| Welcome, Guest |
You have to register before you can post on our site.
|
| Online Users |
There are currently 730 online users.
» 0 Member(s) | 728 Guest(s)
Bing, Google
|
| Latest Threads |
Oratory Conference: Merc...
Forum: Conferences
Last Post: Deus Vult
3 hours ago
» Replies: 0
» Views: 21
|
Fr. Hewko's Sermons: Pro...
Forum: September 2025
Last Post: Deus Vult
9 hours ago
» Replies: 0
» Views: 33
|
Apologia pro Marcel Lefeb...
Forum: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 10:07 AM
» Replies: 37
» Views: 12,459
|
Fr. Hewko's Sermons: Holy...
Forum: September 2025
Last Post: Deus Vult
Yesterday, 08:40 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 58
|
Feast of the Holy Name of...
Forum: Our Lady
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 08:38 AM
» Replies: 5
» Views: 15,945
|
Oratory Conference: Instr...
Forum: Conferences
Last Post: Deus Vult
09-11-2025, 12:31 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 135
|
Bishop Schneider: Vatican...
Forum: Pope Leo XIV
Last Post: Stone
09-11-2025, 06:56 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 173
|
The Catholic Trumpet War-...
Forum: The Catholic Trumpet
Last Post: Stone
09-11-2025, 06:51 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 200
|
Fr. Hewko: Devotion of t...
Forum: September 2025
Last Post: Deus Vult
09-10-2025, 07:08 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 157
|
Queen Emma Asks for the O...
Forum: Resources Online
Last Post: Stone
09-10-2025, 08:35 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 228
|
|
|
| The Catholic Trumpet: Leaked Voicemail - Bishop Williamson |
|
Posted by: Stone - 08-27-2025, 07:59 AM - Forum: The Catholic Trumpet
- No Replies
|
 |
The Catholic Trumpet reminds us of what was revealed by Fr. Pfeiffer a few years ago, of a voicemail he received from Bp. Williamson (RIP) in 2012 that made the impression that he (Bp. Williamson) was being offered a secret deal if he made an 'amiable' separation from the SSPX, suggesting that the Bishop's leaving of the SSPX was a mutually agreed upon deal and was not the 'selfless fight for tradition' as has been implied.
|
|
|
| Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn: A Reflection on the Vendée Uprising |
|
Posted by: Stone - 08-25-2025, 12:39 PM - Forum: General Commentary
- No Replies
|
|
While the Vendée Uprising is a familiar topic for many traditional Catholics, what may be surprising to know is that this war was omitted from official French history, as noted here:
Quote:The history of the Vendée Wars was not written by the victors, it was completely written out of French history, and until recently denied by the French government, it is still not part of the school history curriculum, but is well documented. When Solzhenitsyn opened the official Vendée Memorial at Les Lucs-sur-Boulogne in 1993 the event was ignored by central government, as well as by most of the mainstream French media. The war was the first 'total war' in modern history, in which men, women and children were involved. It was also the first modern war in which regular troops were repeatedly beaten by mainly unarmed (no firearms) peasants.
A Reflection on the Vendée Uprising
Address at the dedication of a memorial to the Vendée uprising
by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
Lucs-sur-Boulogne, France
25 September 1993
Mr. President of the General Council of the Vendée,
Respected Vendéans:
Two thirds of a century ago, while still a boy, I read with admiration about the courageous and desperate uprising of the Vendée. But never could I have even dreamed that in my later years I would have the honor of dedicating a memorial to the heroes and victims of that uprising.
Twenty decades have now passed, and throughout that period the Vendée uprising and its bloody suppression have been viewed in ever new ways, in France and elsewhere. Indeed, historical events are never fully understood in the heat of their own time, but only at a great distance, after a cooling of passions. For all too long, we did not want to hear or admit what cried out with the voices of those who perished, or were burned alive: that the peasants of a hard-working region, driven to the extremes of oppression and humiliation by a revolution supposedly carried out for their sake – that these peasants had risen up against the revolution!
That revolution brings out instincts of primordial barbarism, the sinister forces of envy, greed, and hatred – this even its contemporaries could see all too well. They paid a terrible enough price for the mass psychosis of the day, when merely moderate behavior, or even the perception of such, already appeared to be a crime. But the twentieth century has done especially much to tarnish the romantic luster of revolution which still prevailed in the eighteenth century. As half-centuries and centuries have passed, people have learned from their own misfortunes that revolutions demolish the organic structures of society, disrupt the natural flow of life, destroy the best elements of the population and give free rein to the worst; that a revolution never brings prosperity to a nation, but benefits only a few shameless opportunists, while to the country as a whole it heralds countless deaths, widespread impoverishment, and, in the gravest cases, a long-lasting degeneration of the people.
The very word "revolution" (from the Latin revolvo) means "to roll back," "to go back," "to experience anew," "to re-ignite," or at best "to turn over" – hardly a promising list. Today, if the attribute "great" is ever attached to a revolution, this is done very cautiously, and not infrequently with much bitterness.
It is now better and better understood that the social improvements which we all so passionately desire can be achieved through normal evolutionary development – with immeasurably fewer losses and without all-encompassing decay. We must be able to improve, patiently, that which we have in any given "today".
It would be vain to hope that revolution can improve human nature, yet your revolution, and especially our Russian Revolution, hoped for this very effect. The French Revolution unfolded under the banner of a self-contradictory and unrealizable slogan, "liberty, equality, fraternity." But in the life of society, liberty and equality are mutually exclusive, even hostile concepts. Liberty, by its very nature, undermines social equality, and equality suppresses liberty – for how else could it be attained? Fraternity, meanwhile, is of entirely different stock; in this instance it is merely a catchy addition to the slogan. True fraternity is achieved by means not social, but spiritual. Furthermore, the ominous words "or death!" were added to the threefold slogan, thereby effectively destroying its meaning.
I would not wish a "great revolution" upon any nation. Only the arrival of Thermidor prevented the eighteenth-century revolution from destroying France. But the revolution in Russia was not restrained by any Thermidor as it drove our people on the straight path to a bitter end, to an abyss, to the depths of ruin.
It is a pity that there is no one here today who could speak of the suffering endured in the depths of China, Cambodia, or Vietnam, and could describe the price they had to pay for revolution.
One might have thought that the experience of the French revolution would have provided enough of a lesson for the rationalist builders of "the people's happiness" in Russia. But no, the events in Russia were grimmer yet, and incomparably more enormous in scale. Lenin's Communists and International Socialists studiously reenacted on the body of Russia many of the French revolution's cruelest methods – only they possessed a much greater and more systematic level of organizational control than the Jacobins.
We had no Thermidor, but to our spiritual credit we did have our Vendée, in fact more than one. These were the large peasant uprisings: Tambov (1920-21), western Siberia (1921). We know of the following episode: crowds of peasants in handmade shoes, armed with clubs and pitchforks, converged on Tambov, summoned by church bells in the surrounding villages – and were cut down by machine-gun fire. For eleven months the Tambov uprising held out, despite the Communists' effort to crush it with armored trucks, armored trains, and airplanes, as well as by taking families of the rebels hostage. They were even preparing to use poison gas. The Cossacks, too – from the Ural, the Don, the Kuban, the Terek – met Bolshevism with intransigent resistance that finally drowned in the blood of genocide.
And so, in dedicating this memorial to your heroic Vendée, I see double in my mind's eye – for I can also visualize the memorials which will one day rise in Russia, monuments to our Russian resistance against the onslaught of Communism and its atrocities.
We all have lived through the twentieth century, a century of terror, the chilling culmination of that Progress about which so many dreamed in the eighteenth century. And now, I think, more and more citizens of France, with increasing understanding and pride, will remember and value the resistance and the sacrifice of the Vendée.
- translation by Stephan Solzhenitsyn and Ignat Solzhenitsyn
|
|
|
|
| John Vennari - Doubt and Confusion: The New “Canonizations” |
|
Posted by: Stone - 08-25-2025, 11:03 AM - Forum: In Defense of Tradition
- No Replies
|
|
The following is taken from the Autumn 2025 issue of The Recusant, pages 18-26 [slightly adapted and reformatted]:
The following article appeared in the August 2013 Catholic Family News and can be found here: https://catholicfamilynews.com/blog/2014...nizations/
Doubt and Confusion: The New “Canonizations”
By John Vennari
Speaking of the rigorous pre-Vatican II procedure for beatifications, eminent Catholic historian William Thomas Walsh, who died in 1949, wrote the following:
Quote:“No secular court trying a man for his life is more thorough and scrupulous than the Congregation of Rites in seeking to establish whether or not the servant of God practiced virtues both theological and cardinal, and to a heroic degree. If that is established, the advocate of the cause must next prove that his presence in Heaven has been indicated by at least two miracles, while a cardinal who is an expert theologian does all he can to discredit the evidence - hence his popular title of advocatus diaboli, or Devil’s Advocate. If the evidence survives every attempt to destroy it after months, years and sometimes centuries of discussion, he is then beatified, that is, he is declared to be blessed.”
We will later note the new 1983 process of canonization dispenses with the Devil’s Advocate and eliminates the stringent juridical method in favor of an academic approach. The discarding of the “thorough and scrupulous” procedure praised by Mr. Walsh cannot help but introduce doubt to the integrity of the entire new process—especially in the case of “fast-track” canonizations. Mr. Walsh further noted the following about the traditional process:
Quote:“The final stage of canonization, the last of twenty distinct steps, may take even more years or centuries. It must be proved beyond any reasonable doubt that two additional miracles have been performed through the instance of the servant of God, since the beatification. When and if this is done, the Pope issues a bull (a sealed letter) of canonization.”
Sound Orthodoxy
Walsh also stressed the demand for sound orthodoxy regarding anyone considered for canonization:
Quote:“Theologians carefully scrutinize all the available writings - books, letters and so on - of the servant of God whose claim to holiness is being urged, together with all the depositions obtainable from those who spoke with him and knew him well. If nothing contrary to faith or morals is found, a decree is published authorizing further investigation.” [1]
If we begin with the criteria that “nothing contrary to faith or morals” can be found in any legitimate claim to beatification, we read with concern an invocation uttered by one who is now slated for “canonization” [and who was, indeed, “canonized” in 2014]: “Hear our prayers for the intention of the Jewish people, which You continue to cherish according to the Patriarchs.…Be mindful of the new generation, the young and the children: may they persevere in fidelity to You, in what is the exceptional mystery of their vocation.” [2]
Note: the man who offers this prayer does not indicate that Jews should convert to Our Lord’s one true Church for salvation but prays they “persevere in fidelity” to a counterfeit religious system that formally rejects Jesus Christ.
Commenting on The Book of the Dead at Auschwicz, the same man says:
Quote:“Persons whose names are contained in these books were incarcerated, they underwent tortures and were finally deprived of life solely, in most cases, because they belonged to a certain nation rather than another.…In the light of faith, we see the witness of heroic fidelity, which united them to God in eternity, and a seed of peace for future generations.” [3]
While we grieve for anyone who undergoes persecution and torture, our speaker indicates that the Jewish people who suffered at Auschwitz suffered a kind of Jewish martyrdom “which united them to God in eternity,” a concept unheard of in Church history. In days of doctrinal sanity, these radical statements - and there are countless more such utterances from the same man - would have stopped any process of beatification in its tracks and disqualified the candidate permanently.
The Catholic who made these questionable remarks was Pope John Paul II, whom Pope Francis has just approved for “canonization.” [4] In our post-Conciliar period of ecclesiastical sentimentality, the age-old truths of the Faith no longer stand as the central criteria for determining heroic virtue. As Fr. Patrick de La Rocque notes,
Quote:“Far from practicing the theological virtue of Faith to a heroic degree, the late pope [John Paul II] departed from it dangerously in a number of his teachings.” [5]
Nor do we see with John Paul II the virtue of true Charity, since John Paul throughout his entire pontificate refused to remind non-Catholics - Jews included - that they must convert to Christ’s one true Church for salvation. While presenting an entire chapter full of such quotes from the Polish pope, [6] Fr. La Rocque notes:
Quote:“By systematically concealing the [objective] sin of disbelief that is involved in formal adherence to Judaism, so as to praise instead the [alleged] fidelity to God of present-day Judaism…Pope John Paul II was seriously lacking in that delicate but important pastoral charity that consists in denouncing sin so as to allow the conversion of the sinner.” [7]
Yet Fr. La Rocque, or anyone else, who advances reasoned objections to John Paul II’s orthodoxy and objections to the claim that John Paul practiced heroic virtue, is simply ignored. The challenges are neither acknowledged nor answered. “We in the Vatican have decided that John Paul II is a saint, and that is that!” This type of thinking is due primarily to the laxer system of canonization introduced in 1983, as well as to the “new understanding” of what it means to be Catholic that was spawned by the Second Vatican Council, and by its most zealous evangelist, Pope John Paul II.
The New Process
On January 25, 1983, Pope John Paul II issued the Apostolic Constitution Divinus Perfectionis Magister, the long-awaited revision of the beatification and canonization process. Cardinal Suenens, Paul VI, and other progressivists since the Council had encouraged such an update. John Paul brought it to fruition.[8]
The change was part of the alleged goal to make the canonization process “simpler, faster, cheaper, more ‘collegial’ and ultimately more productive.” [9] In the new system, the Devil’s Advocate has been eliminated. The “Promoter of the Faith,” as the Devil’s Advocate has been called, is given the new title “Prelate Theologian.” His main task is to choose the theological consulters and preside at the meetings. Catholic journalist Kenneth L. Woodward spotlights the root difference between the old and new systems:
Quote:“At the core of the reform is a striking paradigm shift: no longer would the Church look to the courtroom as its model for arriving at the truth of a saint’s life; instead, it would employ the academic model of researching and writing a doctoral dissertation.”
Woodward continues,
Quote:“In effect, then, the relator had replaced both the Devil’s Advocate and the defense lawyer. He alone was responsible for establishing martyrdom or heroic virtue, and it was up to the theological and historical consultants to give his work a passing or failing grade.” [10]
Though there may have been some abuses by the lawyers over the centuries, the elimination of lawyers radically transforms the procedure that had been at the heart of the saint-making process for half a millennium: a system deemed necessary by the great master of ascetical and mystical theology, Pope Benedict XIV (1740-58) in his monumental work, The Beatification and Canonization of Saints. [11]
Though many in the post-Conciliar Vatican welcomed John Paul II’s new method, not all were thrilled. Msgr. Luigi Porsi, a 20-year veteran of the Church’s legal system, decried the elimination of the Devil’s Advocate and the accompanying lawyers as part of the beatification process. In an unanswered letter to Pope John Paul II, Porsi complained the reform went too far:
Quote:“There is no longer any room for an adversarial function.” [12]
Thus, a central question arises: if there is a radical change in what was the rigorous procedure for making saints, how can we expect the same secure results? Indeed, the “fast-track” beatifications of the past few decades already introduce doubt to the integrity of the process. The two cases that first come to mind are that of Mother Teresa of Calcutta and Opus Dei Founder Josemaria Escriva de Balaguer.
Mother Teresa: Doctors Insist, No Miracle
Mother Teresa of Calcutta was a popular figure recognized as a “saint” while she was still alive, even though, despite her many good works, she seemed to embrace a theology of indifferentism. She is on record saying,
Quote:“I’ve always said we should help a Hindu become a better Hindu, a Muslim become a better Muslim, a Catholic become a better Catholic.” [13]
In 1976, Mother Teresa organized a 25th anniversary celebration of the Missionaries of Charity. As part of the celebration, she obtained permission from the Archbishop of Calcutta for her and her sisters to pray in some pagan temples - non-Christian houses of worship - each day of the jubilee.
Quote:“Her desire was for each group to hold its own worship service of thanksgiving. Hindus, Sikhs, Zoroastrians, Buddhists, Jains, Jews, Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants and so forth joined her and her sisters to thank the one true God in their own way. She and her sisters prayed at eighteen different worship sites,” including Hindu temples. [14]
The central “miracle” employed to justify Mother Teresa’s 2003 “beatification” was the alleged cure of Monica Besra in September 1998. Besra, from Dangram, 460 miles northeast of Calcutta, claimed to have been cured of a tumor after praying to Mother Teresa while pressing a medallion of Mother Teresa’s image to her side.
Despite this claim, Besra’s doctors insist the cure had nothing miraculous about it, but was the result of strong anti-TB drugs administered over a period of nine months. “This miraculous claim is absolute nonsense and should be condemned by everyone,” said Dr. R. K. Musafi. “She had a medium-sized tumor in her lower abdomen caused by tuberculosis. The drugs she was given eventually reduced the cystic mass and it disappeared after a year’s treatment.”
Likewise, Dr. T. K. Biswas, the first doctor to treat Besra, said, “With all due respect to Mother Teresa, there should not be any talk of a miracle by her. We advised her a prolonged anti-tubercular treatment and she was cured.”
Remember, the Catholic Church has always demanded that a miraculous cure requires rigorous proof beyond any reasonable doubt. The integrity of the Mother Teresa “miracle” is thus seriously compromised. Dr. Manju Murshet, Superintendent of the Balurghat Hospital, complained that the doctorswere under pressure from Church members to declare a miraculous cure:
Quote:“They want us to say Monica Besra’s recovery was a miracle and beyond the comprehension of medical science.” [15]
Besra’s husband Deiku also challenges the claim of a miraculous cure. “It is much ado about nothing,” he said, “My wife was cured by the doctors, not by any miracle.” [16]
Further, Besra’s medical records have disappeared from the hospital. The records containing her physician’s notes, prescriptions, and sonograms were taken by Sister Betta of the Missionaries of Charity. When Time magazine contacted Sister Betta to ask about Besra’s medical records, the only response was “no comment.” [17]
Besra herself now claims she has been abandoned by the Missionary sisters who flocked to her home at the time of the alleged miracle and promised support. “My hut was frequented by nuns of the Missionaries of Charity before the beatification of Mother Teresa,” said Mrs. Besra, squatting on the floor of her thatched and mud house.
Quote:“They made a lot of promises to me and assured me of financial help for my livelihood and my children’s education. After that, they forgot me. I am living in penury. My husband is sick. My children have stopped going to school as I have no money. I have to work in the fields to feed my husband and five children.” [18]
It is not our intention to pass a judgment on these events. We merely wish to observe the following: it is hard to imagine this flurry of questions and abuses occurring under the former rigorous system of canonization. With the Devil’s Advocate now eliminated, abuse and suspicion sully not only Mother Teresa’s case, but the entire new beatification process itself. Once again, regarding the integrity of the new process, we encounter doubt.
Monsignor Escriva
Msgr. Josemaria Escriva de Balaguer, the founder of the controversial Opus Dei organization who died in 1975, was also placed on the fast track. Fr. Peter Scott, the then rector of SSPX’s Holy Cross Seminary in Australia, wrote in November 2002 of what he called Escriva’s “shameful” and “highly questionable canonization.”
Noting that due process was not followed, Father Scott objected that the procedure contained no Devil’s Advocate, and that
Quote: “former members of Opus Dei who personally knew Msgr. Escriva and who attempted to register their objections, were not allowed to express their opinion.”
In a last-ditch effort to provide more objective thinking regarding the hasty canonization, a group of former Opus Dei members wrote an Open Letter to Pope John Paul II in which they said:
Quote:“It is because we believe that the truth has been in large part hidden that we now give our testimony in order to avoid a danger for the Faith brought about by the unjustifiable reverence for the man that you have the intention of canonizing soon.”
They went on to explain that the authors of this Open Letter include:
Quote:“people who have intimately known Msgr. Escriva and who can testify to his arrogance, to his evil character, to his improper seeking of a title (Marquise of Peralta), to his dishonesty, to his indifference towards the poor, to his love of luxury and ostentation, to his lack of compassion, and to his idolatrous devotion towards ‘Opus Dei.’ ” [19]
After having pointed out that the process was uncanonical and dishonest, they had this to say:
Quote:“It [the canonization] will offend God. It will stain the Church forever. It will take away from the saints their special holiness. It will call into question the credibility of all the canonizations made during your Papacy. It will undermine the future authority of the Papacy.”
Father Scott notes that those who wrote the Open Letter were not traditionalists; they were former members of Escriva’s organization,
Quote:“but their supplication was not heard, and the ceremony took place as arranged on October 6, 2002.
“Their letter will certainly turn out to be prophetic, for in time they will be proven to be right in their assessment concerning Escriva as well as concerning Opus Dei that they so aptly compare to the liberal Sillon movement, rightly condemned by St. Pius X in 1910. This kind of last-minute objection is unheard of in the history of the Church. How could Catholics possibly regard such a man as heroic in virtue, as an extraordinary model of Catholic spirituality, as a saint must be? For all the reasons that they give, we cannot possibly consider this ‘canonization’ as a valid, infallible papal pronouncement.” [20]
In a similar vein, Catholic author Kenneth Woodward expressed grave reservations about the procedure regarding Escriva’s rapid “beatification.” When Fr. Richard John Neuhaus criticized this negative assessment, claiming the liberal-leaning Woodward was always unfavorable to Opus Dei, Woodward responded,
Quote:“My writing about Opus Dei has focused almost entirely on the beatification of its founder, not the organization itself. On this point, the only fair-minded conclusion I can reach, given the evidence of the positio itself and interviews with people in Rome involved in the process, is that Opus Dei subverted the canonization process to get its man beatified. In a word, it was a scandal - from the conduct of the tribunals through the writing of the positio to the high-handed treatment of the experts picked to judge the cause. That Newsweek caught Opus Dei officials making claims that were not true is a matter of record. Escriva may have been a saint - who am I to judge? But you could never tell from the way his cause was handled.”[21]
Once again, regarding the integrity of the process, we encounter doubt and more doubt.
Assisi: Catholic Youngsters Can’t Believe It
It seems clear that the real purpose of the upcoming “canonizations” of John XXIII and John Paul II [NB: Once again, they took place in 2014] is to “canonize” Vatican II and its entire liberal orientation of religious liberty, ecumenism, and pan-religious activity. For now, we will content ourselves with another objection to John Paul’s canonization.
At the time of the 2011 “beatification” of John Paul II, I learned of a homeschool online discussion taking place among sixth to ninth graders. A traditional Catholic youth (whom I know) was telling non-traditionalist Catholic acquaintances about Pope John Paul II’s panreligious meeting at Assisi; that John Paul invited Hindus, Jews, Muslims, Jains, and pagans to pray together at the event in October 1986. He also posted photos of the Assisi gathering.
The homeschooled youngsters refused to believe it. They claimed it could not be true; that the John Paul II / Assisi photos were doctored, that no pope - especially one “beatified” by the allegedly conservative Benedict XVI - would perform this act of ecclesiastical treason.
The young traditional Catholic who told his acquaintances about Assisi was accused of making up the account; of trying to defame the name of “Blessed” Pope John Paul II; of inventing a malicious story about a pagan-packed, pan-religious prayer-fest that no pope would countenance.
Here, then, is the striking point: The children knew the Assisi prayer meeting was not Catholic. The children knew it was not a manifestation of heroic virtue. The children knew it was a scandal of colossal dimension, and thus refused to believe John Paul could be guilty of it. To their credit, these youngsters displayed a better sensus Catholicus than today’s Vatican leaders. If Catholic homeschool children, age 13 and under, recognize the outrage of the pan-religious meeting at Assisi, why did not Pope Benedict XVI, who placed Papa Wojtyla on the fast-track to beatification? Why does not Pope Francis, who on July 5 [NB: 2013] approved John Paul II’s “canonization”? Under today’s streamlined procedure, these crucial questions are ignored as irrelevant.
Once again regarding the integrity of the process, we encounter doubt, doubt and more doubt.
Defect in Procedure
There is an apparent quick-fix solution to the modern canonization dilemma: it is to declare that today’s popes are not popes at all; that they have lost their office due to heresy, and that we have not had a true pope since Pius XII. Yet this Sedevacantist reaction, I believe, merely substitutes one collection of thorny questions with others of greater magnitude. A thorough response to the details of our unprecedented situation calls for the genius of a Bellarmine or a Garrigou-Lagrange - genius seemingly lacking in our post-Conciliar period. [22]
To conclude: Fast-track beatifications, where the will to beatify supersedes the worthiness of the proposed candidate, are a dangerous and questionable development. This is what we see with the determined push to rapidly canonize John XXIII and John Paul II. Under the new system that eliminates the Devil’s Advocate, legitimate challenges to the sanctity, orthodoxy, and miraculous intervention of the candidate are left unaddressed. As Vatican postulator Msgr. Luigi Porsi warned, “There is no longer any room for an adversarial function.”
Everything in the Catholic Faith conforms to reason. [23] It seems unreasonable, then, to assume that a drastic loosening in the procedure for canonization would yield the same secure results as the “thorough and scrupulous” method that had been in place for centuries. [24]
Thus, I believe modern beatifications and canonizations are at best doubtful due to defect in procedure, and due to a new criteria for holiness engendered by the new “ecumenical Catholicism” of Vatican II.
Notes:
[1] William Thomas Walsh, The Saints in Action (New York: Hanover, 1961), p. 14 (emphasis added). Though Walsh died in 1949, The Saints in Action was not published until 1961.
[2] Fr. Patrick de La Rocque, FSSPX, Pope John Paul II: Doubts about a Beatification (Kansas City: Angelus Press, 2011), p. 99.
[3] Ibid., p. 10.
[4] “Pope Francis Signs Canonization Decrees for John XXIII and John Paul II,” Vatican Radio, July 5, 2013. Pope Francis “waived” the second necessary miracle for the “canonization” of John XXIII.
[5] La Rocque, Doubts about a Beatification, p. xviii.
[6] See Chapter III (pp. 89-113), “John Paul II and the Virtue of Charity,” Pope John Paul II: Doubts about a Beatification.
[7] Ibid., p. 97.
[8] Some background: In the year 1234, Pope Gregory IX established procedures to investigate the life of a candidate saint and any attributed miracles. In 1588, Pope Sixtus V entrusted the Congregation of Rites (later named the Congregation for the Causes of the Saints) to oversee the entire process. Beginning with Pope Urban VIII in 1634, various Popes have revised and improved the norms and procedures for canonization. Prospero Lambertini, a brilliant canonist who had come from the ranks of the Congregation of Rites to become Pope Benedict XIV, set himself the task of reviewing and clarifying the Church’s practice of making saints. His long and masterful work in five volumes, De Servorum Dei Beatificatione et Beatorum Canonizatione (On the Beatification of the Servants of God and the Canonization of the Blesseds), published between 1734 and 1738, is the touchstone text for the making of saints.
[9] Kenneth L. Woodward, Making Saints: How the Catholic Church Determines Who Becomes a Saint, Who Doesn’t, and Why (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1990), p. 91.
[10] Ibid.
[11] See “Advocatus Diaboli” (Devil’s Advocate), Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. I, Robert Appleton Company, 1907.
[12] Woodward, Making Saints, p. 95.
[13] Mark Zima, Mother Teresa: The Case for the Cause (Is Mother Teresa of Calcutta a Saint?) (Nashville: Cold Tree Press, 2007), p. 29.
[14] Ibid., p. 65.
[15] Quotes from Doctors Musafi, Biswas, and Murshet are taken from Zima’s Mother Teresa: The Case for the Cause, pp. 190-191.
[16] “Mother Teresa ‘miracle’ patient accuses nuns,” Telegraph, Sept. 5, 2007.
[17] “What’s Mother Teresa Got to Do with It?” Time.com, Oct. 14, 2002.
[18] “Mother Teresa ‘miracle’ patient accuses nuns.” It should be noted that Besra still believes she was miraculously cured by Mother Teresa. Her doctors, however, testify that there was nothing miraculous about it.
[19] These complaints about Escriva surface elsewhere, including the book by a former Opus Dei
member, Beyond the Threshold—A Life in Opus Dei: The True, Unfinished Story (Maria del Carmen Tapia, 1998); and were also mentioned by Fr. Gregory Hesse in speeches at our CFN conference, 1998.
[20] Holy Cross Seminary Newsletter, Nov. 1, 2002.
[21] “Fair to Opus Dei?” Letter to the Editor of First Things, No. 61, March 1996, pp. 2-7. [Note: Woodward’s response was written after Escriva’s “beatification” but prior to his “canonization”].
Posted on Opus Dei Awareness Network webpage, updated June 20, 2005.
[22] For example, it is argued that any “infallibility” that deals with canonization would not extend beyond the fact that the soul of the saint is in Heaven. Period. Yet the way in which the Church would judge that the soul is in Heaven is by means of authentic miracles attributed to the “saint’s” intercession. This is why the old system for determining this was, as William Thomas
Walsh noted, “thorough and scrupulous.” Yet if the stringent procedure for determining a miracle is not followed—such as what appears to be the case with the “miracle” attributed to Mother Teresa of Calcutta—how is the “saint’s” presence in Heaven determined beyond the pronouncement of a post-Conciliar pope and his will to canonize a given individual?
[23] Though the mysteries, such as the Blessed Trinity and Transubstantiation, are said to be above reason, but not contrary to it.
[24] Fr. Joseph de Sainte Marie was a capable Carmelite theologian who worked in Rome in the 1970s and ’80s. An expert on Fatima and a loyal son of Pope John Paul II, he helped compose the formula for the Pope’s 1982 Consecration of the World to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Despite this, Father de Saint Marie issued the following warning about the unfortunate present state of the Church and those at its highest levels: “In our time, and it is one of the most obvious signs of the extraordinarily abnormal character of the current state of the Church, it is very often the case that the acts of the Holy See demand of us prudence and discernment.” (Cited from Apropos, Isle of Sky, No. 16, 1994, p. 5.) Fr. Joseph de Saint Marie thus tells in a respectful and gentlemanly manner, that our Holy Church now passes through an extraordinary period of history. He uses the word “abnormal.” Yet in the face of this “extraordinarily abnormal character of the current state of the Church,” he does not advise us to follow the Pope blindly. Aligning himself, rather, with the traditional teaching of Popes and Saints (for example, that of Pope Innocent III, St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Francis de Sales, John of St. Thomas and others) Father de Saint Marie cautions us that “in our time,” we have to be careful. We have to exercise “prudence and discernment” when it comes to the actions of the Holy See itself; that is, even when it comes to papal actions. Further,
he tells us it is “very often the case” that we have to now exercise this caution.
|
|
|
|
| The Recusant - Fr. Robinson: It’s All Valid, Trust Us! |
|
Posted by: Stone - 08-25-2025, 10:10 AM - Forum: The New-Conciliar SSPX
- No Replies
|
|
The following is taken from pages 10-17 of the Autumn 2025 issue of The Recusant [slightly adapted and reformatted]:
Fr. Robinson: It’s All Valid, Trust Us!
Fr. Paul Robinson and his obsequious sidekick are being wheeled-out again…!
Yes that title is an exaggeration. But only a slight one. Like his previous podcast videos, this was a penance to watch, and not just because there are YouTube adverts every few minutes! In this “SSPX Podcast” video, released in July 2025, we are told in the introduction that: “Fr. Paul Robinson responds to objections surrounding the Society of St. Pius X’s decision not to conditionally ordain every priest ordained in the Novus Ordo rite who joins the Society. Why doesn’t the SSPX re-ordain across the board?”
This is already misleading the audience. The real question ought to be why the SSPX has so radically changed its approach to this question: conditional ordination is now the exception whereas it used to be the rule. The real question which needs looking into, then, is what has changed. Why is the SSPX now so reluctant to conditionally ordain Novus Ordo priests?
Fr. Robinson begins by telling his listeners that: “We do believe that the new rites are valid. … And then secondly, we believe that you need to have serious grounds before repeating a non-repeatable sacrament,” which, he says, means, “you have to have a positive doubt.” This is, of course: a straw man. Nobody is claiming that conditional ordinations should be done without a good reason. The issue then is whether there are serious grounds, whether there is a positive doubt and if so, what it might look like. Incredibly, this question is not actually addressed in the entire hour-long video.
“Case by case”
Archbishop Lefebvre, Fr. Robinson admits, wanted to go case-by-case and he claims that that is what the SSPX does today. But the more he says, the more it becomes clear that what the Archbishop meant by “case by case” and what the SSPX does today are quite different. What the SSPX does today, it seems, is to look at the actual ceremony in which the priest was ordained by watching a video of it. That, according to what Fr. Robinson says, is what the present-day SSPX calls looking at an ordination “case by case.”
Quote:“So, you know, when we have a new priest who comes to us, we typically receive the ordination video and then I send that on to [US District Superior] Fr. Fullerton and Bishop Fellay and they make the judgement, they assess what they think.”
He then adds that “The last thing anyone wants us to do is to change our principles” which he says haven’t changed “for the last fifty years” - (God forbid that that should ever happen!) - adding that those who don’t like it are taking a sedevacantist line, before going on to discuss “the nine” sedevacantist priests in 1983 as though that is what this is really all about.
Andrew then raises as an objection the claim that “Archbishop Lefebvre always conditionally re-ordained any priest ordained in the new rite who came to him: another straw man! To this, Fr. Robinson replies: “This is an easy objection to answer because it’s just not true.” You write your own objections and then you find them easy to answer? Fancy that! It is true that the Archbishop, when looking at Novus Ordo priests case-by-case did sometimes come across one whose ordination gave no real grounds for doubt. This is largely because the new rite of priestly ordination, at least in Latin, is so similar to the Traditional Rite (the only difference being “ut” - a word whose absence does not obscure what is taking place) and because in the 1970s and 80s many Novus Ordo ordinations were still being done by men who had become bishops before the changes to the rite of episcopal consecration in 1968.
This was the case with Fr. Glover, one of the examples brought up by Fr. Robinson (the other being a Fr. Stark, presumably an American?). Fr. Glover was an Oratorian ordained in the new rite of [ordination] in Latin, by a bishop consecrated in the Traditional Rite before 1968. A doctor of canon law and member of the Roman Rota, he was a larger than life character whom plenty of people in England still remember.
The same is true of the late Fr. Gregory Hesse who was ordained in the new rite of priestly ordination in 1981 by Archbishop Sabattini, who himself had been consecrated as a bishop before the changes. And there were others too in those days; but clearly, as time progressed, such cases would become less likely. Archbishop Lefebvre himself as good as said that the situation surrounding doubtful conciliar sacraments was becoming worse. What he would have said in 2025, fully fifty-seven years after the changes to the rite of episcopal consecration, is anyone’s guess, but something tells me he wouldn’t be more favourably inclined towards it!
“Invalid” or “Doubtful”…?
Andrew brings up the 1988 letter from Archbishop Lefebvre to a Mr. Wilson, reproduced in these pages a few years ago (Recusant 50, p.16). We will quote it again, not only because Fr. Robinson was unable to deal with it properly, but also because it speaks for itself in all its simplicity. It reads:
Quote:“Very dear Mr. Wilson, thank you very much for your kind letter. I agree with your desire to re-ordain conditionally these priests, and I have done this reordination many times. All sacraments from the modernists bishops or priests are doubtful now. The changes are increasing and their intentions are no more [i.e. no longer] Catholic. We are in the time of great apostasy. […]”
This letter is so clear and straightforward that it ought not to surprise us that Fr. Robinson struggles to deal with it properly at all. In the end, he simply comments:
Quote:“This letter does not prove that Archbishop Lefebvre decided that he was going to universally conditionally ordain all [Novus Ordo] priests.”
Well no, but it does, at the very least, show that his position, and that of the SSPX, was that the “rule” was to conditionally ordain and the “exception,” those who did not require conditional ordination, were a small and ever-shrinking minority. By contrast, the SSPX of today appear to have exactly the opposite approach: to assume that the ordination is valid unless they happen to become aware of an obvious defect in the actual ceremony of priestly ordination itself. At one point Fr. Robinson even admits that:
Quote:“He [i.e. Lefebvre] did consider the new rites doubtful. Not invalid, but doubtful.”
But then, not long after, he confuses the issue by saying:
Quote:“Like, even in that letter, Archbishop Lefebvre says they’re doubtful. So if they’re doubtful, that means some of them are valid, right?”
Like, no, that’s not what it means. “Doubtful” means that although we can’t be sure, there’s a real possibility that it didn’t happen, so the sacrament (or in this case, the priest) must be avoided, and that the way to fix it is for the sacrament (in this case, the ordination) to be done again conditionally, so that one can be certain. Even if, for argument’s sake, some of those “doubtful” holy orders are in fact valid, as Fr. Robinson says, what use is that if you can’t know which ones? But this seems to be lost on Fr. Robinson: his approach throughout the entire interview is to talk terms of: “whether it’s valid or invalid” - which misses the point.
A doubtful sacrament might be valid, yes, but “might be” isn’t enough because when it comes to sacraments one must always take the pars tutior - play it safe, in other words. After the Wilson letter, Andrew brings up an extract from a sermon by the late Bishop Tissier de Mallerais which also ends up being dismissed far too flippantly and unconvincingly by Fr. Robinson. In a sermon given at the 2016 ordinations in Écône, Bishop Tissier said:
Quote:“We cannot, of course, accept this new sabotaged rite of ordination which poses doubts about the validity of many ordinations according to the new rite. … So this new rite of ordination is not Catholic. And so we will of course continue faithfully transmitting the real and valid priesthood – made valid by the traditional rite of ordination.”
Take note: Bishop Tissier clearly says that “many” of these new priests are doubtful. This is, as noted above, in contrast to the new SSPX policy. Fr. Robinson, however, merely remarks:
Quote:“He’s not saying ‘We think its invalid’. … So he’s not really saying anything different here from Archbishop Lefebvre and the position of the SSPX. … Again, this is not the position of the SSPX, that the new rite is invalid.”
Notice the dishonesty, the changing of terms. “That the new rite is invalid”? It doesn’t have to be invalid, it only has to be doubtful! Fr. Robinson continues:
Quote:“If people want to find quotations that will establish that sort of position, they have to find a quote that says the new rites are intrinsically invalid or all the ordinations in the new rites are invalid.”
Nonsense! Firstly, nobody is saying that, at least in our corner. Secondly, it only has to be doubtful, not invalid. In fact, to be alarmed at the SSPX’s new approach one doesn’t even have to regard all new rite ordinations as are doubtful, merely a sufficient number of them and on sufficiently diverse grounds (not just when wacky things happen during the actual ceremony itself) to begin to see conditional ordination as necessary.
“Investigation” means watching a video!
With this in mind, it is concerning to note that during this entire hour-long video the question of the new rite of episcopal consecration is never raised, never even acknowledged, never once even given a passing nod. And yet it ought to be central to the discussion, since only a bishop can ordain a priest and therefore a doubtful bishop can only ordain priests at best only doubtfully.
What other grounds for doubt might there be far beyond what happened on the day during the ceremony itself? Well, for instance: who was the bishop? If he was a man given to telling people that he didn’t believe in mediaeval superstitions, that no magic takes place, it’s all just a community leadership rite of passage (Novus Ordo bishops have been known to say such things!), then might that not affect his intention? What exactly does such a man think he is doing? What if his intention is above suspicion, but he was himself made a bishop using the 1968 new rite of episcopal consecration? Does not the very fact of the new rite of episcopal consecration being substantially different from the Traditional one (the Catholic one!) itself raise questions of its own? How about the priest - were his baptism and confirmation valid?
What about those public cases in recent years where a Novus Ordo priest discovered that his own baptism as a baby had been performed using a do-it-yourself, made-up formula of words? Even modern Rome ordered it to be done again, meaning that the ordination had to be done again too, because priestly ordination is invalid if the candidate is unbaptised. We could go on. But none of these things are even acknowledged, much less discussed by Fr. Robinson and Andrew. Why is that? It is as though they haven’t considered that when it comes to Novus Ordo ordinations there are some issues which aren’t visible on a video of the ceremony. Or perhaps they don’t want us to be aware of that. Fr. Robinson even admits at one point that the SSPX conditionally ordains far fewer ex–Novus Ordo priests today than used to be the case.
His facile justification for this is that in the old days, priests didn’t used to possess a video of their own ordination. Consider the implications: wouldn’t that mean that the SSPX (including Archbishop Lefebvre) conditionally ordained far too many men who ought never to have had it done? And that their only justification for doing so was that, not being able to see a video of the ceremony, they couldn’t be certain that the conciliar ritual had been followed correctly, and nothing more? Later on in the video, Fr. Robinson condemns this approach as “not safe.” As though to underline the fact that watching a video of the ceremony is the only “investigation” being done by today’s SSPX, Fr. Robinson offers Andrew this reflection:
Quote:“If you watch the video of the ordination and you see nothing wrong, then you shouldn’t conditionally ordain. And sometimes I say to people: if you came to me and said, ‘Please re-baptise me, I was baptised in the new rite,’ and you give me a video of your baptism and I look at it and I was like, there’s nothing wrong, then it would obviously be wrong for me to re-baptise you.”
Who can spot the fallacy here? The person performing the baptism does not himself need to have been baptised. Of course, it is fitting for a priest to do it, but it isn’t necessary as such. The sacrament of baptism can be performed validly by a anyone, a Muslim, a Jew or an atheist can do it, as Fr. Robinson himself says later in the video. The sacrament of Holy Orders, on the other hand, requires a bishop who in turn must himself have been validly ordained and consecrated by another real bishop, and so on, which is why the new rite of Episcopal Consecration will always be central to questions of doubtful sacraments. It should trouble everyone a great deal that the modern SSPX’s official spokesman on this question cannot see that obvious distinction, or alternately, that he should be deliberately seeking to hide it from his audience.
Anyone Who Disagrees With Me Is A Sedevacantist!
All of the above is in the first half of the video. The second half includes a lot of talk about other things, such as whether Archbishop Lefebvre was a sedevacantist, Traditional Catholics falling prey to bitterness and hatred and a discussion about Archbishop Thuc and the history of Palmar de Troya. Just how relevant this is in a video entitled: “Why the SSPX Doesn’t Always Conditionally Ordain” is unclear. The fairly obvious explanation is that this is just more guilt-by-association and “what-aboutism” - the same sort of dishonest ploy to which we have seen Fr. Robinson so often resort in his past discussion of “realist science,” in other words.
The attempt has worked on some, it seems. “Very grateful for you all addressing this.” reads one YouTube comment,
Quote:“Seems the gnostic tendency is creeping from the Sedevacanist [sic] to deny the reality of things and thus a continued doubt and uncertainty arises.”
Not everyone has been fooled, however. Another comment reads:
Quote:“Misleading title. It should say, ‘Why the SSPX Rarely Conditionally Ordains after Nearly Reconciling with Rome in 2012’ ”
And another asks:
Quote:“Would the SSPX have Traditional SSPX friendly Novus Ordo Bishops consecrate new Bishops for the SSPX?”
That is almost certainly what is really going on here. The answer, by the way, is surely a resounding “yes” hence the need for the sort of propaganda contained in this video: they are preparing everyone for the day when the SSPX asks permission for new bishops and modernist Rome insists on their own candidates, their own consecrators, if not their own rites.
Doctrine > Validity
There is one final thing which is troubling about this video, and here let us end on a familiar (in these pages at least!) note: validity is one thing, doctrine is another. Yes, validity matters, but doctrine matters more. Priests who come out of the Novus Ordo are often very badly formed. But don’t worry, the SSPX has a programme for their formation, which in the USA is run by…? Yes, Fr. Paul Robinson! That little admission is buried near the start of the interview: blink and you’ll miss it! So at the SSPX in America there will no doubt be ex–Novus Ordo priests not only saying the Traditional Mass with doubtful orders, but also telling people that the earth is billions of years old, that Genesis was “written for a primitive people,” that you should just go ahead and get the latest vaccine, that you must avoid conspiracy theories and be a good little obedient citizen of the New World Order... and more besides.
Lest anyone doubt that valid holy orders is not enough, consider the fact that priests such as Fr. Robinson have holy orders which are beyond any doubt valid, and yet look at the result. The spirit of the New SSPX, so different from what it used to be pervades this entire video. There is a lot of talk, for instance, about how Bishop Fellay, Fr. Fullerton, the SSPX superiors in general have “the grace of state” to decide things - a seriously flawed argument which will be familiar to anyone who lived through the 2012 SSPX crisis. The faithful are told “you’re not trained in this” and that instead of concerning themselves, they “should just pursue peace of soul” – yes, those are exact quotes.
Quote:“It’s just not the position of the faithful to tell us what to do in that case. Because we’re the ones who have to be responsible for that, just as we have to be responsible for what we say in the confessional of what we say from the pulpit and how we guide the faithful. So it’s just, I guess, one of the purposes here is to say: this is our position and you can agree with it or not agree with it but that’s what it is. So if you come to our chapels, it’s just expected that you’re going to accept the priests that we have say public Mass and trust that we’re making good decisions.”
I agree with Fr. Robinson here, although not in a way with which he would be happy. He is right in that you do need to decide whether or not you trust the SSPX as an institution, and that if the answer is “no” then you should stop going there. This interview is yet one more serious piece of evidence (the “x+1”) for why one cannot trust them and why one ought no longer to go there. As he says, if you can’t trust them on the question of Novus Ordo Holy Orders (or evolutionary cosmology, covid vaccines, and so much more besides…), how far can you really trust their advice in the confessional, their sermons, their guidance on retreats, etc? It is a long
established fact, to take just one example, that in America, in Germany and elsewhere, their advice to newly-weds is to avoid having too many children, “It’s not a race!” and so forth. For once Fr. Robinson is quite right: you can’t just pick and choose, you either trust the SSPX or you don’t. As he himself comments,
Quote:“I do understand there’s a lack of trust today. The Church has lost credibility, priests have lost credibility…”
Although spoken about the conciliar church (of course, he himself never actually uses that term because, like the institution which he represents, it is a distinction which he doesn’t recognise), these words apply to the modern SSPX. What he and others ought to be asking is why the SSPX has lost credibility, how that has happened and what the implications might be. Indeed, ironically, if there is one thing which represents in stark relief the difference between the SSPX before and after its Rome-friendly makeover, it is this attitude. The old SSPX used to tell the faithful: You need to read, to study, don’t just take our word for it, read this book, look at this interview, do your homework, see for yourselves!
By contrast, the new SSPX tells them: Who do you think you are? You’re just a layman! Go back to sleep! Leave this to us, we’re the experts, you wouldn’t understand, don’t worry you’re pretty little head about it! Let us close with a comment from Andrew which we think sums it up nicely.
Quote:“You have to trust. There’s something to be said for just accepting that sometimes things are OK. … Sometimes we just have to be able to trust that Christ is watching over the Church still.”
Alright then - *yawn* - I must have just imagined the crisis in the Church, the worst crisis in human history which is still getting worse every day. Goodnight everyone!
Further Reading:
General:
Novus Ordo Bishops - Two Opposing Views:
Novus Ordo Holy Orders: Are they Doubtful and Why?
“All agree that the Sacraments of the New Law, as sensible signs which produce invisible grace, must both signify the grace which they produce and produce the grace which they signify. Now the effects which must be produced and hence also signified by Sacred Ordination to the Diaconate, the Priesthood, and the Episcopacy, namely power and grace, in all the rites of various times and places in the universal Church, are found to be sufficiently signified by the imposition of hands and the words which determine it. […]
Wherefore, after invoking the divine light, We of Our Apostolic Authority and from certain knowledge declare, and as far as may be necessary decree and provide: that the matter, and the only matter, of the Sacred Orders of the Diaconate, the Priesthood, and the Episcopacy is the imposition of hands; and that the form, and the only form, is the words which determine the application of this matter, which univocally signify the sacramental effects – namely the power of Order and the grace of the Holy Spirit – and which are accepted and used by the Church in that sense. ”
- Pius XII, Sacramentum Ordinis, 1947
“But the words which until recently were commonly held by Anglicans to constitute the proper form of priestly ordination namely, “Receive the Holy Ghost,” certainly do not in the least definitely express the sacred Order of Priesthood (sacerdotium) or its grace and power … This form had, indeed, afterwards added to it the words “for the office and work of a priest,” etc.; but this rather shows that the Anglicans themselves perceived that the first form was defective and inadequate.”
- Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, 1896
We all learn in catechism that a sacrament is “an outward sign of inward grace” but what does that mean in practice? It means that the entire ceremony and in particular the essential form - the words which make the sacrament happen and without which no sacrament can take place - must signify outwardly what is invisibly taking place. The form: “I baptise you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost” clearly signifies that a baptism is taking place. On hearing those words, an ignorant pagan, stumbling into a church half-way through a strange ceremony, could, in theory, understand that a baptism is taking place.
The same is true of the sacrament of Holy Orders. The words can be expected to describe, or represent outwardly, what is inwardly taking place in that sacrament. So what, precisely, is taking place at the consecration of a bishop? The priest is being given the episcopacy, that is, the fullness of the priesthood. He may or may not be going to “govern” - that would signify his being appointed to a diocese and given ordinary jurisdiction - but even if he is an auxiliary bishop and has no jurisdiction, he will still exercise the fullness of the ministry of a priest.
A sacramental form is valid because the words clearly signify what is taking place; therefore, to the extent that they fail to signify it, its validity is put in doubt. That is why the Church decided (and Leo XIII repeated the decision) that Anglican holy orders are invalid. The essential form used by the Anglicans for a hundred years had said only “Receive the Holy Ghost” which is a true but inadequate description of what is happening at an ordination: it doesn’t sufficiently signify what is taking place because there is no mention of the priesthood.
Essential Form of Priestly Ordination:
What does this signify? In both cases, a man is being given “the dignity of the priesthood,” an “office which comes from” God and is the next one down from that of a bishop.
Essential Form of Episcopal Consecration:
What does this signify? In the traditional form a “priest” being given “the fullness of thy ministry” which is the definition of a bishop. In the Novus Ordo form a “candidate” is being given “power” which is “the governing spirit” given to the apostles. Is that the same as the fullness of the priesthood, i.e. the episcopacy, or might it conceivably be something distinct?
|
|
|
|
| Not Just for Medieval Monks: Wisdom for Us All from the Rule of St. Benedict |
|
Posted by: Stone - 08-24-2025, 10:03 AM - Forum: Resources Online
- No Replies
|
|
Not Just for Medieval Monks: Wisdom for Us All from the Rule of St. Benedict
Lessons on money, prayer, and silence from one of the founding documents of Western Civilization
Robert Keim from his Substack Via Medievalis | Aug 24, 2025
We are going to establish a school for the service of the Lord. In founding it we hope to introduce nothing harsh or burdensome. —Prologue to the Rule of St. Benedict
It is, in fact, unsurprising that the Rule of St. Benedict should be a masterpiece of wisdom and spiritual counsel for ordinary laymen: it was written for ordinary laymen. In composing his Rule and forming his monastic communities, St. Benedict was not establishing a clerical institution, nor did he assume that his monks would be occupied with clerical duties. Indeed, one scholar affirmed that his Rule “is somewhat distrustful of priests,” and I must admit that Chapter 60 does give this impression:
Quote:If anyone of the priestly order should ask to be received into the monastery, permission shall not be granted him too readily. If he is quite persistent in his request, let him know that he will have to observe the whole discipline of the Rule, and that nothing will be relaxed for him….
It shall be granted him, however, to stand next after the Abbot and to give blessings or offer Mass, but only by order of the Abbot. Without such order let him not presume to do anything….
If any clerics … wish to join the monastery, let them be placed in a middle rank, and only if they promise observance of the Rule and their own stability.
Benedict’s project was not so much clerical as evangelical: he sought to create a structure in which laymen of all conditions could conform their lives to the ideals of the Gospel. In the prologue to the Rule he makes it clear that his words were written for—well, for you.
Quote:To you, therefore, my words are now addressed, whoever you may be, who are renouncing your own will to do battle under the Lord Christ, the true King.
We need not lament the fact that the Benedictines developed into a clerical order; the marriage of monastic and priestly labors has been a happy one. And we should rejoice that many monks have attained extraordinary sanctity and embraced mortifications that make worldly people like me break out in a cold sweat and start searching frantically for excuses. However, it is right to be dismayed if Benedictine life is perceived as utterly remote from the attitudes and practices of ordinary lay Christians. The Rule, as the old Catholic Encyclopedia points out, “is meant for every class of mind and every degree of learning.” It is not a manual of deathly penance and lofty mysticism for people on the verge of sainthood; rather, “it organizes and directs a complete life which is adapted for simple folk and for sinners.” Benedict himself had characteristically modest expectations, expressed as usual in the language of a kindly father (the italics are mine):
Quote:We have written this Rule that by observing it in monasteries we may show that we have attained some degree of virtue or the beginning of conversion…. Whoever you are, therefore, who are hastening to the heavenly homeland, fulfill with the help of Christ this most elementary Rule.
![[Image: https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.ama...3x612.jpeg]](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/%24s_!NUyn!,w_1456,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fce3bb30d-b49b-42c3-a46c-942c3648f77f_453x612.jpeg)
The images in this post are from an eleventh-century manuscript containing the Rule of St. Benedict.
It is said that monks take vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience. Benedictines, however, do not take a vow of poverty. Rather, they vow stability, obedience, and fidelity to the monastic life as envisioned in the Rule. This is not to say that Benedictine monks have the option of being personally wealthy. Benedict strictly forbade private ownership, which the Rule calls a “most wicked vice.”
Quote:This vice especially is to be cut out of the monastery by the roots. Let no one presume to give or receive anything without the Abbot’s leave, or to have anything as his own…. Let all things be common to all, as it is written, and let no one say or assume that anything is his own.
If anyone is caught indulging in this most wicked vice, let him be admonished once and a second time. If he fails to amend, let him undergo punishment.
Thus, extreme personal poverty, though not a separate vow, is implied in fidelity to the Rule. My point here is that the Benedictine life entails poverty as one element within the context of the Rule, and the context of the Rule is this: that possessions held in common are not forbidden or even discouraged, and that monks will not be required to beg for alms or endure severe deprivation. In fact, the Benedictine monastery, as a community, should be wealthy enough to give alms and to build up infrastructure for the good of the surrounding society. And why would it not be? A spiritual family of able-bodied, highly educated men who live simply, shun self-indulgence, have no children to support, and esteem manual labor as a high road to heaven—this is a perfect recipe for material abundance. And material abundance is exactly what medieval monasteries acquired.
The relationship between sincere Christians and material wealth has long been a vexed one. The crux of the matter was captured memorably by Anna Sewell in the novel Black Beauty:
Quote:“Look here, mates,” said Jerry; “the gentleman offered me half a crown extra, but I didn’t take it; ’twas quite pay enough for me to see how glad he was to catch that train….
“Well,” said Larry, “you’ll never be a rich man.”
“Most likely not,” said Jerry…. “I have heard the commandments read a great many times and I never noticed that any of them said, ‘Thou shalt be rich’; and there are a good many curious things said in the New Testament about rich men that I think would make me feel rather queer if I was one of them.”
(Oh, to live in the days when “queer” was just a normal word that meant “strange” and could be used freely without stirring up a dust storm of distracting associations.)
Though many articles and several books could be written on how exactly a Christian family should pursue the ideals of evangelical poverty, I think that much insight and guidance can be gained simply by meditating upon the traditional Benedictine relationship with wealth. Material wealth is eminently good—that is, something to be accepted, appreciated, even actively pursued—when it builds up the community in a wholesome, balanced, and enduring way. Arable land, livestock, tools, granaries, flour mills, workshops, bridges, medicinal gardens, schools, libraries, scriptoria, shrines, oratories: these are things that bring collective stability and health; that make life more well-ordered and less physically burdensome; that improve the mind and soul through prayer, intellectual growth, and moral refinement. Such things are perfectly compatible with the Rule’s rejection of private ownership, and furthermore, they can coexist peacefully with personal poverty—even with radical personal poverty.
If this model is not directly applicable to family life, which faces the complexities of raising children and coping with secular society, it nonetheless can be applied far more than it usually is. Personal poverty—as a mentality or a spiritual disposition, yes, but also as a concrete, lived reality—is a beautiful, sanctifying, and liberating practice that need not prevent parents and families from building the holistic, socially productive wealth that medieval monasteries acquired. I admit that the thrilling ideal of the monk in his bare stone cell, the former wearing his one habit and the latter adorned by one crucifix, is beyond what familial normalcy would allow. But I think that many Christian families are much farther from this ideal than they ought to be—and I say this as one who, earlier in my life, pushed personal poverty close to its modern limits, and who therefore has tasted its sweetness. Though the monastic spirit has dissipated somewhat as I walk the path to which I am apparently called, I fondly remember the days when I had more land, more livestock, two barns, no mortgage, and only one computer.
However much we might associate monks with long hours of meditative prayer, their bodies cloaked in darkness as their minds sink into the mystical depths of the unseen realm, the Rule of St. Benedict gives direct, explicit instructions only for vocal public prayer. This public prayer was to consist of Psalms, Canticles, passages of Scripture, and readings from the Fathers, and it was envisioned as the central experience, principal labor, and all-encompassing inspiration for those who embraced the monastic life. That the laity of the postmedieval Church have diverged markedly from the paradigm of prayer found in the Rule is, for me, a source of great confusion and dismay. I see no justification for this, and the following observation, again from the old Catholic Encyclopedia, makes the situation appear even more anomalous:
Quote:By ordering the public recitation and singing of the Psalter, St. Benedict was not putting upon his monks a distinctly clerical obligation. The Psalter was the common form of prayer of all Christians.
Even if one were somehow convinced that the Rule’s basic model of prayer is inappropriate for the laity, the argument would flounder—as I said above, the Rule was written for laymen, and Benedict instructed his monks to pray the Psalter because that is precisely what Christians in general, clerical or lay, were already doing.
Do modern families need to pray the entire Psalter every week, as the Rule insists? No. The details can be adapted according to circumstance, and Benedict himself encouraged flexibility with regard to elements that he considered negotiable: “If this distribution of the Psalms is displeasing to anyone, he should arrange them otherwise, in whatever way he considers better.” He also said, and I find this particularly illuminating, that communal prayer should be “very brief,” or in a more literal translation, “altogether abbreviated” (“in conventu tamen omnino brevietur oratio”). Now when it comes to prayer, “brief” certainly means different things for different people, but the underlying principle is clear: for those who are novices in the spiritual life—and that includes me, maybe you, virtually all children or teenagers, and the men for whom Benedict wrote the Rule—lengthy periods of uninterrupted prayer are unwise. They can lead to roving minds, indolence, annoyance, resentment, maybe even spiritual burnout.
The Rule favors a system in which short sessions of formal, poetic prayer occur regularly from morning through night, such that the mind is frequently elevated and the soul frequently refreshed as we navigate the temptations, duties, and worldly labors of the day. If you have children and say the Rosary (perhaps with extra prayers tacked onto the beginning and end) every night, please be careful: if your kids seem to be in la-la land by the end of it, or if they express displeasure, apathy, grudging compliance, etc. through words, groans, or body language, I think you have a problem that St. Benedict has foreseen, and that his Rule can help you solve.
|
|
|
|
| The Recusant #64 - Autumn 2025 |
|
Posted by: Stone - 08-23-2025, 03:28 PM - Forum: The Recusant
- Replies (6)
|
|
Contents
• Fake Resistance Lavender Mafia (Catholic Trumpet)
• Mary Cause of Our Joy, Summer 2025 (Fr Hewko)
• Fr Paul Robinson: ‘It’s all valid! Trust us!’ (Analysis)
• “Doubt and Confusion: the New ‘Canonizations’” (John Vennari)
• Is John Henry Newman a Saint and Doctor of the Church?
Part 1: Modern “Canonisations”
Part 2: Problems with Newman
|
|
|
|
| SSPX's 2025 Pilgrimage to Rome |
|
Posted by: Stone - 08-23-2025, 07:37 AM - Forum: The New-Conciliar SSPX
- Replies (1)
|
|
There has been much ado about the SSPX being allowed to have a large pilgrimage in Rome and allowed to say Mass in several churches. A few sobering thoughts in this and the following post:
Modernist Rome 2025: NeoSSPX Pilgrimage and +ABL Dire Warning
The Catholic Trumpet [slightly reformatted and adapted] | August 22, 2025
From August 19–21, 2025, nearly 8,000 Neo-SSPX pilgrims entered Rome’s basilicas during the Holy Year. Was this to convert modernist Rome, demand the Consecration of Russia, or reject the betrayal of 2012? No. It was submission—the incense of Tradition offered in the pantheon of apostasy.
This video calls true resistance: never compromise, never remain silent, fight, pray the Rosary, and ask the Immaculate Heart of Mary to crush this counterfeit church of Vatican II.
Listen as +Archbishop Lefebvre makes clear what so many refuse to see: the conciliar church is not the Catholic Church.
*This video features an excerpt of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre speaking on the crisis of the Church and the distinction between the true Catholic Church and the conciliar, post-Vatican II Church. Original clip:
The battle for souls demands courage. No compromise. No silence.
|
|
|
|
|
![[Image: Ordination.png]](https://i.postimg.cc/ZnSXZnkB/Ordination.png)
![[Image: Episcopal.png]](https://i.postimg.cc/nh2mGPV6/Episcopal.png)
![[Image: https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.ama...2x491.jpeg]](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/%24s_!j9sy!,w_1456,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F38bdd915-0cdc-4c9f-992b-49282a3d05fe_612x491.jpeg)
![[Image: https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.ama...5x612.jpeg]](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/%24s_!P5G-!,w_1456,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F0d161166-213e-4590-a500-1c5fe4783cb8_565x612.jpeg)
![[Image: https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.ama...2x499.jpeg]](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/%24s_!JPaH!,w_1456,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fabfed6c9-ed66-43dc-81e7-b50a543094bd_612x499.jpeg)
![[Image: map-london-charterhouse-big-copia.jpg?w=588]](https://silenciocartujano.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/map-london-charterhouse-big-copia.jpg?w=588)
![[Image: Capture.png]](https://i.postimg.cc/4yNR863f/Capture.png)
