| Welcome, Guest |
You have to register before you can post on our site.
|
| Online Users |
There are currently 366 online users.
» 1 Member(s) | 362 Guest(s)
Bing, Google, Yandex, Sacrificium
|
|
|
| Holy Mass in Minnesota [Long Prairie area] - September 28, 2024 |
|
Posted by: Stone - 09-26-2024, 09:03 AM - Forum: September 2024
- No Replies
|
 |
Holy Sacrifice of the Mass - Feast of St. Wenceslaus, Duke & Martyr
Date: Saturday, September 28, 2024
Time: Confessions - 7:30 AM
Holy Mass - 8:00 AM
Location: Long Prairie area [contact coordinator below for details]
Contact: Mike 320-760-8060
Priest: Rev. Fr. David Hewko
|
|
|
| Holy Mass in Minnesota [Long Prairie area] - September 27, 2024 |
|
Posted by: Stone - 09-26-2024, 09:00 AM - Forum: September 2024
- No Replies
|
|
Holy Sacrifice of the Mass - Feast of Sts. Cosmas & Damian
Date: Friday, September 27, 2024
Time: Confessions - TBA (evening)
Holy Mass - TBA (evening)
Location: Long Prairie area [contact coordinator below for details]
Contact: Mike 320-760-8060
Priest: Rev. Fr. David Hewko
|
|
|
|
| Former German District Superior leaves the SSPX and joins Novus Ordo Community |
|
Posted by: Stone - 09-25-2024, 10:00 AM - Forum: The New-Conciliar SSPX
- Replies (1)
|
|
FORMER SUPERIOR OF THE GERMANY DISTRICT LEAVES THE FSSPX AND GOES TO A CONCILIARY COMMUNITY
![[Image: p_udressy_neue_web_34_1.jpg]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgBfNdJcPSyKVQSs-7GuxR4bJdpItbgy5oLYWR9i_ZQPhtl7aF8i6bjkyyrkTcaJf9A3NTG7-Ge3YzzzNgdCK5L12o6ZBSa1kD6x1w6MFt4Y-ZcpyHQH85ikkzOMoT6LmtDgdYRF4Vz0CqqQNqZELdXnc4lVxrwsS64ksRSyYEl-DAI0t6a_m_Xc92-qaCA/w400-h225/p_udressy_neue_web_34_1.jpg)
Non Possumus [machine translated - emphasis mine] | September 21, 2024
The Fr. Firmin Udressy, a prominent accordionist and trusted man of Bishop Fellay, put by the latter at the head of the German district in 2013, when he was just 35 years old; has joined the Saint Martin Community (of France), which "he has always appreciated both the Holy Mass of Saint Paul VI and that of Saint Pius V. The community, however, has chosen to celebrate Saint Paul VI as its own rite and celebrates it as the Missal foresees, therefore, in a sublime way. The problem, as always, is not the rite but how it is celebrated. The problem, as always, is not the Council but how it was interpreted." (source of this quote).
|
|
|
|
| “Ten Years That Shook the Church”: Archbishop Dwyer’s 1973 Critique |
|
Posted by: Stone - 09-25-2024, 08:52 AM - Forum: The Architects of Vatican II
- No Replies
|
|
“Ten Years That Shook the Church”: Archbishop Dwyer’s 1973 Critique of the Reform and the Post-Council
![[Image: Dwyer.jpg]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiVPs2IzU03Jg8oHvGUXEJdOeYxpsDRyiq8UqCZTc8mexrALD0RIaAPnbeTG7P7xsK26kd6fmGvhZK80Etn4bLErSgfFj154WKUaFAsTtzn7iKTecDMbEEMskqijchhHXYvdII_qra7OmJo5i1eiT7F_gxuacs6ktgoRUd0BrI_XdIE4PQhfMcX/w400-h331-rw/Dwyer.jpg)
Dwyer as a boy and as a bishop
NLM [slightly adapted] | September 23, 2024
Archbishop Robert Joseph Dwyer (1908-76), amidst his copious writings, penned not a few scathing critiques of the liturgical reform, at least two of which had not yet been made available online—a problem I sought and seek to remedy between last week and this. Last week, we published a newspaper column of his from July 1971 that pronounced a failing grade on the Bugnini Rite and, in particular, on the horrendously bad translations, music, and parochial balkanization that accompanied the roll-out of the Novus Ordo. Today, I publish the transcription of an article from the Twin Circle, which appears to have been launched in 1967, was sold to the Legionaries of Christ in 1995 (they bought the National Catholic Register at the same time), and was renamed Faith & Family in 2000, before folding in 2011.
Once again, it is nearly impossible to imagine a bishop writing this openly and bluntly in a Catholic newspaper today. To my mind, this suggests that the much-vaunted parrhesia is quite lacking, probably because knowledge of the traditional liturgy, of the Council, and of the details of the reform is quite lacking among those who did not personally experience all of it as Dwyer had done.
Ten Years That Shook the Church
by Archbishop Robert Dwyer
Twin Circle
October 26, 1973
What happens when an institution, be it a religious body or a nation state or what you will, deliberately cuts itself off from its historical and cultural roots? Rarely according to the record have such institutions been able to survive, the shock being too great, the trauma too devastating.
They may seek in desperation to renew those roots, by some legerdemain to recover them, or to substitute some seeming equivalent, but unless any such an institution has some sort of divine guarantee, the chances of its success are, as the airline stewardesses never fail to assure us in soothing tones, exceedingly remote.
Toward the end of the Second Session of the Vatican Council, late in November 1963, the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy was triumphantly voted in by an overwhelming majority of the assembled Fathers. As we trooped out of St. Peter’s basilica that day, spreading our amaranthine stain over the great parvis, a palpable euphoria thrilled through the entire body. Something at last had been accomplished, one item of the business which had called us to Rome had been nailed down.
The members of the Commission which had hammered out the Constitution and guided it through the grueling tests of debate and modification, were obviously elated, and the most prominent American member, the late Archbishop Paul Hallinan of Atlanta, was the glowing recipient of hearty and even gleeful congratulations.
Good Fun
It was all in good fun and no one, least of all perhaps the drafters and proponents of the Constitution in question had the slightest notion, not to say intent, of tampering with the cultural life-lines of the Roman Catholic Church.
Nor was there, on candid reading, anything in the text or in the spirit of the document which would suggest the least deviation from the historic past of the liturgy, its sacred traditions, its venerable usages.
There was, of course, a loosening of certain restrictions. The vernacular was to share with the Latin the role of liturgical communication, not by any means to replace it. Greater simplicity in ritual was to be introduced.
Though the term had not yet swung so prominently into orbit as it was to do a year or so later, the liturgy was to be made more “relevant” to contemporary man, with his increasingly secular preoccupations.
Who dreamed on that day that within a few years, far less than a decade, the Latin past of the Church would be all but expunged, that it would be reduced to a memory fading in the middle distance? The thought would have horrified us, but it seemed so far beyond the realm of the possible as to be ridiculous.
So we laughed it off.
As a personal footnote, we had been visited by some misgivings in regard to the vernacular, by way of certain apprehensions that it could lead to invidious comparisons between those prelates and priests who read well and have all the arts of elocution, who have the gift of acting their part with dignity and conviction, the Suenenses and the Sheens, and those not so happily endowed, all the way down to the poor fellows who can only mumble as unintelligible in English or Swahili as in the ancient language of the Church.
With the difference that nobody expected to understand them in Latin, whereas the whole point of the vernacular was to make the liturgy, once again, relevant. But having voiced this unworthy fear, and told to go to the corner and hide our head for very shame for entertaining such an antidemocratic notion, we lapsed into chastened silence.
And when the vote came round, like wise Sir Joseph Porter, KCB, “We always voted at our party’s call; W never thought of thinking for ourself at all.” That way you can save yourself a world of trouble.
Cultural Cut-off
Well, here we are 10 years later, and what results do we see? The result, plainly and bluntly, is that the Western Church has just about completely cut herself off from her cultural roots, the Latin tradition of the West.
Latin is practically banned from the liturgy and banned as well from the courses of study required of candidates for the priesthood.
Fewer and fewer Masses in Latin are sanctioned or approved by local ordinaries, and fewer and fewer seminarians and young priests have now more than a nodding acquaintance with the language which nourished the devotion of countless generations of Christians and gave to theology and the other sacred sciences a common tongue, so that, even though imperfectly, communication was possible.
The Church which so long had preserved Latin consciously as a bond of unity, had quite suddenly decided to discard it as a useless encumbrance.
New Tune
With this rejection, and as an almost inevitable consequence, went out the window also the whole magnificent musical heritage of the Church. For when you change your language you also change your song.
The Jewish exiles hanging their harps beside the waters of Babylon, so long ago, made that discovery.
Pope Paul VI, the other day, made an earnest plea for the revival of some parts of the Mass in Latin, the Kyrie, the Gloria, etc., with the obvious hope of salvaging something of our immense musical treasure, one of the glories of the Christian accomplishment; but whether his words will carry weight, whether his “cri de coeur” will be heard, is anyone’s guess.
Not, surely, until realization dawns on many minds how drastically we have robbed ourselves of our cultural wealth.
Less immediately cognate to the Latin past, yet in strict relationship, is the whole violent artistic rejection of the past. It is not a question of contemporary art being good or bad; it is a matter of its repudiating, often with contempt, those principles and traditions which gave art, visual or tactual, substance and meaning.
The creation of an anti-art, the sole pitiable boast of the contemporary schools, is mighty thin provender for souls hungering and thirsting for something greater than themselves, something of beauty and nobility. But we go along with the crowd, because we too have lost our way.
And the same rejection, not merely of our cultural and esthetic roots, but of our philosophical and theological foundations, is the reaction and reality of the moment. Who would be caught dead today citing a theologian older than Karl Rahner or a philosopher more antique than Bernard Lonergan?
The substitution of Teilhardism for Thomism, if not complete in our schools, our seminaries and universities, is within an ace of carrying the day. But only too insistently is it borne in on us that we are a cracked record, flawed by a fixation.
Is anything of this important? Does it matter that the Church has been led down the path of rejection, slowly at first and by imperceptible stages, then ever more rapidly and finally at breakneck speed?
Does it matter that we as Catholics have succeeded in cutting ourselves off from those cultural sources which nourished our fathers and gave support and assurance to their faith? Is it inevitable that in this last third of the 20th century the Catholic mind should seek a new milieu, new associations, new roots?
Doubtless Dr. Leslie Dewart [1] and his disciples would return a resounding yes to this.
But before we commit ourselves farther, and if there is still time for reflection, might we not do well to catch the echo of a great and now almost forgotten Father of the Council, the late Cardinal Michael Browne, who, at a decisive moment in the debate on the Constitution on the Church, raised his voice in warning with all the richness of the Irish brogue in Latin: Caveamus, Patres, caveamus! Let us take heed, Fathers, let us beware!
We thought it amusing then; we might take it a little more seriously now.
![[Image: Screenshot%202024-08-21%20153118.png]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEivAdsvUMvMn2TXHIxhLZDTrgOdm7ZYhcyNraWducRqjaqYAsddLk257NcYYOkd_IG7PUy1eCvQLsNLJeDLGV5MOzyk0TOwHJy6mmQi6QBNQAwENJ6JWk01rrgMa22Dsn3-Yry0xHsMp2fPQU3bHkIMR555mDcDvN6WHW7BjlbTlOqNXT79UDPl/s532/Screenshot%202024-08-21%20153118.png)
Illustration in the original newspaper article
NOTE
[1] “Leslie Dewart (1922–2009) was a Canadian philosopher and Professor Emeritus at the Graduate Department of Philosophy and the Centre for the Study of Religion at the University of Toronto…. Late in 1969 an investigation by the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was convened to examine the theological opinions in Dewart’s writings, particularly The Future of Belief. However, no condemnatory action was taken by the authorities…. While Dewart was not a theologian, his philosophy lays a new foundation for contemporary Catholic theology that does not rely on the traditional epistemological foundation of Hellenic philosophy. His philosophical insights are a conscious, reflective ‘transposition to another key’ of the experience of the Christian faith…. Although not widely recognized at the time, the revolutionary experience was, in fact, a process of ‘dehellenization,’ as Dewart understands the process throughout in his writings. Thinkers will conceive of God, in a dehellenized future of thought, as an existential reality…. Western philosophy, “come of age,” does not experience the world as hostile, as did the Hellenists, but rather, as stimulating and challenging and Western philosophy must dehellenize its interpretation of experience accordingly. This dehellenization requires the abandonment of scholasticism, with the subsequent development of a conscious re-conceptualization of experience.” (source)
|
|
|
|
| The Catholic Trumpet: ✝PRAEDICATIO✝ |
|
Posted by: Stone - 09-24-2024, 02:41 AM - Forum: Articles by Catholic authors
- Replies (2)
|
|
From The Catholic Trumpet - September 23, 2024
+JMJ+
Dear Reader,
It is with great joy and unwavering commitment to the truth that we introduce ✝PRAEDICATIO, a new column on The Catholic Trumpet. Here, you will find faithful transcriptions of sermons and conferences from uncompromising traditional Catholic priests who, like +Archbishop Lefebvre, stand firm in defense of the integral Catholic Faith. These priests resist and reject the errors, heresies, and compromises of Vatican II and modernist Rome, carrying forward the fight for the Social Kingship of Christ.
This new column is more than just words on a page—it is a weapon in the fight for Christ the King. The priests whose voices are featured here speak with clarity, conviction, and fidelity to the true Catholic Faith, untainted by the errors that have swept through the Church. We continue to uphold the mission of The Catholic Trumpet: to defend the truth, expose compromise, and preserve the Catholic Faith as it has always been taught.
We have taken great care to ensure the accuracy of these transcriptions. However, should you find any mistakes, please reach out to us at Thomasthecatholictrumpet@gmail.com. You can look forward to French and Spanish translations of these sermons in the near future, so that no one is deprived of these precious words.
In this column, you will only find the sermons of priests who refuse to compromise, who fight for the true Mass, the true Sacraments, and the integral Catholic doctrine. This is our duty as Catholics, and this is the stand we take—firm and unwavering.
Thank you for standing with us. May the Immaculate Heart of Mary guide you and your loved ones as we continue this battle together.
Vive le Christ Roi!
-The☩Trumpet
|
|
|
|
| Francis’s Synod: Making Reparation to Satan for Catholicism’s Offenses Against Hell |
|
Posted by: Stone - 09-23-2024, 09:45 AM - Forum: Vatican II and the Fruits of Modernism
- No Replies
|
|
Francis’s Synod: Making Reparation to Satan for Catholicism’s Offenses Against Hell
![[Image: 0a7b177a7a903154d5352b775c10fe27_L.jpg]](https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/media/k2/items/cache/0a7b177a7a903154d5352b775c10fe27_L.jpg)
Robert Morrison, Remnant Columnist | September 19, 2024
How did Archbishop Lefebvre see so clearly the problems that many sincere Catholics are seeing for the first time today, if at all? Or, for that matter, how did Bishop Graber recognize that Vatican II was implementing the Freemasonic attacks on the Church, as he wrote in his 1974 book? It is not necessarily that they knew more than everyone else — instead, it seems that they were willing to acknowledge the plainly observable realties and draw logical conclusions, even when Rome insisted that everyone must obey.
tIn his short 1974 book about the crisis in the Catholic Church, Athanasius and the Church of Our Time, Bishop Rudolf Graber quoted the prophetic words of Canon Roca (1830-1893), an excommunicated priest who spoke of the secret society plots against the papacy over one hundred years ago:
Quote:“There is a sacrifice in the offing which represents a solemn act of expiation . . . The Papacy will fall; it will die under the hallowed knife which the fathers of the last council will forge. The papal caesar is a Host crowned for the sacrifice.” (p. 35)
Although some champions of Traditional Catholicism, such as Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, saw the connection between these words from Canon Roca and what took place at Vatican II, many remained skeptical over the decades, preferring to believe that the Council itself posed no real threat to the Faith. Almost as though Rome wanted to alleviate any doubt on the matter, though, the June 13, 2024 document on “The Bishop of Rome” from the Dicastery for Promoting Christian Unity confirmed that the enemies of the Church were indeed using Vatican II’s documents to undermine the papacy:
Quote:“The understanding and exercise of the ministry of the Bishop of Rome entered a new phase with the Second Vatican Council. The very act of calling a Council with Christian unity as one of its primary goals and with the participation of other Christians already indicated Saint John XXIII’s approach to the role of the Bishop of Rome in the Church. Complementing the definitions of the First Vatican Council on papal primacy, the Constitution Lumen gentium strengthened the office of bishops who govern their particular churches as ‘vicars and ambassadors of Christ [...] and not as vicars of the Roman Pontiffs’ (LG 27) and emphasized the significance of episcopal collegiality (LG 23). The Decree Unitatis redintegratio marked the official entry of the Catholic Church into the ecumenical movement and opened the way to the establishment of theological dialogues, many of which would address the question of primacy.”
As the Bishop of Rome document proceeded to describe, Catholic theologians have collaborated with Protestants for decades to reinterpret the role of the Bishop of Rome in attempt to alleviate non-Catholic objections to the papacy. Borrowing Canon Roca’s expression from above, false ecumenism — which was the driving force of Vatican II — has been “the hallowed knife which the fathers of the last council will forge” to destroy the papacy.
Stunningly, the Bishop of Rome document aligns even more closely with another Freemasonic prophecy from Bishop Graber’s book, quoting a 1968 article from the Paris journal of the Grand Orient de France, “L’Humanisme,” foretelling the future of the Church:
Quote:“It is not the scaffold that is awaiting the Pope, it is the rise of local Churches organizing themselves democratically, rejecting the dividing-line between clergy and laymen, creating their own dogma and living in complete autonomy from Rome.” (p. 71)
This is what we see today. And, while it is true that Vatican II had the blueprints and materials for that scaffold, it has been the ongoing Synod on Synodality that has assembled the scaffold. Recent documents from the Synod on Synodality offer a new look at the fiendish ceremonies planned for the Synod’s October 2024 sessions in Rome, which appear poised to make a formal sacrificial offering not only of the papacy but also of Rome’s last ties to Catholicism. We can see this most clearly in the description of the Penitential Celebration planned for October 1, 2024:
Quote:“A Church that wants to walk together must be continually reconciled. . . In St. Peter's Basilica, the penitential celebration, presided over by Pope Francis, will include time to listen to three testimonies of persons who have suffered sin: the sin of abuse; the sin of war; the sin of indifference to the drama present in the growing phenomenon of migrations all over the world. Subsequently, the confession of a number of sins will take place. . . Whoever expresses the request for forgiveness will do so in the name of all the baptised.”
So Francis will preside over the “penitential celebration” in St. Peter’s Basilica in the name of “all the baptized” (which of course includes heretics). For what will he apologize? Faithful Catholics could identify many sins which he should confess, including: persecution of Traditional Catholics; aiding and abetting the globalists in their anti-Catholic agenda; scandalizing the world with innumerable heretical statements; and calling the truly offensive Synod on Synodality.
Unsurprisingly, none of those actual sins have made the list; instead we see the following: Sin against creation, against indigenous populations, against migrants; Sin of using doctrine as stones to be hurled; and Sin against synodality / lack of listening, communion, and participation of all. We can look at these three categories of “sins” individually:
- Sin against creation, against indigenous populations, against migrants. Here Francis is unabashedly fulfilling his function of moral authority of the demonic globalist cult. According to the globalists, the requested “penance” for these “sins” is for all of us to eat bugs, make reparations to indigenous populations, and allow unlimited illegal immigration.
- Sin of using doctrine as stones to be hurled. For the past eleven years we have seen what Francis means by this: he does not mean the sin of hating the sinner rather than the sin; rather, he is condemning the process of trying to convert sinners to God’s truth. In his mind, those who sin more than any others in this regard are Traditional Catholics who insist that we must all seek to follow God’s commandments if we wish to save our souls.
- Sin against synodality / lack of listening, communion, and participation of all. This last category of sin is the most wicked of all because it makes it a sin to question the Synod’s attempt to destroy the Catholic Church. In the Catholic Church, blasphemy is a sin; in the Synodal Church, refusing to take part in blasphemy is a sin. The difference is not subtle.
So Francis, who despises the papacy (and may indeed be an anti-pope), will lead this “penitential celebration” in St. Peter’s Basilica to effectively condemn those who practice what the Church has always taught — he is, in essence, making reparation to Satan for Catholicism’s offenses against hell. “Celebration” is truly the right word for it in the eyes of Satan and the Church’s enemies.
Another of the new documents from the Synod announced the October 11, 2024 Ecumenical Prayer:
Quote:“‘Among the most significant fruits of the 2021-2024 Synod is the intensity of the ecumenical impulse and the promise that marks it’ (Instrumentum Laboris 2, 107). . . . In the wake of the ecumenical prayer vigil ‘Together,’ held on 30 September 2023 on the eve of the opening of the Synod and recognised by many as a historic moment, it has been decided to offer a moment of ecumenical prayer during this Second Session for all participants in the Synod, in the presence of the Holy Father and the fraternal delegates, as well as other ecumenical representatives present in Rome. This ecumenical prayer will be held on 11 October 2024 from 7.00 p.m. to 8.00 p.m. not far from the Synod Hall, in Piazza of the Protomartyrs, the place where, according to an immemorial tradition, the Apostle Peter was martyred. The date chosen is also particularly symbolic, as it marks the anniversary of the opening of the Second Vatican Council, which took place on 11 October 1962. This prayer will be an opportunity to give thanks for all the ecumenical fruits that have developed in the Council's wake, marking 60 years since the publication of the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium and the Decree on Ecumenism Unitatis Redintegratio (21 November 1964). This prayer was prepared by a team from the General Secretariat of the Synod and the Dicastery for the Promotion of Christian Unity with brothers from the Taizé Community.”
This announcement holds so many clues to what is taking place:- The ceremony will take place where “the Apostle Peter was martyred,” which is a fitting location for their symbolic destruction of the papacy.
- They chose October 11 to mark the anniversary of Vatican II, which forged the weapons to carry out their attacks on the papacy and the Church.
- The prayer gives thanks for all the ecumenical efforts that have taken place since the publication of the Council’s documents.
- “Brothers from the Taizé Community” helped compose the prayers.
Those who have read Archbishop Lefebvre’s Open Letter to Confused Catholics may recall the following mention of the Taizé Community:
Quote:“It is amazing that nowadays certain people want to let everyone find his own way to God according to the beliefs prevailing in his own ‘cultural milieu.’ A bishop once told a priest who wanted to convert the little Muslims, ‘No, teach them to be good Muslims; that will be much better than making Catholics of them.’ I am assured and know for certain that before the Council the Taizé community wanted to abjure their errors and become Catholics. The authorities said to them, ‘No, wait. After the Council you will be the bridge between Catholics and Protestants.’ Those who gave this reply took on a great responsibility before God, because grace comes often only at a given moment; it may perhaps not come again. At the present time the brethren of Taizé are still outside the Church, sowing confusion in the minds of the young people who visit them.”
Archbishop Lefebvre wrote these words around 1985 — how did he see so clearly the problems that many sincere Catholics are seeing for the first time today, if at all? Or, for that matter, how did Bishop Graber recognize that Vatican II was implementing the Freemasonic attacks on the Church, as he wrote in his 1974 book? It is not necessarily that they knew more than everyone else — instead, it seems that they were willing to acknowledge the plainly observable realties and draw logical conclusions, even when Rome insisted that everyone must obey.
Today the realties are almost too enormous and clear to ignore, but many otherwise faithful Catholics have serious emotional and intellectual investments in the pre-Francis proponents of Vatican II, especially John Paul II and Benedict XVI. This sets up a conflict: whereas we really should be undoing the damage caused by Vatican II, many serious Catholics want to preserve Vatican II’s novelties and simply condemn Francis. They are like patients who merely want to treat some symptoms of a cancer without actually curing it.
But God, the Divine Physician, has permitted all of these evils to become so apparent today that we will finally reject the errors that have fed those evils. The entire Vatican II revolution has been fueled by the accursed lies that (a) the truths of the Faith evolve and, (b) we can achieve unity with non-Catholics through a process of watering down the Catholic Faith and looking past fundamental differences. If ever there was an opportunity for the remaining Catholic shepherds to stand up and denounce these heresies — which Pope Pius XII and his predecessors had unambiguously condemned — that time is now. If they do not do it now, then they will be contributing to all of the horrors that will follow in wake of Francis’s act of reparation to Satan for Catholicism’s offenses against hell.
Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us!
|
|
|
|
| SSPX Tacit Approval: "Neo-Pastoralism" vs. Pope St. Felix III |
|
Posted by: The☩Trumpet - 09-21-2024, 06:26 PM - Forum: The New-Conciliar SSPX
- No Replies
|
 |
SSPX Tacit Approval: "Neo-Pastoralism" vs. Pope St. Felix III
September 21, 2024
In their recent article," The Neo-Pastoral Work of Francis-Source: FSSPX NEWS" the SSPX neither clearly opposed nor definitively refuted the error in Pope Francis’s statement. Instead, Fr. Jean-Michel Gleize’s commentary is cautious and nuanced, avoiding an outright condemnation of the claim that “all religions are paths to God.”
On September 19, the SSPX published this article by Fr. Gleize, addressing comments made by Pope Francis during an interfaith meeting with young people in Singapore. Central to the discussion is Francis’s assertion that “all religions are a path to arrive at God.”
Yet, instead of calling this out as “Pope Francis’s Latest Heresy” or clearly labeling it for what it is—an inexplicably heretical statement from the Holy Father—the SSPX article is titled The Neo-Pastoral of Francis.
This is a blatant example of the condemned evolution of dogma—what is commonly known as the "hermeneutics of continuity"—Ratzinger's Trojan horse, which Bp. Fellay endorsed in the 2012 Doctrinal Declaration. Specifically, Bp. Fellay stated, “The entire tradition of Catholic Faith must be the criterion and guide in understanding the teaching of the Second Vatican Council, which, in turn, enlightens - in other words, deepens and subsequently makes explicit - certain aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church implicitly present within itself or not yet conceptually formulated” (Doctrinal Declaration, 2012).
Similarly, Fr. Gleize, in his article " The Neo-Pastoral Work of Francis-Source: FSSPX NEWS" states, “The teachings of Vatican II admit this salvific value, provided that it is understood in a differentiated way.” He goes on to suggest the possibility of calling this “mitigated latitudinarianism” or even “neo-latitudinarianism”. This reflects the SSPX’s new approach, as they too attempt to reconcile Vatican II’s teachings with traditional Catholic doctrine, thereby compromising the clarity of the Church's dogma—This "hermeneutics of continuity" has been condemned by Pope St. Pius X!
The SSPX, now emasculated and compromised, calls heresy Neo-Pastoral.
The root cause lies in the SSPX bishops and leadership's silence and the compromise made in 2012. Just as Francis is the logical conclusion for someone abiding by Vatican II, statements from Fr. Gleize are the logical conclusion of Bishop Fellay’s 2012 doctrinal declaration.
Louie also rightly pointed out, “The poster boy for the newly neutered version of the SSPX is Fr. Jean-Michel Gleize, a professor of apologetics, ecclesiology, and dogma at the Seminary of Saint Pius X in Écône, who – as readers may recall – authored a six-part treatment of Amoris Laetitia in 2017, the entire purpose of which was to absolve Bergoglio of heresy.”
To this, we must also add Fr. Paul Robinson, another poster boy, who has endorsed the heresy of theistic evolution—a clear divergence from the traditional Catholic faith.
What we are witnessing is the continuation of the French Revolution, now manifest in the revolution within the Church through Vatican II, and tragically even within +Archbishop Lefebvre’s Priestly Society, which once offered true counter-revolutionary Catholic resistance to the revolt. This echoes the prophecy of Our Lady of Good Success regarding the holy prelate who would stand against apostasy and impiety. Archbishop Lefebvre’s mission is being compromised by those who were meant to carry on his work.
The Clear Heresy of Pope Francis
Pope Francis’s assertion that “all religions are paths to arrive at God” is not just misleading; it is a direct affront to the truth revealed by Our Lord Jesus Christ. As Catholics, we know that Christ alone is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and no man cometh to the Father, but by Him (John 14:6, Douay-Rheims). To suggest that false religions, which deny the divinity of Christ and reject the true doctrine of the Holy Trinity, can lead souls to God is an outright heresy.
This statement is a clear departure from the immutable teachings of the Church, teachings that the Church Fathers, martyrs, and saints have defended with their very lives. For centuries, the Church has condemned the notion of religious relativism—the false belief that all religions are equal paths to salvation. Pope Pius IX, in his Syllabus of Errors, condemned the idea that “man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation.” (Syllabus of Errors, Prop. 16)
Pope Francis’s words are nothing short of a betrayal of this doctrine. By equating all religions as valid paths to God, he effectively nullifies the Church’s mission to convert souls to the one true faith. Such a statement, left unchallenged, paves the way for the destruction of missionary efforts and the denial of the Church’s role as the sole ark of salvation.
The SSPX’s Failure: Silence is Complicity
The failure of the SSPX to label this statement as heresy is not merely a tactical mistake—it is an act of complicity. +Archbishop Lefebvre always taught that the truth must be defended without compromise, especially when it is under direct attack. He himself said, “We have to speak up! We cannot remain silent. It is impossible!” (+Archbishop Lefebvre, They Have Uncrowned Him)
By softening their language and reframing this heresy as “Neo-Pastoral,” the SSPX has chosen to play the game of diplomacy rather than fulfilling their duty as defenders of the Faith. The duty of the priesthood is to guard and proclaim the truth of the Faith without ambiguity. Any failure to do so betrays the very essence of what it means to be Catholic.
As +Archbishop Lefebvre often warned, “He who has not the truth cannot sanctify, and he who does not fight for the truth abandons souls to error.” (Sermon, November 27, 1988). By refusing to call out Pope Francis’s statement for what it is—heresy—the SSPX is abandoning its mission to uphold the truth. In doing so, they allow heresy to spread unchecked, thus becoming accomplices to the error they fail to condemn.
"Not to oppose error is to approve it"
To fail to call out heresy is, in essence, to endorse it. Pope St. Felix III famously said, “Not to oppose error is to approve it; and not to defend the truth is to suppress it.” The SSPX’s reluctance to condemn this grievous error as heresy amounts to a tacit endorsement of religious relativism—the very heresy condemned by Pope Pius IX and so many of his predecessors.
+Archbishop Lefebvre made it clear that neutrality in the face of heresy is not an option. “You cannot separate the Church from the Truth. You cannot separate Our Lord Jesus Christ from the Truth,” he said. (Conference, Écône, 1984). To accept the false notion that all religions are paths to God is to sever Christ from His own mission, to render His sacrifice on Calvary meaningless, and to reject the clear mandate He gave His Church: “Going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.” (Matthew 28:19, Douay-Rheims)
The SSPX, once the last bastion of uncompromising Catholic resistance, now finds itself in the dangerous position of soft-pedaling heresy for the sake of conciliar diplomacy. But as +Archbishop Lefebvre taught us, “The truth cannot be negotiated. To negotiate the truth is to abandon it.” (Conference, November 1979)
The Call to Action
Now is the time for true Catholics, those who hold fast to Tradition, to stand up and resist this capitulation. We must follow the example of +Archbishop Lefebvre, who refused to compromise with modernist Rome, even when it meant being cast into exile. We must not allow the legacy of his work—the restoration of the Traditional Mass, the defense of the Faith, and the formation of true Catholic priests—to be tarnished by this betrayal.
In the face of this revolution, both within the world and within the Church, let us recall the words of Our Lady of Good Success, who prophesied that a great prelate would stand firm against the apostasy of the modern age. That prelate was +Archbishop Lefebvre, and it is his mission, entrusted to us, that we must continue without compromise.
Our Lady of Quito, Pray for Us!
-The☩Trumpet
The☩TrumpetThe☩Trumpet
|
|
|
|
|
![[Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.prayersandpetitions...ipo=images]](https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.prayersandpetitions.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2022%2F09%2FFB_IMG_1664359367436.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=732ad307006ef3bcc0b6dd52fd3a5b7e0d140b9190c19aaa60c02e4a3d27c372&ipo=images)
![[Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2Fzaidanca.files.wordpres...ipo=images]](https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fzaidanca.files.wordpress.com%2F2020%2F07%2Fsaints-cosma-and-damian-1.jpg%3Fw%3D840&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=c234d83c1609edc879507ba5aca59e294ca666b603703b15b5c712e0c2ab0a9f&ipo=images)
![[Image: Dwyer_twincircle_Page_1.jpg]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjGMvF39ZygUi2GaFuhh04GPdtNNp3Qrufxz85DLjn8_fEu9d_Q37v1ay_4-MLc34w0Zm929LTghkaHJpc2J5NKrPXfwJuk6JRT1vG2RX1i5r0M3uDkaJivJRt9FrLMz-Bo2i8rH1c5vc1rONyCyJ7e8Os4stb9QzndCO9JG23MZnW4i6a2Wh2z/w305-h400-rw/Dwyer_twincircle_Page_1.jpg)
![[Image: Dwyer_twincircle_Page_2.jpg]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFbgCgjDNc3HT402ORsCPYSP0K26-AEI6_TtweWenKGsspSxUSeaKCjp5SR2OBSoQkadNVscHMwY0TPmjWAfgYIH_-ly5IWCfVX51kPC6siRn0kcl_7NZ1Q8P7f3yp-8rSGcU40j5KVJb0NAAsHg0YcOPlg9saWAwpGUH7HoFq63V8xw76KeFO/w308-h400-rw/Dwyer_twincircle_Page_2.jpg)
![[Image: rs=w:1280]](https://img1.wsimg.com/isteam/ip/df55e1a9-c854-4d0b-a2a9-94177954436c/SSPX%20Tacit%20Approval%20Neo-Pastoralism%20vs.%20Pope%20S.png/:/cr=t:0%25,l:0%25,w:100%25,h:100%25/rs=w:1280)
