Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Maria Auxiliadora on March 05, 2018, 05:52:00 AM
-
From Gloria TV
Blowoff, Vatican Allows Easter Rites Prior to the Reform of Pius XII (https://gloria.tv/article/UTFnHV9DiShv2RzpAJr2Z7Adk)
The Priestly Fraternity of St Peter has been granted an indult by the Vatican Commission Ecclesia Dei to use the liturgical books for Holy Week as they were until the [failed] reform of Pius XII (+1958). The indult is granted ad experimentum for three years.
The information was published in several of the Fraternity’s US-parish bulletins. Each church of the Fraternity has to request permission from the superiors before taking advantage of the indult. According to rumours, 25 parishes have been granted permission so far.
However, on Good Friday, the prayer for the Jews published by Pope Benedict XVI must be used.
-
From Gloria TV
Blowoff, Vatican Allows Easter Rites Prior to the Reform of Pius XII (https://gloria.tv/article/UTFnHV9DiShv2RzpAJr2Z7Adk)
The Priestly Fraternity of St Peter has been granted an indult by the Vatican Commission Ecclesia Dei to use the liturgical books for Holy Week as they were until the [failed] reform of Pius XII (+1958). The indult is granted ad experimentum for three years.
The information was published in several of the Fraternity’s US-parish bulletins. Each church of the Fraternity has to request permission from the superiors before taking advantage of the indult. According to rumours, 25 parishes have been granted permission so far.
However, on Good Friday, the prayer for the Jews published by Pope Benedict XVI must be used.
Granted permission to say mass...
Sad.
And always a caveat..
-
Fssp answers to the Dioceses. Invalid "priest". Is there something I am missing? The enemy is trying to draw people in?
-
Granted permission to say mass...
Sad.
And always a caveat..
Why is permission to say mass a bad thing?
-
Why is permission to say mass a bad thing?
A priest doesn't need permission to say mass, ever, unless he has been laicised.
-
I'm a little surprised that the FSSP have been given permission to celebrate according to the old books, for Holy Week.
-
This is very interesting news to me. This has been a top prayer of mine for well over a year now. However, this prayer was directed at +Williamson and the resistance. If you do not remember, +Williamson used the old holy week about 2-3 of years ago. And, I thought that was great idea. I do not know if he still is using it. I hope he is. I can say that I am a bit concerned that the fssp is using this. Because, the other half of the coin for me represents aside from validity, a denial of legitimacy of the hierarchy outside of Francis. Being that they are ecclesia dei, that kind of negates what I see as a solution. It would be great if the fssp could function as a catalyst for good regarding this, but I have my doubts. This belongs to +Williamson and the resistance as far as I am concerned. He was the first whom I saw perform this combination(1954 holy week within the context of a 1962 liturgical norm). And, if you haven't picked up on it yet, trads prefer to time travel rather than mix and match. Do you remember the critical saying "the liturgy of econe"? I saw that liturgy as an asset. Either way, I believe this is the right thing for tradition to do to bridge the gap between vacantists and plenists.
-
This is very interesting news to me. This has been a top prayer of mine for well over a year now. However, this prayer was directed at +Williamson and the resistance. If you do not remember, +Williamson used the old holy week about 2-3 of years ago. And, I thought that was great idea. I do not know if he still is using it. I hope he is. I can say that I am a bit concerned that the fssp is using this. Because, the other half of the coin for me represents aside from validity, a denial of legitimacy of the hierarchy outside of Francis. Being that they are ecclesia dei, that kind of negates what I see as a solution. It would be great if the fssp could function as a catalyst for good regarding this, but I have my doubts. This belongs to +Williamson and the resistance as far as I am concerned. He was the first whom I saw perform this combination(1954 holy week within the context of a 1962 liturgical norm). And, if you haven't picked up on it yet, trads prefer to time travel rather than mix and match. Do you remember the critical saying "the liturgy of econe"? I saw that liturgy as an asset. Either way, I believe this is the right thing for tradition to do to bridge the gap between vacantists and plenists.
Your goal is to bring +W into the sedeplenist camp?
-
Meg - I don't have to bring him anywhere. +Williamson is a sedeplenist. The sspx is sedeplenist. Ecclesia dei is sedeplenist. Sedeplenist means they believe the conciliar popes are true popes. That is all. It does not mean being under the NO heiarchy. I am against that as I stated. The reason I have been praying for +Williamson for this is because one: I believe this is the liturgy we need, two: he got the ball rolling, and three: I support him most. The goods of the church belong to traditional catholics(the resistance). I don't pray for the good of vacantists or ecclesia dei. I pray for the good of the resistance, so we can ascend to a position of strength, and reform from there.
-
Meg - I don't have to bring him anywhere. +Williamson is a sedeplenist. The sspx is sedeplenist. Ecclesia dei is sedeplenist. Sedeplenist means they believe the conciliar popes are true popes. That is all. It does not mean being under the NO heiarchy. I am against that as I stated. The reason I have been praying for +Williamson for this is because one: I believe this is the liturgy we need, two: he got the ball rolling, and three: I support him most. The goods of the church belong to traditional catholics(the resistance). I don't pray for the good of vacantists or ecclesia dei. I pray for the good of the resistance, so we can ascend to a position of strength, and reform from there.
Nonsense.
-
Nonsense.
What do you find so nonsensical about what I have said?
Do you not believe bishop williamson used the old holy week without any intention of using the other pre 62 liturgy?
Do you not believe the explanation I have provided for the term sedeplenist?
Do you not believe that I specifically want the resistance to rise to the top in all of traditions squabbles?
If not these, then what?
-
What do you find so nonsensical about what I have said?
Do you not believe bishop williamson used the old holy week without any intention of using the other pre 62 liturgy?
Do you not believe the explanation I have provided for the term sedeplenist?
Do you not believe that I specifically want the resistance to rise to the top in all of traditions squabbles?
If not these, then what?
Bishop Williamson is not a sedeplenist. You seem to want to believe that he is. And I'm not interested in your explanation as to why you believe it. Sedewhatevers cannot be reasoned with. I've been there, done that.
You want your particular sedewhatever POV to prevail in order to unite the Resistance. You aren't the only one. But that has little chance of happening.
-
Bishop Williamson is not a sedeplenist. You seem to want to believe that he is. And I'm not interested in your explanation as to why you believe it. Sedewhatevers cannot be reasoned with. I've been there, done that.
You want your particular sedewhatever POV to prevail in order to unite the Resistance. You aren't the only one. But that has little chance of happening.
Sedeplenist means that the seat of peter is full. Sede means seat, and plenist reflects there being plenty there, in the seat. It means it is full. How many times have we all heard bishop williamson say he believes that francis is pope? And, all the past conciliar popes as well. That means Bishop williamson is a sedeplenist. The sspx is sedeplenist. The ecclesia dei is sedeplenist. They all always have been regardless of their other disagreements. If such a cleric puts the pope in the canon of their mass, they are a sedeplenist. If a cleric does not place the pope in the canon of the mass, that means they are a sedevacantist. Don't let your hatred of me for exposing louis de montfort as the fraud that he is blind you to reality. Facts are facts.
-
Sedeplenist means that the seat of peter is full. Sede means seat, and plenist reflects there being plenty there, in the seat. It means it is full. How many times have we all heard bishop williamson say he believes that francis is pope? And, all the past conciliar popes as well. That means Bishop williamson is a sedeplenist. The sspx is sedeplenist. The ecclesia dei is sedeplenist. They all always have been regardless of their other disagreements. If such a cleric puts the pope in the canon of their mass, they are a sedeplenist. If a cleric does not place the pope in the canon of the mass, that means they are a sedevacantist. Don't let your hatred of me for exposing louis de montfort as the fraud that he is blind you to reality. Facts are facts.
Just because some sedewhatevers use a made-up term called sedeplenism, this doesn't mean that the term has any real meaning, except in the minds of those who profess this POV. The term is meaningless to me. And....I've never heard any Resistance priest or bishop use it at all. Why should they?
Why would you think that I hate you? That's quite extreme....just because I think that sedewhateverism is wrong. And....where did you get the idea that I hate you because you exposed De Monfort? I barely even looked at your thread or whatever that was on the subject, since I don't really care about it. I'm not a fan of De Montfort anyway, because he over-analyzes everything - especially Marian devotion.
-
Well, I did not make up the term. However, it is a professional, accurate, and useful term. It makes discussion of the matter more efficient, so long as the terms are accurate. And, in this case it is. Look it up on google. You will see that I am not the only one who uses it. I see no negative to its use. I will continue to use it.
-
Well, I did not make up the term. However, it is a professional, accurate, and useful term. It makes discussion of the matter more efficient, so long as the terms are accurate. And, in this case it is. Look it up on google. You will see that I am not the only one who uses it. I see no negative to its use. I will continue to use it.
I know that you didn't make up the term. It is a useful term for sedewhatevers who obsess on a certain sedewhatever POV. I realize that.
Feel free to keep using it. I'll keep pointing it out that you do not use it accurately, because you use it to describe trads who themselves do not profess to be sedeplenists. It's dishonest to use this term for traditional Catholics who do not describe themselves as such.
-
This shows how the enemy tries to run circles around you. The modernists changed holy week in order to change the faith. Once they have changed the faith, they come full circle and pretend as if nothing happened by restoring the old holy week. However, there is the dead give away, and it is the pray for the jews. So, it is not the old holy week.
-
PG : "don't let your hatred of me for exposing louis de montfort as the fraud that he is blind you to reality. Facts are facts." Meg: "I'm not a fan of De Montfort anyway, because he over-analyzes everything - especially Marian devotion."
I can't understand how it is possible for St. Louis de Montfort to be called a fraud. May I share a link to defend St. Louis de Montfort, please: http://files.webklik.nl/user_files/2010_05/137438/Squabbles.pdf
His writings, "Love of Eternal Wisdom" and "Letter to the Friends of the Cross", are very helpful spiritual guides. And yes, the "True Devotion to Mary" may be too long to read for the first time and may not be as quick to read like espionage novels, and it takes 2 or more readings before the full meaning becomes clear and for the devotion to grow, but after years of reflection, it can only be described as 'comprehensive', not 'over-analyzed'.
-
PG : "don't let your hatred of me for exposing louis de montfort as the fraud that he is blind you to reality. Facts are facts." Meg: "I'm not a fan of De Montfort anyway, because he over-analyzes everything - especially Marian devotion."
I can't understand how it is possible for St. Louis de Montfort to be called a fraud. May I share a link to defend St. Louis de Montfort, please: http://files.webklik.nl/user_files/2010_05/137438/Squabbles.pdf
His writings, "Love of Eternal Wisdom" and "Letter to the Friends of the Cross", are very helpful spiritual guides. And yes, the "True Devotion to Mary" may be too long to read for the first time and may not be as quick to read like espionage novels, and it takes 2 or more readings before the full meaning becomes clear and for the devotion to grow, but after years of reflection, it can only be described as 'comprehensive', not 'over-analyzed'.
You ought to refer to the thread below if you want to discuss the matter further. I only brought it up to meg because many people have recently come to consider me possessed by the devil(neilobstat) and wish for my banning(jen51) for what I had to say about de montfort. It is a recent discussion.
https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/the-secret-hidden-within-marian-consecration/
I have made a lot of enemies recently, and I was simply sifting meg to see where she stands. However, I think she instead may have an aversion to prayers being answered(other than hers). Correct me if I am wrong, but I recall(from memory) her also unusually attacking MyrnaM for believing that her prayer was answered about a flat earth solution when whe proceeded to explain how. So, I doubt it has anything to do with "sedewhateverism", and perhaps more to do with a form of spiritual envy.
-
PG : "don't let your hatred of me for exposing louis de montfort as the fraud that he is blind you to reality. Facts are facts." Meg: "I'm not a fan of De Montfort anyway, because he over-analyzes everything - especially Marian devotion."
I can't understand how it is possible for St. Louis de Montfort to be called a fraud. May I share a link to defend St. Louis de Montfort, please: http://files.webklik.nl/user_files/2010_05/137438/Squabbles.pdf
His writings, "Love of Eternal Wisdom" and "Letter to the Friends of the Cross", are very helpful spiritual guides. And yes, the "True Devotion to Mary" may be too long to read for the first time and may not be as quick to read like espionage novels, and it takes 2 or more readings before the full meaning becomes clear and for the devotion to grow, but after years of reflection, it can only be described as 'comprehensive', not 'over-analyzed'.
I have thoroughly read all of de montforts works. And, I object to true devotion and the secret of mary. Similar to how I cannot explain the phenomenon of some modern musicians playing some of he most hideous diabolical music classified as classical alongside some of the loveliest classical music at performances, I cannot explain de montfort producing such problematic works(true devotion) alongside works(his poems and letters) that appeared to me to not be problematic at all. However, I am not at all about to praise any of his works.
As for my music example, can you explain why narcisio yepes(one of the best classical guitarists of his time) would play such hidious music from minute 50:00 to minute 1:12:00 in the video I link below, when the rest of his performance consists of some of the loveliest classical music compositions flawlessly performed? These contradictions are sad. But, they exist. And, that is the case with de montfort. He wrote some beautiful things, but he also wrote some diabolical things. And, like vatican 2, we have to reject both. De montfort is a contradiction. However, unlike Christ, who taught no evil, de montfort does teach evil. Because, the devil always has a tail.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Bx4AFYA85E
-
This shows how the enemy tries to run circles around you. The modernists changed holy week in order to change the faith. Once they have changed the faith, they come full circle and pretend as if nothing happened by restoring the old holy week. However, there is the dead give away, and it is the pray for the jews. So, it is not the old holy week.
Pope Pius XII may have changed the Holy Week but he didn't invoke Vatican II.
-
Fr Celier of the SSPX wrote a book on Ratzinger calling him the Pope of Tradition.
Summorum Pontificuм and all that.
In view of this indult, which may well be extended to the SSPX, maybe another book is now due: Bergy, Another Pope of Tradition.
-
Fr Celier of the SSPX wrote a book on Ratzinger calling him the Pope of Tradition.
Summorum Pontificuм and all that.
In view of this indult, which may well be extended to the SSPX, maybe another book is now due: Bergy, Another Pope of Tradition.
He has done more to help the SSPX than any American bishop.
-
And, that is the case with de montfort. He wrote some beautiful things, but he also wrote some diabolical things. And, like vatican 2, we have to reject both. De montfort is a contradiction. However, unlike Christ, who taught no evil, de montfort does teach evil. Because, the devil always has a tail.
The only one with a tail seems to be you.
-
And, that is the case with de montfort. He wrote some beautiful things, but he also wrote some diabolical things. And, like vatican 2, we have to reject both. De montfort is a contradiction. However, unlike Christ, who taught no evil, de montfort does teach evil. Because, the devil always has a tail.
The only one with a tail seems to be you.
The fact that St. Louis of Montfort was canonized as a saint of the Church by Pope Pius XII should be sufficient for any Catholic worth his name to at least treat him with the due respect, even if there is disagreement with his thinking. If he had written truly diabolical things as this calumny suggests, then he would not be a saint of the Church.
These words are truly reprehensible
-
However, on Good Friday, the prayer for the Jews published by Pope Benedict XVI must be used.
(https://scontent-ort2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/29101146_171583060319112_3538020576125779968_n.jpg?_nc_eui2=v1%3AAeFOlldj-AMXCP8EaSKB3eIFPa6Kcf7AFy8z4bpajYVQClj7DceT6E1zECIvGFMjCNe_GveyCQnJ0km278nlV8nPawMQoUm7VqLRtpbX4t4zxQ&oh=f87d3f18373baf6a5c229313c5484d0f&oe=5B4661D2)