Clicks5.8K

Should Catholics Attend the New Mass? - Part II of II - Episode 15 SSPX FAQ Videos

sspx.org - As we examined in our previous video, “What is the Novus Ordo Missae?” The New Mass was created after Vatican II, under the influence of Fr. Annibale Bugnini and Pope Paul VI, both of …More
sspx.org - As we examined in our previous video, “What is the Novus Ordo Missae?” The New Mass was created after Vatican II, under the influence of Fr. Annibale Bugnini and Pope Paul VI, both of whom wanted a liturgy that was ecumenical and would not be a “stumbling block” to Protestants.

This goal was accomplished with the new liturgy by obscuring or even removing from its prayers the Catholic doctrines concerning the propitiatory nature of the Mass, the sacrificial and mediatory character of the priesthood, and the dogma of the Real Presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist.

It was these alarming theological deficiencies that caused Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci to write in September 1969 to Pope Paul VI what was called the “Ottaviani Intervention.” In Part 6 we read: “It is evident that the Novus Ordo has no intention of presenting the Faith as taught by the Council of Trent, to which, nonetheless, the Catholic conscience is bound forever. With the promulgation of the Novus Ordo, the loyal Catholic is thus faced with a most tragic alternative.”

And that the New Mass departs from the Catholic Faith “as a whole and in its details.”

Along the same lines, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre affirmed, “that the New Mass, even when said with piety and respect for the liturgical rules, is subject to […] reservations since it is impregnated with the spirit of Protestantism. It bears within it a poison harmful to the Faith.”

With the deficiencies in the rite itself, Archbishop Lefebvre also pointed out the danger to the Faith coming from bad preaching and liturgical abuses.

In itself the rite of the New Mass does not clearly express the Faith precisely on the points of doctrine denied by the Protestant heresies. In itself therefore this new rite of the Mass constitutes a danger to souls.

It is a fact that this new liturgy has confused or destroyed the Faith of millions of Catholics since the 1970’s to the point that most churchgoers today have an erroneous understanding of the Catholic doctrine of the Mass and sometimes do not even believe in the real presence.

The Church cannot ask her members to endanger their Faith. This is the reason why Catholics are not obliged to attend the New Mass to fulfill the Sunday Precept. In fact, for those who have knowledge of its inherent problems, the New Mass is to be completely avoided, as they understand that it is also an offense to God.

When a traditional Mass is not available, or when the Faith is endangered by the preaching or opinions of the priest, one is dispensed from attending Mass on a Sunday or Holy Day.

In such cases, the Church recommends the faithful to sanctify Sunday by dedicating a time for prayer, alone or in the family: one could read the Mass of the day, pray the rosary, and make a spiritual communion.

If a duty of charity obliges one to attend a New Mass, for example, for a wedding or a funeral, the attendance should be passive. Passive attendance consists in being present without participating. It is legitimate to do so occasionally if there is no danger of scandal. One could pray the rosary during the ceremony, for example.

For any particular situations and questions, please consult an SSPX priest close to you - or contact us directly at the District House.

For further insight and understanding, we recommend reading “The Mass of All Time" by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre - which can be found at AngelusPress.org

Another great source we recommend is "Priestly Holiness” also by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. And, "Pope Paul's New Mass” by Michael Davies. As well the "Ottaviani intervention” - a Short Critical Study of the New Order of Mass. To learn more go to sspx.org and subscribe to our email list.

Other Statistics Regarding Loss of Faith Since 1970's:

Parishes without a resident priest were virtually unknown at the time of the Council; only 3 percent of them, 549, were without a priest in 1965. In 2002 there were 2,928 priestless parishes, about 15 percent of U.S. parishes. By 2020, a quarter of all parishes, 4,656, will have no priest.

In USA, in 1965 there were 126,000 adult baptisms - converts - in 2002 there were 80,000.

belief of young Catholics (20-39 = exposed only to new Liturgy) in 2001 (Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate Report, 2001), are these elements essential to the Faith:
- only men can be priest: 17%
- Christ is really present in the Eucharist: 58%

Assistance to Mass in US (Fordham University professor James Lothian):
1965: 65% of Catholics
2000: 25%

(In 1994, New York Times/CBS Poll) Catholics who believe the Eucharist is merely a “symbolic reminder" of Jesus:
age 65 and older: 45%
age 45-65: 58%
age 18-44: 70%

79 percent of cradle Catholics are no longer Catholic by the age of 23 (Sherry Weddell, 2013)

Copyright 2015 © All Rights Reserved. Produced by Visual Contrast in Association with the Society of St. Pius X.
Dr. John Smythe
@Gregory @Dr Stuart Reiss @micheal newman @Ben Martin

As promised, in this post we’re going to take a more detailed look at the Novus Ordorelative to the recent SSPX video (featuring Fr. Steven McDonald, SSPX) and Michael Voris reaction to it.

Before we begin, know this:

– First, it’s not possible to do justice to a topic such as this in a couple of videos and a handful of blog …
More
@Gregory @Dr Stuart Reiss @micheal newman @Ben Martin

As promised, in this post we’re going to take a more detailed look at the Novus Ordorelative to the recent SSPX video (featuring Fr. Steven McDonald, SSPX) and Michael Voris reaction to it.

Before we begin, know this:

– First, it’s not possible to do justice to a topic such as this in a couple of videos and a handful of blog posts. Those who really want to come to a fully informed understanding are going to have to dig deeper than that.

Even so, this is going to be, by necessity, a lengthy post, so grab a cup of coffee (or a cold beer or whatever suits your fancy) and settle in, this is going to take some time.

– Secondly, my purpose in this post is to explain more fully the argument put forth by the SSPX (and others) as I understand it. It’s going to be up to individual readers to educate themselves further, to evaluate the Society’s argument for what it actually is, and then to decide its merits for themselves.

– Lastly, under discussion here are matters concerning a liturgical crisis the likes of which the faithful have never experienced; ever, in nearly 2,000 years!

It’s simply not possible without great effort to fully form one’s conscience and intellect in this environment so each might serve as a reliable guide in determining how best to respond. Along the way, we can well expect sincere Catholics, each and every one a victim of the same crisis, to disagree with one another.

For many of the commenters here, this post may have a “preaching to the choir” feel.

Please understand, however, that commenters are but a small fraction of our readership. A large number of readers do not necessarily consider themselves “traditionalists,” but they are agitated enough by the crisis at hand to visit this space (and most certainly others) in their search for answers.

With this in mind, I’m going to be somewhat meticulous in spelling things out (as best I can anyway); perhaps even a bit more so than necessary for some of you.

OK, with all of that having been said, Michael Voris did his best to get his viewers incensed over the following comment made in the video by Fr. McDonald:


The New Mass is to be completely avoided as they understand it is an offense against God.

Voris, in his attempt to incite outrage, is treating this as a clarion call for all Catholics to avoid the New Mass completely, telling his viewers:

You are instructed not to go to Mass on Sunday if you must go to a Novus Ordo, New Mass..

That’s not entirely so. I can tell you firsthand that this is not how Society priests counsel individuals who currently participate in the Novus Ordo.

In my experience (and that of close friends), SSPX priests realize that sincere people have been led astray by their sacred pastors for a very long time. They know that many of us simply don’t know what we don’t know, and so they provide gentle guidance without compromising the truth.

If you’ve had a different experience and wish to use that as an excuse for sticking your fingers in your ears and blubbering “lalalalalalalala” so as to not even consider the possibility that there may be some merit to the Society’s position on the new Mass after all, so be it.

Incidentally, a friend of mine, also named Mike, wrote to me in the aftermath of Voris’ latest rant to say:


I’m sure he (Voris) would be delighted to know that an FSSP priest has forbidden me — because it’s a danger to the Faith — from attending a new Mass.

I am certain that my friend isn’t alone; so let’s not pretend that SSPX priests are the only ones that understand the Novus Ordo as an offense against God to be avoided; even if they are unique in being willing to invite persecution for speaking their convictions in public.

In any case, there’s an important qualifier in Fr. McDonald’s statement that Michael Voris overlooked; namely, “as they understand it…”

Later in the video, the nature of that qualifier is made plain when Father states (with the words printed onscreen), “Knowledgeable Catholics should avoid the New Mass.” [emphasis added]

Did you get that?

He said knowledgeable Catholics.

Please allow me to break this down further for those who as yet don’t fully grasp what Fr. McDonald is saying here and why.

This, incidentally, is a service that people like me are compelled to provide since Voris is apparently scared to death to allow the Society to provide its own detailed explanations on this complex topic firsthand.

Maybe that will change. We’ll see…

Look, all concerned (His Vorexcellency included) recognize the importance of avoiding, for the good of our souls, any activity that we understand to be an offense against God. That’s just plain Catholic common sense.

If one understands the Novus Ordo as be offensive to God, why would they participate therein? (We’ll examine the excuses momentarily.)

It’s important to note that sincere people often, in ignorance, engage in activities that are, objectively speaking, an offense against God; unaware that they are participating in something that should be avoided.

What happens in such instances?

Many if not most of us know firsthand that God, in His benevolence, does not cease to pour out His grace upon such persons; on the contrary, He continues to bless them and call them ever closer to Himself, even as they engage in an activity that they really should avoid.

When we see evidence of this either in our own lives or that of others, we must be careful not to confuse God’s generosity toward individual souls with His approval of their activities. One does not necessarily follow the other.

For example, a young man may come to discern the Lord’s call to the priesthood while serving as lead guitarist in the parish Rock-n-Roll Mass.

It would be wrong to conclude that the blessings bestowed upon this individual soul are an indication that the Lord has deemed the Rock-n-Roll Mass inoffensive, and furthermore, that we would do well to celebrate them more often.

This kind of mistaken logic is commonly applied in support of all manner of liturgical deviations that, objectively speaking, are offensive to God.

This same line of argumentation often surfaces in conversations about the Novus Ordo in general, as those who frequent it (or in the case of priests, celebrate it) are often quick to become defensive, as if the very real blessings that may have been received therein (or dispensed therein by the priest acting in persona Christi) are being discredited. They are not.

It’s important to be clear on this point:

To say that the new Mass is an offense against God (an admittedly stunning proposition) is not tantamount to declaring that those who participate therein have not been blessed in the process, much less, subjectively speaking, that they are personally guilty of offending God.

In other words, if you frequent the Novus Ordo, it’s not all about you, sweetheart, so stay focused; the present discussion primarily concerns the rite itself.

Continuing with our analogy, imagine that this guitar playing young man eventually comes to understand that the Rock-n-Roll Mass is indeed an offense against the Lord, even as he recognizes the good that came to him and others via their participation therein.

He then has a decision to make:

Does he continue participating in those Masses in spite of their offensiveness in order to secure for himself whatever blessings may remain, or does he avoid it?

The answer is obvious enough; he must avoid that Mass completely.

This is an illustration of what Fr. McDonald stated, “The New Mass is to be completely avoided as they understand it is an offense against God … Knowledgeable Catholics should avoid the New Mass.”

Of course, we all know that Fr. McDonald wasn’t talking about the Rock-n-Roll Mass specifically (which, incidentally, may be entirely valid) but more broadly of the Novus Ordo itself.

The million dollar question then is this: Is the Novus Ordo Missae, objectively speaking, an offense against God?

I realize that the question alone is enough to take one’s breath away. It’s a terrible thing to consider, but don’t allow your emotions to stifle your intellect; stick with me here.

Often, the mere suggestion that the new Mass could possibly be an offense against God invites yet another question:

How can this Mass be an offense against God given that it is valid, which means that the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of His Son is offered to Him in atonement for our sins therein, and furthermore the Most Holy Eucharist is truly confected and received by His people in this Mass?

We might summarize the arguments expressed herein (essentially the same that were put forth by Michael Voris in his Boretex) as follows – the Novus Ordo cannot be an offense against God because:

A) It is valid

B) It is the true Sacrifice of Christ offered to Our Heavenly Father

C) The Most Holy Eucharist is truly confected and received therein

D) It has been approved by the popes; i.e., it is given to the faithful by the Church

Let’s begin by addressing yet another question that lies at the heart of much of this discussion:

Is it possible for something (in this case, the new Mass) to contain that which is both exceedingly good (the true Sacrifice, the Eucharist made available, therefore pleasing to God), and yet also that which is truly bad (an offense against God and therefore displeasing to Him) at one and the same time?

The answer is yes, one thing may contain that which is both pleasing and offensive to God; the finest and most appropriate example imaginable being the shedding of Our Lord’s Precious Blood on Calvary – the same Sacrifice that is offered in an unbloody manner at Holy Mass.

Clearly, the Crucifixion was the greatest offense against God ever committed, and yet it was also the most pleasing of all offerings ever given to God – the same that yielded the greatest blessing ever to be bestowed upon mankind.

Another example is death. Imagine a devout and holy woman dying and leaving behind small children. Her death is at once good (in her passing into eternal bliss) and bad (in leaving her children motherless).

With this in mind, it must be acknowledged, at least theoretically at this point for the sake of proceeding, that the new Mass need not be either entirely pleasing, or entirely offensive to God; it can be both.

To arrive at a more specific answer to the objections raised above to the idea that the new Mass may be an offense against God, it is necessary to remind ourselves that the Novus Ordo is entirely unique in the life of the Church.

Our conservative friends have long recognized this truth as summarized so very clearly by Cardinal Ratzinger who said:

“One cannot manufacture a liturgical movement … but one can help contribute to its development by striving to reassimilate the spirit of the liturgy and by defending publicly what one has thus received … What happened after the Council was something else entirely: in the place of liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over centuries, and replaced it–as in a manufacturing process – with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product.”

This being the case, those who wish to grasp the reality of the new Mass must view it for what is truly is – a “fabrication” that is best understood as a departure from that which is normal in the life of the Church; namely “the organic, living process of growth and development over centuries” that brought about the so-called Traditional Latin Mass. (For expedience sake, we’ll refer to it as the TLM.)

As such, any discussion of the Novus Ordo that does not include at the very least a basic understanding of that which it supplanted will lack the perspective necessary for uncovering the truth.

Now, I realize that many readers have but a limited understanding (and perhaps even no firsthand experience) of the TLM. This, however, need not render their reading here fruitless.

By all means, come to know the Mass of Ages (as it is also called) more deeply moving forward, but for now it will suffice to recognize that the TLM, the Roman rite codified by Pope St. Pius V in 1570, after having existed in the same substantial form for more than 1,000 years; the rite repeatedly praised for its Heavenly perfection by the Saints, the Doctors of the Church and the popes throughout the ages, in part, for its efficaciousness in communicating the Catholic faith in all integrity via its magnificent sacred signs, both collectively and individually, forming the faithful in such way as to exemplify the principle lex orandi, lex credendi…

This rite contains absolutely nothing whatsoever that could in any way be considered an offense against God.

If there should be any who find this statement disagreeable, it would perhaps be best for that person to leave now; to fast and to pray and to beg the Lord for a sensus Catholicus – an authentic Catholic sense.

For those who remain, with this most acceptable premise as an agreeable starting point, let’s consider one of Voris’ retorts:


Sure, there are abuses that occur in the New Mass owing to all kinds of issues that we point out here on the Vortex all the time. But those abuses are just that — abuses.

The suggestion here is that the Novus Ordo – meaning, the rite itself – when done by the book, is devoid of any offense against God.

This simply is not true as the statement from Cardinal Ratzinger – one that all but the fringe leftwing accepts as true – makes rather plain.

To say otherwise is to say that God is not offended by a “banal on the spot [liturgical] product” that was not only “fabricated … as in a manufacturing process,” but was also forced upon the faithful in place of that rite that had been faithfully handed down throughout the ages and very rightly received the glowing praise of so many Saints.

The very notion is positively ludicrous!

More specifically as to the content of the Novus Ordo, ask yourself:

Is it reasonable to consider an “offense against God,” a rite, the contents of which (meaning the letter of the missal) reveals very clearly that it was created by deliberately stripping away from the most venerable rite that it supplanted, by force, many of those sacred signs that are known to cause Protestants discomfort (which is often the spark that leads to their conversion) with respect to the sacramental priesthood, the Mass as a true Sacrifice, and the propitiatory nature of said Sacrifice?

One with a truly Catholic sense can hardly deny that such a rite is indeed an offense against God.

This rite would be an offense against God if it only effectively reassures Protestants in their errors, but the Novus Ordo doesn’t stop there; it also leads Catholics to adopt those errors as well!

Obviously, such a rite, which has the effect of leading souls away from the fullness of faith and the one true Church, is a grave offense against the Lord.

Only the truly ignorant (the ubiquitous presence of whom is understandable given the degree to which our churchmen have misled us over these past 50 years) or the deliberately evil (which is another matter altogether) will deny that this is precisely the case with the Novus Ordo; not due to deviations from the missal (otherwise called liturgical abuse), but because the rite itself is crafted in such way as to have precisely the effect outlined above.

The results of the Novus Ordo are in, folks. It’s not a riddle as yet unsolved. The evidence is all around us; the majority of Catholics in our day, including many a daily Communicant, have a Protestant understanding, not just of the Mass, but of many fundamental doctrines of the faith.

Lex orandi, lex credendi isn’t just a slogan; it’s a reality.

Consider yet another aspect of the Novus Ordo wherein the offensiveness to God is entirely plain; the Mass of Christian Burial. (Please follow the link for details.)

Ask yourself:

Would a rite that when followed strictly “by the book” assures survivors that they will see their deceased loved one in Heaven (something that none of us can know), thereby discouraging them from offering Masses and making sacrifices for the good of the departed person’s soul, be rightly considered offensive to God?

Of course it would!

Well, this too is part and parcel of the Novus Ordo Missae; not thanks to abuse, but thanks to the missal itself.

At this, let’s consider (or recap as the case may be) individual points A – D raised above in defense of the Novus Ordo.

A) It is valid

This argument betrays both ineptitude and hypocrisy when it is offered by those who, like Michael Voris, readily admit that the Masses offered by the SSPX are valid, and yet have no problem saying that they must be avoided.

Either “validity” is the be all end all, or it’s not. Well, the truth is, it’s not.

Validity, in fact, is a very low bar, one that does not necessarily render the rite inoffensive to God (as has already been demonstrated), and this in spite of its merits.

B) It is the true Sacrifice of Christ offered to Our Heavenly Father

Indeed, but as noted above, the Crucifixion is also the true Sacrifice, and yet the greatest offense against God ever committed. The assumption that the presence of the true Sacrifice necessarily equates to the absence of offense against God is, therefore, demonstrably false.

C) The Most Holy Eucharist is truly confected and received therein

Indeed, and yet, as we have already established, one is not free to participate in that which offensive to God, simply in order to avail oneself of a good. (Ends justifying means.)

The moral obligation to avoid that which is offensive to God, in spite of the availability of good, might also be well illustrated if we consider the example of Catholic participation in a Protestant Bible study.

While one might derive real blessings in such a setting, a program such as this – one that necessarily draws souls away from the one true Church – is undoubtedly an offense against God. It therefore must be avoided by those who recognize it as such, if for no other reason than the risk of leading others to do the same, thereby putting their relationship with the Church and their understanding of the true faith in jeopardy.

The new Mass is very much the same.

At this, let’s spend a bit more time on the topic of the Eucharist, as many sincere Catholics seem to believe that our ability to receive Holy Communion trumps all other concerns.

If we take this near exclusive focus on the Eucharist to its logical conclusion, we arrive at a point where the rite itself loses all importance, in which case one is tempted to see a Communion service or a sick call as the equal of Holy Mass. We know, however, that this is not true.

At this, let’s consider the precept concerning Holy Communion. The new Catechism states:

“You shall humbly receive your Creator in Holy Communion at least during the Easter season.”

Is it possible to uphold this precept while avoiding participation in the Novus Ordo?

For most of us, it certainly is, even if not without effort; either by finding a TLM, or perhaps a Divine Liturgy of the Eastern Rite Catholic Churches.

If such is not possible, the question remains, are we then to participate in that which is offensive to God simply in order to uphold a precept?

We’ll explore this question in detail when we discuss the Holy Day obligation below.

D) It has been approved by the popes; i.e., given to the faithful by the Church

This is an important topic; one that reflects some misunderstanding as to the Novus Ordo’scharacter.

First, approval by the pope doesn’t necessarily mean that no offense against God is present. If nothing else, that has become entirely evident in the post-conciliar period.

Consider, for example, the Assisi events.

There isn’t a Catholic worthy of the name (Voris included, I presume) that doesn’t plainly recognize that these events were offensive to God, in spite of having been approved by the popes and celebrated by the popes (John Paul II and Benedict XVI – the former even being presented to the world as a “Saint”).

That leaves the suggestion that the Church would not give to her children a rite – the Novus Ordo – that is offensive to God.

This topic deserves more treatment than I can give it here, but know this:

“The Church,” meaning, Holy Mother Church who nurtures her children in the faith by preserving and passing down, in all integrity, that which she has received from her Founder and Head, did not give the Novus Ordo to the faithful; ultimately, Paul VI did.

There’s a tremendous difference.

Revisit, if you will, Cardinal Ratzinger’s characterization of the new Mass. In it, he contrasts the new rite with the TLM – the latter being the product of “the organic, living process of growth and development over centuries.”

This pedigree suggests that the Traditional Mass – the long-held, well-established Supreme lex orandi of the Church – has a dogmatic quality to it, similar to those doctrines that have always been held by the faithful, upheld by the popes, and taught by the bishops in union with him throughout the centuries.

The Novus Ordo Missae enjoys no such pedigree, nor does it enjoy the “dogmatic” quality that goes along with it; the same that ensures the absence of any offensiveness to God.

It is, after all, just as Cardinal Ratzinger said, a fabrication of mere men; as such, one errs in presuming to attribute to the new rite those qualities that are rightly expected of that which is given by “the Church” as Holy Mother.

Now let’s address our Sunday obligation.

In pretty much every major city in the United States, it’s not very difficult to find a Catholic parish that offers what is widely known and advertised as a “gay friendly” Novus Ordo Mass.

These liturgies, even without what may be properly considered an abuse, effectively serve to confirm those who wrongly believe that homosexual activity is acceptable, and even laudable, in the eyes of the Church and the Lord.

These Masses are entirely valid and the Eucharist is truly confected and made available therein. And yet, I am certain that Michael Voris would readily affirm that such a Mass is an offense against God that one should avoid.

Now, what if this “gay friendly” Mass was the only one available to you in order to fulfill your Holy Day obligation, what then?

I suspect that many Catholics, not knowing any better, might hold their nose and participate in the rite, albeit with disgust, in spite of knowing that the Lord is being offended therein, simply in order to fulfill their obligation.

This should be easily recognized as a classic case of upholding the letter of the law while failing to uphold what is far more important, the law of love that necessarily prevents us from taking part in anything that offends Our Blessed Lord.

The well-formed Catholic who applies his intellect to this terrible situation would be compelled to consider whether or not it’s in keeping with the spirit of the law (and the law of love) to believe that God, who desires that we should glorify Him with our entire lives, out of love for us and for our own good, would obligate us to participate in something that clearly offends Him?

The answer, of course, is no, He would not.

The Sunday obligation is not an item to check off of a to-do list. It is given to us as a gift. It is a call to enter into that which renders unto God the worship that He is due, which of course is devoid of any offense against Him – something that cannot be said of the Novus Ordo.

With all of this taken into consideration, even those who are as yet unable to draw the same conclusions that are drawn here, the same that I understand to be reflective of the SSPX position, may at least understand why a priest, motivated by a sincere love for Our Blessed Lord and for the souls in his care, might say that those who understand the Novus Ordo as an offense against God should avoid it, even on Sundays and Holy Days.

In conclusion, I urge you to read, if you’ve not already, the treatment of the new Mass given by Fr. Daniel Themann, SSPX, published at Catholic Family News.


(harvestingthefruit.com/voris-sspx-novu…)
Dr. John Smythe
@Gregory and @Dr Stuart Reiss and @michael newman and @Ben Martin - Here is the answer to your comments: www.churchmilitant.com/…/weapons-of-mass…

1/2 a decade and 180 degrees later...
Dr. John Smythe
@Gregory and @Dr Stuart Reiss - This video should be on here somewhere as the Harvesting the Fruits videos seem to be, if I remember correctly, but this is a direct link: harvestingthefruit.com/voris-and-the-s…
3 more comments from Dr. John Smythe
Dr. John Smythe
@Gregory and @Dr Stuart Reiss - How about Argentina officially recognizing the SSPX as Roman Catholic "as a juridical person and has been added to the Register of the Institutes of Consecrated Life in which are listed the Catholic orders and religious congregations present in Argentina."

This decision was made possible, among other formalities, by a letter from the archbishop of Buenos Aires,…More
@Gregory and @Dr Stuart Reiss - How about Argentina officially recognizing the SSPX as Roman Catholic "as a juridical person and has been added to the Register of the Institutes of Consecrated Life in which are listed the Catholic orders and religious congregations present in Argentina."

This decision was made possible, among other formalities, by a letter from the archbishop of Buenos Aires, Cardinal Mario Aurelio Poli, addressed to the Secretary of Religion as a part of the procedures undertaken by the Society’s authorities in 2011. This letter, in which the archbishop of Buenos Aires “asked that ‘the Society of the Apostles of Jesus and Mary’ (Society of St. Pius X) be considered as an association with diocesan rights, until a definitive juridical framework is granted to it in the universal Church".

The fact that Cardinal Poli is Cardinal Bergoglio’s successor to the archiepiscopal see of Buenos Aires is a legitimate reason to believe that this decision was not taken without consulting Pope Francis.

(sspx.ca/…/argentina-recog…)
Dr. John Smythe
@Gregory and Stuart - How can you explain Pope Francis publicly stating and putting in writing, "Brother Bishops have told me of their (SSPX) good faith and sacramental practice", if the Society is "heretical" and "schismatic", as you claim?

Maybe you two know better than the Pope...
Dr. John Smythe
Gregory, please give specific examples of any heresy or schism I have posted.
Gregory
Ben Martin, CowboyKen, and Dr. John Smythe, Your postings have publicly proclaimed far and wide that you belong to the class of heretics and schismatics who accept, or profess to accept, all Catholic doctrine, but will not acknowledge the supremacy of the Holy See; and the authority of the Second Vatican Council. Your object here has been not to spread the faith in its purity, but to satisfy …More
Ben Martin, CowboyKen, and Dr. John Smythe, Your postings have publicly proclaimed far and wide that you belong to the class of heretics and schismatics who accept, or profess to accept, all Catholic doctrine, but will not acknowledge the supremacy of the Holy See; and the authority of the Second Vatican Council. Your object here has been not to spread the faith in its purity, but to satisfy your own pride and evil inclinations for support of SSPX, SSPV, or Sedevacantist. You look at the Holy Catholic Church as Satan does; always attacking the Pope, just as all the great enemies of the Catholic Church do. You are Protestant, not Catholic; and being what you say you are against makes you a hypocrite as well.

Our Lord, Jesus Christ, gave an example of every kind of sinner be saved, except for the Pharisee; and why? Because he was a hypocrite! Of heretics St. Paul says, that they are condemned by their own judgements (Tit. 3:11). Men are too often cowards as well and turn their backs on the Bride of Christ.

You three, actually two, CowboyKen, and Dr. John Smythe are one and the same, forget too, that when fanatics, like yourselves, question us about our faith in such a manner, we are not bound to answer you, we can refuse to answer and turn away. For we should always try and avoid wrangling discussions and controversies about the Catholic Faith which may do harm and embitter someone against the Church. It is our desire, Gregory and Dr Stuart Reiss, to let people know that we are Catholics, and openly profess our Catholic faith to help others to know Christ better and to honor Him more.

Mark 6:11
michael newman likes this.
CowboyKen
Sadly this gets "better and better" all the time ...

I note that someone had their posts edited by the moderators - after raging on and on in a ridiculous gloating session about another person commenting on here having their posts edited as some type of personal triumph.

Will this really be the end? I have a feeling his passive-aggressive personality sadly won't let him leave well enough alone …More
Sadly this gets "better and better" all the time ...

I note that someone had their posts edited by the moderators - after raging on and on in a ridiculous gloating session about another person commenting on here having their posts edited as some type of personal triumph.

Will this really be the end? I have a feeling his passive-aggressive personality sadly won't let him leave well enough alone and if he feels he doesn't have the last word then he will just keep "tossing his toys out the pram" until everyone is gone and he has the last tantrum.

All fluff and no substance. Doesn't even bother to read posts nor understand a "difference" from a "disobedience" ...

And he calls others schizoid ... LMAO
CowboyKen
@Dr. John Smythe - I noted you had asked a very specific question, exactly what the exact doctrines were that the SSPX were supposedly guilty of disobeying. Again, you did not get a response answering your questions but instead, a quote from Benedict XVI which does not directly address your question.

It stated, "Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical status in the Church is not, …More
@Dr. John Smythe - I noted you had asked a very specific question, exactly what the exact doctrines were that the SSPX were supposedly guilty of disobeying. Again, you did not get a response answering your questions but instead, a quote from Benedict XVI which does not directly address your question.

It stated, "Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical status in the Church is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons. As long as the Society (of St Pius X) does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church."

This statement seems to disprove the poster's own argument in that it states, "is not, in the end, based on disciplinary ... reasons". So the Pope himself openly admits there is no disciplinary questions with the SSPX. It is, instead based on a a disagreement of "doctrinal" matters. It is not the SSPX that is accused of not following doctrine, but the SSPX accusing the modernists of not following proper Catholic doctrine.

As for Bp. Fellay not signing the document, that was answered previously. The Bishop was given an advance copy of what to sign and he agreed and when he went to sign it at the Vatican he was given a completely different paper to sign. Of course he could not sign it. No one in their right mind could - especially after being given something completely different.

Here you have a loyal group of Catholics, whom Pope Francis assures the world, "Brother Bishops have told me of their good faith and sacramental practice". Yet, there are still some who do not want to acknowledge the unwavering faith of the SSPX.

We must keep in mind that shortly after this affair the Pope resigned. Coincidence?

A flaming troll on here, whom I shall refer to by his own admission and definition as a, "tiresome bore" continually denied to answer your simple question. Given the above proofs (yet this person even admitted he could not be bothered to actually read what was being written - but other good people will, so this is why it is being entered here. Anyway, here is some more proofs, from various Catholic outlets, that help defend the good will and integrity of the SSPX.

Le Figaro on September 1, Jean-Marie Guénois: “Francis loves paradoxes. The very day he receives Bishop Jacques Gaillot at the Vatican – an act that in itself reinstates this very social and progressivist bishop who had been deposed by Rome under John Paul II’s pontificate – the Argentinian pope offers an unexpected hand to the faithful of Archbishop Lefebvre, members of the Society of St. Pius X. (…) The priests and faithful of the Society of St. Pius X have never been excommunicated. Nor has the validity of the Mass according to the old Latin rite that they celebrate ever been questioned, but two sacraments, marriage and the sacrament of reconciliation (confession) involved certain jurisdictional legitimacy issues in the eyes of Canon Law. And Francis just removed this obstacle by recognizing the ‘good faith and sacramental practice’ of the Society of St. Pius X that remains nonetheless in a ‘uneasy situation from the pastoral standpoint’.”

La Croix on September 2, Nicolas Senèze: “Although the sacraments of reconciliation and marriage can only be celebrated by priests in communion with their bishops, the Church can recognize a “supplied jurisdiction”, particularly in cases of distress and necessity. (…) For the SSPX, the ‘crisis’ they consider the Church is going through, the ‘apostasy’ professed since Vatican Council II and the doubts as to the validity of certain sacraments after the liturgical reform willed by the council, all place the faithful in just such a ‘state of necessity’, forcing them to turn to the Society’s priests.” Note the use of quotation marks and the “they consider”: the “crisis” they consider the Church is going through…the “apostasy”….place…in just such a “state of necessity”…as if the popes themselves had not spoken since the Council of “Satan’s smoke” in the Church, of a “boat taking in water on all sides”, or of a “silent apostasy”.

Famille chrétienne
on September 2, Gérard Leclerc: “The pope has taken an initiative that shows that for him, the members of the Society of St. Pius X are part of the Church. I think he wishes to force matters by establishing this communion despite the disagreements: he is forcing us to go beyond legalism, and enter upon the path of true communion.”

Il Tempo on September 3, Don Pierpaolo Petrucci, SSPX District Superior of Italy: “But we have always validly and licitly administered the sacraments in the name of the general norms of the Code of Canon Law because of this crisis that is shaking the Church. (…) What is important is that there has been a legal recognition from the pope, without him demanding anything in return. In fact, in a way it is a recognition of the licitness of our ministry that has been questioned (before).”

Le Courrier on September 4, Astrid Kaptjin, professor of Canon Law at the University of Freiburg (Switzerland): “In my opinion, this single act cannot constitute an actual reintegration. There are too many points of doctrinal disagreement. Besides, up until now, the different pontiffs’ actions only concerned the liturgy and the sacraments. On the doctrinal level, they did not want to give in on certain aspects now fully accepted in the Catholic Church, such as ecumenism, religious freedom, an increased power granted to the bishops’ conferences: these are all things that the Society continues to refuse.”

(sources: FSSPX/MG – Figaro/Croix/Famille chrétienne/Tempo/Courrier – DICI no.320 Sept. 11, 2015)

So we see the doctrinal arguments are, in fact: (a false sense of true) ecumenism, religious freedom, an increased power granted to the bishops’ conferences.

There is not one iota of true disobedience. In fact, quite the opposite, seemingly.
Dr. John Smythe
@Ben Martin - To clarify, are you saying: "the popes of the Second Vatican Council, have not really been popes. Consequently, the See of Peter is not occupied. This is expressed in Latin by the formula sede vacante"?
Ben Martin
These V2 “popes” are not just bad sinning popes but enemies of Christ—big difference. Their mission is to pollute doctrine, water down Church teaching, open the door of hell for the faithful to jump in thinking they are doing the will of God. Look around you at state of the world and the faithful—it is rotten, you can tell by their fruits Christ said. V2 and V2 popes are all rotten!! To the core!…More
These V2 “popes” are not just bad sinning popes but enemies of Christ—big difference. Their mission is to pollute doctrine, water down Church teaching, open the door of hell for the faithful to jump in thinking they are doing the will of God. Look around you at state of the world and the faithful—it is rotten, you can tell by their fruits Christ said. V2 and V2 popes are all rotten!! To the core!! These are not personal sins of pope or impeccability wishes---but an evil force ushering the Anti-Christ and destruction of the Catholic Church as we see it--doing the will of the devil. BIG, BIG difference. Name another pope who mission was to undermine all the teachings of the Church? After V2, nothing was left untouched, nothing, from the Rosary to the episcopal consecration of Bishop---Like little shaving of metal that align themselves with a magnetic. V2 was magnetic shift and is dragging all the teaching in different directions and leaving the shell (doctrine) in tack to make it look like nothing is changings. But it is all changing, even the doctrine. For how one prays and worship is now one believes. Very few people know the Faith anymore.

With regards to Gates of Hell shall not prevail against. Means what it says—in the end, the Church will win, but it is talking about a battle, so much that you think your lost the Church---not that it some bullet proof structure—that because a man and the world calls himself pope means he HAS TO BE pope no matter what (this is devil work)---Only God gives the power to Peter---not a group of heretics praying together wanting to elect a modernist. But if the days of latter day were not shorten, it would deceive even the elect few. This does not mean we could not have a false pope or anti-pope, or anti-Christ in Seat of Peter, or seat vacant or man calling himself pope but really is agent of devil, etc---all it says is in the end—the Church will prevail---does not mean now it will prevail---we are living in the NOW. You could have Satan rule the visible structure of the Church today—but in 200 years—the Church will prevail. Big difference, so do not get lost in the opium of the Novus Ordo of grand illusion., the smoke of Satan that design to deceive

V2 and it “popes” is a punishment from God as result of man’s evils ways---and today’s man is not learning his lesson, our pride that we know it all and that we are bullet proof, so sit back and relax, a pope is a pope mentality (we are protected--nothing can happen) is why Christ is punishing. For we are not heed the warning signs from Christ that evil has infested His body of His visible Church—He will allow more evil men to deceive you, to punish you in the end—AS HE IS DOING NOW—Francis is a wicked man that you protect. I am seeing more wickedness and more confused “Catholics” and V2 pope worshiping zombies as a result. Not the will of Christ---more punishments till we wake up! We are in uncharted waters—do not let your magnetic compass be deceived by the allurement /trickery of the V2 popes, who put their negatively charged magnetic in the Church compass case to misguide and deceive. For the idea that they are the captain of ship and cannot crash the ship—is wrong—we are hitting the rocks now. Wait in a few years you will see a huge crash and all the conservative Catholics will do the work of the devil—trying to explain away how a square peg fits in a round hole and hide behind the gates of hell shall not prevail—and not know its total meaning. The enemy is with in—it is Cancer and it is in the Head
Dr. John Smythe
@Ben Martin - For the sake of clarity and accuracy, Socrates found that it is important to clarify and define the terms - otherwise people often use words and they have their own meaning for them, but it turns out the meanings between people differ. Hence the need for defining terms as the FIRST step in the Socratic Method.

I believe, please clarify and/or correct me, Ben, but you are talking …More
@Ben Martin - For the sake of clarity and accuracy, Socrates found that it is important to clarify and define the terms - otherwise people often use words and they have their own meaning for them, but it turns out the meanings between people differ. Hence the need for defining terms as the FIRST step in the Socratic Method.

I believe, please clarify and/or correct me, Ben, but you are talking about the impeccability of the Pope. This, as different from the infallibly of the Pope. (From the Catechism, "Papal infallibility means that the Pope, when speaking as head of the whole church on matters of faith or morals, cannot teach error. Infallibility is not to be confused with impeccability, which means that one cannot commit sin. The pope is not impeccable; he can sin".)

It appears there is considerable controversy regarding Pope Francis and some statements that have been reported, as well as some various actions (i.e. meeting with various individuals).

We must always keep in mind that the mass media has an agenda. We must also keep in mind that sin stains and influences all of mankind due to Original Sin. (the only person that was and is impeccable is Mary - for only she was conceived without sin (Original Sin - not through an act of sin as so many non-Catholics seem to think (because they make up their beliefs as they go along - sifted as wheat, as our Lord said - which is why we have a Pope - an official teaching authority))). We must also be cognizant this influence and the resulting agenda is not natural - it is super-natural (it is from Satan and all the other fallen angels - another fact that is glossed over, ignored and even refuted by many in today's world of rampant subjectivism).

So, can Pope Francis say and do things that go against Catholic teachings? Absolutely. History is full of example of "bad" popes and their less than saintly actions. Yet, this is also a proof of the Truth of the Catholic Church.

In what way(s) may be asked? In that, never, in the 2000 years of the history of the Catholic Church (an history that has been meticulously recorded unlike any other organization, state or body in existence; past or present) never once has the Church's teachings ever contradicted one another. Never has the Church changed its OFFICIAL position any iota of Faith and Morals.

We need to meditate on the, literally, miraculous nature of this fact. If we look at any natural, earthly, humanly organization we find that positions constantly change and are constantly contradicted at the official levels. Yet, the arguably largest organization in the world has never in the entirety of its existence ever done this. It is truly unique in this manner.

No non-Catholic faith communities can claim this. This is why there are over 40,000 protestant denominations today - they are constantly contradicting each other and their own declarations. Islam has done same thing; ask any Sunni and Shiite. The Jews don't even have a consensus - Rabbi's openly admit that is you were to ask 3 Rabbis a question you would get 4 different answers.

Ben, it does not seem like you are a great fan of Pope Francis and I have heard a great many theologians speak the same thing (that they are troubled by his seemingly contradictory ways, actions and statements). Yet, all of these actions and statements have been outside of his official teaching capacity - they are, you could say, of the man Bergoglio, while the official statements of Pope Francis have not been contradictory. The guarantees of the Holy Spirit are present and very obvious today. It is those we can take confidence in in known the gates of hell will never prevail against Holy Mother Church. Yet, there is a very real possibility of the scandal that occur and the souls potentially lost in the contradictions perceived by those faithful who are not really all that faithful nor knowledgeable about the teachings of the Church.

This is a longer post, but in the few minutes it took to type, I think it is worth it to help try to clarify a matter and to further what could potentially be an enlightening conversation.
Dr. John Smythe
As much as I would like someone to "talk" (type) in a decent manner, it appears it is hard to do on here. Keyboard warrior seems about right...
Ben Martin
Dr--any abuse going on, it is you, towards God---lying and not defending Christ and using the Church teaching to defend and protect evil.
The Church lost all of England because of King Henry VIII annulment and the pope refusing to grant him on. But now Francis want to make the annulment process even faster and quicker and easier---like a McDonald drive thru window.

You ok with that ==you going …More
Dr--any abuse going on, it is you, towards God---lying and not defending Christ and using the Church teaching to defend and protect evil.
The Church lost all of England because of King Henry VIII annulment and the pope refusing to grant him on. But now Francis want to make the annulment process even faster and quicker and easier---like a McDonald drive thru window.

You ok with that ==you going to defend the "Holy Father" on this---this is Catholic? You doing the work of evil, thinking your doing good. Anyone we should banned from Gloria is you

You worry about SSPX---when you got heretic at the helm destroy the Church---and your going defend this evil. What type of Knight of Christ does this type of suicide. Wake up and smell the coffee. Your the problem.
CowboyKen
Wow - a guy goes away from reading postings for a few days (it's called living in the real world) and the unbelievable "keyboard warrior" antics of Stu Reiss are almost laughable - if not rather scary. Looks like he's been sending abusive private messages to people he does not agree with (he sure didn't deny it and if you look at all the trash he's psychotically spilling, he would if he didn't!!!…More
Wow - a guy goes away from reading postings for a few days (it's called living in the real world) and the unbelievable "keyboard warrior" antics of Stu Reiss are almost laughable - if not rather scary. Looks like he's been sending abusive private messages to people he does not agree with (he sure didn't deny it and if you look at all the trash he's psychotically spilling, he would if he didn't!!!), threatens physical violence (through a computer, by the way - what a joke), tells people to "shut up", threatens to have others banned from this site(?!). Pretending to be able to judge when others are or are not Catholic?! Sadly, I could go on (and he has the belief he can get others banned?!) ...

Talk about delusions of grandeur! I can just see him sending message after message to the mods on here trying to butter them up and seeing if they can be manipulated.

It is sure "funny" (not in a good way) how emotional and unstable some people get.

As for any arguments he may have, I honestly can not remember one qualified statement he has made as I type this because of his abusive (there's just no other word to better describe it) childish behaviour.

Can't we all just get along and talk/type/communicate like adults?

I thought this was supposed to be a Catholic site? Someone sure is not behaving like any Catholic I've ever heard of.

Okay, let's up the intelligence quotient on this comment board - here's a question (not specifically for anyone) - when one actually takes the time to read the text that accompanies this video (I wonder how many actually did click on it above just below the video and take the time to not only read it, but contemplate it and then reflect on it - not merely be a mass reactionary (pun intended)) - one sees a lot of startling statistics (stats that Michael Voris always refers to) and the correlation between these stats and the Novus Ordo Missae.

It goes on to state, "when the Faith is endangered by the preaching or opinions of the priest, one is dispensed from attending Mass on a Sunday or Holy Day.

In such cases, the Church recommends the faithful to sanctify Sunday by dedicating a time for prayer, alone or in the family: one could read the Mass of the day, pray the rosary, and make a spiritual communion."

I think these are very good points (not just good, but also in line with the Catechism as well as the teachings of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church as well as any Saints I have ever read).

Yet, there is obvious and outright reaction (not thoughtful action and responses, but as listed above, reactions, seemingly rather violent ones) against this. I believe the reaction against this is a lack of understanding of what is being related to in this video (the text even refers to several scholarly works in order to help understand what is being said and why - without taking the time to read and familiarize oneself with them, it hardly shows any interest in actual understanding).

Let's act like real Catholics and leave the petty tantrums where they belong.
Ben Martin
See Dr-- I proved my point, your all talk and no show---back up your "pope". You are not doing the will of God pretending these things do not exist
I am way more Catholic than you could imagine, I can actually back up my Faith--you can't. You stand with Modernist and Heretics and want to call them Holy Father--shameful. This is not God's will

I think Christ warned us about you and Gregory, the …More
See Dr-- I proved my point, your all talk and no show---back up your "pope". You are not doing the will of God pretending these things do not exist
I am way more Catholic than you could imagine, I can actually back up my Faith--you can't. You stand with Modernist and Heretics and want to call them Holy Father--shameful. This is not God's will

I think Christ warned us about you and Gregory, the men of Later Days.
Ben Martin
The Pope Francis Statement That Changed the Church on LGBT Issues

time.com/…/pope-francis-lg…

1. Pope Francis said that God doesn’t condemn LGBT individuals — Sept. 30, 2013

2. Pope Francis suggested the church could be open to civil unions — March 5, 2014

3. The Francis effect goes global — Summer of 2014

4. The Synod on the Family’s interim report affirmed the “gifts and qualities” of …
More
The Pope Francis Statement That Changed the Church on LGBT Issues

time.com/…/pope-francis-lg…

1. Pope Francis said that God doesn’t condemn LGBT individuals — Sept. 30, 2013

2. Pope Francis suggested the church could be open to civil unions — March 5, 2014

3. The Francis effect goes global — Summer of 2014

4. The Synod on the Family’s interim report affirmed the “gifts and qualities” of LGBT individuals — October 2014

5. The pope began a series of meetings and dialogues with LGBT individuals and activists — 2015


Collectively these events signal a church that is more open to welcoming the LGBT community and the diverse realities of the modern family than it was two years ago. After the Supreme Court’s ruling in support of same-sex marriage last month, Blase Cupich, Pope Francis’s handpicked archbishop of Chicago, said the church’s respect for LGBT individuals “must be real, not rhetorical, and ever reflective of the Church’s commitment to accompanying all people.” Such language would have been rare two years ago. Today it’s expected. Thank God.
4 more comments from Ben Martin
Ben Martin
Not my words---but the worlds---pointing at your "Holy Father" that you cannot defend your own "Pope" that your member too===sound fishy and not very Catholic--like a Cult maybe
Ben Martin
The Vatican is in damage-control mode after the Pope sent his blessings to a same-sex family

finance.yahoo.com/news/vatican-damage-…

Pardi also sent the Pope a package of children’s books about untraditional families from her publishing house, Lo Stampatello (link in Italian). Why do you have two moms?, as well as two of Pardi’s other books, have been banned from Venice’s Kindergarten …More
The Vatican is in damage-control mode after the Pope sent his blessings to a same-sex family

finance.yahoo.com/news/vatican-damage-…

Pardi also sent the Pope a package of children’s books about untraditional families from her publishing house, Lo Stampatello (link in Italian). Why do you have two moms?, as well as two of Pardi’s other books, have been banned from Venice’s Kindergarten libraries.

The Pope closes the letter with his “apostle’s blessing” (a special benediction), for Pardi, she said, “together with Ms Maria Silvia Fiengo”—her same-sex partner and the other mother of her four children.

Pardi and others in Italy’s LGBTQ community in Italy took the Pope’s message as a sign of acceptance: In particular, his saying her work is “at the service of young generations” and the fact that he imparted a blessing upon her and her same-sex partner.
Ben Martin
So in the 1930's there were around 10 annulments granted worldwide. Then in the 60's that number rose to 300 or so. Today it is over 60,000 per year and that is not "merciful". A little clue here, there was a recent they were slow and deliberate it was a major deal. It is truly a site to behold to watch this guy finalize the destruction of the visible "physical" church with such ease.
Papal Motu…More
So in the 1930's there were around 10 annulments granted worldwide. Then in the 60's that number rose to 300 or so. Today it is over 60,000 per year and that is not "merciful". A little clue here, there was a recent they were slow and deliberate it was a major deal. It is truly a site to behold to watch this guy finalize the destruction of the visible "physical" church with such ease.
Papal Motu Proprios make annulment process shorter

Pope Francis' changes to the annulment process in full

www.sconews.co.uk/…/papal-motu-prop…
Ben Martin
Come weaklings defend your "Holy Father" with the Standard of the Church and Christ---can not do it can you---only in name and uniform and then use the real teachings so they are adulterate for a man that is a Modernist-- that is love of Christ. Can't do it --so hide behind the very teaching that will bring you to Hell unless you repent.

Looks like you got what Christ said--the enemies of Christ…More
Come weaklings defend your "Holy Father" with the Standard of the Church and Christ---can not do it can you---only in name and uniform and then use the real teachings so they are adulterate for a man that is a Modernist-- that is love of Christ. Can't do it --so hide behind the very teaching that will bring you to Hell unless you repent.

Looks like you got what Christ said--the enemies of Christ leading and directing the flock, as wolves in sheep's clothing.
Dr. John Smythe
@Dr Stuart Reiss Reiss - so just sending people private messages on here with the sole content of, "Your [sic] an idiot!" but now you are threatening physical violence? (" a good smack in the face")
Gregory
Dr Stuart Reiss, With the press of a key the moderator seems to have edited the parts of Ben Martin’s comments that reviled the Holy Father and the Church, while leaving the sneers and sarcasm; poisoned words were the means of driving Eve out of paradise!

IN DOMINO
Gregory
Ben Martin, It is my great privilege to belong to the Holy Catholic Church; for She is the Bride of Christ; and the Pope is the rock on which the Church rest (Matt.16:18); at present His Holiness Pope Francis.

Christo et Ecclesiae
Ben Martin
He is worth defending and sending your soul to hell over
Ben Martin
Pope Leo XII, Ubi Primum (# 14), May 5, 1824:

It is impossible for the most true God, who is Truth itself, the best, the wisest Provider, and the Rewarder of good men, to approve all sects who profess false teachings which are often inconsistent with one another and contradictory, and to confer eternal rewards on their members… by divine faith we hold one Lord, one faith, one baptism… This…More
Pope Leo XII, Ubi Primum (# 14), May 5, 1824:

It is impossible for the most true God, who is Truth itself, the best, the wisest Provider, and the Rewarder of good men, to approve all sects who profess false teachings which are often inconsistent with one another and contradictory, and to confer eternal rewards on their members… by divine faith we hold one Lord, one faith, one baptism… This is why we profess that there is no salvation outside the Church.
One more comment from Ben Martin
Ben Martin
Gregory, are your telling Francis heresy is inspired by the Holy Ghost and a Vicar of Christ? Shameful and blasphemous!!
Come join the Church and not follow bunch of heretics--your in communion with them and one body with people that enemies of Christ.
Dr. John Smythe
@Dr Stuart Reiss Reiss - are you serious? "your rambling doesn't make sense. Please tell me what you want proof of? But can you please keep it a one liner? Or two max." And you call yourself a doctor?! If that is the case, may God have helped those who tried to come to you while you were still practicing if you could not actually understand what I have repeatedly asked. Here is the ONE line, …More
@Dr Stuart Reiss Reiss - are you serious? "your rambling doesn't make sense. Please tell me what you want proof of? But can you please keep it a one liner? Or two max." And you call yourself a doctor?! If that is the case, may God have helped those who tried to come to you while you were still practicing if you could not actually understand what I have repeatedly asked. Here is the ONE line, repeated yet again:

{"Please state and provide proof of the exact doctrines the SSPX apparently refuses to accept?"}

That is ONE line - I hope it is clear enough for you to answer.
Gregory
Ben Martin, The Holy Father Pope Francis is called “Vicar of Christ”, He is the rock on which the Church rest (Matt. 16:18); and the Vatican Council declares that it is the will of Christ that till the end of the world there be successors to St. Peter; a hallmark of Catholicism.

As a Catholic I cannot take kindly and remain silent and unmoved by your sins against the Catholic faith; you are …More
Ben Martin, The Holy Father Pope Francis is called “Vicar of Christ”, He is the rock on which the Church rest (Matt. 16:18); and the Vatican Council declares that it is the will of Christ that till the end of the world there be successors to St. Peter; a hallmark of Catholicism.

As a Catholic I cannot take kindly and remain silent and unmoved by your sins against the Catholic faith; you are being incredulous, apostate, and schismatic on all grounds, namely by rejecting the Holy Father and leading people away from the Catholic Church.

Ben Martin, are you SSPX, SSPV, or Sedevacantist? Instead of holding on to the Catholic faith and living it out in holiness, you have abandoned the Bride of Christ and are doing what you say you are against.

Veritatem in Caritate
Gregory
Dr. John Smythe, The Holy Catholic Church has clarified the matter, His Holiness John Paul II made the grave error of the SSPX well know, the Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI has published his clarification on the SSPX, and His Holiness Pope Francis pointed to his concern for reconciliation with SSPX just last week. The whole world seems to know what you cannot accept; that the SSPX are not members …More
Dr. John Smythe, The Holy Catholic Church has clarified the matter, His Holiness John Paul II made the grave error of the SSPX well know, the Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI has published his clarification on the SSPX, and His Holiness Pope Francis pointed to his concern for reconciliation with SSPX just last week. The whole world seems to know what you cannot accept; that the SSPX are not members of the Holy Catholic Church.

Not only this, but the founders of the SSPX, Archbishop Lefebvre, declared to refuse to follow Rome; the former SSPX Bishop Williamson separated from the Catholic Church and from the SSPX and from reality, and was radical, and further fractured the Church opening other branches. These leaders of the SSPX are not heroes, or Catholic, they are its very antithesis; something which I can only deeply deplore, turning their backs on the Bride of Christ...

The SSPX seem fixed on meeting every gesture of reconciliation from the Catholic Church with apparent steps backward. They have long refused reconciliation and remain opposed to Church doctrines and the Second Vatican Council. What insolence it is on the part of the SSPX to treat the Catholic Church like a dishonest dealer, some of Her doctrines the SSPX accept, and others they reject! Men of good will can always find sufficient reason for believing, and men of bad will easily find reasons for not believing.

Ask yourself, instead of me, of Bishop Felley; Is Bishop Felley of the SSPX subject to Pope Francis and does he show Pope Francis obedience? Has Pope Francis given jurisdiction to Bishop Felley? The truth is that Bishop Felley and the SSPX decline submission to Pope Francis, nor have they jurisdiction, and the SSPX do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Holy Catholic Church.

IN DOMINO
Dr. John Smythe
@Gregory - You still have not stated one clear iota of how the SSPX disbelieves "a single doctrine" of the Catholic Church.

You repeat, like an automaton, "[the SSPX] refuses to accept the complete doctrine of the Catholic Church". I ask, repeatedly, "what doctrine(s)? Please tell me. Please tell the exact doctrines." Yet, you will not (I believe (in the essence of "I believe" in the Creed) …More
@Gregory - You still have not stated one clear iota of how the SSPX disbelieves "a single doctrine" of the Catholic Church.

You repeat, like an automaton, "[the SSPX] refuses to accept the complete doctrine of the Catholic Church". I ask, repeatedly, "what doctrine(s)? Please tell me. Please tell the exact doctrines." Yet, you will not (I believe (in the essence of "I believe" in the Creed) you cannot).

All you do is make claims like, "The questions you raise on the canonical status of the SSPX only ensure and prove the fact".

A question proves nothing. Not a thing. A question is just that, a question. It requires an answer to be complete. You have given no answer.

It is like you have convinced yourself that black is white!

You did make a factual statement with, "we must take care not to confuse faith in the Catholic Church with opinion" - yet you have given nothing but opinion. You need to contemplate your responses (or refusal, thereof). Make a list on paper with my question and then write below it your objectively true responses that prove your claim that "[the SSPX] refuses to accept the complete doctrine of the Catholic Church". Objective, not subjective.

If you come up with something that is objective - not unsupported opinion - but objectively proves the SSPX is, in fact, refusing the doctrine of the Church, you will have gone a great deal to convincing me of any error of supporting the SSPX (not to mention anyone else who reads what you respond).

However, if you just make unsupported statements that will just continue to show you do not have any objective evidence of the SSPX refusing the doctrine of the Church.

The ball is still in your court.
Gregory
Dr. John Smythe, At last, many fail to attain the Catholic faith through pride, self-will, and thinking it is attained by a method; faith is a gift of God; and anyone who willfully disbelieves even a single doctrine of the Catholic Church has no true faith, for he receives some of the words of Christ and rejects others.

We must take care not to confuse faith in the Catholic Church with opinion; …More
Dr. John Smythe, At last, many fail to attain the Catholic faith through pride, self-will, and thinking it is attained by a method; faith is a gift of God; and anyone who willfully disbelieves even a single doctrine of the Catholic Church has no true faith, for he receives some of the words of Christ and rejects others.

We must take care not to confuse faith in the Catholic Church with opinion; faith is for sure, opinion is not! Our Lord says, “Those who hunger and thirst after justice shall have their fill” (Matt. 5:6), God says through the prophet, “You shall find Me when you seek me with your whole heart” (Jer. 29:13).

Our Lady of Fatima says Pray the Rosary everyday! God bestows the knowledge of the truth on those who pray that they may find the truth.
Dr. John Smythe
@Gregory - in order to dialogue, one must answer the questions that are asked. Not just avoid them.

If there is no answer, that then needs to change the position of the person asked the questions not answered - that is a key element of the Socratic Method.
Gregory
Dr. John Smythe, At some point one must stop asking questions and start listening; and as a final consideration, I would like to recommend the doctrine of Jesus Christ, which inspires the love of humility, and makes known to us the truth and mysteries of the Holy Catholic Church, a knowledge so essential for a praiseworthy dialogue concerning the doctrinal questions you raise between the Vatican …More
Dr. John Smythe, At some point one must stop asking questions and start listening; and as a final consideration, I would like to recommend the doctrine of Jesus Christ, which inspires the love of humility, and makes known to us the truth and mysteries of the Holy Catholic Church, a knowledge so essential for a praiseworthy dialogue concerning the doctrinal questions you raise between the Vatican and the SSPX.

IN DOMINO
Dr. John Smythe
@Gregory and Stuart Reiss - are you saying you not only follow but approve of the neo-modernist and neo-Protestant tendencies in the 'Church of Nice'?

For you to use that as proof of your, still unproven (things remain unproven until actually proven, by the way) claims that would mean, by logic, that you approve of the various liturgical abuses (www.vatican.va/…/rc_con_ccdds_do…) that have …More
@Gregory and Stuart Reiss - are you saying you not only follow but approve of the neo-modernist and neo-Protestant tendencies in the 'Church of Nice'?

For you to use that as proof of your, still unproven (things remain unproven until actually proven, by the way) claims that would mean, by logic, that you approve of the various liturgical abuses (www.vatican.va/…/rc_con_ccdds_do…) that have become so common in the "West"?

For that is what the statement is against - liturgical abuses as clearly outlined by the Vatican. It was a sad day that the Vatican had to issue such a proclamation, in the first place. Yet, that is how widespread such abuses have become; and you defend them?!
Dr. John Smythe
@Dr Stuart Reiss Reiss - is one of my "imaginary" attacks the PM's you sent me stating, in total, "You are an idiot!"?
Gregory
Dr. Stuart Reiss, Thank you for service to the Catholic Church, it is apparent to all that Dr. John Smythe and Cowboy Ken do not want to accept the Church’s present evaluation of the situation of the SSPX. There is no doubt and it cannot be denied that it rest with the SSPX, by the command of Christ, to come back into full communion with the Catholic Church.

Dr. John Smythe
@Dr Stuart Reiss Reiss - The questions are asked because no one has bothered to answer them. Why do you not give it a try and provide some evidence instead of just sending private messages that only state, "You're an idiot".

Especially after attempting to bemoan some type of imaginary attack against you (which were merely questions asking you to provide evidence for your implausible statements).…More
@Dr Stuart Reiss Reiss - The questions are asked because no one has bothered to answer them. Why do you not give it a try and provide some evidence instead of just sending private messages that only state, "You're an idiot".

Especially after attempting to bemoan some type of imaginary attack against you (which were merely questions asking you to provide evidence for your implausible statements). But hey, if you are trying to take the attention away from your lack of substance and refusal to even give a shadow of a doubt to the truth. It's not working.

You need to remember Matthew 5:37.

As for Freud, why you would even openly write in support of such an anti-Catholic is beyond me.

As for V2 - nice try for mistruths - the SSPX does acknowledge and recognize it (sspx.org/en/search/node/vatican%202).
CowboyKen
@Gregory - you didn't answer any of his questions (again). You refer indirectly to them with vague references to not a thing specific.

"The questions you raise on the canonical status of the SSPX only ensure and prove the fact " - uhm, no a question does not prove anything. A question is a question.
Gregory
Dr. John Smythe, The questions you raise on the canonical status of the SSPX only ensure and prove the fact that the SSPX does not possess a canonical status in the Church. The SSPX has held strong to its reservations in the area of obedience to the doctrinal authority of the Pope and to the authority of the Second Vatican Council. This being so, the Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI said, “As long …More
Dr. John Smythe, The questions you raise on the canonical status of the SSPX only ensure and prove the fact that the SSPX does not possess a canonical status in the Church. The SSPX has held strong to its reservations in the area of obedience to the doctrinal authority of the Pope and to the authority of the Second Vatican Council. This being so, the Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI said, “As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church.”

At this point, and after so much time and effort, it is difficult for the faithful to view positively the will for reconciliation coming from the SSPX, and at the same time the faithful are disposed to hope and a more positive view of the concern for reconciliation coming from the Holy See. And so, the Catholic knowing and trusting the authority of the Pope for clarification remains hopeful for full communion with the SSPX; despite the mixed motives from the SSPX.

Now, with regard to the many unpleasant things Catholics have endured from some SSPX representatives, they are true, the Pope admits to them, Bishop Williamson alone qualifies as many, and to the Catholic this episode by the SSPX priest is unpleasant and I will add that there are also testimonials of gratitude coming from representatives of the SSPX and that there have been unpleasant things that have emerged from the Catholic Church also.

You can be assured of my prayer for reconciliation. In Domino
Dr. John Smythe
What was left out (on purpose, I question?) of Gregory's statement was the following that Pope Francis stated, "From various quarters, several Brother Bishops have told me of their good faith and sacramental practice".

Very interesting. Especially as it refutes the outrageous and clearly unsupported claims against the Society that are thrown around on here by a few select individuals.

Pope Fran…More
What was left out (on purpose, I question?) of Gregory's statement was the following that Pope Francis stated, "From various quarters, several Brother Bishops have told me of their good faith and sacramental practice".

Very interesting. Especially as it refutes the outrageous and clearly unsupported claims against the Society that are thrown around on here by a few select individuals.

Pope Francis also continued with, "I trust that in the near future solutions may be found to recover full communion with the priests and superiors of the Fraternity."

He also continued with, "motivated by the need to respond to the good of these faithful".

Also very interesting term he used to refer to those who attend the Sacraments of the SSPX.

(sspx.org/…/pope-francis-ss…)
Dr. John Smythe
@Gregory - I repeat the question, What Catholic doctrine does Bp. Fellay continue to reject?

(You claimed, "the SSPX, lacking canonical status, continue to reject Catholic doctrine and so do not exercise any ministry in the Catholic Church." - yet you provided NO evidence nor ANY examples of "doctrine" that are 'continually' "rejected" by the SSPX.) [if you make a claim that that can, and in …More
@Gregory - I repeat the question, What Catholic doctrine does Bp. Fellay continue to reject?

(You claimed, "the SSPX, lacking canonical status, continue to reject Catholic doctrine and so do not exercise any ministry in the Catholic Church." - yet you provided NO evidence nor ANY examples of "doctrine" that are 'continually' "rejected" by the SSPX.) [if you make a claim that that can, and in this case is, disputed, you need to provide evidence]

You also make yet another wildly unsupported claim, "the Church hears from representatives of the SSPX many unpleasant things". You claim "many" so you can at least provide the evidence for some, if not "many". Of course, that is if there are such things.

I know there are not, so I challenge you to provide them as proof of your claim.
yuitrel likes this.
Gregory
Yesterday, His Holiness Pope Francis, though his own disposition, established during the Holy Year of Mercy that those faithful who for various reasons approach “priest of the SSPX to celebrate the Sacrament of Reconciliation shall validly and licitly receive absolution of their sins,” and so we see and may remain confident in the goodwill that comes from the Vicar of Christ for the SSPX; and …More
Yesterday, His Holiness Pope Francis, though his own disposition, established during the Holy Year of Mercy that those faithful who for various reasons approach “priest of the SSPX to celebrate the Sacrament of Reconciliation shall validly and licitly receive absolution of their sins,” and so we see and may remain confident in the goodwill that comes from the Vicar of Christ for the SSPX; and from the example of Pope Francis we faithful must pray for goodwill and for unity in the Church, not only with the SSPX, but with other breakaway groups as well.

This example of genuine goodwill for the SSPX has always been present in the Catholic Church; especially from Rome, His Holiness John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and now Pope Francis. The tensions, since 1970, with the SSPX were born out of protest to changes that followed the Second Vatican Council, 45 years already, tensions hit a low point in 1988, resulting in the excommunication of SSPX bishops. Once more, the Catholic Church offered the SSPX great and genuine goodwill in 2009, when Pope Benedict XVI lifted the excommunications, with the expressed hope that the SSPX would quickly return to full communion; yet to no avail.

And as the Catholic Church continues to extend Her hand and goodwill to the SSPX, the Church hears from representatives of the SSPX many unpleasant things; His Holiness benedict XVI described it as “arrogance and presumptuousness, an obsession with one-sided positions, etc.”, which calls into question the credibility of the SSPX. No matter what steps forward the Catholic Church makes toward reconciliation, it seems the SSPX are determined to step backward. I fear and have the feelings that as time goes by the SSPX, like much of society, see the Vicar of Christ with misgivings, and as a logical consequence only become more hardened in their error over time.

Our Lady of Fatima says Pray The Rosary everyday.

Dr. John Smythe
@Gregory - what Catholic doctrine does Bp. Fellay continue to reject?
CowboyKen
@Gregory, do not forget the SSPX was established only through Vatican approval, so please do not pretend "these efforts go back to 1970". (Please see links below.)

As for efforts we must remember the Doctrinal Preamble that was to be signed by Bp. Fellay on behalf of the SSPX was approved - however, when Bp. Fellay went to the Vatican to sign it, the copy he was presented had been altered and …More
@Gregory, do not forget the SSPX was established only through Vatican approval, so please do not pretend "these efforts go back to 1970". (Please see links below.)

As for efforts we must remember the Doctrinal Preamble that was to be signed by Bp. Fellay on behalf of the SSPX was approved - however, when Bp. Fellay went to the Vatican to sign it, the copy he was presented had been altered and changed from the document Benedict XVI had given to the Priestly Fraternity to approve.

Imagine that - being given a document to study to see if you can sign it (a document that had been finalized after literally years of discussions) and when you show up to sign it what you are actually presented with is something completely different!?

That, my friend, is what happened.

You will also note the CDF has given Bp. Fellay an official appointment (vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/…/lefebvriani-lef…) and if you take the time to read it, you will see this has been done in June of this year.

Here is a timeline with links:

2011

www.dici.org/…/an-initial-eval…

www.catholicherald.co.uk/…/sspx-leader-we-…

rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/…/interview-with-…

www.dici.org/…/sermon-of-bisho…

2012

vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/…/lefebvriani-lef…

www.dici.org/…/society-of-st-p…

www.dici.org/…/press-review-bi…

rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/…/fellay-we-are-a…

2013

ncronline.org/…/sspx-head-says-…

Remember, these were theological discussions - it was nothing like you are trying to falsely present it as the Pope telling the SSPX they HAVE TO sign something and then the SSPX refusing any order and therefore being disobedient. Either you are misinformed as to what has been happening or you are misinforming. Either way, you are wrong and need to examine what has really being going on.

2014

www.dici.org/…/interview-with-…

www.dici.org/…/germany-informa…

www.dici.org/…/what-unity-is-b…

2015

www.dici.org/…/bishop-fellays-…

As for the false claim of a rejection of the SSPX by the Church, read this:

www.dici.org/…/argentina-the-s…
Caesar
What good is the Freemason Bugnini Anibal?
Gregory
Vicars of Christ, His Holiness John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Pope Francis have all exhausted many long and legal arguments to unite the SSPX with the Vicar of Christ. His Holiness Benedict XVI made it a priority, even having to deal with then Bishop Williamson; these efforts for unity with the SSPX go back to 1970; when Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre established the SSPX in Switzerland; talks have …More
Vicars of Christ, His Holiness John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Pope Francis have all exhausted many long and legal arguments to unite the SSPX with the Vicar of Christ. His Holiness Benedict XVI made it a priority, even having to deal with then Bishop Williamson; these efforts for unity with the SSPX go back to 1970; when Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre established the SSPX in Switzerland; talks have always collapsed, Fellay refuses to accept the complete doctrine of the Catholic Church, and after the election of His Holiness Pope Francis the SSPX appeared to harden their stance and become more emboldened in error.

And even after all this time, 45 years, the Catholic Church prays for and envisions full communion with the SSPX, yet the SSPX, lacking canonical status, continue to reject Catholic doctrine and so do not exercise any ministry in the Catholic Church.