Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Miseremini on November 29, 2015, 09:07:51 PM
-
Eleison Comments by His Excellency Bishop Richard Williamson
Number CDXXXVII (437)
November 28, 2015
Novus Ordo Missae – II
The eucharistic miracles are where
God shows that He Himself is truly there.
Facts are stubborn — as long as they are facts. If readers doubt that the eucharistic miracle of 1996 in Buenos Aires is a fact, let them undertake their own research: http://youtu.be/3gPAbD43fTI. But if their research of that case leaves them unconvinced, then let them look up the parallel case of Sokólka in Poland, where a whole centre of pilgrimage has arisen around a eucharistic miracle of 2008 (e.g. jloughnan.tripod.com/sokolka.htm). And a little more Internet research would surely discover accounts of more such Novus Ordo miracles, with at least some of them being authentic.
But how is that possible? Traditional Catholics absorb with their mother’s milk that the new rite of Mass (NOM) is an abomination in the eyes of God, and has helped to make countless Catholics lose the Faith. This is because the NOM, like Vatican II which it followed, is ambiguous, favours heresy and has led numberless souls out of the Church, whom regular attendance at the Protestantised rite has turned into virtual Protestants. Most Traditional Catholics should be familiar with the serious doctrinal problems of this new rite, designed to diminish the essential Catholic doctrines of the Real Presence, the propitiatory Sacrifice and the sacrificing priesthood, amongst others. Then how can God work with it eucharistic miracles such as have made of Sokólka a national centre of pilgrimage for all Poland?
Doctrinally, the NOM is ambiguous, poised between the religion of God and the Conciliar religion of man. Now in matters of faith, ambiguity is deadly, being normally designed to undermine the Faith, as the NOM frequently does. But as ambiguity is precisely open to two interpretations, so the NOM does not absolutely exclude the old religion. Thus by a devout priest its ambiguities can all be turned in the old direction. That does not make the NOM acceptable as such, because its intrinsic ambiguity still favours the new direction, but it does mean for instance that the Consecration can still be valid, as Archbishop Lefebvre never denied. Moreover, if the eucharistic miracles are genuine, clearly not all Consecrations of Novus Ordo bishops or Ordinations of Novus Ordo priests are invalid either. In brief, the NOM as such is bad as a whole, bad in parts, but not bad in all its parts.
Now let us imagine, with the utmost respect, how Almighty God stands towards the new rite of Mass. On the one hand God loves his Church like the apple of His eye, and will preserve it to the end of the world (Mt. XVI, 18). On the other hand He has chosen to entrust its government to human and fallible churchmen, whom He will guide, but to whose free-will He evidently grants a remarkable degree of free play to govern it well or badly, starting with the betrayal of His own Son. Now in modern times the Revolution, be it Jєωιѕн, Masonic, communist or globalist, finds its main adversary in His Church, and it has worked especially on the Church’s leaders to make the Church collapse. Their most terrible success was Vatican II and its NOM, which were surely much more the fault of the shepherds than of the sheep. “The fort is betrayed even of them that should have defended it,” said St John Fisher at a parallel moment in the Reformation. Then how will God look after His sheep, many of whom – not all – are relatively innocent of the Conciliar betrayal?
After Vatican II, some priests and laity had the grace to see immediately what a betrayal it was, and within a few years the Traditional movement was under way. To other sheep God gave the grace to see it later. But can we not all admit that there are many good Catholics who trusted their bishops, as good Catholics normally should do? And did not these bishops insist on the lie that the NOM was no different from the true Mass? What specified Vatican II and the NOM was precisely the officialisation of the modernist heresy within the Church. So does it not make sense that in punishment of their modern worldliness these sheep would broadly lose the true rite of Mass, while in reward of their desire for Mass they would not lose every valid Mass? But the Church’s future depends on the souls that understand the Revolution and utterly repudiate all ambiguities of Vatican II and the NOM.
Kyrie eleison.
-
Moreover, if the eucharistic miracles are genuine, clearly not all Consecrations of Novus Ordo bishops or Ordinations of Novus Ordo priests are invalid either.
With whole due respect to Bishop Williamson, I doubt whether this is correct way to approach the issue of new rites of Ordination and Episcopal Consecration. Judging it on the basis of Eucharistic miracles rather then solid theological assessment is not the way to go. I don't claim the new rites are invalid (the consequences would be truly apocalyptic, majority of priests being imposters and millions of invalid sacraments, it is hard to imagine God would allow something like that), but the reality is that Fr Cekada made a case for invalidity of the new rite of EC which cannot be refuted solely by reference to the Eucharistic miracles.
-
With Pope Francis making a big push of late to belabor the intransient Traditionalists, esp. trad priests, and calling them neurotic, it plays right up his alley to having these "miracle" hosts happening all over. Any of it can be a ruse, made up. And never mind the novus ordo validity - what about the priests' ordinations being questionable? It puts that out to pasture conveniently, too. So if our trad. sacraments are carefully guarded and executed using proper form and matter, what does all this mean for the new church sacraments - where almost any form and any matter goes? It does not seem plausible. The modernists are determined to "break" the remnant of traditionalist in this world. And even if these miracles are true, or are a trick, they do not remove us from our obligation to stay licit within the orthodoxy of Tradition. The new church is condemned by Pius X.
"Even if an angel from Heaven ..." !
-
Moreover, if the eucharistic miracles are genuine, clearly not all Consecrations of Novus Ordo bishops or Ordinations of Novus Ordo priests are invalid either.
With whole due respect to Bishop Williamson, I doubt whether this is correct way to approach the issue of new rites of Ordination and Episcopal Consecration. Judging it on the basis of Eucharistic miracles rather then solid theological assessment is not the way to go. I don't claim the new rites are invalid (the consequences would be truly apocalyptic, majority of priests being imposters and millions of invalid sacraments, it is hard to imagine God would allow something like that), but the reality is that Fr Cekada made a case for invalidity of the new rite of EC which cannot be refuted solely by reference to the Eucharistic miracles.
Fr.Chekada being a sede right?
-
What point is he trying to make in this EC?
-
Probably that I need not have run away from novus ordo, and alienated relatives and friends, being seen as an oddball and throwback, guilty of criticising the 'new mass' their doubtful communions, and a whole host of other sins to add to my already overflowing burden.
-
Probably that I need not have run away from novus ordo, and alienated relatives and friends, being seen as an oddball and throwback, guilty of criticising the 'new mass' their doubtful communions, and a whole host of other sins to add to my already overflowing burden.
Yes, how unwise it is to trust anyone, these days. Duplicity seems to be endemic among prelates and priests.
Far from returning to the mainstream to witness their grotesque rituals, I would sooner go fishing on a Sunday!
-
Yes, drawing theological conclusions based on alleged miracles. Very dangerous.
-
On the other hand He has chosen to entrust its government to human and fallible churchmen, whom He will guide, but to whose free-will He evidently grants a remarkable degree of free play to govern it well or badly, starting with the betrayal of His own Son.
God "evidently" grants nothing of the sort. As per usual, this completely skirts around the question of whether the Church's MAGISTERIUM can fail the way it allegedly has and whether the Church's UNIVERSAL DISCIPLINE can fail the way it allegedly has. Catholic theologians all agree that this cannot happen. We've always had bad "churchmen" and bad popes who have governed badly. We have never had nor can we ever have a pope who can use the Magisterium and the authority to impose Universal Discipline in order to actively corrupt the faith and morals of the Church. If everything is simply a matter of ambiguities, then we need simply apply the hermeneutic of continuity in order to resolve the ambiguity in favor of Tradition (as +Fellay continues to propose) and we move along. Then there's absolutely no reason to have a canonical rupture with the Holy See. With this characterization regarding ambiguity, +Williamson completely shoots himself in the foot with regard to his dispute with +Fellay.
-
This is beginning to show the doctrinal weakness of the Lefevbre bishops. Two are hiding from the conciliar crisis, and the other two are mitigating it through subjectivism and speculations, and the sedevacantist children are firm teachers of salvation outside of the Church and sacraments. All and all, the final report is discouraging at best.
Wessex, let us go fishing.......................
-
Is he drawing theological conclusions based on alleged miracles or has he already drawn these conclusions and the miracles support them?
I always thought that like baptism is hit or miss among Protestants, Consecration is hit or miss among NO. I was unaware that so many believe it is flat out invalid. That seems too black and white i.e. too easy to me. All the grey area is what always stuck me as the most diabolical of the whole Crisis. I just don't see that Satan ever works in clear cut lines.
Personally I probably wouldn't follow any of the miracles but I see how some of them could be legitimate and there are many NO for whom perhaps this is their saving grace. We hear of all the horrible abuses but there are many good, well-intentioned priests who are doing their best and people who simply don't know better. My NO grandmother prays two or three times as many Rosaries a day as probably most people here. Am I to assume God has completely abandoned her? That would fly in the face of all the promises of His Mother. That does not mean anything directly about the miracles but it does open my mind a bit about how God still works among the NO. Many receive grace and are saved in spite of the danger of the NO.
stgobnait, none of this would take away your duty to fly the NO once you knew of its danger. To some God has given this grace and our salvation depends on our cooperation with it. "And unto whomsoever much is given, of him much shall be required: and to whom they have committed much, of him they will demand the more."
-
This is beginning to show the doctrinal weakness of the Lefevbre bishops. Two are hiding from the conciliar crisis, and the other two are mitigating it through subjectivism and speculations, and the sedevacantist children are firm teachers of salvation outside of the Church and sacraments. All and all, the final report is discouraging at best.
Wessex, let us go fishing.......................
If +W is here "mitigating (the conciliar crisis) through subjectivism and speculations," then he is doing precisely what he has criticized others of having done in the past.
-
This is beginning to show the doctrinal weakness of the Lefevbre bishops. Two are hiding from the conciliar crisis, and the other two are mitigating it through subjectivism and speculations, and the sedevacantist children are firm teachers of salvation outside of the Church and sacraments. All and all, the final report is discouraging at best.
Wessex, let us go fishing.......................
If +W is here "mitigating (the conciliar crisis) through subjectivism and speculations," then he is doing precisely what he has criticized others of having done in the past.
Not only that, but if he's reducing everything to mere ambiguities, which he claims a "devout priest" can readily disambiguate in order to make it in line with Tradition, then he has every obligation to apply this hermeneutic of continuity to these ambiguities and to REMAIN WITHIN THE CHURCH. With this EC he sounds like an apologist for the +Fellay position, which is precisely that.
-
This is beginning to show the doctrinal weakness of the Lefevbre bishops. Two are hiding from the conciliar crisis, and the other two are mitigating it through subjectivism and speculations, and the sedevacantist children are firm teachers of salvation outside of the Church and sacraments. All and all, the final report is discouraging at best.
Wessex, let us go fishing.......................
If +W is here "mitigating (the conciliar crisis) through subjectivism and speculations," then he is doing precisely what he has criticized others of having done in the past.
Not only that, but if he's reducing everything to mere ambiguities, which he claims a "devout priest" can readily disambiguate in order to make it in line with Tradition, then he has every obligation to apply this hermeneutic of continuity to these ambiguities and to REMAIN WITHIN THE CHURCH. With this EC he sounds like an apologist for the +Fellay position, which is precisely that.
I can't tell if it is you or me Ladislaus but I can't make sense of your position. How does understanding the ambiguities make one obligated to apply the hermeneutic of continuity to them? Why can't he be obligated to fight them? If a priest is devout yet doesn't fully grasp the problems with the NO as a whole, then he, yes, would be obliged to apply the hermeneutic of continuity. That in a way is his personal proof of goodwill. But if a priest, or bishop in this case, grasps the entirety of the problem, then his obligation shifts to one more serious which is actively to fight such ambiguities and give everything for them to be clarified and restated in light of tradition.
Also doesn't +Williamson already consider himself within the Church? Isn't it +Fellay who has begun to speak as though the SSPX is outside and needs to be brought back in? I don't understand the capitalized phrase. I have the impression it is supposed to be in opposition of +Williamson's position but it isn't so I am confused.
-
This is beginning to show the doctrinal weakness of the Lefevbre bishops. Two are hiding from the conciliar crisis, and the other two are mitigating it through subjectivism and speculations, and the sedevacantist children are firm teachers of salvation outside of the Church and sacraments. All and all, the final report is discouraging at best.
Wessex, let us go fishing.......................
If +W is here "mitigating (the conciliar crisis) through subjectivism and speculations," then he is doing precisely what he has criticized others of having done in the past.
Not only that, but if he's reducing everything to mere ambiguities, which he claims a "devout priest" can readily disambiguate in order to make it in line with Tradition, then he has every obligation to apply this hermeneutic of continuity to these ambiguities and to REMAIN WITHIN THE CHURCH. With this EC he sounds like an apologist for the +Fellay position, which is precisely that.
I can't tell if it is you or me Ladislaus but I can't make sense of your position. How does understanding the ambiguities make one obligated to apply the hermeneutic of continuity to them? Why can't he be obligated to fight them? If a priest is devout yet doesn't fully grasp the problems with the NO as a whole, then he, yes, would be obliged to apply the hermeneutic of continuity. That in a way is his personal proof of goodwill. But if a priest, or bishop in this case, grasps the entirety of the problem, then his obligation shifts to one more serious which is actively to fight such ambiguities and give everything for them to be clarified and restated in light of tradition.
Also doesn't +Williamson already consider himself within the Church? Isn't it +Fellay who has begun to speak as though the SSPX is outside and needs to be brought back in? I don't understand the capitalized phrase. I have the impression it is supposed to be in opposition of +Williamson's position but it isn't so I am confused.
I think Ladislaus means that if there are only "ambiguities" and no positive errors in the theology of the New Mass than there is no justification for breaking communion with the Holy See over this issue (same with Vatican II). The fact that +Williamson considers himself to be within the Church is irrelevant, since he is not in canonical submission to the man who - according to him - is the Roman Pontiff.
-
I think Ladislaus means that if there are only "ambiguities" and no positive errors in the theology of the New Mass than there is no justification for breaking communion with the Holy See over this issue (same with Vatican II). The fact that +Williamson considers himself to be within the Church is irrelevant, since he is not in canonical submission to the man who - according to him - is the Roman Pontiff.
I'll leave it to Ladislaus as to whether this is what he meant.
But in regards to +W and his thoughts on the topic, if he were to really think there are no positive errors in the theology of the Newmass, then an awful lot of what he has been saying over the years would make no sense.
-
Probably that I need not have run away from novus ordo, and alienated relatives and friends, being seen as an oddball and throwback, guilty of criticising the 'new mass' their doubtful communions, and a whole host of other sins to add to my already overflowing burden.
Yes, how unwise it is to trust anyone, these days. Duplicity seems to be endemic among prelates and priests.
Far from returning to the mainstream to witness their grotesque rituals, I would sooner go fishing on a Sunday!
Spare the poor fish. They should be fed to the sharks instead ....
-
The SSPX must now feel it is somewhat schismatic not belonging to the mainstream which it now regards as the Church, cherishing V2 docuмents instead of burning them. Elsewhere, Bp. W is finding stronger justification via NO eucharistic miracles in feeling the same which if it persists will find him moving closer to the new order simply because there may be benefits to be had there afterall. This reminds me of an Italian widow who regularly attended a Baptist church with her rosary beads! I fear we must stop thinking logically; 2 + 2 does equal 5!
-
I think +HE may soon be writing for Dici.
-
Thank you Arvinger, I understand that perspective now. I don't think I agree with the conclusion Ladislaus is drawing because aren't there both ambiguities AND errors? I don't know how treating aspects of one necessarily means the other is denied. Plus with modernism the ambiguity itself IS one of the biggest errors, isn't it? But I wouldn't mind hearing a good rebuttal anyway if anyone is moved to it. It is obviously beyond me.
-
Then how will God look after His sheep, many of whom – not all – are relatively innocent of the Conciliar betrayal?
Send them a miracle which will result in ignoring any such betrayal and keeping them right where they are....in the Novus Ordo? Really?
-
On the other hand He has chosen to entrust its government to human and fallible churchmen, whom He will guide, but to whose free-will He evidently grants a remarkable degree of free play to govern it well or badly, starting with the betrayal of His own Son.
God "evidently" grants nothing of the sort. As per usual, this completely skirts around the question of whether the Church's MAGISTERIUM can fail the way it allegedly has and whether the Church's UNIVERSAL DISCIPLINE can fail the way it allegedly has. Catholic theologians all agree that this cannot happen. We've always had bad "churchmen" and bad popes who have governed badly. We have never had nor can we ever have a pope who can use the Magisterium and the authority to impose Universal Discipline in order to actively corrupt the faith and morals of the Church. If everything is simply a matter of ambiguities, then we need simply apply the hermeneutic of continuity in order to resolve the ambiguity in favor of Tradition (as +Fellay continues to propose) and we move along. Then there's absolutely no reason to have a canonical rupture with the Holy See. With this characterization regarding ambiguity, +Williamson completely shoots himself in the foot with regard to his dispute with +Fellay.
When I hear Vatican II "ambiguity", I think of Bishop Schneider of the Novus Ordo:
http://www.traditionalcatholicpriest.com/2014/08/21/bishop-schneider-criticizes-wording-and-some-concepts-of-vatican-ii/
I thought the SSPX and the Resistance along with sedevacantists recognized that we're not speaking merely of "ambiguities".
-
My NO grandmother prays two or three times as many Rosaries a day as probably most people here. Am I to assume God has completely abandoned her? That would fly in the face of all the promises of His Mother. That does not mean anything directly about the miracles but it does open my mind a bit about how God still works among the NO. Many receive grace and are saved in spite of the danger of the NO.
This.
And to answer your question, Wallflower: Unfortunately, the answer is YES, at least to some self-righteous, modern-day Pharisees. These trads, often infected with bitterness and resentment, have written her off as lost to Hell, tsk-tsk-ing all the way.
They are too proud to understand God's ways.
"There but for the grace of God go I."
-
Thank you Arvinger, I understand that perspective now. I don't think I agree with the conclusion Ladislaus is drawing because aren't there both ambiguities AND errors? I don't know how treating aspects of one necessarily means the other is denied. Plus with modernism the ambiguity itself IS one of the biggest errors, isn't it? But I wouldn't mind hearing a good rebuttal anyway if anyone is moved to it. It is obviously beyond me.
You are right, but what we are discussing are +Williamson's comments, and this EC indicates that according to +Williamson the New Mass suffers merely from ambiguities which can be properly dealt with by faithful priest. Refusing canonical submission to th Holy See on those grounds cannot be justified. But, as I wrote in another thread, these comments are necesary and logical conclusion of R&R position - it is impossible for a valid Pope to promulgate intrinsically evil rite of Mass, thus +Williamson is forced to defend the Novus Ordo Missae to some degree.
-
My NO grandmother prays two or three times as many Rosaries a day as probably most people here. Am I to assume God has completely abandoned her? That would fly in the face of all the promises of His Mother. That does not mean anything directly about the miracles but it does open my mind a bit about how God still works among the NO. Many receive grace and are saved in spite of the danger of the NO.
This.
And to answer your question, Wallflower: Unfortunately, the answer is YES, at least to some self-righteous, modern-day Pharisees. These trads, often infected with bitterness and resentment, have written her off as lost to Hell, tsk-tsk-ing all the way.
They are too proud to understand God's ways.
"There but for the grace of God go I."
Yes, I believe that is part of the problem in the Traditionalist movements (especially among dogmatic sedevacantists). Unfortunately, I've seen some Trads automatically writing off the Novus Ordites basically as non-Catholics. Een in this massive apostasy it cannot be denied that there are faithful Catholics left in the Novus Ordo who receive graces through the New Mass (personally I believe the New Mass is definitely valid when celebrated properly by validly ordained priest - whether it is objectively pleasing to God is another matter). God is merciful and just, at the particular judgment he will certainly take into account the confusion and disorientation which dominates the Church these days and which keeps some faithful Catholics from seeing the truth about the nature of this Crisis. And, as Matthew pointed out, it is through the grace of God which enabled us to realize what is going on and to follow Tradition.
-
For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect.......
-
For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect.......
Astute comment, Mr. J. Paul. Since we are in the ultimate apocalyptic time the great signs and wonders thereof must be. Hence the followers of the Antichrist and his False Prophet (whose personal identities are no doubt perfectly clear to everyone) are rejected of God and sent on to their eternal perdition though the demonic signs and wonders appropriate to their Marxist apostasy.
Those whom God deigns to cast off are allowed to go mad (every Neo-Liberal Marxist is stark raving mad) and then live their lives in the greatest horror ever known to men, that of those in the state of mortal sin who then go mad and become lunatics until their ghastly deaths. Such is the singular horror of the Western world we now live in. Evidently God is not fond of Marxist apostates.
Let's not presume we are too good to live in these harsh times. We dare not share in the damned sacraments of the Bolshevik Novus Ordo. Rather we must humbly refuse to drink the poisoned Novus Ordo Kool Aide (their deadly apostate pseudo-sacraments) and persevere until the Light of Parousia dawns over us all. As it must and, for those with eyes to see, has already begun to do.
"This is the day which the Lord hath made: let us rejoice and be glad in it."
(Psalm 118:24)
-
This is beginning to show the doctrinal weakness of the Lefevbre bishops. Two are hiding from the conciliar crisis, and the other two are mitigating it through subjectivism and speculations, and the sedevacantist children are firm teachers of salvation outside of the Church and sacraments. All and all, the final report is discouraging at best.
Wessex, let us go fishing.......................
If +W is here "mitigating (the conciliar crisis) through subjectivism and speculations," then he is doing precisely what he has criticized others of having done in the past.
Well, he does not seem to have a firm opinion about it and is now spending a lot of time talking about the ifs, ands, and buts, of the conciliar soup. :confused1:
-
This is beginning to show the doctrinal weakness of the Lefevbre bishops. Two are hiding from the conciliar crisis, and the other two are mitigating it through subjectivism and speculations, and the sedevacantist children are firm teachers of salvation outside of the Church and sacraments. All and all, the final report is discouraging at best.
Wessex, let us go fishing.......................
No, let us go fighting. To the bitter end and bravely as befits Roman Catholic men at the End of Time. May the Catholic women go fishing, or knitting, or reading or whatever suits their gentle natures. But for we men idle fishing at this time in history will not do. Let us go fighting, and into blazing gunfire if that is where the Lord has put us.
The clear signs of civll wars, revolutions and counter-revolutions are stirring and the place of Catholic laymen is at the front in these great conflicts for the destiny of the Western world. not safely at the rear fishing alongside the little children and gentle women.
Let us go fighting!
-
Folks, this ritual is either Catholic or it is not.
It is not a work of the Church.
It was created and imposed against the mind and will of the Catholic Church, and therefore against the will of Christ.
It is always illicit and always a sacrilege.
It is not Catholic.
And yet, we have clerics and the laity discussing whether or not people are receiving grace from it and speculating that it can validly produce miracles.
This is an objective sign of how deeply sentimentalism and subjectivism have subverted the thinking of all involved.
-
Yes, I believe that is part of the problem in the Traditionalist movements (especially among dogmatic sedevacantists). Unfortunately, I've seen some Trads automatically writing off the Novus Ordites basically as non-Catholics. Een in this massive apostasy it cannot be denied that there are faithful Catholics left in the Novus Ordo who receive graces through the New Mass (personally I believe the New Mass is definitely valid when celebrated properly by validly ordained priest - whether it is objectively pleasing to God is another matter). God is merciful and just, at the particular judgment he will certainly take into account the confusion and disorientation which dominates the Church these days and which keeps some faithful Catholics from seeing the truth about the nature of this Crisis. And, as Matthew pointed out, it is through the grace of God which enabled us to realize what is going on and to follow Tradition.
You bet. We all have to follow Tradition and abandon the Novus Ordo, because it is dangerous and destroys souls.
We all try to wake up as many people as possible to this reality --and first in line is +Williamson himself. He is the first to say we need to stay aloof from the Novus Ordo, Vatican II, and Conciliar Rome *until they convert*.
So what's the problem?
Because we are forced to acknowledge our impotency sometimes? We have to leave some space for God? We have to acknowledge our place?
Everyone who will listen, leave the Novus Ordo. Everyone who won't (for whatever reason: insanity, emotion, psychology, duress, you name it) I still pray God will have mercy on you and help you to save your soul, somehow.
And I know it's "open season" on +Williamson because of this issue, but what did you think the SSPX or R&R position on the New Mass was? +Lefebvre himself said it was often valid. That didn't take away our right to resist Conciliar Rome and disobey the Pope. The N.O. is still evil and destructive.
Every time you have dissenting opinions in the pews, it only takes a catalyst (+Williamson being good at this role) to sort out the men from the boys.
A few years ago, I could sit next to a Novus Ordo Watch "Novus Ordo is invalid" type and get along fine with him. I never attend it, never have, and have no dog in the fight as it were.
But when this controversy comes up, then we all see just how much we disagree with each other about matters of doctrine like this.
In my opinion, it's resentment and/or pride talking when you want to cut off all the Novus Ordo-ites as non-Catholic. You're proud that you escaped, you consider yourself better, and/or you are emotional about your own experiences and subsequent rejection of it (regret, angst, anger, shock, frustration etc.)
The reality is that MOST Trads today were Novus Ordo at one time. And many of those didn't know any better, until they did! Until they learned _____ or spoke to _____ or Fr. _____ and woke up, by God's grace.
-
If anyone thinks Bishop Williamson is saying something strange or something new, they haven't been paying attention to or listening carefully to the Bishop lo these many years.
Someone tried to hit me over at SD with Fr. Hunwicke's apparent shock at Bishop Williamson's latest letter and he ridiculed him as "newwilliamson."
I posted this in the comments:
To be both accurate and fair. Williamson has said nothing new. His recorded interviews consisting of the series "The Faith in Crisis" with Bernard Janzen from the 1980s up to and including the papacy of Pope Francis bear this out.
Then -Fr. Williamson in the mid 1980s said in the Interview, "Why the Old Mass." the statement, "Of course be it said that there are many honorable...in my little opinion there are many honorable priests within the Novus Ordo Church or what we might call the Novus Ordo or Conciliar Church,, who are doing their very best to celebrate the Novus Ordo Missae with all possible dignity and decorum. You know, let's not pretend or exaggerate that all Novus Ordo Masses, all New Masses are celebrated unworthily or without any dignity. That's not true." He then points out how change is built into the Novus Ordo while stability is built into the TLM. And a Novus Ordo that follows as close to the TLM as much as possible gains stability.
Years later, His interview title "The Age of Unbelief" in Canada from his time stationed in Argentina in 2003, He is recorded saying about the faithful and Churchmen in Latin America , "Not all of them have lost their faith and not all of them are losing their faith."
So, Fr.Hunwicke demonstrated a simple, cartoonish and superficial knowledge of Wiliamson that he put on display in an attempt to look clever.
Those quotes are just two that came to mind, but if you look at the letters from the Rector books, and go through the numerous audio interviews, you will see Bp. Williamson consistently being charitable to people on all sides of the liturgical issue and he constantly avoids the exaggerated and cartoonish black hats and white hats on the "teams" when it comes to a complex situation.
-
I am always surprised that folks find things that Bishop Williamson says shocking or reflective of some new attitude. You may love what he says or not, but he has been saying basically the same things for over 30 years. One thing he seems to be is consistent.
Now for as long as I have been an SSPX faithful, we have been reminded to avoid the attitude that we are somehow better than our NO friends and relatives, yes. All the good that we can do can be undone pretty quickly by our pride and brought to nothing.
No one can say with any authority or degree of certainty that no one receives any graces from the NO. Certainly our beloved founder never said that. What he did say, and what Bishop Williamson has always said, is that it poses serious danger to the Faith, contains poison, and those of us who know better must avoid it.
It seems to me that these last two "Comments" come out of that Q & A where His Excellency allowed to a distraught woman that if she felt that she had to go to the NO, then for her, it might be alright. Obviously this lady does not really understand the whole question of the NO and therefore does not know better. I believe His Excellency was quite right to handle her that way, although I did think it might have been better done in private where so many could be confused. But it is easy to see things like that in hindsight and there was probably a time constraint.
Bl. Catherine Emmerich foretold a time when a new church would be built without the help of the saints and angels. Where the faithful, and she did call them faithful, would not receive the Holy Eucharist, but only bread. She also said that God would console those who in good faith thought they were receiving His Body and Blood. We have all known older people, our grandparents, aunts, uncles and so on, who were saintly in their daily lives, daily Mass, Rosary, Scapular etc... but who did not understand the dangers that their popes and bishops were leading them into. Remember this passage of Sacred Scripture, "Jesus saith to them: Amen I say to you, that the publicans and the harlots shall go into the kingdom of God before you." If we don't stop judging those who don't agree with our every opinion, and start taking stock of ourselves and our pride, then we may have a big shock on our deathbeds.
And just so to make my position clear, I have not attended a NO Mass for 35+ and would not attend and participate in a NO Mass now. And God forbid that the Society would ever allow or require their priests to have to learn to say the NO Mass for any reason whatsoever. That would truly be the end of the SSPX.
-
Thank you, Pilar. In my almost 40 years in the traditional movement I have known many families and in many states. Some of them have gone to the N.O. because it was their only choice though they kept informed through publications such as CFN and The Remnant of old. Some where farmers with 12 and 15 children. Home schooled. Exemplary families. They and their children are still Catholic and as the children grow up, they have moved to where the T. Mass is. While a few families who went to the traditional Mass have fallen or divorced...
The point I want to make is this: Those who have always done the daily Holy Rosary as a family (and on their knees or piously as possible), have kept the faith, those who stopped the practice or said it in a sloppy manner, fell.
-
Bl. Catherine Emmerich foretold a time when a new church would be built without the help of the saints and angels. Where the faithful, and she did call them faithful, would not receive the Holy Eucharist, but only bread.
Imagine that!
So I WASN'T just making it up, after all. Gosh.
-
It is not Catholic, we can draw our necessary conclusions from that.
-
If anyone thinks Bishop Williamson is saying something strange or something new, they haven't been paying attention to or listening carefully to the Bishop lo these many years.
Someone tried to hit me over at SD with Fr. Hunwicke's apparent shock at Bishop Williamson's latest letter and he ridiculed him as "newwilliamson."
I posted this in the comments:
To be both accurate and fair. Williamson has said nothing new. His recorded interviews consisting of the series "The Faith in Crisis" with Bernard Janzen from the 1980s up to and including the papacy of Pope Francis bear this out.
Then -Fr. Williamson in the mid 1980s said in the Interview, "Why the Old Mass." the statement, "Of course be it said that there are many honorable...in my little opinion there are many honorable priests within the Novus Ordo Church or what we might call the Novus Ordo or Conciliar Church,, who are doing their very best to celebrate the Novus Ordo Missae with all possible dignity and decorum. You know, let's not pretend or exaggerate that all Novus Ordo Masses, all New Masses are celebrated unworthily or without any dignity. That's not true." He then points out how change is built into the Novus Ordo while stability is built into the TLM. And a Novus Ordo that follows as close to the TLM as much as possible gains stability.
Years later, His interview title "The Age of Unbelief" in Canada from his time stationed in Argentina in 2003, He is recorded saying about the faithful and Churchmen in Latin America , "Not all of them have lost their faith and not all of them are losing their faith."
So, Fr.Hunwicke demonstrated a simple, cartoonish and superficial knowledge of Wiliamson that he put on display in an attempt to look clever.
Those quotes are just two that came to mind, but if you look at the letters from the Rector books, and go through the numerous audio interviews, you will see Bp. Williamson consistently being charitable to people on all sides of the liturgical issue and he constantly avoids the exaggerated and cartoonish black hats and white hats on the "teams" when it comes to a complex situation.
You know, as I was just skimming down this thread, I was thinking, "I bet Bishop Williamson is saying nothing new. I'm sure if I look back at some of his old comments, I'll see this kind of thing there!"
The risk of pride now is among those who will be thinking, "Ah, yes, we have moved on, but poor + Williamson hasn't!"
-
Is it pride to witness that novus ordo has diminished Faith?
-
Is it pride to witness that novus ordo has diminished Faith?
No. I thought +W maintained just that, as do I.
The pride is in thinking that there's no good in the NO in spite of it.
-
It seems to me it's not a huge step to go from saying that there are a lot of very devout Catholics among Novus Ordo regulars, to saying that there are not a few non-Catholics who have a very close relationship with God, and that the friends of God include people of all religions, and perhaps even many of no religion whatsoever, and "Who are we to judge them?"
The conclusion to this line of thinking is that God's approval or disapproval of man's moral state, whatever it may be, cannot be known. How far away then is it to start saying that God per se cannot be known?
-
It is not Catholic, we can draw our necessary conclusions from that.
I have not followed the thread, but I second that. Those whom I have seen survive the N.O. knew the faith enough to do it and had great devotion to the Rosary. Like the Japanese Catholics who lived 200 years without priests. They were able to pass on the faith to the next generations because they knew it. Canon 13 of Trent (On the Sacraments) is enough for me. FWIW, I would like to share an amazing story.
In 1972, my husband was going to daily mass. After reading a pamphlet on the N.O. mass he had such serious and increasing doubts about its validity, that he decided to say a desperate prayer. The prayer was that if he was not supposed to attend the N.O. mass, that the sanctuary light went out during the consecration. That day, he went to a different church and to his surprise, his best friend with the same doubts (after reading the same pamphlet) was at the same church that morning.
When the consecration came, the sanctuary light went out! He stayed for a while praying after confirming the light was out. He went to his car and found his friend (Fred) sitting on the car waiting for him. Fred asked him: "Did you see what happened during the consecration!?" My husband replied: "What are you talking about?" To which Fred replied: "I said a prayer that if I wasn't meant to come back to the N.O., that the sanctuary light went out during the consecration. And it did!". My husband responded that he had said the same prayer and that he had seen the candle go out. Together, they started to recruit retired priests to offer the T. Mass and/or the few friends (all single then) drove from Des Moines, IA to Rockford, IL until the SSPX started coming there in late 1978.
Not until last year, when the priest celebrating the mass on that occasion died, I heard the story from Fred. He was telling my husband about his death and explaining that that was the priest who offered the mass in 1972...
-
One almost has to distinguished between devout and devoted. These days, there is little that is consistently "devout" surrounding the Conciliar Mass and church. Yet my mother, for example, comes from a generation who is very "devoted" to the church and was brought up to not question the Pope in matters of the faith. In other words, as foreign as this all might be compared to how she grew up, she accepts that if the Pope approves it, it must be the way God intends it.
There are many devoted to the Catholic Church in the N.O. who, like Mom, are not fans of Catholic divorce or holding hands and kissing during Mass or mini-skirted Eucharistic ministers but accept these as what the church intends since it comes to her from her parish which she has attended for 70 years.
-
It seems to me it's not a huge step to go from saying that there are a lot of very devout Catholics among Novus Ordo regulars, to saying that there are not a few non-Catholics who have a very close relationship with God, and that the friends of God include people of all religions, and perhaps even many of no religion whatsoever, and "Who are we to judge them?"
I guess that's the logical conclusion of this too:
"There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments."
Pius IX (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9quanto.htm)
-
It is not Catholic, we can draw our necessary conclusions from that.
I have not followed the thread, but I second that. Those whom I have seen survive the N.O. knew the faith enough to do it and had great devotion to the Rosary. Like the Japanese Catholics who lived 200 years without priests. They were able to pass on the faith to the next generations because they knew it. Canon 13 of Trent (On the Sacraments) is enough for me. FWIW, I would like to share an amazing story.
In 1972, my husband was going to daily mass. After reading a pamphlet on the N.O. mass he had such serious and increasing doubts about its validity, that he decided to say a desperate prayer. The prayer was that if he was not supposed to attend the N.O. mass, that the sanctuary light went out during the consecration. That day, he went to a different church and to his surprise, his best friend with the same doubts (after reading the same pamphlet) was at the same church that morning.
When the consecration came, the sanctuary light went out! He stayed for a while praying after confirming the light was out. He went to his car and found his friend (Fred) sitting on the car waiting for him. Fred asked him: "Did you see what happened during the consecration!?" My husband replied: "What are you talking about?" To which Fred replied: "I said a prayer that if I wasn't meant to come back to the N.O., that the sanctuary light went out during the consecration. And it did!". My husband responded that he had said the same prayer and that he had seen the candle go out. Together, they started to recruit retired priests to offer the T. Mass and/or the few friends (all single then) drove from Des Moines, IA to Rockford, IL until the SSPX started coming there in late 1978.
Not until last year, when the priest celebrating the mass on that occasion died, I heard the story from Fred. He was telling my husband about his death and explaining that that was the priest who offered the mass in 1972...
Thanks for posting this story. It is inspiring. Our prayers do not go unanswered even if they are not always answered in the way that we expect them to be. This story is interesting because although we can make no definitive conclusion about the validity of the Mass or the orders of the priest who said the Mass, nevertheless the symbolism is striking. The sanctuary lamp is the symbol of the Real Presence. Having the lamp go out not only signalled your husband to quit the NO but it also symbolically touches on the validity of the New Mass. I wouldn't base a decision on that incident alone but it certainly amounts to a confirmation of the legitimacy of doubting the validity of the New Mass.
-
A few years ago, I could sit next to a Novus Ordo Watch "Novus Ordo is invalid" type and get along fine with him. I never attend it, never have, and have no dog in the fight as it were.
But when this controversy comes up, then we all see just how much we disagree with each other about matters of doctrine like this.
In my opinion, it's resentment and/or pride talking when you want to cut off all the Novus Ordo-ites as non-Catholic. You're proud that you escaped, you consider yourself better, and/or you are emotional about your own experiences and subsequent rejection of it (regret, angst, anger, shock, frustration etc.)
The reality is that MOST Trads today were Novus Ordo at one time. And many of those didn't know any better, until they did! Until they learned _____ or spoke to _____ or Fr. _____ and woke up, by God's grace.
Don't read too much into the "Novus Ordo Watch" calling the N.O. non-Catholic. I have never heard him nor any SV calling for former "Novus Ordo-ites" to be forced to publicly renounce Novus Ordism before being admitted to communion. While there is a lot of talk about non-Catholics, there isn't any formal legal proceedings against these people (N.O.-ites). I should know, I was one of them. I have never been forced to formally renounce the N.O. religion. I went from the N.O. to the indult to the MP to the SSPX to the Resistance to the CMRI and not one group has ever asked me to renounce the N.O. religion. Of course, I do renounce it but that is beside the point. The point is that I was never accused of having formally left the Catholic religion. I think actions speak louder than words. We might say the N.O. is non-Catholic but in general we are not implying all the legal ramifications which come with that accusation. I think that can be safely said about Novus Ordo Watch as well. So please stop trying to make it sound as if NOW has excommunicated N.O.-ites. Maybe Schism-House has done this, I don't know. But the vast majority of SVs treat the situation the same as the SSPX and Resistance. No need to build strawmen here. I just don't think this issue should be made a big point of contention between the SV folks and the R&R folks.
-
It seems to me it's not a huge step to go from saying that there are a lot of very devout Catholics among Novus Ordo regulars, to saying that there are not a few non-Catholics who have a very close relationship with God, and that the friends of God include people of all religions, and perhaps even many of no religion whatsoever, and "Who are we to judge them?"
The conclusion to this line of thinking is that God's approval or disapproval of man's moral state, whatever it may be, cannot be known. How far away then is it to start saying that God per se cannot be known?
You bring up a few of the very real consequences of the dual minded thinking which has always been present in the SSPX and within the R&R philosophy in general, none of which are compatible with sound reasoning or the Faith.
-
It seems to me it's not a huge step to go from saying that there are a lot of very devout Catholics among Novus Ordo regulars, to saying that there are not a few non-Catholics who have a very close relationship with God, and that the friends of God include people of all religions, and perhaps even many of no religion whatsoever, and "Who are we to judge them?"
The conclusion to this line of thinking is that God's approval or disapproval of man's moral state, whatever it may be, cannot be known. How far away then is it to start saying that God per se cannot be known?
You bring up a few of the very real consequences of the dual minded thinking which has always been present in the SSPX and within the R&R philosophy in general, none of which are compatible with sound reasoning or the Faith.
Only if you assume people can't make distinctions:
a) between validly baptized NO, validly baptized Protestants and those who aren't baptized at all;
b) between having "a relationship with God" such as a saint would as opposed to realizing that God gives every single person the necessary graces to be saved. In other words, being able to see, practically speaking, how God does so or may do so. In other words -- it's not just an empty phrase a person throws out there because they know they are supposed to -- they truly believe and are open to seeing how God works with and offers grace to every single person, not just Catholics, and certainly not just trads;
c) between the facts that some correspond with those graces, whether in an instant or over time, while others don't and only God knows the full account.
-
It seems to me it's not a huge step to go from saying that there are a lot of very devout Catholics among Novus Ordo regulars, to saying that there are not a few non-Catholics who have a very close relationship with God, and that the friends of God include people of all religions, and perhaps even many of no religion whatsoever, and "Who are we to judge them?"
The conclusion to this line of thinking is that God's approval or disapproval of man's moral state, whatever it may be, cannot be known. How far away then is it to start saying that God per se cannot be known?
You bring up a few of the very real consequences of the dual minded thinking which has always been present in the SSPX and within the R&R philosophy in general, none of which are compatible with sound reasoning or the Faith.
I dare say the bishop would also say the same about devout folk in the Anglican church. It is modernist thinking and is a way out for those having difficulty knowing where they really belong. But the bishop is also in the realm of fantasy with his Frankenstein hosts, requiring all bow down to such conciliar abominations. After all this time, if anyone gives credence to this bizarre distraction, their attachment to tradition would seem to be rather flimsy ..... with a back door available to the new religion they once despised.
-
It seems to me it's not a huge step to go from saying that there are a lot of very devout Catholics among Novus Ordo regulars, to saying that there are not a few non-Catholics who have a very close relationship with God, and that the friends of God include people of all religions, and perhaps even many of no religion whatsoever, and "Who are we to judge them?"
The conclusion to this line of thinking is that God's approval or disapproval of man's moral state, whatever it may be, cannot be known. How far away then is it to start saying that God per se cannot be known?
You bring up a few of the very real consequences of the dual minded thinking which has always been present in the SSPX and within the R&R philosophy in general, none of which are compatible with sound reasoning or the Faith.
I dare say the bishop would also say the same about devout folk in the Anglican church. It is modernist thinking and is a way out for those having difficulty knowing where they really belong. But the bishop is also in the realm of fantasy with his Frankenstein hosts, requiring all bow down to such conciliar abominations. After all this time, if anyone gives credence to this bizarre distraction, their attachment to tradition would seem to be rather flimsy ..... with a back door available to the new religion they once despised.
It is a spiritual mode of "hedging you bets", not being sure enough of your principles and convictions that you can firmly plant your feet on one side of the line or the other and defend that position unreservedly.
The day of the counter revolutionary anti conciliar "true believer" has passed. We now occupy the age of belief subject to circuмstances rather than belief subject to unyielding truth. As you have said elsewhere, we are on our own, and few are left now.
They compassed me on every side, and there was no one that would help me. I looked for the succour of men, and there was none.
-
It seems to me it's not a huge step to go from saying that there are a lot of very devout Catholics among Novus Ordo regulars, to saying that there are not a few non-Catholics who have a very close relationship with God, and that the friends of God include people of all religions, and perhaps even many of no religion whatsoever, and "Who are we to judge them?"
The conclusion to this line of thinking is that God's approval or disapproval of man's moral state, whatever it may be, cannot be known. How far away then is it to start saying that God per se cannot be known?
You bring up a few of the very real consequences of the dual minded thinking which has always been present in the SSPX and within the R&R philosophy in general, none of which are compatible with sound reasoning or the Faith.
I dare say the bishop would also say the same about devout folk in the Anglican church. It is modernist thinking and is a way out for those having difficulty knowing where they really belong. But the bishop is also in the realm of fantasy with his Frankenstein hosts, requiring all bow down to such conciliar abominations. After all this time, if anyone gives credence to this bizarre distraction, their attachment to tradition would seem to be rather flimsy ..... with a back door available to the new religion they once despised.
It is a spiritual mode of "hedging your bets", not being sure enough of your principles and convictions that you can firmly plant your feet on one side of the line or the other and defend that position unreservedly.
The day of the counter revolutionary anti conciliar "true believer" has passed. We now occupy the age of belief subject to circuмstances rather than belief subject to unyielding truth. As you have said elsewhere, we are on our own, and few are left now.
They compassed me on every side, and there was no one that would help me. I looked for the succour of men, and there was none.
These are all worth thinking about. It's better to know where you are as it is happening to you instead of only finding out where you have been after it has already happened.
Welcome to the first week of Advent. I've heard a few of Fr. Voigt's sermons, and he has a way of lifting one out of this feeling of isolation I'm reading, above. If you go to the Resistance Sermons sub-forum a collection of them are being started there.
.
-
It seems to me it's not a huge step to go from saying that there are a lot of very devout Catholics among Novus Ordo regulars, to saying that there are not a few non-Catholics who have a very close relationship with God, and that the friends of God include people of all religions, and perhaps even many of no religion whatsoever, and "Who are we to judge them?"
The conclusion to this line of thinking is that God's approval or disapproval of man's moral state, whatever it may be, cannot be known. How far away then is it to start saying that God per se cannot be known?
You bring up a few of the very real consequences of the dual minded thinking which has always been present in the SSPX and within the R&R philosophy in general, none of which are compatible with sound reasoning or the Faith.
I dare say the bishop would also say the same about devout folk in the Anglican church. It is modernist thinking and is a way out for those having difficulty knowing where they really belong. But the bishop is also in the realm of fantasy with his Frankenstein hosts, requiring all bow down to such conciliar abominations. After all this time, if anyone gives credence to this bizarre distraction, their attachment to tradition would seem to be rather flimsy ..... with a back door available to the new religion they once despised.
It is a spiritual mode of "hedging you bets", not being sure enough of your principles and convictions that you can firmly plant your feet on one side of the line or the other and defend that position unreservedly.
The day of the counter revolutionary anti conciliar "true believer" has passed. We now occupy the age of belief subject to circuмstances rather than belief subject to unyielding truth. As you have said elsewhere, we are on our own, and few are left now.
They compassed me on every side, and there was no one that would help me. I looked for the succour of men, and there was none.
Pretty clearly the more solid areas for Catholic religion at the present time would be the Canons Regular of St. Augustine, the Company of Jesus and Mary led by the Argentine Bishop Andres Morello, the Sodalitium Pianum of the Mater Boni Consilii Institute in Italy and the thriving diocese of Bishop Luis Madrigal in Mexico. Together with their not so few associates in the United States and Britain. In so far as the clergy is concerned, beyond those rather modest limits one quickly sinks into the Outer Darkness of the prevailing Pentecostalist Anabaptism with its ghastly disregard and contempt for the sacramental economy of the Roman Catholic Church so kindly provided to the human race by God Almighty.
Sadly Bishops Faure and Williamson are reversing their previous appearances of courage and, as is said, hastily trimming their wicks evidently for the fear of someone or other, who must be here left unnamed for the comfort of the gutless wonders among us. Not an edifying sight, to say the least. Nevertheless shameless cowardice on the part of laymen is not justified. Despite the shameless treason of so many surrendering and less and less Catholic clerics.
Madame Le Pen is an extraordinarily brave Catholic polititian who seems to have more courage in one of her little toes than all we English-speaking Catholic laymen put together. St. Joan of Arc strikes again, and once again to the considerable shame of our own male sex! Bishop Madrigal has reconstituted the Cristeros Army and that Army will one day reconquer Mexico, and presumably a Greater Imperial Mexico, when the time comes. As it quite assuredly will. The Catholic Peronists are at last regrouping in Argentina and Catholic Nationalism is reawakening in Germany, with the usual oceans of blood amid hell and highwater that must always accompany such a fateful occurrence. We have by no means heard the last of Catholic Monarchy either.
Therefore we Anglophone Catholic laymen ought not to be deceived. The clerical cowards in retreat are the last of the Old Guard, and merely mark the beginning of the advance of a greatly sterner Catholic laity. The good Bishops Faure and Williamson are elderly and will not have to deal with the future they so timidly evade. But for those among us of lesser years the future is already here. Best to abandon the sinking Titanic of an older generation that is so timidly disintegrating and ceasing to be. Best not to feign unjustifiable cowardice and instead be proper Roman Catholic laymen, face the enemy and, as is said, bravely pass the ammunition.
-
It's been made clear already that Bishops Williamson and Faure aren't reversing on anything. Disagree with them as you will but be honest in that these are the R&R positions they always held.
It seems that as certain SSPX factions accused them of going sede perhaps there were also certain sede factions salivating at the thought of welcoming them. As the years are going by and +Williamson proves he has no intentions of going that way, as he has clearly stated over and over again, those same certain factions are getting bitter about it.
-
The human mind and heart can indeed condition themselves to hold contradictory ideas , eventually coming to believe that they are perfectly logical and that they are in harmony, one to the other.
This is a state of being which is quite difficult to unlock. A problem which this presents, is that such a condition is progressive because, once the wall of illogic is in place, it becomes ever more easy to adopt other like concepts which seem to confirm the first instance.
The odd shape of the contradictory brick being seen, not as an invalidly shaped block, but simply as a variation in the elements of design.
That is to say, you cannot know if you are right, when you have failed to notice where you have gone wrong.
-
+ Williamson is making the same tired, and overly simplistic argument that many neo Catholics make - that a valid consecration = a valid mass. Of course, this is totally both theologically and logically incorrect...I was hoping for more substance in this weeks' "sequel", but alas, no. We'll see how week 3 is.
-
It's been made clear already that Bishops Williamson and Faure aren't reversing on anything. Disagree with them as you will but be honest in that these are the R&R positions they always held.
It seems that as certain SSPX factions accused them of going sede perhaps there were also certain sede factions salivating at the thought of welcoming them. As the years are going by and +Williamson proves he has no intentions of going that way, as he has clearly stated over and over again, those same certain factions are getting bitter about it.
Certainly the topic is broad and complicated enough for us to hold widely divergent views. It probably does depend in large measure on exactly what one considers to be the most important matters in contention. Nevertheless, in holding carefully to the approach of Archbishop Lefebvre, one could reasonably think that the current positions of the two bishops are considerably looser than his and make concessions that the late Archbishop was loathe to make.
For example, Bishop Faure mentions in a recent conference in Texas that many in the Novus Ordo definitely are receiving legitimate sacramental graces from the sacraments of the Novus Ordo. Whereas back in the day the Archbishop was exceedingly careful to say that we simply did not know such matters and that only time would tell. Two quite different views regarding the legitimacy of Novus Ordo sacraments!
Early on, Bishop Faure emphasised that he would soon be going like gangbusters to consecrate new bishops and give the Novus Ordo a real run for its money, whereas of late this seems to have vanished down a memory hole and we are instead regaled with talk of the abundance of virtue and holiness to be found in the Novus Ordo. Again, quite a different message.
Then early on the good Bishop Faure sprinkled his talks with quite militant references to the Great Apostasy, the End of Days and the like whereas more recently such militancy seems to have mysteriously evaporated in favor of references to the golden opportunities of his seminary as a pleasant additional choice to the several Novus Ordo alternatives. Again, very far from the apocalyptic high drama of his earlier vocabulary. If one were seriously in the Great Apostasy, one would scarcely be in position for such mundane pleasantries and diplomatic bon mots.
So the good bishops are very much back to business as usual. It's more or less the bureaucratic niceties of the 1950s in which the bright and bubbly French bourgeoisie mustn't be discomfited excessively. No doubt a most pleasant prospect, but does it conform with the realities of the 21st Century -- at all? To be a bit more specific, when the paid mercenaries of President Erdogan of Turkey are massacring those present at the Stade de France in an attempt to αssαssιnαtҽ President Hollande and the streets of Paris are scarcely dry from the ensuing rivers of blood, might it perhaps be slightly out of touch with reality to be bantering on about how one's own seminary is just as cheery and delightful as those of the Societies of St. Peter and St. Pius X nearby?
While France is in lock down in conditions of actual cινιℓ ωαr and Britain is about to embark on her most grisly Middle Eastern War of Religion since General Gordon died in Khartoum, might we not fear that our two bishops are debating the numbers of angels on the heads of pins worrisomely like men lost with Alice somewhere in Wonderland?
One is sometimes concerned about the good Bishops.
-
+ Williamson is making the same tired, and overly simplistic argument that many neo Catholics make - that a valid consecration = a valid mass. Of course, this is totally both theologically and logically incorrect...I was hoping for more substance in this weeks' "sequel", but alas, no. We'll see how week 3 is.
I occasionally see references in EC that seem to specifically answer a question posed on this board. Maybe he will respond in kind?
-
+ Williamson is making the same tired, and overly simplistic argument that many neo Catholics make - that a valid consecration = a valid mass. Of course, this is totally both theologically and logically incorrect...I was hoping for more substance in this weeks' "sequel", but alas, no. We'll see how week 3 is.
I don't think that's the argument he's making. It's far more nuanced because of the complexity of the problem.
You have the consecration of the host and chalice. That is either valid or invalid.
You have the licitness of the Mass. That is the legal status according to Canon Law.
You have the quality of the Liturgy. That is the rituals, symbols and atmospherics of the actions that surround the consecration.
Bishop W. in the old interview from the 1980s "Why the Old Mass" goes over quite a lot in detail about the Novus Ordo and one of the problems that is encountered in dealing with the Liturgy of the Novus Ordo is the Archeologism of many aspects.
To call the Novus Ordo "Protestant" is true because aspects of the liturgy are Protestant, but in some cases, those elements were previously Catholic and in Catholic Liturgies.
So, if something is done in the Novus Ordo, that is done in Protestant services like the "Bidding prayers" the problem is they have a longer history in the Catholic Church from the time prior to the Protestant Revolution.
And something that was done in the liturgy in the year 430 AD is wholly Catholic but it's not as useful for the disposition of the person receiving Communion as what was developed by the time of St. Pius V's codification.
-
For example, Bishop Faure mentions in a recent conference in Texas that many in the Novus Ordo definitely are receiving legitimate sacramental graces from the sacraments of the Novus Ordo. Whereas back in the day the Archbishop was exceedingly careful to say that we simply did not know such matters and that only time would tell. Two quite different views regarding the legitimacy of Novus Ordo sacraments!
If this is true then,
1) Apparently for Bishop's Williamson and Faure, time has indeed told, and their opinions have now come down on the side of the legitimacy of the conciliar sacraments.
2) This makes the second R in the formula very questionable, if not untenable.
3) We are on our own.
-
Seems that way, but the Good God said 'I will not leave you orphaned'
-
The only Roman rite Mass approved by the Church IN PERPETUITY is the Latin Tridentine Mass. That is what Quo Primum is all about. Anything else is forbidden, any Mass whose rubrics do not match and respect the Missale that Quo Primum introduced is forbidden. For exactly problems such as this KE trots out did Pius V protect the Mass by promulgating the Tridentine Mass. (Though heaven knows if he ever imagined the abuses masquerading as "masses" in our time, perhaps using all his papal authority with the "new" church in mind.)
Point is, we are forbidden to offer a Roman rite Mass other than what the Church gave us through Pius. A Black Mass is forbidden, though Our Lord be present. Any "Eucharistic miracles" I've read about seem always to happen in response to an ABUSE of Our Lord in the Eucharistic. Even IF He is at these NO Masses, it does not bode well. One should be appalled to attend, partake of, or witness it. It is forbidden. The Church has spoken. Anyone who has never read Quo Primum should do so.
-
The only Roman rite Mass approved by the Church IN PERPETUITY is the Latin Tridentine Mass. That is what Quo Primum is all about. Anything else is forbidden, any Mass whose rubrics do not match and respect the Missale that Quo Primum introduced is forbidden. For exactly problems such as this KE trots out did Pius V protect the Mass by promulgating the Tridentine Mass. (Though heaven knows if he ever imagined the abuses masquerading as "masses" in our time, perhaps using all his papal authority with the "new" church in mind.)
Point is, we are forbidden to offer a Roman rite Mass other than what the Church gave us through Pius. A Black Mass is forbidden, though Our Lord be present. Any "Eucharistic miracles" I've read about seem always to happen in response to an ABUSE of Our Lord in the Eucharistic. Even IF He is at these NO Masses, it does not bode well. One should be appalled to attend, partake of, or witness it. It is forbidden. The Church has spoken. Anyone who has never read Quo Primum should do so.
It's not that simple; Pope Pius XII in Mediator Dei wrote: "58. It follows from this that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification."
The Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right….to introduce and approve new rites.
The good part of that is that a future Pope can suppress the Novus Ordo much like the rites that were suppressed that were less than 200 years old at the time of St. Pius V.
-
But it IS that simple - Quo Primum bound all Catholics - IN PERPETUITY.
The Pope has to be a Catholic too. He has to practice the Faith too! Only a "free radical" Pope would not conform and protect the Tridentine Mass.
What was it Pius IX said when they wanted to put St. Joseph in the Canon back in his day?
"I am only the Pope - what right have I to touch the Canon?"
You would do well to read The Great Sacrilege.
-
For example, Bishop Faure mentions in a recent conference in Texas that many in the Novus Ordo definitely are receiving legitimate sacramental graces from the sacraments of the Novus Ordo. Whereas back in the day the Archbishop was exceedingly careful to say that we simply did not know such matters and that only time would tell. Two quite different views regarding the legitimacy of Novus Ordo sacraments!
If this is true then,
1) Apparently for Bishop's Williamson and Faure, time has indeed told, and their opinions have now come down on the side of the legitimacy of the conciliar sacraments.
2) This makes the second R in the formula very questionable, if not untenable.
3) We are on our own.
We may well be on our own, but we are by no means therefore alone. Given the universal Marxist destruction, we have the singular advantage that the only viable authority beyond mere political posturing must needs be Catholic. The atheist Left is pathetically reduced to grovelling to the atheist Right and the atheist Right is terminally reduced to ineffective madness in an insane asylum. Hence the survival instinct must increasingly favour Catholic Nationalism in its several standard variations. The many can never lead and those few who can lead must necessarily be Roman Catholic.
As is said: Christus Vincit, Christus Regnat, Christus Imperat.
Because as the future dawns it belongs to us.
-
For example, Bishop Faure mentions in a recent conference in Texas that many in the Novus Ordo definitely are receiving legitimate sacramental graces from the sacraments of the Novus Ordo. Whereas back in the day the Archbishop was exceedingly careful to say that we simply did not know such matters and that only time would tell. Two quite different views regarding the legitimacy of Novus Ordo sacraments!
If this is true then,
1) Apparently for Bishops Williamson and Faure, time has indeed told, and their opinions have now come down on the side of the legitimacy of the conciliar sacraments.
2) This makes the second R in the formula very questionable, if not untenable.
3) We are on our own.
When +Williamson and +Faure both tell us that they know of Catholics in the Novus Ordo who are receiving graces there, do we have any right to say they're misleading us? Notice they are not suggesting that we start trying to imitate those people by going to the Newmass.
We are in a different time now than in the days of ABL, and the audience is different for these two bishops today. +W & +F are talking to second generation traditionalists who have begun to look down their noses at Newchurch Catholics and these bishops discern a need for them to give out a message that ABL didn't need to give out. Back in those days he was defending his Resistance to worldwide abandonment of the TLM and he had to make his point stick if it was to survive the deluge.
Today, the point has already stuck for over a generation or a quarter century, and it still needs to keep sticking. However, we should not forget that it's no good to abandon charity in the process.
.
-
For example, Bishop Faure mentions in a recent conference in Texas that many in the Novus Ordo definitely are receiving legitimate sacramental graces from the sacraments of the Novus Ordo. Whereas back in the day the Archbishop was exceedingly careful to say that we simply did not know such matters and that only time would tell. Two quite different views regarding the legitimacy of Novus Ordo sacraments!
If this is true then,
1) Apparently for Bishops Williamson and Faure, time has indeed told, and their opinions have now come down on the side of the legitimacy of the conciliar sacraments.
2) This makes the second R in the formula very questionable, if not untenable.
3) We are on our own.
When +Williamson and +Faure both tell us that they know of Catholics in the Novus Ordo who are receiving graces there, do we have any right to say they're misleading us? Notice they are not suggesting that we start trying to imitate those people by going to the Newmass.
We are in a different time now than in the days of ABL, and the audience is different for these two bishops today. +W & +F are talking to second generation traditionalists who have begun to look down their noses at Newchurch Catholics and these bishops discern a need for them to give out a message that ABL didn't need to give out. Back in those days he was defending his Resistance to worldwide abandonment of the TLM and he had to make his point stick if it was to survive the deluge.
Today, the point has already stuck for over a generation or a quarter century, and it still needs to keep sticking. However, we should not forget that it's no good to abandon charity in the process.
.
Yes, there are Catholics in the Novus Ordo receiving graces there, like Fr. Reto Ney, the brave founder of Gloria TV. They are the most persecuted of the persecuted, like the Syrian Catholics of the present day. The graces they receive are with brickbats and bullets, like the Maronites on Mount Lebanon. So we are indeed in a different time than in the days of Archbishop Lefebvre, but not exactly in the direction of the sparkling bourgeoisie so dear to commercial fund-raisers.
The defence of the TLM has by no means stuck inside the respectable Novus Ordo. Where is ex-Pope Benedict now? The Franciscans of the Immaculate are terribly stuck, but not in the TLM. Anything but. And we always seem to return to "charity".
Therefore let us remember charity and help those currently in the fiery Deluge to survive it. In charity we are not on the tranquil far side of the Deluge, but in the horrendously violent depths of the Deluge. It is not charitable to offer those in the Bloodbaths of the Revolution only pretty roses and sweet chocolates. That is apt fund-raising, but it is not charity.
Apostasy does not advance towards virtue and the love of God and man. It is the life's blood of Marxism and the Red Revolution of same-sex marriage and sanctimonious abortion. The apostate Novus Ordo is less and less morally decent and capable of amendment. This is the nature of apostasy, this is the nature of evil. Let Catholic laymen be paragons of charity, like their Brothers-in-Christ in Lebanon, Syria and Jerusalem. Like their brothers in Paris and California. Let them be Catholic laymen, sing Catholic warrior songs and have the true charity to make the Sign of the Cross and fearlessly share the ammunition.
Then let gentle Catholic women distribute lovely roses and fine chocolates. The Catholic men now have better things to do.
-
Regarding the idea that Catholics are receiving grace at the NO:
I would argue that they are receiving graces WHILE at the NO or DESPITE attending the NO. Why is the assumption that they are receiving graces because they are at the NO or due to the NO? Couldn't we say those same things for those who are in other non-Catholic religions who receive the grace from God to leave those religions (including the schismatic Orthodox who have a "valid consecration") and convert to Catholicism? We don't and the Church doesn't say that those religions provided the grace do we?
Exactly what are these bishops saying? Are they saying that the NO provides these graces or that despite the NO, God can still call others to the True Faith? Up to now, I have gotten the impression that they are saying the former, not the latter.
-
If there is real and legitimate grace issuing forth from the Novus Ordo religion, what valid justification do these people for rejecting the conciliar sacraments and not joining the conciliar entity, as they in fact see it as being the True Church?
What one can see is that in both the SSPX and in the resistance so called, firm principles which over the years we have been conditioned to believe were being held and defended are being abandoned or they were never really there, and we have been taken in by an illusion.
-
Regarding the idea that Catholics are receiving grace at the NO:
I would argue that they are receiving graces WHILE at the NO or DESPITE attending the NO. Why is the assumption that they are receiving graces because they are at the NO or due to the NO? Couldn't we say those same things for those who are in other non-Catholic religions who receive the grace from God to leave those religions (including the schismatic Orthodox who have a "valid consecration") and convert to Catholicism? We don't and the Church doesn't say that those religions provided the grace do we?
Exactly what are these bishops saying? Are they saying that the NO provides these graces or that despite the NO, God can still call others to the True Faith? Up to now, I have gotten the impression that they are saying the former, not the latter.
Your argument is the only one that can make sense and still allow you to hold firm the principles which reject the Second Vatican Council and the Great Sacrilege.
-
Exactly what are these bishops saying? Are they saying that the NO provides these graces or that despite the NO, God can still call others to the True Faith? Up to now, I have gotten the impression that they are saying the former, not the latter.
Very good question. Graces can be received per accidens. So if someone goes to the NO and prays devoutly they can clearly receive graces through those prayers ex opere operantis.
Bishop Williamson, for all that he constantly speaks about subjectivism, continues to blur the subjective and the objective. Simply elaborating upon the distinction vis-a-vis the Novus Ordo Mass would have dispelled all the confusion. He could say, "NO is objectively displeasing to God and it's objectively wrong to attend it, but people could receive some graces per accidens by attending due to their subjective dispositions." That would be the end of story, and no one could find any fault with this. But he dances around it and creates confusion.
Similiarly, +Williamson will often talk about the "sincerity" and "well-meaning" of the V2 papal claimants ... despite regularly ranting against "niceness" and "sincerity" being substitutes for the objective possession of truth.
-
Bp. Williamson's major premise here is quite correct, actually. These Eucharistic and other miracles not only have ever been held by the Church to be incontrovertible proofs that Her doctrine on the Real Presence is correct against the contentions of the Protestant heretics, but even to prove the veracity of the Christian Faith itself. Miracles, in general, are "a manifest sign of the divine origin of the Christian religion" (Oath against Modernism) and to be accounted among "the most certain signs of revelation", for "demonstrating as they do the Omnipotence and infinite knowledge of God, they are well suited to the understanding of all". (First Vatican Council, on Faith and Reason). Therefore, continues the same dogmatic decree, "Moses and the Prophets, but especially Christ Our Lord Himself worked several absolutely clear miracles".
Transubstantiation is a particularly stupendous example of the miraculous. Christ the Lord visibly and perceptibly transformed water into wine at the Wedding of Cana to prefigure in a supremely fitting way the transubstantiation of bread and wine into His body and blood; there the miracle was performed to kindle faith. (St. John the Apostle writes that this was the first miracle Jesus worked and His Apostles began to believe in Him.) The miracle of grace that happens every hour of every day on Christian Altars presupposes it; and rewards true Faith in that mystery sufficiently proven to those strong in their Faith by the Word of Truth, (The Angelic Doctor beautifully writes what is usually summarized in English as "I believe every Word the Son of God has spoken, than Truth's own Word there is no truer token). In transubstantiation, the first substance ceases entirely to exist; in itself an act of the divine Omnipotence. For this reason, it is commonly taught that the natural power of all men and Angels together, nay even of the Blessed Virgin Herself, is entirely insufficient to effect transubstantiation. The Saints and Doctors in their lofty writings are lost in contemplation of this incredibly dignity Christ our Lord has placed in His priests. How immeasurably happy and eternally grateful for this infinite gift should be the man called to serve God in the traditional Catholic priesthood, as well as all who by faith know and adore Him in the Eucharist and receive Him in Holy Communion through their ministration. Anyway, in transubstantiation, the second substance - in the case of the Eucharist, Our Lord's own Most Holy Flesh and Heart's Blood - begins to inhere in the accidents of the first. Neither of these could conceivably be effected by any mere creature, God alone, and specifically His Omnipotence, must be the efficient cause of each and every act of transubstantiation.
Modern controversies which I don't want to enter into at the moment aside, here's a traditional 8th century miracle for us all to rejoice in.
"In 1970-'71 and taken up again partly in 1981 there took place a scientific investigation by the most illustrious scientist Prof. Odoardo Linoli, eminent Professor in Anatomy and Pathological Histology and in Chemistry and Clinical Microscopy. He was assisted by Prof. Ruggero Bertelli of the University of Siena.
The analyses were conducted with absolute and unquestionable scientific precision and they were docuмented with a series of microscopic photographs.
These analyses sustained the following conclusions:
The Flesh is real Flesh. The Blood is real Blood.
The Flesh and the Blood belong to the human species.
The Flesh consists of the muscular tissue of the heart.
The Flesh is a "HEART" complete in its essential structure.
...
The Flesh and the Blood have the same blood-type: AB (Blood-type identical to that which Prof. Baima Bollone uncovered in the Holy Shroud of Turin)."
http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/lanciano.html
It was also worked by Christ the Lord, as the link explains, in response to a "doubting Thomas" in the 8th century A.D. In His gracious goodness, the Almighty sees fit sometimes to encourage weak faith by such miracles. Perhaps many millions of Catholics today, weak in their faith, informed of such miracles, would believe in the Real Presence while they otherwise would not, perhaps to eternal loss - and so, even in this crisis in His Church, the loving and adorable Heart of Our Savior in Infinite Mercy did not deem fit to leave these millions without a miraculous proof of His Real Presence in the Eucharist.
-
Regarding the idea that Catholics are receiving grace at the NO:
I would argue that they are receiving graces WHILE at the NO or DESPITE attending the NO. Why is the assumption that they are receiving graces because they are at the NO or due to the NO? Couldn't we say those same things for those who are in other non-Catholic religions who receive the grace from God to leave those religions (including the schismatic Orthodox who have a "valid consecration") and convert to Catholicism? We don't and the Church doesn't say that those religions provided the grace do we?
Exactly what are these bishops saying? Are they saying that the NO provides these graces or that despite the NO, God can still call others to the True Faith? Up to now, I have gotten the impression that they are saying the former, not the latter.
The latter is what I always understood. That's why many pages ago I posted that I believe people can receive grace and be saved in spite of the danger of the NO. They are at a clear disadvantage since we need to receive grace from the Mass and the proper practice of the Faith. But if we believe that God gives the necessary grace for each person to be saved, yet not everyone is Catholic or has been to Latin Mass, then obviously He works outside those parameters as well. It would be unjust for Him not to. So each person receives enough grace throughout their lives or maybe all in one shot, who knows, to realize they need to turn to God, which would then lead them to the Faith and Baptism and so on and so forth. Of course many don't correspond but it doesn't mean God hasn't given them the chance. That's why it is so important for us to pray for hardened sinners and conversions so that God will pour down more and more graces upon them in the hopes that they will correspond eventually.
I imagine this is all as true in the NO and more so since at least subjectively, many believe they are practicing their Faith, and many are, to the best of their comprehension and ability. Only God knows at that point who is culpably ignorant and who isn't and to what degree.
It sounds like we could use some clarification on which way the Bishops tend. I am not sure what I would think if they believe the NO objectively gives grace. If it does, it is not nearly as much as people need, as is seen by the massive loss of Faith. I'd have to mull it over for a while for sure.
-
But it IS that simple - Quo Primum bound all Catholics - IN PERPETUITY.
The Pope has to be a Catholic too. He has to practice the Faith too! Only a "free radical" Pope would not conform and protect the Tridentine Mass.
What was it Pius IX said when they wanted to put St. Joseph in the Canon back in his day?
"I am only the Pope - what right have I to touch the Canon?"
You would do well to read The Great Sacrilege.
Quo Primum can't bind other Popes because liturgies are disciplinary, not matters of faith and morals touching the Deposit of Faith.
Furthermore, Quo Primum itself allows exceptions. And the Ambrosian rite was made an exception after Quo Primum.
We also know that Paul VI didn't even legally bind the Novus Ordo nor legally suppress the TLM. And Popes have introduced new rites from smaller churches coming back into union with Rome. The Syro Malabar and Syra Malankara are two distinct rites now, that go obviously back to a single rite that goes back to one of the four root rites in the Church.
Pius XII magisterially answers the rhetorical question posed by Pope Pius IX. Anything touching on the worship of God is subject to the Pope to recognize, establish and modify as he sees fit.
I have read many parts of the Great Sacrilege and it has many good points, but it's not infallible and some counterarguments such as those by Fr. Gregory Hesse RIP make a strong case.
But history and the declarations of Pius XII seem to have the weight of authority on their side.
-
If there is real and legitimate grace issuing forth from the Novus Ordo religion, what valid justification do these people for rejecting the conciliar sacraments and not joining the conciliar entity, as they in fact see it as being the True Church?
What one can see is that in both the SSPX and in the resistance so called, firm principles which over the years we have been conditioned to believe were being held and defended are being abandoned or they were never really there, and we have been taken in by an illusion.
Michael Davies used to say that Catholics always had recourse to "Immemorial Custom."
Another argument is the development of the liturgy as organic vs. the committee based changes. If the committee engaged in archealogism, and the Novus Ordo reflects genuinely the practices of the early Church, what was holy and real and legitimate grace flowing then, would flow now to those of good will.
If Ford were to suddenly start manufacturing "Model T" and "Model A" cars again, they would be genuine Ford cars and you could get from point a to point b just as a much slower pace, with less safety features with the odds of a breakdown far greater than if taking a more advanced car.
You are just as much in a Ford as you are as if you are in a classic Crown Victoria. But with the Crown Victoria, you go faster, safer and go with more confidence in your arrival.
-
Quo Primum can't bind other Popes because liturgies are disciplinary, not matters of faith and morals touching the Deposit of Faith.
Quo Primum is not only disciplinary. It speaks to the law of "Lex orandi, Lex credendi" and is therefore intimately involved in the very basis of the Faith which is contained in the Catholic Mass.
The fact that all popes forward felt that it was binding upon them up to John XXIII, and that, in praxis codifies that status.
I do not give much weight to Michael Davies as he was an indultist and compromised by that fact.
The Novus Ordo is not a work of the Catholic Church and a sacrilege, which was illicitly imposed, while the True Mass of the Catholic Church was illegally suppressed. It was created against the will of the Church, and thus against the will of Christ.
The Model T vs Cadillac meme is a false conciliar construct designed to obfuscate the Truth.
If one needs to arrive at the Heavenly Gate, you must pray at a Catholic Liturgy, of which the Novus Ordo ritual is not.
It is not Catholic.
-
Regarding the idea that Catholics are receiving grace at the NO:
I would argue that they are receiving graces WHILE at the NO or DESPITE attending the NO. Why is the assumption that they are receiving graces because they are at the NO or due to the NO? Couldn't we say those same things for those who are in other non-Catholic religions who receive the grace from God to leave those religions (including the schismatic Orthodox who have a "valid consecration") and convert to Catholicism? We don't and the Church doesn't say that those religions provided the grace do we?
Exactly what are these bishops saying? Are they saying that the NO provides these graces or that despite the NO, God can still call others to the True Faith? Up to now, I have gotten the impression that they are saying the former, not the latter.
The latter is what I always understood. That's why many pages ago I posted that I believe people can receive grace and be saved in spite of the danger of the NO. They are at a clear disadvantage since we need to receive grace from the Mass and the proper practice of the Faith. But if we believe that God gives the necessary grace for each person to be saved, yet not everyone is Catholic or has been to Latin Mass, then obviously He works outside those parameters as well. It would be unjust for Him not to. So each person receives enough grace throughout their lives or maybe all in one shot, who knows, to realize they need to turn to God, which would then lead them to the Faith and Baptism and so on and so forth. Of course many don't correspond but it doesn't mean God hasn't given them the chance. That's why it is so important for us to pray for hardened sinners and conversions so that God will pour down more and more graces upon them in the hopes that they will correspond eventually.
I imagine this is all as true in the NO and more so since at least subjectively, many believe they are practicing their Faith, and many are, to the best of their comprehension and ability. Only God knows at that point who is culpably ignorant and who isn't and to what degree.
It sounds like we could use some clarification on which way the Bishops tend. I am not sure what I would think if they believe the NO objectively gives grace. If it does, it is not nearly as much as people need, as is seen by the massive loss of Faith. I'd have to mull it over for a while for sure.
Wallflower, the problem is that to assert that the NO has real miracles infers that God gives grace directly through the NO, not in spite of it. It is this line of thinking along with other quotes in the past that lead me to believe that the bishops believe that grace can come from the NO given it "does not absolutely exclude the old religion".
-
Quo Primum can't bind other Popes because liturgies are disciplinary, not matters of faith and morals touching the Deposit of Faith.
Quo Primum is not only disciplinary. It speaks to the law of "Lex orandi, Lex credendi" and is therefore intimately involved in the very basis of the Faith which is contained in the Catholic Mass.
The fact that all popes forward felt that it was binding upon them up to John XXIII, and that, in praxis codifies that status.
I do not give much weight to Michael Davies as he was an indultist and compromised by that fact.
The Novus Ordo is not a work of the Catholic Church and a sacrilege, which was illicitly imposed, while the True Mass of the Catholic Church was illegally suppressed. It was created against the will of the Church, and thus against the will of Christ.
The Model T vs Cadillac meme is a false conciliar construct designed to obfuscate the Truth.
If one needs to arrive at the Heavenly Gate, you must pray at a Catholic Liturgy, of which the Novus Ordo ritual is not.
It is not Catholic.
That reply is bit incoherent. Quo Primum states that the exceptions to Pro Quimum include Decrees of the Holy See.
Most of the Popes tinkered with the Missal of Pius V in small ways mostly rubrical and correcting errors of printers, but also adding feasts etc., so, once again, the Holy See had the power to touch on the worship practice of the Church. I would say most of the Popes found the Pius V mass quite satisfactory and beneficial more than any fear of Quo Primum.
Your dislike of Michael Davies is irrelevant. His appeal to Immemorial Custom is rooted in Quo Primum. To dismiss what he says because he's "Michael Davies" is just well poisoning.
The car comparison is apt. It's not a false conciliar construct. It clarifies the reality.
To deny it, is by proxy to call Pius XII a liar and an anti-Pope. As well as other Popes who have brought into the Church the later Uniates and granted them the use of their missals with papal modifications.
Dramatic and Poetic warnings aside, the doctrinal truth is against your position. Actually a person can get to Heaven despite the liturgy they go to. They need to be Baptized validly and free of mortal sin. That's it. That's Catholicism.
It comes down to this. Do you think Pope Pius XII is a heretic for declaring that the Sovereign Pontiff alone has the authority to recognize modify or introduce new rites or add and subtract those things as he sees fit?
-
Here is Quo Primum - where does it say exceptions include decrees of the Holy See? I am talking about other than the Dominican rite, and some few dioceses whose rite of Mass was 200 years old or more. (And now those may not even exist.) The vast majority of Roman, Western rite Catholics used, attended, offered the Tridentine Latin Mass according to Pius V. The Mass "ends" with the Last Gospel. At that point, popes are free to add or remove prayers - the way the Hail Holy Queen, St. Michael prayer, or 3 Hail Marys were added.
APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION
QUO PRIMUM
[Note: The following is an English translation of the Apostolic Constitution “Quo Primum” promulgated in 1570 by Pope St. Pius V ordering the use of the Tridentine Mass for all future time. It appeared in Latin in every official Altar Missal from 1570 until the changes of Vatican II, then it was conveniently dropped.]
Pope St. Pius V - July 14, 1570
From the very first, upon Our elevation to the chief Apostleship, We gladly turned our mind and energies and directed all our thoughts to those matters which concerned the preservation of a pure liturgy, and We strove with God's help, by every means in our power, to accomplish this purpose. For, besides other decrees of the sacred Council of Trent, there were stipulations for Us to revise and re-edit the sacred books: the Catechism, the Missal and the Breviary. With the Catechism published for the instruction of the faithful, by God's help, and the Breviary thoroughly revised for the worthy praise of God, in order that the Missal and Breviary may be in perfect harmony, as fitting and proper - for it is most becoming that there be in the Church only one appropriate manner of reciting the Psalms and only one rite for the celebration of Mass - We deemed it necessary to give our immediate attention to what still remained to be done, viz, the re-editing of the Missal as soon as possible.
Hence, We decided to entrust this work to learned men of our selection. They very carefully collated all their work with the ancient codices in Our Vatican Library and with reliable, preserved or amended codices from elsewhere. Besides this, these men consulted the works of ancient and approved authors concerning the same sacred rites; and thus they have restored the Missal itself to the original form and rite of the holy Fathers. When this work has been gone over numerous times and further amended, after serious study and reflection, We commanded that the finished product be printed and published as soon as possible, so that all might enjoy the fruits of this labor; and thus, priests would know which prayers to use and which rites and ceremonies they were required to observe from now on in the celebration of Masses.
Let all everywhere adopt and observe what has been handed down by the Holy Roman Church, the Mother and Teacher of the other churches, and let Masses not be sung or read according to any other formula than that of this Missal published by Us. This ordinance applies henceforth, now, and forever, throughout all the provinces of the Christian world, to all patriarchs, cathedral churches, collegiate and parish churches, be they secular or religious, both of men and of women - even of military orders - and of churches or chapels without a specific congregation in which conventual Masses are sung aloud in choir or read privately in accord with the rites and customs of the Roman Church. This Missal is to be used by all churches, even by those which in their authorization are made exempt, whether by Apostolic indult, custom, or privilege, or even if by oath or official confirmation of the Holy See, or have their rights and faculties guaranteed to them by any other manner whatsoever.
This new rite alone is to be used unless approval of the practice of saying Mass differently was given at the very time of the institution and confirmation of the church by Apostolic See at least 200 years ago, or unless there has prevailed a custom of a similar kind which has been continuously followed for a period of not less than 200 years, in which most cases We in no wise rescind their above-mentioned prerogative or custom. However, if this Missal, which we have seen fit to publish, be more agreeable to these latter, We grant them permission to celebrate Mass according to its rite, provided they have the consent of their bishop or prelate or of their whole Chapter, everything else to the contrary notwithstanding.
All other of the churches referred to above, however, are hereby denied the use of other missals, which are to be discontinued entirely and absolutely; whereas, by this present Constitution, which will be valid henceforth, now, and forever, We order and enjoin that nothing must be added to Our recently published Missal, nothing omitted from it, nor anything whatsoever be changed within it under the penalty of Our displeasure.
We specifically command each and every patriarch, administrator, and all other persons or whatever ecclesiastical dignity they may be, be they even cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, or possessed of any other rank or pre-eminence, and We order them in virtue of holy obedience to chant or to read the Mass according to the rite and manner and norm herewith laid down by Us and, hereafter, to discontinue and completely discard all other rubrics and rites of other missals, however ancient, which they have customarily followed; and they must not in celebrating Mass presume to introduce any ceremonies or recite any prayers other than those contained in this Missal.
Furthermore, by these presents [this law], in virtue of Our Apostolic authority, We grant and concede in perpetuity that, for the chanting or reading of the Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment, or censure, and may freely and lawfully be used. Nor are superiors, administrators, canons, chaplains, and other secular priests, or religious, of whatever title designated, obliged to celebrate the Mass otherwise than as enjoined by Us. We likewise declare and ordain that no one whosoever is forced or coerced to alter this Missal, and that this present docuмent cannot be revoked or modified, but remain always valid and retain its full force notwithstanding the previous constitutions and decrees of the Holy See, as well as any general or special constitutions or edicts of provincial or synodal councils, and notwithstanding the practice and custom of the aforesaid churches, established by long and immemorial prescription - except, however, if more than two hundred years' standing.
It is Our will, therefore, and by the same authority, We decree that, after We publish this constitution and the edition of the Missal, the priests of the Roman Curia are, after thirty days, obliged to chant or read the Mass according to it; all others south of the Alps, after three months; and those beyond the Alps either within six months or whenever the Missal is available for sale. Wherefore, in order that the Missal be preserved incorrupt throughout the whole world and kept free of flaws and errors, the penalty for nonobservance for printers, whether mediately or immediately subject to Our dominion, and that of the Holy Roman Church, will be the forfeiting of their books and a fine of one hundred gold ducats, payable ipso facto to the Apostolic Treasury. Further, as for those located in other parts of the world, the penalty is excommunication latae sententiae, and such other penalties as may in Our judgment be imposed; and We decree by this law that they must not dare or presume either to print or to publish or to sell, or in any way to accept books of this nature without Our approval and consent, or without the express consent of the Apostolic Commissaries of those places, who will be appointed by Us. Said printer must receive a standard Missal and agree faithfully with it and in no wise vary from the Roman Missal of the large type (secundum magnum impressionem).
Accordingly, since it would be difficult for this present pronouncement to be sent to all parts of the Christian world and simultaneously come to light everywhere, We direct that it be, as usual, posted and published at the doors of the Basilica of the Prince of the Apostles, also at the Apostolic Chancery, and on the street at Campo Flora; furthermore, We direct that printed copies of this same edict signed by a notary public and made official by an ecclesiastical dignitary possess the same indubitable validity everywhere and in every nation, as if Our manuscript were shown there. Therefore, no one whosoever is permitted to alter this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, precept, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition. Should any person venture to do so, let him know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.
Given at St. Peter's in the year of the Lord's Incarnation, 1570, on the 14th of July of the Fifth year of Our Pontificate.
-
The Novus Ordo is not a work of the Catholic Church.
It is always illicit and a sacrilege, and it is not Catholic.
I do not think that there is any incoherence in these statements of fact.
Archaism was condemned by Pius XII.
Any pope who made small disciplinary changes included an addendum to Quo Primum in their Missal which explained the changes which they made and why.
The Council of Trent solemnly condemned the changing of the received and approved rites of the Church or the changing of them into new ones.
Altering and changing the sacraments is simply not allowed.
CANON XIII.-If any one saith, that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, wont to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments, may be contemned, or without sin be omitted at pleasure by the ministers, or be changed, by every pastor whomsoever, of the churches, into other new ones; let him be anathema.
It comes down to this. Do you think Pope Pius XII is a heretic for declaring that the Sovereign Pontiff alone has the authority to recognize modify or introduce new rites or add and subtract those things as he sees fit?
If you think that by this papal statement you can conclude that Paul VI had the ability to fabricate an un-Catholic ritual and impose it on the Church. You are entirely wrong. He had the power to do this, but not the right nor the authority in accordance with the will and the mind of the Church. The Church has never and could never do such a thing.
-
Here is Quo Primum - where does it say exceptions include decrees of the Holy See?
First, you've got a bogus translation posted. You've put up the infamous one that states the Missal is a "new rite."
And the papal bull says "notwithstanding" among other things, the other churches, immemorial customs over 200 years as well as decrees of the Holy See, as well as
special constitutions, synodal councils. etc.
Quo Primum also forbids rubrical changes and rubrical changes occurred frequently in the post Quo Primum period, notably concerning Incensing.
Are you going to address Pius XII in Mediator Dei? Or not?
"the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification."
-
The Novus Ordo is not a work of the Catholic Church.
It is always illicit and a sacrilege, and it is not Catholic.
I do not think that there is any incoherence in these statements of fact.
That's a personal opinion and likely erroneous unless supported by objectively true arguments.
Archaism was condemned by Pius XII.
He was very specific about it, including the attempt at restoring ancient ceremonies without the permission of the Pontiff.
With regard to vernacular languages Pius XII states that the Holy See is empowered to grant this permission.
He also states that the ancient liturgies are worthy of all veneration, but not because they antiquities. The suitability has to be relevant to the spiritual benefit of the people.
Any pope who made small disciplinary changes included an addendum to Quo Primum in their Missal which explained the changes which they made and why.
It's irrelevant whether they explained it or not. The Popes have the power to make modifications to the Liturgy.
The Council of Trent solemnly condemned the changing of the received and approved rites of the Church or the changing of them into new ones.
Altering and changing the sacraments is simply not allowed.
CANON XIII.-If any one saith, that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, wont to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments, may be contemned, or without sin be omitted at pleasure by the ministers, or be changed, by every pastor whomsoever, of the churches, into other new ones; let him be anathema.
Rites are received and approved by the Popes. No Pope has condemned a rite of the Church. This is addressing Protestantism mainly. People who were innovating wildly, changing rituals omitting at their personal whims on their own authority etc.
And to take the interpretation you've got. Quo Primum falls under this condemnation.
It comes down to this. Do you think Pope Pius XII is a heretic for declaring that the Sovereign Pontiff alone has the authority to recognize modify or introduce new rites or add and subtract those things as he sees fit?
If you think that by this papal statement you can conclude that Paul VI had the ability to fabricate an un-Catholic ritual and impose it on the Church. You are entirely wrong. He had the power to do this, but not the right nor the authority in accordance with the will and the mind of the Church. The Church has never and could never do such a thing.
In answer to my question we are clear. Pope Pius XII gives the proper understanding of Quo Primum. It doesn't bind Popes in perpetuity.
If he(the Pope) had the power as you say, then he had the ability and if he had the power and ability he did have the authority and that means he had the right as Pope. The fact is, that it wasn't prudent. The Pope isn't guaranteed wisdom, But most of the innovations, that have occurred were not in the initial missal.
The Pope has the power to bind and loose. Things were loose and Pius V tightened up on the reigns. Paul Vi foolishly loosened up on them. Had Paul VI been a strong Pope, he might have substituted some rubrics or added prayers that put up more defenses against Progressivism. If he'd done that, no one would even know what Pro Quimum is and there wouldn't be a crisis in the Church at least, one that has the form of what we've got.
I recently had a back and forth with an Atheist and I kept having to tell him that red-hot rhetoric and assertions are not valid arguments. The fact is, the Novus Ordo is a mess, but it's also a mass that can be efficacious if done well by a good, orthodox priest. That rarely happens and I think it should be scrapped. However, all it is, setting the constant abuses aside, is a thin, broad and unprotected Catholicism. The TLM grew and changed over time, constantly reinforcing belief in order to combat heresy. That's why the Creed went from the Apostle's Creed to the Nicene Constantinople Creed. And after this crisis, there may be a new Creed that rules out explicitly the major errors of the day like universalism or the denial of miracles or the literalness of Genesis.
-
Another point to be made concerning the original subject of the discussion. Even though Judaism at the time of Christ was corrupt and opposed to Jesus. Caiaphas was still given the gift of Prophecy. God was still operating through His corrupt and unbelieving clergy.
-
That Quo Primum translation is the real deal, Gerard. You don't seem to support the traditional Faith, as in, whose side are you on?
-
And after this crisis, there may be a new Creed that rules out explicitly the major errors of the day like universalism or the denial of miracles or the literalness of Genesis.
Forgive me if I'm not getting your drift, but are you saying, Gerard from FE, that you think that "the literalness of Genesis" is a "major error of the day?"
Or are you saying that the denial of the literalness of Genesis is an error?
.
-
Regarding the idea that Catholics are receiving grace at the NO:
I would argue that they are receiving graces WHILE at the NO or DESPITE attending the NO. Why is the assumption that they are receiving graces because they are at the NO or due to the NO? Couldn't we say those same things for those who are in other non-Catholic religions who receive the grace from God to leave those religions (including the schismatic Orthodox who have a "valid consecration") and convert to Catholicism? We don't and the Church doesn't say that those religions provided the grace do we?
Exactly what are these bishops saying? Are they saying that the NO provides these graces or that despite the NO, God can still call others to the True Faith? Up to now, I have gotten the impression that they are saying the former, not the latter.
Well, I agree with +W that the NOM is an abomination, and is so for the reasons he gives in his second paragraph and scattered throughout his EC, but after that, it's as though he is striving to look for reasons to give the NO some sort of forgiveness for being something that, *by design* is intrinsically evil. Am I reading that right?
He rightly states:"Doctrinally, the NOM is ambiguous, poised between the religion of God and the Conciliar religion of man." But aren't we taught in the Book of the Apocalypse that God hates precisely this type of ambiguous religion? - "But because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold, nor hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth." Apoc. 3:16
I find it all but impossible to believe that people can convert because of the NO or it's "mass" because of the obvious reasons we are all aware of, but then +W blurs and confuses the very reason the NOM was perpetrated - which was to help people lose their faith, and for those people to help other people lose their faith and so on, this is what it was designed to do - and by design, this is what it has done, still does and always will do.
I cannot say how those who've been NOers converted to the true faith, but it would seem they got sick of the bs in one way or another, were spiritually starved, knew they needed spiritual nourishment and looked for answers, for truth, looked for all that they were not getting when they were maintaining their participation at the sacrifice of Cain.
I'm in way over my head at this point but the true faith teaches us that those who remain NO, do so precisely because they would not accept the graces to leave, but for those who've left it, they are ones who've accepted the graces to leave, to be drawn away from the new faith and towards the true faith.
I do not entirely reject that the bleeding host is a miracle, but I think that if the voice of God could be heard from that bleeding host, it would, on account of the NOM alone, bemoan a thunderous sigh of agony so great, that it would echo throughout creation and shake the very foundations of the entire universe.
-
If there is real and legitimate grace issuing forth from the Novus Ordo religion, what valid justification do these people for rejecting the conciliar sacraments and not joining the conciliar entity, as they in fact see it as being the True Church?
What one can see is that in both the SSPX and in the resistance so called, firm principles which over the years we have been conditioned to believe were being held and defended are being abandoned or they were never really there, and we have been taken in by an illusion.
Michael Davies used to say that Catholics always had recourse to "Immemorial Custom."
Another argument is the development of the liturgy as organic vs. the committee based changes. If the committee engaged in archealogism, and the Novus Ordo reflects genuinely the practices of the early Church, what was holy and real and legitimate grace flowing then, would flow now to those of good will.
If Ford were to suddenly start manufacturing "Model T" and "Model A" cars again, they would be genuine Ford cars and you could get from point a to point b just as a much slower pace, with less safety features with the odds of a breakdown far greater than if taking a more advanced car.
You are just as much in a Ford as you are as if you are in a classic Crown Victoria. But with the Crown Victoria, you go faster, safer and go with more confidence in your arrival.
ABSOLUTELY! That is our greater claim as baptized Catholics. That is why the Ambrosian Rite was restorored after having been "unjustly suppressed". Not only we have Trent and Quo primum to back this up but Msgr. Gamber and Our lady of Fatima.
"Liturgy and faith are interdependent. This is why a new rite was created, a rite that in many ways reflects the bias of the new (modernists) theology. The traditional liturgy simply could not be allowed to exist in its established form because it was permeated with the truths of the traditional faith and the ancient forms of piety. For this reason alone, much was abolished and new rites, prayers and hymns [new saints] were introduced, as were the new readings from Scripture, which conveniently left out those passages that did not square with the teachings of modern theology--for example, references to a God who judges and punishes." (p. 100)
“I am worried by the Blessed Virgin’s messages to Lucy of Fatima. This persistence of Mary about the dangers which menace the Church is a Divine warning against the ѕυιcιdє of altering the Faith, in Her liturgy, Her theology and Her soul…I hear all around me innovators who wish to dismantle the Sacred Chapel, destroy the universal flame of the true Faith of the Church, reject Her ornaments and make Her feel remorse for Her historical past.”
Until the "resistance" understand this, they will not defend anything That is why the SSPX has shamelessly failed.
-
I recently had a back and forth with an Atheist and I kept having to tell him that red-hot rhetoric and assertions are not valid arguments. The fact is, the Novus Ordo is a mess, but it's also a mass that can be efficacious if done well by a good, orthodox priest. That rarely happens and I think it should be scrapped. However, all it is, setting the constant abuses aside, is a thin, broad and unprotected Catholicism. The TLM grew and changed over time, constantly reinforcing belief in order to combat heresy. That's why the Creed went from the Apostle's Creed to the Nicene Constantinople Creed. And after this crisis, there may be a new Creed that rules out explicitly the major errors of the day like universalism or the denial of miracles or the literalness of Genesis.
Well said. I think, though, that the TLM hadn't really changed much for at least 800 years, prior to the 1962 missal. According to Msgr. Gamber (if I recall correctly), even Pope Pius V changed very little.
I would also add that Pope Paul Vl had the idea (or he was convinced by Bugnini) that it would benefit the Catholic faithful if they could understand everything in the Mass, in the vernacular. I think that Paul Vl sincerely believed this. He also believed that it would be helpful to "Calvinize" the Mass, in order to be appealing to Protestants. The result was a dull, boring, and dumbed-down Mass, a skeleton of its former self. God could have stopped this from happening, but He didn't.
What's interesting is that many NOM parishes are now adding at least some Latin to their NOM. They realize that the Mass is deficient, and they are trying to add a bit of mystery to it, IMO. There's absolutely no mystery in the NOM, and no room for contemplation, but that's intrinsic in its design. Everything is meant to be completely understood in a verbal sense.
Having attended the NOM until quite recently, I saw that there are devout souls who attend it. Not many, but at least a few. I don't think that God would completely abandon the majority of Catholics (who attend the NOM). I think that the Eucharistic miracles are strong evidence of this. Have there been any accounts of Eucharistic miracles in the TLM in the last 40 years or so, does anyone know?
-
And after this crisis, there may be a new Creed that rules out explicitly the major errors of the day like universalism or the denial of miracles or the literalness of Genesis.
Forgive me if I'm not getting your drift, but are you saying, Gerard from FE, that you think that "the literalness of Genesis" is a "major error of the day?"
Or are you saying that the denial of the literalness of Genesis is an error?
.
Sorry about that. I meant denial of the literal understanding of Genesis is a big error nowadays.
-
That Quo Primum translation is the real deal, Gerard. You don't seem to support the traditional Faith, as in, whose side are you on?
I don't think so, a few years back there was a squabble with the translations of Quo Primum concerning the part where it says "this new rite"
People were trying to pass off the idea that Paul VI did nothing different than Pius V and I seem to remember Mario Derksen went digging and found out the translations had been altered.
I don't have accèss to the Latin original.
-
Well said. I think, though, that the TLM hadn't really changed much for at least 800 years, prior to the 1962 missal. According to Msgr. Gamber (if I recall correctly), even Pope Pius V changed very little.
I would also add that Pope Paul Vl had the idea (or he was convinced by Bugnini) that it would benefit the Catholic faithful if they could understand everything in the Mass, in the vernacular. I think that Paul Vl sincerely believed this. He also believed that it would be helpful to "Calvinize" the Mass, in order to be appealing to Protestants. The result was a dull, boring, and dumbed-down Mass, a skeleton of its former self. God could have stopped this from happening, but He didn't.
What's interesting is that many NOM parishes are now adding at least some Latin to their NOM. They realize that the Mass is deficient, and they are trying to add a bit of mystery to it, IMO. There's absolutely no mystery in the NOM, and no room for contemplation, but that's intrinsic in its design. Everything is meant to be completely understood in a verbal sense.
Having attended the NOM until quite recently, I saw that there are devout souls who attend it. Not many, but at least a few. I don't think that God would completely abandon the majority of Catholics (who attend the NOM). I think that the Eucharistic miracles are strong evidence of this. Have there been any accounts of Eucharistic miracles in the TLM in the last 40 years or so, does anyone know?
I think you are correct. I'm just pointing out that people tend to exaggerate the disciplinary power of Pius V beyond what he intended and bind other Popes. But later Popes made changes anyway and Pius V according to that exaggerated reading didn't leave any room for any changes. Small or big, it's the same: change, it's just the degree that is different
I think a bigger problem is what Pope Benedict XVI did in trying to claim they are two forms of the same rite. I'd want to see that argued out a bit. I don't know if BXVI tried to base that on some kernel of common language but I think the Novus Ordo is de facto a new rite, which Popes have the power to introduce. Even weak ones that will hopefully dwindle away.
I've only heard of a few miracles associated with Archbishop LeFebvre and Charles Coulombe has mentioned a few different things happening at trad chapels that he was extremely skeptical about. I honestly haven't heard of any euchartistic miracles, but maybe trads don't need them. The belief in the real presence is pretty strong in trad chapels. Miracles tend to strengthen flagging faith.
-
I think you are correct. I'm just pointing out that people tend to exaggerate the disciplinary power of Pius V beyond what he intended and bind other Popes. But later Popes made changes anyway and Pius V according to that exaggerated reading didn't leave any room for any changes. Small or big, it's the same: change, it's just the degree that is different
I think a bigger problem is what Pope Benedict XVI did in trying to claim they are two forms of the same rite. I'd want to see that argued out a bit. I don't know if BXVI tried to base that on some kernel of common language but I think the Novus Ordo is de facto a new rite, which Popes have the power to introduce. Even weak ones that will hopefully dwindle away.
I've only heard of a few miracles associated with Archbishop LeFebvre and Charles Coulombe has mentioned a few different things happening at trad chapels that he was extremely skeptical about. I honestly haven't heard of any euchartistic miracles, but maybe trads don't need them. The belief in the real presence is pretty strong in trad chapels. Miracles tend to strengthen flagging faith.
I think you do make a good case about people tending to exaggerate the disciplinary power of Pope Pius V beyond what he intended, and changes, even though small, have been made since he was Pope, which was a long time ago. I think that Archbishop Lefebvre didn't object to the Missal of John XXlll, in that the changes weren't a detriment to the faith.
It would be good to see a debate about Pope Benedict claiming that the two forms are the same rite. The NOM does seem to be a different rite, even though some of the language is the same. And the Popes do seem to have the authority to do this (impose a different rite), as imprudent and disastrous though it has been.
Yes, maybe trads don't need Eucharistic miracles, since they already believe in the Real Presence. I hadn't though of that.
-
I don't think the issue is whether a pope can impose a different Catholic rite (ie. accidental changes). The issue is whether a pope can impose a rite which is not Catholic (ie. substantial changes).
-
I don't think the issue is whether a pope can impose a different Catholic rite (ie. accidental changes). The issue is whether a pope can impose a rite which is not Catholic (ie. substantial changes).
The problem is not the Catholiciity of the Novus Ordo. If there were no heresy in the world, and everyone were orthodox in their beliefs there would be no problem at all. Of course if that were the case, the TLM would be vastly different today as well.
The real problem is the safeguards against prominent heresies have been muted or removed from the Novus Ordo. Very little of the problem of the Novus Ordo as promulgated is what the Novus Ordo contains, the problem is what it is missing in terms of defenses for the faith. Most of the heresies and progressivism in the Novus Ordo Church are taught outside of the Mass (not counting bad sermons) and people bring those wrong ideas with them to the Mass. Similarly, people in the early implementation of the Novus Ordo didn't know what was missing because they brought their traditional understanding of the faith to the Novus Ordo and unconsciously filled in the gaps.
Theoretically, a Pope could build on the frame of the Novus Ordo and if he had a mind to he could make it the most politically incorrect and totally Catholic, in your face liturgy imaginable.
If I had a chance to make a suggestion, I would start the Novus Ordo off with the Preface to the Athanasian Creed. Could you imagine the uproar if Pope Benedict had done that along with the translations? The conciliar Church would have collapsed overnight. Which could possibly be a good thing.
-
Gerard from FE,
Your arguing technical points from encyclicals and applying the circuмstances surrounding declarations does not accomplish what you believe that it does.
The statements of Pius XII are applicable to the Catholic liturgy of the Catholic Church and within the two thousand year Tradition of the Church.
As an aside he was trying to re-harness the genie that he had let out of the bottle earlier with his ill conceived changes which was then beating at his door again demanding more modernization.
Back on topic, the Novus Ordo is not a work of the Catholic Church, it is not OF the Catholic Church, it is alien and foreign to the Tradition of the Church, and there fore it is not what Pius nor anyone else has in mind when discussing the powers of a pontiff to regulate liturgy.
The Catholic Church does not create liturgies which have been so de-Catholigized as to make them useful to heretics who are outside of the Church and are Christ's enemies, and therefore useless as a true liturgy of the Catholic Church, and no pope or council can change that reality.
As to the council of Trent or the solemn condemnations of Pius VI in Auctorum Fidei, against the vernacular and other features of that Novus Ordo, when the Church declares a solemn truth, while it may be in response to some current controversy, it is nevertheless, a Truth which is at once universal and eternal and is to be held and applied as such forever.
And yes, the Catholicity of a rite is an issue , it is THE issue which needs to be acknowledged before one begins to discuss whether or not Catholic legislation applies to it and whether or not it could ever be considered legitimate in any way.
It is abundantly clear that Pius V intended to bind his successors, A Pope binds his successors in all but positive law and discipline. A pope can indeed change rubrics, feasts, and other disciplinary elements of the liturgy, but never the substance of the Mass because that part of the Mass is the expression of the Catholic Faith of the Catholic Church and not subject to alteration. Pius V's successors only changed these changeable elements and otherwise held to Quo Primum and thus they explained that they were changing what they had and why. This was always published after and in accordance with Quo Primum.
In conclusion, The Novus Ordo is not a part of the Catholic Church. You might have a more sympathetic ear with Bishop's Williamson and Faure who like you, have views which tend to be finding a means of legitimizing this non-Catholic ritual and accepting it as a slightly deficient Catholic liturgy. Sadly they are influencing the unknowing and weak minded towards this position.
But then the SSPX has never been consistently definitve on this matter.
-
Thank you, J. Paul.
:pray:
-
I'm not arguing technical points, I'm talking about binding details.
Pius XII's motivations were pure and he obviously knew that something was wrong with the 50's Catholicism and the failure of the Church to adequately deal with the problems of progressivism highlighted at the beginning of the Century.
The Novus Ordo is just as much work of the Catholic Church as any other Liturgy, In fact, even moreso because it was introduced by a Pope. It's just a weak liturgy for the faithful's needs. Bugnini and the Consilium of course had eirenic motives as did Paul VI, but that's simple prudential error, not heresy.
Please stop assuming you have the authority to put your own limits on the papal privileges. They are spelled out and some appeal to "THE CATHOLIC CHURCH" is about as valid as "SCIENCE SAYS…"
Litrugies develop organically by individuals and small groups adopting and discarding rituals and traditions all from the essentials given by our Lord to the Apostles.
Obviously many people were horrified by the "stripping" but better described as streamlining that Pius V did. Hence the Ambrosian rite was fought for and restored.
The "Catholic Church" as you vaguely describe it didn't give us the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. One patriarch adjusted the liturgies of the Antiochian rites.
Throughout Church history, God has blessed several liturgies and they've served people well and he has let liturgies perish.
The Novus Ordo is really only unique because of its sweeping influence due to easy communications.
The Pope has the authority to introduce new rites. That's a fact. There is no guarantee that they will be effective or the best rites.
You are simply dancing around trying to find nuances that both allow for history and sustain your unsustainable position on Quo Primum.
The fact that the Liturgy changed very little in the last 500 years simply testifies to it's effectiveness. It is not irreformable.
Pro Quimum was a disciplinary matter in reaction to the Protestant Revolution. It was not a Divine Illumination and the Missal did not descend from Heaven. The fact is, the TLM is still effective in protecting Catholics from Protestant ideas. And if Paul VI's naiveté' he thought those protections were preventing Protestants from entering the Church. As if the Church is a castle, he lowered the drawbridge and instead of the protestants coming in, the Catholics started leaving.
I'm convinced at this point, that the Novus Ordo is a symptom of a larger pre-conciliar problem, that problem has made the Novus Ordo into a larger problem of its own.
I remember at the time of the election of John Paul I and II, the attrition from the Church was fairly small. Churches were filled on Sundays to standing room only. A liturgical crisis was a niche problem. LeFebvre of course saw it along with a few others, but geo-political concerns were the dominant issues for Catholics in the Church worldwide. It was the constant, small changes in the liturgy that eventually changed it dramatically and caused people to lose faith. Communion in the hand was probably more damaging by itself than the entire Novus Ordo liturgy. Folksy music, casual dress, the women no longer being required to veil. that destroyed the solemnity of the Mass. Prior to all of that, people in general were quiet and reverent and priests were careful during the initial years of the Novus Ordo. The '"sign of peace" was a bowing of each side of the Church to the opposite side much as we bow towards the priest when he processes in.
I'm sure if you saw liturgies in some of the more obscure churches in the Catholic Church, you would view their rites as alien and unCatholic as well as liturgies prior to Quo Primum. Some have faded and some are inappropriate for today's needs, but they are completely Catholic.
-
You are arguing from a novus ordo perspective. This was all presented 20 years ago and held no more water then than it does now.
The Novus Ordo is not a work of the Catholic Church and its its promulgation was not proposed to be as such. Paul the sixth and Benedict XIV both admitted that it is a fabrication.
Do you realize that you are on a Traditional Catholic website?
Thr Novus Ordo is not Catholic, It was not intended to be, if it was , it could not be being use by non-Catholic Protestants who are outside of the Church.
The imposition of the Novus Ordo caused a massive flight of souls from the Church.
You are skirting very closely to the popalatry practiced by the conciliar entity.
A pope is bound in all by his successors save positive law and discipline, and he is also bound by Tradition. That is the long and the short of it.
A pope as with anyone must follow what the Church does, and what it has always done. Innovation and novelty have always been condemned by the Church.
You seem fixated on the powers granted to the pope as being broad and almost unlimited. It is not that way, when it comes to doctrine, Faith, Morals, and the essentials of Holy Mass. In those matters he is bound to follow the solemn Magisterium, Tradition, and the pronouncements of his predecessors.
You only acknowledge those binding point which favor the position favoring the Novus ordo and conciliarism and ignore those which refute them.
When you first began to argue against Quo Primum and defend the sacriledge of the Novus Ordo, I should have known that you are a conciliarist.
Your further argumentation has confirmed that.
-
You are arguing from a novus ordo perspective.
Nope. I'm not. I'm arguing from the Catholic perspective, utilizing faith and reason. You are arguing from a tautological perspective.
This was all presented 20 years ago and held no more water then than it does now.
To you perhaps. But the arguments based on history, the docuмents and the consistency of the magisterium shows you to be wrong.
The Novus Ordo is not a work of the Catholic Church and its its promulgation was not proposed to be as such. Paul the sixth and Benedict XIV both admitted that it is a fabrication.
You are simply sloganeering that's it's not a work of the Catholic Church. I'm sure you can't actually explain what exactly constitutes a "work" of the Catholic Church and how to distinguish it from what is not.
I'm not an advocate for the Novus Ordo, far from it. But fabrication or not, the Pope has the power to introduce new rites. Period. "New" implies fabrication.
Do you realize that you are on a Traditional Catholic website?
Everything I've argued is based on traditional Catholic understanding. Sloganeering about "abominations' and "unCatholic" is just rhetoric.
Thr Novus Ordo is not Catholic,
Slogan. It's not Catholic because you need to think it's not Catholic.
It was not intended to be, if it was , it could not be being use by non-Catholic Protestants who are outside of the Church.
Really? Then I guess the Eastern rites are not Catholic either and since the Anglicans used essentially the same rite now as the TLM, the TLM must not be Catholic either. Or the Old Catholics for that matter?
Do you know or pay any attention to the history of the Catholic Church?
The imposition of the Novus Ordo caused a massive flight of souls from the Church.
Punishment from God. They obviously did not want to fight for the TLM.
You are skirting very closely to the popalatry practiced by the conciliar entity.
No I'm not. I'm probably the person that fights more fights against Neo-Ultramontanism than anyone in the English speaking world.
But I'm not going to exaggerate my position and depart from the truth by denying the Church's teaching on what the Pope can and can't do.
A pope is bound in all by his successors save positive law and discipline, and he is also bound by Tradition. That is the long and the short of it.
Take it up with Pius XII. All things touching the worship of God, the Pope enjoys the power to altar or introduce new rites or rituals.
A pope as with anyone must follow what the Church does, and what it has always done. Innovation and novelty have always been condemned by the Church.
No they haven't. Innovation and novelty are either beneficial or harmful. Recent Popes warned about the harmful kind. Pope Gelasius introduced novelties to fight heresies that were going on for one example. He required communion under both species.
You seem fixated on the powers granted to the pope as being broad and almost unlimited.
Nope. Not at all. He has supreme governing power, he can be resisted in numerous circuмstances but he has the power all the same. I don't resist the Novus Ordo because the Pope didn't have the right or the power to promulgate it, I resist it because it's a weak liturgy that can weaken my faith. So i have the right to resist it. If he promulgates a liturgy that is stronger than the TLM, I don't have any right to resist him.
It is not that way, when it comes to doctrine, Faith, Morals, and the essentials of Holy Mass. In those matters he is bound to follow the solemn Magisterium, Tradition, and the pronouncements of his predecessors.
Depending on the level of authority invoked. What one Pope can call "rash" and "impious" another can allow. No Pope can deny the Assumption of the BVM or add a new sacrament or loosen one of the ten commandments. But you'll find that the Novus Ordo does fulfill the essentials in a weak way for what constitutes the Mass.
You only acknowledge those binding point which favor the position favoring the Novus ordo and conciliarism and ignore those which refute them.
No. I pointed out that Michael Davies said all Catholics have the right to rebel against the Novus Ordo and demand the TLM due to Immemorial Custom. But you trashed Micheael Davies because he's Michael Davies and he can't possibly be correct because he doesn't take your position. Forget the fact that Michael Davies knew Pope Benedict and made it known directly that the Novus Ordo needs to be suppressed. Have you done anything comparable?
When you first began to argue against Quo Primum and defend the sacriledge of the Novus Ordo, I should have known that you are a conciliarist.
Your further argumentation has confirmed that.
That's looney, I'm the one arguing for Quo Primum to be understood as Pius V wrote it and as the Church teaches it should be understood.
, Not misapplied to suit emotional outbursts. It's a papal bull and deserves more respect. It's not a mad screed by a cartoon Pope.
And to be frank, you don't know what you're talking about. You didn't' even make an argument from reason. You just repeat ad nauseum "It's not Catholic" But you're stopped dead in your tracks when Pius XII says something totally at odd with what you believe. I can believe you and think Pius XII is wrong. I can believe you and ignore Church history, I can believe you and pretend the Eastern rites don't exist because the Orthodox use them and I can believe you and deny the law of non-contradiction.
And not to toot my own horn because I want to, but I can certainly bet that I've done more and better work to fight conciliarism than you have. I don't think you have even grasped the outlines of the crisis in the Church. For you, it's more likely just an excuse to be contrarian. Sort of like the Orthodox, they don't like the authority of the Church so they use tradition to deny it.
-
I will answer this long list of objections many of which are questionable or false, and do so in multiple posts so as not to overload any one with too much and make it unreadable.
So I will begin with your last series of statements which clearly demonstrate what is in your mind and who you are.
That's looney, I'm the one arguing for Quo Primum to be understood as Pius V wrote it and as the Church teaches it should be understood.
, Not misapplied to suit emotional outbursts. It's a papal bull and deserves more respect. It's not a mad screed by a cartoon Pope.
You are in fact not arguing for Quo Primum to be understood as it was written. Why? That is because it is to be understood in its objective meaning which is drawn from the precise wording which Pius V used to declare it and to be taken in the same sense that he wrote and declared it. He invoked his supreme authority and the wrath of Saints' Peter and Paul should anyone dare to deny what he had decreed.
For almost four hundred years his successors respected and did not violate his Bull. That alone stands as a testament to how the Church and Tradition understood it.
Thus you argue from the position of the dissenters from this Bull, who have appeared quite recently in Church history in and around the advent of the false council. Pius XII abided by this very long standing Tradition as did even John XXIII.
If anyone is making a caricature of Pius V, it is the dissenters who imply that he spoke as he did as some type of person who was ignorant of his duties and abilities to bind and loose with his declarations. A man who made binding and solemn declaration knowing that the would be overturned by any successor. Now that is indeed a looney idea.
And to be frank, you don't know what you're talking about. You didn't' even make an argument from reason. You just repeat ad nauseum "It's not Catholic" But you're stopped dead in your tracks when Pius XII says something totally at odd with what you believe.
First, we hear of your opinion which is not proof of what you assert. I continue to repeat what I know to be true, based upon the Magisterium of the Church, the declarations of many popes, the opinions of theologians, doctors and saints and the sensus Catholicus. It is a truth, it is a principle, and I shall not retreat, lest I be false to the Truth, myself and to Christ.
I am in no way stopped by Pius XII, because in his teaching, he supports the Tradition of the Church and his predecessors.
It is only your perception that I am at odds with him, because you misapply his teaching to support your contentions.
I can believe you and think Pius XII is wrong. I can believe you and ignore Church history, I can believe you and pretend the Eastern rites don't exist because the Orthodox use them and I can believe you and deny the law of non-contradiction.
This segment is entirely what you feel and speculate about, and which has no basis in fact.
And not to toot my own horn because I want to, but I can certainly bet that I've done more and better work to fight conciliarism than you have. I don't think you have even grasped the outlines of the crisis in the Church. For you, it's more likely just an excuse to be contrarian. Sort of like the Orthodox, they don't like the authority of the Church so they use tradition to deny it.
Of course we know that it is not because you want to exercise your trumpet however it is obvious that you feel compelled to do so, and despite your assertions of great accomplishments, the rest is simply your opinions once again, with a mix of innuendo and speculations, nothing of substance therein.
-
I detect a surge of Rome-friendly comments on this site and am wondering why. What better incentive for supporters of an agreement to become more vocal by using Bp. W's current obsession with conciliar credibility to further their cause. If an agreement is in the offing, it could be that folk are now considering their options.
-
Hi Gerard,
Most of your post seems to be based on theory (i.e. what the pope "could" do, etc); we need to view the novus ordo in terms of fact. Quo Primum is a legal docuмent, which established a law. And it is still currently in force. Benedict XVI said so in his 2008 Motu, which is also a legal docuмent.
St Pius V said in Quo Primum that ONLY his missal can be used, no permission is required to use it, and NO OTHER missal may be forced on any priest, in perpetuity (i.e. forever...or as long as the law is in force).
IN THEORY, you are correct, the pope could change this law, but, to date, no pope has changed it, revoked it, or altered it, substantially. Only 5-6 popes have revised certain parts of the missal, the breviary and the liturgical prayers - but these changes were very minor.
The novus ordo is a NEW missal. Paul VI's constitution DID NOT revoke Quo Primum (again, as Benedict XVI pointed out), it just issued a new missal. Now, while Quo Primum did not forbid the issuance of a new missal, legally it will not allow anyone to USE the new missal, under pain of sin (and, one could argue, excommunication), as Quo Primum is VERY clear that ONLY his missal is the lawful missal of the Roman rite.
Looking at the facts, it's easy to see that the whole novus ordo conundrum is devilishly clever, in that "it appeared" that the Pope (and, by extension, the Church) issued and approved of the novus ordo, therefore we had to accept it. And this "appearance" lasted until 2008, until the Motu Proprio. Now we know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that legally, morally and liturgically, the novus ordo is NEW rite, a NEW missal, and a NEW liturgy, which is both illicit and, consequently, sinful.
-
I detect a surge of Rome-friendly comments on this site and am wondering why. What better incentive for supporters of an agreement to become more vocal by using Bp. W's current obsession with conciliar credibility to further their cause. If an agreement is in the offing, it could be that folk are now considering their options.
It's not "Rome-friendly" at all. It's pointing out that over the last 10 years in my opinion there has been a surge of hot-rhetoric that has started to tilt the doctrinal clarity of many, many trads.
Clear, rational understanding is quickly being replaced by sloganeering, rallying cries and hyperbole coupled with a lot of false conclusions.
People don't seem to be able to analyze the situation and respond to the realities with the proper sense of righteous indignation.
I think the online arguments of Fr. Gregory Hesse are excellent examples of heated passion that has not overrun the intellect.
It's my personal opinion that the election of Pope Benedict XVI succeeded in fracturing traditional Catholicism and pushing a majority of adherents to go soft towards Rome on one side and push towards more simplistic answers like the sedevacantist position on the other side.
-
Hi Gerard,
Most of your post seems to be based on theory (i.e. what the pope "could" do, etc); we need to view the novus ordo in terms of fact. Quo Primum is a legal docuмent, which established a law. And it is still currently in force. Benedict XVI said so in his 2008 Motu, which is also a legal docuмent.
St Pius V said in Quo Primum that ONLY his missal can be used, no permission is required to use it, and NO OTHER missal may be forced on any priest, in perpetuity (i.e. forever...or as long as the law is in force).
But Pope Pius V exempted himself and by extension the future Popes from that law. He himself backtracked on it, when he allowed the Ambrosian rite to be restored.
IN THEORY, you are correct, the pope could change this law, but, to date, no pope has changed it, revoked it, or altered it, substantially. Only 5-6 popes have revised certain parts of the missal, the breviary and the liturgical prayers - but these changes were very minor.
True and that's a good thing. But the fact is, great or small they changed the missal.
The novus ordo is a NEW missal. Paul VI's constitution DID NOT revoke Quo Primum (again, as Benedict XVI pointed out), it just issued a new missal. Now, while Quo Primum did not forbid the issuance of a new missal, legally it will not allow anyone to USE the new missal, under pain of sin (and, one could argue, excommunication), as Quo Primum is VERY clear that ONLY his missal is the lawful missal of the Roman rite.
Except where he the Pope, allows exceptions with the variations of the TLM among the Domiicans, Norbertines, Ambrosians etc.
Looking at the facts, it's easy to see that the whole novus ordo conundrum is devilishly clever, in that "it appeared" that the Pope (and, by extension, the Church) issued and approved of the novus ordo, therefore we had to accept it.
That's one of those things, Paul VI opened the Novus Ordo officially as an option for Latin rite priests. On the ground, at the diocesan level is where the deception really occurred.
The people would have had to resist. It's indicative of the problem that the lay faithful simply rolled over.
And this "appearance" lasted until 2008, until the Motu Proprio. Now we know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that legally, morally and liturgically, the novus ordo is NEW rite, a NEW missal, and a NEW liturgy, which is both illicit and, consequently, sinful.
The degree of sinfulness would be based on the interior disposition of the participants. Those of good will, trying to give their best would obviously not be sinning in what they do. Those that use the Novus Ordo, go beyond the rubrics for the modernist and progressive agenda would be sinfully culpable to the degree they are deliberate and responsible for knowing better if ignorant.
I wonder if God is more pleased by good will efforts on the part of a Novus Ordo priest doing his best to make up for the deficiencies of the Novus Ordo and contrast that with his pleasure a TLM done by a Karl Rahner, a Hans Kung or sm Annibale Bugnini who look the part right, but are really wolves among the sheep.
-
"But Pope Pius V exempted himself and by extension the future Popes from that law (Quo Primum)."
What are you talking about?!! St Pius V didn't exempt himself or any pope from following Quo Primum. Read Pius X's revision of the breviary. Read John XXIII's constitution for the 1962 missal revision. Read Benedict's Motu Proprio. Every single one of them reference Quo Primum as being a current law of the Church, which it still is.
-
Quote:
Looking at the facts, it's easy to see that the whole novus ordo conundrum is devilishly clever, in that "it appeared" that the Pope (and, by extension, the Church) issued and approved of the novus ordo, therefore we had to accept it.
That's one of those things, Paul VI opened the Novus Ordo officially as an option for Latin rite priests. On the ground, at the diocesan level is where the deception really occurred.
The people would have had to resist. It's indicative of the problem that the lay faithful simply rolled over.
The above is not true, it may have been in theory an option but, in reality it was imposed by the Pope illicitly.
There were at the time many people who petitioning him to have the true Mass and could only do so by an indult or special permission.
The deception began at the top and was only implemented by the diocese.
-
"But Pope Pius V exempted himself and by extension the future Popes from that law (Quo Primum)."
What are you talking about?!! St Pius V didn't exempt himself or any pope from following Quo Primum. Read Pius X's revision of the breviary. Read John XXIII's constitution for the 1962 missal revision. Read Benedict's Motu Proprio. Every single one of them reference Quo Primum as being a current law of the Church, which it still is.
Thank you. It does bear repeating as many times as necessary.
-
I detect a surge of Rome-friendly comments on this site and am wondering why. What better incentive for supporters of an agreement to become more vocal by using Bp. W's current obsession with conciliar credibility to further their cause. If an agreement is in the offing, it could be that folk are now considering their options.
It's not "Rome-friendly" at all. It's pointing out that over the last 10 years in my opinion there has been a surge of hot-rhetoric that has started to tilt the doctrinal clarity of many, many trads.
Clear, rational understanding is quickly being replaced by sloganeering, rallying cries and hyperbole coupled with a lot of false conclusions.
People don't seem to be able to analyze the situation and respond to the realities with the proper sense of righteous indignation.
I think the online arguments of Fr. Gregory Hesse are excellent examples of heated passion that has not overrun the intellect.
It's my personal opinion that the election of Pope Benedict XVI succeeded in fracturing traditional Catholicism and pushing a majority of adherents to go soft towards Rome on one side and push towards more simplistic answers like the sedevacantist position on the other side.
Maybe a need for black and white answers and away with all these greys that litter the trad scene. Those resigned to an agreement want it over so they can no longer suffer being outcasts from the mainstream ........ if only for the sake of the children who one day will be making their own decisions. Those against must vote with their feet and stop visiting Society churches along with their negative feelings. My parents went through this process after V2 which made home life on Sundays very lively in deed.
Intellectualising the crisis may take a lot of the passion out of religion ..... and Catholicism did used to like lots of passion. It is said reasonable people always win the argument by being calm ..... which puts paid to integrist animation!
-
Wessex,
Maybe a need for black and white answers and away with all these greys that litter the trad scene. Those resigned to an agreement want it over so they can no longer suffer being outcasts from the mainstream ........ if only for the sake of the children who one day will be making their own decisions. Those against must vote with their feet and stop visiting Society churches along with their negative feelings. My parents went through this process after V2 which made home life on Sundays very lively in deed.
Intellectualising the crisis may take a lot of the passion out of religion ..... and Catholicism did used to like lots of passion. It is said reasonable people always win the argument by being calm ..... which puts paid to integrist animation!
The abundance of grey matter is the stuff which is used to forge the control collars which hold the faithful in the circle of moderation.
The pariahs such as sedevacantists and dissenters from R&R, occupying the outer darkness beyond the circle.