Quote from: 2Vermont

Quote from: J.Paul

2Vermont,

Quote

But couldn't one say, if one truly believes the Conciliar Church is the True Church, that we do, in fact, have a bishop that God placed over us...in every diocese?

Now, Now, let's not get carried away.....................................

How is that getting carried away?  If God placed the Pope over us doesn't He also place the bishops over us as well?

Yes, the Pope and bishops are there, but it doesn't matter. The local Ordinary, the Pope himself, or even an angel from heaven has no right to preach a different Gospel and ask us to follow it. Vatican I specifically declared that the power wasn't given to Peter to preach a new Gospel or to change the Faith.

That is why on the one hand we acknowledge the existence of the Conciliar Church, and on the other hand, we choose to disobey it and stay aloof from it.

We must obey God rather than men. We can't obey men and lose the Faith; that would be the tail wagging the dog. The whole point of obeying those men in the first place was to preserve our souls in the Faith!

Obedience is a virtue, yes, but it's only part of the cardinal virtue of Justice. Above the cardinal virtues are the higher virtues: Faith, Hope and Charity. They always come first.

Today, obedience is the most handy tool used by the devil (and his henchmen) to dissolve the Church. We mustn't let them!

This principle overshadows the sedevacantist error.  Theirs is the mistake of presuming that when the office of pope is held by a true pope, he cannot make any mistakes, and everything he does is protected by infallibility.  

We already have 2 millennia of Church teaching, praxis and definition to go by, and we therefore know a whole lot more about the Faith than our common ancestors did, even if their faith was stronger than ours.  But in order for us to know it, we have to study it.  Too many modern Catholics waste their time studying recent material, such as the voluminous output of "st" JPII.  He wrote more quantity of words than all his predecessors put together, all of it together amounting to a pile of chaff, contributing nothing to the deposit of faith.

Furthermore, it is also an error to presume that just because something was written or approved by some Vatican official before Vat.II or before John XXIII, it could not be erroneous.  But remember, Annibale Bugnini (a freemason destroyer of the Church) was appointed to his position of power by Pope Pius XII in full health and awareness (shortly after he defined the Assumption of Our Lady in 1950), and it was Bugnini who procedded to institute the demolition of everything in sight.  Nor was this worm of devolution inactive BEFORE 1950!  You can follow it back some 200 years, which is exactly why Pascendi and the Syllabus were so important and timely.

The most effective accomplishment of the devil in history was imposing Vat.II and its aftermath on Catholics under the guise of OBEDIENCE.

.

Quote from: Matthew

That is why, for example, Bishop Williamson can't come out swinging a 100 lb mace and "break up fights" between various Traditional priests.

The priests would rightly say, "By whose authority?" or "Who died and made you Pope?"

Bishop Williamson can't just muscle his way into various controversies and say, "Me Bishop. You priest. You listen!"

It's not that simple. If only it were!

Let me ask the question, a little off the topic, but,

Q. Are the Novus Ordo Priests validly ordained?

and if so, do they have responsibility over your Soul, if as you say, the Concilior [Conciliar] Church has "The Jurisdiction"?

Yes, most of them are validly ordained.

It would be so much simpler/easier if they weren't.

The SSPX has always taught that the New Rite of Ordination is doubtful, rather than automatically invalid in 100% of cases.

The contrary kind of emotional, simplistic thinking is unfortunately all-too-common in sedevacantist circles (sorry, CI sedevacantists -- but it's true!)

I just attended a Novus Ordo wedding, and I hated every minute of it. Humanly and viscerally I was repulsed. If I dwelled on it much, or asked myself if it was valid, etc. I might very well come to the same emotional conclusions. I have those same tendencies, those same strong emotions, myself. But something inside me tells me to detach from emotion, to ignore my feelings, and stay firmly anchored in reason and truth. I'm making a conscious effort to "overcome myself" and stay rational, because I intellectually know it's the right thing to do.

You didn't answer the second question:  

...and if [the N.O. priests are validly ordained], do they have responsibility over your Soul, if as you say, the Conciliar Church has "The Jurisdiction"?  

It seems to me that due to the crisis in the Church consequent to the error of Vat.II and its aftermath (which might even include some of the priests' ordinations!), when we recognize this deviation from the gospel and the longstanding doctrine of the Church, we are no longer held to be subject to the authority and/or jurisdiction of N.O. priests, prelates and popes ~ that is, unless we see that what they're teaching or demanding of us to believe is in accord with Sacred Tradition.  

Critics might say that we would be putting ourselves above the pope in this way, to become his judge.  Well, that would be a misunderstanding, because we are not passing judgment on the person of the pope, but we are fully capable to judge the content of what he DOES (including what he writes) and SAYS.  We have eyes to see and ears to hear, but we cannot know the thoughts of his heart, as God can.  

A good example of how the local bishop, who has ordinary jurisdiction, does not therefore have power to pronounce "mortal sin" for us if we act according to an accurately formed conscience, is shown by the following:

Bishop Todd Brown of Orange County, California (now retired) announced in public that Catholics are hereby required to STAND when they return to the pew after holy Communion (in the hand!), and if they kneel (which is of longstanding tradition) they commit a mortal sin.  

All of the informed Catholics who follow Tradition knew that was BOGUS and not to be believed, and I was pleased to see that a significant number of N.O. Catholics ignored this blasphemous nonsense as well, continuing to kneel as their forefathers in Tradition have done for centuries.

What about Confession?

I know trad priests who say that's one of the things the N.O. priests still have right and their absolutions are still valid.  But there is more to confession than that.  A penitent might have some moral scruple or spiritual difficulty, seeking advice from the priest under the seal of confession.  I have personally heard N.O. priests tell me things (good things to hear!) in the confessional that I could not get them to repeat outside of the confessional, for whatever reason.  One would think that if they teach one thing there, why not teach the same thing somewhere else?  I have no idea whether they got a special grace under the Seal that they were not getting outside, or whether they were somehow afraid to be heard saying something by others within earshot.  

But on the other hand, a priest is after all a man, and he carries into the "box" the whole of his past, training and weaknesses.  He may for example take seriously Brown's dictum that kneeling after Communion is a mortal sin.  He might see no problem with hearing that a Catholic attended an Eastern Orthodox Divine Liturgy or a Lutheran worship service or a Zoroastrian pow-wow (or whatever it's called).  He might be totally okay with hearing that you have participated in a Jєωιѕн Seder meal (one parish, St. John Eudes in Chatsworth for example, has one each Easter season), in contradiction with the Faith since the Apostles.  

I shocked my own sister-in-law one day when I told her that she as a Catholic is forbidden from lighting candles at a Buddhist shrine (her husband's religion) under pain of mortal sin, because it is forbidden by the first Commandment:  false gods.  She said her parish priest told her it was okay "once in a while," and I told her that her parish priest is WRONG.

Therefore, the question "...do they have responsibility over your soul?" is not simply answered in a few words.  It would seem that along with jurisdiction comes responsibility over souls, but the crisis situation along with defective formation of priests adds a complication to this topic.

.

.

Note: this is not a duplicate post, but the one above has some mistakes and I could not delete the post even though I wanted to and tried but by the time it showed up the edit function was already timed out.

Matthew, several years  ago, a member of my extended family died and her children had a NO "funeral mass" in the chapel of the nursing home where she had lived. An SSPX priest I know said to go out of respect for our family, but to not participate in any way, so I took my missal, sat in an inconspicuous place, silently read my missal and silently prayed a rosary for the repose of her soul.  I had not been near a NO church in many years, and the whole thing just repulsed me.  It was more like a party than a Catholic funeral.  The saddest part of it all was that she loved Tradition and never went to a NO mass in her life.  

This is a very common problem.

A friend of mine informed me of his own mother's death and I went with him to the so-called Rosary.  The church (St. Bernardine of Sienna, West Hills, CA) was packed with people, for she had many friends.  My friend's 9 brothers and sisters were there, all of whom are conciliar at best (some have fallen away from the Faith entirely).  But most of the occupants in the pews were not Catholic.  

The 'service' followed a prepared script, something like a stage production or an improvised Novus Ordo liturgy composed by hobbyists.  It was presided over by a "permanent Deacon," wearing a liturgical gown of sorts, as they are wont to do.  He announced they would have "a decade" of the Rosary, and guess which one?  

You got it, The Resurrection.  

They told me that there had been a meeting when the Bereavement Ministry sent a couple to the home of the deceased and the family answered questions, while the couple checked boxes on their Form.  One question was, Do You Want a Rosary or a Decade?  They chose the Decade because they didn't want to make all the Protestants who would be there uncomfortable.

Fact:  There is no indulgence attached to the prayer of one decade of the Rosary.

Fact:  The Rosary is the single most heavily indulgenced prayer in the Church for laymen.

Fact:  When a group of people pray the Rosary together, each person gets the grace of ALL the people praying, such that for three people each get the grace of three Rosaries, and for 10 people each get the grace of 10 Rosaries, etc.

Fact:  When there are 150 people praying an entire Rosary, the total graces for the group amounts to 150 x 150 = 22,500 (twenty-two thousand, five hundred) Rosaries.

Fact:  When all the people are praying for the intention of the repose of the soul of someone deceased, the person prayed for gets all those graces.

Fact:  When 150 pray one decade the deceased person gets no Rosary graces at all, but merely the graces of 150 Our Fathers, 1500 Hail Mary's and 150 concluding prayers (they said Glory Be prayers but in Rosaries for the Faithful Departed, properly one should replace the Glory Be prayers with Lead: "Eternal rest grant unto him (/her) O Lord," Reply:  "And let perpetual light shine upon him (/her).  May his (/her) soul and the souls of all the Faithful Departed rest in peace. Amen.")

After the service, I spoke to the Deacon about this topic, and I was amused to find that he was entirely ignorant of it.  Each fact I gave him he responded by opening his eyes wide and gasping, saying "Oh, really?  I didn't know that!" and other such things.  

I told him that he ought to ask the pastor why they are passing up on tens of thousands of Rosary graces when the poor departed soul might be languishing in Purgatory.  He promised he would ask about that.  

At another venue, I spoke to the pastor in person.  It was at the parish where Cardinal Mahony is now in residence (St. Charles Borromeo, North Hollywood, CA).  When I mentioned to him about the indulgences, he abruptly turned to his left and moved away from me one or two steps, saying, "Oh, I wouldn't worry about indulgences!"  The word "indulgences" was uttered with a scoffing tone of derision, as if to say, that's not important, or indulgences are an obsolete concept.  I had to follow him for about 20 feet, to attempt to urge him to reconsider.  He became impatient with me and excused himself to walk away to more amusing activities, I'm sure.

.

But the story gets even sadder.  There was no graveside, as her extremely liberal NO children had her cremated.  I could not believe it.

Quote from: St Gertrude

Matthew, several years  ago, a member of my extended family died and her children had a NO "funeral mass" in the chapel of the nursing home where she had lived. An SSPX priest I know said to go out of respect for our family, but to not participate in any way, so I took my missal, sat in an inconspicuous place, silently read my missal and silently prayed a rosary for the repose of her soul.  I had not been near a NO church in many years, and the whole thing just repulsed me.  It was more like a party than a Catholic funeral.  The saddest part of it all was that she loved Tradition and never went to a NO mass in her life.  

More bad advice from the SSPX.  One should never attend a sacrilege out of concerns of human respect. There is a much higher principle involved in this.

Out of Catholic Charity in such cases one should not even consider a Novus Ordo funeral, but rather attend the graveside internment, pray the Catholic prayers for the dead, and say a Rosary for the repose of that soul.  In this way you fulfill your Christian duty and do not violate the Sensus Catholicus and the principles which come from it.

If I recall correctly, even Archbishop Lefebvre attended a Novus Ordo wedding of a relative...

Quote from: J.Paul

Quote from: St Gertrude

Matthew, several years  ago, a member of my extended family died and her children had a NO "funeral mass" in the chapel of the nursing home where she had lived. An SSPX priest I know said to go out of respect for our family, but to not participate in any way, so I took my missal, sat in an inconspicuous place, silently read my missal and silently prayed a rosary for the repose of her soul.  I had not been near a NO church in many years, and the whole thing just repulsed me.  It was more like a party than a Catholic funeral.  The saddest part of it all was that she loved Tradition and never went to a NO mass in her life.  

More bad advice from the SSPX.  One should never attend a sacrilege out of concerns of human respect. There is a much higher principle involved in this.

Out of Catholic Charity in such cases one should not even consider a Novus Ordo funeral, but rather attend the graveside internment, pray the Catholic prayers for the dead, and say a Rosary for the repose of that soul.  In this way you fulfill your Christian duty and do not violate the Sensus Catholicus and the principles which come from it.

If I recall correctly, even Archbishop Lefebvre attended a Novus Ordo wedding of a relative...

It is my understanding that the 1917 Canon Law allowed for Catholics to attend non-Catholic weddings and funeral services so long as they did not actively participate.

Quote from: trento

Quote from: J.Paul

Quote from: St Gertrude

Matthew, several years  ago, a member of my extended family died and her children had a NO "funeral mass" in the chapel of the nursing home where she had lived. An SSPX priest I know said to go out of respect for our family, but to not participate in any way, so I took my missal, sat in an inconspicuous place, silently read my missal and silently prayed a rosary for the repose of her soul.  I had not been near a NO church in many years, and the whole thing just repulsed me.  It was more like a party than a Catholic funeral.  The saddest part of it all was that she loved Tradition and never went to a NO mass in her life.  

More bad advice from the SSPX.  One should never attend a sacrilege out of concerns of human respect. There is a much higher principle involved in this.

Out of Catholic Charity in such cases one should not even consider a Novus Ordo funeral, but rather attend the graveside internment, pray the Catholic prayers for the dead, and say a Rosary for the repose of that soul.  In this way you fulfill your Christian duty and do not violate the Sensus Catholicus and the principles which come from it.

If I recall correctly, even Archbishop Lefebvre attended a Novus Ordo wedding of a relative...

It is my understanding that the 1917 Canon Law allowed for Catholics to attend non-Catholic weddings and funeral services so long as they did not actively participate.

That is a pretty thin justification to attend the Novus Ordo. A Protestant service is nothing, it has no meaning or power. The Novus Ordo on the other hand is a mockery of Our Lord's Sacred action and a sacrilege. The 1917 code never imagined such a thing to be possible and canon law is not Divine law which forbids it.