did not even miss a reference to Our Lord's Social Kingship in the Good Friday liturgy. The first of the Solemn Collects, the one for the Church, read:
Let us pray, dearly beloved, for the holy Church of God: that our God and Lord may be pleased to give it peace, keep its unity and preserve it throughout the world: subjecting to it principalities and powers, and may He grant us, while we live in peace and tranquillity, grace to glorify God the Father almighty.
This prayer has been replaced by the following:
Let us pray, dear friends, for the holy Church of God throughout the World,
that God, the almighty Father guide it, and gather it together
so that we may worship him in peace and tranquillity.
Lest anyone should imagine that an undue significance has been placed upon changes in the Breviary and Missal relating to the doctrine of Christ the King, a comment by Archbishop A. Bugnini, Great Architect of the Liturgical Revolution, should prove very illuminating.
-
Meg, I certainly hope there are many here, if not all, who believe that we receive graces from a good sermon.
Priests are commanded by the Church to give them on all Sundays and Holy Days, and the faithful are commanded to hear them.
The Church richly rewards the hearing of them with indulgences (Raccolta 692).
It is important to understand the primacy of faith. Faith is the foundation of all the other virtues. Without the faith, there is no charity. Without the faith, says St Paul, it is impossible to please God.
"Faith, then, cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ" (Rom 10:17)
It is the mission of the Church, Our Lord's command to His Apostles: "Going, therefore, teach ye all nations".
He who loves truth, hates error. A good pastor of souls will not only proclaim the truth, but condemn the opposed errors which endanger souls.
It is enough for us to see the state of the Church today for us to understand the urgency of this. The vast numbers of Catholics today may receive the Holy Eucharist (God only knows), but do they still have the faith, in spite of the best of intentions?
Certainly, Meg, I agree, we need the graces of the sacraments, more than ever in this day and age.
However, the proviso is that there is no danger to our faith.
As Matthew points out, there is still much good in the SSPX, but it cannot be denied that they have changed direction and there are increasing dangers lurking in the churches of the Society for the unwary e.g. increasing silence on the dangers of the conciliar religion, doubtful priests, doubtful bishops, doubtful sacraments...
Sean gives an admirable example here of one means of protecting our families against some such dangers.
So the hearing of a good and proper sermon at Mass is more important the receiving the sacrament of Holy Communion? See....traditional Catholics hardly ever talk about the graces that we very much need from the reception of the sacrament of Holy Communion. It's not much different than how the Novus Ordo folks view the sacrament of Holy Communion. They tend to believe that it is the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, but that it isn't a big deal at all. I get the impression that trads think the same. The source and summit of our life is not Holy Communion, but rather it is a good sermon that will save us, right?
-
The Neo-SSPX priest should give the Diocesan priest a ring each week (they're practically Best Friends on speed dial) and ask for a copy of their Sermon. It's all part of ecuмenism.
-
The Neo-SSPX priest should give the Diocesan priest a ring each week (they're practically Best Friends on speed dial) and ask for a copy of their Sermon. It's all part of ecuмenism.
:popcorn:
-
This morning before Mass, I gave my family a short sermon before departing to the church.
I explained to them what they likely would not hear at the chapel today on this great feast:
That the primary evil of Vatican II's Dignitatis Humanae was that it directly opposed the Kingship of Christ, and laid the axe to the root of Catholic civilization. I gave an historical lesson of the Vatican Secretary of State traveling the world to destroy the last remaining confessional states who still officially recognized the Catholic religion as the religion of the state, and ordered their laws and societies upon that basis, in orde to bring these societies into line with the new and condemned doctrine of Dignitatis Humanae (e.g., in the Syllabus, #15, 77-79). I explained that the Masonic concept of "religious freedom" uncrowned Christ the King (as +Lefebvre had said), and how Christ can never be King in countries where religious liberty is not merely tolerated when Catholics are in the minority, but which is instead touted as the ideal.
I then explained that 20 years ago, sermons combatting the evil influence of Dignitatis Humanae as antithetical to the Kingship of Christ were routinely combatted in SSPX chapels, but that now, especially for the last 10-15 years, the Society had embarked upon a policy of coexistence (en reoute to integration) with modernist Rome, and that the price the SSPX (and its faithful) paid for choosing that path was silence on the subject of religious liberty, since their goal or reintegration into the conciliar church presupposes acceptance of the conciliar teachings (at least in the long run).
Therefore, I told them they would likely receive, as every year, a great sermon on some aspects of the Kingship of Christ: The need for Christ to be king of our souls, of our families, and even of our societies, but omitting to explain why the conciliar church rejects this last aspect of Christ's Kingship.
Consequently, I told them that they'd likely hear something like this OTHERWISE excellent 2014 sermon by Fr. Daniel Themann, who, at 11:19, explains that he is deliberately and intentionally omitting to discuss the 6th point of Pope St. Pius X's 6-part program to institute the reign of the Kingship of Christ the King, stating:
"We could talk about St. Pius X's particular condemnation of certain laws which brought about the separation of Church and state, for example in Portugal, and in France, but I'm going to intentionally pass over that for the sake of time, and also because these interventions of St. Pius X were more the response to particular crimes of these nations, ratheer than integral elements of his program as such."
https://florida.sspx.org/en/media/audio/st-pius-x-and-christ-king-5333
So, in 36 minutes, there supposedly just wasn't time to mention the errors of religious liberty, Vatican II's Dignitatis Humanae, or how both are antithetical to the Kingship of Christ (even though such used to be commonplace on this feast every year). Nor has there been time in practically any other sermon, conference, speech, or article from the SSPX ever since the commencement of the branding campaign, by which the SSPX agreed to lay down its weapons at the feet of the conciliar church.
In truth, Fr. Themann could simply have stated that, "To enter into discussion regarding the separation of Church and state would unavoidably place the discussion upon a collision trajectory with Dignitatis Humanae, and I can't go there." Of course, he can't just say that, for the ccompromise would be exposed. Therefore, contrive other reasons for omitting the discussion.
Today, I can look around the chapel, and recognize many faces who used to hear such sermons, and marvel at their blithe acceptance of this new situation (i.e., a surrendered army, for whom Vatican II's religious liberty is no longer in their crosshairs). And then I marvel again at the new generation of SSPXers who never knew the pre-2010 SSPX: Would they have come had Rome not removed the legal obstacles in exchange for the SSPX's good behavior? Do they know anything at all about Dignitatis Humanae, and how it opposes the reign of Christ the King? Have they ever read Archbishop Lefebvre's polemical works (e.g., They Have Uncrowned Him, or I Accuse the Council)?
They have been drawn to a remade and softer Society. It is debatable whether they would have been drawn to the old Society. But what is not debatable is that they are not being innoculated against the conciliar errors, and expecially not against religious liberty and Vatican II (at least not from the pulpit).
Hence my little sermon, to supply for an anticipated annual omission.
:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:
:laugh1::laugh1::laugh1:
:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:
Oh goodness. The things people who STILL go to the SSPX after 11 years of the resistance "have" to do to keep their faith.
I honestly don't know how you call yourself Catholic Sean.
:laugh2::laugh2:
:laugh1:
-
:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:
:laugh1::laugh1::laugh1:
:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:
Oh goodness. The things people who STILL go to the SSPX after 11 years of the resistance "have" to do to keep their faith.
I honestly don't know how you call yourself Catholic Sean.
:laugh2::laugh2:
:laugh1:
You are ignorant of how the Revolution works.
You need to read Pascendi.
-
So the hearing of a good and proper sermon at Mass is more important the receiving the sacrament of Holy Communion? See....traditional Catholics hardly ever talk about the graces that we very much need from the reception of the sacrament of Holy Communion. It's not much different than how the Novus Ordo folks view the sacrament of Holy Communion. They tend to believe that it is the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, but that it isn't a big deal at all. I get the impression that trads think the same. The source and summit of our life is not Holy Communion, but rather it is a good sermon that will save us, right?
Why don't YOU start a thread on the Blessed Sacrament Meg?
No one here suggested what you are saying that Holy Communion is of secondary importance.
But you certainly are attacking Sean for fighting on the doctrinal level. You are effectively saying that it is not important. Yet it is precisely on this level that we are engaged in a titanic fight for the Faith. That is the whole drama of Modernism and Vatican II and the post-conciliar religion that the neo-SSPX is tending towards since its official compromise with the 2012 General Chapter. And that is the whole drama of the Resistance. It is a fight at the doctrinal level.
You are falling into exactly the same trap as the neo-SSPX. Don't worry about doctrine, let's just all be saints! I'm a lover, not a fighter! Fr Le Roux vs Bishop Williamson. "Rome has asked that we criticise less and I agree" said Bishop Fellay. That is what the enemy wants. Let the shepherd just graze the sheep and leave the wolf alone!
If you don't stand up and fight for the Faith as the soldier of Christ the King that you are, particularly through the sacrament of Confirmation, then you will have no Blessed Sacrament. You will find yourself in Huonderland with doubtful sacraments and worse. You will be like the elderly sacristan who took me on a tour of his large country church back in the early 90s, and as he passed the tabernacle he indicated without even a genuflection, "there's the bread box".
"It's not much different than how the Novus Ordo folks view the sacrament of Holy Communion". What planet are you on?
-
Geremia,
Thanks for posting that article about the Liturgical chant for the recent Feast day.
I *love* those two hymns -- Te Saeculorum Principem and Vexilla Regis. Both have great melodies but the lyrics are even better.
I love pretty much the whole hymn, but especially these lines:
May the laws express Thine order
And the arts reflect Thy beauty.
The original Latin is best though. But it's also important to absorb the meaning. That alone is a good reason to learn enough Latin, so you can read/sing the Latin words, understand the meaning, ALL THE WHILE the melody adds another layer of additional meaning.
I also love the first two lines about the cursed mob refusing Christ the King. It's sad, but oh-so-true today. The accompanying melody really adds to the words. Listen to the first 2 lines, then the second two: it contrasts how we the Faithful on the other hand accept Christ as king. Just listen to the melody change. So much going on, it's impossible to put into words. The chant is awesome; that's all I can say about it.
-
Why don't YOU start a thread on the Blessed Sacrament Meg?
No one here suggested what you are saying that Holy Communion is of secondary importance.
But you certainly are attacking Sean for fighting on the doctrinal level. You are effectively saying that it is not important. Yet it is precisely on this level that we are engaged in a titanic fight for the Faith. That is the whole drama of Modernism and Vatican II and the post-conciliar religion that the neo-SSPX is tending towards since its official compromise with the 2012 General Chapter. And that is the whole drama of the Resistance. It is a fight at the doctrinal level.
You are falling into exactly the same trap as the neo-SSPX. Don't worry about doctrine, let's just all be saints! I'm a lover, not a fighter! Fr Le Roux vs Bishop Williamson. "Rome has asked that we criticise less and I agree" said Bishop Fellay. That is what the enemy wants. Let the shepherd just graze the sheep and leave the wolf alone!
If you don't stand up and fight for the Faith as the soldier of Christ the King that you are, particularly through the sacrament of Confirmation, then you will have no Blessed Sacrament. You will find yourself in Huonderland with doubtful sacraments and worse. You will be like the elderly sacristan who took me on a tour of his large country church back in the early 90s, and as he passed the tabernacle he indicated without even a genuflection, "there's the bread box".
"It's not much different than how the Novus Ordo folks view the sacrament of Holy Communion". What planet are you on?
Excellent post!
-
Don't worry about doctrine, let's just all be saints!
This sums it up pretty well. The problem is men and women have different natures and will always approach problems differently (head v heart). Meg isn't going to change anymore than Sean will change. And they shouldn't.
The only issue here is Meg needs to stop trying to direct men. Even IF she were right, masculine men will never follow a woman. It goes against their nature.
-
I remember the story told by Fr. Coughlin, how, when America entered World War I, the congress voted on the eve of Good Friday. One congressman got up and reminded Congress that Christ was about to begin his passion, and America was about to begin its passion too should they vote for war. Every government should recognize Christ as King.
I have never been one to promote the theory that we should change American the government into a kingship. That is foolishness, and Orestes Brownson in one of his articles wrote that the Church enjoyed more freedom in America than anywhere in the world. I know that some priests and laity promote this idea, but I do not agree. The American form of government as the framers envisioned it is brilliant, but obviously America has drifted far from the original intent of the framers.
It does seem according to the Catholic prophecies that there will rise up a Catholic king, a great war, etc. Those of us who live in these days have never witnessed a "Catholic" king of note, nor a "Catholic" pope. We might see both realities before all is said and done with.
America is coming up on its 250th anniversary, in 2026, and we might see the fall of the country. America, because we are armed, is the only thing which stands in the way of communism. Should America topple, the game is up, and the communists know it.
-
You are falling into exactly the same trap as the neo-SSPX. Don't worry about doctrine, let's just all be saints! I'm a lover, not a fighter! Fr Le Roux vs Bishop Williamson. "Rome has asked that we criticise less and I agree" said Bishop Fellay. That is what the enemy wants. Let the shepherd just graze the sheep and leave the wolf alone!
I have said here many times how it's deplorable that the neo-SSPX doesn't talk about the Council, or the Crisis, Modernism, the problems with Francis, or the state of necessity which means that we cannot attend the new mass. I'm well aware of the deficiencies of the neo-SSPX. And you haven't rally paid very good attention to what I've written, but that's okay. I'll phrase it another way.
You mention above that the enemy wants that we (or rather the SSPX) do not criticize Rome. I agree. But what the enemy wants even more is that we just stay home and not receive the sacraments, for the reason that we might not hear a good and proper sermon. Not that you have said that it's better to stay home, but that's seems the logical consequence of believing that it is a danger to your faith to not hear a good sermon - and that seems to be the next step - staying home. Does this make sense at all? That's what I'm getting at. It's just my opinion. No one is required to follow it.
-
I have said here many times how it's deplorable that the neo-SSPX doesn't talk about the Council, or the Crisis, Modernism, the problems with Francis, or the state of necessity which means that we cannot attend the new mass. I'm well aware of the deficiencies of the neo-SSPX. And you haven't rally paid very good attention to what I've written, but that's okay. I'll phrase it another way.
You mention above that the enemy wants that we (or rather the SSPX) do not criticize Rome. I agree. But what the enemy wants even more is that we just stay home and not receive the sacraments, for the reason that we might not hear a good and proper sermon. Not that you have said that it's better to stay home, but that's seems the logical consequence of believing that it is a danger to your faith to not hear a good sermon - and that seems to be the next step - staying home. Does this make sense at all? That's what I'm getting at. It's just my opinion. No one is required to follow it.
Yes, that makes sense Meg. I understand exactly where you are coming from and I share your concerns. There is a legitimate concern, however, that attending neo-SSPX Masses may lead many back into Conciliarism. What is the greater danger for any given individual or family? It is a difficult question. Many a Resistance priest will advise you to stay right away from the SSPX even if there is no Resistance Mass. Perhaps this is the right advice for many. For me it is certainly the wrong advice, and I would be guilty of mortal sin if I did such a thing. It is a case of knowing yourself as Bishop Williamson says.
-
Yes, that makes sense Meg. I understand exactly where you are coming from and I share your concerns. There is a legitimate concern, however, that attending neo-SSPX Masses may lead many back into Conciliarism. What is the greater danger for any given individual or family? It is a difficult question. Many a Resistance priest will advise you to stay right away from the SSPX even if there is no Resistance Mass. Perhaps this is the right advice for many. For me it is certainly the wrong advice, and I would be guilty of mortal sin if I did such a thing. It is a case of knowing yourself as Bishop Williamson says.
I appreciate your kind and thoughtful response above. Yes, we must know ourselves, as you quote from Bp. Williamson. That's very important. And it seems to me that we do know our Faith very well, and we should know it by now, so that even if there are deficiencies (and we know that there are) in what the SSPX teaches nowadays, we can make up for it by a lot of prayer and study of our dear Catholic Faith.
-
even if there are deficiencies (and we know that there are) in what the SSPX teaches nowadays, we can make up for it by a lot of prayer and study of our dear Catholic Faith.
True Meg. And I would add that if we have a family that we are taking to these Masses, we should learn from what Sean is doing as described in the OP. It is absolutely essential that the father educates his family about the crisis in the Church and discusses the Sunday sermon with his children and puts it in the context of that crisis. That is the way to raise soldiers of Christ Our King and protect them against the dangers to their faith.