47 responses

  1. I don’t think I have been Catholic long enough, because I don’t understand why the FFI and the Sisters don’t just give these corrupt ideologues and tin-horn heretic dictators the middle-finger salute and tell them to go to hell. I know there is a long line of saints who suffered persecution even worse than this from similarly corrupt clergy, but I still don’t understand it. Father Gruner and Abp. Lefebvre have spilled quite a bit of ink over “false obedience.” So what is false obedience in this situation?

    • A wonderful opening post Greatpretender. I couldn’t have put it better myself. Did I read correctly on another page that you are a Texan? If so that explains a lot. The people of Yorkshire (where I come from) are equally as bloody-minded.

      • CC,

        Nope, I was born in New York City to a family of blue-collar Italians, which might explain some things as well, and now live in Ohio.

  2. It takes grace to disobey the hierarchy while obeying the higher moral laws. Unfortunately the New Mass fails to inculcate in those who go to it the idea that the salvation of souls is the highest law. The code of canon law did not need to say that for it to be true. It was always true, is true now, and will be true in the future. The salvation of souls includes not only our own, but others as well.

  3. I’m afraid that we have an unfortunate state of affairs whereby one does have to, outwardly at least, in the Novus Ordo Church, obey the Second Vatican Council unconditionally. If not, the Modernists and Liberals start to hurl abuse (you betcha) and insults against you, as I am sure many on this blog experienced when they bravely took the plunge, and wisely ‘crossed over’ as it were to traditional Catholicism.

    Take me, for example. When I did the RCIA, I innocently enquired about the pre-Vatican II position and the post-Vatican II position on the Church of Christ, along the lines of ‘Subsistit Est’ and ‘Subsistit In’. I asked what it meant (obviously, I already knew) and my PP said, the former means ‘subsists in and is’ and the latter means ‘subsists in’. I asked if he saw any ambiguity there, and he said it was ‘all semantics…they basically mean the same thing’. When I mentioned the traditional position a la SSPX, he said ‘these [Vatican II] are infallible documents…you are either becoming a Catholic or one of these tridentinists. The SSPX are Protestants, because they are protesting’. I knuckled under, but I accept the traditional position.

    I encountered a similar response when I mentioned that I didn’t believe how Catholics, Muslims and Jews couldn’t possibly worship the same God, for reasons all people with basic logic know. Even my dad, an atheist, accepts the SSPX position. All I could say was ‘OK, I see’, whilst I was thinking, Texan style, ‘the Hell I do’.

    Likewise, when my PP told me about praying the Rosary, he wrote down the Mysteries of, ahem, Light, and said, ‘you don’t have to say these…but’. If ifs and buts were cherries and nuts we’d all have a merry Christmas.

    • I’m afraid that we have an unfortunate state of affairs whereby one does have to, outwardly at least, in the Novus Ordo Church, obey the Second Vatican Council unconditionally.

      Lionel:
      There is a Vatican Council with an irrational premise used in the interpretation and there is one without it.
      There is a Vatican Council II with a false premise which makes the Council ambigous and there is one without the premise and ambiguity.

      There is a Vatican Council II which is in perfect agreement with extra ecclesiam nulla salus and there is a Vatican Council II ( with the inference) which is a break with Tradition and the dogma on exclusive salvation.

      Your PP was using one of the two interpretations.
      When we speak about Vatican Council II ( without the inference of explcit exceptions) then the Council affirms Tradition.

  4. I have not seen the whole video but the bit I’ve seen at the start is excellent and very clear. I noted Chris Ferrara’s comment that the Council does not require us to believe a single thing that we didn’t believe before the Council, so what is it they want us to accept when they demand that we “accept the Council?”

    Nobody has ever answered that.

    • so what is it they want us to accept when they demand that we “accept the Council?”

      Lionel:
      They want you to accept a Vatican Council II using an irrational inference in the interpretation.
      Linked to this, they want you to accept the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 with the irrational inference of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are known,visible in the flesh exceptions to the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
      Using this irrational reasoning, they want you to accept that Nostra Aetate 2, ‘ a ray of the truth’ refers to explict cases seen in the flesh.The dead are visible. These deceased, they want you to believe, are exceptions to the dogmatic teaching on all needing to enter the Church with no exceptions.

      If you accept all this then Vatican Council II becomes a break with the past.
      Basically , they are asking you, and you may have not noticed it, to accept that there is salvation outside the visible limits of the Church.It is upon this irrational inference that the ‘ new Revelation’ from Vatican Council II comes to us.

      Remove the inference and you can accept Vatican Council II and Tradition.

  5. It’s quite frightening standing up to authority. The way I can think about this is with an example when I was a school. I once had a Religious education teacher who was basically an out-and-out modernist. One time she implied that Adam and Eve could have been a two tribes of apes. I challenged her on this point and said that was false. I went home and the next week brought in a book (I think it was called ‘Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma’ by Ludwig Ott ?). It had a very old school style along the lines of whoever believes A is anathema, whoever believes B is anathema etc.

    Basically, the preposition she had made was explicitily outlines in this book as ANATHEMA. I presented her the book and asked her to read the passage. She proceeded to read the passage but missed out key sections, trying to mislead the class. Since I had memorised the passage I interjected each time she tried to skip a relevant section. It made her look like a complete idiot.

    Eventually she started attacking me essentially because she had lost the argument.

    At this point I just walked out the class (and never went back). She tried to stop me leaving but I just pushed past her. I remember feeling a little apprehensive at the time but nothing ever happened. I never attended another RE class again, despite it being mandatory for the ‘Catholic’ school, and I was never sanctioned for it.

    I feel the FFI should do the same.

    • CBucket,

      Your description of life in your RE class brought back so many memories of my days teaching the subject…

      But about the FFI doing the same … Are you sure they still attend RE lessons? 😀

      Kidding! I agree, of course – enough of silly false obedience. They must take the high road and shake the dust etc. And that, as soon as possible.

  6. Vatican II really only affected the Western Catholic Church. It was our Mass that was changed almost beyond recognition yet the Eastern Catholic Masses were left as they were. Many traditional Catholics started attending Eastern Rite churches because there was nowhere else to go. I have a Canadian friend whose family done this. The local Ukrainian Rite church saw it’s congregation double as Latin Rite Catholics flocked to it. The town that my friend came from had eight Catholic churches, seven Latin Rite and one Eastern Rite. Today there are two. The Eastern Rite, and one Latin Rite which is now served from a neighbouring town. Regarding accepting Vatican II, someone told me that an Anglican friend of hers in England had become a Catholic through the Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham which was set up by Pope Benedict. When the lady asked her friend if those who had converted through the Ordinariate had had to accept Vatican II her friend said “of course not, we wouldn’t have become Catholics if we had been asked to accept it.” It would seem that the Vatican is being two faced about this, asking some to accept it and others not.

    • I don’t understand your comment concerning the Ordinariate. Why would this lady have not converted otherwise? What would she have refused to accept? I don’t think the Ordinariate has traditionalist affiliations.

      • They do indeed have plenty of traditionalist links. Huge chunks of the Ordinariate missal are essentially directly taken from the Old Mass (prayers at the foot of the altar, last gospel, etc), a very large number of the priests say the Old Mass, and they genuinely have good sensibilities on things, shall we say

        • The original Anglo Catholics used the TLM Missal both in Latin & English, the only way could tell the latter was not ours, was the lack of imprimatur and reference tp the pope as pastor inter pares.

        • Very true, and they also insist on kneeling for Communion. One of the problems that Ordinariate Catholics have is that if they are too far from an Ordinariate Mass, or it is perhaps only celebrated monthly, then they expected to attend their local Catholic church but they are disgusted by the banal liturgy, lack of respect and dignity, stupid ditties instead of hymns and meaningless sermons. Ordinariate Catholics are far more traditional than most Novus Ordo Catholics.

    • With regards to Vatican II and the Eastern Churches of Eastern Europe, the Middle East and India, why were their liturgies allowed to remain unchanged? Also prior to the Council, were the Eastern rites permitted to retain married Priests? I’m puzzled as to why, when the Catholics and these small sections of Orthodoxy unified a couple of centuries ago, clerical celibacy wasn’t enforced.

    • I do not understand. Paragraph five of Anglicanorum Coetibus says The Catechism of the Catholic Church is the authoritative expression of the Catholic faith professed by members of the Ordinariate.

      It would seem then that indirect acceptance of the council is a requirement for reception into the Ordinariate. The CCC is of course the principle compendium of the concilliar documents’ teachings.

      • It would seem then that indirect acceptance of the council is a requirement for reception into the Ordinariate. The CCC is of course the principle compendium of the concilliar documents’ teachings.

        Vatican Council II and the CCC are not in conflict as long as one is aware that there is no salvation outside the visible limits of the Church. So all salvation mentioned in these two documents, must be considered invisible and not visible for us. This is also rational.

  7. I always pray for faithful Catholics like the level headed Michael Matt and Chris Ferrara, Editor herself, even Michael Voris (but his ignoring the Francis1 elephant in the room is ludicrous), Rorate, SSPX, FFI, May they reap rewards for the Church with all their dedication in upholding the true faith.
    The great thing in this day and age is how we can make our voice heard, like never before, keep it up everyone. We know the Immaculate Heart of Mary will triumph.

    • Burt,

      I agree. The Remnant videos are great and this one is really very good indeed. I’ve not seen the whole thing yet but what I’ve watched is really good and clear.

      I’m interested that you mention Michael Voris and wonder if he is still sticking to his policy of no public criticism of Pope Francis. Do you know?

    • Burt,

      Shucks! You mentioned my name in the same sentences as the VIPs from the USA. Thrilled am I – and grateful for your promise of prayers. Much appreciated. But fancy me, moi, being described as “level headed” (I’m more used to “pig headed” which tells you all you need to know about my “friends”)

      All in all, Burt, you’ve lifted my spirits. I knew someone would recognise my greatness some day, but in my immense humility, I really and truly didn’t think it would be so soon… 😀

    • Pray that they may all, good Catholics, be aware that the Vatican Curia is interpreting Vatican Council II and the Catechism with an irrational inference ( the dead man walking and visible theory).Once they identify this irrationality Vatican Council II changes overnight.
      It will be a triumph of the Immaculate Heart.

  8. “When I read the documents relative to the Modernism, as it was defined by Saint Pius X, and when I compare them to the documents of the II Vatican Council, I cannot help being bewildered. For what was condemned as heresy in 1906 was proclaimed as what is and should be from now on the doctrine and method of the Church. In other words, the modernists of 1906 were, somewhat, precursors to me. My masters were part of them. My parents taught me Modernism. How could Saint Pius X reject those that now seem to be my precursors?” (Jean Guitton, Portrait du Père Lagrange, Éditions Robert Laffont, Paris, 1992, pp. 55-56).

    The philosopher Guitton was a close confidante of Pope Paul VI.

    Hands up anyone who is surprised that Saint Pius X was hardly quoted at all in at the Second Vatican Council. He was the least quoted of the twentieth century Popes. There was no reference to Pascendi. And there was no mention of Modernism in a papal encyclical between Ecclesiam Suam in 1964 and Fides et Ratio in 1998.

    Can we have a spokesman from the Department of the Hermeneutic of Continuity, please?

    • Leo,

      Terrific points. The Hermeneutic of Continuity brigade have gone noticeably silent of late, that’s for sure. Having said that, when I found myself tracing a link right through to Fr Tim Finigan’s blog of that name, there he was, large as life as usual, full of the joys of Pope Francis the First (and we hope, Last…)

      That’s a very interesting alert to the fact the Pope Saint Pius X was hardly quoted at all at the Second Vatican Council. Put together with Cardinal Ratzinger’s description of Gaudium et Spes as a “counter syllabus” (seeing off Pope Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors as well) I think we can see that the seeds were being well and truly planted, not to say watered to death, for the current spiritual, religious and moral chaos.

    • When I read the documents relative to the Modernism, as it was defined by Saint Pius X, and when I compare them to the documents of the II Vatican Council, I cannot help being bewildered. For what was condemned as heresy in 1906 was proclaimed as what is and should be from now on the doctrine and method of the Church.
      Lionel:
      You are bewildered since you are using a false premise in the interpretation of the documents of Vatican Council II.
      For example you infer that Nostra Aetate 2, a ray of the Truth refers to cases which are explicit for us. So now every one does not need to convert into the Catholic Church with Catholic Faith and the baptism of water.So this is a major change in Church teaching.

      Then you read about those who can be saved ‘ in imperfect communion with the Church’ (UR 3) and you conclude that Protestants do not need Catholic Faith for salvation.This is a big change in ecumenism.

      The fault is with your not making the explicit-implicit distinction.Yes a Protestant could be saved in imperfect comminion with the Church , hypothetically, in theory, but in reality we do not know any such case. So there is no contradiction with the traditional teaching on exclusive salvation in the Church.Similarly we do not know any one saved with ‘seeds of the Word’ etc.

    • Hands up anyone who is surprised that Saint Pius X was hardly quoted at all in at the Second Vatican Council. He was the least quoted of the twentieth century Popes. There was no reference to Pascendi. And there was no mention of Modernism in a papal encyclical between Ecclesiam Suam in 1964 and Fides et Ratio in 1998.

      Can we have a spokesman from the Department of the Hermeneutic of Continuity, please?

      Lionel:
      There is no contradiction with Pascendi in Vatican Council II unless you assume that the dead saved and now referred to in Vatican Council II are explicit for us.If you use this irrationality Vatican Council II will contradict Pascendi.

      Without the irrational inference Vatican Council II has a hermeneutic of continuity. With the false premise of being able to see the dead-saved, it is the heremeneutic of rupture.

      We have finally found the ‘missing link’ for either of the two heremeneutics.It is so simple.

  9. Many of us had hoped that Cardinal Kasper was being pensioned off a few years ago. Well as we know, he and what Pope Francis describes as his “profound and serene theology” are back, big time. Remember, the Pope gave him favourable mention in his very first Angelus address last year. Kasper, as every Catholic who cares about these things knows, is out front in the drive to run around Divine law and allow adulteress punters of the German speaking bishops to profane the Body and Blood of Our Lord.

    He has performed some beneficial service though, no matter how unintended it might have been. Last year he let the big cat out of the bag. Not that any informed Catholic should have needed such clarification about the incendiary devices hidden in the Conciliar texts.

    “In many places, (the Council Fathers) had to find compromise formulas, in which, the positions of the majority are located immediately next to those of the minority, designed to delimit them. Thus, the conciliar texts themselves have a huge potential for conflict, open the door to a selective reception in either direction.” – Cardinal Walter Kasper, L’Osservatore Romano, April 12 2013

    Now please compare and contrast the following statement from a time when the protection and spread of the Faith, and the salvation of souls was the absolute priority for Popes and Bishops.

    “When a document is clearly ambiguous or contradictory one must condemn the heretical statements as they appear, despite what contradictions and ambiguities they are camouflaged in…those who let heresies slip by because they are veiled in wilful ambiguity cannot be excused and allow the faithful to be led ‘subtle errors to their eternal damnation’.” – Pope Pius VI, Auctorem Fidei, August 28, 1794

    • Leo,

      That is certainly some contrast, the statement of Cardinal Kasper effectively blessing ambiguity, with Pope Pius VI’s clear exhortation to condemn heresy. Easy to tell which is in conformity with Catholic tradition. Very easy.

      As you’ve said elsewhere – where is the Hermeneutic of Continuity Brigade when you need them?

    • “In many places, (the Council Fathers) had to find compromise formulas, in which, the positions of the majority are located immediately next to those of the minority, designed to delimit them. Thus, the conciliar texts themselves have a huge potential for conflict, open the door to a selective reception in either direction.” – Cardinal Walter Kasper, L’Osservatore Romano, April 12 2013

      Lionel:
      There is only compromise when the distinction between in fact and in theory are blurred.Cardinal Kaspar has done just this and so the Council emerges ‘ambigous’.

      There is no ambiguity in Nostra Aetate , Unitatis Redintigratio etc if one is clear that all salvation referred to in Vatican Council II is known and visible only to God. So these references are not relevant or an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Syallabus of Errors etc.

  10. SSPX, Franciscans of the Immaculate can affirm Vatican Council II and also Catholic Tradition : eat your cake and have it too

    Joseph Shaw:
    I am, obviously, completely happy to affirm the teachings, confirmed by anathemas, of all the General Councils, including those on the question of salvation outside the Church.1

    Lionel:
    Are you saying that all need to enter the Catholic Church in England in 2014 with faith and baptism for salvation and there are no known exceptions ?

    There are no known exceptions mentioned in Vatican Council II to the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus, those of the Church Councils and popes ?

    There was no answer from Dr.Joseph Shaw,Chairman of the Latin Mass Society in England, to those two questions on the Catholic Faith.

    Fr.Tim Finigin, the blogger from the Diocese of Southwark, England would also say that he accepts all the teachings of the Catholic Church including that of the Letter of the Holy Office.

    When asked if implicit desire mentioned in the Letter was implicit or explicit for us, he will not answer.

    If implicit desire, is really implicit and invisible for us,then it cannot rationally be an exception to the interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.

    If implicit desire was explicit for the cardinal who issued the Letter of the Holy Office, then it would be an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.It would also mean that the Holy Office made an irrational mistake.It inferred we could see the dead.

    Fr.Tim Finigin, like Dr.Joseph Shaw, stay clear of this issue.

    TRADITIONALIST CONFERENCE NEEDED

    If only someone could hold a conference for the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) on the theme ‘Vatican Council II does not clash with the SSPX position on ecumenism and other religions.’

    ‘I repeat, it is possible for someone to be saved in these religions, but they are saved by the Church, and so the formulation is true: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. This must be preached.”-Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Against the Heresies, pp. 217-218]

    Elsewhere he has said that there could be people in other religions saved with implicit desire.He has not said that these cases are known to us and so they are explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Bishop Fellay assumes it is.Archbishop Lefebvre could imply it is.

    When it is realised that there are no exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus in Nostra Aetate etc then the SSPX and the Franciscans of the Immaculate could accept Vatican Council II ( without the inference of explicit exceptions).They could accept Vatican Council II with implicit for us ‘ a ray of the Truth (NA 2) etc.

    They cannot be accused of rejecting Vatican Council II.They would be accepting Vatican Council II but only without the explicit exceptions theory.

    If the Vatican Curia would ask them if they endorse Vatican Council, they would answer, “Yes we accept Vatican Council II in accord with the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus”.

    If they are asked, if they reject Nostra Aetate 2 they would respond, ” We do not reject Nostra Aetate 2. We affirm it as being being implicit for us and explicit only for God. So it is not an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus”.

    If they are further questioned, “Do you accept the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney”?, they would respond, “Yes we accept the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus and reject an explicit baptism of desire but accept an implicit for us baptism of desire. So we affirm the baptism of desire along with the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus”.

    If asked to clarify, how can they affirm the baptism of desire and also the traditional interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney they could respond, “Since implicit baptism of desire is not visible to us it does not conflict with the teaching which says every one needs to be a visible member of the Catholic Church. There is no conflict with the Principle of Non Contradiction”.

    So the bottom line is that they can affirm Vatican Council II and also Catholic Tradition.Things couldn’t be so good. It’s a win-win situation. They can have their cake and eat it too!

    -Lionel Andrades

    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/sspx-franciscans-of-immaculate-can.html#links

%d bloggers like this: