Posted on 07/16/2004 6:09:37 PM PDT by narses
Reviewer: jim.moriarty@xxxxxxxxx Sylvania, Ohio United States)
This confirms what I thought was going on in the Novus Ordo Church. These priests see the Liberal-Modernist overtones of the New Mass and reject it. They literally go through HELL to get back to the sacrificing priest concept who offers up Jesus Christ for our sins, like in the Old Testament, not a Good Time "Happy Meal" as the Novus Ordo has it. I didn't want to put it down. These men are REAL HEROES, bucking the Catholic establishment, giving up EVERYTHING, (pension, medical insurance, housing, etc.) for their beliefs.
Some are even "suspended", and/or without faculties, and literally cast aside by their Liberal Bishops. Yet they persevere giving the True Mass to the faithful. Many are 25-40 years into their priesthood. They are sure of their actions to a man. INSPIRING! HOPEFUL! The future of the Catholic Church as the sex scandals blow up on all sides!! A MUST READ for all Catholics who know somethings' wrong, but just couldn't put their finger on it. THIS puts the finger ON IT!!! IN SPADES!!
Since the SSPX hierarchy accept the invalid rite of holy orders of the novus ordo, as long as the novus 'priest' joining them has a beating heart and can occupy or service a chapel for them - they take him, no questions asked, never conditionally re-ordaining him. So even if one needs last rites, a 'SSPX-certified' priet may not always be the answer.
They don't ask questions about other matters either.
Both items were pertinent in one who serviced a SSPX parish of my acquaintance for four years.
His successor railed insanely from the pulpit for driving this 'holy priest' from the chapel.
Turned out he had his problems too.
As for the validity of the orders of the SSPX themselves, descended from Abp. Lefebevre, and hence from Bp. Achille Leinhart, the at that time secret freemason who ordained and consecrated him, the rule of Canon law states that unless one has grounds for positive doubt about the validity of Holy Orders they are to be accepted.
All well and good.
The question as to whether the freemason bishop who ordained and consecrated Abp. Lefebvre witheld consent to the validity of his actions, is a "negative doubt" because one does not have proof, and hence under canon law is to be rejected. It is however possible to withold consent to the validity as does an instructor in the seminary when instructing students as to the form of consecration in the Mass. So it IS possible that Leinhart witheld consent and Abp. Lefebvre's ordination to the priesthood and later consecration as bishop are invalid. The latter even though two co-consecrators assisted, Saint Thomas Aquinas in the Summa teaches that the lower degrees of Holy Orders must be validly obtained before thehigher degrees 'can take'.
Many years later, when Abp. Lefebvre discovered Leinhart's masonic membership, he wrote worriedly to Abp. Thuc asking him what he should do. Abp. Thuc's secretary still has this letter in his possession.
Unfortunately neither Lefebvre nor Thuc wound up doing anything about this.
Since practically ALL of the younger traditional priests and bishops, the future of the Apostolic descent of the Church, even those who broke from the SSPX, (SSPV, Mater Bon Consilliie and also those who went over to the conciliars) descend in Holy Orders in some way from Lefebvre and the SSPX, it is ABSOLUTELY CRTICAL that they have valid orders. Even though they probably already have valid orders - the alternative is HORRENDOUS!
The only traditional i.e. Catholic order that does not descend from this lineage are the CMRI.
Don't count on it. I was betrayed by the Novus Ordo system which is one of the reasons I turned to the SSPX. All organizations have their problems and failures. What is most important is adherence to the Faith.
Your opinion of the SSPX is not binding as the SSPX is not outside the Church. I have posted Cardinal Hoyos most recent statement this year several times on different threads. Beyond that, I don't care to assist you in hijacking this thread into another traditionalist bashing screed.
As to my personal situation, I don't care to discuss it with the likes of you.
That I've never heard. In fact, I have heard (and with increasing frequency) just the opposite; to wit, the SSPX is Catholic but it is NOT THE Church, rather a tiny subset.< More, that the Traditionalist movement isn't the Church, but rather a small subset. The solution, according to homilies by Bp. Williamson and Fr. Fullerton will come from ROME and the Bishops following ROME. We have been warned to avoid the heretical idea that "Extra SSPX Nulla Salus" as well as the heretical ideas of Feeneyism and SedeVacantism.
No offense, but they have it completely backward.
I have heard it, not in the Latin, but in its essence preached from the pulpit by a number, but not all, SSPX priests, that the SSPX IS the Church - the 'faithful part' that is.
The SSPX insists WRONGLY that those who knowingly apostasized from Christ and from the Faith are part of the Catholic Church. THEY ARE NOT in fact were to have no communion with them n the least until they acknoweldge their leaving the Church and beg re-admittance.
Saint Paul to Titus teaches that a heretic is to be avoided after two warnings, when he shows himself obstinant in his heresy - and that is before any type of canonical judgement.
Saint Jerome, Saint Athanasius, Saint Martin of Tours and others who held hast to the Faith would have nothing to do with Arian heretics in the least - they would hardly treat with them as if they still possessed authority and "enter into negotiations with them" - the SSPX's perpetual modus operandi with its masters in 'rome'.
As to any resistance to 'rome', the SSPX pretend that THEY AND THEY ALONE are the 'faithful church', no one else. The whole idea is absurd, if one holds to the Faith then he is Catholic and part of the Church, therefore an 'unfaithful church; is no church at all.
The only time they even acknowledge the existance of an 'independent' is if they covet the priest's property.
As to Fr. Feeney, he rightly called to Rome's attention Cardinal Cushing of Boston's heresies, but Fr. Feeney became a heretic himself when in 1953 he wound up denying Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire which are De Fide part of the Catholic Faith - as one example, Saint Alphonus Liguori quoting the Council of Trent.
As for those who RIGHTLY hold the See of Peter is vacant, that the SSPX repeatedly and desperatelyt label "heretics", besides the fact that the SSPX don't even get the basics of 'first year theology' correct, (they were all too busy being taught the insanity of the day by Williamson), I will gladly post for you later in the week anessay of Abp. Lefebvre from The Angelus from before the Assisi debacle of 1986, stating that after it occurs, HE, Abp. Lefebvre, may have to conclude the See of Peter is vacant. He made at least two such statements before 1983 as quoted by Fr. Noel Barbara.
I am quoting SSPX sources because the teachings of the TRUE Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church, i.e. Popes, Doctors, assorted theologians and saints just don't seem to cut it with 'true-believers' of the SSPX. When cornered with Catholic teaching they always 'blank out' and start muttering: "but Arp. Lefebvre was a saint...'
So I'll post writings of Lefebvre and Tissier for starters.
Lefebvre always put the question 'off to the future' as does Bp. Tissier in a 1998 interview, who "leaves the question to theologians of the 21st century". (I'll post that one also.)
WELL WHAT DO WE DO NOW, LEAVE IT TO THE 22ND?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
All they are waiting for are some choice plums in Rome and they'll sell out in a second. THE FACT THAT THEY WOULD EVEN CONSIDER NEGOTIATIONS WITH APOSTATES PROVES THAT!!!!!!
By the way, a few years ago Fr. Peter Scott tried to get my ailing elderly pastor, whose former parish they had previously stolen, who just so happens to hold that the See of Rome is Impeded, to join up with them - so they could steal his present one. The 'principles' of the SSPX extend only to bank balances, property and power.
And if I am not mistaken, Fr. Wickens was sympathetic to Fr. Feeney - and of course the SSPX was falling all over him.
As for Williamson, he will never state that the See of Peter is vacant due to heresy - that is CATHOLIC TEACHING.
In pastoral letters from the late 1990's Williamson stated as much that he is waiting for the next conclave to somehow declare it invalid.
Hmmm, just can't wait for the the declaration from Williamson in Argentina that the Masons managed to engineer a secret eclipse of the Planet Neptune, along with Solange Hertz of the Remnant informing him that one of the electors at the conclave had a three-legged dwarf as a valet, both known factors to the SSPX cognoscenti as invalidating the papal election.
Who knows, Stephen Hand may actually find where he left his previous 'brain' and provide Williamson with other 'critical catholic teaching' on the issue.
Correct. The true Faith of Christ is found solely in the true Church, of Christ, the Roman Catholic Church.
That is why Karol Woltyla and all of his 'cardinals', 'bishops' and 'priests' and all who hold the false 'faith of vatican ii' are in no way part of it.
They belong solely to their 'master' below.
A couple of points should be mentioned.
Firstly, Fr. Wickens was originally a diocesan priest, who was evicted from his parish for vocaling objecting to Catholic Schools teaching sex education. He found greater merit in celebrating the Tridentine Mass and went on to found our Chapel, St. Anthony of Padua, as it stands today, an Independent Chapel.
It was my understanding months ago, even before Fr. Wickens became sick that the Chapel was supposed to be willed to the SSPX. Fr.'s choice. Now, I am not on any board of business at the Chapel, but as a regular parishoner, I have come to know a lot of things from people who were privied to Chapel business.
It wasn't announced from the pulpit, but I am sure that the Chapel staff had prior knowledge of his wishes. Perhaps Father knew that it would be difficult to get another independent priest to manage the Chapel, and he had a special place for the SSPX. This is only speculation on my part. Father was always a man with good sense and sound ideas, so I think he thought this through very carefully before making this decision.
It's not true that we were "compensated" by little gifts here and there. As ELS stated, Fr. Wickens regularly gave out books, rosaries, chaplets, scapulars, etc. to the congregation, not as "consolation prizes", but as sacramentals and tools to enhance our understanding of the Faith.
As I stated in another thread, the N.O. didn't cease to harrass Fr. Wickens even on his deathbed, asking him to recant his beliefs on the Traditional form of Mass and beliefs. It is heroes like this who exemplify what it means to Defend the Faith and its principals, and other priests who have had the courage to withstand the persecution they know they face.
If a Traditional Priest won't 'play ball' then they are cast out. And these Novus Ordo bishops are supposed to be examples of Catholicity? Sounds hypocritical, sort of like Caiphas and the other high priests.
Sinkspur, Traditional priests are not "renegade" as you call them. They are trying to preserve the Mass as it has been for hundreds of years, before the reforms of Vatican II. The Novus Ordo Mass is the "non-normative" mass.
Pax,
MMJ
The Novus Ordo is the Normative Mass, by decree of Paul VI, in 1970. Now, if you don't accept Paul VI as a legitimate Pope, then I can see how you don't accept his decree.
And, priests who leave the jurisdiction of the Latin Rite of the Roman Catholic Church are, indeed, renegades, no matter what their purpose.
The Tridentine Mass is celebrated in many dioceses, under the Indult.
But, again, if you and the priests you follow don't accept the jurisdiction of a bishop, then I can see how you don't accept this.
Amen.
Just speculating here: One of the big problems facing secular priests right now is that they are cut off if there are charges brought up against them. I have been told recently that in New Orleans it is so bad that just an accusation will get a secular preist ousted and he must fend for himself with housing, health care, and funds for a lawyer. This becomes almost impossible for them unless they have family or their (former)parishioners help them. There is a growing belief that some priests are being falsely accused and then tossed aside by their diocese. So, I doubt the Chancery would take too much notice right now of a few priests marching outside their offices to be allowed to say the Tridentine Mass.
I think more and more of the young priests are becoming aware of the great sacrifice that awaits them if they can survive the seminary. I spoke to a young priest several weeks ago who got into trouble here in Detroit because he saw a young man pocket the Host instead of putting it in his mouth, the young priest followed the boy to his seat and insisted he eat the Host. (Understand this young priest did not tell me what had happened, another close to him did), anyway he lost his position. Fortunately, there was a good conservative parish willing to hire him. He has now been given (and I have no clue how this was managed), another chance by the diocesean power structure. He will have to suffer many years until a certain monsignor decides he can have his own parish. For the most part it isn't the Cardinal who makes appointment decisions in Detroit but those in charge underneath him. So you see, for doing the simple act of protecting the soul of a young boy and the Host he has been crucified in this diocease. These young priests won't even have to stand up and declare their intention to say the Tridentine Mass, or the Novus Ordo in Latin, or sing a few chants, or teach the Faith before they are thrown to the wolves. They are being crudified daily for just being devout and doing what they are taught to do in the seminary.
Depending on the diocese the level of abuse against conservative priests can range from being punished for embarrasing a parishioner's son to having a dime (quarter) dropped on them and being ousted before there is any credible evidence brought forth. The police do not have to be involved. So, say you are a liberal wanting to get rid of a priest you don't agree with, bang they are gone so easily. Maybe it was easier to fight in 16th and 17th century England, at least you knew who your enemies were.
Arggghhhhh!!! without housing, health care, and funds for a lawyer.
True Traditional Catholics don't accept Vatican II, period. It has nothing to do with accepting Paul VI as pope, or any of his successors.
The problem Trads have with the Novus Ordo Mass are the many liturgical abuses that have been introduced. All these abuses further water down the Faith. Don't you see how since the "new mass" has been promulgated, that attendance has fallen disastrously? That's a hint!
Indults are no better. In order for a parish to have an Indult mass, they must trade off certain allegiance to the Traditional cause, and accept the reforms of Vatican II, namely the Novus Ordo Mass. It's a lose-lose situation. Consecrated hosts are mixed with the so-called consecrated hosts of the Novus Ordo mass. You never know if you are getting a true consecrated host.
For my part, I don't like the idea of playing "Russian Roulette" with the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Well, you've swallowed the Rad-Trad Kool-Aid, mom.
I pray you'll return to the Bark of Peter one day.
I've done this a couple of times, in my position. In fact, the latest happened just two Sundays ago; it involved a teenage girl. I followed her to the back of the Church and made her consume the Host.
(Understand this young priest did not tell me what had happened, another close to him did), anyway he lost his position.
I'm sorry, but I don't believe he lost his "position" over this. Not in the least.
No problem, Sink! I'm happy as a clam being a Trad.
I'm not one for Kool-Aid, I much prefer iced tea... it's a TRADITIONAL summertime drink! :)
Pax!
MMJ
But of course it does.
... if, more generally, it is a case of teachings in which the Church intends fully to engage the prudential authority she has to feed Christ's sheep, to determine what is apt to bring minds nearer to or turn them away from the faith, we shall not hesitate to say that the magisterium proposes them in virtue of a practical prudential assistance which is truly and properly infallible, so that we can be sure of the prudence of each of these teachings, and in consequence practically sure of their intrinsic and speculative truth. To adopt a phrase of Franzelin's, if there is as yet no infallible irrevocable truth, "veritas infallibilis", there is nevertheless an infallible assurance, "infallibilis securitas". Such, for example, are the prescriptions recalling that Sacred Scripture should be interpreted in the light of the Fathers and Doctors; the law of the Code ordering professors in seminaries to teach philosophy and theology conformably with the method, doctrine and principles of the Angelic Doctor; the judgment by which a servant of God is declared blessed, etc.[800]If, on the contrary, there is question of teachings proposed without this universality and this constancy, of solutions of recent problems not yet generalized by the Church, in which she does not intend fully to engage her prudential authority, then we shall say that the magisterium proposes them only in a fallible manner.[801] If there is infallible assistance here, it is infallible only in the improper sense, and that means that the magisterium is assisted, not for each determinate case, singillatim, divisive, but for the generality of cases, in commune, collective. It is certain, for example, that the decisions of the Biblical Commission, taken as a whole, defend the authentic meaning of the Bible and its divine character, with assured prudence. (Charles Cardinal Journet, Church of the Word Incarnate Vol. I: The Apostolic Hierarchy, London: Sheed and Ward, 1955, Ch. VII, II, B, 4)
It's possible there could be a few minor errors in the Council, but taken as a whole it safeguards the deposit of faith "with assured prudence".
Consecrated hosts are mixed with the so-called consecrated hosts of the Novus Ordo mass. You never know if you are getting a true consecrated host.
Care to explain how a host consecrated with "this is my body which will be given up for you" by a properly ordained priest is a false consecrated host?
In the climate of today's apostasy, Traditionalists would rather "err" on the safe side and refuse to intermingle Indult hosts with Traditional Hosts.
Although they may be "consecrated" by a fully ordained priest does not mean that priest had the intention of consecrating those hosts. For that matter, no one knows if any priest has the intent of Transubstantion. One must have faith that their priest is doing the right thing. Since many of the Novus Ordo priests regard themselves as entertainers, rather than acting in the person of Christ at Calvary, I would rather not take those chances.
So, instead, you follow a sect that has separated itself from the Pope.
Does that make sense to you?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.