Welcome, Guest |
You have to register before you can post on our site.
|
Forum Statistics |
» Members: 268
» Latest member: Sarah
» Forum threads: 6,376
» Forum posts: 11,924
Full Statistics
|
Online Users |
There are currently 541 online users. » 0 Member(s) | 537 Guest(s) Bing, Facebook, Google, Yandex
|
|
|
Transvestite Blasphemy of the Last Supper at Paris 2024 Olympics |
Posted by: Stone - 07-27-2024, 06:50 AM - Forum: Global News
- Replies (1)
|
|
Transvestite Blasphemy of the Last Supper at Paris 2024 Olympics
gloria.tv | July 27, 2024
A group of transvestites staged an apparent parody of the Last Supper at the opening ceremony of the Paris 2024 Olympic Games on Friday.
18 homosexual blasphemers (including a child!) posed behind what appeared to be a long table with the river Seine and the Eiffel Tower poignantly placed in the background.
In the center was an elaborately dressed fat person with a large silver headdress resembling a halo, obviously mocking Christ.
Then, models stormed the stage and danced while the supposed Last Supper mockers swayed away.
Then, a giant serving tray was placed on the stage - revealing a scantily clad man, painted bright blue from head to toe, curled up inside.
The Olympics used the excuse that the performance was an "interpretation of the Greek god [of wine and feasting ] Dionysus" to make "us aware of the absurdity of violence between human beings."
Even French politicians have condemned the show. Marion Maréchal wrote on Twitter.com: "To all the Christians of the world who are watching the Paris 2024 ceremony and feel offended by this drag queen parody of the Last Supper, know that it is not France that is speaking but a left-wing minority ready for any provocation."
Twitter owner Elon Musk slammed the performance, saying it was "extremely disrespectful to Christians."
Conservative Bishop Robert Barron, 64, of Winona-Rochester, USA, asked: "Would they ever have dared to mock Islam in a similar way? This deeply secularist, postmodern society knows who its enemy is - they name it - and we should believe them."
|
|
|
Vatican allowed fewer than 60 parish churches worldwide to offer Latin Mass in 2022 |
Posted by: Stone - 07-26-2024, 02:07 PM - Forum: Vatican II and the Fruits of Modernism
- No Replies
|
|
Vatican allowed fewer than 60 parish churches worldwide to offer Latin Mass in 2022
Due to Pope Francis’ sweeping restrictions on the Latin Mass, fewer than 60 parishes were granted permission to celebrate the traditional liturgy in 2022, most of them in the US, according to a new report from the Vatican’s liturgy office.
Cardinal Arthur Roche, February 2023.
Screenshot/Mazur/cbcew.org.uk/Flickr
Jul 26, 2024
VATICAN CITY (LifeSiteNews) — Newly published statistics from the Vatican’s liturgy office reveal that just 57 parishes were granted permission to offer the traditional Mass in 2022, following the 2021 publication of Traditionis Custodes.
In a July 26 posting on the website of the Congregation (now Dicastery) for Divine Worship (CDW), the full details of the 2022 activities of the dicastery were outlined in a document over 500 pages long. Among the summary of decrees issued by the CDW was the complete list of parish churches granted permission to host a traditional Mass.
Less than 60 parish churches across the globe were allowed to host a traditional Mass, the majority of which were in the U.S.
Prior to the promulgation of Pope Francis’ sweeping restrictions on the traditional Mass via Traditionis Custodes (TC) in 2021, large swathes of provision of the traditional Mass was provided in parish churches, offered either by diocesan priests or by visiting priests from traditional communities.
The stipulations of TC argued to remove authority from the bishops and place it in the hands of the CDW – led by the anti-traditional Cardinal Arthur Roche. Subsequently, bishops were ordered to designate churches in the diocese for the celebration of the traditional Mass, but prohibited from allowing the liturgy to be offered in a parish church.
Article 3 of the motu proprio reads:
Quote:The bishop of the diocese in which until now there exist one or more groups that celebrate according to the Missal antecedent to the reform of 1970 … is to designate one or more locations where the faithful adherents of these groups may gather for the eucharistic celebration (not however in the parochial churches and without the erection of new personal parishes);
Any use of a parish church for the ancient liturgy was reserved to the judgement of the CDW, under the terms of TC.
Six months after TC was released, Roche expanded the restrictions by virtue of a December 2021 Responsa ad dubia. One slight concession in his text, however, was the limited use of a parish church for the celebration of the Latin Mass, only when “it is not possible to find a church, oratory or chapel which is available to accommodate the faithful.”
Roche demanded that a diocesan bishop must “request” for a parish church to be used, “only if it is established that it is impossible to use another church, oratory or chapel. The assessment of this impossibility must be made with the utmost care.”
Further appearing to ostracize devotees of the traditional liturgy, Roche’s Responsa added that any such Latin Masses in the parish church “should not be included in the parish Mass schedule” and “should not be held at the same time as the pastoral activities of the parish community.” However, he claimed that there was no intention to “marginalise the faithful” devoted to the traditional Mass.
Explaining why the ban on using a parish church had been stipulated in TC, Roche’s 2021 Responsa stated that:
Quote:The exclusion of the parish church is intended to affirm that the celebration of the Eucharist according to the previous rite, being a concession limited to these groups, is not part of the ordinary life of the parish community.
The CDW’s 2022 statistics present a stark representation of the manner in which the traditional liturgy is now offered, in comparison to the pre-TC days. However, restrictions on the Mass and removal of permissions for use of churches hosting the Latin Mass have intensified since the close of 2022.
Current rumors, largely unsubstantiated except by two outlets, suggest that Roche and his CDW second-in-command Archbishop Vittorio Viola, OFM, are attempting to obtain papal approval for even more stringent restrictions on the ancient liturgy.
In response to these rumors, large-scale lay initiatives have been launched with leading figures of both British and American society petitioning Pope Francis not to enact any more punitive measures on the traditional liturgy.
Such ventures have received the support of Mexico’s retired Cardinal Juan Sandoval as well as San Francisco’s Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone.
“The widely diverse coalition of signers of the petition to Pope Francis demonstrates that, even beyond its spiritual value, the Traditional Latin Mass is a cultural treasure that has inspired artistic creativity of every kind & in every age, building what we know as Western Civilization,” the archbishop of San Francisco wrote on X.
|
|
|
Fatima shrine rules out removal of Rupnik mosaic amid growing pushback against his art |
Posted by: Stone - 07-25-2024, 02:21 PM - Forum: General Commentary
- No Replies
|
|
Fatima shrine rules out removal of Rupnik mosaic amid growing pushback against his art
The decision by the Shrine of Fatima to unquestioningly preserve Fr. Rupnik's work comes as other Catholic sites are beginning to cover or remove the images.
Image of the Rupnik mosaic in the Basilica of the Holy Trinity, Fatima.
Centro Aletti
Jul 25, 2024FATIMA, Portugal (LifeSiteNews) — Authorities at the Shrine of Our Lady of Fatima in Portugal have ruled out removing the mosaics made by discharged priest Father Marko Rupnik, though they have suspended use of his images in promotional materials.
In a statement issued to OSV News and subsequently to LifeSiteNews, a spokeswoman for the Shrine of Our Lady of Fatima provided clarity on the future of the large mosaic adorning the Basilica.
“As for the mosaic panel from the Aletti Center, which is in the Basilica of the Holy Trinity, its removal is not being considered,” the statement read.
“However, since we became aware of the allegations against Father M.I. Rupnik, we have suspended the use of the image of the work – in its entirety and in its details – in our promotional materials,” continued the spokeswoman.
She added that the shrine officially “rejects outright the acts committed by Father M. I. Rupnik and affirms its solidarity with the victims.”
A 500 meter squared mosaic by Rupnik and his Rome-based studio – the Aletti Center – adorns the Basilica of the Holy Trinity at Fatima. Inaugurated in 2017, the modern church can seat some nine thousand people, according to the Shrine, and is often used to accommodate pilgrimage groups which do not fit into the smaller, more historic Basilica of Our Lady of the Rosary.
The firm stance by the shrine not to take any action against the Rupnik mosaics comes amid a growing international decision by certain shrines and Catholic bodies to cover up the priest’s images, following the numerous allegations of sexual abuse.
Since the scandal surrounding Rupnik became international in late 2022, renewed attention has been paid to his influence in the global Church and the numerous art projects which he and his Centro Aletti have installed throughout the world at numerous prominent Catholic sites.
Rupnik’s artwork – while staunchly defended by his supporters, including Pope Francis – has been intimately linked to his alleged serial abuse, which is believed to be of multiple forms, but especially sexual.
READ: Alleged victims of Father Rupnik call for ‘truth and justice’ as answers demanded from Vatican
Writing under a pseudonym “Anna” in December 2022, one alleged victim and former member of Rupnik’s community stated:
His sexual obsession was not extemporaneous but deeply connected to his conception of art and his theological thinking. Father Marko at first slowly and gently infiltrated my psychological and spiritual world by appealing to my uncertainties and frailties while using my relationship with God to push me to have sexual experiences with him.
A native of Slovenia, Rupnik is accused of having abused numerous women, and at least one man, in a variety of forms – sexual, spiritual, physical, and psychological. The abuse is reported to have taken place against at least 21 of the 40-strong Loyola Community of religious women, which he co-founded in his native Slovenia. A further 15 alleged victims have come forward since his case became public knowledge in December 2022.
As international outrage has grown over the Rupnik case, the U.S. Knights of Columbus has recently decided to cover over the numerous mosaics which Rupnik has installed i
Following a decision process lasting over a year, the Knights have now implemented covers over the mosaics at the D.C. Shrine and their New Haven headquarters. They did not rule out having to permanently cover the mosaics completely in the future.
Shortly prior to their announcement, the Bishop of Lourdes stated that a similar year-long decision process had resulted in the Rupnik images at the French Marian shrine simply not being illuminated during the evening rosary processions. The long-term future of the mosaics, he stated, might result in their removal.
After international outcry over continued Vatican promotion of the disgraced priest despite the numerous allegations of abuse, Pope Francis announced in October that Rupnik was subject to an investigation by the Holy See for said abuse. The credibility of the well-documented allegations of Rupnik’s serial abuse is deemed to be “very high” by his former superiors, and the Vatican’s investigation into the case is said to be at a “fairly advanced stage.”
|
|
|
Letter to Vigano - refers to how the SSPX 'lost the spirit of their founder.' |
Posted by: Stone - 07-24-2024, 09:17 AM - Forum: The New-Conciliar SSPX
- No Replies
|
|
Letter to Monsignor Viganò
aldomariavalli.com - machine translated | July 20, 2024
His excellence,
Allow me to thank you for your courageous defense of the faith in these times when the Church seems to be living the last moments of its long Passion. In reality you are doing nothing other than what a pastor of the Church should do: protecting the faith and morals of the flock entrusted to you and denouncing the wolves and mercenaries who divert souls from their ultimate goal, Heaven. It is regrettable to have to note that when there are not a few Nicodemuses to timidly defend some truths in the Conciliar Church, we “witness” the silence of most of the prelates, a fairly obvious sign of their complicity in the process of self-destruction of the Church.
Please also be thanked for the reference you make to Monsignor Lefebvre because it is true to say that he was a beacon during the years following the Second Vatican Council, the same council of which Cardinal Suenens had said that it was "1789 in the Church”. Given the unfair and derisory sanctions which are now weighing on you, it seems appropriate to recall that Monsignor Lefebvre, after the consecrations of 1988, declared that it was "a strict duty for any priest wishing to remain Catholic to separate himself from this conciliar Church, as long as it does not rediscover the tradition of the Magisterium of the Church and of the Catholic faith” (Spiritual Journey, p. 13).
And time, after the 30 years following the death of Mgr. Lefebvre, effectively showed that on the one hand, the conciliar monster has continued to develop to reveal its true face, and on the other hand, that those who have been able to keep the faith are essentially those who have maintained the wise advice of the “iron bishop”. Unfortunately, a certain number of groups of Tradition, in particular the SSPX, have lost the spirit of their founder and, in their naivety (or blindness?) wanted to join the Conciliar Church for fear of being seen as "schismatics" in the eyes of the world, forgetting that the Christian must seek to position himself in the truth by first seeing God or in relation to God.
Finally, I thank you for the clarifications you provide concerning the legitimacy and validity of “Pope” Francis because what helps intelligence to see the truth are above all arguments of reason. I am thinking in particular of the “defect of consent” that you develop in your publications in order to be able to provide some answers to the mystery of inequity that we have been facing for years. How did the one who is supposed to be the leader of Christianity become the Pontiff of liberalism and the promoter of Masonic ideals in our poor apostate world? Or rather, how could a notorious heretic sit on the throne of Saint Peter so that, disguised as a sheep, he could deceive Christendom? A certain number of "good faith" traditionalists lack credibility, I think, when they use sentimental arguments such as "the Pope wore a clown's nose, but this is scandalous and has never happened before, therefore he cannot be Pope”, etc. while others rely on apparitions or pseudo-appearances which - although some may be true - seem insufficient to assert that Rome is actually led by an antipope.
[…]
In any case, I believe – but this is simply a personal opinion – that the Conciliar Church is the prostitute of the Apocalypse as described in chapter 17 and that JM Bergoglio (or Francis) is probably the fake prophet of the Apocalypse, that is to say a false interpreter of God (not to be confused with the Antichrist) who, as the same sacred text says in chapter 13 (v. 12), "brings the inhabitants of the earth to worship the first beast” which is atheistic globalism, a multi-headed monster made by Satan.
I pray, finally, that His Excellency continues to fight the good fight of the faith as Saint Paul says, by defending in particular the immutable doctrine of the Church and by thwarting the multiple traps that the enemies of Christ want to set. Crosses and trials are part of the life of true apostles of Christ. The good Lord will reward you if you persevere.
Please believe in my attachment to eternal Rome, Mistress of wisdom and truth.
In Christo and Maria
F.B.
faithful of the Catholic Church
|
|
|
Letter to Monsignor Viganò |
Posted by: Stone - 07-24-2024, 09:14 AM - Forum: Archbishop Viganò
- No Replies
|
|
Letter to Monsignor Viganò
aldomariavalli.com - machine translated | July 20, 2024
His excellence,
Allow me to thank you for your courageous defense of the faith in these times when the Church seems to be living the last moments of its long Passion. In reality you are doing nothing other than what a pastor of the Church should do: protecting the faith and morals of the flock entrusted to you and denouncing the wolves and mercenaries who divert souls from their ultimate goal, Heaven. It is regrettable to have to note that when there are not a few Nicodemuses to timidly defend some truths in the Conciliar Church, we “witness” the silence of most of the prelates, a fairly obvious sign of their complicity in the process of self-destruction of the Church.
Please also be thanked for the reference you make to Monsignor Lefebvre because it is true to say that he was a beacon during the years following the Second Vatican Council, the same council of which Cardinal Suenens had said that it was "1789 in the Church”. Given the unfair and derisory sanctions which are now weighing on you, it seems appropriate to recall that Monsignor Lefebvre, after the consecrations of 1988, declared that it was "a strict duty for any priest wishing to remain Catholic to separate himself from this conciliar Church, as long as it does not rediscover the tradition of the Magisterium of the Church and of the Catholic faith” (Spiritual Journey, p. 13).
And time, after the 30 years following the death of Mgr. Lefebvre, effectively showed that on the one hand, the conciliar monster has continued to develop to reveal its true face, and on the other hand, that those who have been able to keep the faith are essentially those who have maintained the wise advice of the “iron bishop”. Unfortunately, a certain number of groups of Tradition, in particular the SSPX, have lost the spirit of their founder and, in their naivety (or blindness?) wanted to join the Conciliar Church for fear of being seen as "schismatics" in the eyes of the world, forgetting that the Christian must seek to position himself in the truth by first seeing God or in relation to God.
Finally, I thank you for the clarifications you provide concerning the legitimacy and validity of “Pope” Francis because what helps intelligence to see the truth are above all arguments of reason. I am thinking in particular of the “defect of consent” that you develop in your publications in order to be able to provide some answers to the mystery of inequity that we have been facing for years. How did the one who is supposed to be the leader of Christianity become the Pontiff of liberalism and the promoter of Masonic ideals in our poor apostate world? Or rather, how could a notorious heretic sit on the throne of Saint Peter so that, disguised as a sheep, he could deceive Christendom? A certain number of "good faith" traditionalists lack credibility, I think, when they use sentimental arguments such as "the Pope wore a clown's nose, but this is scandalous and has never happened before, therefore he cannot be Pope”, etc. while others rely on apparitions or pseudo-appearances which - although some may be true - seem insufficient to assert that Rome is actually led by an antipope.
[…]
In any case, I believe – but this is simply a personal opinion – that the Conciliar Church is the prostitute of the Apocalypse as described in chapter 17 and that JM Bergoglio (or Francis) is probably the fake prophet of the Apocalypse, that is to say a false interpreter of God (not to be confused with the Antichrist) who, as the same sacred text says in chapter 13 (v. 12), "brings the inhabitants of the earth to worship the first beast” which is atheistic globalism, a multi-headed monster made by Satan.
I pray, finally, that His Excellency continues to fight the good fight of the faith as Saint Paul says, by defending in particular the immutable doctrine of the Church and by thwarting the multiple traps that the enemies of Christ want to set. Crosses and trials are part of the life of true apostles of Christ. The good Lord will reward you if you persevere.
Please believe in my attachment to eternal Rome, Mistress of wisdom and truth.
In Christo and Maria
F.B.
faithful of the Catholic Church
|
|
|
Archbishop Lefebvre 1989: Conferences at Avrillé |
Posted by: Stone - 07-24-2024, 05:09 AM - Forum: Sermons and Conferences
- Replies (1)
|
|
A partial transcript into English of the above French conference, taken from here:
Talk A. Morning Conference
Archbishop Lefebvre, Avrillé, Oct. 1989.
THE BEGINNING:
My dear friends, I wasn't expecting a public so numerous here, for this retreat, but I rejoice. I notice that your community is growing, so let's thank the Good God, and your confreres in the expansion of your dear Community. At the invitation, [he jokingly says]: not sure if we can call him 'prior'?, [chuckle from the audience] I accepted to give you some talks during this retreat of a few days. The fact that I started late and I will finish early...I should have been more generous but, for the reason that I am torn between demands here and there, and my schedule is very busy till the 19 November. Then after I will see - I will have time for prayer and reflection; also this will permit some writing, some means, trying to do good as best I can.
Therefore, during this retreat then, we must do the utmost good possible - confirm in your faith, confirm your vocation, confirm in your religious aspect - it is important. I want to discuss, in this instruction and perhaps the second one too, and expose the situation which we are in, because we are in this present history of the Church, we haven't chosen, but God has placed us in the here and now. We could have been living in the middle of the persecutions; or perhaps in an era when the Church was flourishing and at peace. For thirteen centuries, the Christian religion was really the Queen of this Christian Europe...we could have lived during those epochs. Oh! there were always many difficulties too, just as St. Dominic had some in his day, even if during his time it was considered an epoch of Christianity. Nevertheless, if we had trials in the course of the Church's history, combats, heresies, schisms, God has always raised up generous souls for those times, souls who make a constant effort to maintain, continue the Church that He founded, the Church which came forth from His Heart, wounded, truly, and so He will never abandon His Church.
We would not be wrong in saying these times in which we are living: 'the Church is in a grave situation'. Never the Church has experienced such trials that we presently have! I don't think so. Will it be the last one...the ultimate before the end of time? I don't know at all - I am not a prophet. In any case, it is certain that we must be conscious about this crisis in which the Church finds itself, the gravity of the crisis, so as to take the proper means to combat, since God has wanted to resuscitate groups, as yours, who have decided not to allow themselves to be invaded - neither the intelligence nor the will, nor the heart, by the current idealisms: of heresy, of apostasy, by sensualism, by rationalism, by Liberalism, of these modern errors - by a particular grace of the Good God...which God has chosen...to be possessors of the truth to continue the work of the Holy Catholic Church.
So, it is difficult to do a very succinct summary of this crisis, starting from the Council evidently, but in fact, the error goes back much further. It can be traced back to the origin of all the heresies, and especially, not only the machinations of men, but of the ' Order of Satan ' also, evidently. It is so clear that Satan labours without interruption, without respite, for the destruction of the Church. In certain epochs, sinister...he acted differently when dealing with persons filled of the grace of Our Lord, filled of the Holy Spirit, but it looks as if, in special moments, God seemingly allows him to captivate - he invades the world in such ways that he has become the absolute master. Happening in our epoch, isn't it so? It certainly looks like God have given satan liberty to act; we said this of Leo XIII. Leo XIII had a revelation pertaining to a crisis, a fight when satan would buffet the Church. It is said that God gave satan a hundred years, to act as he desired. We recognize that from Leo XIII's time till now, it is about one hundred years, and he has marvelously succeeded to settle his hand on the world, it is admirable!, on Christianity, which is even more grave, even on the Church, actually, on the men of the Church not the Church itself.
You know the history of the Church sufficiently...I don't want to repeat indefinitely. For sure, talk after talk this year, has sufficiently shown what was the French Revolution, the time of the Revolution, how this Revolution was conceived, how it was realized, and eventually how it began the destruction of the Church by the destruction of the Faith. I think that there is an act that manifests the Revolution and that is especially the "Goddess Reason", which was, if we may so speak "adored" in Notre Dame of Paris! An incredible scandal! which shows the spirit of the ones who made the Revolution: to adore Reason! to adore Man! the intention: to put man in the place of God. Place man instead of God - Put the rights of man instead of the rights of God. It is a radical revolt of man against God.
Just like the revolt of Satan against God, "Non serviam!", I will not serve!, well, this Revolution was nothing else than the application of this revolt of Satan...reason itself against the Faith! So, of course, they tried to massacre everything that supported the Faith in the past.
[TIME 9:34]
Beginning with the king; even if the king was not a perfect man, nevertheless he aided the Faith. The king was always (a constant king ?), a Catholic king. Already, even at the moment when the king was anointed, the voices of those who objected were raised, demanding: 'Let's put an end, do away with the consecration (Footnote 1), that this consecration didn't signify anything, useless, regrettable for the chief of state himself...it's no good to consecrate the king; what's the use?...a ceremony, a ceremony so religious; the king need not be consecrated; we shouldn't make of the king a sort of god'. Voices were raised to prevent [the leader Icseine? inaudible ]from performing the consecration.... [Icseine?] therefore decided on the contrary, (some wanted to make a scaled down ceremony at Notre Dame) and performed the consecration at Rheims and nowhere else. The King was consecrated, complete with all the ceremonies, with all the actions as the Church wanted. Because he felt he was the lieutenant of Our Lord Jesus-Christ on earth, to propagate the Faith, and to defend it; a real mission that he had to keep forever. Of course this was very upsetting for the spirit of those who wanted to do away with the Reign of Jesus-Christ, to abolish the reign of a Christian king; therefore the first step they took was to make the king disappear. Then it was the attempt to have all the servants of Our Lord disappear, as much as they could.
Then followed by the necessary step of replacing the Christian religion with new religion, a laïcité religion, a laicised religion - they replaced Christian feasts with profane feasts. There was a suffusion of this distinct spirit throughout all the nineteenth century; and the twentieth-century: laicism constantly making progress, progress, progress. At certain times, thanks to the pressure of faithful Catholics, of few men, such as Cardinal Pie stood up, who protested, struggled....faced with the resistance of the faithful population, the efforts of laïcisme diminished somewhat, but always the intention to return.
They succeeded at the beginning of this century, with the separation of Church and State and it must be noted that it was at that time when all the religious were chased from France. Not a trifling! It's enormous; when you consider the number of religious and nuns who found themselves in France at the beginning of this century. Actually, only four religious congregations were allowed: purely missionary congregations, like the Adem (?), the Holy Ghost Fathers were uniquely permitted only because they were missionary and the government worried that if these congregations would shrink, the influence of the Government in the Colonies would also diminish: so it was a purely political goal that allowed the four congregations...four congregations were maintained, but they were of the missionary kind. They realized that the missionaries wielded a great influence, what was taught, even politically, so they neither dared to oppress them, nor to chase them away.
All other Orders were chased away. A violent persecution, with an absolute and earnest will of laicising France more and more. And not only in France, but like this in all countries. Occupation of Cannes, occupation of Rome and so on...it was all of Europe, often aided by the Protestants, and by Freemasonary of course, succeeded, little by little, in laicising society in such a way that Our Lord has nothing to do, nothing! nothing to do with official society. I don't know if you can imagine... but, not so very long ago, one could see a crucifix in the tribunals - they had kept the Christ in the tribunals, there was a crucifix in the tribunals.
In the army, there were chaplains everywhere....they still possessed a certain Christian influence, in various official services of the state; but after the separation of Church and State it was over; it ended. Rampant tearing down of the Christ. This just kept progressing, even if there were a few respites, because of reactions, for a short while a few reactions, and then because of the efforts of Satan, and his henchmen, remarkably organized, and with Freemasonry which was constantly developing, they eventually conquered all of the Christian world - totally, so that actually Satan reigns by the intermediary of socialism, a political system which is diabolical, purely diabolical. With this program of laïcisation they infiltrated everywhere. Some efforts were renewed, with Franco, Salazar, de Valera in Ireland and others; a few presidents of Republics who were men still profoundly Christian and who upheld Christianity: all this blew up! finished, completely finished!
After this came the Council. Until then the Church resisted. The Church encouraged all those who held fast to Our Lord's social reign. At the very least, one could rely on Rome, priests, and bishops to defend the Social Reign of Our Lord Jesus-Christ. No one could have possibly imagined that a time would come, where those who were charged with defending the Reign of Our Lord would turn against Him. This!...This is the utmost pinnacle of the triumph of Satan! The masterstroke of Satan is the achievement of using the clerics, and using Rome, to destroy the Reign of Our Lord. This is what we have nowadays...
[Time 18:15]
What did they begin, these enemies of the Church, by the revolution?.. MARTYRDOM. Often there were martyrs, and the martyrdom of women, women martyred by the revolution...religious martyrdom. There are some who died miserably in France. They were martyrs of the revolution. Then the religious were persecuted and chased. Priests and religious were hunted down and martyred. But now, this is finished! They [clerics] are now at the service of the enemies of the Church. They shake hands with the enemies of the Church! to destroy the Reign of Our Lord Jesus-Christ.
How could this possibly be done? Well, by the invention of compromise. The Catholics began to compromise with the ideas of the Revolution. This work of Liberalism, under the pretext of Liberty, the liberty of man. Then we began to admit that, well..possibly, there might be some men who are against Our Lord, opposed to Our Lord, who were atheists. Opposed to Our Lord. Ah...well, they have the liberty, after all they have liberty...they have their consciences.
The real point is this: the day Catholics became this lax in principle and handed over the "carte blanche" to these enemies of the Church, it was already a considerable defeat for the world,. The combat has ceased against the enemies of the Church, against the enemies of Our Lord. The popes have denounced it throughout the XIX century, denounced this Liberalism, which transformed in Socialism, in Sillonism, in progressism, till it had penetrated to a greater extent. St Pius X had predicted, in his first encyclical, and said that no longer are there enemies outside the Church, but also enemies within. [Footnote 2] And where are those enemies? In the seminaries! In the seminaries...(inaudible) ...expressed tacitly that the enemy is in the seminaries. He implored the bishops: 'Chase all the modernist professors. All those who compromise with error: laïcisme, the anti-Christian errors...we must chase them, evidently, it 's easy to understand. How can professors who have no idea of the Social Reign of Our Lord Jesus-Christ, how can they teach priests to become militants, combatants for Our Lord?, for the Reign of Our Lord? How can they tell them when they say: 'I don't believe that anymore!' It is not possible.
And because they haven't listened to the (encyclical ? inaudible), they will keep those professors who diffuse these errors inside the seminaries. Now we have priests who are completely Modernists. They have acquired the modern liberty, acquired the modern errors. Very gently, they are convinced that societies have nothing to do with religion. Nothing at all. The political society has nothing to do with it. Not to be occupied with religion. All religions must be allowed, so consequently, without distinctions, thereby an eventual loss of the faith in Our Lord Jesus-Christ. If all religions are on an equal status in society then Our Lord, Boudah, and mo hahamed, all that is the same thing.
It is an apostasy, apostasy! They no longer hold to this saying, which is absolutely certain, constantly professed by the Church: Extra Ecclesia nulla salus, outside the Church no salvation. No salvation outside the Church. If there is no salvation outside the Church, Christian societies must strive to provide salvation for their citizens! Ah!...it is normal. Nowadays: Oh!...no no no. we don't have anything to do with that. As if the society wasn't created by God. God created it just like He created the family, He created civil society, He created the Church...the three societies which must work towards the good of souls and for the salvation of souls! It's clear...it's clear.
Eventually we witnessed (that truth ?) was abandoned in the seminaries; we longer teach in the seminaries of the holiness of Our Lord; that the christian religion is one of many religions: the missionary spirit has vanished. This spirit, this spirit destroyed in the priest. How is that possible?...to be a priest without being a missionary, is incomprehensible, incomprehensible, an enormous contradiction. Incredible isn't it?
What good could come from one of these priests who doesn't have faith in the oneness of the Catholic Church? The faith in the Church, sole means of salvation. What good could he do in your parish? (To demonstrate: at the battle front, how can a paraplegic fight?) So very slowly, very slowly, very slowly this spirit completely ruined the combat of the Church.
The invasion of this laïcité, everywhere, everywhere in the schools, by every powerful agency, by the media, by the cinema as soon as it was invented, the radio (...), all this has completed destroyed in the population this idea: that there is salvation only in Our Lord Jesus-Christ and in the Holy Church. Everything, everything completely laicised. Furthermore, the priests do not know a profound faith in their religion, it is evident that it was felt in their proper religion, it is evident, we now understand a sort of...destruction, the auto-destruction in the interior of the Church before even the Council, for sure.
The discouragement of the priests. I, I have seen it, I lived it. I experienced it as a bishop. I have seen it in my diocese, I saw these priests, particularly when I was at Puy(?). I felt it in the priests of France, a special interior discouragement. Some were happy, I can assure you, if we could have retaken having this conviction. In the missions, I hadn't quit the missions just because I was in France ,then in the small diocese of Tulle, it is a small diocese, it isn't a large diocese, with 220 priests; I tried to enkindled the missionary spirit,and they were happy. They would come back to life. Some had a very hard life; the laïcisation had so penetrated the spirit of the populations that
Busing away all these children to lay schools. Rooting up, killing the Catholic apostolate. Gone were the subsidies for Catholic schools, the number of religious shrinking...With each passing year fewer Catholic schools Fewer Catholic hospitals for lack of religious personnel. Catholic schools sold, yes. The priests realized that the religious spirit was vanishing, in spite of their best efforts. A young priest who is still in the diocese, shedding tears. He told me: 'Monseigneur, you entrusted three parishes to me, three or four faithful, senior faithful on Sundays in every church of my parishes. When I arrive, a group eight or nine children for catechism, that's all! I am dying of boredom. I am dying(...). I am forced to take my meals in a tiny restaurant in my parish because no one is helping in the kitchen. I am completely isolated. I can't keep going like this! It is a veritable desolation, common in all the dioceses of France. Priests lose hope, because of this laicisation, everything, everything...
What must be done in these dioceses when a bishop arrives in a diocese like this? Open SCHOOLS! These priest should become teachers, to possess the impressionable youth. To establish Youth Movements. Gather the youth to give them the faith...that's right. And what will happen to these youth? In the diocese of Nantes and elsewhere - eventually there would be a teacher / priest in every village. Administrating priests! Teaching priests in the catholic schools. Imagine a priest would be a school. A priest, teaching in a primary school. Immediately vocations are born. If they busy themselves with children, vocations will eventually come. Later, they might try their vocations...vocations are revived. Seminaries start anew, that's it. And Catholic life takes root.
(...)When I was at Tulle, I learned very early on the importance of catholic schools. My successor, Msgr (Pearl?), (...)when he returned to the missions, (but has now resigned), the first thing he did was to close this catholic school! They are crazy! They have lost the faith. They don't believe in grace any more. They don't believe! 'Oh! well, they might as well go to a public school, we give them some catechism...Chaplains? Can't bother with that stuff.' They no longer beleive in the virtue of the priest. They no longer believe in the virtue of grace. They don't have the faith.
For them, all that is a human institution. (...) Another thing he did...There was a congregation which was the unique congregation that would send priests to the missions, a diocesan congregation just like we had and that was still in many villages; the first thing he did was to suppress this congregation and to unite it to the Sisters of the (...) the only congregation that we had.(...) So there you see the work of bishops! How can the Church be as before? How can the Church be as before? Impossible! How so? Because he was imbued... there were some lay folk. He definitely didn't want any schools that would appear to oppose the state run schools, to divide, to cause division in the population; to have peace, to have peace, 'why fight? Why? To initiate a combat? That combat is over. That combat is terminated'. So now the school is public, they will all public.'We can enter the public schools and do good as best we can. Voila!'
...They don't believe in the grace of Our Lord Jesus-Christ, and in the Holy Spirit.
There!...we have bishops like that. And the modernist cardinals at the Council. Inevitably, what happened happened. We had these bishops who were convinced, absolutely convinced of the necessity to liberalize everything. No combat, no combat; but the church is essentially combative. Our Lord led the combat, brought combat on earth. His cross brought a victory in the combat, in the first great combat against satan. And His apostles continued this combat and were all massacred, they were all killed because of their combat, because they proclaimed the divinity of our Lord, because they proclaimed the necessity to convert to Our Lord to be saved. It's clear!
...His cross brought a victory in the combat, in the first great combat against satan. And His apostles continued this combat and were all massacred, they were all killed because of their combat, because they proclaimed the divinity of our Lord, because they proclaimed the necessity to convert to Our Lord to be saved. It's clear!
TIME 34:05
Evidently the pagan religions they were addressing, the pagans practicing tenets of these religions, they were all massacred, they shed their blood - they didn't hesitate. If they would have had preach pacifism, pacifism, pacifism, as we do nowadays, surely, there couldn't have been martyrs. Not possible. We talk, we dialogue, your religion is as good as ours, and we adore the same god, then there are no difficulties. Do what you are doing, you will be saved like us. Ah! It's finished. there is no more combat. It is an open door for Satan with all the modern errors, the pagan errors. Finished. The work of the Church is terminated. The Church will disappear - she has no reason to exist.
She was a nuisance, but now, she doesn't want to be a nuisance. She doesn't want to annoy others. Our Lord was annoying, yes. In the very least, very annoying...He came in our midst with His cross. 'His cross is a nuisance; we don't want it, don't want it,' immediately when they witnessed Our Lord Jesus-Christ hanging upon the cross.... Finally, the Church herself, from the Pope, to the bishops, to the priests. Now the combat has evolved: peace, peace, peace, peace, dialogue. Dreadful, dreadful! It is an apostasy. They renounce what Our Lord had (...) the most intimate, since the Holy Virgin was a type of the most intimate, in Herself, that is, Her battle against Satan. The Holy Virgin was born of the enmity between God and Satan, She was born from this. She was born for this, to crush the head of Satan.
'AAAah! No! She won't crush the head of Satan, that's finished!' (...)The Virgin Mary is no longer, crucifix gone, no more Our Lord, no more combat...it is terminated. There is where we are at now my dear friends. We must understand the situation without which we will be unable to take the means to combat....otherwise we will be influenced by these compromises, compromise, compromises it's not worth it to be missionaries, not worth it to be Dominicans. The Dominicans are firstly combatants. St. Dominic was a combatant, and how! He didn't take up arms, the knights did that...with preaching; he never tired of proclaiming Our Lord of heaven and earth. they promptly persecuted him. Voila! This is the situation in which we find ourselves. I want to explain to you how this operation was realized in and by the Council. How, presently we live under the sway of the Council, and therefore under this operation that was realized to deny the engagement of the priest, and to prevent him from fighting - preventing him from being a preacher of the Reign of Our Lord. Unimaginable! These are facts.
There has been a total change in the attitude in the episcopacy. Those who really wanted to effect change in the Council, and to do it in the sense that they intended in the Council...to make a revolution by means of the Council. A revolution which would totally rupture the true spirit of the Church, and the true spirit of Our Lord; the true missionary and apostolic spirit. Complete!! Radical!! And to apply this, absolutely to everyone. Everything that is done by Rome today, and the (offices) of Rome ...Everything is done with this goal. Whatever they do, whatever relations they might have, all the concessions they could do, all is accomplished with this idea to submit to the spirit of the Council, in such a way that whatever was revolutionary in the Council be put in practice in a perfect manner. Just as they wanted it, just as they prepared it, as they organized it, they organized all such services at Rome. It is like this...it is a fact.
Follows then 'what must I do to restore the Reign of Our Lord?' to talk about the Reign, really, But they object immediately: 'You have resuscitated this war of religion - you have resuscitated this war of religion.' Well, it must be known. Where do these wars of religion come from? They come from opposition to Our Lord! They desire to abandon the missionary spirit, because the so-called " our mission", this mission as it was made prior to Vatican II created religious wars, instigated a combat, a religious combat. Well surely. It was always like that in the Church. That is why there have been martyrs throughout the history of the Church. They made themselves martyrs, they were martyrs. Because the opposed the lies of the world, the lies of Satan, of the horrors which lead to hell, and all these souls falling to hell, they wanted to save them. And wanting to save, they constantly opposed...they were massacred.
It a revolution, a revolution which was introduced in the Council -it is the spirit of revolution, but a revolution albeit with a religious character, in a certain way, because this is accomplished by men of the Church who want to break from the tradition of the Church. Try as they may to sugarcoat it, 'we continue tradition, we continue tradition, it is not true! They are not in continuity with tradition. So they presently want to inaugurate a new era, the Council has inaugurated a new era to which all must submit. Furthermore, this era has a name, a signifying name which we hear over and over again, is ecuмenism. The Council operated under the sign of ecuмenism, having necessarily for its foundation, both theoretical and theological, Religious Liberty. This is how it was done, with ecuмenism as the goal - to have relations, of a new kind, between all religions and the Church, and all the political ideologies, not only religions, but even political ideologies Another attitude of the Church: attitude of pacifism, an attitude of dialogue, an attitude of friendship, of understanding. It's over! Terminated. The ideal of the Church beginning with Our Lord, (...) completely annihilated, all finished, no longer the same.
Meanwhile we oppose the socialist, communist...The popes have always opposed this false ecuмenism. Just read the encyclical of Pius XI Mortalium Animos and note how the Pope is against this false ecuмenism. 'Oh! well. It is terminated, all what the popes have said, preceding Vatican II, it is over. Now we need a new style, a new style regarding the religions,' vis-a-vis the other religions, even if they are false, and of other ideologies. Not only the other religions mind you... Liberation Theology, relations with the communists, relations with the Freemasons - relations with THE sworn enemy of the Church, THE sworn enemy of Our Lord. Unreal!! Therefore ( Vat II says we cannot combat, we cannot combat.
Perhaps we can imagine what Pere Emmanuel thinks. Pere Emmanuel who lived a century...he sees this with a prophetic clarity. It's extraordinary. As soon as the ecclesiastical crisis dawned, as the Church found itself a century ago, because he felt the germs, from perceived it from the onset...it's marvelous. He made ecclesiastical ministry. (How did he die?) The priests had lost the Faith, and that is the most grave thing: the priests lose faith in their proper ministry, in their proper religion. It is the great ruin of the Church, not only a passing ruin, but a radical ruin, and from this the lack of religious vocations, the diminishing of the religious societies. It's normal, logical.
End of Part A, 2 of 2 Morning Conference
Footnote 1. Not sure if 'consecrate' is suitable or permitted.
Footnote 2. "For as We have said, they put their designs for her ruin into operation not from without but from within; hence, the danger is present almost in the very veins and heart of the Church,..." Pascendi Dominici Gregis, Sept 8, 1907
|
|
|
Fr Faber on doubtful ordinations – frightening parallels with Novus Ordo ordinations |
Posted by: Stone - 07-24-2024, 04:50 AM - Forum: Vatican II and the Fruits of Modernism
- No Replies
|
|
Fr Faber on doubtful ordinations – frightening parallels with Novus Ordo ordinations
The beloved writer of devotional works, Fr Frederick W. Faber, discusses doubtfully valid holy orders and sacraments
– with frightening parallels to Novus Ordo sacraments reformed after Vatican II.
wmreview.org [slightly adapted - red font emphasis mine] | July 23, 2024
Fr Frederick W. Faber (1814-1863) needs little introduction. He is one of the most celebrated and beloved Catholic figures of the nineteenth century.
After spending time with different religious ideas as a young man, he eventually fell in with John Henry Newman, and became a part of the Anglican Tractarian movement and the associated patristic revival.
He received Anglican orders in 1839. Over the next few years he made two tours of Europe and became attracted by Catholic rites and devotion. When he returned to England in 1944, he established numerous Catholic practices where he ministered in Elton, Northamptonshire: this included confessions, teaching various Catholic doctrines, promoting the lives of saints and advocating the claims of the Roman Church.
In November 1845 – the month following Newman’s reception at Littlemore, near Oxford - Faber was received into the Roman Catholic Church by Bishop Waring at Northampton.
In 1846 he formed a religious community in Staffordshire, and in 1847 he was ordained a priest. His community had grown to about forty, and their zeal apparently converted nearly the whole parish.
In 1848 he joined Newman’s newly established Oratory of St Philip Neri as a novice – and was sent to London by Newman, to found a house there in 1849. In time, this house and Church relocated to South Kensington, and became the celebrated London (or “Brompton”) Oratory.
There is much that could be said about his life, but for now, let’s return to his conversion.
The Pamphlet
After Faber became a Catholic, he published a pamphlet on the matter in 1846 – as did many other converts. This pamphlet was entitled Grounds for Remaining in the Anglican Communion, and was written as a letter to a “High-Church” friend, pursuing a similar, “catholicising” line in the Church of England as he had.
It is a remarkable, relentless tour de force of a polemic. It has several sections which are relevant to our current crisis.
The section which we are republishing here relates to what he calls “the miserable, much-vexed question of Anglican orders.” Let us bear in mind two points.
First, Faber himself had been living and working as an Anglican minister for around five years. His discussion of Anglican orders is not an abstract topic with no relevance to himself. It relates to all his work as a minister to that date.
No doubt forming such a conclusion about his orders was a challenge. We have previously published a very helpful text from Mgr Robert Hugh Benson which considers the implications of previous sacraments being invalid as sacramental rites. It casts the matter in a different light to what one might expect.
Second, this text was written several decades before Leo XIII’s definitive settling of the question with the 1896 Bull Apostolicae Curae. In that Bull, the pope recognised the existence of a controversy, even amongst Catholics, over whether Anglican orders were absolutely invalid, or simply doubtful.
In the first part of the Bull, Leo XIII recounts various documents which showed that the controversy "had already been definitely settled by the Apostolic See," and that it was only considered as an open question at the time because of "insufficient knowledge of these documents."
Nonetheless, we could say that this was a confusing question at the time, and there were arguments for both sides.
The pre-Apostolicae Curae situation was similar to the post-conciliar situation
This is pertinent to our own day. For reasons discussed elsewhere, it is difficult to affirm with certainty that the reformed rites of ordination have come to us from the Church, with her guarantees and authority. This applies also to the other sacramental rites, and particularly those which have been changed in their essentials.
Further, even if these rites are valid, the widespread carelessness in sacramental discipline makes it extremely difficult – if not impossible – to assume that they have been administered according to the reformed books themselves: therefore, combined with doubts about the rites themselves, there seems to be a general presumption against validity in the practical order.
This may seem shocking for some, especially regarding sacraments which cannot be repeated (baptism, confirmation and holy orders). But while it might well be shocking, and confusing, it need not disheartening, as the extract from Mgr Robert Hugh Benson (mentioned above) explains.
Pressing Questions regarding Novus Ordo priests and sacraments
Faber’s text addresses things that might begin to help us answer contemporary questions – even if it does not take us to neat, clear answers.
- How should we relate to these reformed sacramental rites – including the ministers ordained in them?
- Should we receive the sacraments in these rites, from priests ordained with these rites, by bishops consecrated with these rites – or fly from them all?
- Is it morally possible to administer or receive doubtful sacraments?
- Do we need to prove with certainty that they are invalid before we fly from such things?
- What are the effects of not flying from these reformed rites once we have recognised that they are of doubtful validity?
- Can one live a Christian life in habitual danger of doubtful sacraments?
- Should we keep our thoughts on this matter to ourselves, to avoid unsettling others?
Fr Faber’s hymns and devotional works have given him a reputation of sweetness and sentimentality.
As a result, the answers he gives to these questions may be surprising.
Quote:Grounds for Remaining in the Anglican Communion
A Letter to a High-Church Friend
Frederick William Faber
James Toovey, London 1846
pp 54-58, 61-62
Available Online
My dear friend, this wish to imitate the Saints leads me to say a few words, not of a learned sort, but as addressed to one anxious about his soul, on the miserable, much-vexed question of Anglican orders. You have doubts and misgivings about your position, and of course the very first question which faces a man who wishes to tread in the steps of the Catholic Saints, is:
- “Am I sure that I have priests round me, that they have jurisdiction to absolve me, that I can attend upon the highest ordinances of religion with faith, and without the perpetual distraction and unsettlement of doubts, the existence of which on such subjects goes far to destroy the very office of a visible Church?
- “Am I sure of all this?
- “And if not, and I do believe in a visible Church, have I any right to be short of sure on such matters?”
Another Way of Approaching the Problem
Now I have purposely avoided entering into any theological arguments, which have been handled far better by others; I have kept to the peculiar grounds of yourself and your friends; and have tried to look at everything in the way in which I should have thought it would have come home to one simply and seekingly anxious about his soul. What little I shall say about Anglican orders shall be in the same line.
You say that the Church has never decided the question, and that the Pope has passed no dogmatic judgment on it, to which you would bow when given. Now, my dear friend, in the outset let me ask you if you are acting honestly towards the Anglican communion, when you remain in it with a determination, ready beforehand, to submit to a decree of Gregory XVI on the subject of the orders of your ministers? To be plain, is not this quite dishonest?
And then, in the next place, has not Rome implicitly settled the question of your orders by the administration of confirmation, and of ordination also, without any condition?
This is the more remarkable [in comparison], from the way in which the Church administers conditional baptism to converts; without ceremonies, and with every possible want of solemnity beyond what mere safety requires, to intimate her fear of sacrilege, and the simple prudence of charity which has forced her thereto.
But now, look at the question of Anglican orders in another way.
Multiplicity of Arguments Pointing to the Conclusion
If a man had wished to learn the mind of the Church, as well as he could, on the Arian or Eutychian heresies before they were condemned, the way by which he would approach to it would be, by finding that different theological schools in the Church, or even her individual doctors, starting from different points and premises, and theologizing on somewhat different principles, all came to conclusions equally unfavourable to the heresy in question. Surely, if a man could arrive at this, he would have grounds more than sufficient to act upon.
And may not something of this sort be arrived at, in regard to Anglican orders?
One set of men start with history; some take the deposition of a consecrator, others other points, and they decide against Anglican orders. Some start from the point of "intention:" this man argues it on the omission of intention in the consecration of bishops for so many years; that man argues it from the fact that the compilers of the Thirty-Nine Articles did, as a matter of history, include the sacramentality of orders under a "corrupt following of the Apostles," and that no subsequent High-church divines could inject an interpretative intention into words not intended to convey it; and both decide against Anglican orders.
Others start with the principle of jurisdiction, which you as well as they consider essential to the power of keys, except in articulo mortis; if you do not hold the Queen to be the fountain of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, nor the Chair of Peter, then I presume you must consider it as infused into each individual bishop at the moment of consecration, and for this theory I fear you are unprovided either with scripture or tradition: and these scholars, on the ground of jurisdiction, decide against Anglican orders.
Then, again, the "English Churchman" has made it most probable that several bishops may have been unbaptized, from the suicidal exposure which the Editor has made of negligence and sacrilege among Anglicans in their practice of baptism; and here again it fares ill with Anglican orders.
Now, I do not wish to argue the question in any hard theological way; I do not mean to say that any one of these theories is necessarily true, or of itself decisive against the orders: but I ask you, if the diversity goes to show that the Church has not yet, totidem verbis, decided the question, do not the variety of premisses, and the unity of conclusion, prove to a moral certainty how the Church would decide it?
Impossibility of the Christian Life in a situation of doubtful orders
And alas! can it be well, can it be right, can it be — to use your own fearful, bold word – providential, that you should go on your way encumbered and weighed down with this dismal blighting cloud, pressing on you at every turn, darkening every ministerial act you confront, turning into ungraceful, yea, intolerable gloom, all that was meant to cheer and to illuminate the poor striving penitent?
Ah! how many a young man's heart is bleeding at every pore, miserable under the weight of his past years, half-ruined by the neglect of what calls itself his Church and spiritual mother, now humbling himself to confession, and in many, many cases repulsed, his confession refused to be heard, bandied from one minister to another; and, when all is over, to have no security, but every ground for gravely doubting whether he has ever been absolved at all, or ever received the Blessed Eucharist, or can by any possibility come across any of the endearing powers lodged by virtue of the Incarnation in the priesthood of the Catholic Church!
Is not this positively affrighting?
Is it not enough to make the deadest and the coldest Catholic call loudly and imploringly upon you to abandon that perverse system, which you are trying to force upon your own reluctant communion; and which every day takes more and more the compact and cognizable form of a dreadful delusion?
Is it wrong to unsettle others by talking about doubtful sacraments?
Is it sinful to unsettle men's minds when they are lying in the lap of death, and know it not?
Is it sinful, when we reject your claim to be a Church, or to have bishops, or to be other than a misled disunited number of wandering sheep, to call you one by one, as we can, and where we can, and when we can?
Are we, as you say, immoral when we treat you as in no Church at all, because we do not admit your premisses, and so cannot act on your conclusions? Are you not judging us through out, as though we held what you hold? If it be undignified treatment for those who buoy themselves up on the inflated claims of Anglicanism, it is such treatment as the strenuous, pitiful, charity of Catholics in all ages has shown to blindfold perishing souls.
I am really surprised at the way in which some urge the immorality of unsettling men's minds; as if it was not a positive obligation to unsettle those whom we believe in fearful error.
Surely it is most false, as well as daring, to say that a work is not from the Holy Spirit because it is not calm: shall we venture to limit His dealings? shall we condemn, for the sake of some sickly theory of our own, the tumultuous contrition which the Saints have deemed heroic, and which has sometimes separated body and soul. Surely one would rather say that truth in its beginnings has mostly, and very markedly, been an unsettling thing; and it should be remembered that solemn steps may be taken while the greatest calmness reigns within, which, nevertheless, from certain outward circumstances, may have every appearance of hurry and perturbation.
But is not such a charge as this, brought forward with quiet unsuspecting self-complacency, another sign of the marvellous blind pride which characterizes your position? and all such charges are of quite recent invention; you have made a new position for yourselves.
Incoherency of a “high church” party, trying to change the Church of England, accusing others of causing strife
For, supposing such a charge to be true, or fair, it comes with an uncommonly bad grace from men who first unsettled our minds [with their attempts to "re-catholicise" the Church of England, including in liturgical matters]; who have unsettled their own communion from its very bottom, with quite as much appearance of wantonness as we have shown; who are more painfully unsettling it now by their remaining, than we by our seceding; and whose work was not only not calm in its beginnings, nor calm in its progress, but breeds even daily increasing scandal, tumult, strife, faction, and schism, among yourselves, as it approaches, by the help of the momentum which juvenile ecclesiologists have given it, to its goal of a broken purpose and frustrate expectations.
Are you to have a monopoly of unsettlement? Have you some graduated scale of unsettlement, up to which men's minds may be blamelessly disturbed, and which you alone know how to manage?
After all you have done, and all you are doing in your own communion, this show of meek indignation at our immoral unsettling of men's minds must be, to Dissenters and Low-church men, amusing and instructive in the extreme. Yet it is natural enough; it is but the jealous snappish anger of a sportsman with one who crosses his beat. Forgive me this ill-natured figure, which really forces itself upon me. […]
Illegitimacy of acting on probable opinions
[S]urely your reverence for the authority of St Thomas, backed as it is by Suarez and St Alphonsus, may incline you to admit principles of moral theology, which, with respect to the very questions of the succession and sacraments, may point out a line of conduct different from the one you are pursuing.
They, in common with the other masters of moral science, rule that in matter of faith and sacraments it is not lawful to follow even a very probable opinion, but that the safe and more certain side is to be followed; that there is a religious obligation on men to follow it: and the propositions, taking the other side, have been condemned by the Church in the pontificate of Innocent XI; and it is remarkable that even the bold proposition, condemned by him, itself denies the right to use the probable opinion in the case of priests' or bishops' orders.
Now you, on your own showing, have not a shadow of a doubt about our succession and our sacraments; whereas, to say the least, you confess to having chill and uncomfortable misgivings about your own; and this, on the principles which define and limit the nature and extent of probable conscience, ought at once to decide your submission to the Church.
In a word, either you must go back to the simpler Protestantism you have outgrown, and realize that; — or you must go on, and submit to the Roman Church; — or you must deal unfairly and dishonestly with your conscience and your present communion in remaining where you are.
Summary
You have come now to the place where the roads part; the next step may involve final grace: and if, with grave doubts yourself, you invoke your brother's blood upon your head, by stifling his doubts by your superiority of intellect, it probably will involve final grace.
Now, without entering directly into the question of Anglican orders, and the validity of your sacraments, and avoiding, not altogether certainly, yet as far as was possible, the use of distressing language which would take for granted a view so painful to you, I have shown that there is at least a very grave doubt cast over the whole subject, to put it no higher than a doubt; and that such a doubt is in many ways inexpressibly injurious to the life of the soul, retarding, thwarting, chilling, quenching everything which is high and holy and aiming at perfection.
[color=#71101]Then I have shown you, that supposing you have a very strong probability on your side, still in matter of faith and sacraments that is not sufficient; and that, according to the doctrine of St Thomas, and St Alphonsus, and all the great masters of moral theology, you are bound in those matters, not to put up with probable opinion, but to take the safer side.[/color]
I do not think that, if you give these two points the consideration they deserve, you can be quite easy even about the orders and the sacraments regarding which you were so confident.
|
|
|
Church in Paris Set on Fire, Excrements on the Floor |
Posted by: Stone - 07-24-2024, 04:24 AM - Forum: Anti-Catholic Violence
- No Replies
|
|
Church in Paris Set on Fire, Excrements on the Floor
gloria.tv | July 23, 2024
Notre-Dame du Travail Church in Paris, France, was vandalised and partially burned on the night of July 14 to 15.
The floor of the church was soiled with food scraps and excrement. Religious items were strewn about. A knife was plunged into a wooden statue of the Virgin Mary at the level of her throat.
The parish priest, Abbé Gabriel Würtz told Aleteia.org that only Divine Providence has limited the fire damage.
The church's organ and the sound system were damaged.
Blasphemous inscriptions were written inside and outside of the church: Jésus brûle (Jesus burns);
Soumettez-vous à Allah, infidèles, et priez 5 fois par jour (Submit yourselves to Allah, infidels, and pray 5 times a day); Un seul dieu Allah (One god, Allah)
Volunteers cleaned up the damage. A Eucharist of reparation was celebrated on July 17. A police investigation is underway.
In 2023, nearly 1,000 acts of anti-Christian violence were recorded by the anti-Christian French Ministry of the Interior, the vast majority of which were attacks on churches and cemeteries.
|
|
|
Vatican grants two-year extension for Latin Masses in Diocese of Arlington but with a caveat... |
Posted by: Stone - 07-23-2024, 05:54 AM - Forum: Vatican II and the Fruits of Modernism
- Replies (2)
|
|
NB: The Lifesitenews article below discusses the 'allowance' of the Latin Mass in the Arlington diocese but the gloria.tv article that follows explains the caveat...
Vatican grants two-year extension for Latin Masses in Diocese of Arlington
Traditional Latin Masses will reportedly continue in three parish churches as well as five non-parish locations in the Diocese of Arlington, Virginia.
Bishop Michael Burbidge of Arlington
Catholic Diocese of Arlington/YouTube screenshot
Jul 19, 2024
(LifeSiteNews - emphasis mine, slightly adapted) — The Vatican has granted a two-year extension to permission to offer the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM) in three diocesan churches in the Diocese of Arlington, Virginia, as announced in an email from the diocesan vicar general.
“At the request and recommendation of Bishop (Michael) Burbidge, the Dicastery for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments granted a two-year extension to their permission for Mass to be celebrated according to the 1962 Roman Missal in the Parish Churches of Saint John the Beloved, Saint Rita, and the Mission Church of Saint Anthony of Padua,” Father Jamie Workman wrote in an email addressed to priests of the diocese, a screenshot of which was posted to the Facebook group Contra Traditionis Custodes on Thursday.
“In the Dicastery’s response to Bishop Burbidge’s request, it commended our diocese for how well it has implemented Traditionis Custodes,” Fr. Workman added.
The Arlington Latin Mass Society and a staff member within the diocese also confirmed that TLMs will continue to be held in five other non-parish church locations, since they are not forbidden from offering TLMs per Traditionis Custodes, and therefore do not require an indult. The locations and times of all TLMs in the Diocese of Arlington are posted to the Arlington Latin Mass Society website.
These churches in the Arlington diocese are not permitted to advertise Latin Masses in their bulletins per the Responsa ad Dubia that accompanies the instructions of Traditionis Custodes.
Rorate Caeli observed on Thursday that the U.S. dioceses of Baltimore and Richmond, which are served by the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter (FSSP), “will no longer have any diocesan parish traditional Latin Masses offered,” and two other U.S. dioceses — San Antonio and Arlington, Virginia —that are not served by the FSSP “or any other TLM personal parishes” have “been granted two-year indult renewals this week.”
In 2022, Bishop Burbidge issued one of the most sweeping crackdowns on the Traditional Latin Mass in the U.S. after Pope Francis’ motu proprio Traditionis Custodes, eliminating 13 TLMs in his diocese. At the time, the restrictions were decried by Latin Mass attendees in the region as a tragedy and an affront to the TLM community.
“This announcement this morning was like a knife going through my heart,” Doug Koupash shared with LifeSiteNews after the 2022 decision. “I (worshipped at) the Latin Mass until I went to college. That’s when the Novus Ordo was in full bloom. And I remember the first time I went to the local church at my university in Iowa and they had the English and the guitars and the banjos … I was absolutely horrified. I was horrified. I left that church and did not go back.”
“So on and off I went to the church. I got married and went back to the Church again. I tried with the Novus Ordo Mass and there was nothing there. After a while, there was nothing in my heart. I couldn’t do it anymore. And I can’t go back to that. So I have some decisions to make,” said Koupash, who went on to struggle to speak through tears.
The recently announced TLM indult for the Diocese of Arlington raises questions about reports from “credible sources” of a coming Vatican document “banning” the Traditional Latin Mass.
Rorate Caeli reported on Friday, July 19 that “Our sources assure us that the draft of the document of almost total suppression of the Traditional Latin Mass is ready, and has been for some time — but it that it ‘remains unsigned.’”
Those planning this “final” suppression of the TLM were originally said by Rorate to be “frustrated” with the “apparently slow results” of Pope Francis’ Latin Mass-restricting document Traditionis Custodes, particularly in the U.S. and France, and “want to ban it and shut it down everywhere and immediately.”
|
|
|
|