| Welcome, Guest |
You have to register before you can post on our site.
|
| Online Users |
There are currently 139 online users.
» 0 Member(s) | 137 Guest(s)
Bing, Google
|
| Latest Threads |
Jean Madiran: The Four Un...
Forum: In Defense of Tradition
Last Post: Stone
4 hours ago
» Replies: 1
» Views: 3,305
|
Cashless Society: WEF Boa...
Forum: Great Reset
Last Post: Stone
5 hours ago
» Replies: 0
» Views: 15
|
THE EXORCISM OF NICOLA AU...
Forum: Church Doctrine & Teaching
Last Post: ThyWillBeDone
5 hours ago
» Replies: 0
» Views: 21
|
St. Alphonsus de Liguori:...
Forum: Doctors of the Church
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 04:57 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 48
|
St. Alphonsus Liguori: Th...
Forum: Doctors of the Church
Last Post: Stone
04-23-2024, 08:15 AM
» Replies: 14
» Views: 2,471
|
Fr. Ruiz's Sermons: Third...
Forum: Fr. Ruiz's Sermons April 2024
Last Post: Stone
04-23-2024, 06:28 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 39
|
Fr. Demaris [1801]: Catho...
Forum: When there is No Priest
Last Post: Stone
04-23-2024, 06:21 AM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 4,216
|
Fr. Ruiz: Recommended art...
Forum: Rev. Father Hugo Ruiz Vallejo
Last Post: Stone
04-23-2024, 05:52 AM
» Replies: 63
» Views: 78,135
|
Third Week after Easter [...
Forum: Easter
Last Post: Stone
04-22-2024, 04:14 AM
» Replies: 6
» Views: 11,821
|
Third Sunday after Easter
Forum: Easter
Last Post: Stone
04-21-2024, 04:19 AM
» Replies: 5
» Views: 10,052
|
|
|
| Third Sunday of Lent |
|
Posted by: Stone - 03-07-2021, 06:44 AM - Forum: Lent
- Replies (5)
|
 |
INSTRUCTION ON THE THIRD SUNDAY IN LENT, called OCULI.
Taken from Fr. Goffine's Explanations of the Epistles and Gospels for the Sundays, Holydays, and Festivals throughout the Ecclesiastical Year
36th edition, 1880
![[Image: ?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.victorianweb.org%2Fa...f=1&nofb=1]](https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.victorianweb.org%2Fart%2Fillustration%2Fgerman%2Fschnorr%2F82.jpg&f=1&nofb=1)
THE Introit of this day's Mass, which begins with the word Oculi, is the prayer of a soul imploring deliverance from the snares of the devil: My eyes are ever towards the Lord: for he shall pluck my feet out of the snare: look thou upon me, and have mercy on me, for I am alone and poor. To thee, O Lord, have I lifted up my soul: in thee, O my God, I put my trust: let me not be ashamed. (Fs. xxiv.) Glory be to the Father, &c.
PRAYER OF THE CHURCH. We beseech Thee, Almighty God, regard the desires of the humble, and stretch forth the right hand of Thy majesty to be our defence. Through Jesus Christ, our Lord, &c.
EPISTLE. (Ephes. v. i — 9.) Brethren, be ye followers of God. as most dear children; and walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath delivered himself for us an oblation and a sacrifice to God, for an odor of sweetness. But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not so much as be named among you as becometh saints; nor obscenity, nor foolish talking, nor scurrility, which is to no purpose: but rather giving of thanks: for know yet his, and understand, that no fornicator, nor unclean, nor covetous person, which is a serving of idols. hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no man deceive you with vain words; for because of these things cometh the anger of God upon the children of unbelief. Be ye not therefore partakers with them. For you were heretofore darkness; but now light in the Lord. Walk, then, as children of the light: for the fruit of the light is in all goodness, and justice, and truth.
Quote:EXPLANATION. The apostle requires us to imitate God, as good children, their father, in well-doing and in well-wishing; besides he declares that all covetousness, fornication, all disgraceful talk and equivocal jokes should be banished from Christian meetings, even that such things should not be so much as mentioned among us; because these vices unfailingly deprive us of heaven. He admonishes us not to let ourselves be deceived by the seducing words of those who seek to make these vices appear small, nothing more than pardonable human weaknesses; those who speak thus are the children of darkness and of the devil, they bring down the wrath of God upon themselves, and all who assent to their words. A Christian, a child of light, that is, of faith, should regard as as in that which faith and conscience tell him is such, and must live according to their precepts and not by false judgment of the wicked. Should any one seek to lead you away, ask yourself, my Christian soul, whether you would dare appear with such a deed before the judgment seat of God. Listen to the voice of your conscience, and let it decide, whether that which you are expected to do is good or bad, lawful or unlawful.
ASPIRATION. Place Thy fear, O God, before my mouth, that I may utter no vain, careless, much less improper and scandalous words. which may be the occasion of sin to my neighbor. Strengthen me; that I may not be deceived by flattering words, and become faithless to Thee.
GOSPEL. (Luke xi. 14—28. At that time, Jesus was casting out a devil, and the same was dumb. And when he had cast out the devil, the dumb spoke, and the multitudes were in admiration at it. But some of them said: He casteth out evils by Beelzebub the prince of devils. And others tempting, asked of him a sign from heaven. But he seeing their thoughts, said to them: Every kingdom divided against itself shall be brought to desolation, and house upon house shall fall. And if Satan also be divided against himself, how shall his kingdom stand? because you say, that through Beelzebub I cast out devils. Now if I cast out devils by Beelzebub, by whom do your children cast them out? Therefore they shall be your judge. But if I by the finger of God cast out devils, doubtless the kingdom of God is come upon you. When a strong man armed keepeth his court, those things which he possesseth are in peace; but if a stronger than he come upon him, and overcome him, he will take away all his armor wherein he trusted, and will distribute his spoils. He that is not with me Is against me; and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth. When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through places without water, seeking rest; and not finding, he saith, I will return into my house whence I came out: and when he is come, he findeth it swept and garnished. Then he goeth, and taketh with him seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and entering in they dwell there. And the last state of that man becomes worse than the first. And it came to pass, as he spoke these things, a certain woman from the crowd, lifting up her voice, said to him: Blessed is the womb that bore thee, and the paps that gave thee suck. But he said: Yea rather blessed are they who hear the word of God, and keep it.
Can a man be really possessed of a devil?
It is the doctrine of the Catholic Church that the evil spirit most perniciously influences man in a twofold manner: by enticing his soul to sin, and then influencing his body which he often entirely or partially possesses, manifesting himself by madness, convulsions, insanity, &c. Many texts of Scripture, and the writings of the Fathers speak of this possession. St. Cyprian writes: "We can expel the swarms of impure spirits, who for the ruin of the soul, enter into the bodies of men, and we can compel them to acknowledge their presence, by the force of powerful words." Possession takes place by the permission of God either for trial or as a punishment of sin committed, (i Cor. v. 5.) and the Church from her Head, Jesus, who expelled so many devils, has received the power of casting them out as He did. (Mark xvi. 17.; Acts v. 16., viii. 6. 7., xvi. 18.&c.) She however warns her ministers, the priests, who by their ordination have received the power to expel the evil spirits, to distinguish carefully between possession and natural sickness, that they may not be deceived, (Rit. Rom.§.3. §. 5—10.) and the faithful should guard against looking upon every unusual, unhealthy appearance as an influence of Satan, and should give no ear to impostors,but in order not to be deceived, should turn to an experienced physician or to their pastor.
What is understood by a dumb devil?
The literal meaning of this is the evil enemy, who sometimes so torments those whom he possesses that they lose the power of speech; in a spiritual sense, we may understand it to mean the shame which the devil takes away from the sinner, when he commits the sin, but gives back again, as false shame, before confession, so that the sinner conceals the sin, and thereby falls deeper.
How does Christ still cast out dumb devils?
By His grace with which He inwardly enlightens the sinner, so that he becomes keenly aware that the sins which he has concealed in confession, will one day be known to the whole world, and thus encourages him to overcome his false shame. "Be not ashamed to confess to one man," says St. Augustine, "that which you were not ashamed to do with one, perhaps, with many." Consider these words of the same saint: "Sincere confession subdues vice, conquers the evil one, shuts the door of hell, and opens the gates of paradise."
How did Christ prove, that He did not cast out devils by Beelzebub?
By showing that the kingdom of Satan could not stand, if one evil spirit were cast out by another; that they thus reproached their own sons who also cast out devils, and had not been accused of doing so by power from Beelzebub; by His own life and works which were in direct opposition to the devil, and by which the devil's works were destroyed. There is no better defence against calumny than an innocent life, and those who are slandered, find no better consolation than the thought of Christ who, notwithstanding His sanctity and His miracles, was not secure against calumniation.
What is is meant by the finger of God?
The power of God, by which Christ expelled the evil spirits, proved himself God, and the promised Redeemer.
Who is the strong man armed?
The evil one is so called, because he still retains the power and intellect of the angels, and. practiced by long experience, seeks in different ways to injure man if God permits.
How is the devil armed?
With the evil desires of men, with the perishable riches, honors, and pleasures of this world, with which he entices us to evil, deceives us, and casts us into eternal fire.
Who is the stronger one who took away the devil's armor?
Christ the Lord who came into this world that He might destroy the works and the kingdom of the devil, to expel the prince of darkness, (John xii. 31.) and to redeem us from his power. "The devil," says St Anthony, "is like a dragon caught by the Lord with the fishing-hook of the cross, tied with a halter, like a beast of burden, chained like a fugitive slave, and his lips pierced through with a ring, so that he may not devour any of the faithful. Now he sighs, like a miserable sparrow, caught by Christ and turned to derision, and thrown under the feet of the Christians. He who flattered himself, that he would possess the whole orbit of the earth, behold, he has to yield!"
Why docs Christ say: He who is not with me, is against me?
These words were intended in the first place for the Pharisees who did not acknowledge Christ as the Messiah, would not fight with Him against Satan's power, but rather held the people back from reaching unity of faith and love of Christ. Like the Pharisees, all heretical teachers who, by their false doctrines, draw the faithful from communion with Christ and His Church, are similar to the devil, the father of heresy and lies. May all those, therefore, who think they can serve Christ and the world at the same time, consider that between truth and falsehood, between Christ and the world, there is no middle path; that Christ requires decision, either with Him, or against Him, either eternal happiness with Him, or without Him, everlasting- misery.
Who are understood by the dry places through which the evil spirit wanders and finds no rest?
"The dry places without water," says St. Gregory, "are the hearts of the just, who by the force of penance have drained the dampness of carnal desires." In such places the evil one indeed finds no rest, because there his malice finds no sympathy, and his wicked will no satisfaction.
Why does the evil spirit say: I will return into my house?
Because he is only contented there where he is welcomed and received: those who have purified their heart by confession, and driven Satan from it, but labor not to amend, again lose the grace of the Sacraments by sin, and thus void of virtue and grace, offer a beautiful and pleasant dwelling to the devil.
Why is it said: The last state becomes worse than the first?
Because a relapse generally draws more sins with it, and so it is said: the devil will return with seven other spirits more wicked than himself, by which may be understood the seven deadly sins, because after a relapse into sin conversion to God becomes more difficult, as a repeated return of the same sickness makes it harder to regain health; because by repetition sin easily becomes a habit and renders conversion almost impossible; because repeated relapses are followed by blindness of intellect, hardness of heart, and in the end eternal damnation.
Why did the woman lift up her voice?
This was by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost to shame the Pharisees who, blinded by pride, neither professed nor acknowledged the divinity of Christ, whilst this humble woman not only confessed Jesus as God, but praised her who carried Him, whom heaven and earth cannot contain. Consider the great dignity of the Blessed Virgin, Mother of the Son of God, and hear her praises from the holy Fathers. St. Cyril thus salutes her: "Praise to thee, Blessed Mother of God: for thou art virginity itself, the sceptre of the true faith!" and St. Chrysostom: Hail, Mother, the throne, the glory, the heaven of the Church!" St. Ephrem: "Hail, only hope of the Fathers, herald of the apostles, glory of the martyrs, joy of the saints, and crown of the virgins, because of thy vast glory, and inaccessible light!"
Why did Christ call those happy who hear the word of God and keep it?
Because, as has been already said, it is not enough for salvation to hear the word of God, but it must also be practiced. Because Mary, the tender Mother of Jesus, did this most perfectly. Christ terms her more happy in it, than in having conceived, borne, and nursed Him.
SUPPLICATION. O Lord Jesus! true Light of the world, enlighten the eyes of my soul, that I may never be induced by the evil one to conceal a sin, through false shame, in the confessional, that on the day of general judgment my sins may not be published to the whole world. Strengthen me, O Jesus, that I may resist the arms of the devil by a penitent life, and especially by scorning the fear of man and worldly considerations, and guard against lapsing into sin, that I may not be lost, but through Thy merits may be delivered from all dangers and obtain heaven.
|
|
|
| April 16th - St. Benedict Joseph Labre and St. Engratia and Companions |
|
Posted by: Elizabeth - 03-06-2021, 11:09 PM - Forum: April
- Replies (1)
|
 |
Saint Benedict Joseph Labre
Mendicant, Pilgrim
(1748-1783)
Saint Benedict Joseph Labre was born in the village of Amettes, near Boulogne in France, on March 26, 1748. He was the eldest of a family of fifteen children. From his earliest years he manifested exceptional piety, and was particularly attracted to the Blessed Sacrament of the altar. His early education was confided to one of his uncles, who was the parish priest of Erin, in view of his future ordination. He was not certain, however, that he was called to the priesthood, and said, It is very beautiful to be a priest, but I fear losing my soul while saving others. He desired the contemplative life and entered the Carthusian Order. But it was not long before his Superiors decided he did not have the vocation to that Order.
After making several more requests to enter monasteries where he might serve God according to his heart's desire, he was finally received in November 1769 by the Cistercians, whom he greatly edified by his silent prayer and communion with God. His happiness, however, proved to be short-lived; he was taken very ill and again his Superiors decided that he was not called to be one of their number. Providence had permitted these events. Upon his recovery, he discovered God's holy will for him, which was, he wrote, that remaining in the midst of the world, he devoutly visit as a pilgrim the famous places of Christian devotion.
With this purpose ever before him, he made solitary pilgrimages to many of the great shrines of Europe, taking with him only a rosary, a crucifix, and a little sack containing his New Testament, the Imitation of Christ and a Breviary. He visited the shrine of Our Lady of Loreto in Italy no fewer than ten times during his life.
One writer tells us that he seemed to have been destined by God to recall to men's mind the poverty of Christ. He ate nothing but the fragments he received from charity, and never kept any food given him for another day, becoming himself a provider for the poor with his surplus. He slept outdoors as a rule, and esteemed himself happy in suffering hunger, thirst, heat, rain, cold and snow. He was ordinarily regarded as a fool, and was often the brunt of mockery by children and bystanders. No mistreatment could discourage him, since he kept ever before his mind the mortified life of the Master and His Blessed Mother.
He loved most of all the Church of Our Lady of the Mountains in Rome. He spent much time in this, his favorite place of devotion, and on Wednesday of Holy Week in the year 1783, when he went to pray, he was taken suddenly ill, and expired while those who attended him in his last moments were saying the invocation of the litany of the dying: Holy Mary, pray for him.
Saint Engratia
and her Eighteen Companions Martyrs
Virgin, Martyr
(† 303)
The church celebrates on this day the triumph of Saint Engratia, a virgin martyr who was a native of Portugal. Her father had promised her in marriage to a man of quality in Rousillon, Gaul, and to accompany her there, he sent as her escort for the marriage her uncle Lupercius and a brilliant suite of sixteen other noblemen, as well as a servant named Julie.
When they arrived at Saragossa, she learned of the horrible massacre of Christians being carried on at that time, and of the torments they were enduring at the hand of Dacian, who governed that region in the name of the emperors Diocletian and Maximian. Inspired with a divine heroism, she resolved to attempt to change his dispositions, or if she could not do so, to take part herself in the glory of these generous soldiers of Christ, and mingle her blood with theirs.
She obtained an audience with the persecutor. Saying she was moved with compassion for her brethren who, despite their innocence, were being slain without mercy, she asked him, How can you shed the blood of so many persons who have done nothing but adore the true God and despise vain idols? Dacian, hearing her gentle reproaches, immediately had her imprisoned and sought out her companions, whom he also cast into prison. They affirmed at his tribunal that they too were Christians, and all were cruelly scourged. Saint Engratia was subjected to the most cruel and barbarous torments; abandoned in prison, she died of her wounds which festered there. Her death occurred in April of the year 303.
Saint Lupercius, with the seventeen nobles and Julie, had already been decapitated. Dacian, still not satiated with blood, massacred great numbers of other Christians of Saragossa who are honored on November 3rd under the title of the Countless Martyrs of Saragossa. Their bodies were burned with those of several malefactors, imprisoned at the same time, but it is said that the ashes of the martyrs separated and formed a lot apart, called the masse blanche.
The relics of Saint Engratia, who was buried by the Christians of Saragossa, have always been held in high honor in Spain, at Saragossa in particular.
|
|
|
|
| Prayer to the Shoulder Wound of Christ by St. Bernard of Clairvaux |
|
Posted by: Hildegard of Bingen - 03-06-2021, 09:41 PM - Forum: In Honor of Our Lord
- No Replies
|
 |
St. Bernard of Clairvaux, after receiving the message from Christ regarding the pain he experienced in his shoulder, sought to foster devotion to the Shoulder Wound of Christ, and penned this prayer:
Prayer to the Shoulder Wound of Christ
Most loving Jesus, meek Lamb of God, I, a miserable sinner, salute and worship the most Sacred Wound of Thy Shoulder on which Thou didst bear Thy heavy Cross which so tore Thy flesh and laid bare Thy Bones as to inflict on Thee an anguish greater than any other wound of Thy Most Blessed Body. I adore Thee, O Jesus most sorrowful; I praise and glorify Thee, and give Thee thanks for this most sacred and painful Wound, beseeching Thee by that exceeding pain, and by the crushing burden of Thy heavy Cross to be merciful to me, a sinner, to forgive me all my mortal and venial sins, and to lead me on towards Heaven along the Way of Thy Cross. Amen.
|
|
|
|
| Prayer in Honor to the Precious Blood - Devotion to the Passion |
|
Posted by: Hildegard of Bingen - 03-06-2021, 09:33 PM - Forum: In Honor of Our Lord
- No Replies
|
|
DEVOTION TO THE PASSION
Prayer in Honor to the Precious Blood
(Taken from St. Alphonsus’ Prayer-Book – pages 453)
So, then my Jesus, in order to save my soul, Thou hast prepared a bath of Thine own Blood wherein to cleanse it from the filth of its sins. If, then, our souls have been bought by Thy Blood, “For you are bought with a great price” (I Cor. Vi. 20), it is a sign that Thou lovest them much; and as Thou dost love them, let us pray thus to Thee: “We therefore pray Thee to help thy servants, whom Thou hast redeemed with Thy precious Blood.” It is true that by my sins I have separated myself form Thee, and have knowingly lost Thee. But remember, my Jesus, that Thou hast bought me with Thy Blood. Ah, may this Blood not have been given in vain for me, which was shed with so much grief and so much love. Amen.
|
|
|
|
| Bishop Tissier de Mallerais: No Compromise with Modernist Rome! |
|
Posted by: Stone - 03-06-2021, 03:23 PM - Forum: In Defense of Tradition
- No Replies
|
|
No Compromise with Modernist Rome!
Transcript of a Sermon given in Chicago, Feast of the Circumcision, 1st January 2015
by Bishop Tissier de Mallerais
The feast today of the octave of the nativity of Our Lord and the circumcision of Jesus Christ.
Let us hear first the epistle of St. Paul to Titus:
Quote:Beloved, the grace of God our savior has appeared to all men, instructing us, in order that rejecting ungodliness and worldly lust, we may live temperately and justly and piously in this world. Looking for the blessed hope and glorious coming of Our Lord, great God and Savior, Jesus Christ. Who gave Himself to us, that He might redeem us from all iniquity and cleanse for Himself an acceptable people pursuing good works. Thus speak and exhort in Christ Jesus, our Lord.
And the Holy Gospel of Our Lord Jesus Christ according to St. Luke, chapter 2:
Quote:At that time, when 8 days were fulfilled for the circumcision of the child, His name was called Jesus. The name given him by the Angel before he was conceived in the womb. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Amen.
My dear faithful, in the name of Rev. Fr. Charles Ward, our prior, and of my confreres, our priests and my own name, I wish you a happy and saintly new year. Although, the situation of [the] crisis in the Church is worsening. After the recent episcopal synod, in October 2014, in Rome. Let us, my dear faithful, let us oppose our happiness with true Faith.
And our saintliness of the state of grace and of our striving towards holiness of all Christian virtues against the unhappiness and sadness of this world. Full of heresies and apostasy, the loss of the Catholic Faith. And let us also oppose our happiness, Christian happiness, against the impiety of sin of all kinds. The advocates of which are the most important of the authorities in the Church. The Church, my dear faithful, on this feast day, the first day of the year, is used to sing first of all a Miserere at the end of the past year. To express our sadness for our sins and our hope for forgiveness for the sins of past year. And to sing today, a Te Deum, at the beginning of the new year. To thank God for giving us one year more. To praise Him. To serve Him. In saintliness and justice, as St. Paul says to Titus. And to grow into holiness. To compensate the impiety of our generation by the piety of our Christian life.
Let me, my dear faithful, let me explain to you the sadness of the crisis in the Church and in the world. To leave you a few advice, of hope, in this new year.
So first point, the sad increase of the seriousness of the crisis in the Church today. The world and the Catholic Church, it's Herself, experience what Sr. Lucy of Fatima called a diabolical disorientation. Diabolical; from the Devil. Planned from the Devil. Planned from the Freemasonry. Years and years and centuries ago, that is satanic. A satanical disorientation that is to say that, man cannot lead himself toward the true orientation. Man is lost. First of all, in the world and secondly, in the Church Herself.
First of all in the world, the disorientation in the world. For instance, the wars of the Islam against Christians in Pakistan, in Iraq, in Syria and many other countries. Where Christians are killed, tortured, chased, exiled. Where churches, treasuries of liturgy and Christian culture, are destroyed. Daily. By the warriors of the so-called “Islamic state”. With a complicity and the weapons of our own countries. It is horrible. And these crimes are sins that call for God's wrath. And in our own countries, not only in Iraq and Syria, in our own countries in the West, the millions of innocent children die daily. On the knives and the chemical poisons of medical torturers and executioners, what we call the sin of abortion. You understand?
These are the wide scale renewal of the murder of the Holy Innocents. There is now a sea of blood covering our countries and howling towards heaven for vengeance. For God's vengeance. That is the world of today. And now the Church of today. The last synod of the bishops in Rome has advocated the acceptation by the Church of so-called “marriages”, you know what I mean. Unions between two men or two women. That is a crime of Sodom and Gomorrah in the Old Testament in your Holy Bible. You can read it; how God punished the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah. These two towns full of sinners, of such sinners, attracted upon them and their two cities, the fire of heaven. Were put in ruins, their cities. And the ruins of which, are still existing if you visit Palestine, you will see the ruins of these towns on the amount of sulphur and toxic salts. As the visible sign of the reprobation and chastisement by God and of the proof of their shameful sins. That is a synod of Rome to advocate sodomy.
And secondly, the same synod accepted to contemplate the access to the Holy Communion of those Christians who are married, and then divorced, and “re-married”. The word re-married is wrong, because no true marriage is possible. Not at all re-married, but united by a civil union, which is only a legal concubinage. A legal concubinage. I search in my dictionary the word “concubinage”; I could not find it! It has disappeared from the dictionary. Interesting! You cannot find this word because concubinage, that is to say the horrible cohabitation of unmarried man and woman, or unmarried young man and young woman, is not more considered as a sin. As a shame. As a reprehensible behavior.
Thus, speaking of concubinage today, is an uncorrect [sic] way of speaking. It ought not figure to appear in the dictionary. They suppress sin, it is simple! But we do not suppress the existence of the sin. So it is impossible to people who are still married, who divorced and then pretend to remarry. It's impossible to go to receive the Holy Communion! They are in a state of mortal sin! I do not judge themselves, but I judge the state in which they are. They are unable, unworthy to receive the Holy Communion! The Holy Communion is a sign of our union of our soul with God! And the Holy Father, our Holy Father, Pope Francis, my dear faithful, what a shame! He did not immediately condemn such proposals of the synod, but he postponed. He delayed the decision to the following synod this year. And he said that he agreed with Cardinal Kasper the advocate of these criminal attempts again the holy virtue of chastity and against the holiness of Christian marriage. That he agreed with Cardinal Kasper! And then, our pope, poor Pope Francis, you know, that he punished the Franciscans of the Immaculate who wanted to keep back, to take back the Holy Mass of all times! And he condemned them, he removed their superior general and he forbade them to say the Traditional Mass. Only 6 priests among almost 200 priests are allowed to pray the Traditional Mass. All the others are forbidden to pray the True Mass! By order of Pope Francis. That is the situation in the Church!
First point, my advices for this new year. My resolution and my direction for you, as a bishop of the Society of St. Pius X, as the oldest member of our society. These are my direction and advices. First of all, my dear faithful, keep the Faith! Do keep the Faith. The treasury of the Catholic Faith. The faith of our fathers! The faith of the martyrs! The faith of the Catholic Rome! That Rome, which is unchangeable, unchanging Rome, the true Rome, we belong to the true Rome! Let us keep the faith of the true Rome. A faith which is unchanging. As immutable as God is immutable. In His mystery. So first of all, first point: keep the Faith!
Second point, be sure, my dear faithful, be sure there is no question of making any compromise and compromission [sic] between the Society of St. Pius X and the occupying powers of the church. We never will draw [the Society of] St. Pius X to the new religion. St. Pius X would not have accepted to be reconciled with the new religion! So, be sure, there will be no compromise, no compromission [sic] with the powers occupying the church. And let us try to watch first on our survival in this crisis of the Church. On our survival which may be, will be the salvation of the Church Herself! So second point, no question of compromise.
Third point, we will apply what Archbishop Lefebvre himself [our ... founder] wrote in his Spiritual Journey, a book I encourage you to read. The last book he wrote before his death, a spiritual journey, that is, as he used to say, his spiritual testament. What our Archbishop Lefebvre wrote for us in 1990, for us, as a spiritual testament. I quote him, “It is a strict duty for every [any] priest who wills to remain Catholic to separate off from the conciliar church, as long as she does not recover the Tradition of the Magisterium of the Church and of the Catholic Faith!” These are the words of our founder, I repeat. “It is a strict duty for any priest who wills to remain Catholic to separate off from the conciliar church, the so-called “conciliar church”, as long as she does not recover the Tradition of the Magisterium and of the Faith of all times!”
Fourth point, that does not prevent the Society of the St. Pius X from meeting some prelates of conciliar bishops in order to help them to convert to Tradition. We continue to try to convert them to Tradition. By private meetings, with prelates of bishops. What are we doing today? To try to help them to convert to Tradition.
Fifth point, let us reject the false reasonings of some Catholics among our friends, false friends. Who say, I quote some of our friends, hear well, “with the time going on, because we are separated from the visible church,” they say, “we are little by little becoming a sect.” They say. “From which one never comes back to the church.” This is horrible reasoning. But they deserve to be repeated and understood! They say, our false friend, with the time going on, because we are separated from the visible church, they say, we are little by little becoming a sect from which one never comes back to the church! I suppose that you never though of it and I could not believe my ears, hearing such a reasoning!
First of all, the visible church? We are the visible Church! Who practice visibly the True Faith. We have the unity of the Faith. We have the saintliness of the Sacraments and of our lives. We are Catholics because of our Faith in the Society and the true Christians are spread all out throughout the world. We are Apostolic who have still the Faith of the Apostles. We possess the full notes of the Catholic Church: Unity, Saintliness, Catholicity, Apostolicity. We are of the Church! We are in the Church! We are still in the bosom of the Church! Who are in the heart of the Church. And those who are not in this Faith of all the days of the Church, are not in the visible Church. Are visibly out of the Church. If they lose the Faith, they are visibly outside the Church! And not a question, naturally, to become a sect. We receive everybody here, all Catholics who want to attend the Holy Mass, are received with open arms! We are not a sect! We are not closed on ourselves. We have a parish of the Catholic Church. That must be clear, my dear faithful. Those who are sects are those false Christians that draw the Church into hell! And destroy the Church! These are the sects.
Sixth point, let us reject also the wrong supposition of some of our friends, bad friends, who say the Society of St. Pius X is now in an abnormal situation. Because we are not acknowledged by the church. The Society of St. Pius X must come back to a normal situation and receive a canonical status from Rome. That is wrong! That is false! We are not in an abnormal situation. The abnormal situation is in Rome! We possess the Faith, the Sacrament and the disposition to submit to the Pope. We have the Faith, the true Sacraments and the disposition of to obey the Pope! And the bishops. We are of the disposition. We are not in an abnormal situation. The abnormal situation is in Rome, now! We have not to come back! These people in Rome have to come back, to Tradition. Let us not reverse the reality. We have not to come back.
But these Romans have to come back to their Tradition. To the Tradition of the Church. That is my sixth point. And my seventh point, the last, is that the problem, my dear faithful, is not to search what we could do in Rome. What we could do in the conciliar church! No! The only question is to know what testimony we ought to give today in the church. In front of the church. Publicly in the church. What testimony we ought to give to the church. As true Catholics! As a light on the candlestick and not under the bushel of the Second Vatican Council.
What is our duty? It is to bear witness! To bear witness for the Tradition of the Church! It is very simple. As true Catholic faithful. As saintly Christians who strive through their saintliness, first of all, let us continue praying our daily Rosary! The great means given by Our Lady to save our souls and the Church. Now, let us pray our daily Rosary, let us practice the 5 First Saturdays in spirit of expiation of the sins committed against the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Let us continue our devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
Secondly, let us persevere. Keep on, in the true Catholic Faith, in the true catechisms, in the true Catholic Mass, in the true teaching of the Church, in the true Catholic schools. And thirdly, let us persevere, let us keep on striving towards saintliness. Our Lord Jesus Christ said, in the Gospel, “he who shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved!” I would say, he who shall persevere in the Faith til the end of the crisis in the Church, he will save his soul and the Church! Thanks to the intercession of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Amen.
In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Amen.
|
|
|
|
| The Angelus [1982]: Roman Protestants |
|
Posted by: Stone - 03-06-2021, 10:44 AM - Forum: In Defense of Tradition
- No Replies
|
|
The Angelus - August 1982
Roman Protestants
by Reverend Basil Wrighton
The article which follows has been contributed by an English priest. It deals with matters that have been examined frequently in the previous pages of this magazine, but never, we are sure, in a manner which is so comprehensive but concise, and which so combines great erudition with elegance of style. Father Wrighton has articulated what we believe about the current malaise of the Church with such eloquence that we feel many of our readers would wish to pass it on to their friends and family who have not yet realized that the traditionalist movement represents the only viable means of preserving orthodox Catholicism within the Roman Rite today. We would particularly like to draw our readers' attention to his comments regarding the New Mass which correspond closely with the judgment of Archbishop Lefebvre published in our June issue. Father Wrighton claims that under the leadership of their bishops, the majority of Roman Catholics are being transformed into Roman Protestants, with one notable exception, "and the day will come when a restored Church will bless his name." We are deeply grateful to Father Wrighton for the privilege of printing this article. We are sure that our readers will return to it again and again, as we have done, and profit from it as much as we have.
WHATEVER the new "ecumenism" may say or mean, the plain fact remains that there is fundamental antithesis between "Catholic" and "Protestant." One has only to reflect on the history of these two religions to see how they contradict and exclude one another. While the one claims to expound a divine revelation with divinely conferred authority, and to administer supernatural sacraments as a means of divine grace, the other professes only to comment on the Scriptures by the light of human reason, and fights shy of anything supernatural or miraculous. While the one upholds the great Christian mysteries of the Holy Trinity, the Incarnation, the Redemption, and the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist, the other has become very doubtful about these mysteries and inclined to reject some or all of them as outdated superstitions. The same holds good concerning angels and devils, hell, purgatory, and heaven: these are very real for Catholics, very unreal for Protestants, at any rate for the contemporary type.
For the Protestant mentality is essentially skeptical and fissiparous. Once it had broken away from the parent Christian stock and committed itself to the vagaries of private judgment, it went on changing, evolving and splitting up into ever new sects. For a time it held on the main tenets of Christian faith, but as the sects became more and more liberal, they tended to drop them overboard or explain them away. Low-church grows into broad-church, and broad-church evolves toward no-church.
There have, of course, been reactions against this devolution. "Fundamentalist" minorities in various times and places have dug in their heels and refused to move with the times, hanging on to some semblance of the original faith. A more intellectual and more influential reaction was that of Newman and his Tractarian followers, who reasoned their way back to a substantially Catholic theology, emerging as a "high-church" party within the Anglican establishment. But they could never be really at home in that flock—how could they? Newman himself was quick to perceive that they had no future there; he thereupon made his submission to Rome, and many of his disciples followed him, to the great advantage of both the neophytes and their hosts. We never thought to see this historic decision reversed.
Now, however, since Vatican the Second we have been faced with the hitherto incredible spectacle of a mass movement in reverse—a movement of Catholics towards Protestantism. It began with the caucus of modernist prelates and their "experts" who brought off a successful coup d'etat at the first session of the Council, by tearing up the authorized agenda and substituting their own programme. This gave them a certain control of the proceedings and enabled them to devise loopholes and ambiguities in the acta for subsequent exploitation. The "pastoral" rather than dogmatic character of this Council made its texts all the more susceptible of tendentious interpretation.
It was of course the same progressive party which got the job of implementing the conciliar decrees, and that is where the trouble became most serious. The Party's first concern was with the liturgy, which of all the Church's institutions stood in least need of reform, and which no responsible Catholic wanted to change. The Council had made a few cautious, limited and reasonable concessions for the vernacular languages to be used in scriptural readings and prayers in which the people took a vocal part. These apart, it insisted on the retention of Latin. But that was not what the Party wanted. The existing lex orandi was an obstacle to their new religion, so it had to be destroyed. The Council text was defied, and the Holy Mass of all the Catholic ages, the Church's most sacred treasure and the most beautiful thing this side of heaven, was cunningly demolished by installments and replaced by a completely different rite, entirely vernacular and frequently vulgar, celebrated back to front, and shorn of the traditional gestures of reverence and the verbal safeguards of Catholic Eucharistic doctrine—just the things that Cranmer himself had suppressed. The sacrificial element was consigned to oblivion, and all the emphasis transferred to the "memorial" and "meal" elements, just as in the Protestant "Lord's Supper." The obvious purpose was to make the Eucharist so "ecumenical" that it could be shared by those who had no belief in either the Sacrifice or the Real Presence. Can one imagine anything more dastardly than this betrayal of the Holy of Holies for the beaux yeux of unbelievers? Yet the Modernists were allowed—and are still allowed—to get away with it and to impose it on the whole Church of the West. No such subversion has ever before been known in the Catholic Church.
And what a vernacular!—the shabby, ephemeral speech of the streets and the pubs brought into the sanctuary! The whole concept of a vernacular liturgy is indeed a monstrosity, only to be excused by total illiteracy of the worshippers. Are the Catholics of the West so illiterate that they cannot read even the simplest prayer book? Liturgy is an essentially sacred thing, eternal truths clad in an unchanging form: in a word, it must be hieratic, not demotic. The Church had been telling us this for centuries, and had repeated it emphatically as recently as 1962 (the Apostolic Constitution of John XXIII, Veterum Sapientia); but the Church was now made to eat her own words and swing over to the Protestant slogan of "a language understanded of the people"—as if Latin had been a mere mumbo-jumbo to our people for all these centuries!
Since the Novus Ordo Missae was designed as an "ecumenical" liturgy, ambivalence was essential to it. Hence the many alternative formulas (Confiteors, Canons, etc.) left to the option of the celebrant, together with the studied ambiguity of the wording where any definite Catholic doctrine (such as transubstantiation or sacrifice) is involved. Hence the abolition of the Offertory prayers, and the reduction of the Consecration to what can be taken as a mere narrative. The result of it all has been to stir up controversy among the faithful as to whether the new liturgy can be regarded as sacramentally valid. To take the negative view would amount to questioning the God-given authority of the Church which has sanctioned the changes. But a careful study of such works as Michael Davies' masterly trilogy on the Liturgical Revolution1 will show that the bare essentials of validity have been preserved, but in so thoroughly Protestantized a setting and mentality that lapses from validity are much more likely to occur, and the Catholic faith cannot be expected to survive or flourish in such an environment. All that used to protect and nourish this faith has been ruthlessly cut away in the interests of "ecumenism," and the effect of the revolution can be plainly seen in the vast exodus from the Church which has followed it.
The Novus Ordo was only a first step. The Party had many more changes up its sleeve. The revolution was to be "on-going," the faithful were to have no respite from shocks and scandals. Soon we had Communion in the Hand, a gratuitous profanation borrowed from the Dutch dissenters and railroaded into the Church elsewhere by admiring episcopal conferences in face of papal protest and popular disgust. Then came the Lay Ministers, male and female, handing out Holy Communion, while the priest looked on from his chair—unemployed, redundant. It is a galloping process of "desacralization." Nothing is now to be held sacred or inviolable. All that was sacred in our religion from time immemorial is being dragged down to a common and profane level, to adapt it to the abject spirit of this age.
So much for what is going on with official approval, within the widening limits of the law. I have said nothing about the spate of outrages and sacrileges which have sprung up in the wake of the Novus Ordo, for these should be abhorrent even to progressives. They simply did not happen under the old order; therefore the new order is responsible for them. But authority does nothing to correct them. There seems to be no limit to what the bishops will now tolerate—so long as the abuses are committed on the liberal, revolutionary side. But if any poor deprived Catholic on the other side attempts to revive the Holy Mass, then the fulminations begin! The only capital offence that remains, it seems, is fidelity to Catholic tradition.
When the President of Una Voce at an interview with Archbishop (now Cardinal) Benelli in Rome in October 1976, pointed out the existing liturgical chaos and asked how, in view of this state of things, the suppression of the old Mass could be justified, he was told that "those who wish to retain the old Mass have a different ecclesiology." This from one of the closest advisors of the then Pope; it meant that those who were faithful to Catholic tradition were now to be treated as dissidents. The phrase quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus2 as a criterion of orthodoxy had now been rejected in favor of a new Party Line which contradicted the Church's entire previous tradition. What was forbidden and condemned yesterday becomes lawful today, and mandatory tomorrow. What had always been seen as black, is now white, and vice versa—because the Party says so. This comes close to the Bolshevik criterion of morality: what is right or wrong is simply what helps or hinders the Party.
Pope Paul VI himself used to speak of a "new orientation" of the Church's life and liturgy following Vatican II, and the whole charge against Archbishop Lefebvre in that pontificate was that His Grace would not accept this fatal orientation. He could not accept it—we cannot accept it—because it is an entirely new thing in the Church, a new ethos incompatible with Catholic dogmatic tradition. If we accept this reorientation, we must hold that the Church's teaching has been utterly mistaken all through the past twenty centuries of its history, from the Apostles onward, until light dawned at last in the nineteen-sixties, thanks to Bugnini and his men. It was an about-turn, away from the supernatural and transcendent towards the natural and worldly, from the divine to the merely human. Those who have eyes to see can see more clearly every day that such a periagoge, if persisted in, can only lead to the destruction of the Catholic and Christian religion.
The Party, modernist and progressive, which seized power in the Church from the Council onwards and is constantly building it up by selective appointments, is moving in the same direction as the Protestant reformers whom it copied so closely in the new liturgy. But it is going much faster and further than they went. It is Liberal-Protestant, which means in the long run non-Christian and anti-Christian. It has allied itself with the secular humanism which now rules the Western world, and is even making overtures to the communist powers, after having rendered the Council virtually ineffectual by refusing to condemn the world's greatest menace.
It should be noted that the ideology of Liberal-Protestantism is practically the same as that of the Modernism which appeared somewhat later in the Catholic Church. It disintegrates traditional beliefs in much the same way, and both can be seen as concurrent stages in the destruction of Christianity itself. St. Pius X remarked this in his encyclical Pascendi in 1907: historical Protestantism and Modernism, he says, are successive stages in the progress to Atheism.
Contemporary liberals (e.g., those who write in ex-Catholic Tablet) are apt to crow with delight over the notion that the Catholic religion has undergone a "mutation" in consequence of Vatican II—or rather, "the spirit of Vatican II," a spook which as often as not is made to contradict the letter of the Council. They fail to understand, it seems, that the Catholic religion is of such a nature that a "mutation"—i.e., a radical and permanent change—can only destroy it.
From these observations, and from many others which could be mentioned, there emerges the picture of a Church which is unrecognizable as the Church we were brought up in—rather like an ugly stepmother, all spots and wrinkles, in place of the Holy Mother Church we knew and loved in pre-conciliar days. It is not only the ecclesiology that is different; everything is different. The bogus "ecumenism" aims at ironing out the distinctions of true and false in religion, so that Catholic doctrine goes into the melting pot with everything else. The Council of Trent and the Counter-Reformation are dismissed as no longer "relevant" to the "adult man" of the twentieth century. Christ's hierarchical Kingdom of God, transcending space and time, must now give place to the "People of God," this-worldly, democratic, liberal and egalitarian. The ministerial priesthood must no longer be distinguished from the common priesthood of the faithful, and the Pope must forego his supreme and paternal authority and resign himself to being a mere primus inter pares, the spokesman of the bishops, whose claim to "collegiality" implies that it is for them to decide all questions in committee, by a majority of votes.
With doctrine thus being whittled away for the sake of specious agreement with heterodox bodies, and with the supreme authority being put into commission, the prospect before the Conciliar Church becomes bleakly Protestant, and ultimately non-Christian. A further catastrophic development is that the Neo-Modernists, unlike the earlier breed, have now scrapped the Ten Commandments, done away with moral absolutes and the notion of sin as an offence against God, and reduced morality to the "situation ethics" of secular humanism, where literally everything is permitted as long as one thinks it meets one's needs of the moment or develops one's "personality."
Now that sin has been swept under the carpet, those two bastions of Catholic spirituality, confession and penance, are of course found to be superfluous. The deserted confessionals are being removed from the churches, and the sacrament, when it is used, tends to become a sort of psychiatric session. As for the laws of fasting and abstinence, they are virtually abolished. Before the Council about a hundred days of the year were affected by fasting or abstinence or both. Since then a series of wholesale swipes has reduced them to a derisory two days in the year! Another concession to Protestantism, which from its earliest days has despised these weapons of the spirit.
This progressive ideology has of course taken over the Catholic schools, seminaries and universities, and bought up the Catholic press: all these institutions are falling, or have already fallen, into the "ex-Catholic" category. Even the expensive schools run by the religious orders themselves have joined the Modernist bandwagon. Many faithful Catholics have found themselves obliged to take their children away from "Catholic" schools in order to save their faith. As for the others, the present hapless generation of children will, for the most part apparently, become a write-off. The only hope of a genuinely Catholic education lies now in new foundations, at the cost of much sacrifice and struggle for the faithful remnant. A grace-selected remnant there will certainly be, for the continuance of the Church, but the majority of our once-Catholic population, those who will not bestir themselves to resist and protest against what has been done to them, finding it easier to swim with the post-conciliar stream, are becoming daily and visibly more and more assimilated in manners, morals and beliefs to their Protestant neighbors, and will soon be indistinguishable from them. "Ecumenism" will then have attained its goal, not by a return of the separated brethren to the one true fold, but by a massive apostasy from that fold, led by its own shepherds—a massive sell-out of Catholic truth.
A fearful example of this sell-out may be seen in the "pastoral" councils and congresses of recent years—an updated kind of "robber councils" of lay persons and clerics, approved and attended by the national hierarchies for the furtherance of "renewal" or revolution. Among the most notorious have been those of Holland and America (the Detroit "Call to Action"), and (in 1980) Liverpool. At this latest festival of loquacity and pop-theology the participants (hand-picked Modernists, of course) called for the scrapping among other things, of considerable portions of the moral law (God's eternal law). At the end of it all, the bishops got up and effusively thanked and congratulated the pastoral freebooters. If anyone cares to remember this conciliabulum, it may well go down in history as the Latrocinium Liverpolitanum.3
What shall we call the multitudes of ex-Catholic shepherds and their sheep who have either defected or drifted into a new religion? Perhaps we might call them "Roman Protestants." We older Catholics did not like being called Roman Catholics, for we did not admit that there was any other kind of Catholics. But there are various kinds of Romans, and many kinds of Protestants; and Rome is now the headquarters, not only of the Catholic Church, but of the Modernist Mafia which has invaded and subjected it. At the English College in Rome, that venerable nursery of episcopabiles, we got occasional pep-talks on the cardinal virtue of romanita (Romishness). That was in the nineteen-twenties, when Rome was the citadel of orthodoxy, and we saw nothing incongruous in such a virtue. Things are very different in the Deutero-Vatican era, and I often wonder whether my contemporaries and epigoni, mitred or otherwise, might not have done well to dilute their romanita with a much stiffer dose of cattolicita. It might have saved some of them from ending up as Roman Protestants.
When obedience to the constant tradition of the Church is so clearly in conflict with obedience to certain office-holders who have departed from that tradition, we rank-and-file Catholics must use our common sense and opt for the superior obedience. The simple faithful have always done this in times of epidemic heresy. Such crises are happily very rare. The gravest in the Church's past history was the Arian crisis of the fourth century, when, as St. Jerome expressed it, "the whole world groaned in astonishment to find itself Arian"; or, as Newman puts it, "there was a temporary suspense of the functions of the 'ecclesia docens'." We are living in such a crisis now, that of the Modernist Reformation. The Church was drugged for a major "mutation" in the nineteen-sixties, and is now gradually coming round to find itself Liberal-Protestant. It is in this situation that faithful Catholics are finding themselves faced with the stark alternative of becoming either recusants or renegades.
Sixteen hundred years ago, when the bulk of the hierarchy had strayed from the faith of Nicaea and even the Pope faltered for a time, St. Athanasius headed the faithful few who stood out for Catholic truth against a world in the grip of heresy. He had much to suffer, and was even excommunicated, but eventually his cause prevailed and the faith was saved. In our day likewise, amid the ceaseless babble of post-conciliar Newspeak, one episcopal voice has been heard to observe, in plain French, that one religion is not as good as another, that faith and morals are not variable with times and circumstances, and (with regard to "renewal") that the emperor has no clothes! For the audacity of these views, and for his fidelity to Catholic tradition, he is denounced and persecuted by the liberal establishment, but will not recant. His witness and his work continues, and the day will come when a restored Church will bless his name. Once again, magna est veritas et praevalebit.
O GOD, Who settest straight what has gone astray, and gatherest together what is scattered and keepest what Thou has gathered together, we beseech Thee in Thy mercy to pour down on Christian people the grace of union with Thee, that putting aside disunion and attaching themselves to the true shepherd of Thy Church they may be able to render Thee due service. Through our Lord. - Prayer from the Mass for the Healing of Schism
1. Part I, Cranmer's Godly Order; Part II, Pope John's Council; Part III, Pope Paul's New Mass; available for $20.00 postpaid, from The Angelus Press, Box 1187, Dickinson, TX 77539.
2. What has been believed always, everywhere, and by all.
3. "The Robber Council of Liverpool."
[Emphasis - The Catacombs]
|
|
|
|
| Fr. Peter Scott [2003]: Why is there so little unity among traditional groups? |
|
Posted by: Stone - 03-06-2021, 10:06 AM - Forum: Q&A: Catholic Answers to a Catholic Crisis
- No Replies
|
|
From the SSPX Archives - Catholic FAQs [2003]
Why is there so little unity among traditional groups?
Answered by Fr. Peter Scott
I can understand why you are scandalized by the division in the traditional movement. Many others have also been scandalized, until they realize that unity is impossible without a strong hierarchy to enforce it and insist upon it. There will only be true unity when we have once more a strong pope, backed up by docile bishops.
It is a part of the diversity of the Church that there be different groups, organizations, religious orders and activities to defend different aspects of Catholic Tradition. They complement one another, and should retain their specific differences in order to do their best for Holy Mother Church. This is in no way opposed to the unity of the Faith, which binds us all together. Thus in Tradition there are diverse orders of teaching sisters; there are active orders such as the Society of St. Pius X; and there are contemplatives, such as the Benedictines, Dominicans, Capuchins and Redemptorists. They all have a different role to play in the Church. There is also a place for lay organizations, and specific apostolates such as Fr. Gruner’s to promote devotion to Our Lady of Fatima. Despite their different methods and emphasis, all these organizations share a profound unity. However, there are some groups that cannot be considered a part of this unity. These are the sedevacantists and the communities (e.g., St. Peter’s, St. John’s, Institute of Christ the King, etc.) which accept the orthodoxy of the New Mass and Vatican II and which celebrate the Indult. Such are outside the moral unity of the traditional movement.
[NB: Bishop Fellay, as Superior General of the SSPX, formally accepted the "orthodoxy of the New Mass and Vatican II..." by his signing of the 2012 Doctrinal Declaration.]
Clearly it is imperative that all these truly Catholic orders, organizations and apostolates work together. It seems clear that this profound unity can be found in all of those which are officially affiliated with the work of the Society of St. Pius X. It is when a group or activity refuses such an affiliation that it becomes forced either into a compromise with liberalism or into the excesses of rigorism.
[Emphasis mine.]
|
|
|
|
| Fr. Peter Scott Answers: Is it true to say that now there is a "conciliar" Church? |
|
Posted by: Stone - 03-06-2021, 09:46 AM - Forum: Q&A: Catholic Answers to a Catholic Crisis
- No Replies
|
|
Is it true to say that now there is a "conciliar" Church?
Answered by Fr. Peter Scott
The term "conciliar" is an adjective that has long been used to describe those things that relate to the Second Vatican Council, such as the documents, commissions, or novel teachings such as Religious Liberty and Ecumenism. The question raises the objection as to whether this adjective can be used to describe the Catholic Church after the Second Vatican Council.
In order to respond to the question a clear distinction has to be made. If by the term "church" is understood the visible, hierarchical structure, founded upon the rock of St. Peter, then clearly there can only be one Church, the Catholic Church. If we were to call the Catholic Church after Vatican II "conciliar" in this sense, then we would claim that it is no longer Catholic at all, but instead a separate visible, hierarchical structure. However, this is manifestly false, both because the adepts of Vatican II have hijacked the visible hierarchical structure of the Catholic Church, and because they profess publicly to be Catholics.
However, there is another sense in which the term "conciliar" can rightly be applied to the majority of persons who profess to be Catholic, as well as to their ideas and opinions, profoundly influenced as they are by the Second Vatican Council.In this sense "conciliar" refers to the persons who have embraced and who promote the novelties of Vatican II, as well as to the novelties themselves. There are varying degrees of influence of the modern errors, from liberal Catholicism through rash opposition to Tradition to outright apostasy. The term conciliar or post-conciliar can consequently be applied to the modernist church, not as it is a canonical institution, but inasmuch and to the degree that it promotes the revolutionary errors of Vatican II.
Archbishop Lefebvre understood this reality very clearly, and the grave danger brought about by the infiltration of all these modernist principles within the very bosom of the Catholic Church. He had this to say of Rome in 1974, in his famous declaration of November 21:
Quote:We hold fast, with all our heart and with all our soul, to Catholic Rome, Guardian of the Catholic Faith and of the traditions necessary to preserve this Faith, to Eternal Rome, Mistress of wisdom and truth.
We refuse, on the other hand, and have always refused to follow the Rome of neo-Modernist and neo-Protestant tendencies which were clearly evident in the Second Vatican Council and, after the Council, in all the reforms which issued from it.
In his book Spiritual Journey, Archbishop Lefebvre explained how the end result of this Conciliar Church is to separate its members little by little from the true Catholic Church established by Our Lord. By this he means that its revolutionary principles of freedom at all cost separate the clergy and faithful little by little from Tradition and produce indifferentism for all religions, eventually destroying the Catholic faith in the one true Church, and bringing about a generalized apostasy, even of those persons who outwardly appear to still be members of the Catholic Church.
Quote:Certainly, the Church itself guards its sanctity and its sources of sanctification, but the control of its institutions by unfaithful popes and apostate bishops ruins the faith of the faithful and the clergy, sterilizes the instruments of grace, and favors the assault of all the powers of Hell which seem to triumph. This apostasy makes its members adulterers, schismatics opposed to all Tradition, separated from the past of the Church, and thus separated from the Church of today, in the measure that it remains faithful to the Church of Our Lord. [p.54]
[Emphasis mine.]
|
|
|
|
| Fr. Peter Scott: Is the Novus Ordo Mass invalid, or sacrilegious, and should I assist at it? |
|
Posted by: Stone - 03-06-2021, 09:24 AM - Forum: Q&A: Catholic Answers to a Catholic Crisis
- No Replies
|
|
From the SSPX Archives - Catholic FAQs [2003]:
Is the Novus Ordo Mass invalid, or sacrilegious, and should I assist at it when I have no alternative?
Answered by Fr. Peter Scott
The validity of the reformed rite of Mass, as issued in Latin by Paul VI in 1969, must be judged according to the same criteria as the validity of the other sacraments; namely matter, form and intention. The defective theology and meaning of the rites, eliminating as they do every reference to the principal propitiatory end of sacrifice, do not necessarily invalidate the Mass. The intention of doing what the Church does, even if the priest understands it imperfectly, is sufficient for validity. With respect to the matter, pure wheaten bread and true wine from grapes are what is required for validity. The changes in the words of the form in the Latin original, although certainly illicit and unprecedented in the history of the Church, do not alter the substance of its meaning, and consequently do not invalidate the Mass.
However, we all know that such a New Mass celebrated in Latin is an oddity, doomed to extinction by the very fact of the reform. The validity of the New Masses that are actually celebrated in today’s parishes more than 30 years later is a quite different question. Additives to the host sometimes invalidate the matter. The change in the translation from the words of Our Lord, "for many" to the ecumenically acceptable "for all" throws at least some doubt on the validity of the form. Most importantly, however, is the fact that the intention of the Church of offering up a true sacrifice in propitiation for the sins of the living and the dead has been obliterated for 30 years. In fact, most liturgies present the contrary intention of a celebration by the community of the praise of God. In such circumstances it is very easy for a priest to no longer have the intention of doing what the Church does, and for the New Mass to become invalid for this reason. The problem is that this is hidden and nobody knows. Whereas the traditional Mass expresses the true intention of the Church in a clear and unambiguous manner, so that everyone can be certain of the priest’s intention, the New Mass does no such thing. Consequently, the doubt of invalidity for lack of intention, especially in the case of manifestly modernist priests, cannot be easily lifted or removed.
Clearly, an invalid Mass is not a Mass at all, and does not satisfy the Sunday obligation. Furthermore, when it comes to the sacraments, Catholics are obliged to follow the "pars tutior," the safer path. It is not permissible to knowingly receive doubtful sacraments. Consequently nobody has the obligation to satisfy his Sunday obligation by attending the New Mass, even if there is no other alternative.
However, even if we could be certain of the validity of the Novus Ordo Masses celebrated in today’s Conciliar churches, it does not follow that they are pleasing to God. Much to the contrary, they are objectively sacrilegious, even if those who assist at them are not aware of it. By such a statement, I do not mean that all those who celebrate or assist at the New Mass are necessarily in mortal sin, having done something directly insulting to Almighty God and to our Divine Savior.
Sacrilege is a sin against the virtue of religion, and is defined as "the unbecoming treatment of a sacred person, place or thing as far as these are consecrated to God" (Jone, Moral Theology, p.108). The moral theologians explain that sacrilege is in itself and generally a mortal sin (ex genere suo), but that it is not always a mortal sin, because it can concern a relatively small or unimportant thing. Here we are speaking of a real sacrilege, the dishonoring of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, by the elimination of the prayers and ceremonies that protect its holiness, by the absence of respect, piety and adoration, and by the failure to express the Catholic doctrine of the Mass as a true propitiatory sacrifice for our sins. Here there are varying degrees. Just as it is a grave sacrilege and objective mortal sin for a lay person to touch the sacred host without reason, so it is, for example, a venial sin to do the same thing to the chalice or the blessed linens, such as the purificator or pall.
Likewise with the New Mass. It can be an objectively mortal sin of sacrilege if Holy Communion is distributed in the hand or by lay ministers, if there is no respect, if there is talking or dancing in church, or if it includes some kind of ecumenical celebration, etc. It can also be an objectively venial sin of sacrilege if it is celebrated with unusual respect and devotion, so that it appears becoming and reverential to Almighty God. This in virtue of the omissions in the rites and ceremonies, which constitute a true disrespect to Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament and to the Blessed Trinity, and of the failure to express the true nature of what the Mass really is. In each case, the subjective culpability is an altogether other question that God only can judge.
However, regardless of the gravity of the sacrilege, the New Mass still remains a sacrilege, and it is still in itself sinful. Furthermore, it is never permitted to knowingly and willingly participate in an evil or sinful thing, even if it is only venially sinful. For the end does not justify the means. Consequently, although it is a good thing to want to assist at Mass and satisfy one’s Sunday obligation, it is never permitted to use a sinful means to do this. To assist at the New Mass, for a person who is aware of the objective sacrilege involved, is consequently at least a venial sin. It is opportunism. Consequently, it is not permissible for a traditional Catholic, who understands that the New Mass is insulting to Our Divine Savior, to assist at the New Mass, and this even if there is no danger of scandal to others or of the perversion of one’s own Faith (as in an older person, for example), and even if it is the only Mass available.
[Emphasis mine.]
|
|
|
|
| The Passion of the Holy Martyrs Perpetua and Felicity |
|
Posted by: Stone - 03-06-2021, 09:00 AM - Forum: The Saints
- No Replies
|
|
Fathers of the Church > The Passion of Perpetua and Felicity (Tertullian)
The Passion of the Holy Martyrs Perpetua and Felicity
![[Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.pinimg.com%2F236x%2F4...f=1&nofb=1]](https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.pinimg.com%2F236x%2F46%2F22%2F73%2F4622732024ac67e921aa808bb7f15458--catholic-saints-roman-catholic.jpg&f=1&nofb=1)
Preface
If ancient illustrations of faith which both testify to God's grace and tend to man's edification are collected in writing, so that by the perusal of them, as if by the reproduction of the facts, as well God may be honoured, as man may be strengthened; why should not new instances be also collected, that shall be equally suitable for both purposes — if only on the ground that these modern examples will one day become ancient and available for posterity, although in their present time they are esteemed of less authority, by reason of the presumed veneration for antiquity? But let men look to it, if they judge the power of the Holy Spirit to be one, according to the times and seasons; since some things of later date must be esteemed of more account as being nearer to the very last times, in accordance with the exuberance of grace manifested to the final periods determined for the world. For in the last days, says the Lord, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh; and their sons and their daughters shall prophesy. And upon my servants and my handmaidens will I pour out of my Spirit; and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams. And thus we — who both acknowledge and reverence, even as we do the prophecies, modern visions as equally promised to us, and consider the other powers of the Holy Spirit as an agency of the Church for which also He was sent, administering all gifts in all, even as the Lord distributed to every one as well needfully collect them in writing, as commemorate them in reading to God's glory; that so no weakness or despondency of faith may suppose that the divine grace abode only among the ancients, whether in respect of the condescension that raised up martyrs, or that gave revelations; since God always carries into effect what He has promised, for a testimony to unbelievers, to believers for a benefit. And we therefore, what we have heard and handled, declare also to you, brethren and little children, that as well you who were concerned in these matters may be reminded of them again to the glory of the Lord, as that you who know them by report may have communion with the blessed martyrs, and through them with the Lord Jesus Christ, to whom be glory and honour, for ever and ever. Amen.
Chapter 1. Argument.— When the Saints Were Apprehended, St. Perpetua Successfully Resisted Her Father's Pleading, Was Baptized with the Others, Was Thrust into a Filthy Dungeon. Anxious About Her Infant, by a Vision Granted to Her, She Understood that Her Martyrdom Would Take Place Very Shortly
1. The young catechumens, Revocatus and his fellow-servant Felicitas, Saturninus and Secundulus, were apprehended. And among them also was Vivia Perpetua, respectably born, liberally educated, a married matron, having a father and mother and two brothers, one of whom, like herself, was a catechumen, and a son an infant at the breast. She herself was about twenty-two years of age. From this point onward she shall herself narrate the whole course of her martyrdom, as she left it described by her own hand and with her own mind.
2. While says she, we were still with the persecutors, and my father, for the sake of his affection for me, was persisting in seeking to turn me away, and to cast me down from the faith —'Father,' said I, 'do you see, let us say, this vessel lying here to be a little pitcher, or something else?' And he said, 'I see it to be so.' And I replied to him, 'Can it be called by any other name than what it is?' And he said, 'No.' 'Neither can I call myself anything else than what I am, a Christian.' Then my father, provoked at this saying, threw himself upon me, as if he would tear my eyes out. But he only distressed me, and went away overcome by the devil's arguments. Then, in a few days after I had been without my father, I gave thanks to the Lord; and his absence became a source of consolation to me. In that same interval of a few days we were baptized, and to me the Spirit prescribed that in the water of baptism nothing else was to be sought for bodily endurance. After a few days we are taken into the dungeon, and I was very much afraid, because I had never felt such darkness. O terrible day! O the fierce heat of the shock of the soldiery, because of the crowds! I was very unusually distressed by my anxiety for my infant. There were present there Tertius and Pomponius, the blessed deacons who ministered to us, and had arranged by means of a gratuity that we might be refreshed by being sent out for a few hours into a pleasanter part of the prison. Then going out of the dungeon, all attended to their own wants. I suckled my child, which was now enfeebled with hunger. In my anxiety for it, I addressed my mother and comforted my brother, and commended to their care my son. I was languishing because I had seen them languishing on my account. Such solicitude I suffered for many days, and I obtained for my infant to remain in the dungeon with me; and immediately I grew strong and was relieved from distress and anxiety about my infant; and the dungeon became to me as it were a palace, so that I preferred being there to being elsewhere.
3. Then my brother said to me, 'My dear sister, you are already in a position of great dignity, and are such that you may ask for a vision, and that it may be made known to you whether this is to result in a passion or an escape.' And I, who knew that I was privileged to converse with the Lord, whose kindnesses I had found to be so great, boldly promised him, and said, 'Tomorrow I will tell you.' And I asked, and this was what was shown me. I saw a golden ladder of marvellous height, reaching up even to heaven, and very narrow, so that persons could only ascend it one by one; and on the sides of the ladder was fixed every kind of iron weapon. There were there swords, lances, hooks, daggers; so that if any one went up carelessly, or not looking upwards, he would be torn to pieces and his flesh would cleave to the iron weapons. And under the ladder itself was crouching a dragon of wonderful size, who lay in wait for those who ascended, and frightened them from the ascent. And Saturus went up first, who had subsequently delivered himself up freely on our account, not having been present at the time that we were taken prisoners. And he attained the top of the ladder, and turned towards me, and said to me, 'Perpetua, I am waiting for you; but be careful that the dragon do not bite you.' And I said, 'In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, he shall not hurt me.' And from under the ladder itself, as if in fear of me, he slowly lifted up his head; and as I trod upon the first step, I trod upon his head. And I went up, and I saw an immense extent of garden, and in the midst of the garden a white-haired man sitting in the dress of a shepherd, of a large stature, milking sheep; and standing around were many thousand white-robed ones. And he raised his head, and looked upon me, and said to me, 'You are welcome, daughter.' And he called me, and from the cheese as he was milking he gave me as it were a little cake, and I received it with folded hands; and I ate it, and all who stood around said Amen. And at the sound of their voices I was awakened, still tasting a sweetness which I cannot describe. And I immediately related this to my brother, and we understood that it was to be a passion, and we ceased henceforth to have any hope in this world.
Chapter 2. Argument. Perpetua, When Besieged by Her Father, Comforts Him. When Led with Others to the Tribunal, She Avows Herself a Christian, and is Condemned with the Rest to the Wild Beasts. She Prays for Her Brother Dinocrates, Who Was Dead
1. After a few days there prevailed a report that we should be heard. And then my father came to me from the city, worn out with anxiety. He came up to me, that he might cast me down, saying, 'Have pity my daughter, on my grey hairs. Have pity on your father, if I am worthy to be called a father by you. If with these hands I have brought you up to this flower of your age, if I have preferred you to all your brothers, do not deliver me up to the scorn of men. Have regard to your brothers, have regard to your mother and your aunt, have regard to your son, who will not be able to live after you. Lay aside your courage, and do not bring us all to destruction; for none of us will speak in freedom if you should suffer anything.' These things said my father in his affection, kissing my hands, and throwing himself at my feet; and with tears he called me not Daughter, but Lady. And I grieved over the grey hairs of my father, that he alone of all my family would not rejoice over my passion. And I comforted him, saying, 'On that scaffold whatever God wills shall happen. For know that we are not placed in our own power, but in that of God.' And he departed from me in sorrow.
2. Another day, while we were at dinner, we were suddenly taken away to be heard, and we arrived at the town-hall. At once the rumour spread through the neighbourhood of the public place, and an immense number of people were gathered together. We mount the platform. The rest were interrogated, and confessed. Then they came to me, and my father immediately appeared with my boy, and withdrew me from the step, and said in a supplicating tone, 'Have pity on your babe.' And Hilarianus the procurator, who had just received the power of life and death in the place of the proconsul Minucius Timinianus, who was deceased, said, 'Spare the grey hairs of your father, spare the infancy of your boy, offer sacrifice for the well-being of the emperors.' And I replied, 'I will not do so.' Hilarianus said, 'Are you a Christian?' And I replied, 'I am a Christian.' And as my father stood there to cast me down from the faith, he was ordered by Hilarianus to be thrown down, and was beaten with rods. And my father's misfortune grieved me as if I myself had been beaten, I so grieved for his wretched old age. The procurator then delivers judgment on all of us, and condemns us to the wild beasts, and we went down cheerfully to the dungeon. Then, because my child had been used to receive suck from me, and to stay with me in the prison, I send Pomponius the deacon to my father to ask for the infant, but my father would not give it him. And even as God willed it, the child no long desired the breast, nor did my breast cause me uneasiness, lest I should be tormented by care for my babe and by the pain of my breasts at once.
3. After a few days, while we were all praying, on a sudden, in the middle of our prayer, there came to me a word, and I named Dinocrates; and I was amazed that that name had never come into my mind until then, and I was grieved as I remembered his misfortune. And I felt myself immediately to be worthy, and to be called on to ask on his behalf. And for him I began earnestly to make supplication, and to cry with groaning to the Lord. Without delay, on that very night, this was shown to me in a vision. I saw Dinocrates going out from a gloomy place, where also there were several others, and he was parched and very thirsty, with a filthy countenance and pallid color, and the wound on his face which he had when he died. This Dinocrates had been my brother after the flesh, seven years of age, who died miserably with disease — his face being so eaten out with cancer, that his death caused repugnance to all men. For him I had made my prayer, and between him and me there was a large interval, so that neither of us could approach to the other. And moreover, in the same place where Dinocrates was, there was a pool full of water, having its brink higher than was the stature of the boy; and Dinocrates raised himself up as if to drink. And I was grieved that, although that pool held water, still, on account of the height to its brink, he could not drink. And I was upset, and knew that my brother was in suffering. But I trusted that my prayer would bring help to his suffering; and I prayed for him every day until we passed over into the prison of the camp, for we were to fight in the camp-show. Then was the birthday of Geta Cæsar, and I made my prayer for my brother day and night, groaning and weeping that he might be granted to me.
4. Then, on the day on which we remained in fetters, this was shown to me. I saw that that place which I had formerly observed to be in gloom was now bright; and Dinocrates, with a clean body well clad, was finding refreshment. And where there had been a wound, I saw a scar; and that pool which I had before seen, I saw now with its margin lowered even to the boy's navel. And one drew water from the pool incessantly, and upon its brink was a goblet filled with water; and Dinocrates drew near and began to drink from it, and the goblet did not fail. And when he was satisfied, he went away from the water to play joyously, after the manner of children, and I awoke. Then I understood that he was translated from the place of punishment.
Chapter 3. Argument. Perpetua is Again Tempted by Her Father. Her Third Vision, Wherein She is Led Away to Struggle Against an Egyptian. She Fights, Conquers, and Receives the Reward
1. Again, after a few days, Pudens, a soldier, an assistant overseer of the prison, who began to regard us in great esteem, perceiving that the great power of God was in us, admitted many brethren to see us, that both we and they might be mutually refreshed. And when the day of the exhibition drew near, my father, worn with suffering, came in to me, and began to tear out his beard, and to throw himself on the earth, and to cast himself down on his face, and to reproach his years, and to utter such words as might move all creation. I grieved for his unhappy old age.
2. The day before that on which we were to fight, I saw in a vision that Pomponius the deacon came hither to the gate of the prison, and knocked vehemently. I went out to him, and opened the gate for him; and he was clothed in a richly ornamented white robe, and he had on manifold calliculæ. And he said to me, 'Perpetua, we are waiting for you; come!' And he held his hand to me, and we began to go through rough and winding places. Scarcely at length had we arrived breathless at the amphitheatre, when he led me into the middle of the arena, and said to me, 'Do not fear, I am here with you, and I am labouring with you;' and he departed. And I gazed upon an immense assembly in astonishment. And because I knew that I was given to the wild beasts, I marvelled that the wild beasts were not let loose upon me. Then there came forth against me a certain Egyptian, horrible in appearance, with his backers, to fight with me. And there came to me, as my helpers and encouragers, handsome youths; and I was stripped, and became a man. Then my helpers began to rub me with oil, as is the custom for contest; and I beheld that Egyptian on the other hand rolling in the dust. And a certain man came forth, of wondrous height, so that he even over-topped the top of the amphitheatre; and he wore a loose tunic and a purple robe between two bands over the middle of the breast; and he had on calliculæ of varied form, made of gold and silver; and he carried a rod, as if he were a trainer of gladiators, and a green branch upon which were apples of gold. And he called for silence, and said, 'This Egyptian, if he should overcome this woman, shall kill her with the sword; and if she shall conquer him, she shall receive this branch.' Then he departed. And we drew near to one another, and began to deal out blows. He sought to lay hold of my feet, while I struck at his face with my heels; and I was lifted up in the air, and began thus to thrust at him as if spurning the earth. But when I saw that there was some delay I joined my hands so as to twine my fingers with one another; and I took hold upon his head, and he fell on his face, and I trod upon his head. And the people began to shout, and my backers to exult. And I drew near to the trainer and took the branch; and he kissed me, and said to me, 'Daughter, peace be with you:' and I began to go gloriously to the Sanavivarian gate. Then I awoke, and perceived that I was not to fight with beasts, but against the devil. Still I knew that the victory was awaiting me. This, so far, I have completed several days before the exhibition; but what passed at the exhibition itself let who will write.
Chapter 4. Argument. Saturus, in a Vision, and Perpetua Being Carried by Angels into the Great Light, Behold the Martyrs. Being Brought to the Throne of God, are Received with a Kiss. They Reconcile Optatus the Bishop and Aspasius the Presbyter
1. Moreover, also, the blessed Saturus related this his vision, which he himself committed to writing:— We had suffered, says he, and we had gone forth from the flesh, and we were beginning to be borne by four angels into the east; and their hands touched us not. And we floated not supine, looking upwards, but as if ascending a gentle slope. And being set free, we at length saw the first boundless light; and I said, 'Perpetua' (for she was at my side), 'this is what the Lord promised to us; we have received the promise.' And while we are borne by those same four angels, there appears to us a vast space which was like a pleasure-garden, having rose-trees and every kind of flower. And the height of the trees was after the measure of a cypress, and their leaves were falling incessantly. Moreover, there in the pleasure-garden four other angels appeared, brighter than the previous ones, who, when they saw us, gave us honour, and said to the rest of the angels, 'Here they are! Here they are!' with admiration. And those four angels who bore us, being greatly afraid, put us down; and we passed over on foot the space of a furlong in a broad path. There we found Jocundus and Saturninus and Artaxius, who having suffered the same persecution were burnt alive; and Quintus, who also himself a martyr had departed in the prison. And we asked of them where the rest were. And the angels said to us, 'Come first, enter and greet your Lord.'
2. And we came near to place, the walls of which were such as if they were built of light; and before the gate of that place stood four angels, who clothed those who entered with white robes. And being clothed, we entered and saw the boundless light, and heard the united voice of some who said without ceasing, 'Holy! Holy! Holy!' And in the midst of that place we saw as it were an old man sitting, having snow-white hair, and with a youthful countenance; and his feet we saw not. And on his right hand and on his left were four-and-twenty elders, and behind them a great many others were standing. We entered with great wonder, and stood before the throne; and the four angels raised us up, and we kissed Him, and He passed His hand over our face. And the rest of the elders said to us, 'Let us stand;' and we stood and made peace. And the elders said to us, 'Go and enjoy.' And I said, 'Perpetua, you have what you wish.' And she said to me, 'Thanks be to God, that joyous as I was in the flesh, I am now more joyous here.'
3. And we went forth, and saw before the entrance Optatus the bishop at the right hand, and Aspasius the presbyter, a teacher, at the left hand, separate and sad; and they cast themselves at our feet, and said to us, 'Restore peace between us, because you have gone forth and have left us thus.' And we said to them, 'Are you not our father, and you our presbyter, that you should cast yourselves at our feet?' And we prostrated ourselves, and we embraced them; and Perpetua began to speak with them, and we drew them apart in the pleasure-garden under a rose-tree. And while we were speaking with them, the angels said to them, 'Let them alone, that they may refresh themselves; and if you have any dissensions between you, forgive one another.' And they drove them away. And they said to Optatus, 'Rebuke your people, because they assemble to you as if returning from the circus, and contending about factious matters.' And then it seemed to us as if they would shut the doors. And in that place we began to recognise many brethren, and moreover martyrs. We were all nourished with an indescribable odour, which satisfied us. Then, I joyously awoke.
Chapter 5. Argument. Secundulus Dies in the Prison. Felicitas is Pregnant, But with Many Prayers She Brings Forth in the Eighth Month Without Suffering, the Courage of Perpetua and of Saturus Unbroken
1. The above were the more eminent visions of the blessed martyrs Saturus and Perpetua themselves, which they themselves committed to writing. But God called Secundulus, while he has yet in the prison, by an earlier exit from the world, not without favour, so as to give a respite to the beasts. Nevertheless, even if his soul did not acknowledge cause for thankfulness, assuredly his flesh did.
2. But respecting Felicitas (for to her also the Lord's favour approached in the same way), when she had already gone eight months with child (for she had been pregnant when she was apprehended), as the day of the exhibition was drawing near, she was in great grief lest on account of her pregnancy she should be delayed — because pregnant women are not allowed to be publicly punished — and lest she should shed her sacred and guiltless blood among some who had been wicked subsequently. Moreover, also, her fellow martyrs were painfully saddened lest they should leave so excellent a friend, and as it were companion, alone in the path of the same hope. Therefore, joining together their united cry, they poured forth their prayer to the Lord three days before the exhibition. Immediately after their prayer her pains came upon her, and when, with the difficulty natural to an eight months' delivery, in the labour of bringing forth she was sorrowing, some one of the servants of the Cataractarii said to her, You who are in such suffering now, what will you do when you are thrown to the beasts, which you despised when you refused to sacrifice? And she replied, Now it is I that suffer what I suffer; but then there will be another in me, who will suffer for me, because I also am about to suffer for Him. Thus she brought forth a little girl, which a certain sister brought up as her daughter.
3. Since then the Holy Spirit permitted, and by permitting willed, that the proceedings of that exhibition should be committed to writing, although we are unworthy to complete the description of so great a glory; yet we obey as it were the command of the most blessed Perpetua, nay her sacred trust, and add one more testimony concerning her constancy and her loftiness of mind. While they were treated with more severity by the tribune, because, from the intimations of certain deceitful men, he feared lest they should be withdrawn from the prison by some sort of magic incantations, Perpetua answered to his face, and said, Why do you not at least permit us to be refreshed, being as we are objectionable to the most noble Cæsar, and having to fight on his birth-day? Or is it not your glory if we are brought forward fatter on that occasion? The tribune shuddered and blushed, and commanded that they should be kept with more humanity, so that permission was given to their brethren and others to go in and be refreshed with them; even the keeper of the prison trusting them now himself.
4. Moreover, on the day before, when in that last meal, which they call the free meal, they were partaking as far as they could, not of a free supper, but of an agape; with the same firmness they were uttering such words as these to the people, denouncing against them the judgment of the Lord, bearing witness to the felicity of their passion, laughing at the curiosity of the people who came together; while Saturus said, Tomorrow is not enough for you, for you to behold with pleasure that which you hate. Friends today, enemies tomorrow. Yet note our faces diligently, that you may recognise them on that day of judgment. Thus all departed thence astonished, and from these things many believed.
Chapter 6. Argument. From the Prison They are Led Forth with Joy into the Amphitheatre, Especially Perpetua and Felicitas. All Refuse to Put on Profane Garments. They are Scourged, They are Thrown to the Wild Beasts. Saturus Twice is Unhurt. Perpetua and Felicitas are Thrown Down; They are Called Back to the Sanavivarian Gate. Saturus Wounded by a Leopard, Exhorts the Soldier. They Kiss One Another, and are Slain with the Sword
1. The day of their victory shone forth, and they proceeded from the prison into the amphitheatre, as if to an assembly, joyous and of brilliant countenances; if perchance shrinking, it was with joy, and not with fear. Perpetua followed with placid look, and with step and gait as a matron of Christ, beloved of God; casting down the luster of her eyes from the gaze of all. Moreover, Felicitas, rejoicing that she had safely brought forth, so that she might fight with the wild beasts; from the blood and from the midwife to the gladiator, to wash after childbirth with a second baptism. And when they were brought to the gate, and were constrained to put on the clothing — the men, that of the priests of Saturn, and the women, that of those who were consecrated to Ceres — that noble-minded woman resisted even to the end with constancy. For she said, We have come thus far of our own accord, for this reason, that our liberty might not be restrained. For this reason we have yielded our minds, that we might not do any such thing as this: we have agreed on this with you. Injustice acknowledged the justice; the tribune yielded to their being brought as simply as they were. Perpetua sang psalms, already treading under foot the head of the Egyptian; Revocatus, and Saturninus, and Saturus uttered threatenings against the gazing people about this martyrdom. When they came within sight of Hilarianus, by gesture and nod, they began to say to Hilarianus, You judge us, say they, but God will judge you. At this the people, exasperated, demanded that they should be tormented with scourges as they passed along the rank of the venatores. And they indeed rejoiced that they should have incurred any one of their Lord's passions.
2. But He who had said, Ask, and you shall receive, John 16:24 gave to them when they asked, that death which each one had wished for. For when at any time they had been discoursing among themselves about their wish in respect of their martyrdom, Saturninus indeed had professed that he wished that he might be thrown to all the beasts; doubtless that he might wear a more glorious crown. Therefore in the beginning of the exhibition he and Revocatus made trial of the leopard, and moreover upon the scaffold they were harassed by the bear. Saturus, however, held nothing in greater abomination than a bear; but he imagined that he would be put an end to with one bite of a leopard. Therefore, when a wild boar was supplied, it was the huntsman rather who had supplied that boar who was gored by that same beast, and died the day after the shows. Saturus only was drawn out; and when he had been bound on the floor near to a bear, the bear would not come forth from his den. And so Saturus for the second time is recalled unhurt.
3. Moreover, for the young women the devil prepared a very fierce cow, provided especially for that purpose contrary to custom, rivalling their sex also in that of the beasts. And so, stripped and clothed with nets, they were led forth. The populace shuddered as they saw one young woman of delicate frame, and another with breasts still dropping from her recent childbirth. So, being recalled, they are unbound. Perpetua is first led in. She was tossed, and fell on her loins; and when she saw her tunic torn from her side, she drew it over her as a veil for her middle, rather mindful of her modesty than her suffering. Then she was called for again, and bound up her dishevelled hair; for it was not becoming for a martyr to suffer with dishevelled hair, lest she should appear to be mourning in her glory. So she rose up; and when she saw Felicitas crushed, she approached and gave her her hand, and lifted her up. And both of them stood together; and the brutality of the populace being appeased, they were recalled to the Sanavivarian gate. Then Perpetua was received by a certain one who was still a catechumen, Rusticus by name, who kept close to her; and she, as if aroused from sleep, so deeply had she been in the Spirit and in an ecstasy, began to look round her, and to say to the amazement of all, I cannot tell when we are to be led out to that cow. And when she had heard what had already happened, she did not believe it until she had perceived certain signs of injury in her body and in her dress, and had recognised the catechumen. Afterwards causing that catechumen and the brother to approach, she addressed them, saying, Stand fast in the faith, and love one another, all of you, and be not offended at my sufferings.
4. The same Saturus at the other entrance exhorted the soldier Pudens, saying, Assuredly here I am, as I have promised and foretold, for up to this moment I have felt no beast. And now believe with your whole heart. Lo, I am going forth to that beast, and I shall be destroyed with one bite of the leopard. And immediately at the conclusion of the exhibition he was thrown to the leopard; and with one bite of his he was bathed with such a quantity of blood, that the people shouted out to him as he was returning, the testimony of his second baptism, Saved and washed, saved and washed. Manifestly he was assuredly saved who had been glorified in such a spectacle. Then to the soldier Pudens he said, Farewell, and be mindful of my faith; and let not these things disturb, but confirm you. And at the same time he asked for a little ring from his finger, and returned it to him bathed in his wound, leaving to him an inherited token and the memory of his blood. And then lifeless he is cast down with the rest, to be slaughtered in the usual place. And when the populace called for them into the midst, that as the sword penetrated into their body they might make their eyes partners in the murder, they rose up of their own accord, and transferred themselves whither the people wished; but they first kissed one another, that they might consummate their martyrdom with the kiss of peace. The rest indeed, immoveable and in silence, received the sword-thrust; much more Saturus, who also had first ascended the ladder, and first gave up his spirit, for he also was waiting for Perpetua. But Perpetua, that she might taste some pain, being pierced between the ribs, cried out loudly, and she herself placed the wavering right hand of the youthful gladiator to her throat. Possibly such a woman could not have been slain unless she herself had willed it, because she was feared by the impure spirit.
O most brave and blessed martyrs! O truly called and chosen unto the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ! Whom whoever magnifies, and honours, and adores, assuredly ought to read these examples for the edification of the Church, not less than the ancient ones, so that new virtues also may testify that one and the same Holy Spirit is always operating even until now, and God the Father Omnipotent, and His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, whose is the glory and infinite power for ever and ever. Amen.
|
|
|
|
| Archbishop Viganò on Italy's New PM (Arrivederci, Catholic Italy) |
|
Posted by: Stone - 03-05-2021, 03:50 PM - Forum: Archbishop Viganò
- No Replies
|
|
Taken from The Remnant [March 4, 2021]
Viganò on Italy's New PM (Arrivederci, Catholic Italy)
Written by + Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop
Super aspidem et basiliscum ambulabis, et conculcabis leonem et draconem. (On the asp and the viper you will tread, And trample the lion and the dragon.) -Ps. 91:13
ET CONCULCABIS LEONEM ET DRACONEM
Up until the last century in Italy, free thinkers could spread ideas that were imbued with Masonic principles and rhetoric, because the social body was not liberal. They could stand in front of church on Sunday mornings and spread their lies, even while their own wives and children went to Mass, received catechism lessons, and were instructed by the Church and the State in the moral principles and shared values of honesty, the sense of duty, and love of country.
They could send millions of young lives to die in war in the name of ideals that were still tied to a world that was essentially Christian, even profoundly Catholic and Roman – the world in which our soldiers at the front recited the Rosary, prayed for their loved ones and for their beloved Italy, a land blessed by Providence, the cradle of civilization and the seat of the Papacy.
That was Italy then. Today, these liberal and Masonic principles, although denounced by the Popes and combated by Bishops, preachers, and theologians, have broken through into our society, especially after the Second World War and even more so after the fateful year of 1968.
We have thus found ourselves, through the inevitable change of generations, having an entire ruling class that was formed in the school of liberal thought, Masonic ideology, religious indifferentism, the secular nature of the State, and the consequent moral crisis of the Nation. Decades of indoctrination have cancelled out the Catholic inheritance of Italy, leading Italians to be ashamed of Italy’s glorious past and even to renounce two thousand years of Christianity in Italy.
It had to be a choice of progress, without favoring the truth at the expense of error, without recognizing the primacy of good over evil, without imposing laws and doctrines with force but rather promoting the application with a conscious choice; we now find ourselves to be a corrupt Nation, which approves concubinage and abortion, promotes sodomy and perversion, recognizes the right to commit crime and derides or even condemns honesty, righteousness, and virtue.
In the name of tolerance, we Italians were asked to grant legitimacy to evil, reassuring ourselves that in any case the good would not be hindered: today the State guarantees and protects evil and even outlaws the good. One may commit the most abominable crimes, like killing an innocent creature in the mother’s womb or the helpless elderly person and the terminally ill lying on their hospital bed, but it is prohibited to defend life, the family, and Religion.
On the other hand, the essence of liberalism – which, I repeat, is the political application of the principles of Masonry – lies precisely in progressively disarming the majority of the good, and at the same time in supporting and reinforcing the minority of the corrupt, under the pretext of an alleged and absurd equality of rights. And yet it should not be terribly difficult to understand that the very idea of equality is absurd, because it presupposes a flattening of all differences, a homologation of all diversity, which in fact ends with cancelling out that which vice-versa ought to make the social body – and thus logically the ecclesial body as well – efficient in all its members, diverse but harmoniously connected.
Pretending that a foot can see or that a hand can hear or reducing the functions of the organs to the lowest common denominator, is an absurd and wicked operation, just as it would be to expect that in a car the clutch could perform the function of the wheels or that the motor could do the work of the headlights. And yet in public affairs, those who are not constituted in authority are allowed to command, it is permitted to define as a family a union that by nature is destined to the sterility of vice, and the right to decide if a law is just is attributed not to those who have the wisdom and prudence to do so, but to those who place their own particular interests ahead of the common good. We end up adoring the golden calf, refusing to give exclusive worship to the living and true God. In this way democracy reveals its weakness, since it lays down as a postulate a belief in the innate goodness of the multitude, which instead is inclined to evil and sin and which needs to be guided by an authority that has transcendent values as its model.
This race towards the abyss has the very clear connotations of Nemesis,[1] the punishment of a hubris that knows no restraints, that challenges Heaven, which in the height of rebellion and chaos refuses any hierarchy and order impressed by the Creator and Lord of all things.
Only in this way can we understand the nefarious decisions of our rulers, from the management of the pandemic emergency to the indiscriminate welcoming of illegal immigrants; only in this way will we succeed in seeing the folly that unites various facts that are apparently unrelated into one single design.
Looking for some reasonableness in the words of the so-called expert who imposes masks to protect the population from an influenza virus—or in the order given by the authorities to close schools and restaurants while on public transportation citizens are forced to be crammed together—continues this madness, recognizing in these orders a rationality and logic it cannot have.
Just as it is absurd to dispute the alleged inevitability of the loans that Italy ought to request from the European Union, after the EU, using criminal methods worthy of the worst usurers, scientifically created the social and economic premises of the economic crisis.
It is just as absurd to ask why the treatments for Covid are boycotted in order to favor the so-called experimental vaccines that have been produced using aborted fetuses and whose long-term effects are still unknown, when it is obvious that the pandemic was planned with the aim of disproportionately enriching the pharmaceutical lobby on the one hand and imposing measures of control that would be otherwise unacceptable on the other.
But if this constructive and open attitude of ours could in some way be justified and excused up until a few years ago in the name of a partial comprehension of the global picture, today it risks degenerating into a sort of obtuse complicity, because the presumption of good faith on the part of our interlocutors has been amply disavowed. The recent events of the second crisis of the Conte government and the trust placed in the government of President Draghi are no exception, and if the general enthusiasm of the parties and even of the so-called opposition is not surprising, we are left disturbed by the consent of the victims to the appointment of an executioner far worse than the lawyer from Volturara Appula [the obscure village of origin of the former Italian prime minister Conte].
Indeed, it seems that the advent of the cynical technocrat was greeted with relief, after a year of thunderous proclamations and blatant failures of his predecessor and all of his grotesque array of unpresentables. If in fact there were those who up until yesterday deplored the terrible management of the pandemic by the DPCM [Decrees of the President of the Council of Ministers] with measures as illegitimate as they were devastating, today the efficiency in the pursuit of the same plan seems to represent an improvement, as if the one condemned to death rejoices that the blade of the executioner’s axe has been sharpened, while willingly lowering his head onto the block to receive the blow.
The Italian people, reduced to awe and servitude by the pounding of the media and an operation of mass manipulation, have been even more obedient than other apparently more disciplined Nations. While in our cities some politician recommends social distancing during timid protest demonstrations, in many European countries the citizens are spontaneously streaming into the squares and are facing the violent repression of the police.
While our “opposition” is scandalized by the inefficiency of Commissioner Arcuri in the distribution of the vaccines, in other countries groups of lawyers and doctors are denouncing the danger and are opposing the obligation to take the vaccine, obtaining a ban on the distribution of the vaccine from the same authorities. And if there are those who violate blatantly illegitimate rules out of exasperation, in Italy they are criticized as irresponsible by the very people who, if only for political calculation, ought to sit astride the revolt and demonstrate how absurd it is to close commercial activities in the absence of scientific evidence that legitimizes the adoption of such drastic measures.
Mario Draghi represents the quintessence of the tyranny of the New World Order, in its cynical competence, in the professionality of its devastating action, and in the efficiency of its functionaries. And it is not surprising that he was educated, like Joe Biden and many other globalist leaders, in the ideological school of the Jesuits. It is not surprising, since only a structure that was strongly hierarchical and almost military could have manipulated the young consciences of entire generations to, with diabolical foresight, prepare for the advent of tyrannical and inhuman society.
We have seen it in Italy, long before 1968, when the university professors greeted with unbridled enthusiasm the election of Roncalli, who was the friend of the modernist Bonaiuti, well aware that his apparent bonhomie concealed a mind poisoned by the doctrines fought against by Saint Pius X and still opposed by Pius XII right up to his death.
We have seen it in the universities of half of Europe and in the American Catholic universities, too, from which the protagonists of Vatican II and the post-council emerged, the agitprops of the Student Movement and the left-wing unions, the terrorists of the Red Brigades and the ideologies of Liberation Theology, the theorists of sexual liberation, divorce, and abortion.
We could say that in recent decades there has not been one political, social, cultural, or religious event that has not found a powerful inspiration in the Jesuits, who after renouncing their oath and the vows they pronounced on the day of their profession, have made available to their new master their network of relationships and their capacity to infiltrate into key posts of politics, public administration, education, culture, media, enterprise and finance. A network that replicates, perhaps with even greater efficiency and incisiveness, the no less subversive one of the Masonic sects and the cliques of conspirators.
Giuseppe Conte, the homo novus supported in the Vatican by Prelates who are widely compromised with the worst Christian-Democrat and Catholic-Communist politics, performed his function as inconsistent puppet with ambitions as ridiculous as they were unrealistic. His parabola permitted the pursuit of a project of social engineering that included precisely a sine nomine lawyer as an ignorant executor of the orders of the globalist puppeteer, who precisely by leveraging Conte’s vanity was able to use him to impose devastating decisions on the population, without any ratification of Parliament and even less the will of the voters.
But Conte’s clearly temporary role, almost like an extra, had to be exhausted the moment his inconsistency and inexperience had become evident on all fronts. At that moment, it became necessary that “regime change” which already last summer some astute observer of Italian politics foresaw would come with the advent of Mario Draghi – the former Managing Director of Goldman Sachs International, the former Governor of Bank of Italy, the former Governor of the European Central Bank – exponent of the financial lobby, and the natural heir of Mario Monti.
We could see a parallel to this situation in the speculating role that the Jesuit Jorge Mario Bergoglio was assigned by the so-called Saint Gallen Mafia. The Argentine, too, who was almost unknown until then, was elected Pope in order to demolish the last vestiges of the Catholic Church. And like Conte, Bergoglio too believes that he is the author of a radical and irreversible change while those who manipulate him have already designated his replacement. Bergoglio’s vanity, egocentrism, and even delusions of omnipotence prevent him from understanding that he is being used and that the support he enjoys today will be transformed into ruthless cynicism as soon as his mistakes are skillfully emphasized by the media.
Conte and Bergoglio have a similar destiny, as does Joe Biden, whose Vice President Kamala Harris awaits with impatience the moment when the script calls for the ousting of the corrupt Democrat under the pretext of his failing mental health.
It is therefore extremely important, and equally unavoidable, that those who have the fate of their beloved homeland at heart, that they will understand that President Draghi will in no way deviate from the globalist agenda, except for the greater efficiency with which he will implement it. Nurturing the hope that the technocrat who is responsible for the devastation of Greece, will somehow fail in his task is naive, just as every form of support for this government can only lead inexorably to the further loss of national sovereignty and complete subservience to the New World Order.
Let us not forget that the Prime Minister’s cabinet includes individuals like Vittorio Colao and Roberto Cingolani, for whom the Great Reset is now in an advanced stage of completion, with or without the consent of the voters. Those who govern today, in Italy as in the United States, do not consider it the least bit relevant that their own power is usurped with palace maneuvers or electoral frauds, nor that the totem of democracy, thanks to which they have been able to deceive the masses, has been replaced by a cruel dictatorship, with or without the alibi of the pandemic emergency. We know well that it was all planned for years, and that in order to fully implement the globalist project, the élite will not hesitate to violate fundamental rights, under the pretext of doing so “for our good.” But we know also that the closer we get to the end of time, the more Providence multiplies graces for the pusillus grex that remains faithful to the Lord.
If we are able to understand that what is happening in Italy is part of a single script under a single direction, then we will succeed in grasping the coherence between facts that are apparently heterogeneous, and above all we will understand that the motivations that are adopted in order to legitimize measures in violation of the natural freedoms of individuals are nothing other than pretexts, as false as they are rationally incongruent. And since everything is based on a colossal lie, it will be enough for only one of the deceptions to collapse to make the entire globalist Tower of Babel collapse, its hierarchs, its priests, its courtiers, its servants. Cadent a latere tuo mille, et decem millia a dextris tuis; ad te autem non appropinquabit: Psalm 91 reminds us of the protection of the Most High and the punishment that awaits sinners; it urges us to place our trust in God, Who will send his angels to protect us along our way.
Let us not allow ourselves to be seduced by the apparent inevitability of evil. Satan is the eternally defeated one, whether he seeks to destroy the Church of Christ – an unshakeable rock in the Savior’s own words – or rages against what remains of the human consortium. And if there really is to be a Great Reset of our society, it will be accomplished only with repentance for the public sins of nations, with a new Renaissance of Christianity, with a return to the Law of God.
Fiat voluntas tua, we recite in the Our Father: may this be our agenda, following the example of the Most Holy Virgin, Our Lady and Queen, who first trampled the snake and the dragon and then crushed the head of the lion and the dragon.
+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop
3 March 2021
Official translation
[1] The Greek goddess Nemesis was the goddess of divine retribution and revenge, who would show her wrath to any human being that would commit hubris, arrogance before the gods.
|
|
|
|
| Jean Madiran: The Four Unshaken Arguments Concerning the Mass |
|
Posted by: Stone - 03-05-2021, 12:20 PM - Forum: In Defense of Tradition
- Replies (1)
|
|
The Angelus - June 1980
The Four Unshaken Arguments Concerning the Mass
The author of this article, Jean Madiran, is editor of the French monthly, Itinéraires. He is a long-time and faithful supporter of Archbishop Lefebvre. Appearing originally under the title "Situation de la Messe en 1980" in the March 1980 issue of Itinéraires, it has recently been reprinted in Approaches, and represents only a portion of the original editorial. Acknowledgments to both of the above named periodicals.
So Mgr. Schmitt [Bishop of Metz, France] finds it more convenient, and thinks it fitting, to tilt against windmills, which exist only in his imagination. "In the name of the Church," no less, he says a bit of this and that about everything or about nothing. He says not a word about the objections and demands we have been presenting seriously for ten years. Is he doing that on purpose? Or is it that he cannot manage, even after ten years, to get the point at issue?
Our demands and objections about the Mass come down to four chief arguments which we have called Arguments A, B, C, and D. We have repeated them in all kinds of way in Itinéraires during 1970 and 1971. They appear at the head of the first edition, 1972, of our small book, La Messe, état de la question, and they are at the head of all subsequent editions, including the fifth, which is still available at the Itinéraires office and from Dominique Martin Morin.1 Will those of our readers who know them by heart please have patience: it is necessary to set out the clear demonstration over and over again; the four decisive arguments must be repeated, for they have never been refuted or taken into account by the tyranny which oppresses us; and Mgr. Schmitt, in his turn, avoids coming to grips with them.
For the past ten years we have been asserting: The crisis over the Mass consists essentially in this; since 1969, by all sorts of administrative machinations and deceptive decrees, and attempt has been made to persuade the clergy and the Christian people that the Mass, the Catholic Traditional and Gregorian Mass, according to the Roman Missal of St. Pius V, is from now on a forbidden Mass.
Especially in France, the clergy and the Christian people are brought to believe that there is an obligation, that of celebrating Mass no matter how, provided it is not in accordance with the traditional Roman Missal. In fact, diversity and even pluralism in the manner of celebrating Mass include all kinds of inventions, even music-hall pantomime, but exclude only the old Mass with its old Canon. It is that which constitutes the tragedy of the Mass in the last ten years. The situation has not changed in essence, it has just got worse.
In face of that situation we have for ten years been presenting objections and demands which are summed up in four arguments which have not even been dented let alone destroyed.
Argument A - The Traditional Mass Has Not Been Forbidden
The Bull of Saint Pius V, Quo Primum, has not been abrogated. Paul VI's Apostolic Constitution, Missale Romanum, 3 April 1969, did not invest the new missal with a strictly juridical obligation imposing its use and excluding that of the earlier missal. Cardinal Ottaviani declared at Pentecost, 1971:
Quote:"The traditional rite of Mass according to the Ordo of St. Pius V has not, so far as I know, been abolished."
Paul VI's official documents ordered the bishops to permit the celebration of the New Mass. Fraudulently, with the de facto agreement of the Holy See, people were made to believe that Paul VI had permitted the bishops to order the New Mass as an obligation. The real juridical position of Paul IV's New Mass is that it exists as a particular derogation from the prescriptions, which are not abrogated, of Saint Pius V's Bull Quo Primum: the traditional Mass is not forbidden.
Argument B - The Traditional Mass Could Not Be Forbidden
Not only has the traditional Mass not been abolished or forbidden by an official document of the Holy See having the force of law, but also it could not be abolished or forbidden. A millenary custom gives it an imprescriptible right. Such a custom could be abolished only on condition of its being declared bad: and that is impossible. Or by discovering that it had, of itself, ceased to exist.
Saint Pius V forbade none of the Church's rites: Latin, Dominican, Ambrosian, or that of Lyons, which were founded on irreproachable and uninterrupted custom. As for the Roman Rite itself, he limited himself to fixing the authentic traditional text, freed from impurities.
We wrote, pointing this out, to Pope Paul VI in 1972, without being contradicted:
Quote:Give us back the traditional Catholic Mass, Latin and Gregorian, according to the Roman Missal of St. Pius V. You let it be said that you have forbidden it. But no pontiff, without an abuse of power, could strike the millenary rite of the Catholic Church, canonized by the Council of Trent, with an interdict. Obedience to God and to the Church demands resistance to such an abuse of power if it has really happened, and not a silent submission.
Argument C - The Whole Liturgical Reform Is Legitimately Suspect
The suspicion is based on a variety of considerations. One of the most serious arises from a statement by Cardinal Gut, Prefect of the Roman Congregation for the Liturgy, which he made in July, 1969. Speaking precisely of the Ordo of the Mass, he revealed that, in reforming it, Paul VI had frequently yielded against his will. The reforms were not the result of a free decision of the Pope but of pressure exerted on him which he could not resist.
Argument D - We Are Being Subjected To Deceit
The reforming bishops, promoting evolution and mutations, make out that Paul VI's new Missal is obligatory, but they made that claim solely against the traditional Mass. The new Masses which are in fact celebrated derive from Paul VI's Mass, but they differ from it, they depart further and further from it without concealment, they are even flaunted on television. There is no longer a New Mass: there are new Masses, each one tending to be the only one of its kind. Paul VI's Mass, in fact, was a breach, a bridge, a transition, and even an incitement, to the proliferation of new Masses increasingly without law or faith. The new Ordo is not a rule, it is not a law. For ten years it has been incapable of slowing down, of holding in, of regulating the incessant development of way-out liturgies. The administrative authority does not even try, most of the time, to impose on the unsated innovators what it calls the obligatoriness of the new Ordo. That "obligatory" character is invoked only to forbid the traditional Mass and to persecute those faithful to it. That is knavery, and knavery cannot call for obedience.
* * *
Mgr. Schmitt simply ignores those arguments, as though they did not exist. Mgr. Coffy did the same in January 1975. If it were easy to refute these four arguments, the bishops would rush to do so. But, on the contrary, they are obstinate in not facing up to them. We know why.
The New Mass Is An Instrument With An Ulterior Purpose
The phrase "with an ulterior purpose" brings into consideration the supplementary purpose that a certain intention can add to the normal purpose of anything. For example: the purpose of a bicycle chain is to impart the movement of the pedals to the back wheel; the purpose of a pick-axe handle is to make it possible to use the pick-axe.
But if, in a riot, the police catch you carrying a pick-axe handle or a bicycle chain, don't bother telling them that it is a respectable pick-axe handle or a peaceful bicycle chain. Respectable in itself, it could be; peaceful, yes: but in the circumstances they are instruments with an added purpose, the purpose you have given them yourself, the supplementary purpose conferred on them by your intention.
In a riot it is the intention which matters, for it overshadows the natural qualities and the ordinary use of the object in question.
In the same way, Paul VI's New Mass is a weapon against the traditional Mass, at least it has this added purpose, and it has in fact been used to establish a prohibition which could not have been decreed in formal terms.
There are many different opinions about what the New Mass is in itself. Among those who accept it, some think it is marvelous, others count it as a lesser evil or as an evil which is unavoidable for the time being. Those who reject it call it inadequate, or equivocal, or poisoned, or near to heresy, or even heretical. But what apparently nobody can deny, whether in praise or in condemnation, is that it is, at least in purpose, the instrument serving to make the traditional Mass disappear. That fact and its consequence should be reckoned with much more than has been done until now.
The most immediate consequence is this: even if (for the sake of argument) we were to be shown that the New Mass is fully Catholic, that demonstration would have demonstrated nothing—no more than the statement that an honest-to-goodness pick-axe handle is no more than a tool, peaceful and lawful. The FINALITY of the New Mass, its PURPOSE, is what is worst about it. Once that finality and that purpose have been ascertained, it is a secondary matter to discuss what the New Mass is in itself. It is an instrument intended to be used against the Catholic Mass. By intention it is an anti-Catholic weapon. It is therefore primarily its intention that we attack.
That intention becomes manifest and is realized in practice, when clergy and faithful are induced to believe that the New Mass is invested with an obligation compelling its use to the exclusion of any other rite. Ever since 1970 we have continually asserted that it is there that the tragedy of the Mass is to be found. This is not to deny or to disregard other aspects; but it is to establish, or rather to recognize, a hierarchy in those aspects, those concerned with finality being rightly acknowledged as the most decisive. It follows that what must be taken from the New Mass is at least its finality, at least it murderous intention. This can be effected by admitting that it is not obligatory. And that admission will be genuine and effective if it is stipulated that the traditional Mass is not forbidden but is fully authorized and recommended.
At this point a number of critics object that it would be insufficient and even insulting simply to declare that the traditional Mass is "permitted." They are not wrong from their point of view, which is legitimate; but it is not the only one. It goes without saying that for the traditional Mass we demand more than an official acknowledgment that it is "permitted." But to admit that it is "permitted" is at once to open a door, it is to create a new situation which logically and inevitably will bring about its full recognition. If the traditional Mass is declared "permitted," the New Mass is no longer considered obligatory; and if it is not obligatory it is lost. There is no middle way: if it is no longer obligatory it is optional, and if it is admitted to be optional it can never be forced on anyone. It is therefore neither a "reciprocal recognition" nor a "coexistence of the two Masses" as the more excitable believe in their panic. Coexistence is impossible: inevitably the one will supplant the other. The New Mass, when it is obligatory, supplants the traditional Mass. The traditional Mass will drive out the New Mass when the New Mass is plainly optional: not in one day, but in several; and not without a fight—but whoever said that we should ever cease to fight? It seems to us, therefore, that Mgr. Lefebvre should eventually obtain from the Holy See, under one form or another, for example under the form of "permission" for the traditional Mass, an official acknowledgment that it is neither abolished nor forbidden, and that thus the New Mass is deprived of its criminal purpose.
1. Editors Note: For those of our readers who are French-speaking, Mr. Madiran's book may be ordered from Dominique Martin Morin, 96 rue Michel-Ange, Paris 75016.
[Emphasis - The Catacombs]
|
|
|
|
| The Recusant: Twelve Questions for Sedevacantists |
|
Posted by: Stone - 03-05-2021, 11:52 AM - Forum: Sedevacantism
- No Replies
|
|
Taken from The Recusant - Issue 23 [January-February 2015]
Twelve Questions for Sedevacantists
Aimed chiefly at the “hardline” non-una-cum brand of sedevacantist, some of the following questions will nonetheless apply and could well be asked of sedevacansitsts generally...
1. Sedevacantism does not appear to have been anywhere in evidence until the early 1970s, and we are unaware of there having been one single priest who thought that Paul VI was not Pope until around 1970, or possibly the late 1960s at the very earliest. We are unaware of a single example of a priest charging John XXIII with being an anti-Pope while he was alive or leaving his name out of the Mass. At the same time we are told that Mass offered “una cum” an anti-Pope is not pleasing to God. If it is true that the last true Pope was Pius XII, does that mean there no was true sacrifice being offered in a way pleasing to God for some 10 to 15 years? Did God really leave the entire earth bereft of this true sacrifice for ten or more years?
2. If sedevacantism is not just a theory, but is a binding conclusion, why do we not hear about it in the decades/centuries before the council? If on the other hand it is a theory, is it not in one sense yet another previously unheard-of, post-conciliar novelty?
3. If sedevacantism is merely a question of applying Catholic principles (Sanborn) or merely a simple matter of logic, something that you just have to think about clearly enough (Cekada), why aren’t we all sedevacantists? Why aren’t we almost all, or even mostly all? Is it reasonable (or Catholic?) to propose or even to imply that everyone who is not a sedevacantist is either ignorant or of bad will?
4. If sedevacantism is a probable or reasonable conclusion, how can it be that virtually no sedevacantists agree with one another, even about non-theological matters? Why is it that even those who have not fallen out with each other and who work together (e.g. Cekada & Sanborn) nevertheless do not agree (e.g. ‘pure’ sedevacantism vs. sede-privationism; “CMRI can be collaborated with” (Cekada) vs. “CMRI should be disbanded” (Sanborn), etc.)
5. If “Do-not-attend-non-sedevacantist-Masses!” is an obvious or reasonable proposition, why is it that its main proponents previously mocked this very same proposition, calling it “Follow me or die!” Catholicism?
6. If it is so clear and obvious that the whole Church has been ruled by anti-Popes for fifty-plus years, with no possibility of relief anywhere to be seen, why no mention of this at Fatima? Why no mention of it at Quito? Why did Padre Pio have nothing to say on the subject: did he think it not important enough? Why not one single “old-guard” Cardinal (Siri, Stickler, Oddi, etc.), bishop or even Vatican Monsignor to have admitted as much on his death-bed or in his posthumously-published memoires?
7. If the matter is not quite as absolutely black-and-white or clear cut as we are led to believe, is it not both prudent and reasonable to hold on only to what is known and can be trusted, what has been tried and tested from before the Council, and exclude any novelty; to leave the fascinating theoretical questions on hold until better times when we may examine them at leisure?
8. What are the fruits of sedevacantism? Where are the sedevacantist soup kitchens? Where is the sedevacantist League for the Kingship of Christ? Where are all the sedevacantist distributists? Why are sedevacantist chapels generally filled with supporters of democracy and capitalism, who hear nothing from their priest with which they could disagree? Where are the fruits of forty years of sedevacantist missionary activity in third-world countries all over the world?
9. If everything was 100% perfect in the Church right up until 1958, how do we account for the revolution of Vatican II apparently coming out of nowhere? Did it really have no roots, no precursors, no avant-garde? If, on the other hand, the rot does go back beyond Vatican II, and if in fact things were not entirely as they ought to have been in the decades before the council, does this not seem to indicate that Gloriously Reigning Popes can make errors of judgment, scandalous decisions, cause large numbers of souls to lose the Faith and deny our Lord like St. Peter? How do we explain Pius XI giving his full and enthusiastic support to the League of Nations and sending a personal note of congratulation to the second Spanish
Republic? How do we explain the failure of the 19th century Popes to use their full authority to comprehensively condemn Charles Darwin and his ideas? How do we account for the Church’s teaching on usury not being taught or enforced for some 200 years? Or the condemnation of Galileo being secretly ignored and, to all practical purposes, overturned?
10. Why is there no unanimous opinion among theologians on the question of a heretical Pope? Why is there not one example in the history of the Church of a Pope leaning towards heresy being threatened with the loss of his office, and why does Sacred Scripture uphold so strongly the keeping of office by heretical Sovereign Pontiffs of the Old Testament?
11. In Hell, those responsible for the damnation of so many souls because of their elevated office will burn as Popes, Cardinals, Bishops and Priests. This is called the Principle of Authority or responsibility. Our ancestors used to represent hell with a lot of clergy in it, why should it be different now, as the damage caused by them is far greater than the mostly moral scandal that they were giving in the past? “Eveque, c'est par toi que je meurs” said St. Joan of Arc to Bishop Cauchon. “Bishop it is by thee that I die”. God ascribes a precise culprit for whatever damage is done, as showed in the prophets of the Old Testament or in Matthew XXIII. If pope Francis is just a charlatan, if he is just a con man, a joker, a clown, but not really responsible, he would get just a clowny spank. If he and his six predecessors do not really bear the burden of responsibility of the Apostasy of Nations, since they are not really true Popes, who does bear this responsibility?
12. Is it not the case that the general idea of sedevacantism has a certain appeal, it is easier to summarise to non-Catholic or non-Traditional friends and relations, and that it appears to offer a simple response to the whole painful crisis? Ought this not to put us on our guard, knowing what we do about human nature? Equally, does not experience show that for both laity and priests, “becoming a sedevacantist” is not infrequently followed by a slackening of morals, standards of dress or behaviour, a weakening of general fervour and in particular a weakening of the counter-cultural and apostolic spirit? Once again, ought this not to put us on our guard?
|
|
|
|
| Fr. Hewko Sermon/Transcript [2014]: “Nothing has changed!” |
|
Posted by: Stone - 03-05-2021, 11:39 AM - Forum: Rev. Father David Hewko
- No Replies
|
|
Taken from The Recusant - Issue 22 [November-December 2014]
An Extract from a Sermon by Fr. David Hewko
14th September, 2014
Milton, Ontario (Canada)
If we want to have the True Mass we must hold the True Faith. How many Orthodox Masses today, Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Ukrainian Orthodox Masses - they’re heretics,
they don’t have the true Faith. They reject the primacy of Peter. They don’t believe that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son. They don’t have the Catholic Faith. - but their Masses are valid! It’s a mysterious thing. But we cannot go to their Masses. But they’re valid. But they don't hold the True Faith, that’s why we cannot go to them. And then also, all those priests who don’t hold the True Faith, or those who compromise the True Faith, we cannot go to their Mass.
It sounds difficult. And people do say: “I need the sacraments! We need the Mass! We need Holy Communion!” But there is a grave danger to your Faith if you go to the Indult Mass,
the Motu Proprio Mass, the Fraternity of St. Peter Mass - and now we have to say also, the Society of St. Pius X Mass. Why? Because the leader, the Superior General has officially, in
an official capacity, compromised the Catholic Faith.
And I ask you: pray for Bishop Fellay, pray for his soul. Pray that before he dies, he will publicly reject his betrayal of Our Lord. That he will publicly make reparation for signing that Doctrinal Declaration which if any of us signed, we’d know that we’d compromised the Faith. I know if I had signed it, I’d know I’d go to Hell. Because I would know I had compromised the True Catholic Faith, I’d be saying that the Tradition of the Church can be enlightened by a heretical Council, Vatican II. I can’t sign that and hope to save my soul!
If I sign a text to say that this thing is legitimate, I betray Our Lord Jesus Christ, I betray all the Popes of Tradition, I betray our founder Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. So I beg you, pray for Bishop Fellay. What he has done is very serious. What he has done is to turn the ship - better to use Bishop Williamson’s term, the lifeboat, because that’s all the Society of St. Pius X ever was, it’s not the Catholic Church - now, with this Doctrinal Declaration and the General Chapter Statement and the Six Conditions and all the proofs of the modernism of the Society of St. Pius X now, it has turned towards the iceberg, and it has already been ripped open.
In 1912 when the Titanic had already been ripped open all along the side and was sinking, all the people above were still busy toasting with their wine and eating their hors-d’oeuvres, and discussing their plans for what they would do when they got to New York. But the Captain knew, he knew they were in big trouble. He didn’t say anything, and they were still hoping there was a way they could save the ship, with all their wonderful, new, modern engineering they could save the ship. But the compartments were filling up one by one and overflowing.
And so the ship was going down and sinking, but it wasn’t tilting yet. It was still flat. And the men on board, including the Captain’s men were saying: “Well, nothing’s changed.
Everything’s the same.” Ever heard that one?
“Nothing has changed!”
- Yes, but what about Bishop Williamson being expelled?
“Nothing has changed!”
- What about the Doctrinal Declaration that betrays the Faith, that overturns the whole fight that the Society was all about?
“Nothing has changed!”
- But it’s been signed and sent to Rome, it’s alive and kicking!
“Nothing has changed!
Everything’s the same!”
- What about the letter of Bishop Fellay and the Superiors to the three bishops? Completely modernist ideas, and it even mocks the three bishops!
“Oh, nothing has changed! Everything’s the same!”
- OK, well what about the CNS and DICI interviews by Bishop Fellay? He actually said ‘Well if we have to come under the local bishops, since when is life without difficulties?’
“Nothing has changed! Everything’s the same!”
Well, my dear faithful, this is happening! I wish it weren’t, because I love the Society of St. Pius X. We all understood the fight, and how Archbishop Lefebvre was prophesied by Our
Lady of Quito as the one who would save the Catholic Priesthood and the True Mass. And now it has all been completely overthrown.
And now if you try to bring it up with the lay people or priests, you get told “Nothing has changed! Everything is the same!”
And yet during all that time the Titanic was slowly sinking. And only in the last 45 minutes it tilted, and then part of it broke off. One of the survivors said that at baseball games if they
heard the crowd screaming, it reminded them of the terrible screaming in those last 45 minutes, the voices rising in terror as the ship went under. And within five minutes it was
completely under. But for hours and hours before “everything” was “the same,” nothing appeared to have changed.
And what was the beginning of the disaster? It was hitting the iceberg. What was the disaster for the Society of St. Pius X? It was 2012, the General Chapter Statement which says: “No
longer will we wait for Rome to comeback to Catholic Tradition, for the Pope to be perfectly Catholic, we’re not going to wait for this any more. Now we’re going to seek an agreement
despite Rome’s conversion.”
|
|
|
|
|
![[Image: Saint-Benedict-Joseph-Labre-5.jpg]](https://www.srpriscanwokorie.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Saint-Benedict-Joseph-Labre-5.jpg)
![[Image: hqdefault.jpg]](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/87zz-Z5vNlI/hqdefault.jpg)
![[Image: i284008264518189030._szw480h1280_.jpg]](http://cdn.simplesite.com/i/70/6d/284008258745822576/i284008264518189030._szw480h1280_.jpg)
![[Image: l.png]](https://rrcbangalore.in/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/l.png)
![[Image: ?u=http%3A%2F%2Fallthatsinteresting.com%...f=1&nofb=1]](https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fallthatsinteresting.com%2Fwordpress%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F08%2Fperpetua-martyr.jpg&f=1&nofb=1)
