Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: untitled on May 10, 2014, 03:16:56 PM
-
Moderator: In the interests of accuracy, truth, and dispelling any possible rumors, I have updated this Original Post with the latest concrete information, below. Note that the last section has a quote from DICI.org, the official SSPX news organ.
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/05/rorate-exclusive-pope-francis-received.html?m=1
UPDATE (05/11/14): I.Media reports that Bishop Fellay came to the Vatican with Frs. Niklaus Pfluger and Alain-Marc Nély (respectively the First and Second Assistants to the Superior General of the SSPX). On this occasion, the two assistants of the Superior General of the SSPX were present at the daily Mass celebrated by Pope Francis at St. Martha House. Afterwards Bishop Fellay dined with Abp. Guido Pozzo and Abp. Augustine Di Noia (respectively the Secretary of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei and the Adjunct Secretary of the CDF) at the refectory of the same House. At the end of the meal, Bishop Fellay briefly met the Holy Father.
Vatican Insider has another account, with further details -- and an acknowledgment of Rorate's initial report.
***
(Original post 5/10/14):
Rorate has learned and can exclusively confirm that Bishop Bernard Fellay, the Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X (Fraternité Sacerdotale Saint-Pie X - FSSPX / SSPX), was received by Pope Francis in the Domus Sanctae Marthae sometime in the past few months. In order to protect our sources, we cannot detail the date and persons involved in the meeting, but only generally locate it in time - if the current pontificate so far can be divided into two halves, the meeting took place in the second half.
We can also add as part of this exclusive information that it was not a merely fortuitous event - that is to say, many off-the-record meetings with His Holiness have taken place since his election precisely because his being at Saint Martha's House make him much more accessible and available than many previous pontiffs. No, that was not the case at all - the pope was previously duly informed and duly met Bishop Fellay. The meeting was apparently short and cordial.
The Pope has a true interest in resolving this situation, it seems to be understood by our sources.
http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/news/detail/articolo/francesco-francis-francisco-fellay-34011/
Traditionalist blog “Rorate Caeli” revealed that “sometime in the past few months” Francis received the Superior of the Society of St. Pius X in St. Martha’s House
ANDREA TORNIELLI
VATICAN CITY
Yesterday, traditionalist website Rorate Caeli revealed that “sometime in the past few months” Bishop Bernard Fellay, the Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X, was received BY Pope Francis in St. Martha’s House. No information was given regarding the sources and circuмstances surrounding their encounter.
Authoritative religious news blog Il Sismografo, edited by Luis Badilla, reported the news yesterday evening.
Readers will recall that the Holy See’s relations with the fraternity have remained frozen since 2012, when the former Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Levada, delivered a preamble - approved by Pope Benedict XVI – asking the traditionalist group to sign it, as a condition for entering into full communion with the Roman Catholic Church and gaining legal status with the establishment of a “personal prelacy”. Although the fraternity’s excommunication was lifted in January 2009, disagreements remained over certain doctrinal points and so the status of the Lefebvrian hierarchy and its priests is still irregular. Not only have the leaders of the Society of St. Pius X criticized the Second Vatican Council since Francis took over from Benedict XVI, but they have even written and published some very harsh comments against Pope Francis.
Rorate Caeli writes that for the purposes of protecting its sources, it did not wish to specify the date of the meeting but added “it was not a merely fortuitous event” in the sense that the Pope was informed about Mgr. Fellay’s presence in St. Martha’s House, giving the impression that that meeting had been planned and “apparently short and cordial.”
Vatican Insider has learnt that the meeting apparently took place in the last few weeks of 2013. Mgr. Fellay was invited to dinner at St. Martha’s House by Bishop Guido Pozzo, Secretary of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei and Archbishop Augustin Di Noia, Vice- President of the same commission. Father Niklaus Pfulger and Alain-Marc Nely, assistants to the superior general of Society of St. Pius X, were present alongside the traditionalist prelate.
The Pope was sat at his usual table in the St. Martha House dining room; Fellay, his two assistants, Pozzo and Di Noia were sat at another table. When Francis got up after dinner, the fraternity’s superior did so also and approached the Pope, kneeling down to ask for a blessing. Their encounter was therefore brief. There was no audience and neither did the two have along one to one conversation. Living in St. Martha’s House makes these kinds of encounters possible for Francis.
When Mgr. Pozzo returned to the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei” after a brief time at the office of papal charities, some hoped that dialogue between the Holy See and the Society of St. Pius X would resume. But some in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith are pushing for a new formal docuмent to be signed against the Lefebvrians. Particularly given that dialogue has dragged on for years and the fraternity refused to accept the doctrinal preamble proposed by the Church. For now, however, there seems to be a general desire to wait and see.
The dinner with di Noia and Pozzo and the papal blessing scene is certainly typical of Francis’ welcoming nature. But it would wrong to attribute too much importance to this episode in terms of potential developments in the Lefebvrian situation. Even after this encounter and blessing, websites and media linked to the Society of St. Pius X continued their attacks against the Pope. The latest of these was noted on the day of John XXIII and John Paul II’s canonizations last 27 April.
Mgr. Fellay may not be too happy about Rorate Caeli’s decision to divulge the news. It is a well known fact that there are different currents within his fraternity, some of them more radical and anti- Roman Catholic Church than others. The Swiss prelate, Mgr. Lefebvre’s second successor, seems to be more open to dialogue when he is in Rome. But back in Menzingen he must face the more radical wing within his group.
http://www.dici.org/en/news/about-a-meeting-between-the-pope-and-bishop-fellay/
About a “meeting” between the Pope and Bishop Fellay
12-05-2014
Filed under From Tradition, News
On May 10, 2014, the English-speaking blog Rorate Caeli published under the pseudonym “Adfero”, some “exclusive information” whose sources could not be – according to him – disclosed. This “exclusive information”, spread by the media, revealed that Bishop Bernard Fellay, Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X, met with Pope Francis. On May 11, the Roman agency I.Media published that Bp. Fellay’s two assistants, Fr. Niklaus Pfluger and Fr. Marc-Alain Nély, had attended the Pope’s private Mass.
Fathers Pfluger and Nely have never attended the Pope’s private Mass, and journalists who claim otherwise would have a hard time to indicate the day of the alleged assistance. Here are the facts:
On December 13, 2013, Bishop Fellay and his assistants went to Rome for an informal meeting at the request of the Ecclesia Dei Commission. Following this interview, the Secretary of the Commission, Msgr. Guido Pozzo, invited his counterparts for lunch at St. Martha House’s dining room where they were joined by Archbishop Augustine Di Noia, Assistant Secretary of the Congregation of the Faith. It is in this large refectory that the Pope takes his daily meals, away from other guests.
Msgr. Pozzo insisted on introducing Bishop Fellay to the pope while the latter was leaving the refectory. There was a brief exchange where Pope Francis said to Bishop Fellay, according to the usual polite formula, “I’m very glad to meet you.” To this, Bishop Fellay answered that he was praying a lot, and the pope asked him to pray for him. Such was the “meeting” that lasted a few seconds.
In the interview he gave to Le Rocher (April-May 2014), Bishop Fellay answered the following question: Has Rome made an official approach to renew contact with you since the election of Pope Francis? – “Rome made a ‘non-official’ approach to renew contact with us, but nothing more, and I have not asked for an audience as I did after Benedict XVI’s election. For me, things at present are very simple: we stay as we are. Some concluded from my close contact with Rome in 2012 that I regard the necessity of a canonical recognition as a supreme principle. Preserving the Faith and our traditional Catholic identity is essential and remains our first principle.”
(Source: SSPX/MG – DICI 05/12/14)
-
The Pope has a true interest in resolving this situation, it seems to be understood by our sources.
Yeah, I'm sure he does.
-
If at this point he is willing to work with Francis on anything I would hold the opinion that he is suspect of heresy. We did just have the two most publicly scandalous false canonizations in Church history, granted, it said sevral monthes ago and Bishop Fellay still is working things out with Rome.
-
Why do I deal so sad? It use to be, that when I heard such things w B16 I felt a glimmer of hope, as if perhaps, this old Pope who once knew the True Church, was perhaps, in his final years having a change to his modernist heart. With Francis however, I feel that the only heart that is changing is the treacherous +Fellay.
The Archbishop was always out in the open with such meetings. Once again, +Fellay acts under the veil of secrecy....in the shadows he calls "diplomacy"
Mary Help of Christians....Pray for us!
-
The Archbishop was always out in the open with such meetings. Once again, +Fellay acts under the veil of secrecy....in the shadows he calls "diplomacy"
I believe the correct term now would be "treachery."
-
They'll all be kissing "relics" of Montini in no time. Cowards all of 'em that follow Bishop Fellay.
-
I believe the correct term now would be "treachery."
I'm sorry to say that was my first thought - why the secrecy, unless it's treachery.
If giving the benefit of the doubt, could there be another reason?
-
The Pope has a true interest in resolving this situation, it seems to be understood by our sources.
Yeah, I'm sure he does.
Next, Fellay and Rostand and LeRoux will be telling us:"He's really Traditional--
He really is; and he wants to accept us just as we are-- they require nothing of us at all;
Now we can really serve the Church, and save it from inside!"
Where is that bridge you had for sale?
-
The Pope has a true interest in resolving this situation, it seems to be understood by our sources.
Yeah, I'm sure he does.
Next, Fellay and Rostand and LeRoux will be telling us:"He's really Traditional--
He really is; and he wants to accept us just as we are-- they require nothing of us at all;
Now we can really serve the Church, and save it from inside!"
Where is that bridge you had for sale?
And if the people accept that line again; I fear they will.
-
I wonder if Francis kissed his hand.
-
[/b]I was expecting that something would happen soon. This no surprise, and at least another source is saying that Fellay is meeting Francis, and not just resistance people saying it.
-
A friend who attends the Resistance chapel in London wrote me about a month ago that the word was about that BF had visited Pope Bergoglio MORE THAN ONCE!
-
Vatican - le 11/05/2014
FSSPX/Fellay : Mgr Bernard Fellay, supérieur de la fraternité Saint-Pie-X (FSSPX), a brièvement rencontré le pape François à la Maison Sainte-Marthe au Vatican il y a quelques mois, a révélé le site traditionaliste Rorate Caeli le 10 mai 2014 sans plus de précisions. Mgr Fellay, a appris par ailleurs I.MEDIA, était venu au Vatican avec ses assistants, le Suisse Niklaus Pfluger et le Français Alain-Marc Nély, pour une rencontre à la Congrégation pour la doctrine de la foi. A cette occasion, les 2 assistants du supérieur général de la FSSPX avaient assisté à une messe du matin célébrée par le pape François à la Maison Sainte-Marthe, sans pour autant participer à la concélébration. C’est d’ailleurs au même endroit, au réfectoire de la résidence du pape, que Mgr Fellay aurait brièvement salué le pontife à l’issue d’un dîner qu’il partageait avec Mgr Guido Pozzo et Mgr Augustin Di Noia, respectivement secrétaire et vice-président la Commission pontificale Ecclesia Dei, en charge des relations de Rome avec le monde traditionaliste.
http://www.imedia-info.org/
-
If there was nothing at all wrong with what he was doing, he would have been very open and public about it. But instead, he's very secretive about it.
-
If "assisté" in French has the same meaning that it does in Spanish than it means he only "attended" not "concelebrated".
-
Could someone translate the text? Are they saying that there was a con-celebration?
It says he was at the mass but didn't concelebrate.
-
Perhaps he was invited and went pro forma without participating. It still bodes I'll for the kind of resistance we'll see from a 'recognized' Bp. Fellay.
-
Rosary crusade intention: for the return of Tradition to the Church. Meanwhile Bp. Fellay has been secretly discussing with Francis for months.
-
Could someone translate the text? Are they saying that there was a con-celebration?
Provided by Google Translations:
"Bishop Bernard Fellay , superior of the Society of St. Pius X ( SSPX ) , briefly met Pope Francis St. Martha House the Vatican there a few months ago , revealed the site traditionalist Rorate Caeli on May 10, 2014 without further details. I MEDIA has also learned Bishop Fellay came to the Vatican with his assistants, Switzerland Niklaus Pfluger and Franchman Alain- Marc Nély for a meeting of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith . On this occasion, the two assistants of the Superior General of the SSPX had attended a morning Mass celebrated by Pope Francis St. Martha House , without participating in the concelebrated . This is also the same place, in the refectory of the residence of the Pope, Bishop Fellay would briefly greeted the pope at the end of a dinner he shared with Monsignor Guido Pozzo and Archbishop Augustine Di Noia , Secretary respectively and Vice President of Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei , in charge of relations with Rome traditionalist world."
Of course, as Fellay is traveling around the United States, hosting Open Houses for the taj majal seminary,doing confirmations, playing traditionalist priest, he doesn't think it important to mention that he attended the "mass' of "Francis", the same guy who has ordered that traditionalists NOT celebrate the Traditionalist Mass; the same guy who allowed only ONE Traditional Mas location in all of Argentina when he was the Cardinal Archbishop for so many years ! Fellay doesn't think it's important to tell the faithful-- because it's "none of their business what he does to sell out the SSPX!" As he and Rostand and LeRoux maintain, only Fellay was given the "grace of state" to make a deal with the devil-- and the rest of the priests and members of the SSPX can take it or leave it! Nely and Pfluger, also, have given plenty of talks and appearances in many SSPX venues-- but , they also, don't think it important to tell the faithful that they are snaking around quietly in Rome. Just like Father Anglais, being spotted on numerous occasions skulking through Rome, meeting with people. The GREC connection, and the behind-the-scenes intrigue continues unabated; Fellay and Rostand are trying to garner a response from Rome that will be commensurate with the million plus Rosary crusade, so they will (again) be able to exclaim : " WOW !! Look at this here ! We just turned into Rome the Rosaries to the 'holy Father', and we already have this beautiful answer--right from the Mother of God!"
Remember the last phony Rosary Crusades? They were "just turned in", and miraculously, the "excuмmications" were put aside ( except Archbishop Lefebvre is still confined to hell), and the Preamble was offered (except it turned out to be a wholesale sell-out, spelled out in the AFD of April 15 th, 2012, which was leaked to the faithful finally). Just like the Novus Ordo pres-by-ters now, there is nothing these SSPX leaders can do or say that one can take at face value. They have adopted the communist dialectic that "the end justifies the means", and they aim to merge the SSPX into Rome at all costs.
-
Qui cuм canibus concuмbunt cuм pulicibus surgent.
https://translate.google.com/
-
Of course, as Fellay is traveling around the United States, hosting Open Houses for the taj majal seminary,faking confirmations,...
What do you mean by "faking confirmations"? Whatever faults Bp. Fellay has, he is conferring an actual sacrament.
-
Faking confirmations? Probably a typo for making confirmations.
-
VATICAN INSIDER:
(http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/news/detail/articolo/francesco-francis-francisco-fellay-34011/)
Yesterday, traditionalist website Rorate Caeli revealed that “sometime in the past few months” Bishop Bernard Fellay, the Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X, was received BY Pope Francis in St. Martha’s House. No information was given regarding the sources and circuмstances surrounding their encounter.
Authoritative religious news blog Il Sismografo, edited by Luis Badilla, reported the news yesterday evening.
Readers will recall that the Holy See’s relations with the fraternity have remained frozen since 2012, when the former Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Levada, delivered a preamble - approved by Pope Benedict XVI – asking the traditionalist group to sign it, as a condition for entering into full communion with the Roman Catholic Church and gaining legal status with the establishment of a “personal prelacy”. Although the fraternity’s excommunication was lifted in January 2009, disagreements remained over certain doctrinal points and so the status of the Lefebvrian hierarchy and its priests is still irregular. Not only have the leaders of the Society of St. Pius X criticized the Second Vatican Council since Francis took over from Benedict XVI, but they have even written and published some very harsh comments against Pope Francis.
Rorate Caeli writes that for the purposes of protecting its sources, it did not wish to specify the date of the meeting but added “it was not a merely fortuitous event” in the sense that the Pope was informed about Mgr. Fellay’s presence in St. Martha’s House, giving the impression that that meeting had been planned and “apparently short and cordial.”
Vatican Insider has learnt that the meeting apparently took place in the first few weeks of 2014. Mgr. Fellay was invited to dinner at St. Martha’s House by Bishop Guido Pozzo, Secretary of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei and Archbishop Augustin Di Noia, Vice- President of the same commission. French priest Emmanuel De Taveau was present alongside the traditionalist prelate. De Taveau has kept communication open between the Catholic Church and the fraternity since the days when Lefebvre was still alive.
The priest was sat at his usual table in the St. Martha House dining room; Fellay, Pozzo, Di Noia and De Taveau were sat at another table. When Francis got up after dinner, the fraternity’s superior did so also and approached the Pope, kneeling down to ask for a blessing. Their encounter was therefore brief. There was no audience and neither did the two have along one to one conversation. Living in St. Martha’s House makes these kinds of encounters possible for Francis.
When Mgr. Pozzo returned to the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei” after a brief time at the office of papal charities, some hoped that dialogue between the Holy See and the Society of St. Pius X would resume. But some in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith are pushing for a new formal docuмent to be signed against the Lefebvrians. Particularly given that dialogue has dragged on for years and the fraternity refused to accept the doctrinal preamble proposed by the Church. For now, however, there seems to be a general desire to wait and see.
The dinner with di Noia and Pozzo and the papal blessing scene is certainly typical of Francis’ welcoming nature. But it would wrong to attribute too much importance to this episode in terms of potential developments in the Lefebvrian situation. Even after this encounter and blessing, websites and media linked to the Society of St. Pius X continued their attacks against the Pope. The latest of these was noted on the day of John XXIII and John Paul II’s canonizations last 27 April.
Mgr. Fellay may not be too happy about Rorate Caeli’s decision to divulge the news. It is a well known fact that there are different currents within his fraternity, some of them more radical and anti- Roman Catholic Church than others. The Swiss prelate, Mgr. Lefebvre’s second successor, seems to be more open to dialogue when he is in Rome. But back in Menzingen he must face the more radical wing within his group.
-
Fellay is by no means perfect, but to insinuate that he is simulating a sacrament is disgusting and uncalled for.
Could someone translate the text? Are they saying that there was a con-celebration?
Provided by Google Translations:
"Bishop Bernard Fellay , superior of the Society of St. Pius X ( SSPX ) , briefly met Pope Francis St. Martha House the Vatican there a few months ago , revealed the site traditionalist Rorate Caeli on May 10, 2014 without further details. I MEDIA has also learned Bishop Fellay came to the Vatican with his assistants, Switzerland Niklaus Pfluger and Franchman Alain- Marc Nély for a meeting of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith . On this occasion, the two assistants of the Superior General of the SSPX had attended a morning Mass celebrated by Pope Francis St. Martha House , without participating in the concelebrated . This is also the same place, in the refectory of the residence of the Pope, Bishop Fellay would briefly greeted the pope at the end of a dinner he shared with Monsignor Guido Pozzo and Archbishop Augustine Di Noia , Secretary respectively and Vice President of Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei , in charge of relations with Rome traditionalist world."
Of course, as Fellay is traveling around the United States, hosting Open Houses for the taj majal seminary,faking confirmations, playing traditionalist priest, he doesn't think it important to mention that he attended the "mass' of "Francis", the same guy who has ordered that traditionalists NOT celebrate the Traditionalist Mass; the same guy who allowed only ONE Traditional Mas location in all of Argentina when he was the Cardinal Archbishop for so many years ! Fellay doesn't think it's important to tell the faithful-- because it's "none of their business what he does to sell out the SSPX!" As he and Rostand and LeRoux maintain, only Fellay was given the "grace of state" to make a deal with the devil-- and the rest of the priests and members of the SSPX can take it or leave it! Nely and Pfluger, also, have given plenty of talks and appearances in many SSPX venues-- but , they also, don't think it important to tell the faithful that they are snaking around quietly in Rome. Just like Father Anglais, being spotted on numerous occasions skulking through Rome, meeting with people. The GREC connection, and the behind-the-scenes intrigue continues unabated; Fellay and Rostand are trying to garner a response from Rome that will be commensurate with the million plus Rosary crusade, so they will (again) be able to exclaim : " WOW !! Look at this here ! We just turned into Rome the Rosaries to the 'holy Father', and we already have this beautiful answer--right from the Mother of God!"
Remember the last phony Rosary Crusades? They were "just turned in", and miraculously, the "excuмmications" were put aside ( except Archbishop Lefebvre is still confined to hell), and the Preamble was offered (except it turned out to be a wholesale sell-out, spelled out in the AFD of April 15 th, 2012, which was leaked to the faithful finally). Just like the Novus Ordo pres-by-ters now, there is nothing these SSPX leaders can do or say that one can take at face value. They have adopted the communist dialectic that "the end justifies the means", and they aim to merge the SSPX into Rome at all costs.
-
Two things:
1 You have no evidence whatsoever that Fellay met Francis
2 Your hatred of the man demonstrates that you have no respect for a validly consecrated Catholic Bishop who spent a life time building up the tradition, WHICH YOU HAVE TAKEN FOR GRANTED.
The SSPX is selling out to modernism?
I'll believe it when I see it, but in the meantime will remain calm about the whole thing.
This is primitive pack behavior from you all. Truth goes out the window, all that matters is the approval from your peers. No thanks.
-
Fellay is by no means perfect, but to insinuate that he is simulating a sacrament is disgusting and uncalled for.
Could someone translate the text? Are they saying that there was a con-celebration?
Provided by Google Translations:
"Bishop Bernard Fellay , superior of the Society of St. Pius X ( SSPX ) , briefly met Pope Francis St. Martha House the Vatican there a few months ago , revealed the site traditionalist Rorate Caeli on May 10, 2014 without further details. I MEDIA has also learned Bishop Fellay came to the Vatican with his assistants, Switzerland Niklaus Pfluger and Franchman Alain- Marc Nély for a meeting of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith . On this occasion, the two assistants of the Superior General of the SSPX had attended a morning Mass celebrated by Pope Francis St. Martha House , without participating in the concelebrated . This is also the same place, in the refectory of the residence of the Pope, Bishop Fellay would briefly greeted the pope at the end of a dinner he shared with Monsignor Guido Pozzo and Archbishop Augustine Di Noia , Secretary respectively and Vice President of Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei , in charge of relations with Rome traditionalist world."
Of course, as Fellay is traveling around the United States, hosting Open Houses for the taj majal seminary,faking confirmations, playing traditionalist priest, he doesn't think it important to mention that he attended the "mass' of "Francis", the same guy who has ordered that traditionalists NOT celebrate the Traditionalist Mass; the same guy who allowed only ONE Traditional Mas location in all of Argentina when he was the Cardinal Archbishop for so many years ! Fellay doesn't think it's important to tell the faithful-- because it's "none of their business what he does to sell out the SSPX!" As he and Rostand and LeRoux maintain, only Fellay was given the "grace of state" to make a deal with the devil-- and the rest of the priests and members of the SSPX can take it or leave it! Nely and Pfluger, also, have given plenty of talks and appearances in many SSPX venues-- but , they also, don't think it important to tell the faithful that they are snaking around quietly in Rome. Just like Father Anglais, being spotted on numerous occasions skulking through Rome, meeting with people. The GREC connection, and the behind-the-scenes intrigue continues unabated; Fellay and Rostand are trying to garner a response from Rome that will be commensurate with the million plus Rosary crusade, so they will (again) be able to exclaim : " WOW !! Look at this here ! We just turned into Rome the Rosaries to the 'holy Father', and we already have this beautiful answer--right from the Mother of God!"
Remember the last phony Rosary Crusades? They were "just turned in", and miraculously, the "excuмmications" were put aside ( except Archbishop Lefebvre is still confined to hell), and the Preamble was offered (except it turned out to be a wholesale sell-out, spelled out in the AFD of April 15 th, 2012, which was leaked to the faithful finally). Just like the Novus Ordo pres-by-ters now, there is nothing these SSPX leaders can do or say that one can take at face value. They have adopted the communist dialectic that "the end justifies the means", and they aim to merge the SSPX into Rome at all costs.
I agree, Catholics must not go beyond the evidence.
-
what would ABL do... :dwarf:
Which ABL?
The one you slander and stigmatize as "schismatic" and "died excommunicated" from Holy Mother Church.
-
......Of course, as Fellay is traveling around the United States, hosting Open Houses for the taj majal seminary,faking confirmations, playing traditionalist priest, .... .
Fake Confirmations? So Abp. LeFebvre faked him to the fullness of the priesthood?
:laugh2:
-
what would ABL do... :dwarf:
Which ABL?
The one you slander and stigmatize as "schismatic" and "died excommunicated" from Holy Mother Church.
I'm trying to be annoyed by your R&R polemic, but you're so cute when you're angry that it is nigh impossible. Kinda like trying to be upset with my eight-year-old for defending Rudolph whenever he sees me polishing my deer rifle just before Christmas.
-
Go pray to saint John XXIII.
-
Two things:
1 You have no evidence whatsoever that Fellay met Francis
2 Your hatred of the man demonstrates that you have no respect for a validly consecrated Catholic Bishop who spent a life time building up the tradition, WHICH YOU HAVE TAKEN FOR GRANTED.
The SSPX is selling out to modernism?
I'll believe it when I see it, but in the meantime will remain calm about the whole thing.
This is primitive pack behavior from you all. Truth goes out the window, all that matters is the approval from your peers. No thanks.
You're probably right-- we're all jumping to conclusions!
Vatican Insider, Rorate Caeli, and Il Sismograto all just made it up! There probably isn't even a St. Martha's House! We all know that where there's smoke-- there's never any fire! And for sure we know there is no Pope Francis or Archbishop DeNoia. I don't know why they keep putting out these wild stories that the honorable and righteous Fellay would be sneaking around Rome! I mean, they made up all those wild, wild stories that Fellay "was tricked by that man(Ratzinger)"; that Fellay said he "accepted the Vatican Council'; "accepted the Vatican Two popes"; "promised loyalty and fidelity to Ratzinger"; or those terrible, terrible rumours that Fellay kicked Bishop Williamson out on the street!; those unbelieveable rumours that Fellay spread calumnies about Fathers Hewko, Pfeiffer, Chazal and others "they were not dismissed because they disagreed with the agreement; they were dismissed for cause--but I can't tell you what they did!"
We just don't know why they spread those nasty rumours that Fellay, Nely, and Lorans were secretly working for almost fifteen years with GREC to secretly change the thinking of SSPX members so they could be comfortably merged into modernist Rome.
And why would they hide all those statements of Fellay condemning forthrightly the Vatican Council? Condemning Assissi? Condemning the pope declaring that the jews are justified in waiting for the Messiah? Condemning the phony canonizations of John Paul, John XXIII, and the upcoming canonization of Paul VI-- the architect of the disastrous Council?
Why can't the people around Fellay just let him stand alone, speak openly and for himself, announce his secret meetings and his intentions, openly and clearly, so the SSPX faithful see the same side of him that he portrays to the Romans-- so the SSPX faithful knows what a wonderful, faithful modernist he is??
Someone who swears to Ratzinger to love and obey him, who swears that he accepts the Vatican Council and all its teachings, but then goes around the world performing sacraments that he has been specifically told NOT to
perform-- because he has no standing in their church-- but he performs them
illicitly, is a fraud.
Plain and Simple. The Imposter is not Francis-- he's not even pretending to be pope of the Roman Catholic Church. The imposter is, more and more, Fellay.
-
I asked a question earlier, in good faith.
Giving the benefit of the doubt, what reason(s) could there be for meeting in secret?
-
what would ABL do... :dwarf:
Which ABL?
The one you slander and stigmatize as "schismatic" and "died excommunicated" from Holy Mother Church.
I'm trying to be annoyed by your R&R polemic, but you're so cute when you're angry that it is nigh impossible. Kinda like trying to be upset with my eight-year-old for defending Rudolph whenever he sees me polishing my deer rifle just before Christmas.
How fitting, to use the language of a deviant.
-
Two things:
1 You have no evidence whatsoever that Fellay met Francis
It's right there in the article! Rorate Caeli as well as other sources.
Rorate Caeli is not a pro-Resistance website. Are you unaware of this?
If anything, they're a faithful mouthpiece for the modern day SSPX.
Moreover, Rorate Caeli doesn't have a reputation for making things up.
-
My prayer is that God arrange things so that an arrangement may be made that would be acceptable to all.
:pray: :pray: :pray:
-
My prayer is that God arrange things so that an arrangement may be made that would be acceptable to all.
:pray: :pray: :pray:
Are your prayers being answered Poche?????
http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/index.htm
SHOCKER!
French News Report: SSPX Superior General Bp. Fellay Assisted at Novus Ordo “Mass” of “Pope” Francis
We had already reported on the brief meeting the Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) had with “Pope” Francis earlier this year in a prior blog post (see here). Now, however, more detail has emerged, detail so explosive that it has the potential to cause a veritable earthquake within the SSPX:
When Bp. Fellay and his two assistants — Fr. Niklaus Pfluger and Fr. Alain-Marc Nély — came to the Vatican to meet with two members of the so-called Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the three SSPX clerics assisted at the Novus Ordo Missae offered by “Pope” Francis in the Sancta Martha chapel!
Let this one sink in for a few minutes, and keep in mind that this is something the SSPX leadership has kept secret from its members. Regardless of what you may think about the SSPX, Francis, Traditionalism, or Sedevacantism, this is huge, and it may very well trigger nothing short of a revolution within the SSPX.
Here are the sources for this breaking news:
• News report on i.media, a French news site specializing in coverage of the Vatican
• Snapshot of the i.media report, in case it disappears
• Snapshot of i.media’s Facebook post announcing this news
• Rorate Caeli post mentioning i.media story
While the news report makes clear that neither Fellay, nor Pfluger, nor Nely “concelebrated” the “Mass” together with Francis, it nevertheless says that they “assisted” (avaient assisté) at the liturgy, that is, they attended it.
This is a watershed moment. For the time being, however, we will refrain from further comment. No doubt we will be hearing more details about this soon.
How Francis offers daily “Mass” in the Sancta Martha Chapel
See Also:
• Logical Chickens Coming Home to Roost: The SSPX and the Vatican (PDF)
• Stumbling at the Finish Line: The SSPX’s Illogical Stance on the Pope Question
• What’s wrong with the “New Mass”? A Video Overview
• From Holy Mass to Happy Meal: The Novus Ordo Missae
• Bp. Fellay: “Francis is a Genuine Modernist”
• French SSPX Members demand Resignation of Bp. Fellay
• Resistance or Sedevacantism? First Response to Bp. Richard Williamson
• Bp. Sanborn refutes Bp. Williamson on Sedevacantism
• Resistance or Sedevacantism? Response to Fr. Francois Chazal
Permanent Link
-
they are now saying that they are not saying bf attended, but that his two assistants did. :tinfoil:
-
My prayer is that God arrange things so that an arrangement may be made that would be acceptable to all.
:pray: :pray: :pray:
Are your prayers being answered Poche?????
http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/index.htm
SHOCKER!
French News Report: SSPX Superior General Bp. Fellay Assisted at Novus Ordo “Mass” of “Pope” Francis
We had already reported on the brief meeting the Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) had with “Pope” Francis earlier this year in a prior blog post (see here). Now, however, more detail has emerged, detail so explosive that it has the potential to cause a veritable earthquake within the SSPX:
When Bp. Fellay and his two assistants — Fr. Niklaus Pfluger and Fr. Alain-Marc Nély — came to the Vatican to meet with two members of the so-called Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the three SSPX clerics assisted at the Novus Ordo Missae offered by “Pope” Francis in the Sancta Martha chapel!
Let this one sink in for a few minutes, and keep in mind that this is something the SSPX leadership has kept secret from its members. Regardless of what you may think about the SSPX, Francis, Traditionalism, or Sedevacantism, this is huge, and it may very well trigger nothing short of a revolution within the SSPX.
Here are the sources for this breaking news:
• News report on i.media, a French news site specializing in coverage of the Vatican
• Snapshot of the i.media report, in case it disappears
• Snapshot of i.media’s Facebook post announcing this news
• Rorate Caeli post mentioning i.media story
While the news report makes clear that neither Fellay, nor Pfluger, nor Nely “concelebrated” the “Mass” together with Francis, it nevertheless says that they “assisted” (avaient assisté) at the liturgy, that is, they attended it.
This is a watershed moment. For the time being, however, we will refrain from further comment. No doubt we will be hearing more details about this soon.
How Francis offers daily “Mass” in the Sancta Martha Chapel
See Also:
• Logical Chickens Coming Home to Roost: The SSPX and the Vatican (PDF)
• Stumbling at the Finish Line: The SSPX’s Illogical Stance on the Pope Question
• What’s wrong with the “New Mass”? A Video Overview
• From Holy Mass to Happy Meal: The Novus Ordo Missae
• Bp. Fellay: “Francis is a Genuine Modernist”
• French SSPX Members demand Resignation of Bp. Fellay
• Resistance or Sedevacantism? First Response to Bp. Richard Williamson
• Bp. Sanborn refutes Bp. Williamson on Sedevacantism
• Resistance or Sedevacantism? Response to Fr. Francois Chazal
Permanent Link
We have to trust in God and the Holy Virgin, if not today then tomorrow.
:pray: :pray: :pray:
-
Some common sense should apply here:
1) At this point, it is still a bit nebulous, despite the reports cited herein, whether Fr's Nely/Pfluger attended at all;
2) But IF it should be verified, the million dollar question will be:
3) Did they merely attend, or did they participate?
4) Big difference.
5) The SSPX has always (rightly) taught that attending the Novus Ordo presented a danger to the faith, and was threfore precluded;
6) However, there have always been exceptions, such as weddings and funerals;
7) Even Bishop Williamson has always allowed for these exceptions;
8) The rationale being that a one-time exposure to the Novus Ordo presents reletively little danger;
9) And that omitting to attend these milestone events probably does more to impede, than attract, people to the traditional faith.
10) But while attending during these occassions, we certainly do not participate in the corrupted liturgy (i.e., Kneel down in the back pew and pray the Rosary throughout, or some such practice).
So the million dollar questions are these:
A) Can their attendance be verified?
B) If so, what were the circuмstances surrounding their decision to attend?
C) If so, did they merely attend, or did they actually participate.
In the absence of answers to these questions, prudence dictates witholding judgment in the meantime.
-
Some common sense should apply here:
1) At this point, it is still a bit nebulous, despite the reports cited herein, whether Fr's Nely/Pfluger attended at all;
2) But IF it should be verified, the million dollar question will be:
3) Did they merely attend, or did they participate?
Yep, just like the E.D. priests merely have to "attend" the local No-bish's Chrism Mass.
Way beyond that pale when that news surfaced, but now it's OK if they kneel in back and pray the Rosary?
-
Some common sense should apply here:
1) At this point, it is still a bit nebulous, despite the reports cited herein, whether Fr's Nely/Pfluger attended at all;
2) But IF it should be verified, the million dollar question will be:
3) Did they merely attend, or did they participate?
Yep, just like the E.D. priests merely have to "attend" the local No-bish's Chrism Mass.
Way beyond that pale when that news surfaced, but now it's OK if they kneel in back and pray the Rosary?
You do not seem to distinguish between attendance and participation.
You will find permission to attend non-Catholic funerals and weddings (all other conditions being satisfied) in practically every pre-Vatican II moral theology manual speaking on the subject.
-
The Vatican Insider has a report on this meeting under the News section. I only have my cell phone. Someone may want to post it.
-
The Vatican Insider has a report on this meeting under the News section. I only have my cell phone. Someone may want to post it.
Thanks Marie:
I think this was already reported somewhere else within this thread, but...
http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/news/detail/articolo/francesco-francis-francisco-fellay-34011/
Traditionalist blog “Rorate Caeli” revealed that “sometime in the past few months” Francis received the Superior of the Society of St. Pius X in St. Martha’s House
ANDREA TORNIELLI
vatican city
Yesterday, traditionalist website Rorate Caeli revealed that “sometime in the past few months” Bishop Bernard Fellay, the Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X, was received BY Pope Francis in St. Martha’s House. No information was given regarding the sources and circuмstances surrounding their encounter.
Authoritative religious news blog Il Sismografo, edited by Luis Badilla, reported the news yesterday evening.
Readers will recall that the Holy See’s relations with the fraternity have remained frozen since 2012, when the former Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Levada, delivered a preamble - approved by Pope Benedict XVI – asking the traditionalist group to sign it, as a condition for entering into full communion with the Roman Catholic Church and gaining legal status with the establishment of a “personal prelacy”. Although the fraternity’s excommunication was lifted in January 2009, disagreements remained over certain doctrinal points and so the status of the Lefebvrian hierarchy and its priests is still irregular. Not only have the leaders of the Society of St. Pius X criticized the Second Vatican Council since Francis took over from Benedict XVI, but they have even written and published some very harsh comments against Pope Francis.
Rorate Caeli writes that for the purposes of protecting its sources, it did not wish to specify the date of the meeting but added “it was not a merely fortuitous event” in the sense that the Pope was informed about Mgr. Fellay’s presence in St. Martha’s House, giving the impression that that meeting had been planned and “apparently short and cordial.”
Vatican Insider has learnt that the meeting apparently took place in the last few weeks of 2013. Mgr. Fellay was invited to dinner at St. Martha’s House by Bishop Guido Pozzo, Secretary of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei and Archbishop Augustin Di Noia, Vice- President of the same commission. Father Niklaus Pfulger and Alain-Marc Nely, assistants to the superior general of Society of St. Pius X, were present alongside the traditionalist prelate.
The Pope was sat at his usual table in the St. Martha House dining room; Fellay, his two assistants, Pozzo and Di Noia were sat at another table. When Francis got up after dinner, the fraternity’s superior did so also and approached the Pope, kneeling down to ask for a blessing. Their encounter was therefore brief. There was no audience and neither did the two have along one to one conversation. Living in St. Martha’s House makes these kinds of encounters possible for Francis.
When Mgr. Pozzo returned to the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei” after a brief time at the office of papal charities, some hoped that dialogue between the Holy See and the Society of St. Pius X would resume. But some in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith are pushing for a new formal docuмent to be signed against the Lefebvrians. Particularly given that dialogue has dragged on for years and the fraternity refused to accept the doctrinal preamble proposed by the Church. For now, however, there seems to be a general desire to wait and see.
The dinner with di Noia and Pozzo and the papal blessing scene is certainly typical of Francis’ welcoming nature. But it would wrong to attribute too much importance to this episode in terms of potential developments in the Lefebvrian situation. Even after this encounter and blessing, websites and media linked to the Society of St. Pius X continued their attacks against the Pope. The latest of these was noted on the day of John XXIII and John Paul II’s canonizations last 27 April.
Mgr. Fellay may not be too happy about Rorate Caeli’s decision to divulge the news. It is a well known fact that there are different currents within his fraternity, some of them more radical and anti- Roman Catholic Church than others. The Swiss prelate, Mgr. Lefebvre’s second successor, seems to be more open to dialogue when he is in Rome. But back in Menzingen he must face the more radical wing within his group.
-
This is not merely a "non-Catholic" wedding or funeral. The Novus Ordo is a sacrilegious parody of the Catholic Mass. It, unlike the protestant services, is an outrage against the majesty of God of the first magnitude, a running violation of standing Church law (Quo Primum), and a violation of the first commandment on a level not attainable by protestants or pagans.
One may be a "witness" to a protestant wedding, but to stand by while what purports to be the blessed sacrament is profaned, and the Catholic Mass to be mocked, is a different matter altogether.
The New Mass doesn't merely represent a "danger" to the faith. Its purpose for existence is to replace and expunge from the face of the earth the True Mass.
-
Two things:
1 You have no evidence whatsoever that Fellay met Francis
2 Your hatred of the man demonstrates that you have no respect for a validly consecrated Catholic Bishop who spent a life time building up the tradition, WHICH YOU HAVE TAKEN FOR GRANTED.
The SSPX is selling out to modernism?
I'll believe it when I see it, but in the meantime will remain calm about the whole thing.
This is primitive pack behavior from you all. Truth goes out the window, all that matters is the approval from your peers. No thanks.
Dear Soulguard,
Maybe we'll let the facts speak for themselves. I know its hard to take, but when friends of Fellay report that he's been meeting with Francis-- perhaps there's some truth to it? Even though your man Fellay says "what we have here is a thorough modernist," he also said he "would do whatever he had to do" to get the SSPX back in with the sodomites in Rome. Don't you believe him? Don't you trust Fellay? Remember when he was sneaking around with Nely and Lorans and Krah, making deals behind the scenes, trying to secret the SSPX into the sodomite den without openly announcing that the SSPX now accepted the heretical Vatican Council? Don't you trust him?
Why is it so unbelieveable he attended Francis' phony mass? Don't we remember he attended Canizares' mass two YEARS ago-- and even stated that the Archbishop would have LOVED it?
Remember when he was traveling the world, telling everybody that Rome was willing to accept the SSPX "as we are," without our changing any of our principles? Except all the bishops and rabbis of Europe, if seems, said " hey-- NO WAY-- they MUST accept the Vatican Council." And then, FINALLY, Fellay claims that he'd been tricked; that the "Vicar of Jesus Christ" actually lied to him!
Don't you trust Fellay?? Don't you believe that Ratzinger, the man whom Fellay swore loyalty and obedience to, the "Vicar of Jesus Christ" lied and tricked bishop Fellay?
You see, Soulguard, we don't hate Fellay. We feel sorry for him; we're sad for him that he can't tell the truth to the faithful of the SSPX, we're sad for him that he feels he has to tell the Romans one thing, and the traditionalists something totally different. We pray for him--we don 't hate him. We're upset at him-- upset that the Archbishop came out of retirement to help save tradition; to help protect and preserve the Catholic faith, wholly and purely Catholic; abd Fellay has spent, it seems, every day since the Archbishop died conspiring with the endmies of tradition-- the enemies of the Catholic faith-- to make for himself and Nely and Pfluger and Rostand a little bed for themselves in the church of the new advent.
And, Soulguard, we don't take our traditional faith for granted; we pray and work every day to guard our faith, Soulguard, and protect and guard our souls-- which is why Our Lord tells us to
Watch and pray-- and refuse to cooperate absolutely with anybody who preaches a false gospel-- whether he be an angel of heaven or a bishop of the SSPX!
-
This is not merely a "non-Catholic" wedding or funeral. The Novus Ordo is a sacrilegious parody of the Catholic Mass. It, unlike the protestant services, is an outrage against the majesty of God of the first magnitude, a running violation of standing Church law (Quo Primum), and a violation of the first commandment on a level not attainable by protestants or pagans.
One may be a "witness" to a protestant wedding, but to stand by while what purports to be the blessed sacrament is profaned, and the Catholic Mass to be mocked, is a different matter altogether.
The New Mass doesn't merely represent a "danger" to the faith. Its purpose for existence is to replace and expunge from the face of the earth the True Mass.
Nothing you say here overrules the fact that the Church allows attendance (vs participation) at non-Catholic events for grave reasons (e.g., weddings, funerals).
The Novus Ordo would fall into that category, and this has always been the position of the SSPX, therefore, from day 1.
-
Sean, would it be inaccurate for me to conclude that you take the position that if they "merely attended," then no problem?
-
Some common sense should apply here:
1) At this point, it is still a bit nebulous, despite the reports cited herein, whether Fr's Nely/Pfluger attended at all;
2) But IF it should be verified, the million dollar question will be:
3) Did they merely attend, or did they participate?
Yep, just like the E.D. priests merely have to "attend" the local No-bish's Chrism Mass.
Way beyond that pale when that news surfaced, but now it's OK if they kneel in back and pray the Rosary?
You do not seem to distinguish between attendance and participation.
You will find permission to attend non-Catholic funerals and weddings (all other conditions being satisfied) in practically every pre-Vatican II moral theology manual speaking on the subject.
I actually did distinguish, the E.D. priests only are expected to attend. So was Francis' "Mass" a wedding or funeral? I must have missed something.
-
Sean, would it be inaccurate for me to conclude that you take the position that if they "merely attended," then no problem?
Cantate-
Remember this?
So the million dollar questions are these:
A) Can their attendance be verified?
B) If so, what were the circuмstances surrounding their decision to attend?
C) If so, did they merely attend, or did they actually participate.
-
This is not merely a "non-Catholic" wedding or funeral. The Novus Ordo is a sacrilegious parody of the Catholic Mass. It, unlike the protestant services, is an outrage against the majesty of God of the first magnitude, a running violation of standing Church law (Quo Primum), and a violation of the first commandment on a level not attainable by protestants or pagans.
One may be a "witness" to a protestant wedding, but to stand by while what purports to be the blessed sacrament is profaned, and the Catholic Mass to be mocked, is a different matter altogether.
The New Mass doesn't merely represent a "danger" to the faith. Its purpose for existence is to replace and expunge from the face of the earth the True Mass.
Nothing you say here overrules the fact that the Church allows attendance (vs participation) at non-Catholic events for grave reasons (e.g., weddings, funerals).
The Novus Ordo would fall into that category, and this has always been the position of the SSPX, therefore, from day 1.
Whose wedding or funeral was this? And the "exception" does not apply when there is danger of "grave scandal."
Secondly, this isn't merely a prot reading the bible and singing hymns. This is a supposed minister of God, offering what is akin to a pagan sacrifice/religious rite, while the blessed sacrament is (supposedly) present. A completely different ballpark.
I don't care, really, what the SSPX's position on this is.
-
Sean, would it be inaccurate for me to conclude that you take the position that if they "merely attended," then no problem?
Cantate-
Remember this?
So the million dollar questions are these:
A) Can their attendance be verified?
B) If so, what were the circuмstances surrounding their decision to attend?
C) If so, did they merely attend, or did they actually participate.
Wherefore I conclude that Sean Johnson takes the position that if they "merely attended," then no problem.
How could you? :shocked:
-
Some common sense should apply here:
1) At this point, it is still a bit nebulous, despite the reports cited herein, whether Fr's Nely/Pfluger attended at all;
2) But IF it should be verified, the million dollar question will be:
3) Did they merely attend, or did they participate?
Yep, just like the E.D. priests merely have to "attend" the local No-bish's Chrism Mass.
Way beyond that pale when that news surfaced, but now it's OK if they kneel in back and pray the Rosary?
You do not seem to distinguish between attendance and participation.
You will find permission to attend non-Catholic funerals and weddings (all other conditions being satisfied) in practically every pre-Vatican II moral theology manual speaking on the subject.
I actually did distinguish, the E.D. priests only are expected to attend. So was Francis' "Mass" a wedding or funeral? I must have missed something.
Apparently you have been getting some bad information regarding the ED priests at the Chrism Mass too.
They do not merely attend.
Regarding causes dispensing from preclusion in attending non-Catholic rites, please consult a manual of moral theology.
-
Some common sense should apply here:
1) At this point, it is still a bit nebulous, despite the reports cited herein, whether Fr's Nely/Pfluger attended at all;
2) But IF it should be verified, the million dollar question will be:
3) Did they merely attend, or did they participate?
Yep, just like the E.D. priests merely have to "attend" the local No-bish's Chrism Mass.
Way beyond that pale when that news surfaced, but now it's OK if they kneel in back and pray the Rosary?
You do not seem to distinguish between attendance and participation.
You will find permission to attend non-Catholic funerals and weddings (all other conditions being satisfied) in practically every pre-Vatican II moral theology manual speaking on the subject.
I actually did distinguish, the E.D. priests only are expected to attend. So was Francis' "Mass" a wedding or funeral? I must have missed something.
Apparently you have been getting some bad information regarding the ED priests at the Chrism Mass too.
They do not merely attend.
Regarding causes dispensing from preclusion in attending non-Catholic rites, please consult a manual of moral theology.
No, I have it firsthand. They are only expected to attend. In fact, a practice of some of them is to show up late, get their Holy Oils and run. (not trying to get another discussion about the Oils, just sayin')
-
Sean, would it be inaccurate for me to conclude that you take the position that if they "merely attended," then no problem?
Cantate-
Remember this?
So the million dollar questions are these:
A) Can their attendance be verified?
B) If so, what were the circuмstances surrounding their decision to attend?
C) If so, did they merely attend, or did they actually participate.
Wherefore I conclude that Sean Johnson takes the position that if they "merely attended," then no problem.
How could you? :shocked:
You are an idiot.
When your Novus Ordo mom dies, you will not be attending?
Ad hominem and argument from emotion, all in the same post.
-
Some common sense should apply here:
1) At this point, it is still a bit nebulous, despite the reports cited herein, whether Fr's Nely/Pfluger attended at all;
2) But IF it should be verified, the million dollar question will be:
3) Did they merely attend, or did they participate?
Yep, just like the E.D. priests merely have to "attend" the local No-bish's Chrism Mass.
Way beyond that pale when that news surfaced, but now it's OK if they kneel in back and pray the Rosary?
You do not seem to distinguish between attendance and participation.
You will find permission to attend non-Catholic funerals and weddings (all other conditions being satisfied) in practically every pre-Vatican II moral theology manual speaking on the subject.
I actually did distinguish, the E.D. priests only are expected to attend. So was Francis' "Mass" a wedding or funeral? I must have missed something.
Apparently you have been getting some bad information regarding the ED priests at the Chrism Mass too.
They do not merely attend.
Regarding causes dispensing from preclusion in attending non-Catholic rites, please consult a manual of moral theology.
No, I have it firsthand. They are only expected to attend. In fact, a practice of some of them is to show up late, get their Holy Oils and run. (not trying to get another discussion about the Oils, just sayin')
No, they concelebrate it.
-
Sean, would it be inaccurate for me to conclude that you take the position that if they "merely attended," then no problem?
Cantate-
Remember this?
So the million dollar questions are these:
A) Can their attendance be verified?
B) If so, what were the circuмstances surrounding their decision to attend?
C) If so, did they merely attend, or did they actually participate.
Wherefore I conclude that Sean Johnson takes the position that if they "merely attended," then no problem.
How could you? :shocked:
You are an idiot.
When your Novus Ordo mom dies, you will not be attending?
Pardon me for interrupting, but Frank's Mess was not a funeral. Why this persistent disconnect in your reasoning?
-
It's called violating the First Three Commandments cuм selling one's own soul through sycophantic sucking up to ostensible authority. We see this phenomenon in corporate offices all over the world.
They burn incense to devils merely by attending.
They, by their CONDUCT, testify that the novus ordo devil worship is "licit" in the Church and "legitimately promulgated."
They burn incense - just by attending - to the dark lord of in-your-face, fornicating bastardization.
You give objective offense to God, Sean, by defending this conduct in any way.
Be careful. Your soul is too precious to waste on defending the indefensible.
They have sold out the Catholics on their watch, Sean.
Face it.
-
Some common sense should apply here:
1) At this point, it is still a bit nebulous, despite the reports cited herein, whether Fr's Nely/Pfluger attended at all;
2) But IF it should be verified, the million dollar question will be:
3) Did they merely attend, or did they participate?
Yep, just like the E.D. priests merely have to "attend" the local No-bish's Chrism Mass.
Way beyond that pale when that news surfaced, but now it's OK if they kneel in back and pray the Rosary?
You do not seem to distinguish between attendance and participation.
You will find permission to attend non-Catholic funerals and weddings (all other conditions being satisfied) in practically every pre-Vatican II moral theology manual speaking on the subject.
I actually did distinguish, the E.D. priests only are expected to attend. So was Francis' "Mass" a wedding or funeral? I must have missed something.
Apparently you have been getting some bad information regarding the ED priests at the Chrism Mass too.
They do not merely attend.
Regarding causes dispensing from preclusion in attending non-Catholic rites, please consult a manual of moral theology.
No, I have it firsthand. They are only expected to attend. In fact, a practice of some of them is to show up late, get their Holy Oils and run. (not trying to get another discussion about the Oils, just sayin')
No, they concelebrate it.
OK, so we got different info. Maybe the practice is not uniform - no surprise there..
-
Sean, would it be inaccurate for me to conclude that you take the position that if they "merely attended," then no problem?
Cantate-
Remember this?
So the million dollar questions are these:
A) Can their attendance be verified?
B) If so, what were the circuмstances surrounding their decision to attend?
C) If so, did they merely attend, or did they actually participate.
Wherefore I conclude that Sean Johnson takes the position that if they "merely attended," then no problem.
How could you? :shocked:
You are an idiot.
When your Novus Ordo mom dies, you will not be attending?
You resort to calling me an idiot.
That speaks volumes about the quality of your thinking.
As does the stupidity of your posts.
Can you think of even a single sedevacantist bishop who precludes the attendance of non-Catholic weddings and funerals for family members?
The principle behind that are those enumerated in my original post.
But you would hold the world to a standard so radical that not even the most fringe sede would promote?
-
Sean, would it be inaccurate for me to conclude that you take the position that if they "merely attended," then no problem?
Cantate-
Remember this?
So the million dollar questions are these:
A) Can their attendance be verified?
B) If so, what were the circuмstances surrounding their decision to attend?
C) If so, did they merely attend, or did they actually participate.
Wherefore I conclude that Sean Johnson takes the position that if they "merely attended," then no problem.
How could you? :shocked:
You are an idiot.
When your Novus Ordo mom dies, you will not be attending?
You resort to calling me an idiot.
That speaks volumes about the quality of your thinking.
As does the stupidity of your posts.
According to Sean Jonson, the stupidity of my posts speaks volumes about his thinking. :laugh1: :laugh1: :laugh1:
I don't have time to banter wits with an idiot.
Good day!
-
I don't have time to banter wits with an idiot.
Good day!
Well if you change your mind, it would be a good idea lay in a stock of ammo before you go into battle
-
The word of the day is ...... ASSIST!
Not attend!
Stop twisting this into an attend vs participate debate.
So, he assisted at a NO mass with the Pope, and let me guess, he did not receive communion.
-
The SSPX's response. The two assistants didn't even attend a Mass, much less receive Communion or concelebrate.
http://www.dici.org/en/news/about-a-meeting-between-the-pope-and-bishop-fellay (http://www.dici.org/en/news/about-a-meeting-between-the-pope-and-bishop-fellay/)
-
Please read the OP again -- I have totally updated its content to reflect the latest news.
You will find the text of these 3 links there:
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/05/rorate-exclusive-pope-francis-received.html?m=1
http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/news/detail/articolo/francesco-francis-francisco-fellay-34011/
http://www.dici.org/en/news/about-a-meeting-between-the-pope-and-bishop-fellay/
-
SJ,
You are an idiot.
When your Novus Ordo mom dies, you will not be attending?
What a shameful and crass thing to say. Please try and act like a gentleman and apologize.
For a man of principle and Catholic rigour, the answer is clearly no.
Considering the persons under discussion, you have already answered that question.
-
The word of the day is ...... ASSIST!
Not attend!
Stop twisting this into an attend vs participate debate.
So, he assisted at a NO mass with the Pope, and let me guess, he did not receive communion.
Unfortunately I have to go to work now and cannot tear your post apart limb from limb.
This juicy task is on the menu for tonight though.
Yes, I just received the SSPXBrand CYA-face-saving email.
How delicious!!!!!!!!!!!!
But before I sign off I cannot resist pointing out that even the modernist-luving Menzingenistas are falling over themselves to DENY that they even ATTENDED/ASSISTED (means the same exact thing).
They deny it flat out, giving the bone to the truthful principle that even to attend such a thing is a betrayal of Christ, and giving the lie to the inanity Johnson came up with - a false distinction between 'attend' and 'participate.'
See here: http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/about-meeting-pope-francis-and-bishop-fellay-4067
Ha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
P.S. I really dig the saccharine-smarm picture of +Fellay.
Ha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
The word of the day is ...... ASSIST!
Not attend!
Stop twisting this into an attend vs participate debate.
So, he assisted at a NO mass with the Pope, and let me guess, he did not receive communion.
Unfortunately I have to go to work now and cannot tear your post apart limb from limb.
This juicy task is on the menu for tonight though.
Yes, I just received the SSPXBrand CYA-face-saving email.
How delicious!!!!!!!!!!!!
But before I sign off I cannot resist pointing out that even the modernist-luving Menzingenistas are falling over themselves to DENY that they even ATTENDED/ASSISTED (means the same exact thing).
They deny it flat out, giving the bone to the truthful principle that even to attend such a thing is a betrayal of Christ, and giving the lie to the inanity Johnson came up with - a false distinction between 'attend' and 'participate.'
See here: http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/about-meeting-pope-francis-and-bishop-fellay-4067
Ha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
P.S. I really dig the saccharine-smarm picture of +Fellay.
Ha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You are ridiculous, even for a sede:
On the one hand, you easily contradict Church teaching, which clearly permits Catholics to attend non-Catholic rites for grave cause (i.e., weddings and funerals of family members), so long as they do not participate.
And on the other hand, confronted with the fresh SSPX announcement that the event reported is 100% fiction, you pretend it somehow proves your point.
Smelling salts anyone?
-
SJ,
You are an idiot.
When your Novus Ordo mom dies, you will not be attending?
What a shameful and crass thing to say. Please try and act like a gentleman and apologize.
For a man of principle and Catholic rigour, the answer is clearly no.
Considering the persons under discussion, you have already answered that question.
J.Paul-
I am rightly rebuked!
This forum has become an occassion of sin to me, precisely in this regard, ever since the sedes began to dominate.
To see someone trying to call into question the distinction between attendance and participation got my Irish up.
It did, however, provide a nice evidence of precisely the kind of simplistic argumentation the SSPX accuses the sedes of.
That said, the return on investment of posting on this forum is ever diminishing.
-
SJ,
You are an idiot.
When your Novus Ordo mom dies, you will not be attending?
What a shameful and crass thing to say. Please try and act like a gentleman and apologize.
For a man of principle and Catholic rigour, the answer is clearly no.
Considering the persons under discussion, you have already answered that question.
J.Paul-
I am rightly rebuked!
This forum has become an occassion of sin to me, precisely in this regard, ever since the sedes began to dominate.
To see someone trying to call into question the distinction between attendance and participation got my Irish up.
It did, however, provide a nice evidence of precisely the kind of simplistic argumentation the SSPX accuses the sedes of.
That said, the return on investment of posting on this forum is ever diminishing.
My prediction:
Another sede v R&R poll taken in 3 months time will reveal an even greater gain for the sedes on this forum.
And contrary to the foreseeable conclusions they will deduce from their gains here (i.e., "It is because more and more people are waking up to Bergolio"), the true reason will be that which I have stated:
Who wants to have a food-fight on every thread that begins?
2 years ago, such was not the case.
But now?
Better things to do.
-
I asked a question earlier, in good faith.
Giving the benefit of the doubt, what reason(s) could there be for meeting in secret?
Apparently it was quite public. Didn't you understand that?
-
SJ,
You are an idiot.
When your Novus Ordo mom dies, you will not be attending?
What a shameful and crass thing to say. Please try and act like a gentleman and apologize.
For a man of principle and Catholic rigour, the answer is clearly no.
Considering the persons under discussion, you have already answered that question.
J.Paul-
I am rightly rebuked!
This forum has become an occassion of sin to me, precisely in this regard, ever since the sedes began to dominate.
To see someone trying to call into question the distinction between attendance and participation got my Irish up.
It did, however, provide a nice evidence of precisely the kind of simplistic argumentation the SSPX accuses the sedes of.
That said, the return on investment of posting on this forum is ever diminishing.
Sean,
I'd just like to say, coming from a non sede, that I did NOT attend my own grandmother's funeral because it was a novus ordo. Multiple others I have not attended for the same reason, including the untimely death of my 18 year old cousin a few years ago. I didn't attend the funeral of my aunt who died of cancer last year, either.
If my mother or father were novus ordo (thank the good God they're not,) I would NOT be attending their funeral, and that decision wouldn't be different just because they're my parents either.
It's something called having principles, and not being a witness to a blasphemous service that masquerades as a Mass.
.....
...Does that make me a sede for saying that?
-
SJ,
You are an idiot.
When your Novus Ordo mom dies, you will not be attending?
What a shameful and crass thing to say. Please try and act like a gentleman and apologize.
For a man of principle and Catholic rigour, the answer is clearly no.
Considering the persons under discussion, you have already answered that question.
J.Paul-
I am rightly rebuked!
This forum has become an occassion of sin to me, precisely in this regard, ever since the sedes began to dominate.
To see someone trying to call into question the distinction between attendance and participation got my Irish up.
It did, however, provide a nice evidence of precisely the kind of simplistic argumentation the SSPX accuses the sedes of.
That said, the return on investment of posting on this forum is ever diminishing.
Sean,
I'd just like to say, coming from a non sede, that I did NOT attend my own grandmother's funeral because it was a novus ordo. Multiple others I have not attended for the same reason, including the untimely death of my 18 year old cousin a few years ago. I didn't attend the funeral of my aunt who died of cancer last year, either.
If my mother or father were novus ordo (thank the good God they're not,) I would NOT be attending their funeral, and that decision wouldn't be different just because they're my parents either.
It's something called having principles, and not being a witness to a blasphemous service that masquerades as a Mass.
.....
...Does that make me a sede for saying that?
No, just ignorant.
The Church does not force you to attend such events.
But it does forbid you to attend them.
I am sorry to read you accuse the Church, ABL, BW, and all Catholics who are aware of this of lacking principles.
-
Why the surprise/ wonder/ confusion as to whether Fellay, Nely and Pfluger was or was not
in the same building in which Mr.Bergoglio performed a pretend mass? Nely and Lorans have been meeting with GREC people for years-- you don't think in all that time they've attended and participated in a novus ordo mass?
Remember, in the 1970's, ABL was told if he just says ONE novus ordo mass-- all his problems will go away! ABL responded "No! If that n.o. Mass is evil--why would I say it?"
True, traditional Catholic priests have counseled that, in order only to keep peace and harmony , and preserve familial relationships, it is permitted to attend important ( eg Funerals, Weddings) n.o. functions , but be very careful not to participate, or even to give the appearance of condoning, the service.
Now, however, the SSPX tune is different. The new pres-by-ters they are bringing in have been saying the N.O. for years, and they all believe they were masses. Father Goldady in Ridgefield even told the Holy Name Men's League that attending the Novus Ordo new mass on Sunday fulfills your Sunday obligation, " though we say it is a harm to your soul!"
Do you see how absolutely confused and distorted their thinking has become? Their head has lost his head; they have lost their bearings; nobody can tell the emperor he forgot to get dressed, so instead everybody plays make-believe--and hopes that God or the Blessed Mother will pull off a miracle and do what you have the power to do: tell Fellay, Nely, Pfluger , Rostand, LeRoux and others to resign! " you've lost your mind, you're losing your soul, and you're destroying the Remnant Church!"
-
SJ,
You are an idiot.
When your Novus Ordo mom dies, you will not be attending?
What a shameful and crass thing to say. Please try and act like a gentleman and apologize.
For a man of principle and Catholic rigour, the answer is clearly no.
Considering the persons under discussion, you have already answered that question.
J.Paul-
I am rightly rebuked!
This forum has become an occassion of sin to me, precisely in this regard, ever since the sedes began to dominate.
To see someone trying to call into question the distinction between attendance and participation got my Irish up.
It did, however, provide a nice evidence of precisely the kind of simplistic argumentation the SSPX accuses the sedes of.
That said, the return on investment of posting on this forum is ever diminishing.
Sean,
I'd just like to say, coming from a non sede, that I did NOT attend my own grandmother's funeral because it was a novus ordo. Multiple others I have not attended for the same reason, including the untimely death of my 18 year old cousin a few years ago. I didn't attend the funeral of my aunt who died of cancer last year, either.
If my mother or father were novus ordo (thank the good God they're not,) I would NOT be attending their funeral, and that decision wouldn't be different just because they're my parents either.
It's something called having principles, and not being a witness to a blasphemous service that masquerades as a Mass.
.....
...Does that make me a sede for saying that?
No, just ignorant.
The Church does not force you to attend such events.
But it does forbid you to attend them.
I am sorry to read you accuse the Church, ABL, BW, and all Catholics who are aware of this of lacking principles.
I'm not ignorant of the rule. The Church forbids me to PARTICIPATE in such services, as they are considered NON Catholic. Do you disagree?
-
PFT,
I can't say that you're WRONG for not attending those funerals (Sean said it well when he said the Church doesn't force you to attend), but provided that you could without participating (passive attendance) you would not be wrong in doing so. It is good to abide by principles, and it is especially so when they are difficult to abide by, but there is no principle which requires your non-attendance at a non-Catholic wedding or funeral, provided that a grave civic duty compels you (as would usually be the case with deceased loved ones) and that your attendance is passive.
I think this explanation by the canonists Bouscaren and Ellis is a great explanation of the Church's law in this regard:
It is illicit for Catholics in any way to assist actively or take part in sacred worship of non-Catholics (c. 1258/1). Passive or merely material presence, for sake of civil courtesy, duty or respect, for a grave reason which in case of doubt should have the approval of the Bishop may be tolerated at the funerals, weddings and other such celebration of non-Catholics, provided there is no danger of perversion or of scandal (c. 1258/2).
1. Active Participation. A person would participate actively in the worship of non-Catholics if, besides being physically present in the place where such worship was being conducted, he placed some positive act of worship in common with the non-Catholic worshipers. Such co-operation would be formal if it were done with the intention of really taking part in the worship; it would be merely material if done without that intention but for some other reason, for example mere civility or friendship. All active participation is forbidden by the first paragraph of this canon, whether it be formal or merely material.
2. Passive Presence. The second paragraph speaks of "merely passive or material presence." A person is passively present if he is present without joining in any positive act of worship; his presence is voluntary but he abstains from any positive action. It is conceivable that even merely passive presence might be accompanied by an internal intention to approve, assent to, or encourage the non-Catholic worship; if that were true it would be formal cooperation in an evil act, and forbidden by the natural law. The canon supposes that this is not the case, and consequently that the passive presence is merely material. Even then such presence is not simply permitted because, though not intrinsically wrong by reason of it's object (the thing done) it is likely to be wrong by reason of it's circuмstances or consequences. Hence three conditions are laid down for it's licitness: (1) That there be a grave reason based on considerations of civil courtesy, duty, or respect; (2) that in case of doubt the sufficiency of the reason be approved by the Bishop; (3) that there be no danger either of perversion or scandal. The functions at which such presence is then permitted are given by way of example, "funerals, weddings and other similar celebrations." Applications of this canon are very numerous and varied; their discussion pertains rather to moral theology.
-
One word of caution about merely "attending" the NOM, especially if it's for anyone close to you: My maternal grandmother die two years ago, and I "attended" her NO Mass of Canonization. Right as it was time to take up the "gifts," my mother turned to me and said (paraphrasing), "Go with [my daughter] and her two cousins and take up the gifts. This was planned." What was I supposed to do? It's not the place for a protest, even in the NOM. So, I gritted my teeth and followed them up the aisle. I felt as though I'd offered incense to a strange god. Believe me, I'll never place myself in that position again!
-
SJ,
You are an idiot.
When your Novus Ordo mom dies, you will not be attending?
What a shameful and crass thing to say. Please try and act like a gentleman and apologize.
For a man of principle and Catholic rigour, the answer is clearly no.
Considering the persons under discussion, you have already answered that question.
J.Paul-
I am rightly rebuked!
This forum has become an occassion of sin to me, precisely in this regard, ever since the sedes began to dominate.
To see someone trying to call into question the distinction between attendance and participation got my Irish up.
It did, however, provide a nice evidence of precisely the kind of simplistic argumentation the SSPX accuses the sedes of.
That said, the return on investment of posting on this forum is ever diminishing.
Yes Sean, these forums can be a temptation to react to things rather than wait them out whereby the truth of the matter is exposed. Many times we satisfy our outrage without stopping to think of what we are saying.
There are many times when others will understand words in differing ways that support their own view of things. That is the Mother's milk of Traditional forums. We should all ponder that.
The "Let he who is without sin" concept should give us pause I guess.
-
If you have someone close who dies Novus Ordo, you skip the false Mass and attend the wake, and or, the internment graveside service. That satisfies justice and keeps you from sin or sacrilege.
-
Just gonna post this meDICI report here for future reference....
http://www.dici.org/en/news/about-a-meeting-between-the-pope-and-bishop-fellay/
On May 10, 2014, the English-speaking blog Rorate Caeli published under the pseudonym “Adfero”, some “exclusive information” whose sources could not be – according to him – disclosed. This “exclusive information”, spread by the media, revealed that Bishop Bernard Fellay, Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X, met with Pope Francis. On May 11, the Roman agency I.Media published that Bp. Fellay’s two assistants, Fr. Niklaus Pfluger and Fr. Marc-Alain Nély, had attended the Pope’s private Mass.
Fathers Pfluger and Nely have never attended the Pope’s private Mass, and journalists who claim otherwise would have a hard time to indicate the day of the alleged assistance. Here are the facts:
On December 13, 2013, Bishop Fellay and his assistants went to Rome for an informal meeting at the request of the Ecclesia Dei Commission. Following this interview, the Secretary of the Commission, Archbishop Guido Pozzo, invited his counterparts for lunch at St. Martha House’s dining room where they were joined by Archbishop Augustine Di Noia, Assistant Secretary of the Congregation of the Faith. It is in this large refectory that the Pope takes his daily meals, away from other guests.
Archbishop Pozzo insisted on introducing Bishop Fellay to the pope while the latter was leaving the refectory. There was a brief exchange where Pope Francis said to Bishop Fellay, according to the usual polite formula, “I’m very glad to meet you.” To this, Bishop Fellay answered that he was praying a lot, and the pope asked him to pray for him. Such was the “meeting” that lasted a few seconds.
In the interview he gave to Le Rocher (April-May 2014), Bishop Fellay answered the following question: Has Rome made an official approach to renew contact with you since the election of Pope Francis? – “Rome made a ‘non-official’ approach to renew contact with us, but nothing more, and I have not asked for an audience as I did after Benedict XVI’s election. For me, things at present are very simple: we stay as we are. Some concluded from my close contact with Rome in 2012 that I regard the necessity of a canonical recognition as a supreme principle. Preserving the Faith and our traditional Catholic identity is essential and remains our first principle.”
-
If you have someone close who dies Novus Ordo, you skip the false Mass and attend the wake, and or, the internment graveside service. That satisfies justice and keeps you from sin or sacrilege.
And this is what we do, instead of even darkening the doorstep of the novus ordo church.
-
PFT,
I can't say that you're WRONG for not attending those funerals (Sean said it well when he said the Church doesn't force you to attend), but provided that you could without participating (passive attendance) you would not be wrong in doing so. It is good to abide by principles, and it is especially so when they are difficult to abide by, but there is no principle which requires your non-attendance at a non-Catholic wedding or funeral, provided that a grave civic duty compels you (as would usually be the case with deceased loved ones) and that your attendance is passive.
I think this explanation by the canonists Bouscaren and Ellis is a great explanation of the Church's law in this regard:
It is illicit for Catholics in any way to assist actively or take part in sacred worship of non-Catholics (c. 1258/1). Passive or merely material presence, for sake of civil courtesy, duty or respect, for a grave reason which in case of doubt should have the approval of the Bishop may be tolerated at the funerals, weddings and other such celebration of non-Catholics, provided there is no danger of perversion or of scandal (c. 1258/2).
1. Active Participation. A person would participate actively in the worship of non-Catholics if, besides being physically present in the place where such worship was being conducted, he placed some positive act of worship in common with the non-Catholic worshipers. Such co-operation would be formal if it were done with the intention of really taking part in the worship; it would be merely material if done without that intention but for some other reason, for example mere civility or friendship. All active participation is forbidden by the first paragraph of this canon, whether it be formal or merely material.
2. Passive Presence. The second paragraph speaks of "merely passive or material presence." A person is passively present if he is present without joining in any positive act of worship; his presence is voluntary but he abstains from any positive action. It is conceivable that even merely passive presence might be accompanied by an internal intention to approve, assent to, or encourage the non-Catholic worship; if that were true it would be formal cooperation in an evil act, and forbidden by the natural law. The canon supposes that this is not the case, and consequently that the passive presence is merely material. Even then such presence is not simply permitted because, though not intrinsically wrong by reason of it's object (the thing done) it is likely to be wrong by reason of it's circuмstances or consequences. Hence three conditions are laid down for it's licitness: (1) That there be a grave reason based on considerations of civil courtesy, duty, or respect; (2) that in case of doubt the sufficiency of the reason be approved by the Bishop; (3) that there be no danger either of perversion or scandal. The functions at which such presence is then permitted are given by way of example, "funerals, weddings and other similar celebrations." Applications of this canon are very numerous and varied; their discussion pertains rather to moral theology.
Yup, I'm well aware of the rules.
I haven't attended a novus ordo funeral/wedding/first communion in many years. I went to a "wedding" for my niece (there's a huge generation gap in my family.) My husband was going, and I had to go, but this was a protestant service. I just sat there. The couple has since divorced (surprise, surprise.)
Wild horses couldn't drag me into a novus ordo church, or any other non-requiem traditional Catholic funeral service/wedding/first communion.
I don't know a grave reason that could compel me to go to someone's service. I could just as easily show up at a reception, or the viewing of the body. I think it would scandalize those I know more if I showed up at the false worship service than if I stood by my principles and was absent from it. If I showed up, I would be putting my rubber stamp on what's going on there, and that's something people know I don't do unless I support what's going on.
-
PFT,
I can't say that you're WRONG for not attending those funerals (Sean said it well when he said the Church doesn't force you to attend), but provided that you could without participating (passive attendance) you would not be wrong in doing so. It is good to abide by principles, and it is especially so when they are difficult to abide by, but there is no principle which requires your non-attendance at a non-Catholic wedding or funeral, provided that a grave civic duty compels you (as would usually be the case with deceased loved ones) and that your attendance is passive.
I think this explanation by the canonists Bouscaren and Ellis is a great explanation of the Church's law in this regard:
It is illicit for Catholics in any way to assist actively or take part in sacred worship of non-Catholics (c. 1258/1). Passive or merely material presence, for sake of civil courtesy, duty or respect, for a grave reason which in case of doubt should have the approval of the Bishop may be tolerated at the funerals, weddings and other such celebration of non-Catholics, provided there is no danger of perversion or of scandal (c. 1258/2).
1. Active Participation. A person would participate actively in the worship of non-Catholics if, besides being physically present in the place where such worship was being conducted, he placed some positive act of worship in common with the non-Catholic worshipers. Such co-operation would be formal if it were done with the intention of really taking part in the worship; it would be merely material if done without that intention but for some other reason, for example mere civility or friendship. All active participation is forbidden by the first paragraph of this canon, whether it be formal or merely material.
2. Passive Presence. The second paragraph speaks of "merely passive or material presence." A person is passively present if he is present without joining in any positive act of worship; his presence is voluntary but he abstains from any positive action. It is conceivable that even merely passive presence might be accompanied by an internal intention to approve, assent to, or encourage the non-Catholic worship; if that were true it would be formal cooperation in an evil act, and forbidden by the natural law. The canon supposes that this is not the case, and consequently that the passive presence is merely material. Even then such presence is not simply permitted because, though not intrinsically wrong by reason of it's object (the thing done) it is likely to be wrong by reason of it's circuмstances or consequences. Hence three conditions are laid down for it's licitness: (1) That there be a grave reason based on considerations of civil courtesy, duty, or respect; (2) that in case of doubt the sufficiency of the reason be approved by the Bishop; (3) that there be no danger either of perversion or scandal. The functions at which such presence is then permitted are given by way of example, "funerals, weddings and other similar celebrations." Applications of this canon are very numerous and varied; their discussion pertains rather to moral theology.
Yup, I'm well aware of the rules.
I haven't attended a novus ordo funeral/wedding/first communion in many years. I went to a "wedding" for my niece (there's a huge generation gap in my family.) My husband was going, and I had to go, but this was a protestant service. I just sat there. The couple has since divorced (surprise, surprise.)
Wild horses couldn't drag me into a novus ordo church, or any other non-requiem traditional Catholic funeral service/wedding/first communion.
I don't know a grave reason that could compel me to go to someone's service. I could just as easily show up at a reception, or the viewing of the body. I think it would scandalize those I know more if I showed up at the false worship service than if I stood by my principles and was absent from it. If I showed up, I would be putting my rubber stamp on what's going on there, and that's something people know I don't do unless I support what's going on.
Given you are well aware of the rules of the Catholic Church I'm not sure why you would feel the need to tell someone who follows those rules and chooses to go to such a funeral or wedding as "lacking principles".
-
This is not merely a "non-Catholic" wedding or funeral. The Novus Ordo is a sacrilegious parody of the Catholic Mass. It, unlike the protestant services, is an outrage against the majesty of God of the first magnitude, a running violation of standing Church law (Quo Primum), and a violation of the first commandment on a level not attainable by protestants or pagans.
One may be a "witness" to a protestant wedding, but to stand by while what purports to be the blessed sacrament is profaned, and the Catholic Mass to be mocked, is a different matter altogether.
The New Mass doesn't merely represent a "danger" to the faith. Its purpose for existence is to replace and expunge from the face of the earth the True Mass.
This is a pretty solid post.
The protestant founders thought they were following God, these novus ordites are deliberately mocking Our Lord while pretending to be Catholics.
-
The word of the day is ...... ASSIST!
Not attend!
Stop twisting this into an attend vs participate debate.
So, he assisted at a NO mass with the Pope, and let me guess, he did not receive communion.
Please do not create create another lame pseudo-distinction:
SSPXBRAND: Frs. Pfluger and Nely have never attended the pope’s private Mass, and journalists who claim otherwise would have a hard time to indicate the day of the alleged assistance. See: http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/about-meeting-pope-francis-and-bishop-fellay-4067
OBSERVATION: In this English version of their prop piece, SSPXBrand uses the words 'attend' and 'assist' interchangeably, which demonstrates that these terms are intended to signify the same reality: voluntary physical presence at the event.
'Voluntary physical presence' is the meaning I and others took away from the news reports. To create a bogus distinction based on degrees of voluntary participation is clearly an obfuscation tactic. The conduct, as alleged, is naturally and facilely understood as something less than 'concelebration' and something quite more than being involuntarily wheeled in on a gurney while in an unconscious state of mind. The intellect does not require a distinction in order to correctly apprehend the nature of the act in question.
Now even mere voluntary presence at that particular, specified event, is quite damning, as SSPXBrand rightly apprehends. If it weren't a damnable thing, they would not be categorically denying it with an almost frenzied prop bombardment.
The attempt to liken alleged SSPXBrand 'presence' at a sacrilegious event perpetrated by the infidel Bergoglio in the name of Holy Mother the Church, to just some layman going to his relative's novus ordo wake or wedding, fails for what it is: a lame diversionary tactic. The two instances are not even remotely analogous, due to the overwhelming substantial and circuмstantial differences between them.
Now there are always tell tale signs that accompany obfuscation campaigns. One of them is name-calling, which is a form of strawman or ad hominem, depending on the signification of the epithet.
For pointing out the lameness of the attempt to divert attention (by a grossly misapplied and therefore false distinction) away from the alleged objectively evil act that is correctly signified and apprehended even by SSPXBrand itself, I was hit with several epithets, the most craven (and strawman) of which was "sede."
SSPXBrand denies voluntary physical presence at the specified event. They make of their denial an unequivocal self-defense. And they have to deny it because they know that to have been voluntarily present would have constituted an objectively and gravely evil act, given all the particular circuмstances of this case.
SSPXBrand clearly stipulates, if perhaps somewhat indirectly and in spite of its obfuscating excuse makers, that SSPXBrand voluntary physical presence at a Bergoglio-presider supper should be considered a very bad thing.
And as I think that their categorical denial will serve well the cause of truth over the course of time, I thank them for it wholeheartedly.
-
PFT,
I can't say that you're WRONG for not attending those funerals (Sean said it well when he said the Church doesn't force you to attend), but provided that you could without participating (passive attendance) you would not be wrong in doing so. It is good to abide by principles, and it is especially so when they are difficult to abide by, but there is no principle which requires your non-attendance at a non-Catholic wedding or funeral, provided that a grave civic duty compels you (as would usually be the case with deceased loved ones) and that your attendance is passive.
I think this explanation by the canonists Bouscaren and Ellis is a great explanation of the Church's law in this regard:
It is illicit for Catholics in any way to assist actively or take part in sacred worship of non-Catholics (c. 1258/1). Passive or merely material presence, for sake of civil courtesy, duty or respect, for a grave reason which in case of doubt should have the approval of the Bishop may be tolerated at the funerals, weddings and other such celebration of non-Catholics, provided there is no danger of perversion or of scandal (c. 1258/2).
1. Active Participation. A person would participate actively in the worship of non-Catholics if, besides being physically present in the place where such worship was being conducted, he placed some positive act of worship in common with the non-Catholic worshipers. Such co-operation would be formal if it were done with the intention of really taking part in the worship; it would be merely material if done without that intention but for some other reason, for example mere civility or friendship. All active participation is forbidden by the first paragraph of this canon, whether it be formal or merely material.
2. Passive Presence. The second paragraph speaks of "merely passive or material presence." A person is passively present if he is present without joining in any positive act of worship; his presence is voluntary but he abstains from any positive action. It is conceivable that even merely passive presence might be accompanied by an internal intention to approve, assent to, or encourage the non-Catholic worship; if that were true it would be formal cooperation in an evil act, and forbidden by the natural law. The canon supposes that this is not the case, and consequently that the passive presence is merely material. Even then such presence is not simply permitted because, though not intrinsically wrong by reason of it's object (the thing done) it is likely to be wrong by reason of it's circuмstances or consequences. Hence three conditions are laid down for it's licitness: (1) That there be a grave reason based on considerations of civil courtesy, duty, or respect; (2) that in case of doubt the sufficiency of the reason be approved by the Bishop; (3) that there be no danger either of perversion or scandal. The functions at which such presence is then permitted are given by way of example, "funerals, weddings and other similar celebrations." Applications of this canon are very numerous and varied; their discussion pertains rather to moral theology.
Yup, I'm well aware of the rules.
I haven't attended a novus ordo funeral/wedding/first communion in many years. I went to a "wedding" for my niece (there's a huge generation gap in my family.) My husband was going, and I had to go, but this was a protestant service. I just sat there. The couple has since divorced (surprise, surprise.)
Wild horses couldn't drag me into a novus ordo church, or any other non-requiem traditional Catholic funeral service/wedding/first communion.
I don't know a grave reason that could compel me to go to someone's service. I could just as easily show up at a reception, or the viewing of the body. I think it would scandalize those I know more if I showed up at the false worship service than if I stood by my principles and was absent from it. If I showed up, I would be putting my rubber stamp on what's going on there, and that's something people know I don't do unless I support what's going on.
Given you are well aware of the rules of the Catholic Church I'm not sure why you would feel the need to tell someone who follows those rules and chooses to go to such a funeral or wedding as "lacking principles".
Principles enumerated in IHSV's post here:
This is not merely a "non-Catholic" wedding or funeral. The Novus Ordo is a sacrilegious parody of the Catholic Mass. It, unlike the protestant services, is an outrage against the majesty of God of the first magnitude, a running violation of standing Church law (Quo Primum), and a violation of the first commandment on a level not attainable by protestants or pagans.
One may be a "witness" to a protestant wedding, but to stand by while what purports to be the blessed sacrament is profaned, and the Catholic Mass to be mocked, is a different matter altogether.
The New Mass doesn't merely represent a "danger" to the faith. Its purpose for existence is to replace and expunge from the face of the earth the True Mass.
-
The word of the day is ...... ASSIST!
Not attend!
Stop twisting this into an attend vs participate debate.
So, he assisted at a NO mass with the Pope, and let me guess, he did not receive communion.
Please do not create create another lame pseudo-distinction:
SSPXBRAND: Frs. Pfluger and Nely have never attended the pope’s private Mass, and journalists who claim otherwise would have a hard time to indicate the day of the alleged assistance. See: http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/about-meeting-pope-francis-and-bishop-fellay-4067
OBSERVATION: In this English version of their prop piece, SSPXBrand uses the words 'attend' and 'assist' interchangeably, which demonstrates that these terms are intended to signify the same reality: voluntary physical presence at the event.
'Voluntary physical presence' is the meaning I and others took away from the news reports. To create a bogus distinction based on degrees of voluntary participation is clearly an obfuscation tactic. The conduct, as alleged, is naturally and facilely understood as something less than 'concelebration' and something quite more than being involuntarily wheeled in on a gurney while in an unconscious state of mind. The intellect does not require a distinction in order to correctly apprehend the nature of the act in question.
Now even mere voluntary presence at that particular, specified event, is quite damning, as SSPXBrand rightly apprehends. If it weren't a damnable thing, they would not be categorically denying it with an almost frenzied prop bombardment.
The attempt to liken alleged SSPXBrand 'presence' at a sacrilegious event perpetrated by the infidel Bergoglio in the name of Holy Mother the Church, to just some layman going to his relative's novus ordo wake or wedding, fails for what it is: a lame diversionary tactic. The two instances are not even remotely analogous, due to the overwhelming substantial and circuмstantial differences between them.
Now there are always tell tale signs that accompany obfuscation campaigns. One of them is name-calling, which is a form of strawman or ad hominem, depending on the signification of the epithet.
For pointing out the lameness of the attempt to divert attention (by a grossly misapplied and therefore false distinction) away from the alleged objectively evil act that is correctly signified and apprehended even by SSPXBrand itself, I was hit with several epithets, the most craven (and strawman) of which was "sede."
SSPXBrand denies voluntary physical presence at the specified event. They make of their denial an unequivocal self-defense. And they have to deny it because they know that to have been voluntarily present would have constituted an objectively and gravely evil act, given all the particular circuмstances of this case.
SSPXBrand clearly stipulates, if perhaps somewhat indirectly and in spite of its obfuscating excuse makers, that SSPXBrand voluntary physical presence at a Bergoglio-presider supper should be considered a very bad thing.
And as I think that their categorical denial will serve well the cause of truth over the course of time, I thank them for it wholeheartedly.
In both Spanish and Portuguese (and apparently French since that is where the faulty translation comes from) asistir and assistir are translated to attend in reference to the Mass. Anyone with experience in these languages will know this. So can we bury this now?
-
Why bury the exposure of the false opposition?
-
PFT,
I can't say that you're WRONG for not attending those funerals (Sean said it well when he said the Church doesn't force you to attend), but provided that you could without participating (passive attendance) you would not be wrong in doing so. It is good to abide by principles, and it is especially so when they are difficult to abide by, but there is no principle which requires your non-attendance at a non-Catholic wedding or funeral, provided that a grave civic duty compels you (as would usually be the case with deceased loved ones) and that your attendance is passive.
I think this explanation by the canonists Bouscaren and Ellis is a great explanation of the Church's law in this regard:
It is illicit for Catholics in any way to assist actively or take part in sacred worship of non-Catholics (c. 1258/1). Passive or merely material presence, for sake of civil courtesy, duty or respect, for a grave reason which in case of doubt should have the approval of the Bishop may be tolerated at the funerals, weddings and other such celebration of non-Catholics, provided there is no danger of perversion or of scandal (c. 1258/2).
1. Active Participation. A person would participate actively in the worship of non-Catholics if, besides being physically present in the place where such worship was being conducted, he placed some positive act of worship in common with the non-Catholic worshipers. Such co-operation would be formal if it were done with the intention of really taking part in the worship; it would be merely material if done without that intention but for some other reason, for example mere civility or friendship. All active participation is forbidden by the first paragraph of this canon, whether it be formal or merely material.
2. Passive Presence. The second paragraph speaks of "merely passive or material presence." A person is passively present if he is present without joining in any positive act of worship; his presence is voluntary but he abstains from any positive action. It is conceivable that even merely passive presence might be accompanied by an internal intention to approve, assent to, or encourage the non-Catholic worship; if that were true it would be formal cooperation in an evil act, and forbidden by the natural law. The canon supposes that this is not the case, and consequently that the passive presence is merely material. Even then such presence is not simply permitted because, though not intrinsically wrong by reason of it's object (the thing done) it is likely to be wrong by reason of it's circuмstances or consequences. Hence three conditions are laid down for it's licitness: (1) That there be a grave reason based on considerations of civil courtesy, duty, or respect; (2) that in case of doubt the sufficiency of the reason be approved by the Bishop; (3) that there be no danger either of perversion or scandal. The functions at which such presence is then permitted are given by way of example, "funerals, weddings and other similar celebrations." Applications of this canon are very numerous and varied; their discussion pertains rather to moral theology.
The SSPX leadership cannot licitly be voluntarily physically present at a Bergoglio presider-supper. It is impossible due to the specific and particular circuмstances of this case, which cannot be avoided, minimized, or mitigated.
They could not be voluntarily physically present without committing grave perversion and scandal, to use your expert's terminology.
It is what it is.
-
One word of caution about merely "attending" the NOM, especially if it's for anyone close to you: My maternal grandmother die two years ago, and I "attended" her NO Mass of Canonization. Right as it was time to take up the "gifts," my mother turned to me and said (paraphrasing), "Go with [my daughter] and her two cousins and take up the gifts. This was planned." What was I supposed to do? It's not the place for a protest, even in the NOM. So, I gritted my teeth and followed them up the aisle. I felt as though I'd offered incense to a strange god. Believe me, I'll never place myself in that position again!
Because every single human being on earth is a subject of the Roman Pontiff, it is impossible to be voluntarily physically present at a Bergoglio presider supper and simultaneously avoid commuting grave perversion, sacrilege, and scandal.
It is not possible, due to the species of the act given the particular circuмstances.
-
PFT,
I can't say that you're WRONG for not attending those funerals (Sean said it well when he said the Church doesn't force you to attend), but provided that you could without participating (passive attendance) you would not be wrong in doing so. It is good to abide by principles, and it is especially so when they are difficult to abide by, but there is no principle which requires your non-attendance at a non-Catholic wedding or funeral, provided that a grave civic duty compels you (as would usually be the case with deceased loved ones) and that your attendance is passive.
I think this explanation by the canonists Bouscaren and Ellis is a great explanation of the Church's law in this regard:
It is illicit for Catholics in any way to assist actively or take part in sacred worship of non-Catholics (c. 1258/1). Passive or merely material presence, for sake of civil courtesy, duty or respect, for a grave reason which in case of doubt should have the approval of the Bishop may be tolerated at the funerals, weddings and other such celebration of non-Catholics, provided there is no danger of perversion or of scandal (c. 1258/2).
1. Active Participation. A person would participate actively in the worship of non-Catholics if, besides being physically present in the place where such worship was being conducted, he placed some positive act of worship in common with the non-Catholic worshipers. Such co-operation would be formal if it were done with the intention of really taking part in the worship; it would be merely material if done without that intention but for some other reason, for example mere civility or friendship. All active participation is forbidden by the first paragraph of this canon, whether it be formal or merely material.
2. Passive Presence. The second paragraph speaks of "merely passive or material presence." A person is passively present if he is present without joining in any positive act of worship; his presence is voluntary but he abstains from any positive action. It is conceivable that even merely passive presence might be accompanied by an internal intention to approve, assent to, or encourage the non-Catholic worship; if that were true it would be formal cooperation in an evil act, and forbidden by the natural law. The canon supposes that this is not the case, and consequently that the passive presence is merely material. Even then such presence is not simply permitted because, though not intrinsically wrong by reason of it's object (the thing done) it is likely to be wrong by reason of it's circuмstances or consequences. Hence three conditions are laid down for it's licitness: (1) That there be a grave reason based on considerations of civil courtesy, duty, or respect; (2) that in case of doubt the sufficiency of the reason be approved by the Bishop; (3) that there be no danger either of perversion or scandal. The functions at which such presence is then permitted are given by way of example, "funerals, weddings and other similar celebrations." Applications of this canon are very numerous and varied; their discussion pertains rather to moral theology.
The SSPX leadership cannot licitly be voluntarily physically present at a Bergoglio presider-supper. It is impossible due to the specific and particular circuмstances of this case, which cannot be avoided, minimized, or mitigated.
They could not be voluntarily physically present without committing grave perversion and scandal, to use your expert's terminology.
It is what it is.
I agree completely. My post was addressed to PFT, and PFT's described situation (of not attending Novus Ordo funerals and weddings of family members) only.
-
Just gonna post this meDICI report here for future reference....
http://www.dici.org/en/news/about-a-meeting-between-the-pope-and-bishop-fellay/
On May 10, 2014, the English-speaking blog Rorate Caeli published under the pseudonym “Adfero”, some “exclusive information” whose sources could not be – according to him – disclosed. This “exclusive information”, spread by the media, revealed that Bishop Bernard Fellay, Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X, met with Pope Francis. On May 11, the Roman agency I.Media published that Bp. Fellay’s two assistants, Fr. Niklaus Pfluger and Fr. Marc-Alain Nély, had attended the Pope’s private Mass.
Fathers Pfluger and Nely have never attended the Pope’s private Mass, and journalists who claim otherwise would have a hard time to indicate the day of the alleged assistance. Here are the facts:
On December 13, 2013, Bishop Fellay and his assistants went to Rome for an informal meeting at the request of the Ecclesia Dei Commission. Following this interview, the Secretary of the Commission, Archbishop Guido Pozzo, invited his counterparts for lunch at St. Martha House’s dining room where they were joined by Archbishop Augustine Di Noia, Assistant Secretary of the Congregation of the Faith. It is in this large refectory that the Pope takes his daily meals, away from other guests.
Archbishop Pozzo insisted on introducing Bishop Fellay to the pope while the latter was leaving the refectory. There was a brief exchange where Pope Francis said to Bishop Fellay, according to the usual polite formula, “I’m very glad to meet you.” To this, Bishop Fellay answered that he was praying a lot, and the pope asked him to pray for him. Such was the “meeting” that lasted a few seconds.
In the interview he gave to Le Rocher (April-May 2014), Bishop Fellay answered the following question: Has Rome made an official approach to renew contact with you since the election of Pope Francis? – “Rome made a ‘non-official’ approach to renew contact with us, but nothing more, and I have not asked for an audience as I did after Benedict XVI’s election. For me, things at present are very simple: we stay as we are. Some concluded from my close contact with Rome in 2012 that I regard the necessity of a canonical recognition as a supreme principle. Preserving the Faith and our traditional Catholic identity is essential and remains our first principle.”
All of which raises an interesting consideration. "Recognition of tolerance," a limp-wristed prop byte if ever there was one, offers a non-reality camel for all to swallow: It's a dose of Nyquil for the sensus catolicus.
We fall asleep counting "unilaterals."
Is the divinely ordered relation of properly constituted ecclesiastical authority to Revealed Truth one of tolerance?
I think we can safely say that 'recognition of tolerance' is a principle of unilateral movement, however not as a McFARCEland might propound it. It is unilateral in that the Catholics 'recognize' their subjection to heretics and 'tolerate' heresy unto defection and apostasy from the Faith.
Oh, it's a unilateral movement, all right. Catholicism - constituted by God stable and immovable upon its bases - is nevertheless 'moved' by the antichrist 'mover,' in an inversion of the natural and supernatural orders.
Antichrist would have us believe it moves benignly towards Tradition, when in fact it requires that only the Faith be set in motion.
The Faith must evolve through the movements of recognition and toleration.
It's the copernican-darwinian-hegelian revolution in cassocks and skirts.
Blessed is he who knows what God made stable and what He made motile.
-
PFT,
I can't say that you're WRONG for not attending those funerals (Sean said it well when he said the Church doesn't force you to attend), but provided that you could without participating (passive attendance) you would not be wrong in doing so. It is good to abide by principles, and it is especially so when they are difficult to abide by, but there is no principle which requires your non-attendance at a non-Catholic wedding or funeral, provided that a grave civic duty compels you (as would usually be the case with deceased loved ones) and that your attendance is passive.
I think this explanation by the canonists Bouscaren and Ellis is a great explanation of the Church's law in this regard:
It is illicit for Catholics in any way to assist actively or take part in sacred worship of non-Catholics (c. 1258/1). Passive or merely material presence, for sake of civil courtesy, duty or respect, for a grave reason which in case of doubt should have the approval of the Bishop may be tolerated at the funerals, weddings and other such celebration of non-Catholics, provided there is no danger of perversion or of scandal (c. 1258/2).
1. Active Participation. A person would participate actively in the worship of non-Catholics if, besides being physically present in the place where such worship was being conducted, he placed some positive act of worship in common with the non-Catholic worshipers. Such co-operation would be formal if it were done with the intention of really taking part in the worship; it would be merely material if done without that intention but for some other reason, for example mere civility or friendship. All active participation is forbidden by the first paragraph of this canon, whether it be formal or merely material.
2. Passive Presence. The second paragraph speaks of "merely passive or material presence." A person is passively present if he is present without joining in any positive act of worship; his presence is voluntary but he abstains from any positive action. It is conceivable that even merely passive presence might be accompanied by an internal intention to approve, assent to, or encourage the non-Catholic worship; if that were true it would be formal cooperation in an evil act, and forbidden by the natural law. The canon supposes that this is not the case, and consequently that the passive presence is merely material. Even then such presence is not simply permitted because, though not intrinsically wrong by reason of it's object (the thing done) it is likely to be wrong by reason of it's circuмstances or consequences. Hence three conditions are laid down for it's licitness: (1) That there be a grave reason based on considerations of civil courtesy, duty, or respect; (2) that in case of doubt the sufficiency of the reason be approved by the Bishop; (3) that there be no danger either of perversion or scandal. The functions at which such presence is then permitted are given by way of example, "funerals, weddings and other similar celebrations." Applications of this canon are very numerous and varied; their discussion pertains rather to moral theology.
The SSPX leadership cannot licitly be voluntarily physically present at a Bergoglio presider-supper. It is impossible due to the specific and particular circuмstances of this case, which cannot be avoided, minimized, or mitigated.
They could not be voluntarily physically present without committing grave perversion and scandal, to use your expert's terminology.
It is what it is.
I agree completely. My post was addressed to PFT, and PFT's described situation (of not attending Novus Ordo funerals and weddings of family members) only.
You know, your response gives me great pleasure because I like you and I think you are a smart dude.
And that is what it is!
-
The word of the day is ...... ASSIST!
Not attend!
Stop twisting this into an attend vs participate debate.
So, he assisted at a NO mass with the Pope, and let me guess, he did not receive communion.
Please do not create create another lame pseudo-distinction:
SSPXBRAND: Frs. Pfluger and Nely have never attended the pope’s private Mass, and journalists who claim otherwise would have a hard time to indicate the day of the alleged assistance. See: http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/about-meeting-pope-francis-and-bishop-fellay-4067
OBSERVATION: In this English version of their prop piece, SSPXBrand uses the words 'attend' and 'assist' interchangeably, which demonstrates that these terms are intended to signify the same reality: voluntary physical presence at the event.
'Voluntary physical presence' is the meaning I and others took away from the news reports. To create a bogus distinction based on degrees of voluntary participation is clearly an obfuscation tactic. The conduct, as alleged, is naturally and facilely understood as something less than 'concelebration' and something quite more than being involuntarily wheeled in on a gurney while in an unconscious state of mind. The intellect does not require a distinction in order to correctly apprehend the nature of the act in question.
Now even mere voluntary presence at that particular, specified event, is quite damning, as SSPXBrand rightly apprehends. If it weren't a damnable thing, they would not be categorically denying it with an almost frenzied prop bombardment.
The attempt to liken alleged SSPXBrand 'presence' at a sacrilegious event perpetrated by the infidel Bergoglio in the name of Holy Mother the Church, to just some layman going to his relative's novus ordo wake or wedding, fails for what it is: a lame diversionary tactic. The two instances are not even remotely analogous, due to the overwhelming substantial and circuмstantial differences between them.
Now there are always tell tale signs that accompany obfuscation campaigns. One of them is name-calling, which is a form of strawman or ad hominem, depending on the signification of the epithet.
For pointing out the lameness of the attempt to divert attention (by a grossly misapplied and therefore false distinction) away from the alleged objectively evil act that is correctly signified and apprehended even by SSPXBrand itself, I was hit with several epithets, the most craven (and strawman) of which was "sede."
SSPXBrand denies voluntary physical presence at the specified event. They make of their denial an unequivocal self-defense. And they have to deny it because they know that to have been voluntarily present would have constituted an objectively and gravely evil act, given all the particular circuмstances of this case.
SSPXBrand clearly stipulates, if perhaps somewhat indirectly and in spite of its obfuscating excuse makers, that SSPXBrand voluntary physical presence at a Bergoglio-presider supper should be considered a very bad thing.
And as I think that their categorical denial will serve well the cause of truth over the course of time, I thank them for it wholeheartedly.
In both Spanish and Portuguese (and apparently French since that is where the faulty translation comes from) asistir and assistir are translated to attend in reference to the Mass. Anyone with experience in these languages will know this. So can we bury this now?
So now we know in four languages that the intellect requires no distinction be made in order to comprehend the nature of the alleged act.
Woe to the SSPX if it comes out that the two assistants really did do the deed.
-
The word of the day is ...... ASSIST!
Not attend!
Stop twisting this into an attend vs participate debate.
So, he assisted at a NO mass with the Pope, and let me guess, he did not receive communion.
Please do not create create another lame pseudo-distinction:
SSPXBRAND: Frs. Pfluger and Nely have never attended the pope’s private Mass, and journalists who claim otherwise would have a hard time to indicate the day of the alleged assistance. See: http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/about-meeting-pope-francis-and-bishop-fellay-4067
OBSERVATION: In this English version of their prop piece, SSPXBrand uses the words 'attend' and 'assist' interchangeably, which demonstrates that these terms are intended to signify the same reality: voluntary physical presence at the event.
'Voluntary physical presence' is the meaning I and others took away from the news reports. To create a bogus distinction based on degrees of voluntary participation is clearly an obfuscation tactic. The conduct, as alleged, is naturally and facilely understood as something less than 'concelebration' and something quite more than being involuntarily wheeled in on a gurney while in an unconscious state of mind. The intellect does not require a distinction in order to correctly apprehend the nature of the act in question.
Now even mere voluntary presence at that particular, specified event, is quite damning, as SSPXBrand rightly apprehends. If it weren't a damnable thing, they would not be categorically denying it with an almost frenzied prop bombardment.
The attempt to liken alleged SSPXBrand 'presence' at a sacrilegious event perpetrated by the infidel Bergoglio in the name of Holy Mother the Church, to just some layman going to his relative's novus ordo wake or wedding, fails for what it is: a lame diversionary tactic. The two instances are not even remotely analogous, due to the overwhelming substantial and circuмstantial differences between them.
Now there are always tell tale signs that accompany obfuscation campaigns. One of them is name-calling, which is a form of strawman or ad hominem, depending on the signification of the epithet.
For pointing out the lameness of the attempt to divert attention (by a grossly misapplied and therefore false distinction) away from the alleged objectively evil act that is correctly signified and apprehended even by SSPXBrand itself, I was hit with several epithets, the most craven (and strawman) of which was "sede."
SSPXBrand denies voluntary physical presence at the specified event. They make of their denial an unequivocal self-defense. And they have to deny it because they know that to have been voluntarily present would have constituted an objectively and gravely evil act, given all the particular circuмstances of this case.
SSPXBrand clearly stipulates, if perhaps somewhat indirectly and in spite of its obfuscating excuse makers, that SSPXBrand voluntary physical presence at a Bergoglio-presider supper should be considered a very bad thing.
And as I think that their categorical denial will serve well the cause of truth over the course of time, I thank them for it wholeheartedly.
In both Spanish and Portuguese (and apparently French since that is where the faulty translation comes from) asistir and assistir are translated to attend in reference to the Mass. Anyone with experience in these languages will know this. So can we bury this now?
So now we know in four languages that the intellect requires no distinction be made in order to comprehend the nature of the alleged act.
Woe to the SSPX if it comes out that the two assistants really did do the deed.
Yes. And in Portuguese the expression "to assistir um filme" is common, and it just simply means "to what a movie". To waste time debating the terminology used in the reporting, while not really comprehending the expression "to attend Mass" is "assistir uma missa".....The fact of the matter is whether they attended or not and not "attendance vs. assistence".
-
PFT,
I can't say that you're WRONG for not attending those funerals (Sean said it well when he said the Church doesn't force you to attend), but provided that you could without participating (passive attendance) you would not be wrong in doing so. It is good to abide by principles, and it is especially so when they are difficult to abide by, but there is no principle which requires your non-attendance at a non-Catholic wedding or funeral, provided that a grave civic duty compels you (as would usually be the case with deceased loved ones) and that your attendance is passive.
I think this explanation by the canonists Bouscaren and Ellis is a great explanation of the Church's law in this regard:
It is illicit for Catholics in any way to assist actively or take part in sacred worship of non-Catholics (c. 1258/1). Passive or merely material presence, for sake of civil courtesy, duty or respect, for a grave reason which in case of doubt should have the approval of the Bishop may be tolerated at the funerals, weddings and other such celebration of non-Catholics, provided there is no danger of perversion or of scandal (c. 1258/2).
1. Active Participation. A person would participate actively in the worship of non-Catholics if, besides being physically present in the place where such worship was being conducted, he placed some positive act of worship in common with the non-Catholic worshipers. Such co-operation would be formal if it were done with the intention of really taking part in the worship; it would be merely material if done without that intention but for some other reason, for example mere civility or friendship. All active participation is forbidden by the first paragraph of this canon, whether it be formal or merely material.
2. Passive Presence. The second paragraph speaks of "merely passive or material presence." A person is passively present if he is present without joining in any positive act of worship; his presence is voluntary but he abstains from any positive action. It is conceivable that even merely passive presence might be accompanied by an internal intention to approve, assent to, or encourage the non-Catholic worship; if that were true it would be formal cooperation in an evil act, and forbidden by the natural law. The canon supposes that this is not the case, and consequently that the passive presence is merely material. Even then such presence is not simply permitted because, though not intrinsically wrong by reason of it's object (the thing done) it is likely to be wrong by reason of it's circuмstances or consequences. Hence three conditions are laid down for it's licitness: (1) That there be a grave reason based on considerations of civil courtesy, duty, or respect; (2) that in case of doubt the sufficiency of the reason be approved by the Bishop; (3) that there be no danger either of perversion or scandal. The functions at which such presence is then permitted are given by way of example, "funerals, weddings and other similar celebrations." Applications of this canon are very numerous and varied; their discussion pertains rather to moral theology.
Yup, I'm well aware of the rules.
I haven't attended a novus ordo funeral/wedding/first communion in many years. I went to a "wedding" for my niece (there's a huge generation gap in my family.) My husband was going, and I had to go, but this was a protestant service. I just sat there. The couple has since divorced (surprise, surprise.)
Wild horses couldn't drag me into a novus ordo church, or any other non-requiem traditional Catholic funeral service/wedding/first communion.
I don't know a grave reason that could compel me to go to someone's service. I could just as easily show up at a reception, or the viewing of the body. I think it would scandalize those I know more if I showed up at the false worship service than if I stood by my principles and was absent from it. If I showed up, I would be putting my rubber stamp on what's going on there, and that's something people know I don't do unless I support what's going on.
Given you are well aware of the rules of the Catholic Church I'm not sure why you would feel the need to tell someone who follows those rules and chooses to go to such a funeral or wedding as "lacking principles".
Principles enumerated in IHSV's post here:
This is not merely a "non-Catholic" wedding or funeral. The Novus Ordo is a sacrilegious parody of the Catholic Mass. It, unlike the protestant services, is an outrage against the majesty of God of the first magnitude, a running violation of standing Church law (Quo Primum), and a violation of the first commandment on a level not attainable by protestants or pagans.
One may be a "witness" to a protestant wedding, but to stand by while what purports to be the blessed sacrament is profaned, and the Catholic Mass to be mocked, is a different matter altogether.
The New Mass doesn't merely represent a "danger" to the faith. Its purpose for existence is to replace and expunge from the face of the earth the True Mass.
There are mainline protestant services that purport to confect the Real Presence as well.
I don't take issue with your choosing not to go. I take issue with your judgment of others who follow Church law on the matter.
-
PFT,
I can't say that you're WRONG for not attending those funerals (Sean said it well when he said the Church doesn't force you to attend), but provided that you could without participating (passive attendance) you would not be wrong in doing so. It is good to abide by principles, and it is especially so when they are difficult to abide by, but there is no principle which requires your non-attendance at a non-Catholic wedding or funeral, provided that a grave civic duty compels you (as would usually be the case with deceased loved ones) and that your attendance is passive.
I think this explanation by the canonists Bouscaren and Ellis is a great explanation of the Church's law in this regard:
It is illicit for Catholics in any way to assist actively or take part in sacred worship of non-Catholics (c. 1258/1). Passive or merely material presence, for sake of civil courtesy, duty or respect, for a grave reason which in case of doubt should have the approval of the Bishop may be tolerated at the funerals, weddings and other such celebration of non-Catholics, provided there is no danger of perversion or of scandal (c. 1258/2).
1. Active Participation. A person would participate actively in the worship of non-Catholics if, besides being physically present in the place where such worship was being conducted, he placed some positive act of worship in common with the non-Catholic worshipers. Such co-operation would be formal if it were done with the intention of really taking part in the worship; it would be merely material if done without that intention but for some other reason, for example mere civility or friendship. All active participation is forbidden by the first paragraph of this canon, whether it be formal or merely material.
2. Passive Presence. The second paragraph speaks of "merely passive or material presence." A person is passively present if he is present without joining in any positive act of worship; his presence is voluntary but he abstains from any positive action. It is conceivable that even merely passive presence might be accompanied by an internal intention to approve, assent to, or encourage the non-Catholic worship; if that were true it would be formal cooperation in an evil act, and forbidden by the natural law. The canon supposes that this is not the case, and consequently that the passive presence is merely material. Even then such presence is not simply permitted because, though not intrinsically wrong by reason of it's object (the thing done) it is likely to be wrong by reason of it's circuмstances or consequences. Hence three conditions are laid down for it's licitness: (1) That there be a grave reason based on considerations of civil courtesy, duty, or respect; (2) that in case of doubt the sufficiency of the reason be approved by the Bishop; (3) that there be no danger either of perversion or scandal. The functions at which such presence is then permitted are given by way of example, "funerals, weddings and other similar celebrations." Applications of this canon are very numerous and varied; their discussion pertains rather to moral theology.
Yup, I'm well aware of the rules.
I haven't attended a novus ordo funeral/wedding/first communion in many years. I went to a "wedding" for my niece (there's a huge generation gap in my family.) My husband was going, and I had to go, but this was a protestant service. I just sat there. The couple has since divorced (surprise, surprise.)
Wild horses couldn't drag me into a novus ordo church, or any other non-requiem traditional Catholic funeral service/wedding/first communion.
I don't know a grave reason that could compel me to go to someone's service. I could just as easily show up at a reception, or the viewing of the body. I think it would scandalize those I know more if I showed up at the false worship service than if I stood by my principles and was absent from it. If I showed up, I would be putting my rubber stamp on what's going on there, and that's something people know I don't do unless I support what's going on.
Given you are well aware of the rules of the Catholic Church I'm not sure why you would feel the need to tell someone who follows those rules and chooses to go to such a funeral or wedding as "lacking principles".
Principles enumerated in IHSV's post here:
This is not merely a "non-Catholic" wedding or funeral. The Novus Ordo is a sacrilegious parody of the Catholic Mass. It, unlike the protestant services, is an outrage against the majesty of God of the first magnitude, a running violation of standing Church law (Quo Primum), and a violation of the first commandment on a level not attainable by protestants or pagans.
One may be a "witness" to a protestant wedding, but to stand by while what purports to be the blessed sacrament is profaned, and the Catholic Mass to be mocked, is a different matter altogether.
The New Mass doesn't merely represent a "danger" to the faith. Its purpose for existence is to replace and expunge from the face of the earth the True Mass.
There are mainline protestant services that purport to confect the Real Presence as well.
I don't take issue with your choosing not to go. I take issue with your judgment of others who follow Church law on the matter.
I didn't "judge" anyone else on the matter, and stating that I have "principles" doesn't qualify as judging anyone else, just enumerating -my own- reasons as to why I wouldn't attend any novus ordo, for any reason whatsoever.
-
PFT, in a previous post you said wrt attending the NO funerals/weddings:
It's something called having principles, and not being a witness to a blasphemous service that masquerades as a Mass.
You are at least implying that those who choose to attend the NO wedding or funeral do not have principles (despite the fact that they have based their decisions on Church law ...aka principles).
-
PFT, in a previous post you said wrt attending the NO funerals/weddings:
It's something called having principles, and not being a witness to a blasphemous service that masquerades as a Mass.
You are at least implying that those who choose to attend the NO wedding or funeral do not have principles (despite the fact that they have based their decisions on Church law ...aka principles).
Rather than focusing in Church law regarding attending non-Catholic services, it would be better to focus on what the Church says about attending/being present at public sacrileges. Then review the nine ways of being an accessory to another's sin (silence, consent, defense of the ill-done, etc.). Then it would be good to review the lives of those martyrs who died rather than allow the sacred host to be profaned in their presence. Then one ought to re-read the lives of the martyrs of England who chose death rather than assist (or even be present at) at the Cramner's Mass, grave reasons notwithstanding.
-
And while you attend your cousin's Novus Ordo wedding, and the host is being profaned and the Holy Mass is being made a mockery of, you can meditate on Our Lord's words: "He that loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me, is not worthy of me." Matthew 10:37
But at least your cousin wasn't offended.
-
PFT, in a previous post you said wrt attending the NO funerals/weddings:
It's something called having principles, and not being a witness to a blasphemous service that masquerades as a Mass.
You are at least implying that those who choose to attend the NO wedding or funeral do not have principles (despite the fact that they have based their decisions on Church law ...aka principles).
Rather than focusing in Church law regarding attending non-Catholic services, it would be better to focus on what the Church says about attending/being present at public sacrileges. Then review the nine ways of being an accessory to another's sin (silence, consent, defense of the ill-done, etc.). Then it would be good to review the lives of those martyrs who died rather than allow the sacred host to be profaned in their presence. Then one ought to re-read the lives of the martyrs of England who chose death rather than assist (or even be present at) at the Cramner's Mass, grave reasons notwithstanding.
So you're basically saying that the Church lies when it allows attendance at non-Catholic services for certain reasons under certain conditions.
Gotcha.
-
PFT, in a previous post you said wrt attending the NO funerals/weddings:
It's something called having principles, and not being a witness to a blasphemous service that masquerades as a Mass.
You are at least implying that those who choose to attend the NO wedding or funeral do not have principles (despite the fact that they have based their decisions on Church law ...aka principles).
Rather than focusing in Church law regarding attending non-Catholic services, it would be better to focus on what the Church says about attending/being present at public sacrileges. Then review the nine ways of being an accessory to another's sin (silence, consent, defense of the ill-done, etc.). Then it would be good to review the lives of those martyrs who died rather than allow the sacred host to be profaned in their presence. Then one ought to re-read the lives of the martyrs of England who chose death rather than assist (or even be present at) at the Cramner's Mass, grave reasons notwithstanding.
So you're basically saying that the Church lies when it allows attendance at non-Catholic services for certain reasons under certain conditions.
Gotcha.
Never take advice from someone too lazy to crack open a moral theology book and give references.
-
PFT, in a previous post you said wrt attending the NO funerals/weddings:
It's something called having principles, and not being a witness to a blasphemous service that masquerades as a Mass.
You are at least implying that those who choose to attend the NO wedding or funeral do not have principles (despite the fact that they have based their decisions on Church law ...aka principles).
These laws the Church made are not unlike the Mosaic laws, such as the law that one could put his wife away, back in the Old Testament. Why? I truly believe this concession was made as Our Lord said, "Because of the hardness of their hearts."
"Okay, you want to go put your wife away? Weakness you say? Alright then, fine."
"So you want to go to a service where they make a god (and call it God) in their own image and worship it at services like a wedding or a funeral, because you don't want to offend your family? Okay fine."
You can decide for yourself why the Church made those concessions, and who they made them for.
-
PFT, in a previous post you said wrt attending the NO funerals/weddings:
It's something called having principles, and not being a witness to a blasphemous service that masquerades as a Mass.
You are at least implying that those who choose to attend the NO wedding or funeral do not have principles (despite the fact that they have based their decisions on Church law ...aka principles).
Rather than focusing in Church law regarding attending non-Catholic services, it would be better to focus on what the Church says about attending/being present at public sacrileges. Then review the nine ways of being an accessory to another's sin (silence, consent, defense of the ill-done, etc.). Then it would be good to review the lives of those martyrs who died rather than allow the sacred host to be profaned in their presence. Then one ought to re-read the lives of the martyrs of England who chose death rather than assist (or even be present at) at the Cramner's Mass, grave reasons notwithstanding.
So you're basically saying that the Church lies when it allows attendance at non-Catholic services for certain reasons under certain conditions.
Gotcha.
You have severe reading comprehension issues, don't you? Re-read my first sentence. Slowly. At least seven times. Then come back and we'll chat.
-
I think I understand a little better, now. Assuming that the Novus Ordo is valid, it is a sacrilege in a very serious sense (moreso than if it were invalid, since the Real Presence of Christ is not profaned through Communion in the Hand) and the issue is not with attending a non-Catholic service, but attending one which is a true sacrilege.
Perhaps an analogy would be attending a "black mass wedding." I doubt the canon dealing with passive attendance includes justifying the attendance of such a thing. I am not certain, since it doesn't seem to have been touched on, but I doubt it does.
But at the same time, if you're going to argue non-attendance and use martyrs dying to protect the Sacred Species, shouldn't you actually be arguing that the true course of action would be to break into the ceremony and prevent the priest from committing the sacrilege? Or prevent people from receiving communion in the hand?
I think most Novus Ordos are invalid, and view it as not substantially different from any other protestant service where there is no real presence. If one is convicted that the Novus Ordo is valid, then I can see how one might come to the conclusion that it is never permissible to attend, even passively. Though at this point, where most N.O. priests are doubtful to begin with, I think we very rarely have to worry about a valid N.O., even with a pro multis.
-
PFT, in a previous post you said wrt attending the NO funerals/weddings:
It's something called having principles, and not being a witness to a blasphemous service that masquerades as a Mass.
You are at least implying that those who choose to attend the NO wedding or funeral do not have principles (despite the fact that they have based their decisions on Church law ...aka principles).
These laws the Church made are not unlike the Mosaic laws, such as the law that one could put his wife away, back in the Old Testament. Why? I truly believe this concession was made as Our Lord said, "Because of the hardness of their hearts."
"Okay, you want to go put your wife away? Weakness you say? Alright then, fine."
"So you want to go to a service where they make a god (and call it God) in their own image and worship it at services like a wedding or a funeral, because you don't want to offend your family? Okay fine."
You can decide for yourself why the Church made those concessions, and who they made them for.
Why decide for ourselves when there are approved teachers and theologians who have explained it for us? That's the whole reason I gave that quote earlier.
I understand the position better, now (than I did in my last post). I do not think that canon has in mind ACTUAL sacrilege, for the reasons ihsv gave (there really is no way that a person could "passively" assist at a black mass unless without sinning, unless they were held against their will).
If a given Novus Ordo is actually valid, it may just be better to not attend-- I'm not saying that with any serious conviction yet, but it would appear that way to me initially at least, since it really and truly would be a sacrilege. However, if invalid there is no substantial difference between it and a protestant service (or even a Jєωιѕн one) which the canon has in mind.
-
I think I understand a little better, now. Assuming that the Novus Ordo is valid, it is a sacrilege in a very serious sense (moreso than if it were invalid, since the Real Presence of Christ is not profaned through Communion in the Hand) and the issue is not with attending a non-Catholic service, but attending one which is a true sacrilege.
Perhaps an analogy would be attending a "black mass wedding." I doubt the canon dealing with passive attendance includes justifying the attendance of such a thing. I am not certain, since it doesn't seem to have been touched on, but I doubt it does.
But at the same time, if you're going to argue non-attendance and use martyrs dying to protect the Sacred Species, shouldn't you actually be arguing that the true course of action would be to break into the ceremony and prevent the priest from committing the sacrilege? Or prevent people from receiving communion in the hand?
I think most Novus Ordos are invalid, and view it as not substantially different from any other protestant service where there is no real presence. If one is convicted that the Novus Ordo is valid, then I can see how one might come to the conclusion that it is never permissible to attend, even passively. Though at this point, where most N.O. priests are doubtful to begin with, I think we very rarely have to worry about a valid N.O., even with a pro multis.
Regarding the use of martyrs, you'll notice I specifically stated "in their presence". One may indeed crash their party, so long as it doesn't run the risk of interfering with the duties of their state in life. My state in life is as a father and a husband. I cannot fulfill my duties toward my family and, ultimately toward God, in jail. Also, it belongs properly to the superior to end these sacrileges, not to the inferior.
The Novus Ordo most likely is invalid, and the priests are most likely not priests. That being said, the possibility, however remote, of them being valid is there. I am not in a position to decide the matter. That will be for the Church to handle when this storm ends. In the mean time, I will treat the Novus Ordo exactly as it was intended to be by its creators, a sacrilegious parody of the true Mass. Even without the presence of the Eucharist, it remains a clear mockery of the Holy Sacrifice.
-
I think I understand a little better, now. Assuming that the Novus Ordo is valid, it is a sacrilege in a very serious sense (moreso than if it were invalid, since the Real Presence of Christ is not profaned through Communion in the Hand) and the issue is not with attending a non-Catholic service, but attending one which is a true sacrilege.
Perhaps an analogy would be attending a "black mass wedding." I doubt the canon dealing with passive attendance includes justifying the attendance of such a thing. I am not certain, since it doesn't seem to have been touched on, but I doubt it does.
But at the same time, if you're going to argue non-attendance and use martyrs dying to protect the Sacred Species, shouldn't you actually be arguing that the true course of action would be to break into the ceremony and prevent the priest from committing the sacrilege? Or prevent people from receiving communion in the hand?
I think most Novus Ordos are invalid, and view it as not substantially different from any other protestant service where there is no real presence. If one is convicted that the Novus Ordo is valid, then I can see how one might come to the conclusion that it is never permissible to attend, even passively. Though at this point, where most N.O. priests are doubtful to begin with, I think we very rarely have to worry about a valid N.O., even with a pro multis.
Regarding the use of martyrs, you'll notice I specifically stated "in their presence". One may indeed crash their party, so long as it doesn't run the risk of interfering with the duties of their state in life. My state in life is as a father and a husband. I cannot fulfill my duties toward my family and, ultimately toward God, in jail. Also, it belongs properly to the superior to end these sacrileges, not to the inferior.
The Novus Ordo most likely is invalid, and the priests are most likely not priests. That being said, the possibility, however remote, of them being valid is there. I am not in a position to decide the matter. That will be for the Church to handle when this storm ends. In the mean time, I will treat the Novus Ordo exactly as it was intended to be by its creators, a sacrilegious parody of the true Mass. Even without the presence of the Eucharist, it remains a clear mockery of the Holy Sacrifice.
It doesn't mock the sacrifice because it doesn't even pretend to BE a sacrifice. It is an imposter and a mockery in the sense that it purports to be Catholic and isn't, but no more so than a protestant ceremony which purports to be Christian and isn't (not by the true definition, even if it is colloquially accepted as being Christian).
And a doubtful sacrament is no sacrament. You cannot treat a doubtful consecration as a true one, on the contrary we are obliged to NOT treat it as a true one, since we risk idolatry. You don't confess your sins to a doubtful priest on the off-change that he MIGHT be a priest, you need to have moral certainty that he is.
-
I think I understand a little better, now. Assuming that the Novus Ordo is valid, it is a sacrilege in a very serious sense (moreso than if it were invalid, since the Real Presence of Christ is not profaned through Communion in the Hand) and the issue is not with attending a non-Catholic service, but attending one which is a true sacrilege.
Perhaps an analogy would be attending a "black mass wedding." I doubt the canon dealing with passive attendance includes justifying the attendance of such a thing. I am not certain, since it doesn't seem to have been touched on, but I doubt it does.
But at the same time, if you're going to argue non-attendance and use martyrs dying to protect the Sacred Species, shouldn't you actually be arguing that the true course of action would be to break into the ceremony and prevent the priest from committing the sacrilege? Or prevent people from receiving communion in the hand?
I think most Novus Ordos are invalid, and view it as not substantially different from any other protestant service where there is no real presence. If one is convicted that the Novus Ordo is valid, then I can see how one might come to the conclusion that it is never permissible to attend, even passively. Though at this point, where most N.O. priests are doubtful to begin with, I think we very rarely have to worry about a valid N.O., even with a pro multis.
Regarding the use of martyrs, you'll notice I specifically stated "in their presence". One may indeed crash their party, so long as it doesn't run the risk of interfering with the duties of their state in life. My state in life is as a father and a husband. I cannot fulfill my duties toward my family and, ultimately toward God, in jail. Also, it belongs properly to the superior to end these sacrileges, not to the inferior.
The Novus Ordo most likely is invalid, and the priests are most likely not priests. That being said, the possibility, however remote, of them being valid is there. I am not in a position to decide the matter. That will be for the Church to handle when this storm ends. In the mean time, I will treat the Novus Ordo exactly as it was intended to be by its creators, a sacrilegious parody of the true Mass. Even without the presence of the Eucharist, it remains a clear mockery of the Holy Sacrifice.
It doesn't mock the sacrifice because it doesn't even pretend to BE a sacrifice. It is an imposter and a mockery in the sense that it purports to be Catholic and isn't, but no more so than a protestant ceremony which purports to be Christian and isn't (not by the true definition, even if it is colloquially accepted as being Christian).
And a doubtful sacrament is no sacrament. You cannot treat a doubtful consecration as a true one, on the contrary we are obliged to NOT treat it as a true one, since we risk idolatry. You don't confess your sins to a doubtful priest on the off-change that he MIGHT be a priest, you need to have moral certainty that he is.
The New Mass most certainly mocks the Holy Sacrifice. If I were to dress up in goofy robes, tell everyone that I was going to say "mass", and then proceed to sing, dance, make jokes, distribute cookies and grape juice, all the while claiming that I am a Catholic priest and this is a Catholic Mass (regardless of my understanding of what that word means), is there any doubt that what I just did constitutes anything BUT a mockery of the true Mass? The Protestant utterly rejects the Mass, and therefore doesn't even attempt to approximate or mimic it.
I never said that a doubtful sacrament was a sacrament, nor did i say that it should be treated as a true one. I am not in a position to define infallibly the status of the validity of the New Mass or the new priests. There is serious doubt, and for that reason I refuse to have anything to do with any of them. Note, too, that throughout my posts on this thread, I have sprinkled references to the Eucharist being present at the new Mass using words such as "supposedly", "purports to be", and similar language.
-
ihsv,
I will consider what you have written here. If it requires it, I will return to the thread if I think that I need to change my position on this issue.
-
I think I understand a little better, now. Assuming that the Novus Ordo is valid, it is a sacrilege in a very serious sense (moreso than if it were invalid, since the Real Presence of Christ is not profaned through Communion in the Hand) and the issue is not with attending a non-Catholic service, but attending one which is a true sacrilege.
Perhaps an analogy would be attending a "black mass wedding." I doubt the canon dealing with passive attendance includes justifying the attendance of such a thing. I am not certain, since it doesn't seem to have been touched on, but I doubt it does.
But at the same time, if you're going to argue non-attendance and use martyrs dying to protect the Sacred Species, shouldn't you actually be arguing that the true course of action would be to break into the ceremony and prevent the priest from committing the sacrilege? Or prevent people from receiving communion in the hand?
I think most Novus Ordos are invalid, and view it as not substantially different from any other protestant service where there is no real presence. If one is convicted that the Novus Ordo is valid, then I can see how one might come to the conclusion that it is never permissible to attend, even passively. Though at this point, where most N.O. priests are doubtful to begin with, I think we very rarely have to worry about a valid N.O., even with a pro multis.
Regarding the use of martyrs, you'll notice I specifically stated "in their presence". One may indeed crash their party, so long as it doesn't run the risk of interfering with the duties of their state in life. My state in life is as a father and a husband. I cannot fulfill my duties toward my family and, ultimately toward God, in jail. Also, it belongs properly to the superior to end these sacrileges, not to the inferior.
The Novus Ordo most likely is invalid, and the priests are most likely not priests. That being said, the possibility, however remote, of them being valid is there. I am not in a position to decide the matter. That will be for the Church to handle when this storm ends. In the mean time, I will treat the Novus Ordo exactly as it was intended to be by its creators, a sacrilegious parody of the true Mass. Even without the presence of the Eucharist, it remains a clear mockery of the Holy Sacrifice.
It doesn't mock the sacrifice because it doesn't even pretend to BE a sacrifice. It is an imposter and a mockery in the sense that it purports to be Catholic and isn't, but no more so than a protestant ceremony which purports to be Christian and isn't (not by the true definition, even if it is colloquially accepted as being Christian).
And a doubtful sacrament is no sacrament. You cannot treat a doubtful consecration as a true one, on the contrary we are obliged to NOT treat it as a true one, since we risk idolatry. You don't confess your sins to a doubtful priest on the off-change that he MIGHT be a priest, you need to have moral certainty that he is.
The New Mass most certainly mocks the Holy Sacrifice. If I were to dress up in goofy robes, tell everyone that I was going to say "mass", and then proceed to sing, dance, make jokes, distribute cookies and grape juice, all the while claiming that I am a Catholic priest and this is a Catholic Mass (regardless of my understanding of what that word means), is there any doubt that what I just did constitutes anything BUT a mockery of the true Mass? The Protestant utterly rejects the Mass, and therefore doesn't even attempt to approximate or mimic it.
I never said that a doubtful sacrament was a sacrament, nor did i say that it should be treated as a true one. I am not in a position to define infallibly the status of the validity of the New Mass or the new priests. There is serious doubt, and for that reason I refuse to have anything to do with any of them. Note, too, that throughout my posts on this thread, I have sprinkled references to the Eucharist being present at the new Mass using words such as "supposedly", "purports to be", and similar language.
Clearly the novus ordo, in its entirely, is a mockery of God, a sacrilege, a scandal, a perversion, and a violation of Divine Law.
Furthermore it does these vicious things in God's own Name.
Woe be to him who perpetrates it!!!!
The true malice of the novus ordo is such that if we actually comprehended it we would die.
It calls down upon the world the Wrath and the Vengeance of Almighty God. Wherefore we should not attend it for any reason other than to make a public protest.
Isn't that simple common sense?
-
PFT, in a previous post you said wrt attending the NO funerals/weddings:
It's something called having principles, and not being a witness to a blasphemous service that masquerades as a Mass.
You are at least implying that those who choose to attend the NO wedding or funeral do not have principles (despite the fact that they have based their decisions on Church law ...aka principles).
These laws the Church made are not unlike the Mosaic laws, such as the law that one could put his wife away, back in the Old Testament. Why? I truly believe this concession was made as Our Lord said, "Because of the hardness of their hearts."
"Okay, you want to go put your wife away? Weakness you say? Alright then, fine."
"So you want to go to a service where they make a god (and call it God) in their own image and worship it at services like a wedding or a funeral, because you don't want to offend your family? Okay fine."
You can decide for yourself why the Church made those concessions, and who they made them for.
Why decide for ourselves when there are approved teachers and theologians who have explained it for us? That's the whole reason I gave that quote earlier.
I understand the position better, now (than I did in my last post). I do not think that canon has in mind ACTUAL sacrilege, for the reasons ihsv gave (there really is no way that a person could "passively" assist at a black mass unless without sinning, unless they were held against their will).
If a given Novus Ordo is actually valid, it may just be better to not attend-- I'm not saying that with any serious conviction yet, but it would appear that way to me initially at least, since it really and truly would be a sacrilege. However, if invalid there is no substantial difference between it and a protestant service (or even a Jєωιѕн one) which the canon has in mind.
The Church DID give us an option here. The law says you MAY attend it for a "grave" reason. It does not say you MUST though. If one understands the reasons why the Church has given permission, and also understands the sacrilege that takes place and many times, outright blasphemy, a discerning Catholic would stay as far away from things unCatholic as they possibly could, no matter what familial relation is involved in such a display.
Just because the Church gives permission for a dispensation in such a case to attend something against God, does not mean that we should partake in such a dispensation.
-
PFT, in a previous post you said wrt attending the NO funerals/weddings:
It's something called having principles, and not being a witness to a blasphemous service that masquerades as a Mass.
You are at least implying that those who choose to attend the NO wedding or funeral do not have principles (despite the fact that they have based their decisions on Church law ...aka principles).
These laws the Church made are not unlike the Mosaic laws, such as the law that one could put his wife away, back in the Old Testament. Why? I truly believe this concession was made as Our Lord said, "Because of the hardness of their hearts."
"Okay, you want to go put your wife away? Weakness you say? Alright then, fine."
"So you want to go to a service where they make a god (and call it God) in their own image and worship it at services like a wedding or a funeral, because you don't want to offend your family? Okay fine."
You can decide for yourself why the Church made those concessions, and who they made them for.
Why decide for ourselves when there are approved teachers and theologians who have explained it for us? That's the whole reason I gave that quote earlier.
I understand the position better, now (than I did in my last post). I do not think that canon has in mind ACTUAL sacrilege, for the reasons ihsv gave (there really is no way that a person could "passively" assist at a black mass unless without sinning, unless they were held against their will).
If a given Novus Ordo is actually valid, it may just be better to not attend-- I'm not saying that with any serious conviction yet, but it would appear that way to me initially at least, since it really and truly would be a sacrilege. However, if invalid there is no substantial difference between it and a protestant service (or even a Jєωιѕн one) which the canon has in mind.
The Church DID give us an option here. The law says you MAY attend it for a "grave" reason. It does not say you MUST though. If one understands the reasons why the Church has given permission, and also understands the sacrilege that takes place and many times, outright blasphemy, a discerning Catholic would stay as far away from things unCatholic as they possibly could, no matter what familial relation is involved in such a display.
Just because the Church gives permission for a dispensation in such a case to attend something against God, does not mean that we should partake in such a dispensation.
And NO ONE is telling you or anyone else that they MUST attend. You, however, are suggesting that no one CAN despite the fact that the Church has told us that it is permissible under certain conditions, etc.
You can decide all you want to not attend but don't suggest that those who do don't have principles.
-
PFT, in a previous post you said wrt attending the NO funerals/weddings:
It's something called having principles, and not being a witness to a blasphemous service that masquerades as a Mass.
You are at least implying that those who choose to attend the NO wedding or funeral do not have principles (despite the fact that they have based their decisions on Church law ...aka principles).
Rather than focusing in Church law regarding attending non-Catholic services, it would be better to focus on what the Church says about attending/being present at public sacrileges. Then review the nine ways of being an accessory to another's sin (silence, consent, defense of the ill-done, etc.). Then it would be good to review the lives of those martyrs who died rather than allow the sacred host to be profaned in their presence. Then one ought to re-read the lives of the martyrs of England who chose death rather than assist (or even be present at) at the Cramner's Mass, grave reasons notwithstanding.
So you're basically saying that the Church lies when it allows attendance at non-Catholic services for certain reasons under certain conditions.
Gotcha.
You have severe reading comprehension issues, don't you? Re-read my first sentence. Slowly. At least seven times. Then come back and we'll chat.
No, I don't. I see the Novus Ordo as a non-Catholic service.
-
No, I don't. I see the Novus Ordo as a non-Catholic service.
It is a sacrilegious mockery of the Catholic Mass, which means the Church's tolerance of our attending non-Catholic services (for grave reasons, etc., etc.,) doesn't apply. If you think it applies, then I'd be interested in seeing something from theologians or canon law that gives some solid reasons why we may be permitted to assist/be present at sacrilegious parodies and brazen mimicries of the Catholic Mass.
If the New Mass, with all of its attacks on the Faith, its irreverence toward what is claimed to be the True Presence, its perversion and suppression of Catholic doctrine, etc., were taken out of a Novus Ordo church and placed in the context of a Broadway play, would you go? What if it were for "fellowship's sake", such as if aunt Hilda decided she wanted to get married there, or if uncle Waldo were being buried from there? Or, because we didn't want to offend our new-found friends in Rome?
How quick we are to make excuses and exploit loopholes in order to justify compromise with the new religion.
Of course, if you insist on going, there isn't much I can do about it.
-
No, I don't. I see the Novus Ordo as a non-Catholic service.
It is a sacrilegious mockery of the Catholic Mass, which means the Church's tolerance of our attending non-Catholic services (for grave reasons, etc., etc.,) doesn't apply. If you think it applies, then I'd be interested in seeing something from theologians or canon law that gives some solid reasons why we may be permitted to assist/be present at sacrilegious parodies and brazen mimicries of the Catholic Mass.
If the New Mass, with all of its attacks on the Faith, its irreverence toward what is claimed to be the True Presence, its perversion and suppression of Catholic doctrine, etc., were taken out of a Novus Ordo church and placed in the context of a Broadway play, would you go? What if it were for "fellowship's sake", such as if aunt Hilda decided she wanted to get married there, or if uncle Waldo were being buried from there? Or, because we didn't want to offend our new-found friends in Rome?
How quick we are to make excuses and exploit loopholes in order to justify compromise with the new religion.
Of course, if you insist on going, there isn't much I can do about it.
The NO service is much like the Protestant Episcopalian and Lutheran services. The former alleges to consecrate the True Presence as well (and it does not). If the Catholic Church allows Catholics to attend their funerals and weddings, then we can attend the NO funerals and weddings.
I'm not answering this because I "insist" on going. I'm answering this in an objective manner. I have no NO funeral or wedding to attend.
With that I'm done arguing with you.
-
One last point on this topic. It is certainly true that the Church tolerates our being present at the weddings and funerals of NON-Catholics in a non-Catholic setting, for grave reasons. However, if one of the parties is a Catholic, we are forbidden to attend, as we would then be giving our ascent to their participation in a heretical service, and would be an accessory to their violation of Church doctrine and law. An example would be if a Catholic were marrying a Lutheran in a Lutheran Church. Such an event is not tolerated by the Church.
So the argument that we can go to a Novus Ordo wedding because it's a "non-Catholic service" is a load of bull. If one or both parties claims to be Catholic, yet they are being married at a non-Catholic ceremony, we cannot attend.
-
One last point on this topic. It is certainly true that the Church tolerates our being present at the weddings and funerals of NON-Catholics in a non-Catholic setting, for grave reasons. However, if one of the parties is a Catholic, we are forbidden to attend, as we would then be giving our ascent to their participation in a heretical service, and would be an accessory to their violation of Church doctrine and law. An example would be if a Catholic were marrying a Lutheran in a Lutheran Church. Such an event is not tolerated by the Church.
So the argument that we can go to a Novus Ordo wedding because it's a "non-Catholic service" is a load of bull. If one or both parties claims to be Catholic, yet they are being married at a non-Catholic ceremony, we cannot attend.
But then that gets into whether a NO Catholic is a Catholic......
-
One last point on this topic. It is certainly true that the Church tolerates our being present at the weddings and funerals of NON-Catholics in a non-Catholic setting, for grave reasons. However, if one of the parties is a Catholic, we are forbidden to attend, as we would then be giving our ascent to their participation in a heretical service, and would be an accessory to their violation of Church doctrine and law. An example would be if a Catholic were marrying a Lutheran in a Lutheran Church. Such an event is not tolerated by the Church.
So the argument that we can go to a Novus Ordo wedding because it's a "non-Catholic service" is a load of bull. If one or both parties claims to be Catholic, yet they are being married at a non-Catholic ceremony, we cannot attend.
But then that gets into whether a NO Catholic is a Catholic......
Note that I said "claims" to be Catholic.
-
I'm sorry-- I must admit, I am confused by this whole thread. We are supposed to be confirming our brethren ( and our sisters) in the faith, holding them up and supporting them, gently correcting them when they are led astray by the guiles of satan; instead, it appears as though traditionalists are attacking traditionalists-- both on the same same side of the issues! I admit-- I don't have the patience to sort out all the comments; they seem so contradictory and accusatory that they confuse me. Maybe it's better to summarize the relative positions at some point during the thread, or new readers would, I might think, get totally turned off and go somewhere else.
Just my thoughts, though.
In the meantime, perhaps more germane to the thread, Bergoglio has issued a video greeting to ecuмenical ministers gathered somewhere, I think in Texas, wherein he calls an unordained and unconsecrated "catholic" Lutheran/ecuмenical "Bishop" his "Dear Brother Bishop in the Faith!"
So, you can be sure there is room for his "dear brother bishop" Bernard Fellay, traitor to Catholicism, and there is plenty of room for him in the great new ecuмenical temple. While you guys are debating whether you should or should not attend a protestanized service for a loved one as a passive observer, Fellay is bringing protestant ministers into SSPX chapels , and passing them off as priests. Their official story line is that "they will review the (so-called) ordinations and training of these pres-by-ters, but Monsignor Burns has already let the cat out of the bag: "Father Rostand said (before any review) that I will not require conditional re-ordination." 'Msgr.' Burns was "ordained" by John "Cardinal" O'Connor of New York City, in 1986. Cardinal O'Connor made himself famous by apologizing to world Jewry for all the slander that the Catholic Church inflicted upon Jews because they killed Jesus Christ. John "Cardinal" O'Connor's sister just revealed this past month that their mother was (well how de doo!) of the Jєωιѕн faith! Perhaps this explains why "Cardinal" O'Connor, upon meeting a young boy who just converted to Catholicism from Judaism, told him:" You should go back to your Jєωιѕн faith!"
John "Cardinal" O'Connor-- a Jєωιѕн "Cardinal" of the Catholic Church;
"Cardinal" Lustinger of Paris France-- before his death he declared: "A Jew I was born, a Jew I lived, and a Jew I will die!"
"Cardinal" Jorge Bergoglio : Jews are my best friends--they are our elder brothers in the faith."
"Cardinal" Ratzinger : Jews are justified in awaiting for the Messiah!
Is there any wonder why the Catholic Church is doomed? Bella Dodd recruits one thousand ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs communist agents to infiltrate the church, the Communist conspiracy works night and day to get its agents into the church, The Alta Vendita gats thousands of illuminists to infiltrates the church, and all the leading bishops and cardinals AND "popes" are either ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs protectors, or secret Jews-- the race of people who hate Christ and His Church!
-
Nearly all of the Novus Ordo Bishops I know about deserve to be burned at the stake. :heretic:
And "elder brothers" Fellay wants to go join them and drag his followers with him. :heretic: :heretic: :heretic: