Wow- thank you so much for this article. I have been excoriated by so called Catholics and priests for openly pointing out Prevost’s obvious failures and that he is the “answer” to President Trump. I have stood firm on illegal immugration and Church teaching, having been a special agent for the former INS. I call out Prevost and his protection of pedophile priests going back to his days in Chicago - with documentation and news articles, and am told publicly in my Facebook page by a Monsignor in an Illinois Joliet that I need to leave the Church as I am clearly a heretic. My spine grew exponentially more thanks to this article. Thank you
Many of the Bishop at Vatican II wanted to end the Council and just go home. The Eastern Catholic bishops insisted that there be a document on the Eastern Catholic Churches before the end of the Council - and they got Orientalium Ecclesiarium.
I know you're not a fan of Vatican II but please read Orientalium Ecclesiarium. I think you will find something in there that might put a smile ☺️ on your face.
Well since you brought up Orange man I'd like to throw in my 2 cents. I have yet to hear an old timer comment on the stark similarity between this MAGA hysteria and "the Reagan Revolution." It's the same old song and dance of kosher conservatives consumed in the controlled opposition. Fortunately I became aware of the Oligarch-conspiracy in the Reagan years and haven't voted for a major political candidate since Nixon.
Trump is just another stooge of the Jooz like all our presidents (except JFK which is what cost him his life) who puts Israel before the USA. The stupid goyim refuse to comprehend that all the world is a stage i.e. we're watching a play with the dems assigned a script to read just as the GOP. The Yids provide Trump with lines written to tell us suckers just what we want to hear. It's all orchestrated stagecraft like watching worldwide wrestling.
Until one understands the dialectic that controls both sides, one doesn't know jack about politics.
The Mar a lago crowd may be opposed to abortion but they can't be very pro life when their blonde president desires that resorts and casinos be built on the rubble of corpses of innocent men, women and children. America awaits a great divine chastisement for all the bloodshed in Gaza as well as in the abortion mills.
I was dismayed at his Chicago origins and connections. I had a period of hopefulness. Now I am back to dismay. What proof do you have about his complicity with the Pedos?
I don’t have it readily at hand. But I know that he covered up for the sodomites while in Peru. Why is there any reason to doubt it when we all knew from day one that James Martin was tickled with Prevost election? Or are we supposed to question that fact as well? I figure such allegations aren’t what Catholics make up. It’s when they focus on traditional appearances that my suspicions arise.
I have not heard the Truth spoken like you speak it for a very long time!!!!
My mother and dad (God rest their souls) were the only real Catholics I knew growing up. My mother spoke the Truth CONSTANTLY and dad stood by her until he finally saw it. Her children, of whom I am one of six, thought she had lost her marbles. Come to find out she was absolutely right on and the only one who had NOT lost her marbles!
I read John 6 in my early 30s and thought, “ Oh my goodness!!! This is Jesus Christ’s sayings not Mary Schutzman’s sayings!!!” And isn’t that exactly how every Catholic to the one out to sound like?…Jesus Christ??
Your writing the Truth is not only refreshing but extremely consoling.
I think it was Thomas Aquinas who wrote a hymn with one of the lines reading “10,000 snares surround me.” So, that’s the Truth!!! And you are a Catholic assisting those of us who are working on staying the course while those snares are not only surrounding us but trying to pile on top of us.
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.” Gates are defensive. This statement by our Lord only has any meaning when those gates are being attacked. The Church must be on offense. We must be on offense.
Unless the new generation of SSPX priests grow to realise they were given a modernist seminary training, albeit a morally and liturgically conservative one, there is only 'recognise' left.
"I reject as hypocritical the SSPX stance of insisting on a game “at two fronts”, of which, effectively, the real one, and concurrently the one most damaging to the souls of the faithful, is to protect and legitimize the culprits of the current universal apostasy by assigning them attributes of legality, and, what is more, of power of jurisdiction over Catholics. Such a stance is the result of backsliding from the holy duty of conveying the whole integral Deposit of the Catholic Faith."
Germany could become another disturbing example of this - there is absolutely no sign Rome intends to discipline those supporting the abomination of same sex blessings and whom are also seeking to extend them. This could have fatal consequences because sin is like gangrene and once it infects one limb you lose that and start losing others pretty quickly.
We have a thriving, fast growing, vibrant and holy Catholic community here at our TLM chapel (formerly parish but for TC). But the bellwether warning that went unheeded by our pastor, and certainly had gone unmentioned to the bishop, was the dozens of devout, single Gen Z young men who’d had quite enough of the hypocrisy and division when Bergoglio announced TC. We lost most of them almost immediately to the SSPX. I guarantee each of them could enumerate in detail the inconsistencies and cynical capitulations made to V2 and Rome, not only by the diocesan Trads, but by each of the Fraternities and Societies on the fringe. Some of these young men are now sede, but not all. And I assure you, they love the Church and they aren’t going away. Bred out of necessity, they sold their cloaks for swords. Swords that will eventually be swung true enough that their voices will be heard and heeded in Rome. Probably not in my lifetime, but… “The Gates of Hell” will be no match for what this new breed of warriors will bring to the Catholic table. We were assured of this.
Sincere question, where is this compromise on the part of the SSPX? I’ve been attending since 1990, attended SSPX schools and spent 5 years in the seminary (2 under +Williamson RIP). I count as friend many among their priests and other leadership. I have not heard them speak compromising language or that which has changed from when we first attended the SSPX. They continue to preach against the errors of the Council, the New Mass and the errors of the post-Counciliar magisterium. Is it because they refrain from going down the sedevacantist road? Thanks for your time.
Not intending to be snarky but in what way should they respond? Is it enough to publish articles on the errors and how frequently? How often ought it be preached? Again, this is only my experience, but I’ve heard these condemnations from these priests. One explanation I had is that desire to give the fundamentals of the Faith and provide the principles the faithful can use to help guide them. They do condemn the errors, even if not every Sunday or catechism class.
I don’t understand your point - the SSPX does indeed continue to condemn the errors of Rome, all the time.
They don’t always cover every single incident in extreme detail, but honestly, there’s no need to. Their effort is better spent far elsewhere. The faithful know the issues, and Rome knows where they stand. No need to beat the dead horse.
Is it helpful to my spiritual life to hear my 15th “Novus ordo bad” “Modern popes bad” “Vatican II bad” sermon this year if I already know these things? Or would it be better to focus on how to deepen my spiritual life?
Lefebvre did this too - not every word that left his mouth and letter that dropped from his pen was discussing the crisis, and this is ok.
In your article, you say “Lefebvre used to ordain priests illicitly” as if they society has stopped. Every ordination is still illicit, and they do them many times a year. And the line about faculties rings hollow too. They don’t care about the faculties - they operate the same, with or without them.
To me it appears that you hear what you want to hear. Since 2012 ( when the resistance was formed) I’ve attended SSPX masses from Arizona to Indiana and Illinois and have yet to hear modernism and V II denounced from the pulpit as it was in years previously. The most recent one was when my grandson was confirmed by bishop Fellay in Indianapolis a few months ago. He gave a solid 1 hour sermon to the kids which was fine and dandy except for what was NOT preached. Nothing that I recall about upholding tradition and resisting modernism. In fact to the best of my recollection I didn’t hear the word “sin” once mentioned. At any rate your soul is probably far closer to heaven than mine but nonetheless if you think that today’s Society is the same as Lefebvre left it, I think you’re dreaming.
Do the faithful need the crisis preached at every single Mass? If the faithful already know of the crisis, why do they need it continually discussed, vs trying to grow their spiritual life into being good Catholics? I don’t need to hear the 10th sermon this quarter on “novus ordo bad” “modern popes bad” I already know that. I want to try to be a better Catholic myself and deepen my spiritual life.
I too have attended many chapels, and would be shocked if “sin” was never mentioned based on my experience - I suspect you’re guilty of what you accuse others of: hearing what you want to hear.
Boy I'd sure like to be present at some of the Masses YOU attend! My my, what superlatives you use, like "every", "continually" and "10th sermon this quarter". Anyone ever said you tend to exaggerate a lot? Just two Sundays ago when the sermon was about the multiplication of the loaves and fishes, the priest failed to mention that Prevost just recently downplayed the miracle of our Lord and that the real miracle was some BS about "sharing" with everyone. I would wager that most of those present had no idea about that latest crap to come out of Rome. I further suspect that you sound rather defensive of this Synodal sect and resentful towards traditional Catholicism. Yuppers, those are definately the vibes you sound out.
Reread my comment, it wasn’t exaggerating at all - it was saying there’s no need for mentioning this stuff weekly.
If you already know prevost is a heretic, why does it need to be mentioned every time you attend mass?
If you do know he’s a heretic, it does no benefit to your spiritual life to spiral on every word he says. If you already know his last 9 statements have been evil, is there benefit to your spiritual life being preached about the 10th?
Preaching ought to be used to help the faithful where they need, not to reiterate every talking point and theological viewpoint in every sermon.
And yes, the SSPX masses I attend do sometimes discuss the evils of modern Rome, just not weekly - because there’s no need or benefit to that. Everyone already knows.
There you go again with that word “every.” YOU buddy are the one who keeps preaching guilt trips to me about how my spiritual life is lacking. It’s obviously of no importance to you who sits on the throne of Peter, nor what he says or does to deceive the faithful. I’m not falling for your sanctimonious tripe.
I’m not preaching anything about your spiritual life.
I didn’t say I don’t care about the evils the pope is doing. In fact, I said the opposite, but you must not have read my comment carefully. I said there’s little benefit to hearing about it in every sermon.
Question:
Do you think there’s value to the faithful in priests mentioning the crisis in the church in every sermon?
Mr. Martinez please calm down! Mass is for worship only!!! Hearing all the latest bad news out of Rome should be after Mass in another room or maybe a handout given after Mass. The priest would be preaching to the choir if he mentioned all the recent heresies at every Mass. Mr Smith is correct.
If one believes that a man is the real pope, one may not resist him. To do so is an act of schism. Previous pre-Vatican II popes and Vatican I have already defined that as dogma.
That's not quite correct. One may resist sinful commands from any superior. One may not however reject the ordinary teaching of a true Pope and refuse to submit to his teaching and ruling authority.
Trad inc. always uses the excuse of the past bad popes. They conveniently hang their hat on Honorius, John XX et al. so they can say that as with V II imposters, we’re entitled to refuse obedience to those considered to be popes.
You can resist his teachings/comments if they are heretical. However, I've never really understood the formal/material heresy arguments and I can only say that they are so confusing that I don't think they're useful. Not sure if that make me a heretic!!!
As I understand it, material heresy is associated with invincible ignorance. And as such, that could virtually never apply to a pope, because of the pope's education, his access to learned teaching, etc.
Therefore a pope who teaches heresy is almost certainly a formal heretic.
I don’t get hung up on those theological details anymore because Montini, Wojtyla and of course Bergoglio took it to such a level that one need not be a canon lawyer or theologian to know that such abominations would not be said or done by the Vicar of Christ. I compare it to coming across a rotting corpse and waiting for the paramedics to verify that death has occurred.
Sadly, that's a very good analogy! I just ignore them all because whatever their theological status, I know that whatever comes out of their mouths and whatever their actions, it's either 'manifest to me heresy' or a bit of truth in an overall poisoned package. I grew up with Paul VI and every time I saw a picture of him he gave me the creeps (very early years onwards), so I was primed early on! To be honest, he still does.
Thanks for the link and response. I will read it but in the meantime I would respond that this seems to be equating the papacy with a comprehensive infallibility beyond the limits defined by Vatican I. This puts the pope on par with God even in his private speech.
A true pope is prevented by the Holy Spirit from being a heretic & a heretic can never be elected pope. A true pope can't even teach, promote or approve anything injurious to faith or morals or, and not just when teaching ex cathedra.
"...this See of Saint Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: ‘I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail....’ (Lk 22:32).” - Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus, 6
If we simply affirm that the 5 minutes of white smoke at the 1958 conclave meant what the white smoke was intended to mean, it follows that (since the 5-minute pope never canonically resigned) the subsequent election of Roncalli was invalid due to Divine impediment (i.e., the previous 5-minute pope still being the valid pope).
Consequently Vatican II is not a valid council, because it was not convened by a valid pope.
God does not automatically ratify invalid matters pertaining to His Church. He insists that we do things correctly.
The SSPX’s position of Recognize and Resist will rear its ugly head when they ask Prevost for more bishops. When Prevost tells them to go pound sand, the Society will be in the same exact position that Lefebvre was in back in 1988. If they move and consecrate their own bishops, they will still be in the same exact position they’re in today. Nothing will change.
SSPX is controlled opposition. Reseach sedevacantis,, SSPX states that Frances, John Paul II etc are Popes...
Do you think Prevost, John Paul II etc were Popes, Chris? We have had no Pope since 1958m and I reject every word out of Rome since the death of our last Pope, Pius XII.
BTW, SSPX and groups like them - thye know Rome has given us poison, but yet they see Rome as their spirtiaul guide: THEY ARE DRAGGING OUT THE GREAT APOSTASY.
I'm very tired of the sectarianism arising from sedevacantist circles. It doesn't do anyone any good. Yes, the SSPX official position is wrong about parts of the crisis, but many sede groups are wrong about other parts. We're all Catholics at the end of the day and should be focusing on what we have in common: the Catholic faith and remaining in communion with eachother so that those Catholics still in the conciliar sect can see how true followers of Christ love one another.
In as much as the SSPX teaches the Catholic faith and encourages attendees to pursue a life of virtue and provides the sacraments it works towards their salvation. The same is true of any sede group, some of which have far worse errors that are heretical including those with larger media presences.
Sectarianism is a fruit of the flesh, not the spirit and that is what you are following when you rally against other Catholics rather than mixing with them and trying to be the leaven that you should be. It only takes a little.
2. Father Cekada wrote a very sobering account of how the SSPX negotiate so that apostate Rome will be more amenable to a deal. on False annulments, on invalid ordinations...
Do you feel like letting these go? If so, you should stop writing onthese topics.
on these negotiations - Bp Sanborn said, these are not ours to negotiate with
I don't place any more faith in them than I do the SSPX. They are all human and prone to err. Our only safe guide during this crisis is Holy Mother Church and her infallibly safe teaching prior to Vatican II.
I was a little girl during the Church of Pius XII and was 14 when the changes of Paul VI were implemented around 1968-69. It didn't start becoming whacked out crazy, though, until the early 70s with the guitar masses and dancing in the aisles along with priests in colorful blazers. I'm a native Californian and at that time it depended largely on where you lived how the Mass was celebrated (Orange County was probably the worst; I remember my sister and I walking out on Mass in Garden Grove because it was so scandalous). You could still find more conservative Masses in the Los Angeles area but it was different, needless to say. They tore out the statues in a lot of churches, replacing them with felt banners, and got rid of the vigil candles and made way for the Charismatic movement. I believe Archbishop Lefebvre was a saint. It was tragic when JPII excommunicated him. I've lived through it all, and now I believe I'm living in the last days before the Second Coming. I long for the holiness and supernatural life that was the Church before Vatican II. All I can say is, come, Lord Jesus!
Had JPII been a valid pope, indeed it would have been tragic but my opinion is that by 1988 Lefebvre was covertly sedevacantist (and the fact that he waffled on the issue over years is undeniable) and he must have figured “I’m going through with these consecrations and you can just go jump in the lake.” I think that to have revealed his conviction that there was no pope would have left Catholics with too great a shock to handle.
If he was *covertly* anything, how can we really know?
But given how fiercely he patrolled the bounds of the society to eject open sedevacantists from the ranks, right up to the end....I think it is a hard case to paint him as anything more than a not entirely choate sedeprivationist, depending on his mood at any given moment.
I didn’t swear on anything. That’s why I stated that it’s my opinion. The late Fr. Cekada presented a noteworthy video called, “Marcel Lefebvre, sedevacantist.” It cites a quote whereby his Excellency was asked about whether (JPII or Montini was it?) was a true pope or not, and his reply was “I cannot say if he is, nor can I say that you’re wrong in saying that he isn’t.” - or words very close to that effect.
I recall that video, too. But...it's thin stuff, hearsay, really. And, honestly, while there are good things we can say about the late Fr Cekada (I think WORK OF HUMAN HANDS is an invaluable mongraph), he's hardly an impartial source here, and not just because Archbishop Lefebvre expelled him from the Society back in the day.
Wow- thank you so much for this article. I have been excoriated by so called Catholics and priests for openly pointing out Prevost’s obvious failures and that he is the “answer” to President Trump. I have stood firm on illegal immugration and Church teaching, having been a special agent for the former INS. I call out Prevost and his protection of pedophile priests going back to his days in Chicago - with documentation and news articles, and am told publicly in my Facebook page by a Monsignor in an Illinois Joliet that I need to leave the Church as I am clearly a heretic. My spine grew exponentially more thanks to this article. Thank you
Thank you!
One slight erratum:
"...Rome gives Eastern Rite Catholics zero interference in their liturgy for fear they will flee."
Rome didn't allow the Eastern Catholic Churches their own Liturgy/Qorbono.
One of the last documents of Vatican II is Orientalium Ecclesiarium, the Decree on the Eastern Catholic Churches:
https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_orientalium-ecclesiarum_en.html
Many of the Bishop at Vatican II wanted to end the Council and just go home. The Eastern Catholic bishops insisted that there be a document on the Eastern Catholic Churches before the end of the Council - and they got Orientalium Ecclesiarium.
I know you're not a fan of Vatican II but please read Orientalium Ecclesiarium. I think you will find something in there that might put a smile ☺️ on your face.
Came here to say this as well, the eastern Catholics absolutely were not left unscathed
Well since you brought up Orange man I'd like to throw in my 2 cents. I have yet to hear an old timer comment on the stark similarity between this MAGA hysteria and "the Reagan Revolution." It's the same old song and dance of kosher conservatives consumed in the controlled opposition. Fortunately I became aware of the Oligarch-conspiracy in the Reagan years and haven't voted for a major political candidate since Nixon.
Trump is just another stooge of the Jooz like all our presidents (except JFK which is what cost him his life) who puts Israel before the USA. The stupid goyim refuse to comprehend that all the world is a stage i.e. we're watching a play with the dems assigned a script to read just as the GOP. The Yids provide Trump with lines written to tell us suckers just what we want to hear. It's all orchestrated stagecraft like watching worldwide wrestling.
Until one understands the dialectic that controls both sides, one doesn't know jack about politics.
The Mar a lago crowd may be opposed to abortion but they can't be very pro life when their blonde president desires that resorts and casinos be built on the rubble of corpses of innocent men, women and children. America awaits a great divine chastisement for all the bloodshed in Gaza as well as in the abortion mills.
I was dismayed at his Chicago origins and connections. I had a period of hopefulness. Now I am back to dismay. What proof do you have about his complicity with the Pedos?
I don’t have it readily at hand. But I know that he covered up for the sodomites while in Peru. Why is there any reason to doubt it when we all knew from day one that James Martin was tickled with Prevost election? Or are we supposed to question that fact as well? I figure such allegations aren’t what Catholics make up. It’s when they focus on traditional appearances that my suspicions arise.
This article gives new life to the tired old phrase, "The Fraternity of St. Peter would not exist without Archbishop Lefebvre."
God bless you Chris Jackson!!!
I have not heard the Truth spoken like you speak it for a very long time!!!!
My mother and dad (God rest their souls) were the only real Catholics I knew growing up. My mother spoke the Truth CONSTANTLY and dad stood by her until he finally saw it. Her children, of whom I am one of six, thought she had lost her marbles. Come to find out she was absolutely right on and the only one who had NOT lost her marbles!
I read John 6 in my early 30s and thought, “ Oh my goodness!!! This is Jesus Christ’s sayings not Mary Schutzman’s sayings!!!” And isn’t that exactly how every Catholic to the one out to sound like?…Jesus Christ??
Your writing the Truth is not only refreshing but extremely consoling.
I think it was Thomas Aquinas who wrote a hymn with one of the lines reading “10,000 snares surround me.” So, that’s the Truth!!! And you are a Catholic assisting those of us who are working on staying the course while those snares are not only surrounding us but trying to pile on top of us.
Thank you! And God bless you!!!
Blessed be Jesus Whose mother is Mary!!!
Thank you so much for these kind words! Very nice story about your mother. God bless you!
Like I always told my kids, the closer one sticks to the truth, the fewer friends one will have.
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.” Gates are defensive. This statement by our Lord only has any meaning when those gates are being attacked. The Church must be on offense. We must be on offense.
The Catholic Church was built to storm the gates of hell and break the power of its prince.
Unless the new generation of SSPX priests grow to realise they were given a modernist seminary training, albeit a morally and liturgically conservative one, there is only 'recognise' left.
"I reject as hypocritical the SSPX stance of insisting on a game “at two fronts”, of which, effectively, the real one, and concurrently the one most damaging to the souls of the faithful, is to protect and legitimize the culprits of the current universal apostasy by assigning them attributes of legality, and, what is more, of power of jurisdiction over Catholics. Such a stance is the result of backsliding from the holy duty of conveying the whole integral Deposit of the Catholic Faith."
Fr. Trytek - https://novusordowatch.org/why-father-trytek-became-sedevacantist/
Germany could become another disturbing example of this - there is absolutely no sign Rome intends to discipline those supporting the abomination of same sex blessings and whom are also seeking to extend them. This could have fatal consequences because sin is like gangrene and once it infects one limb you lose that and start losing others pretty quickly.
That may be the idea.
We have a thriving, fast growing, vibrant and holy Catholic community here at our TLM chapel (formerly parish but for TC). But the bellwether warning that went unheeded by our pastor, and certainly had gone unmentioned to the bishop, was the dozens of devout, single Gen Z young men who’d had quite enough of the hypocrisy and division when Bergoglio announced TC. We lost most of them almost immediately to the SSPX. I guarantee each of them could enumerate in detail the inconsistencies and cynical capitulations made to V2 and Rome, not only by the diocesan Trads, but by each of the Fraternities and Societies on the fringe. Some of these young men are now sede, but not all. And I assure you, they love the Church and they aren’t going away. Bred out of necessity, they sold their cloaks for swords. Swords that will eventually be swung true enough that their voices will be heard and heeded in Rome. Probably not in my lifetime, but… “The Gates of Hell” will be no match for what this new breed of warriors will bring to the Catholic table. We were assured of this.
"Our future is our past." Indeed. Wow, what an excerpt. What faith! Courage!
A well written article. And the absolute truth.
Great post Chris. I could not agree more!
Thank you!
Sincere question, where is this compromise on the part of the SSPX? I’ve been attending since 1990, attended SSPX schools and spent 5 years in the seminary (2 under +Williamson RIP). I count as friend many among their priests and other leadership. I have not heard them speak compromising language or that which has changed from when we first attended the SSPX. They continue to preach against the errors of the Council, the New Mass and the errors of the post-Counciliar magisterium. Is it because they refrain from going down the sedevacantist road? Thanks for your time.
Lack of public outcry and strong condemnation and protest of the most crazy errors coming out of Rome in history since 2012.
Not intending to be snarky but in what way should they respond? Is it enough to publish articles on the errors and how frequently? How often ought it be preached? Again, this is only my experience, but I’ve heard these condemnations from these priests. One explanation I had is that desire to give the fundamentals of the Faith and provide the principles the faithful can use to help guide them. They do condemn the errors, even if not every Sunday or catechism class.
I don’t understand your point - the SSPX does indeed continue to condemn the errors of Rome, all the time.
They don’t always cover every single incident in extreme detail, but honestly, there’s no need to. Their effort is better spent far elsewhere. The faithful know the issues, and Rome knows where they stand. No need to beat the dead horse.
Is it helpful to my spiritual life to hear my 15th “Novus ordo bad” “Modern popes bad” “Vatican II bad” sermon this year if I already know these things? Or would it be better to focus on how to deepen my spiritual life?
Lefebvre did this too - not every word that left his mouth and letter that dropped from his pen was discussing the crisis, and this is ok.
In your article, you say “Lefebvre used to ordain priests illicitly” as if they society has stopped. Every ordination is still illicit, and they do them many times a year. And the line about faculties rings hollow too. They don’t care about the faculties - they operate the same, with or without them.
To me it appears that you hear what you want to hear. Since 2012 ( when the resistance was formed) I’ve attended SSPX masses from Arizona to Indiana and Illinois and have yet to hear modernism and V II denounced from the pulpit as it was in years previously. The most recent one was when my grandson was confirmed by bishop Fellay in Indianapolis a few months ago. He gave a solid 1 hour sermon to the kids which was fine and dandy except for what was NOT preached. Nothing that I recall about upholding tradition and resisting modernism. In fact to the best of my recollection I didn’t hear the word “sin” once mentioned. At any rate your soul is probably far closer to heaven than mine but nonetheless if you think that today’s Society is the same as Lefebvre left it, I think you’re dreaming.
Do the faithful need the crisis preached at every single Mass? If the faithful already know of the crisis, why do they need it continually discussed, vs trying to grow their spiritual life into being good Catholics? I don’t need to hear the 10th sermon this quarter on “novus ordo bad” “modern popes bad” I already know that. I want to try to be a better Catholic myself and deepen my spiritual life.
I too have attended many chapels, and would be shocked if “sin” was never mentioned based on my experience - I suspect you’re guilty of what you accuse others of: hearing what you want to hear.
Boy I'd sure like to be present at some of the Masses YOU attend! My my, what superlatives you use, like "every", "continually" and "10th sermon this quarter". Anyone ever said you tend to exaggerate a lot? Just two Sundays ago when the sermon was about the multiplication of the loaves and fishes, the priest failed to mention that Prevost just recently downplayed the miracle of our Lord and that the real miracle was some BS about "sharing" with everyone. I would wager that most of those present had no idea about that latest crap to come out of Rome. I further suspect that you sound rather defensive of this Synodal sect and resentful towards traditional Catholicism. Yuppers, those are definately the vibes you sound out.
Reread my comment, it wasn’t exaggerating at all - it was saying there’s no need for mentioning this stuff weekly.
If you already know prevost is a heretic, why does it need to be mentioned every time you attend mass?
If you do know he’s a heretic, it does no benefit to your spiritual life to spiral on every word he says. If you already know his last 9 statements have been evil, is there benefit to your spiritual life being preached about the 10th?
Preaching ought to be used to help the faithful where they need, not to reiterate every talking point and theological viewpoint in every sermon.
And yes, the SSPX masses I attend do sometimes discuss the evils of modern Rome, just not weekly - because there’s no need or benefit to that. Everyone already knows.
That was my point.
There you go again with that word “every.” YOU buddy are the one who keeps preaching guilt trips to me about how my spiritual life is lacking. It’s obviously of no importance to you who sits on the throne of Peter, nor what he says or does to deceive the faithful. I’m not falling for your sanctimonious tripe.
I’m not preaching anything about your spiritual life.
I didn’t say I don’t care about the evils the pope is doing. In fact, I said the opposite, but you must not have read my comment carefully. I said there’s little benefit to hearing about it in every sermon.
Question:
Do you think there’s value to the faithful in priests mentioning the crisis in the church in every sermon?
Mr. Martinez please calm down! Mass is for worship only!!! Hearing all the latest bad news out of Rome should be after Mass in another room or maybe a handout given after Mass. The priest would be preaching to the choir if he mentioned all the recent heresies at every Mass. Mr Smith is correct.
It’s called the heresy of Recognize and Resist.
Could you elaborate? In what way is that position a heresy?
If one believes that a man is the real pope, one may not resist him. To do so is an act of schism. Previous pre-Vatican II popes and Vatican I have already defined that as dogma.
That's not quite correct. One may resist sinful commands from any superior. One may not however reject the ordinary teaching of a true Pope and refuse to submit to his teaching and ruling authority.
Trad inc. always uses the excuse of the past bad popes. They conveniently hang their hat on Honorius, John XX et al. so they can say that as with V II imposters, we’re entitled to refuse obedience to those considered to be popes.
Yes, we hang our hat on those examples, because they are reasonable examples that prove our case.
You scoffing at this isn’t a rebuttal.
I meant to say John XXII
You can resist his teachings/comments if they are heretical. However, I've never really understood the formal/material heresy arguments and I can only say that they are so confusing that I don't think they're useful. Not sure if that make me a heretic!!!
As I understand it, material heresy is associated with invincible ignorance. And as such, that could virtually never apply to a pope, because of the pope's education, his access to learned teaching, etc.
Therefore a pope who teaches heresy is almost certainly a formal heretic.
I don’t get hung up on those theological details anymore because Montini, Wojtyla and of course Bergoglio took it to such a level that one need not be a canon lawyer or theologian to know that such abominations would not be said or done by the Vicar of Christ. I compare it to coming across a rotting corpse and waiting for the paramedics to verify that death has occurred.
Sadly, that's a very good analogy! I just ignore them all because whatever their theological status, I know that whatever comes out of their mouths and whatever their actions, it's either 'manifest to me heresy' or a bit of truth in an overall poisoned package. I grew up with Paul VI and every time I saw a picture of him he gave me the creeps (very early years onwards), so I was primed early on! To be honest, he still does.
https://mostholytrinityseminary.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/RR_Dutertre_2022.pdf
Thanks for the link and response. I will read it but in the meantime I would respond that this seems to be equating the papacy with a comprehensive infallibility beyond the limits defined by Vatican I. This puts the pope on par with God even in his private speech.
A true pope is prevented by the Holy Spirit from being a heretic & a heretic can never be elected pope. A true pope can't even teach, promote or approve anything injurious to faith or morals or, and not just when teaching ex cathedra.
"...this See of Saint Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: ‘I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail....’ (Lk 22:32).” - Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus, 6
novusordowatch.org/2022/04/felix-cappello-heretical-pope-impossible;
novusordowatch.org/2015/04/heretical-popes-first-vatican-council
So John XXII and Honorius I were not popes?
Where are you at?
Ft Collins, CO but I’ve been at several in ND, MN, KS and several others
Yeah I used to attend the one in Ft Collins back in ‘86.
If we simply affirm that the 5 minutes of white smoke at the 1958 conclave meant what the white smoke was intended to mean, it follows that (since the 5-minute pope never canonically resigned) the subsequent election of Roncalli was invalid due to Divine impediment (i.e., the previous 5-minute pope still being the valid pope).
Consequently Vatican II is not a valid council, because it was not convened by a valid pope.
God does not automatically ratify invalid matters pertaining to His Church. He insists that we do things correctly.
The SSPX’s position of Recognize and Resist will rear its ugly head when they ask Prevost for more bishops. When Prevost tells them to go pound sand, the Society will be in the same exact position that Lefebvre was in back in 1988. If they move and consecrate their own bishops, they will still be in the same exact position they’re in today. Nothing will change.
I pray that Rome will not repeat their mistake and cooperate with SSPX on consecrating Bishops.
SSPX is controlled opposition. Reseach sedevacantis,, SSPX states that Frances, John Paul II etc are Popes...
Do you think Prevost, John Paul II etc were Popes, Chris? We have had no Pope since 1958m and I reject every word out of Rome since the death of our last Pope, Pius XII.
BTW, SSPX and groups like them - thye know Rome has given us poison, but yet they see Rome as their spirtiaul guide: THEY ARE DRAGGING OUT THE GREAT APOSTASY.
Shame on sspx, fssp etc
I'm very tired of the sectarianism arising from sedevacantist circles. It doesn't do anyone any good. Yes, the SSPX official position is wrong about parts of the crisis, but many sede groups are wrong about other parts. We're all Catholics at the end of the day and should be focusing on what we have in common: the Catholic faith and remaining in communion with eachother so that those Catholics still in the conciliar sect can see how true followers of Christ love one another.
Too bad. The SSPX does not lead souls to Heaven, it has deadly theology.
It is one thing to teach something that is against Catholic teaching. It is quite another to be confused about something that is new since 1958.
I will most certainly continue against SSPX, and SSPV for that matter.
In as much as the SSPX teaches the Catholic faith and encourages attendees to pursue a life of virtue and provides the sacraments it works towards their salvation. The same is true of any sede group, some of which have far worse errors that are heretical including those with larger media presences.
Sectarianism is a fruit of the flesh, not the spirit and that is what you are following when you rally against other Catholics rather than mixing with them and trying to be the leaven that you should be. It only takes a little.
2. Father Cekada wrote a very sobering account of how the SSPX negotiate so that apostate Rome will be more amenable to a deal. on False annulments, on invalid ordinations...
Do you feel like letting these go? If so, you should stop writing onthese topics.
on these negotiations - Bp Sanborn said, these are not ours to negotiate with
Fr Cekada's work was not without problems. As someone who used to place a lot of faith in him, I realised that it was misplaced in some cases:
https://tradcath.proboards.com/thread/2412/reply-grain-incense-quote-footnote
https://tradcath.proboards.com/thread/2362/new-heresy-denial-apostolic-succession
Bp Sanborn is also not without problems:
https://tradcath.proboards.com/thread/2842/sanborn-concedes-different-meaning-claim
I don't place any more faith in them than I do the SSPX. They are all human and prone to err. Our only safe guide during this crisis is Holy Mother Church and her infallibly safe teaching prior to Vatican II.
Everyone loves to talk about how the SSPX is constantly giving in to Rome, yet no specifics are ever given…because they haven’t given in to anything.
They still continue to resist.
I would say this seems to be par for the course since the beginnings of the humanist revolutions
https://open.substack.com/pub/thedailyfightofficial/p/the-pattern-of-revolution-how-humanist?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=53z6bu
I was a little girl during the Church of Pius XII and was 14 when the changes of Paul VI were implemented around 1968-69. It didn't start becoming whacked out crazy, though, until the early 70s with the guitar masses and dancing in the aisles along with priests in colorful blazers. I'm a native Californian and at that time it depended largely on where you lived how the Mass was celebrated (Orange County was probably the worst; I remember my sister and I walking out on Mass in Garden Grove because it was so scandalous). You could still find more conservative Masses in the Los Angeles area but it was different, needless to say. They tore out the statues in a lot of churches, replacing them with felt banners, and got rid of the vigil candles and made way for the Charismatic movement. I believe Archbishop Lefebvre was a saint. It was tragic when JPII excommunicated him. I've lived through it all, and now I believe I'm living in the last days before the Second Coming. I long for the holiness and supernatural life that was the Church before Vatican II. All I can say is, come, Lord Jesus!
Had JPII been a valid pope, indeed it would have been tragic but my opinion is that by 1988 Lefebvre was covertly sedevacantist (and the fact that he waffled on the issue over years is undeniable) and he must have figured “I’m going through with these consecrations and you can just go jump in the lake.” I think that to have revealed his conviction that there was no pope would have left Catholics with too great a shock to handle.
If he was *covertly* anything, how can we really know?
But given how fiercely he patrolled the bounds of the society to eject open sedevacantists from the ranks, right up to the end....I think it is a hard case to paint him as anything more than a not entirely choate sedeprivationist, depending on his mood at any given moment.
I didn’t swear on anything. That’s why I stated that it’s my opinion. The late Fr. Cekada presented a noteworthy video called, “Marcel Lefebvre, sedevacantist.” It cites a quote whereby his Excellency was asked about whether (JPII or Montini was it?) was a true pope or not, and his reply was “I cannot say if he is, nor can I say that you’re wrong in saying that he isn’t.” - or words very close to that effect.
I recall that video, too. But...it's thin stuff, hearsay, really. And, honestly, while there are good things we can say about the late Fr Cekada (I think WORK OF HUMAN HANDS is an invaluable mongraph), he's hardly an impartial source here, and not just because Archbishop Lefebvre expelled him from the Society back in the day.
Let me correct myself; I was 17 when the changes were implemented by PPVI. It's been a long day.
Great article by the way, Chris, as usual. Keep them coming. We need voices like you to bring us hope.