It's really great to get a fresh outlook from a newcomer, fidelismaris.
I hope you can return and give some of your impressions. Or, if you have
any questions, I hope you can find answers here....
Thanks. My husband and I started attending a SSPX chapel about 8 months ago and were immediately on board... We've since been purging all of the NO garbage out of our minds and bookcases, but I've heard the Resistance alluded to so much I figured it was time to at least get an overview.
Only 8 months! I can hardly recall what I was thinking after only
8 months. I probably would not have had the courage to go on a
Resistance website and start engaging in conversations with
members. You have a lot of spunk!
The first thing that comes to mind is, what about all these claims
of ulterior motives from Menzingen? Are they based on anything
real, or is it all the overactive imagination of meddlesome
I hope you had a chance to see that video linked
I have "the Angelus" for May 2002. I read it years ago and decided to reread it. I was shocked! Bishop Fellay had talks with Rome then.
If we had only been able to see the forest for the trees at the time!
What's amazing is that this could all have been published in 2002. It's
as though His Eagerness B. Fellay was expecting so much more from
the Roman criminals, that if he only would put out some of the more
blatant and embarrassing items, then, "Rome May Convert!"
we can all see how well that plan went, can't we? The pertinacity of
the Roman criminals HAS RUBBED OFF ON HIS EAGERNESS HIMSELF!!
For now, H.E. is doing the very same things the Romans do - punishing
the die-hard trads under his thumb, promoting yes-men into positions
of power, denying everything that's inconvenient for his nefarious
agenda, skirting the issues that are embarrassing, remaining vague
and eschewing definition so as to retain irresponsibility in the future.....
What was mentioned in this article was what Rome had up their sleeve (supposedly - you decide).
First: An agreement to establish an apostolic administration which receives only an auxiliary bishop while the local ordinary retains all Episcopal jurisdiction. So, Giovanni Battista Cardinal Re, in 1986 said that the Latin Mass is only temporarily granted, that the general law of the Church is the New Mass, and we will have to go back to it. Campos in under this head.
The Pope will choose the bishop. Bishop Perl stated the the bishop will be bi-ritual. Will say both old and new mass. Bishop Perl stated, "Little by little, this bishop will bring priests of the apostolic administration to the New Mass, and so also the faithful. This administration will have only a temporary existence and the whole will be reintegrated into the dioceses."
Fr. Georges Cottier, the Pope's personal theologian, commented, "Little by little. we must expect other steps: participate in concelebrations in the reformed rite [Newmass]. However, we must not be in a hurry."
Rome expects the entire administration to go over to the New Mass.
Next: the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity [Pontifical Council for Pointing Out Christian Disunity] under Cardinal Kasper issued a notice regarding the intercommunion between the Chaldeans - an Eastern rite of the Catholic Church and the Assyrians, who have the same rite but are not Catholics. -- They have a Mass, but it has no words of consecration, no words of the institution. This Mass is called the Anaphora of Addai and Mari. Cardinal Ratzinger and Kasper came to the conclusion that this Mass is valid! Rome says, "The words of consecration are spread around the whole Mass."
Rome bases itself on the excuse that if you examine the texts of the Assyrian rite, you won't find the words of consecration. But, its says, you don't find words of consecration in many of the early texts of approved Catholic rites either.
However, Rome's logic is faulty. Manuscripts from the 1st century for the Latin rite in France and Spain, for the Mozarabic Eastern rite in union with Rome, etc, all are missing words of consecration because the words were considered so holy that they shouldn't be written so they might not be polluted or profaned by contact with pagans.
It is the law called the law of the arcane (the law of keeping these words secret). BUT the priests knew them and SAID them. It's not because they weren't written that they weren't said! That is the big error that they introduce now! This fits Newroman modernism. Now Rome is using the example.
So, we have priests who want to say the Tridentine Mass [Canonized Traditional Latin Mass].
Now, that is the end of that. A question comes to my mind. Is it possible, that this new seminary in VA, will bring this on, the Mass without the words of consecration?
Excellent question. This ought to be front row center for any
Q&A sessions with the Menzingen-denizens. Get this out in the
open for all the world to see. Let them squirm in their seat!
Put this up where it can be seen and don't give up. Let them
hear it again and again and again and again, until they come
around to answer it. They will NEVER answer it. They might
get really testy and 'upset' about being asked the same question
but that's just tough. They made their bed now they can sleep
Both interesting and frightening, songbird. Thank you for you post.