Traditionalists, Tradition, And Private Judgement

TCR News ^ | Stephen Hand

[Catholicguy]

<> Let's see..the Pope can't be trusted, so, schismatics turn to "Traditio"<>

Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 20:41:18 -0400

Author: "Terrence J. Boyle"

Subject: Re: ("Fr. M. E.) Morrison

Body: Hello:

M.E. Morrison was "ordained" in California in a Protestant church (Ebenezer Lutheran Chirch) by Thaddeus Alioto, a married man claiming to be a bishop (because he had been "consecrated" a bishop by Wallace David de Ortega Maxey).

De Ortega Maxey had been "consecrated" numerous times by various North American Old Catholic bishops (whom even the Old Catholic Churches in Europe deny have valid orders). De Ortega Maxey also *claimed* to have been consecrated by Antoine Aneed.

Aneed's story is that he was consecrated a bishop by a RC Eastern Rite bishop in Syria and sent to America. Both the Vatican and the Syrian Patriarchate involved denounced the story as a fabrication.

If you have any doubts over the veracity of my statements as to where Morrison got "ordained," just ask his fellow "independent" priest, Merril Adamson. He was "ordained" in the same ceremony. I've a written statement from him confirming the fact.

This is important not because of anything Morrison states on the internet, but because he dresses up his statements as coming from a RC priest.

Even the devil can quote Scripture.

Anyone e-mailing to Morrison's list a request for the facts of his claimed ordination will be dropped.

It never ceases to amaze me how sedevacantists can be so cock-sure JP II is a fraud, yet swallow hook, line and sinker any number of bogus clerics; just because the frauds sing the music sedes like to hear.

It takes more than "right" preaching to make a priest.

Regards, Terry Boyle

[ultima ratio]

YOU haven't been paying attention. I have been posting now for months on end detailed objections to the New Mass--insofar as it is a violation of Trent. Cardinal Ratzinger himself has recognized the problem with the Novus Ordo and its violation of Trent in his speech at Fontgombault. Here is what he said about the invalidation by Trent of precisely the kind of Mass concocted by Bugnini in violation of Catholic doctrine and the whole of Catholic tradition:

"It is only by grasping that it [the hatred for the old Latin Mass by Novus Ordo bishops] results from the practical invalidation of Trent, that one can understand the exasperation that accompanies the fight against the possibility of still celebrating Mass according to the '62 Missal."

And he said this at the same venue:

"From the start, I was in favor of the freedom to continue to use the old Missal, for a very simple reason: people were already beginning to speak of a rupture with the pre-conciliar Church, and the formation of different models of churches: an 'outmoded' pre-conciliar Church, and a new, conciliar Church...It seems to me indispensable to retain the possibility of celebrating according to the former missal as a sign of the permanent identity of the Church."

This is why I speak of a new religion. There is no real permanent identity between the two, between pre-conciliar condemnations of modernism and modernism's triumph in Rome. There is, instead, a clear rupture between what went before the Council and what came after. This is why Rome itself accuses traditionalist priests of not thinking with "the conciliar Church" and makes fantastic claims of being the arbiter of what is and is not Tradition. The Pope is supposedly the bridge, the unifying force, the true decider of all things Traditional. But he ceases to be this when he himself is so enamored of radical change and has aligned himself so clearly against his predecessors. So we have two churches, the before Church and the after Church. You and others apparently accept and affirm the latter which is forty years old. I believe and affirm the former which has existed for twenty centuries and still exists among a traditional Catholic remnant.

[Desdemona]

Ummmm.....

First off, I specifically said no Mass rubrics. That's been beaten to death.

Second I asked for a change in doctrine or Canon Law. You're skirting. What, other than Mass, has changed. What specific parts of the teaching of the church has changed at the Vatican level as a result of modernism. We know the ban on birth control and in-utero infanicide is still there. What has changed?

[ultima ratio]

You write we only obey the Pope when the Pope agrees with us. Wrong. We will obey the Pope when he returns to tradition and agrees with his predecessors. Novelty is not tradition, even when a pope says it is.

[ultima ratio]

The sacrificial structure was dumped, to begin with, along with the Offertory in favor of the Jewish prayer of thanksgiving before a meal. Any reference to expiation for sins was eliminated. Reference to the Real Presence as the Mystery of Faith was eliminated. There are a thousand textual changes that make the new Mass more humanistic and Protestant than Catholic. I'd need to write a book to explain them all. For instance, why was "say but the word and my SOUL shall be healed" changed to "say but the word and I shall be healed?" Why is the word "soul" missing from other passages as well? There are too many of these unCatholic humanist touches to go into here. And this is not even getting into rubrics. Facing the people may seem like a minor issue to you, easily dismissable, but it is just another change that underscores the essential break with tradition, as Card. Ratzinger at Fontgombault has also stated:

"Today celebration versus populum really does look like the characteristic fruit of Vatican II's liturgical reform. In fact it is the most conspicuous consequence of a reordering that not only signifies a new arrangement of the places dedicated to the liturgy, but also brings with it a new idea of the ESSENCE of the liturgy--the liturgy as a communal meal...A common turning to the east during the Eucharistic Prayer remains essential. This is not a case of something accidental, but of what is essential. Looking at the priest has no importance. What matters is looking together at the Lord. It is not now a question of dialogue but of common worship."

But of course the new religion wants no such common worship with anybody. It punished traditionalist priests from the outset and wished to ban the old Mass as well as facing to the east--precisely because it emphasizes what is being offered to the Father--Christ's Body and Blood in a reenactment of Cavalry. This has been anathema to modernist liturgical "experts". Not surprising. All this has happened before. Luther started by turning the priest around to face the people and by throwing out the Offertory. He wanted to underscore the communal meal, the Lord's Supper--just as Ratzinger states is happening now in the Novus Ordo. Unfortunately for those who defend the Novus Ordo--this idea of the Mass has already been banned by Trent. Not all the arguments to the contrary can make the present set-up traditional Catholicism. It is a sucking-up to Martin Luther at the expense of our own doctrinal integrity.

[Desdemona]

Not Mass. Anything else. But not Mass. I'm not asking about worship. I'm talking about modernist teaching.

One. Just ONE difference in Canon Law or Doctrine. Just one.

[ultima ratio]

Who is Terry Boyle and why should we believe him? I've done a google search on this--but there is nothing at all on this individual. This looks like more Novus Ordo disinformation to me.

[Scupoli]

The Neo-Catholic posts "whack job". Gee, what a towering intellectual. If the Neo-Catholics choose to embarass themselves, they are free to do so. However, the thought of entering into any type of correspondence with such an individual does not appeal to me.

The posts of that particular individual are nothing more than missives from the Darkness. Yours, however, are outstanding but at times it is like trying to teach Calculus to kindergarteners.

Thanks for the ping and the wise words.

[Scupoli]

Lustiger must be friends with Kasper.

[Telit Likitis]

Terrence Boyle's home page Click here.

[ultima ratio]

"For example, some of us find it downright impossible to reconcile our historic faith with a Vatican which now encourages pagans, with Catholics in the next room, to pray to the Great Thumb for world peace, and yet never says a word to them, for sixteen years, about the necessity of converting to the Catholic Faith; which tells Jews that the Old Covenant is still salvific for them, and thus they have no need to be baptized in the Catholic Church for salvation; which promotes, in a major joint-declaration with non-Catholics, a teaching the Council of Trent condemned thirteen times in thirteen different ways (i.e., 'faith alone'); which allows our seminaries and universities to teach that Scripture is rife with errors of fact; which sits and does nothing while liberals who deny the most basic tenets of the faith run rampant all over the world; which exercises such lax control that not a single homosexual bishop or priest has been disciplined or defrocked for nearly forty years; which lets women and girls parade around our altars pretending to be priests-in-the-making; which leads us in singing Protestant-authored hymns that imply the Eucharist is merely a symbol; and which does dozens of other things that make one wonder, as Catholics did during the Arian crisis and the 'Babylonian captivity,' where the hierarchy is leading the Church today."

--Robert Sungenis.

[ultima ratio]

That still doesn't tell me who he is. Anybody can put up a website and say anything. This guy is a layman with a lot of opinions about things. Why should we believe him because "catholic"guy quotes him? He has no reputation for scholarship whatever that I know of, yet he claims to know who is validly ordained and by whom. How do we know what he says is accurate and not disinformation?

[Catholicguy]

<> Back when my eyes were caught by the traditional black lace stockings worn by the sspx schismatic whore, I was told to sign-up for "Traditio." This was years ago.

When a schismatic friend of mine warned me away from Traditio & "Rev" Morrison" (I was going to San Francicso and I was gonna check-out his lil' "chapel), he suggested I do what Mr. Boyle suggested.

I was promptly dropped from the list. ANYONE can perform this simple test to see if what Boyle says is true.

They won't though...."Rev" Morrison scratches their antipapal itch<>

[ultima ratio]

One? Easy. The Church has always taught the Church of Christ IS the Catholic Church. It no longer teaches this. It now claims the Church of Christ SUBSISTS IN the Catholic Church. In other words, Christ's Church may also subsist elsewhere. It no longer is identified with the Catholic Church alone. This is a major change in teaching.

Here's another. The Church has always condemned the "faith alone" doctrine taught by Protestants. The Council of Trent condemned this teaching thirteen times (see my earlier post). Now in a joint-declaration on Justification it has accepted the Protestant doctrine.

That's just for starters. You need to face up to the ugly truth about what's happening. The Traditional Church is being destroyed--deliberately.

[Catholicguy]

http://www.catholiccouncil.homestead.com/Bateman25November.html

<> You and your ilk might be intersdted in this process to select a REAL Pope. Yer boy "Rev" Morrison is on the mailing list - along with other "orthodox" "catholic" luminaries<>

[Catholicguy]

<> There, this oughta settle ANY controversy. The infallible SSPX's own FR. Peter Scott delivers his thoughts about "Rev. Morrison<> A further very recent reproduction of the 'glossy brochure' material has appeared on an Australian site run by a (former?) Maronite clone of the SSPX, who also promotes Fr. M.E. Morrison (who, Fr. Peter Scott alleges, is an Old Catholic posing as a Catholic priest) and a Fr. Paolo Rosari (of unknown pedigree). The site is: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/3543/Lefebv.html "