Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => The Sacred: Catholic Liturgy, Chant, Prayers => Topic started by: RomanCatholic1953 on July 29, 2019, 12:55:30 PM
-
https://youtu.be/vl6dEAgTNLk
-
Don’t have time to watch, but did they return to the old Mass, or did they return to Tradition?
-
Don’t have time to watch, but did they return to the old Mass, or did they return to Tradition?
Both. It is only a two minute video.
-
Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter was invited in.
-
https://youtu.be/vl6dEAgTNLk
RC, thanks for posting this.
-
Their orders are doubtful.
-
Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter was invited in.
Bummer.
-
Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter was invited in.
So they pinch their incense to the smells and bell and send souls hurtling to hell by false doctrine. Move on, nothing to see here.
-
Thank you for posting this. It is a step in the right direction.
-
Their orders are doubtful.
Bishop Williamson, for one, doesn't agree.
Thank you for posting this. It is a step in the right direction.
Yes, that is precisely what it is. Recall, too, that Rhode Island and neighboring Massachusetts are in the dioceses of Providence and Fall River, two of the very worst Newchurch sees in the entire country. As many conciliar Catholics are ignorant of the Faith rather than reflexively hostile to it, we should be encouraged, even glad for their sake, that they are being offered what, granted, might be said to amount to only a whiff of genuine Catholicism.
-
Returning to the Latin Mass amounts to, in her opinion,"drastic measures".
The video illustrates the drastic situation of the faithful suffering under the Novus Ordo system.
-
Bishop Williamson, for one, doesn't agree.
False.
He has expressed his doubt regarding the new Rite of episcopal consecrations several times, which necessarily means these FSSP priests (?) are doubtfully ordained by men who may not be bishops.
-
Returning to the Latin Mass amounts to, in her opinion,"drastic measures".
The video illustrates the drastic situation of the faithful suffering under the Novus Ordo system.
Just so. But the broadcast commentary and the attitude of the commenter—to the unquantifiable extent, that is, that the reader of the scripted words and their writer are or aren't differentiable—ought to be regarded as helpfully instructive for us in the ways of the enemy, whose control of news and information outlets is virtually complete. When a form (a degraded form) of Eucharistic worship that is less than sixty years old is put to one side in favor of a form that was nineteen hundred years old when it was abruptly shelved, only people with an aggressive agenda of their own would ever be so forthright as to refer to the change as "drastic" or as "going back in time"—as if the Traditional liturgy were as old and unfamiliar as Lysander of Sparta!
In a word, our masters wish everyone to accept that nothing that is not new and preferably "edgy," to use that curiously popular and modish but largely meaningless word, is either safe for consumption or morally and socially acceptable. That they have by and large succeeded is hardy debatable.
-
False.
He has expressed his doubt regarding the new Rite of episcopal consecrations several times, which necessarily means these FSSP priests (?) are doubtfully ordained by men who may not be bishops.
Obviously I don't agree. He has written of curious and even troubling changes to words and actions, but he has never to my knowledge denied the rite's validity when it is celebrated in the prescribed manner. When it isn't, as is frequently the case, alas, it's another story.
-
Obviously I don't agree. He has written of curious and even troubling changes to words and actions, but he has never to my knowledge denied the rite's validity when it is celebrated in the prescribed manner. When it isn't, as is frequently the case, alas, it's another story.
I said doubt, not denied.
So does Bishop Tissier.
-
I said doubt, not denied.
Fair enough, but in the present context it's surely a distinction not germane to the discussion. Say or think what you like about Father Berg—and I'm not a cheerleader for him—but I don't see him opting contentedly for some bishop consecrated at a funhouse caricature of a Novus Ordo ceremony to ordain his priests.
To speak plainly, with regard to the larger situation, I, unlike you, am glad to admit that I am looking to give Berg and the priests of this Newparish the benefit of the doubt. The part of the country in question is one where the Trad presence is anything but thick on the ground, and I think that the number of people with Traditionalist inclinations or even yearnings who will profit from a radical home-alone plan of action is disappearingly, not to say dangerously, small.
-
Fair enough, but in the present context it's surely a distinction not germane to the discussion. Say or think what you like about Father Berg—and I'm not a cheerleader for him—but I don't see him opting contentedly for some bishop consecrated at a funhouse caricature of a Novus Ordo ceremony to ordain his priests.
To speak plainly, with regard to the larger situation, I, unlike you, am glad to admit that I am looking to give Berg and the priests of this Newparish the benefit of the doubt. The part of the country in question is one where the Trad presence is anything but thick on the ground, and I think that the number of people with Traditionalist inclinations or even yearnings who will profit from a radical home-alone plan of action is disappearingly, not to say dangerously, small.
Oh, its germane alright:
The SSPX used to teach us that we must take a tutiorist approach when it comes to sacramental validity, and therefore the faithful are rightfully repulsed by the thought of receiving sacraments from those who were doubtfully ordained.
Some of the best theologians in the SSPX have acknowledged the doubtfulness of the form of the new rite of episcopal consecration: Williamson, de Mallerais, Calderon, Scott, et al.
Avoiding priests ordained by those doubtfully consecrated bishops follows.
FSSP priests fit that bill perfectly.
-
Oh, its germane alright:
The SSPX used to teach us that we must take a tutiorist approach when it comes to sacramental validity, and therefore the faithful are rightfully repulsed by the thought of receiving sacraments from those who were doubtfully ordained.
Some of the best theologians in the SSPX have acknowledged the doubtfulness of the form of the new rite of episcopal consecration: Williamson, de Mallerais, Calderon, Scott, et al.
Avoiding priests ordained by those doubtfully consecrated bishops follows.
FSSP priests fit that bill perfectly.
Archbishop Lefebvre wrote this in his own hand. (He didn't speak English very well)
If you want to say that there's no doubt, take it up with him.
http://www.dominicansavrille.us/questionable-priestly-ordinations-in-the-conciliar-church/
Ecône, 28 oct. 1988
Very dear Mr. Wilson,
thank you very much for your kind letter. I agree with your desire to reordain conditionnaly these priests, and I have done this reordination many times.
All sacraments from the modernists bishops or priests are doubtfull now. The changes are increasing and their intentions are no more catholics.
We are in the time of great apostasy.
We need more and more bishops and priests very catholics. It is necessary everywhere in the world.
Thank you for the newspaper article from the Father Alvaro Antonio Perez Jesuit!
We must pray and work hardly to extend the kingdom of Jesus-Christ.
I pray for you and your lovely family.
Devotly in Jesus and Mary.
Marcel Lefebvre
-
… If you want to say that there's no doubt, take it up with him. …
The question is, not whether there is no doubt whatsoever, but whether there is sufficient doubt to declare invalidity of the very forms of Novus Ordo ordination and consecration themselves. The fact that conditionality has ever been stressed in the SSPX, whether by ++Lefebvre or admittedly less so by some of his successors in the SSPX leadership, ought to suggest to those who are sufficiently attentive precisely where the problems, both actual and potential, lie and how they ought to be addressed.
Surely the changes to both rites were grave enough—especially in that they lessened one's ability to be confident, ipso facto, of their sacramental efficacy and validity irrespective of the mind-set of the ordaining or consecrating bishops—without insisting that they are even worse!
-
The question is, not whether there is no doubt whatsoever, but whether there is sufficient doubt to declare invalidity of the very forms of Novus Ordo ordination and consecration themselves. The fact that conditionality has ever been stressed in the SSPX, whether by ++Lefebvre or admittedly less so by some of his successors in the SSPX leadership, ought to suggest to those who are sufficiently attentive precisely where the problems, both actual and potential, lie and how they ought to be addressed.
Surely the changes to both rites were grave enough—especially in that they lessened one's ability to be confident, ipso facto, of their sacramental efficacy and validity irrespective of the mind-set of the ordaining or consecrating bishops—without insisting that they are even worse!
I used the phrase "no doubt," not "no doubt whatsoever."
I did not declare all NO ordinations invalid.
I simply said that we cannot say there are no doubt about the new sacraments. Much different from declaring invalidity.