Welcome, Guest
You have to register before you can post on our site.

Username
  

Password
  





Search Forums

(Advanced Search)

Forum Statistics
» Members: 244
» Latest member: GeorgeMam
» Forum threads: 5,857
» Forum posts: 11,097

Full Statistics

Online Users
There are currently 160 online users.
» 1 Member(s) | 157 Guest(s)
Bing, Google, Jules

Latest Threads
Holy Thursday
Forum: Lent
Last Post: Stone
1 hour ago
» Replies: 5
» Views: 9,415
Instruction on Holy Week
Forum: Lent
Last Post: Stone
1 hour ago
» Replies: 2
» Views: 4,939
‘Servant of Freemasonry’:...
Forum: Archbishop Viganò
Last Post: Stone
1 hour ago
» Replies: 0
» Views: 8
Holy Mass in Tennessee [N...
Forum: April 2024
Last Post: Stone
1 hour ago
» Replies: 0
» Views: 5
Holy Mass in North Caroli...
Forum: April 2024
Last Post: Stone
1 hour ago
» Replies: 0
» Views: 4
Holy Mass in North Caroli...
Forum: April 2024
Last Post: Stone
1 hour ago
» Replies: 0
» Views: 4
St. Alphonsus Liguori: Th...
Forum: Doctors of the Church
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 06:14 AM
» Replies: 5
» Views: 451
Fr Charles Hyacinth McKen...
Forum: Lenten Devotions
Last Post: Stone
03-26-2024, 08:07 AM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 3,032
Fr. Ruiz: Recommended art...
Forum: Rev. Father Hugo Ruiz Vallejo
Last Post: Stone
03-26-2024, 05:59 AM
» Replies: 62
» Views: 75,025
Fr. Ruiz's Sermons: Palm ...
Forum: Fr. Ruiz's Sermons March 2024
Last Post: Stone
03-26-2024, 05:53 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 36

 
  The “Any Valid Mass!” Canard
Posted by: Stone - 03-13-2024, 04:24 AM - Forum: In Defense of Tradition - No Replies

The following is taken from The Recusant #50 - January 2020.


This seems to be a constantly recurring theme. How did so many Traditional Catholics end up thinking like this? How did we end up here? Perhaps it is time to take another look at:


The “Any Valid Mass!” Canard


A gentleman who, one suspects, is not on the side of the Resistance, and who could not, I think, be called “a reader,” recently wrote in to The Recusant to castigate the Resistance in general, this newsletter and its editor in particular. After saying that we have “lost the plot” and are on the road “to ruin damnation and failure,” he continues thus:

“I would like to make some more serious points after having read the recent issue of the ‘Recusant’:

• There is absolutely no way to ever justify remaining at home on Sunday when there is a Tridentine mass available in your area.

• If there are concerns about being ‘contaminated’ by the views of a priest who doesn’t fit your definition of a ‘true son of Archbishop Lefebvre’, why not sit outside during the sermon and leave straight after mass?

• As shocking as this may sound, there are graces to be earned at each and every Latin mass celebrated by a validly ordained priest.

• I couldn’t disagree more with the conclusions you make with regards to the SSPX, however, if ever I found myself in a situation where the only Latin mass available in my area was offered by a priest associated with the so-called ‘Resistance’ movement, I certainly wouldn’t deprive myself of attending such a mass.

• Going to mass is not the same as attending a political rally where our presence signifies support for the priest - the only reason we go to mass is to receive the necessary nourishment for our souls.

• Our Lord said by their fruits ye shall know them. The number of faithful supporting the Society worldwide continues to increase as does the number of overall priests. These are indisputable facts which you choose to conveniently ignore.”

Although he is wrong, I admire the fact that the author goes straight to the point and does not waste time. Let us try to answer in a similar way, point by point.


1. There is absolutely no justification for remaining at home when there is a valid Tridentine Mass in your area.

Not true.

If this were true, what are we to make of the Catholics behind the Iron Curtain, in Poland, Hungary and elsewhere, who refused to attend the Mass of a “pax priest” (one who had gained the approval of the Communist authorities)? Those “pax priests” were certainly validly ordained and they offered a valid Tridentine Mass. How then could so many Catholics refuse to attend their Masses, even when they had no alternative on a given Sunday?

Let us take another example closer to our own era. In recent decades, we have seen the Church driven underground in China and replaced with a phoney counterfeit controlled by the Communist government (called the “Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association” or CPCA).

Clearly the ministrations of an underground priest cannot be relied upon to be all that regular, and being part of an underground Church will necessarily mean uncertainty and irregularity when it comes to the sacraments. What’s more, due to the unusual circumstances, both the CPCA and the underground Church continued to use the Tridentine Missal all the way down to the 1990s in many places. From Wikipedia:

“Due to CPCA pressure, Mass continued for some years after Pope Paul VI's 1969 revision of the Roman Missal to be celebrated in mainland China in the Tridentine Mass form, and for lack of the revised text in Latin or Chinese, even priests who refused any connection with the CPCA kept the older form. As the effects of the Cultural Revolution faded in the 1980s, the Mass of Paul VI began to be used, and at the beginning of the next decade the CPCA officially permitted the publication even locally of texts […]”

So: were the faithful (non-Communist, non-“patriotic”) Catholics wrong to flee underground? Nobody once disputed that the CPCA had valid orders or that their Masses were valid Masses. Valid Tridentine Masses, as it happens. If, as we are told, “there is absolutely no way ever to justify remaining at home on Sunday when there is a Tridentine Mass available in your area,” what ought those underground Catholics to have done? Suppose the priest who had been due to offer Mass for them in secret had been arrested on Saturday? Suppose there were no faithful underground priest nearby to begin with? What ought they to have done? Attend a CPCA Mass? Or is there more to being a Catholic than valid sacraments?

What about the old SSPX? I can remember the days when an SSPX priest would tell you that you were better off not going to an indult Mass, even if there was no SSPX Mass to go to. Take a look at the list of SSPX Mass centres in Great Britain in 2001, which we reproduced in a previous issue (Recusant 47, p.44). See how many of those Mass centres were bi-weekly or monthly? Regular weekly Masses were in the minority. In 2001, the majority of SSPX chapels did not have Mass every week. And yet was there ever an occasion where the faithful were warned about making a holy hour at home? Did the SSPX used officially to tell people to go to the Indult Mass? No? Why not?

The truth is that there are any number of reasons or circumstances which not only “justify” staying home and avoiding a “valid Tridentine Mass” but make it a positive duty. Anyone who says otherwise needs some remedial catechism.

Take another look at the baptism ritual. When the child is presented at the door of the Church on the day of his baptism, and the priest asks: “What do you ask of the Church?” What is the answer to this question? Is it “baptism”? Is it: “The sacraments”? How about: “Valid tridentine sacraments”..? Think about it. What is it which “gives life everlasting”..?


2. If there are concerns about being ‘contaminated’ by the views of a priest who doesn't fit your definition of a ‘true son of Archbishop Lefebvre’, why not sit outside during the sermon and leave straight after mass?

Because that is not our main concern. This so-called “risk of contamination” is not, and never has been, our justification. You will not find that sentiment expressed anywhere in these pages going back fifty issues or seven years.

This does not mean that there are no negative effects which one would expect to see (and have been seen) as a result from regularly attending Mass at the SSPX, particularly those who know better but who, often through weakness, did not make the break. The gradual process of becoming slowly more liberal without realising it, being boiled alive like the frog in the proverbial boiling pot is a very real danger. But that is something which comes more as a result of making our public confession of Christ secondary, and making own selfish desire to “get more sacraments” primary; it is not something which comes from “contamination” by the priest. And it is not the reason why we do not attend. The main reason why we do not attend the SSPX is because our presence there would offend Almighty God. This offence given to Almighty God which, I think, also brings in its train the weakening, the gradual loss of zeal, the diminution of Faith.

Again, let me emphasise this point. What you seem to present as our reason for not attending SSPX Mass is the opposite of the truth. We are not concerned with the individual priest.

There may well be some very fine examples of priests still in the SSPX, but that doesn’t matter, it is beside the point. What matters is the official, public stance of the organisation. If you knew a “validly ordained” Orthodox priest and you happened to know him well enough to have heard him admit, in private, that the Catholic Church was the true Church, that he accepted papal primacy, etc. you still could not attend his Mass. The same goes for a priest who says the both New Mass and the Tridentine Mass: even if he told you that he hates the New Mass and thinks it is un-Catholic. What he thinks or says privately doesn’t matter, it doesn’t change a thing. What a priest admits in private does not count. I would attend the Mass of a priest whom, personally, I could not stand, provided he publicly stands for the truth; the converse is equally true, no matter how much you like a particular priest or agree with what he says, you ought not to support him as long as he is a member of something which publicly stands for compromise and denial of Catholic Tradition.

Anyone who thought and acted the way you describe would find himself faced with a truly impossible task. How can the average layman possibly be expected to vet every single priest? Especially in some SSPX chapels where different priests are rotated through from one week to the next, how could anyone be expected to know whether or to what extent this or that priest is a “true son of Archbishop Lefebvre”..? It’s ludicrous.


3. As shocking as this may sound, there are graces to be earned at each and every Latin mass celebrated by a validly ordained priest.

Again, I ask: What on earth were the faithful Chinese Catholics thinking? What madness overcame the Catholics behind the Iron Curtain? How could they have been so wrong?

The answer is that they were not wrong. Here is where I think the problem arises. The Council of Trent teaches that the sacraments actually contain the graces they represent. This is a contradiction of the Protestant teaching that they are only symbolic or that it is the ‘faith’ of the believer which somehow makes them work. But the fact that the sacraments are not merely symbolic and actually do contain the grace they represent, does not mean that one will always and everywhere and in all circumstances receive grace from a sacrament provided it is valid. That is not, never has been and never could be Catholic teaching. If that were so, then the majority of Catholics in Russia ought to be attending Mass at the Russian Orthodox and the 4th century Catholic faithful were wrong to steer clear of Arian priest and bishops.

What many Catholics today, your good self included, seem to believe is that the sacraments are some sort of magic talisman. They are like the ‘one ring’ of Sauron, whoever has it can use it, no matter how honestly or dishonestly he came by it. In reality, of course, you cannot “steal” a sacrament any more than you can cheat Almighty God. If you obtain a sacrament by doing something which displeases Him, then you would have been better off not having it.

Let us take another hypothetical example. Suppose there is a Tridentine Mass in your area. Suppose, too, that it is “celebrated by a validly ordained priest.” But suppose that priest had been suspended or even defrocked because he was a homosexual pederast who abused boys.

Suppose that priest, according to the law of the Church, ought not to be celebrating that Tridentine Mass and you ought not to be attending it. Is it still true to say that “there is absolutely no way ever to justify” not going to that Mass? And what about the graces? Will you be getting those graces by attending the illegal Mass of a suspended homo-pederast?

We may never do evil that good may come of it. That being the case, may we attend a Mass which we know we ought not to attend, simply because it is valid and we want to steal, sorry I mean “earn” graces from it? If it as simple as saying that one can gain graces from attending “each and every Latin mass celebrated by a validly ordained priest,” does that mean that if the only Tridentine Mass is the one said by the suspended pederast, you have to go? You it seems, would say, “Yes, go”. We, on the other hand, would say, “No, don’t go”.

Very well, let’s forget for one moment what you or I would say. What does the Church say about attending such a Mass offered by such a priest? Do I need to spell it out, or can you guess?


4. I couldn’t disagree more with the conclusions you make with regards to the SSPX, however, if ever I found myself in a situation where the only Latin mass available in my area was offered by a priest associated with the so-called ‘Resistance’ movement, I certainly wouldn’t deprive myself of attending such a mass.

Good. Though the real reason for attending is of course far more serious. You attend it because, once you are no longer in ignorance of what is really going on, you are morally obliged not only to attend but wholeheartedly to support the Resistance.

This does bring up an interesting point, though. The SSPX priests and superiors would not agree with you. They tell people not to attend the Resistance. They even sometimes punish people for attending. If you have your children in a SSPX school, just see what happens when you start regularly to attend the Resistance. The SSPX of yore told people not to go to the Indult Mass. The SSPX of today is fine with the Indult Mass (our own District Superior of Great Britain positively tells people to go to it!). But they used to recommend not to go. In neither case did or do the SSPX appear to agree with your mistaken notion that, “there are graces to be earned at each and every Latin mass celebrated by a validly ordained priest”, or that “there is absolutely no justification” for staying away from any Tridentine Mass ever.

Staying home when it is the wrong Mass is the Catholic thing to do. It is what the Catholics did during the Arian crisis; it is what the Catholics did and do in China; it is what Catholics did during the upheavals of 16th century England; it is what Catholics did behind the Iron Curtain. It is what many Catholics do today in vast swathes of Russia, despite the ecumenism of the past fifty years.


5. Going to mass is not the same as attending a political rally where our presence signifies support for the priest - the only reason we go to mass is to receive the necessary nourishment for our souls.

Again, that is not true. The reason you go to Mass is to give glory to God, to assist in His worship, to give Him that which is His right. We don’t give glory to God in secret; we don’t worship Him in secret. Your idea that “the only reason we go to Mass is to receive the necessary nourishment for our souls” is in essence selfish. If you were talking about confession, I might agree with you: you need to take good care, but in the end which priest you confess to or how often to is really nobody’s business. But Mass is not the same as confession, it is the official public worship given to Almighty God by His Church. And we are not talking about a Mass said in private, on a weekday, by an elderly priest on one of the innumerable dusty and disused side altars of an old abbey church. We are, I think, talking about a publicly advertised Sunday Mass: a parish Mass or the equivalent. Again, if what you say were true, what reason would there be not to attend the Mass of a “validly ordained” Arian priest if you were living in the Arian crisis 1,500 -odd years ago?

What reason would there be for not going to the Mass of a “validly ordained” ‘pax priest’ behind the Iron Curtain? What reason for Catholics in China not to assist at the Mass of a “validly ordained” CPCA priest? None.

I really think you must snap out of this idea that your duty is somehow to “get grace” out of the sacraments by hook or by crook, and that how you get it does not matter. It is not only our interior actions which matter, but our exterior actions too. Our Lord tells us that we must confess Him “before men” if we wish Him to confess us before God the Father. When we die, when we go before the Judgement Seat of Almighty God, we will be judged not just on our interior thoughts and desires, but on our exterior actions. Remember that not everyone who says “Lord, Lord” shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of the Father.

Note, he who does. It is what we do, our actions, which matter most.


6. Our Lord said by their fruits ye shall know them. The number of faithful supporting the Society worldwide continues to increase as does the number of overall priests. These are indisputable facts which you choose to conveniently ignore.

“Indisputable”..? I hope you will forgive me then, if I dispute some of your “facts.”

First, I hate to break this to you, but the number of faithful has been noticeably in decline for a few years already. There are noticeably fewer chapels in Great Britain than there were even ten years ago. In the 1970s there were perhaps 2,000 faithful at the SSPX in this country. By the year 2000 it was more like 1,500; by 2012 more like 1,000. Who knows what it is now. Second, does that argument not strike you as rather facile? What are the “fruits” that we should be looking for? Is it simply a numbers game? If that were so, then the SSPX is not and never was the answer. The Novus Ordo has far more priests, even today. In my country there
are 15 SSPX priests compared to some 3,500 Novus Ordo priests, or 233 for every one SSPX priest. I have heard it said that there may be as many as 200 or more SSPX priests in France.

But even if there were 250, that is still less than 2% when compared with an estimated 13,000 conciliar priests. The US District website says that there are 89 SSPX priests in that country; but there are around 35,000 Novus Ordo priests, or 393 for every one SSPX priests. We could go on. You get the idea, I think.

That is just priests. You in fact mentioned the number of faithful supporting the Society. Unfortunately, there again it’s the same story. Around 1,000 faithful (perhaps less) in Great Britain compared to somewhere in the region of 700,000 or 800,000 Catholics who attend the Novus Ordo on Sundays. In the USA, around 25,000 faithful attend the SSPX, according to the SSPX themselves (sspx.org/en/general-statistics-about-sspx) versus roughly 2.75 million souls at the Novus Ordo on a given Sunday (39% of 70.4million total, according to a 2018 Gallup survey). Significantly less than 1%, in other words.

‘Ah, but that doesn’t count!’ - I can hear the cry - ‘Those are Novus Ordo Catholics, they’re not Traditional! They don’t have the same spirit! They’re lukewarm! They believe all sorts of heresies! You’re not comparing like with like! They don’t count!’ Very well. But that’s my point - it isn’t really a question of numbers then, is it? We need to dig a little deeper than the skin-deep analysis found in raw figures. If we agree that it has more to do with the spirit, the ardour and zeal or whatever else, perhaps it would be more fruitful to look at those qualities as they are found at the SSPX and compare it to the old SSPX and the Resistance of today.

In the old SSPX, it was normal for a priest to say three Masses on Sunday in three different locations and to spend the rest of the day on the road, travelling hundreds of miles between each one. That is still the case in the Resistance today, except that the priest will have to travel even greater distances between Mass centres than was the case before. The SSPX priest in the old days used to do anointings at all hours of the day and night, as does the Resistance priest of today.

In the days of the old SSPX, the typical SSPX Mass centre in Great Britain was a rented hall with Mass once or twice a month. Whenever there was Mass there, the faithful supported it even if they had to travel some distance themselves. On the Sunday when there wasn’t Mass, many of them sanctified the day without Mass, rather than involving themselves in the compromise of the Indult Mass. The typical SSPX faithful knew why he was there, what the fight was about and why it was necessary to support the work of Archbishop Lefebvre.

For the typical faithful at an SSPX chapel today, alas, that is increasingly less the case. The typical SSPX priest of today travels far less, grumbles when he does have to travel, expects to have everything laid on for him and would as soon close the Mass centre down as carry on saying Mass in a rented hall. The old SSPX was not afraid to carry Christ into the public forum, processions, for instance, used to go out of the Church and down the street; the new SSPX are often too scared to leave the property. The faithful of the old SSPX, the died-in-the-wool Lefebvrists might sometimes have been eccentric, they might have been offensive, they might
have been many things, but one can also imagine them being martyrs. Somehow, try as I might, I just cannot picture the typical modern-day SSPX faithful defying princes and rulers and laying down his life for Christ. Which of the two have “the fruits”, where do we see more zeal, greater ardour, more devotion? The old SSPX or the new SSPX? Which one does the Resistance today more closely resemble?

One could dig even deeper and have a look at the signs of worldliness: standards of modesty in dress; the size of families; whether one would overhear “right-wing conspiracy theory” -type conversations versus “mainstream normie” conversations after Mass; the old SSPX, where families were urged not even to have a TV in the home, versus the modern equivalent homes where electronic gadgets and screens abound. We could go on. The presence or absence of Catholic Action and other lay initiatives, of Catholic Social teaching, including controversial topics such as true Catholic social order, the evils of usury, etc. The fact alone that in 2013 the
SSPX purged all the Fr. Denis Fahey articles from the US District website speaks volumes.

Finally, let me say a word about your boast that “the number of overall priests” in the SSPX “continues to rise.” It is true that there are more SSPX priests than ever before, but this is a double-edged sword, and I wouldn’t shout it too loudly about it if I were you. Firstly, if things had continued as they were, one ought to see an exponential rise, not the more-or-less straightline increase which we see over the past forty-something years. Vocations are supposed to come from SSPX chapels run by SSPX priests, aren’t they? How then do you explain that there are more SSPX priests than there were in earlier times, but more or less the same number of vocations and ordinations? The number of vocations-per-priest must surely be less..?

Secondly, what are those priests doing? In the USA there are 89 priests looking after 103 chapels. In the 1990s there were roughly one-third the number of priests looking after the same number of chapels. How is that possible? It is only possible due to a diminution of apostolic zeal. The number of priests, as we saw earlier by comparing it to the Novus Ordo, is not the only thing that matters. If what matters is the quality of those priests, the zeal of those priests, then you need to start worrying.

The current model SSPX priest is greatly inferior to his 1980s counterpart, in his actions, his spirit and even his loyalty to Catholic Tradition. No SSPX priest from a couple of decades ago would ever have been found dead publishing the kind of modernist nonsense about evolution which Fr. Paul Robinson’s book contains. Is it not an insult to St. Pius X that the Society which bears his name should be publishing and promoting some of the very same ideas which gave rise, towards the end of the 19th century, to the modernism which he had to condemn?


Conclusion

As to the whole of what you have said, in case you hadn’t gathered I think you are wrong. I am sure that it is not entirely your fault, however. And I am equally certain that there are others out there who think along the same lines. All I will conclude for now is that the clergy seem to have done a very poor job in instructing the faithful. Many Catholics, for instance, are under the mistaken impression that Sunday Mass attendance is one of the ten commandments. It is not. Sunday Mass attendance is a commandment of the Church. What the ten commandments require is that we sanctify the day. One of the main ways in which we do this is by attending Mass, if you can (abstaining from servile work being another). In normal times, that would simply mean that you attend your nearest Mass. These are not normal times. Since attending Mass is a commandment of the Church, it is for the Church to provide you with a Mass which you can attend. Any Mass which would involve offending Almighty God, is clearly not a Mass which you can attend. If there is a Mass nearby which you can in conscience attend and where your presence would not involve a compromise on the level of the Faith and would not, therefore, offend Almighty God, then you must attend it on Sundays and holy days. You must also try to make an extra effort to travel further to such a Mass, and if the effort seems too great, the circumstances too inconvenient, you must try not to resent it; rather, you must ask yourself why it is that Almighty God planned from all eternity for you to be living through this, why He wishes for you to find yourself facing such a choice. Then you must respond with generosity, urging yourself and summoning as much love and devotion towards Him as possible, and telling Him that you will prove your love and devotion for Him through your actions.

Print this item

  Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre: The New Rite Condemned by the Tradition of the Church
Posted by: Stone - 03-13-2024, 04:03 AM - Forum: In Defense of Tradition - No Replies

The following is taken from The Recusant #59 - Advent 2022:



Source: https://fsspx.news/en/content/32569 see also: thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=4382


Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre: The New Rite Condemned by the Tradition of the Church
Extracts from “The Mass of All Time”



1. The judgement of Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci

We are not judging the intention but the facts and the consequences of these facts, similar incidentally, to those of past centuries where these reforms had been introduced oblige us to acknowledge, along with Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci (Short Critical Study of the New Order of Mass, sent to the Holy Father on September 3, 1969) that the “Novus Ordo Missae … represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated at the Council of Trent.1”


2. A new rite already condemned by several Popes and Councils

It is a conception more Protestant than Catholic which expresses everything which has been unduly exalted and everything which has been diminished. Contrary to the teachings of the 22nd session of the Council of Trent, contrary to the encyclical Mediator Dei of Pius XII, the role of the faithful in the participation of the Mass has been exaggerated, and the role of the priest has been belittled to that of a mere president. 

It has exaggerated the place given to the liturgy of the Word and lessened the place given to the propitiatory Sacrifice. It has exalted the communal meal and secularized it, at the expense of respect for and faith in the Real Presence effected by transubstantiation.

In suppressing the sacred language, it has pluralized the rites ad infinitum, profaning them by incorporating worldly or pagan elements, and it has spread false translations at the expense of the true faith and genuine piety of the faithful.

And yet the Councils of Florence2 and Trent3 had both declared anathemas against all of these changes, while affirming that our Mass in its Canon dated back to Apostolic times.

The popes St. Pius V and Clement VIII insisted on the necessity of avoiding changes and transformation and of preserving perpetually this Roman Rite hallowed by Tradition.

The desacralisation of the Mass and its secularisation lead to the laicisation of the priesthood, in the Protestant manner.4

How can this reform of the Mass be reconciled with the canons of the Council of Trent and the condemnations in the Bull Auctorem Fidei of Pius VI?


3. “It is Tradition which condemns them, not me”

I do not set myself up as a judge; I am nothing, I am merely an echo of a Magisterium which is clear, which is evident, which is in all of the books, the papal encyclicals, council documents, basically in all of the theological books prior to the Council. What is being said now does not at all conform with the Magisterium which has been professed for two thousand years. Therefore it is the Tradition of the Church, her Magisterium which condemns them. Not me!


4. The traditional judgments of the Church on the Eucharist are definitive

As for our attitude vis-à-vis the liturgical reform and the breviary, we must hold fast to the affirmations of the Council of Trent. It is hard to see how to reconcile it with the liturgical reform. Yet the Council of Trent is a dogmatic, definitive Council and once the Church has made a definitive pronouncement on certain matters, another council may not change these definitions. Without this no more truth is possible!

Faith is something which is unchangeable. When the Church has presented it with all of her authority, there is an obligation to believe it to be immutable. Now, if the Council of Trent went to the trouble of adding anathemas to all of the verities concerning the sacraments and the liturgy, it was not for nothing. How can they behave so casually, as if the Council of Trent no longer exists and say that Vatican II has the same authority and consequently can change everything? We might just as well change our Credo which dates from the Council of Nicea, which is much more ancient, because Vatican II has the same authority and is more important than the Council of Nicea…

It is our duty to be firm about these things, and this is the strongest response we can make to the liturgical reform: it goes against the absolutely definitive and dogmatic definitions of the Council of Trent.


5. An avowal by Paul VI

Here is an interesting little fact which illustrates what Paul VI thought of the changes in the Mass. (…) Jean Guitton asked him: “Why would you not accept that the priests at Écône continue to celebrate the Mass of St. Pius V? It was what was said before. I do not see why the seminary is refused the ancient Mass. Why not allow them to celebrate it?” The response given by Paul VI is very significant. He replied: “No, if we grant the Mass of St. Pius V to the Society of St. Pius X, all that we have gained through Vatican II will be lost.” (…) It is extraordinary that the pope could see the ruin of Vatican II in the return of the ancient Mass. It was an incredible revelation! This is why the liberals wanted so much for us to say this Mass which represents for them a totally different concept of the Church. The Mass of St. Pius V is not liberal, it is anti-liberal and anti-ecumenical. Therefore it cannot conform to the spirit of Vatican II.



1 - Archbishop Lefebvre, letter to Cardinal Seper, 26th February 1978
2 - cf. DS 1320
3 - cf. DS 1751, 1753, 1756, 1759
4 - ‘Open Letter to the Pope’ 21st November 1983




* * * * *


What did Archbishop Lefebvre say about Attending the New Mass?


1974:
“Is the New Mass really intrinsically bad? If the Mass were intrinsically bad, I would say, well, I would say you can’t do an intrinsically bad act, that’s always forbidden; but if the Mass is not intrinsically bad, but only bad due to the circumstances which surround it … well since circumstances can change, can be changed…if there are seminarians who don’t have any other Mass, can they go to a Mass like that? I think so, what can you do! … However, I also told you, I think at least twice, that it is possible that our attitude, our position regarding this problem might become firmer or somehow harder, so to speak...” (Écône, 1974)


1975-1981:
“Little by little the Archbishop’s position hardened … In 1975 he admitted that one could ‘assist occasionally at the New Mass when one feared going without Communion for a long time.’ [...] Soon, Archbishop Lefebvre would no longer tolerate participation at Masses celebrated in the new rite except passively, for example at funerals. … He considered that it was bad in itself and not only because of the circumstances in which the rite was performed.” ( “Biography of Marcel Lefebvre,” p465 ff)


1976:
“The [new] rite of the Mass is a bastard rite, the sacraments are bastard sacraments – we no longer know if they are sacraments which give grace or which do not give grace.” (Lille, 1976)


1978:
“What should be our attitude in general towards these New Masses, even if it would be difficult to be able to assist at a Mass of Saint Pius V? I believe that we must be more and more severe. little by little … one no longer sees, one becomes blind. This is why I think we must avoid going to these Masses.” (Écône, 1978)


1979:
“It must be understood immediately that we do not hold to the absurd idea that if the New Mass is valid, we are free to assist at it. The Church has always forbidden the faithful to assist at the Masses of heretics and schismatics even when they are valid. It is clear that no one can assist at sacrilegious Masses or at Masses which endanger our faith. All these innovations are authorized. One can fairly say without exaggeration that most of these [new] Masses are sacrilegious acts which pervert the Faith by diminishing it.” (November 1979)


1981:
“This Mass is not bad in a merely accidental or extrinsic way. There is something in it that is truly bad. … Really, in conscience, I cannot advise anyone to attend this Mass, it is not possible.” (Abp. Lefebvre, 1981 - cf. David Allen White, ‘The Horn of the Unicorn’, p.224 ff.)


1985:
“Your perplexity takes perhaps the following form: may I assist at a sacrilegious mass which is nevertheless valid, in the absence of any other, in order to satisfy my Sunday obligation? The answer is simple: these masses cannot be the object of an obligation; we must moreover apply to them the rules of moral theology and canon law as regards the participation or the attendance at an action which endangers the faith or may be sacrilegious.

The new Mass, even when said with piety and respect for the liturgical rules, is subject to the same reservations since it is impregnated with the spirit of Protestantism. It bears within it a poison harmful to the faith. That being the case, the French Catholic of today finds himself in the conditions of religious practice which prevail in missionary countries. There, the inhabitants in some regions are only able to attend Mass three or four times a year. The faithful of our country should make the effort to attend one each month at the Mass of all time, the true source of grace and sanctification, in one of those places where it continues to be held in honour.” (Open Letter to Confused Catholics, 1985)


1990:
“And that’s why I will never celebrate the Mass according to the new rite, even under threat of ecclesiastical penalties and I will never advise anyone positively to participate actively in such a Mass. Because people are still asking us those questions: ‘I have not the Mass of St. Pius V on Sunday, and there is a mass said by a priest that I know well, a holy man, so, wouldn’t it be better to go to the mass of this priest, even if it is the new mass but said with piety, instead of abstaining?’ No! This is not true! This is not true, because this rite is bad! Is bad, is bad! And the reason why this rite is bad in itself, is because it is poisoned. It is a poisoned rite! Mr. Salleron says it very well, here: ‘It is not a choice between two rites that could be good. It is a choice between a Catholic Rite and a rite that is practically bordering on Protestantism,’ and thus, which attacks our faith, the Catholic Faith! So, it is out of question to encourage people to go to Mass in the new rite. […]

I’m a little surprised, you know. Sometimes, I receive a lot of requests for consultations from our priests who are in the priories and some are asking me: ‘What should one reply to a person who says he cannot have the Mass of St. Pius V and who believes that he is under the obligation to go to a mass of the new rite, said by a good priest, a serious priest who offers all the guarantees almost of holiness? etc.’ But, I do not understand how they cannot answer this by themselves! They don’t find the conclusion by themselves and they feel obliged to ask me such a thing. It's incredible! So you see, there are still some who hesitate. This is unbelievable!” (Fideliter, April 1990)



* * * * *



Archbishop Lefebvre on the Indult / Ecclesia Dei Priests


“And we must not waver for one moment either in not being with those who are in the process of betraying us. Some people [say] ‘After all, we must be charitable, we must be kind, we must not be divisive, after all, they are celebrating the Tridentine Mass, they are not as bad as everyone says’ - but they are betraying us - betraying us! They are shaking hands with the Church's destroyers. They are shaking hands with people holding modernist and liberal ideas condemned by the Church. So they are doing the devil’s work. Thus those who were with us and were working with us for the rights of Our Lord, for the salvation of souls, are now saying, ‘So long as they grant us the old Mass, we can shake hands with Rome, no problem.’ ” (Two Years After the Consecrations, Fideliter, 1990)

Print this item

  Fr. Hewko's Sermons: Monday of the Fourth Week of Lent - March 11, 2024
Posted by: Stone - 03-12-2024, 09:06 AM - Forum: March 2024 - Replies (1)

Feria/Monday of the Fourth Week of Lent - March 11, 2024 - "New Mass Never an Option" (Alberta, Canada)


Print this item

  Fr. Ruiz's Sermons for the Fourth Sunday of Lent - March 10, 2024
Posted by: Stone - 03-11-2024, 07:41 PM - Forum: Fr. Ruiz's Sermons March 2024 - No Replies

10-3-24 EL PRIMERO DE TODOS NUESTROS COMBATES ES EL COMBATE DOCTRINAL 4o Dom de Cuaresma


Print this item

  Fr. Hewko's Catechisms: The Tremendous Effects of Tridentine vs New Mass
Posted by: Stone - 03-11-2024, 09:08 AM - Forum: Catechisms - No Replies

"Catechism on the Tremendous Effects of the Tridentine Mass vs. the New Mass"
March 10, 2024



Print this item

  Fr. Hewko's Sermons: Fourth Sunday of Lent [Laetare Sunday] - March 10, 2024
Posted by: Stone - 03-10-2024, 10:23 AM - Forum: March 2024 - No Replies

 Fourth Sunday of Lent [Laetare Sunday] - March 10, 2024 - “O Sacrament Divine!” (Calgary, AB)


Video






Audio


Print this item

  Fr. Hewko's Sermons: Feast of St. Frances of Rome - March 9, 2024
Posted by: Stone - 03-10-2024, 09:42 AM - Forum: March 2024 - No Replies

Feast of St. Frances of Rome - March 9, 2024 - "The Forgotten Four Last Ends" (Calgary, AB)


Print this item

  Fr. Hewko's Sermons: Feast of St. John of God - March 8, 2024
Posted by: Stone - 03-10-2024, 05:30 AM - Forum: March 2024 - No Replies

Feast of St. John of God - March 8, 2024 - 'The 'Emancipation' of Women Completed" (NH)


Print this item

  Report Exposes Massive Government Surveillance Of Americans’ Financial Data
Posted by: Stone - 03-08-2024, 08:03 AM - Forum: General Commentary - No Replies

House Judiciary Panel Report Exposes Massive Government Surveillance Of Americans’ Financial Data

[Image: image_80%28275%29.jpg?itok=9_8t2ZfX]

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan in Washington on Nov. 7, 2023. (Madalina Vasiliu/The Epoch Times)


ZH [slightly adapted, not all hyperlinks included below]| MAR 07, 2024
Authored by Stephen Katte via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours)

The Biden administration has been accused by the House Judiciary Committee and its Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government of conducting unlawful “broad” surveillance of citizens’ private financial data without a warrant and with no evidence of any crimes being committed by the individuals.

In a new interim report released on March 6, and an accompanying press release, the committee claims to have uncovered “startling evidence,” proving the federal government pried into the private transactions of American consumers without specific evidence of any criminal conduct.

According to the report, federal law enforcement, including the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) and the FBI, colluded with large financial institutions in the United States, such as Barclays, U.S. Bank, Charles Schwab, HSBC, Bank of America, PayPal, and many others in what boiled down to a “fishing expedition for Americans’ financial data.”

“Tactics included keyword filtering of transactions, targeting terms like MAGA and TRUMP, as well as purchases of books, religious texts, firearms-related items, and recreational stores, like Cabela’s, Bass Pro Shop, and Dick’s Sporting Goods,” the report said.

“This surveillance extended beyond criminal suspicion, likely encompassing millions of Americans with conservative viewpoints or Second Amendment interests.”

Led by Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), the committee said FinCEN characterized these Americans as potential threats and subject to surveillance despite these transactions having no criminal nexus.


Surveillance Targets Identified Using General Terms

The interim report also detailed the existence of a web portal run by the Domestic Security Alliance Council (DSAC), a public-private partnership led by the FBI’s Office of Private Sector and the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis.

“This portal appears to have shared intelligence products with financial institutions that were used to identify individuals who fit the profile of criminal and domestic violent extremists, often because of their conservative political views or other constitutionally protected activity,” the committee said.

Federal law enforcement used these reports and other materials they shared with financial institutions to commandeer their databases and conduct sweeping searches of individuals not suspected of committing any crimes, without a warrant, in order to identify individuals making certain suspicious transactions.”

Other surveillance targets were identified using other terms and specific transactions that concerned core political and religious expression.

According to the report, law enforcement “derisively viewed American citizens,” who expressed opposition to firearm regulations, open borders, COVID-19 lockdowns, vaccine mandates, and the “deep state” as potential domestic terrorists.

“In other words, according to the FBI, an American citizen’s opposition to firearm regulations, open borders, or COVID-19 lockdowns and vaccine mandates, all of which are viewpoints protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution, feed into an existing narrative many Domestic Violent Extremism (DVE) actors subscribe to regarding the U.S. government’s exercise of power,” the report said.

“Put another way, expressing a belief in the existence of the deep state, support for typical conservative policies with respect to firearms or immigration, or doubt about the conventional narrative may result in an individual being labeled by the FBI as a DVE Actor and Likely to Pose an Increasing Threat.”

The committee labeled it “disturbing” that the country’s most powerful law enforcement agency would consider views widely held by millions of Americans to be signs of DVE.


Helping Law Enforcement Find Jan 6 Protestors

Earlier this year, the Treasury Department admitted to helping law enforcement identify and arrest people involved in the Jan. 6 Capitol breach. It urged banks to comb through customers’ private transactions using terms like “MAGA” and “Trump.”

In January, allegations were also leveled at FinCEN, claiming the agency engaged in “pervasive financial surveillance” by circulating materials to banks that listed keywords that could be used to flag private financial transactions of potential Jan. 6 suspects. The materials also allegedly included instructions for banks to use indicators, including “the purchase of books” and subscriptions to media containing “extremist views.”

Federal law enforcement agencies, including FinCEN and the FBI, treated lawful transactions as suspicious and shared information with financial institutions through backdoor channels, often circulating materials exhibiting a clear animus towards conservative viewpoints,” the committee report said.

“In addition, FinCEN and the FBI relied on Zoom discussions, private and online government-run portals, as well as sweeping searches of financial institutions’ records to conduct its investigation. Given the important civil liberties at stake, federal law enforcement’s overreach and political bias is alarming.”

Further revelations from the report reveal that FinCEN relied heavily on the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) for guidance on what “relevant terms” and symbols could relate to racially and ethnically motivated violent extremism (REMVE), which they say may “have application to the capitol riots and related activity.”

The report calls the ADL a “notorious anti-conservative activist group” and says hate symbols” that ADL recommended monitoring included the “Celtic Cross,” the “Okay Hand Gesture,” “Pepe the Frog,” and “White Lives Matter.”

The committee said it “should alarm Americans that FinCEN approved of and distributed a link to a database that considers symbols of faith such as the Christian Celtic Cross and other images opposing Antifa, a violent left-wing anarchist group, as hate symbols.”

“This practice is reminiscent of the FBI’s disdain for ‘Radical Traditionalist Catholics,’ and the FBI’s reliance on the Southern Poverty Law Center another far-left activist group as an authoritative source on the Catholic Church,” the report said.[Emphasis - The Catacombs]

The Epoch Times has contacted the FBI, Treasury Department, and the White House for comment.

Print this item

  The Redesigned Notre Dame Cathedral: Symbol of the Revolution
Posted by: Stone - 03-07-2024, 09:56 AM - Forum: General Commentary - No Replies

The Redesigned Notre Dame Cathedral: Symbol of the Revolution
by Rita A. Stewart

[Image: C053_Fir.jpg]

Onlookers watch with grief Notre Dame burning


March 6, 2024

Since its completion in the 13th century, the Cathedral of Notre Dame de Paris has stood as a testament to the glorious Middle Ages. Built to embody the solemn, hierarchical and sacral aspects of the Catholic Church, this monumental Cathedral has helped to combat heresy, (1) and perhaps even to retard the Revolution.

Therefore, when much of the building was destroyed by fire in 2019, it was cause for grief and consternation, not just in France but around the world. Its iconic steeple and roof, ablaze in fiery flames and billowing smoke, seemed to symbolize our calamitous days.

Now that plans for the redesigned cathedral have been released, this symbolism has taken on added and tragic meaning. If Notre Dame were rebuilt according to plans, it would have been transformed into an icon of the Revolution. No longer pointing to God and Our Lady, it will do the opposite, reflecting our miserablist, secular and ecumenical society.

Upon first examining the plans for the cathedral, some may be relieved. As opposed to the more outrageous proposals put forth in 2019 (such as the swimming pool roof and the greenhouse roof plan), this version leaves the building’s structure largely unchanged. Notwithstanding, its spirit has changed and the newly designed interior has become almost unrecognizable.

[Image: C053_Swi.jpg]

Proposals for a swimming pool on the roof &, below, strange new spires,
were rejected but the interior was completely changed

[Image: C053_New.jpg]

The stone columns, once majestic and solemn, now appear cold. Likewise, the high ceilings, instead of inspiring contemplation of God’s grandeur, make the church seem hollow. There is also a conspicuous absence of crucifixes and statues of Saints.

Whereas the magnificent Notre Dame of old reflected perennial Catholic doctrines, the redesigned interior of the cathedral will be based upon the principles of Vatican II. Designer Guillame Bardet, famous for his “minimalist” style, seems to adhere to the progressivist vision of a “poor and sinner Church.”

[Image: C053_Cat.jpg]

The disconcerting design for the new Notre Dame interior

Bardet notes in an interview that his intention is to “remove everything that is not necessary, and to arrive at the essential, and so the essential is that it is poor.” In the same interview, the rector of the cathedral admits that this idea is based on the Council document Sacrosanctum Concilium [of Vatican II], which states: “The rites should be distinguished by a noble simplicity; they should be short, clear, and unencumbered by useless repetitions.”

Bardet’s design is also influenced by Vatican II ecumenism. He boldly states that, “With this work, I am addressing Catholics first, but I also seek to speak to others. To make it clear that we are talking here about religion and, more broadly, spirituality.”

All of this calls to mind the declaration from Lumen gentium that the “plan of salvation” includes Jews and Muslims, as well as the notion that the Church of Christ merely “subsists” in the Catholic Church. Based on this line of thinking, Bardet appears to be implying that religious truths are broader than what the Church can encompass and we must open ourselves to the ideas held by other religions.

With this framework in mind, it becomes easier to understand the redesigned interior. These Vatican II principles are present in its overall ambiance, as well as in the individual pieces designed by Bardet. They are ugly and common, and do not appear distinctly Catholic. With a few slight modifications – or none at all – they would fit in a Protestant, Muslim, Jewish, or Masonic temple.

First, there are the pulpit and the cathedra. Traditionally, these objects were ornate and made of fine materials in order to symbolize the authority of the Church through her visible representatives. By contrast, Bardet’s designs are made with simple undecorated wood, and both have a note of austerity rather than one of grandeur. They strongly impose the impression of equality between laypeople and the clergy, reinforcing the Protestant idea that a “minister” serves as little more than a worship leader.

[Image: C053_Pul_.jpg]

The minimalist pulpit compared with the traditional gothic; below, the ugly modern chairs

[Image: C053_Cha.jpg]

Next is the baptistry, which looks just as wretched as the first two objects. Bardet claims it is meant to give the impression of “ritual circularity,”  a phrase that sounds more New Age than Catholic. It looks similar to the ancient “point within a circle” symbol, used by Freemasons to represent an individual’s journey toward Masonic “virtues.” Could this be an attempt to rid baptism of its sacramental significance?

Below, the baptistery, mimicking the Masonic 'point within a circle' symbol?

[Image: C053_Bap.jpg]

The fourth piece, the altar, is particularly distressing. As the altar is the place where Our Lord comes down from Heaven, it should be the richest and most beautiful part of the church. Instead, this one is stark, with a curved, unsettling shape.

Bardet writes that “the evocation of the Last Supper meal naturally imposes horizontality, the altar of sharing.” In other words, he is deliberately de-emphasizing the Church’s doctrine on the Real Presence, giving the impression that the Holy Eucharist is merely a meal. For this reason, the altar looks like a table (or worse than that), with no sacrality at all.

The bare plain altar, below, is unsettling

[Image: C053_Alt.jpg]

Bardet’s final object, the tabernacle, is equally unfit for Our Lord. Bare and marked only with a thin cross, one would hardly expect it to contain the King of Kings, Jesus Christ. Bardet defends himself by saying, “I chose simplicity by returning to the etymology of the word tabernacle, ‘the tent.’”

This not only obscures the reality of the Real Presence, but also hearkens back to the Old Covenant, in which the Holy of Holies was contained in a tent, the Tabernacle of Moses. Bardet’s work could be seen as an ecumenical gesture, a way to pretend that the Holy Eucharist is of no more importance than what came before in the Old Testament.

The tabernacle: a triangle box with no sense of a palace for the Real Presence

[Image: C053_Obe.jpg]

The redesigned interior of the Cathedral of Notre Dame is far from the only church to have been hijacked by progressivists. Still, given its great importance in Christendom, this “remodel” will mark a new stage in the Revolution. It will show that the crisis in the Church has reached her very core, aiming to eradicate the last vestiges of the Catholic spirit.

This should remind us, as counter-revolutionaries, of our grave obligation to defend Christ and His Holy Mother and execrate loudly desecrations like this one. As the chastisements approach, let us refuse to retreat from the battle.

[Image: C053_Tho.jpg]

The reliquary to hold the Crown of Thorns looks like a target practice at a shooting range



1. The cathedral was designed to oppose the Cathar heresy. The Cathars denied Christ’s divinity, so the façade of the cathedral is divided into three parts in order to represent the Holy Trinity. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5nODJ3Sum4

Print this item

  "BW's Liberalism Again"
Posted by: Stone - 03-06-2024, 09:55 AM - Forum: True vs. False Resistance - Replies (1)

I received an email yesterday from Mr. Luke Ross (coordinator of one of the Australian chapels) with the subject line "BW's Liberalism Again."

The email links to a brief Q&A published online regarding a troubling recent Eleison Comments (authored by Bp. Williamson) regarding Novus Ordo Sacraments.

This is important as the accusations of "disgruntled infighting" are often hurled at Frs. Hewko and Ruiz for having said the same things as the more objective 'Traditio Fathers.' Traditio is not part of the Resistance and have 'no skin in the game' as the saying goes. They are simply comparing the words of Bishop Williamson with the teachings of the Church. 


Quote:Dear TRADITIO Fathers:

A well-known traditional (?) Catholic bishop has been scandalizing true Traditional Catholics by suddenly pandering to the "sacraments" of the New Order (Novus Ordo) sect, aka the Newchurch of the New Order. In his most recent writing he answers the question "What about receiving hosts supposedly consecrated at Novus Ordo Masses (sic)?" by stating: "Perhaps best avoid them, because they can be invalid, and with time may be more and more so. However, in case of need you can receive such hosts, because they may also be valid." Doesn't that answer flatly contradict Catholic doctrine?


THE TRADITIO FATHERS REPLY:

That statement most certainly does contradict Catholic doctrine. The Sacraments must be certain. There cannot be any moral doubt, or a Catholic is obliged under pain of idolatry, a grave sin against the First Commandment of God, to shun the fakery like the Devil. The idea that a Catholic could receive a doubtful "sacrament" is unconscionable.

There are certainly examples of this doctrine in the history of the Church. After the Church In England revolted and adopted a Protestant Ordinal in 1550, written by the Arch-heretic Thomas Cranmer, the Catholic Church was split. Some Catholics, even some prelates, considered Anglican ordinations valid; most did not. In this situation of doubt, the Catholic Church never allowed Catholics to receive "sacraments" from Anglican presbyter/ministers. The Catholic Church never said "perhaps." No, in the case of moral doubt, a Catholic is strictly bound to shun such spurious "sacraments" entirely.

In 1896 Pope Leo XIII settled the issue once and for all when he declared in his 1896 Papal Bull "Apostolicae curae" that all Anglican orders had been and are "absolutely null and utterly void" because the Anglican Ordinal is deficient in intention and form, not intending to ordain a sacrificing priesthood, but merely to install ministers to an ecclesiastical institution that was not Catholic in belief. [..]

What Pope Leo XIII decreed about the Anglicans is a fortiori, i.e., even more, true of the Novus Ordo sect, the Newchurch of the New Order, or whatever you want to call it. That Newchurch, founded in 1964 at the Vatican II Anti-council, eventually rejected, in its official writings, the traditional term "ordination" and uses instead "installation," as of a Protestant minister. It rejected the term "priest" and uses instead "presbyter," an ambiguous term, essentially meaning "elder," much as the Mormons use the term "elder" for their clergy.

Therefore, it is unconscionable that any true Catholic, let alone a supposed traditional Catholic bishop of over thirty years, would ever speak of a sacrament as "perhaps."

[The last sentence promoting sedevacantism is omitted here.]

(Emphasis in the original.)

The brief reply is very accurate. And the Church has spoken very, very clearly on doubtful sacraments and how we are to view them:

1917 Catholic Encyclopedia: Thus ... it is not lawful to act on mere probability when the validity of the sacraments is in question. Again, it is not lawful to act on mere probability when there is question of gaining an end which is obligatory, since certain means must be employed to gain a certainly required end. Hence, when eternal salvation is at stake, it is not lawful to be content with uncertain means. www.newadvent.org/cathen/12441a.htm

Once again, we see Bishop Williamson speaking out of both sides of his mouth. 'New Sacraments perhaps should be avoided but go ahead if you are in need.' This is very subjective, to leave it up to people to decided if they are in 'need.' Fr. Felix Sarday Salvany in his book, Liberalism is a Sin, notes that it is "Protestantism [that] naturally begets toleration of error."

The New Sacraments thus 'tolerated' eventually so blur the line for the simple Catholic adhering to such advice that they soon no longer distinguishes or remember why they were 'resisting' the errors of the Novus Ordo in the first place. We see the same tactics employed in the Indult communities and the New-SSPX and also in the False Resistance.

The words of Pope Gregory XVI in Mirari Vos [1832] are just important now and they were nearly two hundred years ago:

"6. ... We must raise Our voice and attempt all things lest a wild boar from the woods should destroy the vineyard or wolves kill the flock. It is Our duty to lead the flock only to the food which is healthful. In these evil and dangerous times, the shepherds must never neglect their duty; they must never be so overcome by fear that they abandon the sheep. Let them never neglect the flock and become sluggish from idleness and apathy. Therefore, united in spirit, let us promote our common cause, or more truly the cause of God; let our vigilance be one and our effort united against the common enemies.

7. Indeed you will accomplish this perfectly if, as the duty of your office demands, you attend to yourselves and to doctrine and meditate on these words: “the universal Church is affected by any and every novelty”[5] and the admonition of Pope Agatho: “nothing of the things appointed ought to be diminished; nothing changed; nothing added; but they must be preserved both as regards expression and meaning.”

This certainly applied to all things Novus Ordo as everything from the Conciliar Church is indeed a New Order.




The referenced Eleison Comments:

Quote:EMERGENCY ADVICE – I

February 17, 2024
Eleison Comments Issue DCCCLXVI (866)

God asks us not the impossible to do,
But to leave for others the freedom you want for you.

A reader much confused by what is going on inside the Catholic Church sends in a number of practical questions which many Catholic souls must be asking themselves today in connection with the serious duty for any Catholic of attending Mass to fulfil his Sunday obligation. Normally the answers are more or less clear, but circumstances since the 1960s’ revolution of Vatican II inside the Church are no longer normal, and so the answers are no longer so clear. Let us list this reader’s questions in order, going from the general to the particular, to reply with answers offered by these “Comments,” but not imposed.

1 To what extent is the Newchurch of Vatican II Catholic, and to what extent is it counterfeit?

Answer, God alone knows, because He alone knows the secrets of men’s hearts, and the borderline between the true and the false Church often runs through men’s hearts, for instance whether or not they have the Catholic Faith. Since He alone can know for sure, then He does not expect us to know. However, He does give us sufficient means to know what we do need to know, and that is to judge by the fruits (cf. Mt. VII, 15–20). These will infallibly tell the difference, for instance, between true and false shepherds. Real joy and charity will reveal where the true Church still exists, even inside the Newchurch structures.

2 Do we have a Pope?

Answer, if we judge Pope Francis by his fruits, they are disastrous for the true Church, to the point that many serious Catholics argue that he is an anti-pope. God does not require of me to know for sure, one way or the other. Good Catholic theologians can disagree. The wisdom of Archbishop Lefebvre for his priests was that they could have their own opinion in private, but in public they should behave as though the apparent Vatican II popes are true Popes, unless and until the evidence is clear that they are not Popes. Even Pope Francis is still serving the Catholic function of providing the structural Church with a visible head, enabling the Church structures to continue functioning until God cleans out the Augean stables. In His own good time God will put the Pope back on his feet. Meanwhile, I may despair of this or that pope, but I must not despair of the Papacy, or of any other institution from the Tradition of Our Lord Himself.

3 What about the Newchurch sacraments?

Answer, like the Newchurch as a whole of which they are product and part, they are still partly good but essentially rotting, like the rotten apples to which they may be compared, because the Newchurch was cleverly designed from the beginning to rot over tens of years until there would be nothing of the true Church left. This was because by the 1960’s when Vatican II happened, many churchmen at the top of the Church had been thoroughly infected by the thinking of Freemasonry, the secret society created in 1717 in London to infiltrate the Catholic Church until it could be destroyed from within, thus enabling the known enemies of God and man to take over the world. Our Lord’s own Church is the great obstacle in their way.

4 What about the “Eucharistic miracles,” supposedly taking place at Novus Ordo “Masses”?

Answer, down all near 2000 years of Church history so far, God has always by such miracles helped Christians to believe in the stupendous miracle of His Presence beneath mere appearances of bread and wine, and these miracles continue today, because the Sacred Heart will not abandon sheep misled by their shepherds. The difference is that today modern science is available to provide truly scientific evidence to prove that the miracles, if they are genuine, are genuine. See for instance the book “A Cardiologist examines Jesus” by Dr. Franco Serafini, with explanations and photographic illustrations from several recent miracles. It is published by Sophia Institute Press, available from SophiaInstitute.com God bless Traditionalists for clinging to the Traditional Latin Mass, but not for refusing scientific evidence provided by the Sacred Heart for the salvation of souls.

5 And what about receiving hosts supposedly consecrated at Novus Ordo Masses?

Answer, perhaps best avoid them, because they can be invalid, and with time may be more and more so. However, in case of need you can receive such hosts, because they may also be valid.

Kyrie eleison.

Print this item

  Fr. Hewko's Sermons: Tuesday of the Third Week of Lent - March 5, 2024
Posted by: Stone - 03-06-2024, 09:36 AM - Forum: March 2024 - Replies (2)

Tuesday of Third Week of Lent - March 5, 2024 - "Letter of Fr. Basilio Meramo" (NH)


Print this item

  Charity and Liberalism
Posted by: Stone - 03-06-2024, 09:23 AM - Forum: Resources Online - No Replies

The following is taken from Fr. Felix Sarday Salvany's book, Liberalism is a Sin.

The following chapter shows plainly and clearly that true charity consist of rejecting errors. It is a good reminder that even those professing to be traditional Catholics but who rather show tolerance for error (e.g. the Indult groups, the new SSPX, the False Resistance, etc.) are rightly corrected - out of true charity.



Chapter 19 Charity and Liberalism

Narrow! Intolerant! Uncompromising! These are the epithets of odium hurled by Liberal votaries of all degrees at us [...] Are not Liberals our neighbors like other men? Do we not owe to them the same charity we apply to others? Are not your vigorous denunciations, it is urged against us, harsh and uncharitable and in the very teeth of the teaching of Christianity, which is essentially a religion of love? Such is the accusation continually flung in our face. Let us see what its value is. Let us see all that the word "Charity" signifies.

The Catechism [of the Council of Trent], that popular and most authoritative epitome of Catholic theology, gives us the most complete and succinct definition of charity; it is full of wisdom and philosophy. Charity is a supernatural virtue which induces us to love God above all things and our neighbors as ourselves for the love of God. Thus, after God we ought to love our neighbor as ourselves, and this not just in any way, but for the love of God and in obedience to His law. And now, what is it to love? Amare est velle bonum, replies the philosopher. "To love is to wish good to him whom we love." To whom does charity command us to wish good? To our neighbor, that is to say, not to this or that man only, but to everyone. What is that good which true love wishes? First of all supernatural good, then goods of the natural order which are not incompatible with it. All this is included in the phrase "for the love of God."

It follows, therefore, that we can love our neighbor when displeasing him, when opposing him, when causing him some material injury, and even, on certain occasions, when depriving him of life; in short, all is reduced to this: Whether in the instance where we displease, oppose, or humiliate him, it is or is not for his own good, or for the good of someone whose rights are superior to his, or simply for the greater service of God.

If it is shown that in displeasing or offending our neighbor we act for his good, it is evident that we love him, even when opposing or crossing him. The physician cauterizing his patient or cutting off his gangrened limb may nonetheless love him. When we correct the wicked by restraining or by punishing them, we do nonetheless love them. This is charity—and perfect charity.


It is often necessary to displease or offend one person, not for his own good, but to deliver another from the evil he is inflicting. It is then an obligation of charity to repel the unjust violence of the aggressor; one may inflict as much injury on the aggressor as is necessary for defense. Such would be the case should one see a highwayman attacking a traveler. In this instance, to kill, wound, or at least take such measures as to render the aggressor impotent, would be an act of true charity.

The good of all good is the divine Good, just as God is for all men the Neighbor of all neighbors. In consequence, the love due to a man, inasmuch as he is our neighbor, ought always to be subordinated to that which is due to our common Lord. For His love and in His service we must not hesitate to offend men. The degree of our offense towards men can only be measured by the degree of our obligation to Him. Charity is primarily the love of God, secondarily the love of our neighbor for God's sake. To sacrifice the first is to abandon the latter. Therefore, to offend our neighbor for the love of God is a true act of charity. Not to offend our neighbor for the love of God is a sin.

Modern Liberalism reverses this order; it imposes a false notion of charity: our neighbor first, and, if at all, God afterwards. By its reiterated and trite accusations toward us of intolerance, it has succeeded in disconcerting even some staunch Catholics. But our rule is too plain and too concrete to admit of misconception. It is this: Sovereign Catholic inflexibility is sovereign Catholic charity. This charity is practiced in relation to our neighbor when, in his own interest, he is crossed, humiliated, and chastised. It is practiced in relation to a third party when he is defended from the unjust aggression of another, as when he is protected from the contagion of error by unmasking its authors and abettors and showing them in their true light as iniquitous and pervert, by holding them up to the contempt, horror, and execration of all. It is practiced in relation to God when, for His glory and in His service, it becomes necessary to silence all human considerations, to trample under foot all human respect, to sacrifice all human interests—and even life itself—to attain this highest of all ends. All this is Catholic inflexibility and inflexible Catholicity in the practice of that pure love which constitutes sovereign charity. The Saints are the types of this unswerving and sovereign fidelity to God, the heroes of charity and religion. Because in our times there are so few true inflexibles in the love of God, so also are there few uncompromisers in the order of charity. Liberal charity is condescending, affectionate, even tender in appearance, but at bottom it is an essential contempt for the true good of men, of the supreme interests of truth and [ultimately] of God. It is human self-love, usurping the throne of the Most High and demanding that worship which belongs to God alone.

Print this item

  Canadian Government Moves to Criminalize Christianity
Posted by: Stone - 03-06-2024, 06:50 AM - Forum: Global News - No Replies

Canadian Government Moves to Criminalize Christianity

[Image: justin-trudeau-davos-wef-christianity-800x500.jpg]


Slay News | March 3, 2024

Canada is moving to criminalize Christianity as the far-left Canadian government seeks to expand its so-called “hate speech” laws to include key elements of the Christian faith.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s World Economic Forum-controlled government is planning to outlaw Christianity, with Bible reading and prayer to be considered “hate speech” – a “crime” punishable with prison time.

Under Trudeau, a WEF Young Global Leader, the government is introducing an amendment to the Criminal Code that could see believers face jail time for expressing historic Christian teachings.

The legislation, Bill C-367, will make it illegal to reiterate certain parts of the Bible.

By stripping away the “good faith” defense, the government will be able to prosecute Christians for what is deemed by the state as “hate speech.”

Traditional Christian practices such as celebrating Christmas or attending church service will be considered crimes that carry severe penalties.

The proposed amendment aims to remove the provision that allows individuals to defend themselves by claiming they genuinely believe in and were merely expressing religious teaching already found in the Scriptures.

This means that citing religious beliefs as justification for words or actions that the state effectively regards as “heresy” will no longer be accepted as a valid defense under the law.

The bill states:

“The enactment amends the Criminal Code to eliminate as a defense against wilful promotion of hatred or antisemitism the fact that a person, in good faith, expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion or a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text.”


The bill has prompted outrage online.

Opponents are expressing concerns about freedom of expression.

Many are warning that the move will open the floodgates for targeted persecution of Christians in Canada.

Dr. Joseph Boot, President of the Ezra Institute, a Canada-based evangelical think-tank, said:

“If ratified, Canada’s anti-Christian legal apparatus created over the last decade will overtly persecute Christians with the force of criminal law.

“Everything is already in place,” he warned. “Buckle up.”


Dr. Boot went on to explain that evangelism, preaching, counseling, statements in the workplace, on social media, and in books that condemn homosexuality or transgenderism on biblical grounds could be “subject to criminal prosecution and with heavy fines or jail time.”

The legislation will also include statements deemed “anti-Semitic.”

The Christian CEO of social media platform Gab, Andrew Torba, warns that legislation means:

“Christians who maintain traditional orthodox perspectives about Jews–views that have been part of our faith for 2,000 years, are the primary obstacle to the Ruling Regime.”

Torba said, “As a result, we are the most targeted and vilified group in the Western world.

“This is just more evidence of that.”

Bill C-367 is still under consideration in Parliament.

It has passed the first reading but faces further debate.

It is expected to pass, however, and PM Trudeau has expressed his full support for the bill.

Print this item

  Requiescat in pace: Fr. Basilio Méramo
Posted by: Stone - 03-05-2024, 10:17 AM - Forum: Appeals for Prayer - Replies (2)

[Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.pinimg.com%2Foriginal...f=1&nofb=1]

Requiem aeternam dona ei Domine, et lux perpetua luceat ei. Requiescat in pace. Amen.


In your charity, please pray for the soul of Fr. Basilio Méramo who passed away today, March 5, 2024. 
Fr. Méramo was a priest of the SSPX for nearly 30 years. 
It is my understanding that he served many of those years as the Prior of Orizaba, Veracruz, Mexico.  
He was expelled by Bishop Fellay in 2009 for opposing Bp. Fellay's new direction with regards to modernist Rome.
His reply to this expulsion is powerful and will follow below. 

May his soul and the souls of all the faithful departed rest in peace.  Amen.


✠ ✠ ✠


The De Profundis  - Psalm 129

Out of the depths I have cried unto Thee, O Lord; Lord, hear my voice.
Let Thine ears be attentive to the voice of my supplication.
If Thou, O Lord, shalt mark our iniquities: O Lord, who can abide it?
For with Thee there is mercy: and by reason of Thy law I have waited on Thee, O Lord.
My soul hath waited on His word: my soul hath hoped in the Lord.
From the morning watch even unto night: let Israel hope in the Lord.
For with the Lord there is mercy: and with Him is plenteous redemption.
And He shall redeem Israel from all his iniquities.

Eternal rest grant unto him O Lord And let perpetual light shine upon him.

Print this item