1. A parishioner thought it was worth tattling about and whipped out his cell phone during Mass
+AMDG+
First Sunday in Lent 2014
Feast Of Saint Frances of Rome
Thumbs Up Matthew.
:applause:
They have just behaved absolutely wicked!
My friend, the elderly lady who is a Third Order, sent to study Sacrosanctum Concilium by Fr. Purdy, has now officially refused to discuss any of these matters with me anymore.
And has even gone so far as to discontinue associating with me.
All out of fear of being found out to be associated with anyone supporting the Resistance.
:scared2: :scared2: :scared2:
She has also been given the impression that she could not and should not discuss or inquire about these matters at their SSPX chapel, under pain of being kicked out of the chapel.
BTW I was studying SC and trying to make notes for her, and she now refuses to read anything that has to do with the "ignorant" priests (Fr. Purdy's words) of the Resistance.
If anyone is interested, Paragraph 22 on SC is very insightful.
This paragraph is possibly one of the biggest reasons why they are lauding this evil, evil, evil Vat2 doc.
This place the Bishop in a very favorable and powerful position.
Reason #32110 why I support the Resistance: I could never be on the same side as these people. I would never be able to justify them, much less see myself as one of them.
As the Resistance Fathers have frequently pointed out -- this is war. These men won't back down one inch, and they are always pressing their advantage.
They see us as the enemy, because we oppose their questionable statements, goals and doctrine.
P.S. Fr. Rostand is currently visiting my local SSPX priory. He will be in Houston, TX tomorrow.
:dancing-banana:
An elderly woman is threatened by her superior for asking questions about religion? She is now afraid to go to Mass or to open her mouth? Is this not the errors of Russia, (communism!) now come into the SSPX, just as Our Lady of Fatima warned?
A priest is rebuked by his Superior for requesting prayers for another priest? Are we not commanded to pray for our "enemies," as this is what Bp. W. has now become to authorities of the sspx? One of the sheep tattles on his priest? Again, the use of fear by an authority to control those below. Communism!
"Everything you think, say, and do, can and will be used against you...in the Church?"
Is this the charge Our Lord gave to St. Peter when He said, "Feed my lambs?"
For how long will the priests and faithful be willing to hear Mass in an atmosphere of paranoia?
These are the identifying marks of a cult, not those of the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ!
TRADCATs, are we not playing into the enemies hands when we pay inordinate attention to the obvious infiltration of SSPX by the enemies of the Church? We all morn to see what others either don't see or do not want to see, likely for much of the reasons already expressed in this discussion (sentimentality). However, I pray that we march on with Our Lady under the banner of Christ the King for which I know Archbishop Lefebvre would ask of us - keep the Faith of all times, penance-fasting-prayer, help in charity, prepare to suffer even greater possibly even to martyrdom.
True RESISTANCE is continuing in Tradition and RESIST TO THE FACE the heretical errors of the Novus Disordered Church and the ʝʊdɛօ-Masonry revolution from Hell. Stop and think why Our Lord is allowing this to happen - Duhh, our sins maybe? Are not True Trads to continue the path set forth by Archbishop Lefebvre regardless the direction Bishop Fellay and followers have decided to take?
What is happening to the Church is as prophesied by Our Lady of Quito, La Salette, Fatima. Is not Our Lord allowing us to be reduced so that the glory of Our Lady's triumph and the Church will be all Her and not even attributed to the fidelity of any Catholic order such as SSPX?
A sign that what is happening to SSPX is Masonic is the shadow of the same recipe the Masons used leading up to the Vatican II revolt as revealed by the Alta Vendita, quote, "It is to the youth we must go, it is that which we must seduce; it is that which we must bring under the banner of the secret societies.” Just as the late 19th and 20th century clergy were duped by the poison of freemasonic principles so has SSPX, with the intent not to destroy the structure but to empty it of its Divine content - behold neo-SSPX with the teeth of chickens.
We certainly want to continue to pray, Oh and yes, for Bishop Fellay as well, that many of the faithful and priests of SSPX wake up to return on course of the founder of SSPX, namely, THE CROSS. Strongly recommend reading Friends of the Cross by St. Louis De Montfort again.
OUR MANDATE [Declaration of November 21, 1974]
We hold firmly with all our heart and with all our mind to Catholic Rome, Guardian of the Catholic Faith and of the traditions necessary to the maintenance of this faith, to the eternal Rome, mistress of wisdom and truth.
We refuse on the other hand, and have always refused, to follow the Rome of Neo-Modernist and Neo-Protestant tendencies, which became clearly manifest during the Second Vatican Council, and after the Council, in all the reforms which issued from it.
No authority, not even the highest in the hierarchy, can compel us to abandon or to diminish our Catholic Faith, so clearly expressed and professed by the Church's Magisterium for nineteen centuries.
That is why we hold firmly to everything that has been consistently taught and practiced by the Church (and codified in books published before the Modernist influence of the Council) concerning faith, morals, divine worship, catechetics, priestly formation, and the institution of the Church, until such time as the true light of tradition dissipates the gloom which obscures the sky of the eternal Rome.
VIVAT CHRISTUS REX,
Patrick Coon
Georgetown, Texas
I love Father Zendejas though I don't know him well. He used to be the priest at my chapel before I started attending Mass there regularly. All of the people who have been going to the chapel for a while think he was the best priest we have had here.
An anecdote taken from a Fr. Hewko sermon, which took place at a chapel close to my home:
Fr. Zendejas was giving a sermon during which he asked the parishioners to pray for Bishop Williamson also, as he was one of the four bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre. He needs our prayers too.
Mass ended.
Only minutes after Mass is over, Father gets a call from US District Headquarters! The priest on the other end was furious that he would "bring up Bishop Williamson in a sermon", etc.
So we have 2 ridiculous things to point out:
1. A parishioner thought it was worth tattling about and whipped out his cell phone during Mass
2. Someone at District HQ agreed, and went ahead and got angry about it and dealt with it (rather than ignoring it, as they should have)!
Reason #32110 why I support the Resistance: I could never be on the same side as these people. I would never be able to justify them, much less see myself as one of them.
I could never be on the same side as these people. I would never be able to justify them, much less see myself as one of them
+AMDG+
First Sunday in Lent 2014
Feast Of Saint Frances of Rome
Thumbs Up Matthew.
:applause:
They have just behaved absolutely wicked!
My friend, the elderly lady who is a Third Order, sent to study Sacrosanctum Concilium by Fr. Purdy, has now officially refused to discuss any of these matters with me anymore.
And has even gone so far as to discontinue associating with me.
All out of fear of being found out to be associated with anyone supporting the Resistance.
:scared2: :scared2: :scared2:
She has also been given the impression that she could not and should not discuss or inquire about these matters at their SSPX chapel, under pain of being kicked out of the chapel.
BTW I was studying SC and trying to make notes for her, and she now refuses to read anything that has to do with the "ignorant" priests (Fr. Purdy's words) of the Resistance.
If anyone is interested, Paragraph 22 on SC is very insightful.
This paragraph is possibly one of the biggest reasons why they are lauding this evil, evil, evil Vat2 doc.
This place the Bishop in a very favorable and powerful position.
QuoteI could never be on the same side as these people. I would never be able to justify them, much less see myself as one of them
You could go back earlier. Whilst one couldn't give a hoot about the neo cons, who walked out of Bishop Williamsons sermon. The pro-Israel brigade. I would question those who stated the Bishop was 'imprudent'.
The one chosen by the Archbishop told the truth yet Trads with children regarded telling the truth as being 'imprudent'.
It's interesting that those atleast in Ireland who stated the Bishop was 'imprudent' are from an Indult background and for an agreement.
One couldn't side with those.
Bishop Williamson is quite correct in his latest column and personally there are exceptions but most SSPX laity favour a 1950s type Catholicism.
This was often raised at Catholic Action conferences in London that I attended.
The posts on CathInfo are the words and opinions of the individual members who posted them, and do not reflect the views of CathInfo or its owner.
CathInfo is the de-facto discussion headquarters for the Resistance, which it officially supports.
Please pray for Bishop Richard Williamson, a noble prelate and hand-picked successor of Archbishop Lefebvre whose wisdom and zeal for the truth have inspired many.
On October 23, 2012, the good Bishop was cast out of the SSPX, where he had labored tirelessly for 36 years.
His continued membership in the SSPX would have made a premature union with Rome more difficult.
He is committed to defending Catholic Tradition in all its purity, as the true successor of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.
"I have loved justice and hated iniquity; therefore I die in exile." - Pope Gregory VII
Update regarding my inquiry about possibly starting a TO for the Resistance: Fr. Pfeiffer said maybe in a couple of years but not just now due to other competing priorities, i.e., getting the seminary on firmer footing, etc. He said to just live the life prescribed by the old manual for now. Fair enough.
Quote from: John GraceQuoteI could never be on the same side as these people. I would never be able to justify them, much less see myself as one of them
You could go back earlier. Whilst one couldn't give a hoot about the neo cons, who walked out of Bishop Williamsons sermon. The pro-Israel brigade. I would question those who stated the Bishop was 'imprudent'.
The one chosen by the Archbishop told the truth yet Trads with children regarded telling the truth as being 'imprudent'.
It's interesting that those atleast in Ireland who stated the Bishop was 'imprudent' are from an Indult background and for an agreement.
One couldn't side with those.
Bishop Williamson is quite correct in his latest column and personally there are exceptions but most SSPX laity favour a 1950s type Catholicism.
This was often raised at Catholic Action conferences in London that I attended.
You dont see how ridiculous your position is john grace.
You would have people stay away from the SSPX and go only to the resistance who visit this country maybe once a year. You also dont know what you are talking about when you speak of the indult. The indult in this country is very traditional, in fact it rivals the SSPX. If you think that the only place to get tradition is the SSPX you are delusional and full of pride. The Indult has been protected in this country by the bishops and it has grown like wildfire, whereas the SSPX has stayed the same size since it began more or less. The solution is obvious if you consider Francis a valid pope, you must take back the church, the indult is fighting a war for the soul of the church and it will win in about 50 years. Those are the facts. Ive met some nice people at the SSPX but have met a few prideful cultists as well. The mission of the SSPX was not to be a cult, it was to return tradition to the church, you cant do that if you are not in the battle.
and yes I came from the Indult, and would go to it again, because it is a valid mass, simple as.
And your telling people to stay away from sacraments other than from Resistance priests is a dimond brothers style scandal.
:really-mad2:
I was reading through this thread and I wanted to comment on what my experience has been attending indult masses because that is all I have available right now. Prior to that I attended an SSPX chapel exclusively.
At the indult, the mass is the same as the SSPX and I never heard anything doctrinally questionable coming from a sermon. At the same time the sermons aren't as hard hitting as SSPX sermons. The people are devout pious Catholics full of zeal for their faith, just like the SSPX people, But I've found if you mix and mingle with other parishioners and get to know them, you'll find different competing opinions and feelings about the crisis of liberalism and modernism in the church. For example some will say there's nothing wrong with Vatican 2 and it was a completely orthodox council that taught no errors. The problem is a misinterpretation that took place during the implementation of the council afterwards. Other peoples thinking is more in line with what the SSPX believe about the crisis. Everyone is not on the same page when it comes to this very important subject. Also you'll find a lot of people filled with zealous false obedience and will try their best to put you under it too, especially if you mention your admiration for Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX. So if you just go there for the mass and the edifying sermons it's ok, but don't try to get into any deep theological discussions with your fellow parishioners during coffee hour because it may turn into a argument or a debate.
Also since it's an "approved mass", you'll find people who aren't traditionalists attending the mass out of curiosity, just to see what a latin mass is like. A lot of times their not properly dressed for mass or have the proper reverence or devotion someone is supposed have.
That is some of my impressions, I hope I don't come across as too judgmental, I'm trying to work on that by praying and turning over to God some of the things that bother and irritate me at mass. I'm glad non -traditional Catholics have an opportunity to come and experience the traditional mass, hopefully it will lead to a deeper conversion to the true faith.
The demand for it is evident among a certain class that would not dream of leaving the mainstream for any reason and so that mainstream is happy to cater for them. That is the bargain!
Quote from: WessexThe demand for it is evident among a certain class that would not dream of leaving the mainstream for any reason and so that mainstream is happy to cater for them. That is the bargain!
What nonsense.
I attend many such a mass in and around London and recognise at least half of the faces from my former SSPX days. I've been a Trad since 1978 and solely attended SSPX masses from 1978 to 1995 when I moved to Australia and found the SSPX there were nutty nutbar and almost as bad as the worst parts of the USA.
The greatest promoter of the indult mass in the UK was when the SSPX went nutty after Fr. Edward Black was posted to Australia. London lost a large number of the stalwarts and those faces and their children are the very same people at the indult/SP whatever you want to call them masses.
I can remember in the 1980s two Masses on Sunday at Holloway Road that were standing room only and people even outside the doors spilling into the street on occasion. Now they barely fill one mass. Those people did not lapse they voted with their feet. The population of London today is higher than it ws in the 1980s so the SSPX has no excuse for the lower numbers.
You could go to an indult mass in the 1980s, but few did because Father Black had common sense and was a reasonable and mentally balanced man.
In countries where the SSPX has managed to resist the over-zealous nutters the indult masses are small to non-existant because the SSPX meets the needs of people better and newchurch can't be arsed to compete.
Soulguard, one of the best examples of problems with the indult, apart from the compromise their very existence as it is entails, is how they will often leave hosts in the churches they share with the novus ordo and allow them to be used for communion in the hand in the novus ordo. They are thus often complicit in the terrible abuses likely to accur at NO masses. Before Vatican 2 no serious priest would have dreamt of leaving hosts in a place where they would likely be subject to such an abuse.
Quote from: soulguardQuote from: John GraceQuoteI could never be on the same side as these people. I would never be able to justify them, much less see myself as one of them
You could go back earlier. Whilst one couldn't give a hoot about the neo cons, who walked out of Bishop Williamsons sermon. The pro-Israel brigade. I would question those who stated the Bishop was 'imprudent'.
The one chosen by the Archbishop told the truth yet Trads with children regarded telling the truth as being 'imprudent'.
It's interesting that those atleast in Ireland who stated the Bishop was 'imprudent' are from an Indult background and for an agreement.
One couldn't side with those.
Bishop Williamson is quite correct in his latest column and personally there are exceptions but most SSPX laity favour a 1950s type Catholicism.
This was often raised at Catholic Action conferences in London that I attended.
You dont see how ridiculous your position is john grace.
You would have people stay away from the SSPX and go only to the resistance who visit this country maybe once a year. You also dont know what you are talking about when you speak of the indult. The indult in this country is very traditional, in fact it rivals the SSPX. If you think that the only place to get tradition is the SSPX you are delusional and full of pride. The Indult has been protected in this country by the bishops and it has grown like wildfire, whereas the SSPX has stayed the same size since it began more or less. The solution is obvious if you consider Francis a valid pope, you must take back the church, the indult is fighting a war for the soul of the church and it will win in about 50 years. Those are the facts. Ive met some nice people at the SSPX but have met a few prideful cultists as well. The mission of the SSPX was not to be a cult, it was to return tradition to the church, you cant do that if you are not in the battle.
and yes I came from the Indult, and would go to it again, because it is a valid mass, simple as.
Ah, if only it were that simple, but it isn't. Why was the indult started?
It is not a question of whether the mass is valid or not, it is the doctrine behind it. Simple as that! The doctrine is all that matters. I came from the FSSP thinking at the time that the "mass is the mass," but left once I realized that it was built on compromise. Now we've had to leave the SSPX for the same reasons.
Standing firm for the true faith, uncompromised, and receiving the sacraments once a year is a lot more beneficial for the battle than accepting the revolution of Vatican II at the Indult and neo-SSPX masses!
Every priest has to assent that the novus ordo is "just as good as the Latin Mass" in order to even be "allowed" say the "indult" over there, not to mention they have to prove their loyalty by either concelebrating a novus ordo with the Bishop, or say the novus ordo in the Bishop's presence. So, in essence, they make sure they have a compromiser under their fist.
Father Bolduc told us that the Bishop would have recognized Saint Michael's if he had only said ONE novus ordo, which he would not do.
Those are at least two good reasons.
Once they've forced you to compromise -- to offer that one grain of incense to Baal -- they know they have you. You're neutered, neutralized, useless.
If I recall correctly, Archbishop Lefebvre faced this exact same choice. They wanted him to offer JUST ONCE the Novus Ordo Mass, which he refused.
Quote from: parentsfortruth
Every priest has to assent that the novus ordo is "just as good as the Latin Mass" in order to even be "allowed" say the "indult" over there, not to mention they have to prove their loyalty by either concelebrating a novus ordo with the Bishop, or say the novus ordo in the Bishop's presence. So, in essence, they make sure they have a compromiser under their fist.
Father Bolduc told us that the Bishop would have recognized Saint Michael's if he had only said ONE novus ordo, which he would not do.
Those are at least two good reasons.
This is a very important point.
Once they've forced you to compromise -- to offer that one grain of incense to Baal -- they know they have you. You're neutered, neutralized, useless.
If I recall correctly, Archbishop Lefebvre faced this exact same choice. They wanted him to offer JUST ONCE the Novus Ordo Mass, which he refused.
One of the best examples of problems with the indult, apart from the compromise their very existence as it is entails, is how they will often leave hosts in the churches they share with the novus ordo and allow them to be used for communion in the hand in the novus ordo. They are thus often complicit in the terrible abuses likely to occur at NO masses. Before Vatican 2 no serious priest would have dreamt of leaving hosts in a place where they would likely be subject to such an abuse.