18C Oil/Canvas MASS OF ST GREGORY THE GREAT
There was some discussion on our blog the other day on the origins of the forming of the ‘New Mass’ (Novus Ordo) that was to replace the ‘Traditional Latin Mass’ after the Second Vatican Council. This, below, is a statement from Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre at his absolute horror at witnessing the ‘Mass of the Ages’ being all but sidelined (although never officially, of course), whilst a group of Protestant ‘advisors’, together with Fr (later Archbishop) Annibale Bugnini*, with the help of a group of Protestant (!!) ministers, put together a ‘modernised’, shorter type of Mass in the vernacular.
———
Archbishop Lefebvre, Montreal, 1982:
“I had the occasion to see for myself what influence Fr. Bugnini had. One wonders how such a thing as this could have happened at Rome.
At that time immediately after the Council, I was Superior General of the Congregation of the Fathers of the Holy Ghost and we had a meeting of the Superiors General at Rome. We had asked Fr. Bugnini explain to us what his New Mass was, for this was not at all a small event. Immediately after the Council we heard of the Normative Mass, the New Mass, the Novus Ordo. What did all this mean? It had not been spoken of at the Council. What had happened? And so we asked Fr. Bugnini to come and explain himself to the 84 Superiors General who were united together, amongst whom I consequently was.
Fr. Bugnini, with much confidence, explained what the Normative Mass would be; this will be changed, that will be changed and we will put in place another Offertory. We will be able to reduce the communion prayers. We will be able to have several different formats for the beginning of Mass. We will be able to say the Mass in the vernacular tongue.
We looked at one another saying to ourselves: “But it’s not possible!” He spoke absolutely, as if there had never been a Mass in the Church before him. He spoke of his Normative Mass as of a new invention. Personally I was myself so stunned that I remained mute, although I generally speak freely when it is a question of opposing those with whom I am not in agreement. I could not utter a word. How could it be possible for this man before me to be entrusted with the entire reform of the Catholic Liturgy, the entire reform of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, of the sacraments, of the Breviary, and of all our prayers? Where are we going? Where is the Church going?
Two Superiors General had the courage to speak out. One of them asked Fr. Bugnini: “Is this an active participation, that is a bodily participation, that is to say with vocal prayers, or is it a spiritual participation? In any case you have so much spoken of the participation of the faithful that it seems you can no longer justify Mass celebrated without the faithful. Your entire Mass has been fabricated around the participation of the faithful. We Benedictines celebrate our Masses without the assistance of the faithful. Does this mean that we must discontinue our private Masses, since we do not have faithful to participate in them?”
I repeat to you exactly that which Fr. Bugnini said. I have it still in my ears, so much did it strike me: “To speak truthfully we didn’t think of that,” he said!
Afterwards another arose and said: “Reverend Father, you have said that we will suppress this and we will suppress that, that we will replace this thing by that and always by shorter prayers. I have the impression that your new Mass could be said in ten or twelve minutes or at the most a quarter of an hour. This is not reasonable. This is not respectful towards such an act of the Church.”
Well, this is what he replied: “We can always add something.”
Is this for real? I heard it myself. If somebody had told me the story I would perhaps have doubted it, but I heard it myself.”
“I am convinced that the crisis in the Church that we are experiencing today is to a large extent due to the disintegration of the liturgy..“ – (Pope Benedict XVI).
*In ‘Liturgical Time Bombs in Vatican II‘, English Catholic writer Michael Davies asserts that Bugnini’s Masonic connections were behind his Modernist liturgical reforms, and that the discovery of his Masonic affiliation prompted his sudden transfer by Pope Paul VI from his post in the Roman Curia to that of Papal Nuncio to Iran. Davies further asserted that an unnamed Cardinal told him in the summer of 1975 that a “dossier” proving him to be a Freemason had been brought to the Pope’s desk.
Catholicism Pure & Simple 
And the implication is…………………………………………..
LikeLike
All of the following is in the public domain.
Pecorelli’s List (never disproved) Pecorelli himself was murdered in March 1979.
Bea, Augustin. Cardinal. Secretary of State (next to Pope) under Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI.
Baggio, Sebastiano. Cardinal. Prefect of the Sacred Congregation of Bishops. (This is a crucial Congregation since it appoints new Bishops.) Secretary of State under Pope John Paul II from 1989 to 1992. 8-14-57; # 85-1640. Masonic code name “SEBA.” He controls consecration of Bishops.
Bugnini, Annibale. Archbishop. Wrote Novus Ordo Mass. Envoy to Iran, 4-23-63; # 1365-75. “BUAN.”
Casaroli, Agostino. Cardinal. Secretary of State (next to Pope) under Pope John Paul II since July 1, 1979 until retired in 1989. 9-28-57; # 41-076. “CASA.”
Noe, Virgillio. Head of the Sacred Congregation of Divine Worship. He and Bugnini paid 5 Protestant Ministers and one Jewish Rabbi to create the Novus Ordo Mass. 4-3-61; # 43652-21. “VINO.”
Villot, Jean. Cardinal. Secretary of State during Pope Paul VI. He is Camerlengo (Treasurer). “JEANNI,” “ZURIGO.”
Malachi Martin, in his book “Windswept House”, indicates Cardinals Casaroli and Jean Marie Villot as a participanting in the Black Mass celebrated in the Pauline Chapel in the Vatican, on June 29, 1963.
Father Gabriele Amorth, official exorcist of the Diocese of Rome, in his “Memoirs”, in the Vatican there are cardinals, bishops and priests who belong to satanic sects, his sources are people who have been directly involved in exorcisms and are statements of the devil during exorcisms.
The problem with Curia’s CURRENT stance on GAY’S and Marriage is that this covers up if not becomes a tacit compliance with impure and unnatural vice.
“The Rite of Sodomy” 2006 , the famous and award-winning American Catholic researcher, Dr. Randy Engel. This book with 1282 pages, provides the names and details of all the cardinals, bishops and priests who have had problems with American justice, for their impure and unnatural vice.
The Pope is BOUND by Sacred Tradition. He cannot ADD nor REMOVE from the FAITH. Peter BINDS Peter.
The Holy Sacrifice Of The MASS (Perpetual Sacrifice) is the ONLY acceptable Sacrifice to God.
Removing the Holy Sacrifice Of The MASS and replacing this with a Protestant Banquet simply reverses Our Lord’s Triumph On Calvary and leaves MAN cut off from Heaven.
LikeLiked by 1 person
My question is this; I realise that Bugnini created a Mass that was not popularly accepted at the time, and I accept that something shameful was revealed to Pope Paul VI, as Bugnini was hurriedly demoted and exiled. If this is the case, why was the Novus Ordo still forced upon everybody and the Latin Mass forbidden (at least until Pope Benedict)? What does this say about this history? If it is correct, wouldn’t Pope Paul VI turn around and take back the new Mass? Or Pope John Paul? Was Pope Paul weak? Or were they compromised? If a black Mass was celebrated, what was done about it? And what was done about the cardinals who celebrated it? Surely they didn’t turn up to work the next day as normal? I must say, this history explains some things about the imposition of the Novus Ordi. But it almost raises more questions than it answers.
LikeLike
What matters here is the escalation of Sin (world given over to Satan) and the lack and reduction of Masses!
LikeLike
Crow, I believe Pope Paul VI realised too late what was happening, how the progressives in the Church had succeeded in their macabre intent to replace the transcendent beauty of the holy Tridentine Mass with the more banal Novus Ordo Mass. He is quoted as saying (though I cannot find the exact quote) how tragic this move was! However that did not stop him from giving the NOM his blessing and suppressing the TLM, as many felt it should have. Why? Was he bullied, threatened, or simply too weak? It is a question that has been disputed since 1969.
Don’t get me wrong; I am not saying that the Novus Ordo Mass, celebrated according to the ‘rules’ laid out by Canon Law is not a valid Mass. Only three things are required for validity (presupposing a validly ordained priest), and these are: matter, form, and intention.
Unfortunately, as we have surely all experienced in modern times, these three things are sometimes sadly lacking, which would presuppose an invalid Mass!* This is a tragedy that, thanks to a reawakening of love for the TLM, faithful members of the hierarchy and thousands of orthodox members of the laity, are trying to rectify.
*Such dangers affecting the TLM, thanks to its structure and essence, would have been almost nil.
LikeLike
It is a well-known fact, revealed by a few repentant Communists, that the Catholic Church was infiltrated by Communist (Masonic ?) agents, masquerading as priests, to bring her downfall from within, in the years following the Russian Revolution. Ven. Fulton Sheen was the first to expose this, thanks to the revelations of Bella Dodd. Though many of those enemies of Christ (who tried to hijack V2 to implement the evils of Modernism and Secularism into Church teaching) have long since passed away, they have left traces of their poison behind! Our Lady of Fatima came to warn us of this terrible danger to the Faith, asking for obedience to God, prayers and sacrifices from the Faithful to ward off these attacks of Satan and his minions.
LikeLike
Kathleen, I’m sure I don’t need to mention that those 3 things can also be lacking in the TLM as well as all of the other Rites of the Church. Every priest is responsible for what he does when he serves the Altar. It is primarily his own sins which we get subjected to. If he has even a nascent desire for holiness, whatever rite he is practicing will be done to the best of his ability. The rites of the Mass have changed hundreds of times over the entire history of the Church. Each valid and licit rite has its own history. Many have tried to introduce things that weren’t kosher. The Church has always addressed this as she can. Not every abuse gets remedied. It would be wonderful if we had effective, efficient men from the Congregation who would hurry to investigate and remedy all forms of liturgical abuse reported to them. I’d love it having witnessed way too many abuses. Unfortunately those men so called are lacking. However, I am very confident of their return. And one of the very sad results of the lack of discipline regarding the administration of all the Sacraments is that persons seeking piety and reverence and holiness in their regular places of worship give in to despair and think that leaving the places where the NO is celebrated will give them what they are looking for. Then they find themselves stranded on an island cut off from the Body of the Church and wonder how they got there. The SSPX and some clinging to the TLM as the ONLY Mass that is valid and licit are not in Communion with the rest of us. I see them as a symptom of an unaddressed illness in the Body itself draining others of the life Christ died to give them. Piety that is a mere show is vanity. To make a pretense of one’s religion isn’t exclusive of Catholicism. There are Buddhist monks who are vain shadows as well and Imams who only put on a pious face for prayer and live outside their own laws. Those who abandon the Latin Church because of the sins of some of its members have set themselves up as judges. It gets ridiculous and very mean. A man who is working out his own salvation in fear and trembling will flourish using the NO or any other rite he is ordained to minister under. Their own personal salvation as priests depends on it. They cannot buy heaven by buying into schism. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
Kathleen, I’m sure I don’t need to mention that those 3 things can also be lacking in the TLM
They can, Ginny, but the TLM’s whole ad orientem God-centredness makes abuses far less likely.
The rite of the Traditional Latin Mass, also called the Tridentine Mass has not “changed hundreds of times” in the history of the Church; that is false. Although its origins go back to Apostolic times (as we all know), it developed and grew, which is not the same as “changed”, until Pope St. Pius V in Quo Primum established “forever” the Canon of the Mass.
In fact the Canon of the Mass dates from the end of the 4th century when St Ambrose of Milan, in a collection of instructions for the newly baptised, entitled De Sacramentis, quotes the central part of the Canon which is substantially identical with, but somewhat shorter than, the respective prayers of the Roman Canon. This proves beyond doubt that the core of our Canon, from the Quam oblationem (the prayer before the Consecration) including the sacrificial prayer after the consecration, was in existence by the end of the fourth century. It was around this time that the Latin language gradually replaced Greek as the language of the Roman liturgy.
But it was Pope St Gregory the Great (who was Pope from 590 till 604) whose achievements during those fourteen years almost defy credibility. As Catholic author, Michael Davies, recalls:
“Prominent among the many important reforms that he undertook was that of the liturgy. His pontificate marks an epoch in the history of the Roman Mass, which, in every important respect he left in the state that we still have it.”
The final revision and restoration of the Missal of the Traditional Latin Mass was made by Pope St Pius V in 1570 “according to the custom and rite of the Holy Fathers”, in the wake of the Protestant revolt. To prevent any possible future attempts to “Protestantise” it, in Quo Primum Tempore he set out directives to safeguard it for all time.
Pope Paul VI’s Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum of 1969 may or may not have suppressed Quo Primum, but nevertheless could never have abrogated the Traditional Rite of the Church, which is part of the Apostolic Deposit of the Faith. Summorum Pontificum’s accompanying letter explains that the Traditional Rite was “never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted.”
Having said all that, I must add that it is unthinkable that the One True Church that Our Lord founded would give us a Mass – the re-enactment of His Sacrifice on Calvery – that was not both valid and holy. It is, and I would argue with anyone who denied it. The Novus Ordo Mass pales in many aspects (too numerous to go into at this late hour) beside the Traditional Latin Mass, but celebrated according to the norms, with reverence and care, it is THE MASS.
LikeLike
Here is an interesting podcast about the Apostolic Constitution, Quo Primum from the great Father Z in 2009 recorded for the feast day of Pope St Pius V.
LikeLike
Ginny – the SSPX are not in schism. They are part and parcel of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. The only difficulty still to resolve is their irregular canonical status within the Church.
LikeLike
Kathleen, here is an interesting Document from one Cardinal Gantin in which the word schism is used not once but three times in direct reference to the acts of Lefebvre AND more importantly for the discussions that happen here, the warning given to others, including the lay faithful, not to “support the schism…otherwise they shall incur the very grave penalty of excommunication.” There ya go, the excommunication of the men who did the deeds ALSO extends to those who support them, not just the doers of the deeds! This is kinda like aiding in the procurment of an abortion. The abortionist is excommunicated, but so is the person aiding the gal being aborted. Hello? Don’t believe me? Read the whole thing: ”
DECREE OF EXCOMMUNICATION
From the Office of the Congregation for Bishops, 1 July 1988.
Monsignor Marcel Lefebvre, Archbishop-Bishop Emeritus of Tulle, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning of 17 June last and the repeated appeals to desist from his intention, has performed a schismatical act by the episcopal consecration of four priests, without pontifical mandate and contrary to the will of the Supreme Pontiff, and has therefore incurred the penalty envisaged by Canon 1364, paragraph 1, and canon 1382 of the Code of Canon Law.
Having taken account of all the juridical effects, I declare that the above-mentioned Monsignor Marcel Lefebvre, and Bernard Pellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta have incurred excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.
Moreover, I declare that Monsignor Antonio de Castro Mayer, Bishop emeritus of Campos, since he took part directly in the liturgical celebration as co-consecrator and adhered publicly to the schismatical act, has incurred excommunication as envisaged by canon 1364, paragraph 1.
The priests and faithful are warned not to support the schism of Monsignor Lefebvre, otherwise they shall incur the very grave penalty of excommunication.
From the Office of the Congregation for Bishops, 1 July 1988.
Bernardinus Card. Gantin Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops
https://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CBISLEFB.HTM
So, if you are a layperson and you supported the SSPX, since that Decree was issued, you incurred an ” incurred excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.” Yeah. It ain’t about having an opinion at all. If you support the SSPX in any way, then you’re also under a sentence and have cut yourself off from the Body.
Now, before you get all excited, I want you to read what Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI actually wrote when he lifted the Decree of 1988: “On the basis of the powers expressly granted to me by the Holy Father Benedict XVI, by virtue of the present Decree I remit the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae incurred by Bishops Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, and declared by this Congregation on 1 July 1988. At the same time I declare that, as of today’s date, the Decree issued at that time no longer has juridical effect.” http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cbishops/documents/rc_con_cbishops_doc_20090121_remissione-scomunica_en.html
This ONLY applied to those four Bishops who were excommunicated and no one else. If he meant to lift ALL OF THE PENALTIES contained in the 1988 Decree, he would have had to say so, and as you can plainly see, he ONLY lifts the penalties of four men, Fellay, Mallerais, Williamson, and Galarreta, NO ONE ELSE. That means that the excommunication of lay persons and priests who support these men and the Society itself still stands. If you support them, you need a good Canon Lawyer for all your Communions have been sacrilege since then.
I also need to say, you and I have gone round the mulberry bush several times regarding whether or not the SSPX is in schism, but according to ecclesial law and common sense, it isn’t you or I who decides who is actually in a state of schism but the Church. In this matter, Rome has spoken. The acts of Lefebvre were schismatic and that means officially he and all those with him were in schism.
I would also say that since the excommunication that extends to laypersons and priest who support the SSPX has not been lifted, it still is in effect and anyone should seek counsel and NOT from those persons who are sickened by the same illness. Bling guides to lead the blind out of the darkness of schism is not recommended.
God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
P.S. IMHO, Michael Davies is a heretic as well as a few other things. Nuff said.
LikeLike
I’ll listen to the podcast over the weekend. No time today. Thanks.
LikeLike
Yes Kathleen
“..
Pope St Pius V in 1570 “according to the custom and rite of the Holy Fathers”, in the wake of the Protestant revolt. To prevent any possible future attempts to “Protestantise” it (which is precisely what Bugnini and His hidden backers intended) , in Quo Primum Tempore he set out directives to safeguard it for all time.
..”
But there is much more of course! The churches were changed with the altars turned around, statues thrown out and or white washed. Modernised! Father Bugninis wasn’t working on his own initiative of course, How could he have been?
The significance of the Old Missal was the spirituality embedded with the Liturgical year. The laity were encouraged to learn and enter this cycle and live it.
The Tridentine Rite dictated also the seminary training of Priests (Latin being the common language makes the Priesthood genuinely Catholic, which isn’t the case with the vernacular languages where the vernacular is regionalised).
The biggest mistake however is to believe that The Holy Sacrifice Of The Mass requires the Laity present! It doesn’t its purpose is to place God first then Our Neighbour.
The fruit of the Post Conciliar Church that is most evident is to place Man before God. All this talk of rights and mercy (that is human) is omitting God. The first commandment is God First!
The Sacrificing priesthood is as old as mankind. With Our Lord this sacrifice is now His spotless Body/Blood, which being the only acceptable sacrifice to God.
The undeniable existence of SIN requires the Perpetual Sacrifice of the Mass until the coming of Our Lord.
Tradition is the Divine Action of the Holy Ghost in the Life Of the Church. If this is denied then your belief is that of a modern sect (the false Vatican II). I repeat Tradition is the HOLY GHOST Life in the Church, this is especially true of the condemnation of Heretics and Heresies.
The creators of this Schism are those in the Curia who in words and deeds tell you that the HOLY GHOST has made mistakes within the Church! This is impossible since the Church is the mystical Body of Christ (True God [the trinity] and true Man)
LikeLike
Father Bugnini was of course excommunicated automatically as a Mason! Thats Automatic in fact all of those on Pecorelli’s List. Those members of the Curia were outside of the Church
For Ginny’s benefit
Baggio, Sebastiano. Cardinal. Prefect of the Sacred Congregation of Bishops. (This is a crucial Congregation since it appoints new Bishops.) Secretary of State under Pope John Paul II from 1989 to 1992. 8-14-57; # 85-1640. Masonic code name “SEBA.” He controls consecration of Bishops.
LikeLike
This is all very interesting – I just accessed a video on Pope Paul on novusordowatch.org, entitled Papal Imposters 7/12 “Who was Paul VI?” which says that Pope Paul was homosexual. That might explain his weakness – he may have been blackmailed or pressured by the people who were seeking to control and destroy the Church. I also read a Wikipedia extract on Fr Malachi Martin which was interesting too, thanks to Roger’s reference to his book. As there is not a lot we can do about any of these things, and, quite frankly, these allegations make my head hurt, I suppose what we can do is know that the Latin Mass has been targeted by these people for a reason, and it is for the same reason that we must defend it. It is the most powerful prayer to God and its beauty transcends the individual. And yes, I take your point, Kathleen, and agree with you, that the Novus Ordo is a valid Mass and is frequently a beautiful and fitting sacrifice as well. However, it is significant that those who are accused of ulterior motives moved to suppress the Latin Mass. It also explains somewhat the zeal with which the Latin Mass was suppressed – that is, they didn’t say “Here is a Mass which everybody can understand and celebrate and you can go to this one, or, if you prefer, you can still attend the fuddy-duddy one which you don’t understand and which you find irrelevant”. They absolutely forbad it and did so for a generation. How is that justified on any objective level, when the Latin Mass had been celebrated for 2,000 years? As Archbishop Lefebvre said, “as though there had not been a Mass before”.
LikeLike
Wow – vintage stuff above , even by CP&S’s lurid standards.
The NO Mass is a diabolical invention of the Protestants, Jews, and Masons, eh?
Wouldn’t my dear old Fascist Dad have enjoyed that gob-smacking revelation!
It would take a far lesser pen than mine to do this story justice.
Dan Brown’s your man!
LikeLike
Dan Brown is fiction.
In this Case the Truth is Stranger than Fiction and it began 2000 years ago when St Peter went to Rome!
The point is that those outside of the Church (sic automatically excommunicated because they are Masons, or follow Heresy’s) cannot excommunicate those inside.
Pope Pius XII was nobodies fool and set into place the protection and provisions necessary to protect the Church. Especially those suffering under Communism. A proper study of His Pontificate (he was a mystic) is necessary to even begin to make sense out of the Battle between the Heaven and Hell, so clearly taking place Now!
The Saint who knew was St Pio and He was always the implacable enemy of Masonry. He also said that Masonry had reached the shoes of the Fisherman!!
Who is fooled by the policy of Panreligion and One World Order flowing from a false Vatican II and that these are the two main ideals of Freemasonry?
It is also a mistake to see only the NOM. The Sacraments themselves including Ordination and Consecration, Exorcism where tampered with. The rational behind Lefebvre Consecration of the four.
It takes a foolish woman like Ginny in her venomous attacks to bring the poison to the surface. Hatred is always overcome by Love.
Heaven’s battle is to save ALL Souls especially those in most need of Love. Which means those poor misguided masons entrapped by the Demon and being used to attempt to destroy the Church and place Man once again under the dominion of Sin (Empire of Satan).
LikeLike
It is also a mistake to see only the NOM. The Sacraments themselves including Ordination and Consecration, Exorcism where tampered with.
That is a very good point, Roger.
The baptismal rite was also pared down considerably and stripped (amongst others) of the powerful prayers of exorcism.
Here, for comparison, are both forms of the rite:
http://www.traditionalcatholicpriest.com/2013/07/18/latin-baptism-vs-new-rite-of-baptism/
LikeLike
“He also said that Masonry had reached the shoes of the Fisherman!!”
Trying to steal their soles, I suppose?
Don’t bother trying to be unkind to Ginny, Roger.
That’s Toad’s appointed task. Best leave it to him.
LikeLike
It takes a foolish woman like Ginny in her venomous attacks to bring the poison to the surface. Hatred is always overcome by Love.
Exactly, Roger! You have said it better than I could. (And thank you for all your insightful comments here that always point heavenwards. 🙂 )
Ginny’s heated outpouring of condemnations and slanderous lies (@ 00:05) reveals her shameful “hatred” for valiant fellow Catholics who remained steadfast at a time when Holy Church was being infiltrated by Masonic Modernists. The SSPX preserved the Faith of Our Fathers intact, finding themselves forced, for the good of future generations of Christ’s True Church, to ignore the Pope’s orders to not consecrate new bishops. For all this we should be grateful; perhaps Pope St JP II’s permission in 1988 for priests to be open to offer the TLM, and later Pope Benedict XVI’s Summorum Pontificum in 2007, would have encountered more difficulties and public ignorance of our Catholic Liturgical heritage if it had not been for the SSPX keeping the Church’s traditions alive!
Loyal followers of the priestly fraternity among the laity, e.g. renown author Michael Davies (whom Ginny also reviles) have written volumes explaning the spiritual dangers of supplanting the Mass of the ages with the commonplace NOM, and whose tragic consequences for doing so we can see today speak for themselves!
Ginny, you should keep up to date with what’s going on in the Church. Rome has indeed “spoken”.
The Tridentine Mass celebrated by priests of the SSPX has always been a valid Mass for all members of the Church…. (although during the time before the lifting of the (so-called) ‘excommunications’ of their bishops Rome forbad people to assist at them).
Pope Francis, who proclaimed to the SSPX: “You are true Catholics” !!! granted permission for all Catholics to go to them for the Sacrament of Confession during the Year of Mercy. This has now been extended indefinitely.
There are a few minor canonical hitches concerning the other Sacraments (and of course further discussions are needed to sort out problems with some parts of the documents of V2) but in time (and with much prayer) the priestly fraternity of SSPX may well be fully integrated into the Universal Catholic Church.
The incipient moves already underway to seek beatification for Archbishop Lefebvre (and Michael Davies!) will then be able to go ahead.
LikeLike
Roger, I would put it to you that your venomous attacks against my Church are the real poison around here. You have practically nothing good to say about the Church I attend and love. Taken over by Masons? That is a blasphemy. Much to the chagrin of persons such as yourself, we had a few canonized Saints for our Popes in the past few hundred years. I mention St. John XXIII, who lies incorrupt in his grave. Or St. John Paul II whose intercession cured a French nun of Parkinson’s disease. Proof of sanctity. I could go on, but it will fall on deaf ears. You don’t like me or my Church. That’s fine. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
Kathleen, all I want to say about Pope Francis’ comment about the SSPX members being “true Catholics,” is that our Baptism cannot be undone by mere schismatic acts. Nothing can remove that indelible mark upon the soul of any person. Nothing. Once a Catholic, always a Catholic. We are members of the Church not by our affiliations, but by the Baptism we receive, either as adults or infants. So, in that sense, Pope Francis is very correct to call anyone, no matter who they are, true Catholics who have received the Sacrament of Baptism. Kathleen, do I need to remind you that even Protestants who are validly Baptized are actually members of the one true Church of Christ, the only Church there is that it is possible to be Baptized into?
The warning from 1988 regarding layperson’s support for the SSPX causing themselves to incur the just penalty of excommunication still applies. This is why loving shepherds of the sheep loudly warn persons in their own flocks not to involve themselves with the SSPX and it associates. You incurred an automatic excommunication for being supportive of them. You continue to support them thru this blog. That means you are still excommunicated. It isn’t a matter of opinion, but one of ecclesial law. Denial is not a river in Egypt. Everyone who supports the SSPX incurs an automatic excommunication. It is a very just penalty.
Your own words condemn you Kathleen: “for valiant fellow Catholics who remained steadfast at a time when Holy Church was being infiltrated by Masonic Modernists. The SSPX preserved the Faith of Our Fathers intact, finding themselves forced, for the good of future generations of Christ’s True Church, to ignore the Pope’s orders to not consecrate new bishops. For all this we should be grateful;” (above at 12:52.) Could you cheer much louder than that over a condemned and schismatic act? Just that much alone is sufficient support for the Decree of Excommunication of 1988 to apply. You are a layperson. You support the SSPX. You do so publically. You’ve chosen to support and applaud schismatic acts. “The priests and faithful are warned not to support the schism of Monsignor Lefebvre, otherwise they shall incur the very grave penalty of excommunication.” It applies to you at this point Kathleen. What else would you like to say? Roger will claim that it doesn’t apply because of the slanders he’s made against the man writing the Decree as well as against other good men. Saying it is so doesn’t make it so. So, what else can I say? You’ve made your choices in life. You openly admit support for the SSPX still and await some sort of vindication. You call my words lies and venom, etc. You rarely have anything good to say to me or about me. That is fine. I don’t mind. I expect it. But what I’ve said here is the truth. Take it or leave it. You’ve chosen to call it lies. That’s sad. Oh well. I can respect that, though I think it foolish. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
Ginny, you are not only a stupid woman, you are also full of pride and hate. Your whole comment is full of vicious slanders, defamation of character and venom.
I stand by everything I have said above, and my conscience is squeaky clean in doing so. It is a well-known fact that Freemasons and Communists have infiltrated the Church. That does not mean that the Holy Spirit will not protect the Holy Bride of Christ from Satan ever “prevailing” against Her – we know He always will, till the end of time – but through Man’s evil deeds, She will be persecuted and afflicted. Great saints rise up at times of great oppression.
I have nothing to do personally with the priestly fraternity of SSPX. I joyfully attend the sublime Tridentine Mass they come to celebrate on the first Sunday of the month. Nothing more (sadly). Yes, I am supportive of holy Traditional Catholicism that the SSPX has always adhered to. So are millions of orthodox Catholics around the world, implying that you are also condemning all these millions of people of being “schismatics”. We have some outstanding priest and lay bloggers these days who are equally “supportive” of the SSPX.
You, Ginny, are either extremely wicked to vilify us in this way, or you are mentally deranged. I hope for your sake it is the second of the two.
LikeLike
Ginny I thank you for your kindness in indentifying me with Our Lord who also had nothing good to say about the corrupt hiearchy in His Day. He was called a blasphemer and was excommunicated and Crucified.
Which is what the Holy Sacrifice Of the Mass perpetualises.
Where is the evidence in the last 60 years of the punishment and expelling of Freemasons from Rome?
I would also refer you to Our Lady Of Good Success and the Prophetic revelations made to Venerable Mother Mariana de Jesus Torres.
“..
Our Lady prophesied that at the end of the 19th Century and especially in the 20th Century that Satan would reign almost completely by the means of the Masonic sect. The Queen of Heaven told Mother Mariana that this battle would reach its most acute stage because of various unfaithful religious, who, “under the appearance of virtue and bad-spirited zeal, would turn upon Religion, who nourished them at her breast.”
..'”
“..
As for the Sacrament of Matrimony, which symbolizes the union of Christ with His Church, it will be attacked and profaned in the fullest sense of the word. Masonry, which will then be in power, will enact iniquitous laws with the objective of doing away with this Sacrament, making it easy for everyone to live in sin, encouraging the procreation of illegitimate children born without the blessing of the Church. The Christian spirit will rapidly decay, extinguishing the precious light of Faith until it reaches the point that there will be an almost total and general corruption of customs. The effects of secular education will increase, which will be one reason for the lack of priestly and religious vocations.
..”
The list of names has never been denied and the policy of NOT evangelising or seeking to convert from other Faiths, whilst praising these and their leaders.
You also have very visible Masonic signs replacing Christian signs all under the umbrella of Vatican II changes.
I draw your attention to the Masonic symbols and designs of the “NEW CHURCH” TO St. PADRE PIO , in San Giovanni Rotondo (which would be better described as a MASONIC TEMPLE because it is riddled with masonic symbols)
“Jesus, regrettably, has reason to complain for the ingratitude of his own ministers! How many unfortunate brothers of ours correspond to the love of Jesus by throwing themselves with open arms into the infamous sect of Freemasonry!” (Saint Padre Pio, April 7, 1913).
“..
Mons. Crispino Valenziano, member of the Pontifical Commission for the Cultural Estate and direct supervisor of architect Renzo Piano, gave him the liturgical and theological bonds for the construction of the “new church” dedicated to St. Padre Pio, in order to have “the project gaining in expressiveness”.
Mons. Valenziano, in the Pontifical Commission, was under the direction of card. Virgilio Noè and then of card. Francesco Marchisano, both having their names in the “Lista of Pecorelli”, of Roman Catholic Church belonging to Masonry.
..”
“..
This is a “spiral-shaped” church, “is a spider”, is an “Open Church”, is a “High Technology Jewel”, is a “Seashell for Padre Pio” ..”The “spiral”, however, not only symbolizes the way Freemasonry conceives God, but also symbolizes its way of conceiving the “path of faith” or, better, the “initiatic course” man is expected to follow in order to fulfill the “divine design”. In a highly documented book on Freemasonry, we read, in fact: «The Spiral is a sign of evolution-involution in the symbolic background of high-ranking initiates. The continuous Spiral that, in the form of a path, climbs along the flanks of the mountain is the “Pilgrim Path”, that is, the initiatic path.
..”
St Pio was and remains the implacable enemy to Masonry.
LikeLike
Wow. Actually Kathleen, I am not stupid at all. Graduated Summa Cum Laude. VP of my Honor Society too. If I’d have stayed longer, I’d have gotten more honors. I racked up a few. According to you, I am wicked, full of pride and hate, stupid and mentally deranged. Thanks. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
One other thing I’m a bit confused about Kathleen…..
You state here:” I have nothing to do personally with the priestly fraternity of SSPX. I joyfully attend the sublime Tridentine Mass they come to celebrate on the first Sunday of the month. Nothing more (sadly). ” (above at 14:47.) If you have nothing to do with them, why do you attend joyfully a Mass they celebrate where you are? I’m confused. They send men to you where you are? How does that work? The come to your parish and they are allowed by your Pastor to use the sanctuary there? Do they do so Ad Orientem or what accommodations get made? Or do they have a portable altar for this? Wow. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
Ginny the Blog is about the Mason BUGNINIS and the NOM.
You have all these questions about the Tridentine Mass which I suggest you take up with SSPX or any priest Ordained pre 1968.
It takes I believe 5-6 years to Train a Priest under the Tridentine Rites so your questions would be better directed elsewhere.
NOM seminaries will not know the answer to your questions. Sadly many of these do not believe in Transubstantion which means that their Masses will NOT have INTENT will they?
LikeLike
“Actually Kathleen, I am not stupid at all. Graduated Summa Cum Laude..”
And you can do proper, joined-up, writing, too, I wouldn’t wonder.
We half-wits are all suitably impressed.
So, I’m off to Hell, on your say-so, am I Gin-Girl? If I was sure that you were safely up in Heaven – where you clearly believe you richly deserve to be – I could face Eternal Damnation with more than a considerable degree of equanimity.
LikeLike
Well, Toad like I’ve heard both Father Groeschel and Mother Angelica say, Hell is a choice lots of people make. They’re right. And if you must know, I don’t deserve Heaven and never felt I did. It is only by the Divine Mercy that God found me in my darkness and brought me to Him. I am grateful beyond words for that. If I’d gotten what I deserved, while I deserved it, I’d be in Hell right now. I nearly died before my Baptism. God literally saved my life and my soul, basically at the same time. I know that pretty well. That is one of the reasons why I bother asking folks about Confession, so they might decide to go. Usually right after I do so, I pray the Divine Mercy Chaplet for them in particular and let go. So, now ya know Toadie. You got mentioned to the Divine Mercy at Adoration. It was a secret. Now, be sure to say something rude and condescending about it all. I forgive you. You can’t help it. You’re simply a Toad that way. I’ve prayed more than once you don’t die that way. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
Ginny @ 16:30 & 16:40
Wisdom (the opposite of stupidity) has nothing to do with titles, honours, degrees, etc. It is a gift of the Holy Spirit anyone can possess…. or not!. You appear to lack wisdom the way you frequently misunderstand people, or you jump at just one point they make that you disagree with, and then lash out at them with threats and insults.
Telling someone they are excommunicated, or that they are going to Hell, is not only slanderous, it is also very unkind. Do you care nothing for people’s feelings? Not only yours truly, but The Raven, Toad, Roger, mmvc, and many others have been victims of your vicious tongue.
Are you incapable of normal discussion without resorting to this sort of thing?
If you have nothing to do with them [the SSPX], why do you attend joyfully a Mass they celebrate where you are? I’m confused.
What I was trying to say was that the SSPX is a priestly fraternity so the laity cannot be members as such. Where I live in a small town by the sea there are no possibilities of attending a Tridentine Mass. Once a month a visiting SSPX priest comes all the way from the capital (a four hour drive) to a small city nearby (a one hour drive away for me) to celebrate the TLM at a little chapel belonging to their fraternity. It is usually packed out, and although I occasionally talk to the people I meet there outside after the Mass, who are all very pleasant, I don’t know any of them personally. It is only a once-a-month gathering and not a proper SSPX community of their supporters.
Yes, I attend it “joyfully” because I love this beautiful ancient Sacrifice of the Mass that is so deeply reverent, holy and totally focused on God. I look forward to it with excitement, counting the days from one month to the next. My greatest wish is that there were more possibilities for attending one,.
The rest of the time I attend the NOM, mostly in my home parish, but sometimes in the city where there are some magnificent churches. With the NOM it is always a bit of pot luck as to what you will get, but I generally know where to go to find one that is well said.
LikeLike
Well, then Kathleen, thank you very much for explaining how it is you find your fulfillment in the way you prefer. Again, thank you. Now there is one striking detail that I find a contradiction that is very puzzling. If you it is as you claim, simply a desire to attend a TLM, then why not do so licitly? Work with your parish to bring it about. The FSSP is all about that and they serve quite a few places. To attend a Mass and receive communion from them carries no danger of corruption with it. I know you probably have read this before, but I’ll add it just to see afresh your take on it. “While it is true that participation in the Mass at chapels of the Society of St. Pius X does not of itself constitute ‘formal adherence to the schism’ (cf. Ecclesia Dei 5, c), such adherence can come about over a period of time as one slowly imbibes a schismatic mentality which separates itself from the teaching of the Supreme Pontiff and the entire Catholic Church. While we hope and pray for a reconciliation with the Society of St. Pius X, the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei” cannot recommend that members of the faithful frequent their chapels for the reasons which we have outlined above. We deeply regret this situation and pray that soon a reconciliation of the Society of St. Pius X with the Church may come about, but until such time the explanations which we have given remain in force.” http://www.ewtn.com/library/Liturgy/zlitur366.htm These are the words of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesiae Dei, and as you can see they say you slowly imbibe a schismatic mentality by communing with them. The fact that you look forward to them coming belies a sympathy that shouldn’t be. You have sipped too long at a poisoned font.
Here is another extremely sound reason not to continue imbibing the same schismatic aromatics: “The remission of the excommunication was a measure taken in the field of ecclesiastical discipline: the individuals were freed from the burden of conscience constituted by the most serious of ecclesiastical penalties. This disciplinary level needs to be distinguished from the doctrinal level. The fact that the Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical status in the Church is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons. As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church. There needs to be a distinction, then, between the disciplinary level, which deals with individuals as such, and the doctrinal level, at which ministry and institution are involved. In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church……Yours in the Lord, BENEDICTUS PP. XVI From the Vatican, 10 March 2009” http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica.html
Common sense tells you if the reigning Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI tells you point blank that their institution of the Eucharist is illegitimate, you wouldn’t want to commune with them at all. If you do so, you are saying they are right and the Church is wrong and you don’t care what your Holy Father says, you’ll do whatever and enjoy it. It is like staying faithful to your hubby, except for a wild night out with your gal pals once a month that, hey, he’ll simply have to accept and if you decide to sleep with another man, he’ll have to accept that too. It is a spiritually adulterous act. You aren’t alone in this adultery. The above letter to the Bishops of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI lists the head count for all of them. “Can we be totally indifferent about a community which has 491 priests, 215 seminarians, 6 seminaries, 88 schools, 2 university-level institutes, 117 religious brothers, 164 religious sisters and thousands of lay faithful? Should we casually let them drift farther from the Church? I think for example of the 491 priests. We cannot know how mixed their motives may be. All the same, I do not think that they would have chosen the priesthood if, alongside various distorted and unhealthy elements, they did not have a love for Christ and a desire to proclaim him and, with him, the living God. Can we simply exclude them, as representatives of a radical fringe, from our pursuit of reconciliation and unity? What would then become of them?” Please note his very mean words regarding the state of mind as containing “various distorted and unhealthy elements,” of the priests of the SSPX prior to their ordination. Most unkind of the Pope. Yeah. He said that. Radical fringe? He said that too. He probably had a few other very mean words to say that he let others say for him and he did so without sin. Nice. Okie dokie. I’ve said enough. Once more, thank you very much for elaborating on your position. I do not have one sympathy for any of the members of such an organization who have removed too many from the bosom of the Church and the assurances promised by Christ himself towards those who cling to her as their own. Even if it only cost one soul, the price would be too high. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
One other thought on the matter of excommunication. While one is excommunicated, one has no recourse to any of the Sacraments and this remains a spiritual problem until the acts that cause the excommunication are repented of. One is not allowed to make use of any Sacraments one’s self which includes Confession. You can confess and go thru the motions, but it is sacrilege to do so and gains you nothing but more sin. Whatever is bound on earth is bound in heaven. Gods is deaf to the confession of such men and women. What does this mean? These 4 Bishops were given the golden opportunity to return to the Sacraments, in particular, Penance. If they’d chosen to make good confessions, then they’d be heard. But they said in effect, “Thanks but no thanks. We don’t want to confess cause we’ve done nothing wrong.” And that is where is stands. And that is the choice of the men who had their excommunications lifted. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
What a joy to read good news about Vocations with SSPX contrast this with the Vocations crisis experienced globally from the masonic Curia embedded in Rome.
LikeLike
Ginnyfree, you seem to be very fond of invoking damnation. More fond than is perhaps healthy for your formation as a Catholic. — P.S. — No need to re-litigate why everyone you have suggested is damned somehow deserved it. — And no need to explain why I am wicked, and deserve it as well (etc.). — But, again, as a friendly note, you do seem far too fond of invoking eternal damnation
LikeLike
Might as well chat with a Speak-Your-Weight machine, as Ginny. She doesn’t converse, she Sermonises: “Two-hundred and thirty-five pounds – and Eternally Damned.”
But she did ask me the other day, what, more or less, makes me ‘tick.’
Well, OK, Gin – it’s Kant’s* formula, put crudely, “Treat others as you’d wish them to treat you.” …a reasonable rule of thumb. You might consider giving it a whirl yourself.
Everything else is metaphysical supposition and theory (in my opinion, at least) .
Has a Doctor ever suggested that your own emotional problems, in utterly failing to relate amiably with fellow human beings, might be glandular? Just a passing thought.
* Protestant, alas.
LikeLike
Ginny, you are not only a stupid woman, you are also full of pride and hate. Your whole comment is full of vicious slanders, defamation of character and venom.
…
You, Ginny, are either extremely wicked to vilify us in this way, or you are mentally deranged.
Charming. And a useful indication of what sort of vocabulary is appropriate for use on this website ?
hmmmm, I wonder what would happen if I started to characterise certain authors at certain 3rd party websites in this fashion ?
(regardless of ginny’s past-sell-by-date and overly superficial statements about lay attendees at SSPX Masses being “excommunicated” and etc.)
LikeLike
Sin is behovely, but
All shall be well, and
All manner of things shall be well.
If I think, again, of this blog,
And of commenters, not wholly commendable,
Of no immediate kin or kindness,
But of some peculiar genius,
All touched by a common genius,
United in the strife which divided them;
If I think of a moderator at nightfall,
Of three bloggers, and more, in moderation
And a few who forgot their passwords
In other places, here and abroad..
LikeLike
Brilliant Tom!
Thank you for defusing this so well. 😉
Hope you feel refreshed after your holiday.
LikeLike
Thanks mmvc, it was wonderful. We revisited some old haunts, especially in the Meon Valley in Hampshire. And I was able to remind myself how much I still love England.
Four Quartets, read by Alec Guinness is online free here:
I think it’s one of the finest Christian poems of modern times
TF
LikeLike
“A poisoned font”! “Adultery”! “Schismatics”! Etc. Shocking words Ginny throws out without a single thought of the seriously sinful implications of her accusations.
——-
Ginny @ 00:33
Although it is a relief to see you have moderated your belligerent tone (somewhat), you are still aiming false accusations at me and giving false information about the SSPX.
From your own link given above from EWTN, comes this:
“The mere fact of assisting at a Mass of this society is not a sin. It would only become so if a person attended this Mass with the deliberate intention of separating himself from communion with the Roman Pontiff and those in communion with him. […]
Only if there is objectively no alternative should one attend the Mass celebrated by a priest from the Society of St. Pius X. If one has to do so, then I would say that one may go in good conscience.”
No, there is “no alternative” for me where I live if I wish to assist at the holy and inspiring Mass of the ages. No diocesan priests here celebrate it, and there are no FSSP or ICKSP communities anywhere around. (The nearest would probably be a four or five hour drive away!)
Pope Benedict XVI’s “Letter” you also link to was written in 2009. Have you not heard about the developments of talks with the SSPX since then? Do you not know that it is now perfectly licit to attend Holy Mass celebrated by a priest of the SSPX now… and even go to one for the Sacrament of Confession?
Really, Ginny, you should keep up with what’s going on in the Church, instead of spouting out lots of obsolete information…. whilst giving the subjects a few more stabs in the back at the same time!
I don’t know what your beef is with the devout priests of the SSPX, or perhaps some of their “supporters”, but I seem to recall you mentioning problems you once had there with them. (And knowing how extremely aggressive you can be in discussions, I’m afraid it doesn’t surprise me!)
LikeLike
Jabba @ 08:06
Well, well, how nice of you to dig the knife into me a little deeper, simply to feel you can justify your own grievances elsewhere!
And all very easy to say, when you have not been the one who has been told they are excommunicated and on the path to Hell!! I wouldn’t like to see the angry type of swear words the moderator said you used against JH (for no more than what you called “trolling”) if her “vicious slanders, defamation of character and venom” had been directed at you.
LikeLike
Tom,
Great to have you back! We missed you.
And I second mmvc’s cheerful words of thanks to you. 🙂
LikeLike
I wouldn’t like to see the angry type of swear words the moderator said you used against JH
It was one word, beginning with b, ending with y, and with “lood” in the middle.
LikeLike
Good old Tom. Mmvc is right, as usual.
Wonderful pome. And Tom (Fisher that is, not Eliot – well OK, maybe both) makes me feel guilty for persecuting poor Gin. And so the Two Toms should.
None of us can help being what we are…Not much, anyway.
LikeLike
bandersnatchMacloody
LikeLike
Roger @ 01:23
What a joy to read good news about Vocations with SSPX contrast this with the Vocations crisis experienced globally from the masonic Curia embedded in Rome.
Yes, dear Roger, indeed, indeed!
Vocations to the holy priesthood in the SSPX are booming! It is a cause of great annoyance, and even embarrassment, among the old clerical progressives and Modernists still “shuffling chairs on the Titanic”.
However, as my wonderful annual pilgrimages to Chartres reveal – traditional Catholics who abide by all that the Church teaches, and cherish Her beautiful, ancient, Sacred Liturgy, are also growing fast. Loads of large Catholic families to be seen there, and literally thousands of young people (especially young men) all eager for the Truth. They seek real Catholicism, not the wishy-washy dying “church of nice” still being dished up in many parishes today.
LikeLike
Well, well, how nice of you to dig the knife into me a little deeper
I have no animosity, although I am becoming rather distressed by an increasingly aggressive “tone” on this website, as it is causing aggressive reactions and chain reactions, including in myself — I’m not going to exclude myself from this collective failure.
LikeLike
Jabba @ 09.45
Used repeatedly to further litter an already very ugly rant.
You were politely asked not to cuss on this Catholic blog to which you responded with more of the same – directed at us.
At least you now know that this is unacceptable here.
Thank you in advance for respecting our simple rules.
LikeLike
About the SSPX, a clarification —
———–
http://tradinews.blogspot.fr/2016/06/diocese-de-ratisbonne-communique-de.html (French translation — original text in German)
Diocèse de Ratisbonne – original en allemand: bistum-regensburg.de – 22 juin 2016
L’évêque de Ratisbonne se félicite de toute initiative visant à surmonter un schisme, au rapprochement des groupes séparés de l’Eglise catholique et donc à retrouver l’unité visible de l’Eglise.
Les ordinations qui ont été annoncées pour le 2 juillet à Zaitzkofen, comme l’explique le secrétaire de la Commission pontificale Ecclesia Dei Mgr Pozzo, ne présentent aucun danger, à l’heure actuelle. Il ne résulte cependant pas qu’elles soient licites du point de vue canonique, ce n’est pas non plus une reconnaissance implicite de la licéité du sacre de l’évêque de la Fraternité qui officie.
Les ordinations sont simplement tolérées et acceptées, sans sanction. Cela résulte d’une concession que le Saint Siège accorde sans contrepartie, en vue du rapprochement espéré de la Fraternité, après un temps de réflexion intense et d’examen. Le critère pour la reconnaissance de la Fraternité est et reste la pleine acceptation de l’autorité du Concile Vatican II et tous ses documents (liberté religieuse, l’œcuménisme, etc.).
—
I think there’s more to this lying under the surface, given that two SSPX Bishops have spoken of a letter “from Rome” supposedly giving faculties beyond what is described in this letter from the Bishop of Regensburg relaying a decision of the Commission Ecclesia Dei.
Nevertheless, even taken prudently and conservatively, it describes the ordinations of this past 2nd July as being “without danger”, and “accepted”, and “free of sanction(s)“, albeit “not licit” — but legally, the acceptance of those ordinations and the absence of sanctions, in other words Canon 1383, must de facto constitute a lack of suspension a divinis for these particular priests, given that it IS the relevant sanction.
Now — everyone involved does seem to think that this lifting of the sanctions will continue going forward ; but this letter does clarify one point I wasn’t sure about, which is that such sanctions clearly continue to be in place for those priests ordained by the SSPX Bishops after the excommunications but before this past 22nd June, except where they may have been lifted for individual priests and other such exceptions, such as the situation in Argentina for example.
—
So, it’s not as cut and dried as I suggested earlier this year, but the lifting of sanctions for these illicit Ordinations is still a significant step forward for the Fraternity.
LikeLike
bandersnatchMacloody
Exactly !!
LikeLike
Reconciliation poem
LikeLike
Why not Pascal’s Wager Toad? You’d stand a better chance of it, IMHO. Happy Turkey Day! God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
Oh this is cute Mr. Tom Cat. Nice poetry. More please. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
Cherry picking Kathleen. The sin being worried about is schism. Keep that in mind. Grave matter. The gravest if you ask me. But I’m doom and gloom. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
[the Moderator – I am sorry, Toad, Roger’s fantasies crossed the line this time and I’m afraid that your response is collateral damage on this occasion.]
LikeLike
Toad’s “Reconciliation Poem” @ 11:54……….. 😀
——–
Ginny @ 12:08
The sin being worried about is schism. Keep that in mind. Grave matter. The gravest if you ask me.
How about you practise what you preach?
Perhaps you are the one who should look out from becoming a schismatic in mind, what with your loud denials of what the Church has pronounced! She has affirmed that the SSPX are not in a formal schism, that their Sacraments are valid and now their priests are having their “sanctions” lifted.* (I repeat: the problems remaining mostly surround their canonical irregularities.)
* Read Jabba’s link @ 10:00, and do try to keep up!
LikeLike
Eliot and Auden were both Anglicans, of course. That doesn’t worry me.
I’d enjoy them just as much if they’d been Catholics.
Don’t know how I’d feel if they’d been Lutherans, though.
LikeLike
Jabba @ 09:55
I am becoming rather distressed by an increasingly aggressive “tone” on this website, as it is causing aggressive reactions and chain reactions, including in myself
I believe this is not a phenomenon unique to our blog. Just look at how much division and uncertainty there is everywhere today, violently rocking the Barque of Peter. This all reflects negatively in our personal relations with other Catholics too.
Father Z mentioned something along these lines this morning.
The destructive “Spirit of Vatican Two”, which swept through the Church from the close of the Council, has taken a turn for the worse these last three and a half years. The Devil certainly appears to have stepped up his attacks, and the warnings of Our Blessed Mother at Quito, La Salette, Fatima and Akita are now being lived out before our very eyes!
LikeLike
Kathleen, I don’t need to read anything of Jabba’s to find the the truth about the SSPX, though I do enjoy much of what Jabba writes and have gotten much information from him here that was useful. Here is what I can find out about the SSPX elsewhere: “The canonical situation of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), a group founded in 1970 by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, is unresolved – it “is both complex and fluid.”[1] The SSPX has no canonical status in the Catholic Church for doctrinal rather than disciplinary reasons.[2] The SSPX has been the subject of much controversy since 1988 when Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta were illicitly consecrated at the Ecône, Switzerland, International Seminary of Saint Pius X as bishops in violation of Latin Church canon law. Lefebvre and the four other SSPX bishops individually incurred a disciplinary latae sententiae excommunication for the schismatic act;[3](n3) the excommunications of the four living SSPX bishops were remitted in 2009. Pope Benedict XVI explained in 2009 that “its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church.”[2]” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonical_situation_of_the_Society_of_St._Pius_X
This is the latest, up-to-date information about them published by Wikipedia. It is true. They have no canonical status in the Church, STILL. They weren’t given faculties and their ordinations were not legitimized by Pope Francis. Dr. Peters and a few others who know bunches more then I do and ARE experts in such matters have stated the Francis needs to actually give them faculties and jurisdiction individually in writing the exact same way it is done for every priest on the planet or it is not given. He cannot imply this with a flutter of words. It must be in writing. It is given to a priest just after ordination. Each man gets two letters, one telling him where he is assigned and the other supplies his jurisdiction for that assignment. It changes as his circumstances and assignments change. Without the second letter, he cannot licitly hear confessions except in danger of death. All Francis did was affirm a fact that already existed in the Canons that few knew of, that if a person goes to any priest who appears to be legitimate in good faith and fulfills their part of the rites of Penance, then they receive absolution which is valid but illicit, should absolution be pronounced provided they themselves aren’t under a censure or prohibition such as an existing excommunication. However, the actual actions of the priest remain illegitimate, illicit. There are two factors at play, validity and licitness. It is very possible to have a valid absolution but an illicit sacramental experience. (This simple fact has by its very nature of the SSPX been done to death among its members, that is valid but illicit.) This is still the matter. Until each individual priest is heard by the representatives of the Holy See and has his case regularized, he operates out side the legitimate order of things. That means his participation is still illicit and another mortal sin on his poor soul. The canonical status of all the priests in the SSPX have to undergo a rigorous process to be regularized. Some men do leave the SSPX and are received into the Church, but it is hard. It cannot be done collectively with another flourish of words by Pope Francis. And from reading the scuttle butt available to me the the SSPX folks put out there on the net, they do not want to be regularized at all and continue to reject attempts by the Holy See to help them return to the Church.
So there ya go. I hope you had a nice meal with family and friends yesterday and have some yummy leftovers to enjoy today. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
ginny, wikipedia simply CANNOT be trusted in these matters.
LikeLike
Jabba, it says the same thing as many other reliable Catholic sources, Dr. Peters being another. It is common knowledge and in the section of Pope Emeritus’ documents from 2009 I cited here, it states the exact same thing: that the SSPX offers no legitimate ministry to the Church. They lack canonical status and Pope Francis’ actions did not legitimize them in any way. To pretend they are now somehow all validly ordained men offering the faithful licit and sanctifying rites is false. To do so perpetuates and participates in their fraud. They are still in a state of schism and to lie about this is a participation in their acts. Beyond that, I wonder, why lie at all? They prefer to stay that way. Why not simply reiterate their honest position: “We don’t want to reconcile with the Holy Father nor the Church of Rome. We like where we are and are staying away by our own choice.” Why pretend that they are legitimately ordained men? Most of them feel our rites, that is the Latin rites ordinations are the ones that aren’t valid. Hello? According to them, we’re the ones who need to be legitimized. Yeah. No one is fooled by false claims of their legitimacy. It just doesn’t work that way. More smoke and mirrors. God bless. Ginnyfree.
P.S. Hope you had a nice holiday Jabba.
LikeLike
Pope Emeritus’ documents from 2009
The Pope’s statement in 2009 is not an ex cathedra infallible truth of the Faith — but in fact, the situation of the SSPX in 2016 is not 100% identical to its situation seven years ago.
LikeLike
Look, do you really think I’d go there? When a reigning Pope declares that a group of priests claiming they have legitimate ministry states this: “The fact that the Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical status in the Church is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons. As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church. There needs to be a distinction, then, between the disciplinary level, which deals with individuals as such, and the doctrinal level, at which ministry and institution are involved. In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church……Yours in the Lord, BENEDICTUS PP. XVI From the Vatican, 10 March, 2009” why would anyone even try to claim otherwise? If the Pope says you have no legitimate ministry, then you have none. Regularizing these men takes a process and there are those who have left the SSPX and gotten themselves reconciled to the Church, praise God for that tender mercy! BUT, the whole organization is still in schism. That is one of the facts that Kathleen has claimed is a lie. That means she thinks my Church lied and is still lying. Not so.
And you are right. The situation has changed a little since 2009. They’ve become more obstinant in their collective refusal to accept the efforts at reconciliation extended to them. Here is exactly what they said way back in 2015: “The Society of St. Pius X expresses its gratitude to the Sovereign Pontiff for this fatherly gesture. In the ministry of the sacrament of penance, we have always relied, with all certainty, on the extraordinary jurisdiction conferred by the Normae generales of the Code of Canon Law.” A high brow way of saying thanks for the gesture, but we don’t need it because we rely on a higher law. Yeah. Or in simple terms, “Thanks, but no thanks,” as I’ve said before. Pope Francis’ own words were these: “I trust that in the near future solutions may be found to recover full communion with the priests and superiors of the Fraternity.” Stopping there, you can clearly see the reigning Pontiff acknowledging a lack of full communion with him and so with the rest of the Church, militant, triumphant and suffering. He’d like solutions to be found to recover this full communion in the future. We know that they aren’t there yet and to say so is a gross exaggeration or maybe wishful thinking. The rest of Pope Francis’ words are these: “In the meantime, motivated by the need to respond to the good of these faithful, through my own disposition, I establish that those who during the Holy Year of Mercy approach these priests of the Fraternity of St. Pius X to celebrate the Sacrament of Reconciliation shall validly and licitly receive the absolution of their sins.” This is not anything new, leastways not to me and few others. Any person who seeks reconciliation with God in the Sacrament of Penance and without knowing the canonical status of the priest on the other side of the screen, who confesses their sins with the proper dispositions and gives the asked for satisfaction of his sins, has done what he could do properly and so does receive the absolution he sought. The priest however, increases his sins and only injures the penitent. When a priest lacks jurisdiction or has been stripped of his ability to hear confessions, etc. he can only do so if there is real & immediate danger of death. Otherwise it is sacrilege and an ecclesial fraud. Now if Pope Francis was hoping in 2015 for a future solution that would restore full communion between himself and the priest and superiors of the SSPX as well as the faithful who frequent their chapels, does that not say the schism is still real? If you aren’t in full communion with the Holy Father, you lack communion with the entire Church. That includes Mary. And that is where it sill is today. Francis’ acts were on behalf of the faithful not the Society. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
P.S. I should have emphasized Pope Francis’ statement that the faithful receive “valid and licit absolution of their sins.” THIS MEANS ONLY THE PENITENT, NOT THE PRIEST. He still gets exactly what’s coming to him for fraudulently impersonating a legitimate minister of the Church in the Sacrament of Penance. And that can be quite a bit of trouble.
LikeLike
The trouble is spelled out here: ”
Can. 1378 ß1 A priest who acts against the prescription of Can. 977 incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.
ß2 The following incur a latae sententiae interdict or, if a cleric, a latae sententiae suspension:
1ƒ a person who, not being an ordained priest, attempts to celebrate Mass
2ƒ a person who, apart from the case mentioned in ß1, though unable to give valid sacramental absolution, attempts to do so, or hears a sacramental confession.
ß3 In the cases mentioned in ß2, other penalties, not excluding excommunication, can be added, according to the gravity of the offence.
Can. 1379 A person who, apart from the cases mentioned in Can. 1378, pretends to administer a sacrament, is to be punished with a just penalty.
And just so everyone is clear about 977, it goes like this: “Can. 977 The absolution of an accomplice in a sin against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue is invalid except in danger of death.” That is the priest cannot have sex with a gal and offer her absolution as an incentive to sin-free sex. Yeah.
So, every time the priest who has no legitimate ministry in the Church administers the Sacrament of Penance his sins mount higher and higher and higher as well as the penalties prescribed by the canons above. Habituated, obstinant sin of the gravest kind. Sins against the unity of the Church.
Jabba, what do you suppose the just penalty should be for a man who pretends to offer the Sacrament of Penance to hundreds of trusting souls say over a three year period of time? Can. 1379. Did you ever here the Franciscan tale of the man who had to go to the top of the tower with a feather pillow and a monk? Once they got to the top of the tower, the good Brother told his penitent to slit the pillow and let the feathers fly in the wind. He did so and they watched them all fly away. Then the good Brother told him his penance was to gather all the feathers and when he had done so, he’d absolve his sin. Now think of a pillow full of souls lost to the winds and how God has to work to gather all those souls back to Himself for man cannot undo what he has let loose into those winds by his sins against the unity of the Church. What is the just penalty for all those lost souls who trusted themselves to these wolves in shepherds clothing?
God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
One more P.S. Then I’m done. Roger’s rants and Kathleen’s praising them could be considered in the light of several canons, in particular Can. 1369 A person is to be punished with a just penalty, who, at a public event or assembly, or in a published writing, or by otherwise using the means of social communication, utters blasphemy, or gravely harms public morals, or rails at or excites hatred of or contempt for religion or the Church. or Can. 1373 A person who publicly incites his or her subjects to hatred or animosity against the Apostolic See or the Ordinary because of some act of ecclesiastical authority or ministry, or who provokes the subjects to disobedience against them, is to be punished by interdict or other just penalties. I think calling the Church a bunch of Masonic plotters and heretics fits. Don’t you? God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
Dear Ginny, be careful accusing others of ranting…I sometimes wonder what planet you are really from. They say too much bathin’ ‘ll weaken ya. I think sometimes too much learnin’ will have the same result on the brain. Good heavens woman get a grip of yourself. Wearing people out doesn’t make you right… just makes you think you are omniscient
LikeLike
The disciplinary status of the SSPX and its priests and Bishops is reserved to the Roman Pontiff and vicariously by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith and its Commission Ecclesia Dei, and to each individual Bishop in the dioceses where they have their chapels according to their competences.
We as Laity literally have no say at all in the matter, so that as the sanctions are being slowly lifted, it is unreasonable to try and depict the status of the SSPX in the same manner as at the height of their disobedience in the decade or so following the excommunications (that have since been lifted).
It’s also anachronistic.
LikeLike
I have been mercifully tied up with personal matters for a couple of days, and thus spared myself from more pointless to and fro arguing with Ginnyfee here over a matter (the current status of the SSPX) she is clearly ignorant – hence her quotes from obsolete ecclesiastical disciplinary instructions – and yet who continues to spew out grave slanderous accusations.
Just leaving aside the whole issue of the canonical status of the Fraternity of the SSPX for a moment, and drawing your attention to the subject of the article: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre’s testimony of Bugnini (a possible Mason) and his Protestant aides’ influence in creating a New Mass… can anyone doubt that Msgr. Lefebvre and his thousands of followers did the Church a great service by refusing to supplant the sublime Mass of the Ages for Bugnini’s banal, community-centred ‘creation’?
In theory the TLM was never abrogated, but as a small child who lived during V2 and was growing up in the crazy post-V2 period, I remember well that it completely disappeared, to be replaced by the happy-clappy NOM. Alarm and indignant protests to Rome fell on deaf ears. The Modernists had infiltrated the Vatican and were calling the shots; the Pope and faithful Cardinals were unable to stop them.
As a result, people were falling away from the Church in droves; they had lost something intangibly vital that had nourished their Faith and that of their ancestors for centuries.
By the time the more forceful Pope St John Paul II was elected to the Chair of Peter, and started to halt the tide of destructive Modernism, the Church (at least in the West) was in a bad way.
Lefebvre and his close supporters knew that together with the suppression of the TLM a wave of evil had been released into the Church. This appears to be in fulfillment of the prophetic vision of Satan’s wager to God, as related by Pope Leo XIII at the end of the 19th century. They also knew that they had to keep the holy Tridentine Mass alive as the true “source and summit of the life of the Church”. They also retained all the Church’s holy teachings, devotions (especially the daily recitation of the holy Rosary), piety and feast days, which although these had never disappeared officially from the life of the Church of course, had nevertheless been all but shelved, to make way for the oh-so-tolerant kumbaya crowd! They kept the holy Faith ALIVE at a time of darkness!
Okay, I know this involved heated arguments with Rome, many warnings, and a final act of ‘disobedience’ to the Supreme Pontif… followed by a sad series of events, including the excommunications of their bishops (later to be rescinded under Benedict XVI). But we have moved on from there. Very many traditional Catholics, who never formed part of the Fraternity and their close supporters, are now looking at the SSPX with new eyes.
As I mentioned earlier, many Catholics are realising that they were right all along, and we hope and pray with all our hearts that the remaining obstacles keeping the Fraternity from full union with the main Body of the Church will one day be overcome. The absorption of such a large and vibrant group of orthodox Catholics into the framework of the Church would be of enormous help in the ongoing fight against the progressives and Modernists still trying to build a Church in their own image and likeness.
LikeLike
And just in case I now get hammered for my above words about the creation of the New Mass, let me repeat that I am not saying this is an invalid Mass. The Holy Spirit has not abandoned His Church. As I stated @ 12:58 on 22/11, the NOM, when celebrated according to the canonical rules, fulfills the necessary three requisites for validity. It can even be a very reverent Mass, especially when celebrated ad orientem and in Latin for those fortunate ones who live near parishes where this is offered, but it simply does not have the fullness and richness of the TLM.
LikeLike
Personally I think Kathleen should win ‘comment of the year’ for the following:
… the NOM, when celebrated according to the canonical rules, fulfills the necessary three requisites for validity. It can even be a very reverent Mass, especially when celebrated ad orientem and in Latin for those fortunate ones who live near parishes where this is offered, but it simply does not have the fullness and richness of the TLM.
True, and timely
LikeLike
“…and yet who continues to spew out grave slanderous accusations.”
More likely libellous – I’d suggest, Kathleen.
LikeLike
Ginny, I am reluctant to engage in this pie fight and perhaps re- ignite the dispute, but there are three factors that you may consider. The first is that you are not, apparently, a canon lawyer, and so would be well advised to stick within your area of expertise and let others make their own decisions regarding their lives. The second is that one of the most beautiful virtues that is to be aspired to is humility. This is a virtue that is prized by the Church and denigrated in modern culture. It is one of the meditations of the joyful mysteries and is something that is a true life-changer, when accompanied by trust and faith in God. In saying this, I am not having a go at you, as we all have pride. But when faith is worn as something declaratory and is made public, when you do not hold a public position, you would be well advised to question your motives. True faith is a contemplative state, one in which charity co-exists with the other virtues to which we aspire. If you see the Church as a political party in which to rant about views taken by one group or another, you are fundamentally misunderstanding the nature of religion.
The third aspect is related to the second. That is,you profess to be a Catholic and yet are judging others and criticising others for the manner in which they practise their religion. You are bound, if you follow Christ’s path, to use charity in your dealings with others. Pope Francis himself makes frequent reference to ‘pharasitical’ Catholics. I am tempted to characterise your attitude as ‘puritanical’ when you adopt a view that your version is ‘pure’ and therefore people who do not follow your path will be damned to hell. That is not Catholic – it may find legitimacy in some forms of Protestantism but not within the Catholic view of the faith. The whole point of the Catholic faith is that we are all a church of sinners – including Toad, me, you, and the Pope. One custom adopted in the Church shows the extent of the failings of all the members of the Church; when a Cardinal dies, frequently the custom is to hang his hat over the crypt. The saying is, that when the hat has completely disintegrated (ie., many hundreds of years), the cardinal will have completed his time in purgatory. The point of this custom is that the Church itself is saying to us that even the highest level of the Church are sinners who are not assured of heaven. Indeed, the first Pope, St Peter, was weak in his faith at times, and was even called ‘Satan’ by Our Lord.
We do not have the Protestant understanding of the Doctrine of the elect , which is a foundation of Calvinism and which underlies all Protestant belief. None of us can say who will or will not go to heaven and just because we are practising Catholics who believe in the faith and who say their rosaries etc., it does not mean that we are better, more pure than others. What I am saying is that you have no place to judge other people – it is a broad church with many different ways of expressing the faith and many different approaches. Catholics always fight amongst themselves, some are liberal, some are conservative – it is a universal church and includes everybody. They can always disagree, and are free to do so but you should not bring the fundamentalist hellfire and damnation into discussions and you should try to refrain from personal abuse -it really has no place here. You would achieve far more by treating the views of others with respect, even when they are different from your own. There is nothing wrong with spirited discussion, but a conversation involves listening as well as talking. I accept that you adhere to the NO – that is not a problem. I attend a beautiful NO Mass frequently, as well as Latin Mass. The dislike on this site of the NO Mass is a dislike of the second-rate music or liturgical abuses that sometimes accompany the NO Mass. Nobody on this site, to my observation, has expressed doubts about it’s validity. Many contributors are critical of Pope Francis. They can do this, and there can be robust discussion about him. He is not above criticism although any criticism should be accompanied by respect for the office he holds and should be valid. If you view the Church as a family, you may understand that we fight, but ultimately we are together.
LikeLike
Game, set, and match, Crow – I’d suggest.
LikeLike
Good morning Crow. Thank your for sharing your point of view. I’ll respond to all three of your accusations/recommendations. 1. I’m not a canon lawyer so should quote Canon laws or use them in discourse with other Catholics. Strong advice from someone who also isn’t a canon lawyer. Dr. Peters is and he and I are on the same page in our understanding of the situations I mentioned. I usually check with him before I write such posts like I placed here, in case my syntax may be a few notes out of harmony, etc. 2. Humility doesn’t mean silence in the face of error and opposition especially when the attacks against my Church, her leaders and the Mass itself get vicious and leisurely distorted. A person can be both fearless and humble. The two work well together. Catindal Burke is a prime example of one who is a trustworthy example of both and a model of the practice of both in a saintly degree. And of course, our Blessed Lord is also a model of both, being humble enough to accept even death upon the Cross. He did so without compromise as he prayed the night before, not my will but Thine be done before our heavenly Father. But you know all that, so why waste words. The third item in your list of my transgressions is the most interesting. 3. I’m judgmental and critical. Oh dear, oh my! Shame on me. I counted 15 direct or indirect criticisms of your own leveled at me in your post. So how is it I’m wrong to do that which you seem to relish? Two that I find unsavory is the accusation of being a Protestant as well as puritanical, perhaps even a bit Calvinistic? Yeah. Thanks for the assessment of my personal spiritual life. I’d say you’re most certainly being a bit judgmental, but that would be uncharitable of me according to your standard. Better to concede that you probably have been gifted with the ability to read hearts and found mine lacking and so were moved to produce something of an inventory of my sins and failings. Once again, thanks for sharing. I’ll consider your advice, even though you aren’t a canon lawyer either. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
Sorry for the really poor grammar in the above post. I forgot spell check before posting. Yikes! It’s really bad. I need more coffee. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
Hello Kathleen. Thank you so much for your rather complex reply. I too have been too busy with the holiday weekend, etc. to respond to this particular post of yours. It shows you put a great deal of thought into your words to me. I’ll keep my reply short: I asked about the FSSP in your parish or area. I thought that if you’d really a love for the TLM, that you’d work tirelessly to have them come to your parish and that way others where you are could enjoy the TLM legitimately. They do after all love to be invited and will work with from start to finish on bring about their accompaniment of others in the spiritual journeys by providing not only the TLM, but a wealth of other spiritual benefits to those persons they legitimately minister in the parishes that accommodate them. So, what gives? Do you work at all with them to get them into your parish? If you need to refresh your memory of my question, you can find it at Nov. 24, 00:33 above. Thanks again for your considered words.
God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
P.S. Kathleen here is a nice outline video of the FSSP men and their Seminary in Denton. You may enjoy it. I support these men both spiritually and financially and I feel honored to do both. God bless. Ginnyfree
LikeLike
Just noticed I’m on moderation. Interesting………………………………..
LikeLike
GF (14:28) – “Let he who is without sin, etc…”, but in addition to spell checking, you should consider using paragraph breaks. Even when you have interesting things to say, the force of your arguments can be lost without them. As a college graduate Magna cum laude – or was it Summa cum laude? – I shouldn’t need to remind you of that, especially seeing as I never received either of those distinctions. As for spell checker, personally, I don’t totally rely upon it, preferring instead to read my comments out loud before posting, sometimes several times if I have made numerous pre-post edits.
LikeLike
“As a college graduate Magna cum laude – or was it Summa cum laude? – I shouldn’t need to remind you of that, especially seeing as I never received either of those distinctions. “
Nor did Toad. Passed his driving test OK, though. That’s it really.
What Gin-Less signally fails to grasp is, that although Crow isn’t a Canon Lawyer, nor does he/she flounce about pretending that he/she is.
And, despite the fact that Crow isn’t a brain surgeon either (as far as I know ) he/she is perfectly reasonable to suggest Ginny quit attempting metaphysical lobotomies on everyone she can get her hands on.
LikeLike
You’re the best frenemy (blog-wise) that I have, Toad; but the Gin-Less Wonder is obviously a true Catholic gal who has something (not much) to offer the rest of us here. Keep that in mind.
LikeLike
True, JH. And I have broken my resolution, and abused my conscience yet again, and I’m sorry, Ginny.
For me, it’s not a question of doing what God is supposed to want. It’s just that I know, deep down ,I should not be unkind to my fellow animals, not even excluding humans.
Because I don’t much appreciate it when they are unkind to me.
And telling people’s fortunes has become rather too facile over years of practice.
LikeLike
@ Ginny,
I didn’t really want to continue with this argument any further, but on second thoughts, I think your last comments require some response.
It is pretty obvious to me that Crow’s remarks made @ 01:52 yesterday were not intended as an attack on your person, they were not delivered in an aggressive manner, but were simply a fraternal correction and an intent to open your eyes to a few points we all need to be aware of when commenting…. as her last sentence demonstrates. It’s a shame you did not see it in this light.
Thank you for the video describing the fine order of the FSSP, but in fact I am very familiar with them already. They join the annual Chartres pilgrimage in large numbers every year where they celebrate the Tridentine Mass en route daily in a deeply reverent way.
It would be impossible to bring them to a parish near us here; there is, sadly, just not the interest in the TLM in my part of the world, not even in very Catholic Granada (my nearest city). People here, the vast majority of them anyway, are quite at home with the NOM. This could be something to do with the Liturgy being in Spanish, a language that translates from Latin better than English. OTOH, there is far more than just Latin that Catholics here are missing out from with the NOM, but they just don’t see it, perhaps because this NO Mass is usually celebrated quite well here…. if you know where to go!
There is a strong following of the traditional order of the Institute of Christ the King, Sovereign Priest (ICKSP) in Madrid, a great distance from where I live. On my infrequent visits to Madrid I love attending their beautiful celebrations of the TLM in their lovely Church in the centre of the city, always packed full of devout young people. To “invite” these fine priests of the ICKSP to come to our ‘backwater’ (relatively speaking) would be unrealistic. Quite a few of those who attend the TLM, celebrated by the SSPX once a month in Granada, are members of Opus Dei; they go to their own Church for the NOM the rest of the time, and appear quite happy to keep it that way.
That’s the situation here I’m afraid; one that’s not likely to change anytime soon.
LikeLike
Thank you to the author to who I ask two questions that come to mind and would appreciate a response.
1- where was Archbishop Lefebvre then when he signed all VII documents?
2-and why did Pope B XIII not change things if he was so sure of the reason?
LikeLike
Thanks for your questions jdawood. I’m not sure I can help you much here, but I will have a go.
1. Barring the more than dubious Nostra Aetate most, if not all, the documents of Vatican II could (sometimes at a stretch) be interpreted in line with the unchanging magisterial teachings of the Church. Archbishop Lefebvre most likely had total faith in this, despite some probable misgivings about the evident ambiguity of certain parts of the documents. The gradual introduction of the Novus Ordo Missae was a much later occurrence that took many bishops by surprise, although only he stood out against it to the end.
2. We all ask ourselves that question. The most likely answer is that the powerful “wolves” infiltrated into the hierarchy, that Pope Benedict XVI admitted he feared, would not allow it, and he was too weak to confront them.
OTOH he gave us the enormous gift of Summorum Pontificum so that Catholics would have the possibility of returning to the sublime ‘Mass of the Ages’ without the progressive anti-traditional bishops being able to avoid it: Deo gratias.
LikeLike