| Welcome, Guest |
You have to register before you can post on our site.
|
| Forum Statistics |
» Members: 306
» Latest member: rbcj8941
» Forum threads: 7,075
» Forum posts: 13,115
Full Statistics
|
| Online Users |
There are currently 338 online users.
» 0 Member(s) | 335 Guest(s)
Applebot, Bing, Google
|
| Latest Threads |
The Catholic Trumpet: Wit...
Forum: The Catholic Trumpet
Last Post: Stone
Today, 09:03 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 50
|
Apologia pro Marcel Lefeb...
Forum: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
Last Post: Stone
Today, 08:51 AM
» Replies: 21
» Views: 5,394
|
Louis Veuillot: The Liber...
Forum: Uncompromising Fighters for the Faith
Last Post: Stone
Today, 08:28 AM
» Replies: 28
» Views: 5,027
|
Vatican announces new vot...
Forum: New Rite Sacraments
Last Post: Stone
Today, 08:24 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 35
|
Fr. Ruiz Sermons: Saints ...
Forum: Fr. Ruiz's Sermons June 2025
Last Post: Deus Vult
Yesterday, 01:28 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 57
|
Fundraiser For The Orator...
Forum: Rev. Father David Hewko
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 08:25 AM
» Replies: 2
» Views: 471
|
Third Sunday after Pentec...
Forum: Pentecost
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 08:19 AM
» Replies: 5
» Views: 14,916
|
June 29th - Feast of Sts....
Forum: June
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 08:17 AM
» Replies: 4
» Views: 10,993
|
England’s First Martyr St...
Forum: The Saints
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 08:13 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 51
|
Please pray for Mr. Means
Forum: Appeals for Prayer
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 06:16 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 93
|
|
|
| Leo XIV As Bishop: "Develop All International Institutions for Agenda 2030" |
|
Posted by: Stone - 05-30-2025, 06:06 AM - Forum: Pope Leo XIV
- No Replies
|
 |
Leo XIV As Bishop: "Develop All International Institutions for Agenda 2030"
![[Image: t9zw5i96hpu57liwy0u3pgu8r2tn6oxtgissmfn....57&webp=on]](https://seedus6826.gloriatv.net/storage1/t9zw5i96hpu57liwy0u3pgu8r2tn6oxtgissmfn.webp?secure=tFdNWepDXUyJ2knGUD--lQ&expires=1748681257&webp=on)
gloria.tv | May 30, 2025
On 15 October 2015, Bishop Robert Prevost, the Grand Chancellor of the Catholic University Santo Toribio de Mogrovejo (USAT) in Chiclayo, Peru, supported the anti-Catholic UN’s Sustainable Development Goals in a speech.
He touched on topics such as universal unity, 'integral sustainable development', achieving the goals by 2030, social inclusion, the 'common home', and other dubious concepts.
From the outset, the Sustainable Development Goals/Agenda 2030 incorporated contraception, abortion, homosexual ideology, climate hysteria, and state tyranny.
Here are some horrific excerpts from the speech, even if they are slightly hidden in clerical jargon:
- "In light of Pope Francis' recent address to the United Nations Assembly and the pronouncement of this body on the Sustainable Development Goals, adopted in the ‘2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development’, it is worthwhile to rethink and evaluate the personal and institutional objectives of this university, but also of all public and private bodies and institutions worldwide."
- "USAT, through its various professional careers, will have the special and Christian mission of adapting to a more social vision that sets the tone in the country. This will be our contribution to achieve the 2030 goals."
- "Communicators, doctors, nurses, engineers, lawyers, businessmen, educators, ALL of us, will contribute with a policy of transversal social responsibility in all our 'being', to train professionals capable of establishing social and economic inclusion as the guiding axis of the new Sustainable Development Goals; as well as including the conservation of biodiversity and the adoption of commitments to face climate change as key instruments of sustainable development."
- "This is a clear demonstration of our commitment to join the new strategy that will govern national development programs for the next 15 years."
- The university USAT wants "to obediently fulfill our mission and contribute to the Sustainable Development Goals”: “This internalization must be assumed and shared by ALL."
|
|
|
| Petition re: Conditional Ordination of Priests Transferred from the Novus Ordo |
|
Posted by: Stone - 05-29-2025, 09:26 AM - Forum: The New-Conciliar SSPX
- No Replies
|
|
The following is a petition started by a 'Vlad Sarto' on the change.org website regarding the SSPX's decision to nearly cease to conditionally reordain priests joining from the Novus Ordo. The petition is well written and does an excellent job summarizing how most traditional Catholics think and feel.
Conditional Ordination of Priests Transferred from the Novus Ordo
Decision Maker: SSPX
The Issue
We the faithful, the same faithful who financially support the operations of the SSPX and actually provide the canonical justification for the operation of all your clergy, clergy who have no jurisdiction other than with regard to what's necessary to meet the grave spiritual needs of the faithful who request the Sacraments from them, as supplied by the Church only for these emergency purposes, we in turn therefore have a right to insist upon and demand that the SSPX send us valid priests, priests who do not labor under the positive doubt created by the altered Conciliar Rites for the Ordination [sic] of Priests and the Consecration [sic] of Bishops. Even if there (may seem to be) less doubt regarding the Rite of Ordination, few priests remain who were not "ordained" in this New Rite by putative bishops who in turn had been "consecrated" in the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration.
Principle
While the SSPX have made public statements and videos arguing in favor of the validity of these New Rites, barring some defect in the intention of the one confecting [or attempting to confect] these Sacraments, and you can continue to argue for hours until turning blue in the face, the simple fact remains that the BURDEN OF PROOF rests squarely with those maintaining the validity of the Sacraments, since any Sacraments that labor under positive doubt must be treated in the practical order for all intents and purposes as if they are invalid ... except that the faithful may avail themselves of these in danger of death when no alternative can be found. In other words, we are not required to prove them to be invalid, but it is, rather, you who are required to prove that there does not so much as exist a reasonable positive doubt ... and that's a burden you are in no position to meet, having neither irrefutable arguments nor the authority to impose your conclusions on consciences.
By way of basic definition, it is a simple matter to establish positive doubt. Fundamentally, if you can point to something concrete, as opposed to the "what if" types of doubts, that suffices to establish POSITIVE vs. "negative" doubt. Examples of negative doubt would include scenarios like: "I could not hear Father pronounce the words of absolution during Confession. What if he forgot? What if he got them wrong?" Those "what if" doubts are negative doubts. But when the faithful can point to: "Look, they changed what Pope Pius XII had authoritatively declared to be the essential form of the Sacraments." ... that alone suffices to constitute positive doubt. At times, SSPX have added the novel qualifier of insisting that there must be "serious" positive doubt, where you can then unilaterally decide when this arbitrary and rather subjective threshold for "seriousness" has been met, thereby serving as your own referee, as it were, in the debate.
Now, the SSPX have attempted to gaslight the faithful who consider these Orders to labor under positive doubt as [mostly] "sedevacantists", a charge that is at once untrue as it is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Now, normally, when a legitimate Pope has promulgated Sacraments, that would suffice to ensure their validity, due to the infallibility of the Church's Universal Discipline ... except for the fact that the SSPX have effectively denied this prerogative of legitimate papal authority and have made this denial the veritable cornerstone for their entire theological position regarding the crisis ... and of course this simply kicks the can down the road by begging the question that the V2 papal claimants are in fact legitimate popes.
I will briefly discuss here the false and disingenuous arguments being made by the SSPX in their attempts to assure the faithful that the Sacraments do not labor under any positive doubt, and then touch upon the motivations for these false arguments.
Ordination to the Priesthood. Ah, look, they only changed ONE "two-letter" word in Latin. I had been under the impression that the SSPX seminaries taught Latin, and that this particular single word "ut" would have caused much consternation among those struggling with the language as it generally leads to the challenge of understanding the subjunctive mood, and I had also been under the impression that your seminaries inculcated the principles of Aristotelian logic and ontology, the chief fundamentals of which rest on the notion of causes. If you but dust off your Latin dictionary and look up the word, it basically means "so that", where what comes after it is the effect of what comes before it. Interestingly, when Pope Pius XII authoritatively taught about the essential form of Holy Orders, he stated that of the essence are invocation of the Holy Ghost and the unequivocal designation of the Sacramental EFFECT, you know, the "effect" that usually comes after that pesky little two-letter word. In the old Rite, you have an invocation of the Holy Ghost, being invoked clearly IN ORDER TO [ut] make the ordinand into a priest. In the new, you have an invocation of the Holy Ghost. Stop. That's then followed by a prayer, unrelated?, asking that the ordinand be made a priest [by God?]. There's no linking of the Holy Ghost by that little two-letter word to the EFFECT. So why is the Holy Ghost being invoked here? Not sure. To give the man the proper dispositions to become a priest, or the graces necessary to be a good priest? Evidently the infiltrators who have been out to wreck the Church knew their Latin and the teaching of Pope Pius XII better than the SSPX do.
That raises another point. There's overwhelming evidence that bad actors had infiltrated the Church with the intent upon doing as much damage as they could. Why would the "good-willed" modernizers have bothered with that little two-letter word you claim to be meaningless? I guess removing it makes the sentence sound much more modern, and relevant to the laity, right? No, the fact that there's no good reason other than destruction to explain its removal also suggests that this may have been a deliberate attempt to invalidate the Sacrament where "an enemy hath done this".
Then there's the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration [sic]. It's radically different, and the best that various apologists have manage to do is to liken it to some Eastern Rite ceremony ... except that they made the mistake of likening it to an Eastern Rite ceremony for the installation of a patriarch, who was already presumed to be a bishop, rather than as a Rite to confer the Holy Order of Episcopacy upon someone who had theretofore lacked it.
Now, SSPX refer to other mentions of the words "priest" or "bishop" in the respective Rites outside the essential form [as indicated by Paul VI Montini], but these occur AFTER the Sacrament had allegedly been conferred, and do not indicate an action of creating a priest or bishop, but a mere assertion after the fact of having done so, one that's completely inadequate to express the form denoting the sacred action of a Sacrament. So a priest might butcher the essential form of Holy Mass, but then because 10 minutes later you say, "Yep, we consecrated this bread.", that makes it all better, right? So, then, when did the Sacrament actually get confected? Did the Holy Ghost scan forward to detect the future declaration to disambiguate this form? If the priest dropped dead before he added the "Yep, we consecrated this bread.", would there be a valid Sacrament? This reminds me of the controversy over the Eastern Rite epiklesis.
Finally, Pope Leo XIII taught regarding Anglican Orders that what was at issue was not the intention of the celebrant (which the Church presumes, unable to read the internal forum) but the intention of the Rite, where even AFTER the Anglicans had desperately tried to "fix" the form, the Holy Father taught that it was too little and too late, since the intention of the Rite to remove all that was distinctly Catholic in the Rite (sound familiar?) established an objective intention of THE RITE ITSELF (independent of the internal intention of the celebrant). But SSPX have historically INVERTED the emphasis, attempting to claim that they "investigate" the internal forum "intention" of the celebrant that even the Church does not presume to know ... de internis Ecclesia non judicat ... as taught by Pope Leo XIII.
All this suffices to CLEARLY establish OBJECTIVE POSITIVE DOUBT, a much lower threshold than proving the contrary beyond any reasonable doubt, and the faithful have a right not to be subjected to dubious Sacraments. You could keep arguing for hours, but, understand that YOU HAVE NO AUTHORITY to impose YOUR CONCLUSIONS (arrived at by your own private judgment) upon the consciences of the faithful. SSPX have historically claimed that they have the right to RESIST the Vicar of Christ on earth TO HIS FACE, but then gaslight the faithful who don't agree with THEM as proud and disobedient. You reserve the right to disobey the Vicar of Christ, but how DARE the faithful disobey you. Isn't that so? That's to arrogate unto yourselves a greater authority than you do to the Vicar of Christ. So, that expression, which used to be applied to the authority of the Pope in Rome has been re-formulated by SSPX as if it were ... Fellay [aut Pagliarani] dixit; res clausa est.
PETITION / DEMAND
With this petition, therefore, WE HEREBY RESIST YOU TO YOUR FACE and assert that we reject your sending of putative "priests" ordained [sic] in the New Rites by "bishops" consecrated [sic] in the New Rite and demand that you conditionally ordain them before sending them into our chapels.
FINAL ADMONITION
You are also hereby put on notice that you are playing with fire here, and by that we mean the rather literal HELLFIRE, since I hope you're sure enough of your "arguments", such as they are, that you're willing to risk your own eternal salvation ... since you will be in fact be held liable to the judgment of hellfire if you subject the faithful to invalid Sacraments, where souls may be lost as a result ... and let us here be blunt about the motive ... so as not to compromise your ability to continue playing "footsie" with the Modernist occupiers of the Holy Catholic Church. Well, we can't very well expect to have any chance of "regularization" from Rome if we question the validity of their Sacraments, so we're going to engage in intellectual dishonestly to shut down all discussion. If we don't get regularized, how on earth are we going to pay for that 50-million-dollar-and-counting seminary built on the backs of the faithful often working more than one job to make ends meet for their large families when the slight overcrowding problem artificially created by the "Humanities Year" could have been rectified for one or two million dollars through the addition of an extra wing or building on the ample grounds in Winona? What's going to happen to our priests and their livelihood as they sip on hundred-dollar bottles of wine (financed by the faithful), living in groups at priories with a half dozen or so priests while many even-large chapels get a Mass on Sunday and an occasional First Friday ... and the faithful hope that they can hold off dying and needing the Last Sacraments until the priest shows up for the weekend? What'll happen if there's nowhere to shuffle credibly-accused predators? I mean, where else do we send a priest who admitted to predations against young men but to quarters adjacent to the dormitory of a boys' boarding school, from which had ready access to them for additional predations? I do wonder where sentiments of anti-clericalism may have originated. Or have the same enemies who infiltrated the Church at large to begin with planted their men in the ranks of the SSPX ... as such decisions are inexplicable (especially after they should have learned this lesson from the Novus Ordo that the coverups are worse than the crimes) other than as deliberate attempts to harm Traditional Catholicism and give us a bad name. Well, not in our name!
|
|
|
|
| Macron endorses Freemasonry’s anti-Christian ideology as guide for French society |
|
Posted by: Stone - 05-28-2025, 08:42 AM - Forum: Global News
- No Replies
|
|
Macron endorses Freemasonry’s anti-Christian ideology as guide for French society
French president calls Freemasonry a ‘spiritual family’ and thanks it for shaping euthanasia policy,
embracing a worldview long condemned by the Catholic Church.
![[Image: GettyImages-2214761449-e1748356344627-810x500.jpg]](https://www.lifesitenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/GettyImages-2214761449-e1748356344627-810x500.jpg)
TIRANA, ALBANIA - MAY 16: French President Emmanuel Macron arrives at the 6th European Political Community summit
on May 16, 2025 at Skanderbeg Square in Tirana, Albania
Armando Babani / Getty Images
May 27, 2025
(LifeSiteNews) –– French President Emmanuel Macron has publicly embraced Freemasonry’s worldview, declaring its anti-Christian vision of man to be foundational to the Republic—and praising it for its involvement in recent euthanasia legislation.
“Freemasons are taking up this fundamental debate regarding the end of life,” Macron said during a May 5 visit to the Grande Loge de France. “Be proud of it.”
Macron praised the Lodge’s framing of end of life issues not as “good on one side and evil on the other,” but as “simply a choice to be made in concrete situations.”
The president went beyond policy, endorsing what some have called the cult of man that underlies Masonry and his new law:
Quote:‘That Freemasons should have this ambition to make man the measure of the world, the free actor of his own life, from birth to death, should come as no surprise,’ he said. ‘I welcome it.’
‘The Republic is more than at home in Freemasonry, it is in its heart and soul,’ he said, and affirmed that ‘Freemasonry is at the forefront of the crucial battle we must fight if we want to mold the times for the good of humanity.’
The Catholic Church has always been the foremost critic of Freemasonry, condemning its rejection of divine law, religious truth, and the supernatural order.
In Humanum Genus, Pope Leo XIII warned that Freemasonry aims at “the utter overthrow of the whole religious and political order of the world which the Christian teaching has produced,” replacing it with a system “drawn from mere naturalism.”
Masonry was also condemned by many other popes, and membership of such organizations carries penalties including automatic excommunication.
Macron’s speech praised this ideology of naturalism and humanism, calling Freemasonry a guardian of France’s “project of revolution and emancipation.” He dismissed its critics as “conspiracy theorists and obscurantists, who attribute to it an influence that actually does it credit” – even as he confirmed the Masons’ active role in shaping national policy.
|
|
|
|
| Durandus on the Minor Litanies |
|
Posted by: Stone - 05-27-2025, 08:20 AM - Forum: Church Doctrine & Teaching
- Replies (1)
|
|
Durandus on the Minor Litanies
Gregory DiPippo/NLM | May 26, 2025
The following excerpts are taken from book VI, chapter 102 of William Durandus’ treatise on the Divine Offices.
On the three days before the feast of the Lord’s Ascension, the Rogations, which are also called the Litanies: the Greek word “litania” in Latin is “supplication”, or “rogation” (from ‘rogare – to ask’), on which the Holy Church asks God… to destroy the counsel of those who wish to live outside Her peace. At the same time, we also beseech God that He may defend us from a sudden death, and from every infirmity, and we ask the Saints, that they may intercede for us before God. …
![[Image: 01+St+Gregory.jpg]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj-bpt06C7T2qJ7TNNEjTMuXqSmKfZK52mJZlAaNolUMhzo0INISQeaz0a7WgFqOtJAB6r6VugWtnG5S91tnyLxdOFHTDDq0j4mEoOYqkSfQTQSxjXUUPjBtoDFplwyo0rcSXiz/s400-rw/01+St+Gregory.jpg)
The Procession of St Gregory the Great, by an anonymous Sienese painter of the mid-16th century. The traditional story recounts that when the procession described below reached the Mausoleum of Hadrian, which is fairly close to St Peter’s Basilica, an angel appeared over it with a drawn sword in his hand, which he then sheathed, symbolizing the end of the plague as in 2 Samuel 24.
Now the Litanies are two, the Greater and the Lesser. The Greater is on the feast of the blessed Mark, and was created by the blessed Gregory (the Great), because of a plague, which caused a swelling of the groin. Paul, a monk of Monte Cassino, the author of “The History of the Lombards”, wrote the story of its institution, saying that in the time of Pope Pelagius (II, 579-90) there was so great a flood in Italy, that the waters rose as high as the upper windows of the temple of Nero in Rome … Then there came forth up the Tiber a multitude of serpents, and one very large dragon among them, whose breath corrupted the air; from this came the plague in the groin, from which men died suddenly all over the place. When nearly the whole population of Rome had been destroyed, Pelagius declared a fast and procession for all, but during it, he himself died, along with seventy others. Gregory I, who is also called the Great, took his place, and commanded that this Litany be observed throughout the world; it is therefore called the Gregorian or Roman Litany. It is also called “Black Crosses”, since, as a sign of mourning for the death of so many men, and as a sign of penance, people wear black clothing, and the crosses and altars are veiled in black.
![[Image: 02+Echternach+Sacramentary.jpeg]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhhd2vjudQWTqHazx65dkR1xSjiDcApAK_YZUgXVBXvubEQ99LDRLwYJwxMG58XjliW6T-4A0G6_wpJNcX4mgvCyUyMe1SAq_chhd1eo-o4MVTe0Y65GNepbhyphenhyphennfds-4XQcU4Pm/s400-rw/02+Echternach+Sacramentary.jpeg)
A folio of the Echternach Sacramentary, 895AD, with the stational prayers for the Greater Litanies as they were done in Rome; the stations are at the church of San Lorenzo in Lucina, St Valentine (very far up the Tiber), “ ad Pontem Olbi”, a corruption of “ ad Pontem Milvium – at the Milvian bridge”, “at the Cross”, which was a station set up along the way, and two “ in the atrium” of St Peter’s Basilica. (Bibliothèque nationale de France. Département des Manuscrits. Latin 9433; folio 76r.)
The Lesser Litanies, which are also called Rogations and processions, take place on the three days before the Ascension, … they were created in Vienne by the blessed Mamertus, bishop of that city. Because of a plague of wolves and other wild beasts, who were ferociously killing men in Gaul, and because of the dangerous earthquakes which were frequently taking place there, he enjoined a fast of three days on the people, and instituted the Litanies. But when the danger had passed, the fast became a custom of annual observance … This latter is called the Lesser Litany, because it was instituted by a lesser person, that is, by a simple bishop, and in a less important place, Vienne, while the Greater (Litany) is so called because it was instituted in a more important place, namely, Rome, and by a greater person, namely, Gregory the Great, and because of a great and very serious plague. However, the Lesser Litany is older, since it was instituted when Zeno was Emperor (ca. 470 AD), and the Greater in the time of the Emperor Maurice (582-602)
Litanies are also held for many other reasons, wherefore Pope Liberius established that a litany should be held for war, famine, pestilence, and other imminent adversities of this sort, so that we may escape from them by supplications, prayers and fasts. Therefore, because in this time of the year especially wars are wont to break out, and the fruits of the earth, which are still in bud or flower, can easily be corrupted in many different ways, the litanies are held, so that we may ask God to turn these things away from us, and to defend and deliver us from bad weather, and war, and the enemies of the Christian religion, as we also implore the patronage of the Saints …
… we beseech the Saints, because of our poverty, and their glory, and reverence for God. And when we celebrate the Litany because of imminent dangers, in penitential and mournful garb, we represent that last procession of the women who wept after the Lord when He was being led to the Cross, weeping, according to the Lord’s command, for ourselves and our children.
The Litanies also take place in this time, since the Church now asks more confidently, because Christ ascends, Who said, “Ask and ye shall receive.” (In the Gospel of the Sunday before the Ascension, John 16, 23-30.) She fasts at this time and prays, that through the mortification of the flesh, She may have little to do with it, and gain wings for herself through prayer, which is the wing by which the soul flies up to heaven. Thus is She is able to freely follow Christ as He ascends, and opens the way for us, and flies upon the wings of the wind. This is the reason why we join the last litany, the last fast, to the Ascension, so that through prayers and fasts, we may be able to lay aside the weight of the flesh, and follow Christ as He ascends.
Therefore, during the Litanies, there is a procession, and in some churches, (the antiphon) Exsurge, Domine is sung at the beginning. The Gospel canticle “Holy God, holy mighty one, holy immortal one, have mercy on us,” is also to be sung repeatedly by the boys’ choir, for John of Damascus tells the story … that in Constantinople, litanies were held because of some trouble, and a boy was taken up to heaven from the midst of the people, and there taught this chant; and returning to the people, sang it before everyone, and at once the trouble ceased. This chant was approved by the Council of Chalcedon, and therefore it is considered praiseworthy and authoritative …
… in the procession itself, the Cross goes first, and the reliquaries of the Saints, so that by the banner of the Cross, and the prayers of the Saints, demons may be repelled…
A banner is also carried to represent the victory of Christ’s Resurrection and Ascension, since He went up to heaven with great spoils … just as the multitude of the faithful follow the banner in the procession, so also a great gathering of the Saints accompanies Christ as He ascends. Banners are also carried in imitation of that which is said by Isaiah (11, 12), “And he shall set up a standard unto the nations, and shall assemble the fugitives of Israel, and shall gather together the dispersed of Juda from the four quarters of the earth.” The Church took the carrying of banners and crosses from Constantine, who, when in a dream he saw the sign of the Cross, and heard the words ‘By this sign thou shalt conquer’, ordered the Cross to be marked on his war banners. The fact that in the Litanies the cross-bearer takes his cross from the altar reminds us that Simon of Cyrene took it from Christ’s shoulders.
![[Image: 03+Rogation+procession.JPG]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgCl7K9rOWzxypKhcoAnoe0HK2x1QYhcp4M0kzA6TFIg4wPm8Q_QGgThmpiFps4dYHOsJQEw5fOYkXI4QgBkpaL5R6Sl4GwiAM5Pbc3IKRNDk_4z2CUOe9V_yIhlcJyQPHZm7ye/s400-rw/03+Rogation+procession.JPG)
A Rogation procession held in the village of Balatonderics, Hungary in 2017.
In some places, the litany is done in the fields, so that demons may be expelled from the crops, or rather, so that the crops may be preserved by the Lord. … It has also become the custom that a dragon with a long tail, upright and inflated, should go before the Cross and banners on the first two days, but on the last day, looking back, with its tail deflated and lowered, it follows behind. For this dragon symbolizes the devil, who in three periods, that is, before the law, and under the law, and in the time of grace, which these three days symbolize, has deceived men, and even now seeks to deceive them. In the first two periods, he reigned, and as if he were the lord of the world, had a long tail, which shows his power, and inflated, which symbolizes his pride. For this reason, Christ calls him the prince of this world (John 12, 31) and John says in the Apocalypse (12, 4) that the dragon, falling from heaven, drew with him the third part of the stars, which symbolize people. And the Lord says in the Gospel, “I saw Satan falling like a lightning bolt from heaven” (Luke 10, 18), as a figure of which, on two days he goes at the head … But in the time of grace, he is beaten by Christ, and power is given to the Apostles to cast out unclean spirits; therefore, on the third day he follows after the Cross, to show that his power is lost through the spread of the Faith, and his tail is deflated, and hangs down, and is not long, because he does not dare to reign as mightily as he formerly did, but rather seduces men through suggestion, and in a hidden way, those whom he sees to be lazy and remiss in good works, and who follow not the way of life, as if he were looking back like a thief, to see if someone may wander and fall away from the righteousness of the Faith, so that he can draw that person to himself …
![[Image: 03+Sarum+Processional.png]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdOUGzDn2PSWAsowcgwd42hFgP3npg0xQv-t1vUSVY9YhleD3LUDOqrY_fb11D5ePwLNR_Y45TPkmaCe7nkndnL5372PmpFfWKeycHxqdf_Swg5-Uf5e14QYNGkhjdh6EJfJTc/s400-rw/03+Sarum+Processional.png)
A page from an 1882 scholarly edition of the Sarum Processional, by W.G. Henderson, showing the order of the Rogation procession. The rubric above the image mentions both a dragon and a lion carried in the procession, the latter presumably in reference to the words of Apocalypse 5, 5, “Behold the lion from the tribe of Judah hath conquered.”
On the Litanies, all must abstain from servile labor, … and be present for the procession until the end, so that, just as all have sinned, so all may ask for forgiveness, and all raise their hearts to God, with their hands, that is, raise up their zeal for prayer.
But since on the preceding days, a double Alleluia, is sung, why on these days is only one sung? And again, since Alleluia is not said on other fast days, why is it said on this one? To the first question, we answer that ... a double Alleluia is sung on the preceding days because of the double stole which will be given in the general resurrection, namely, that of the soul and of the body. But the liturgy of Easter, which this signifies, is now finished, and therefore, the cause being taken removed, the effect is also removed. To the second, we answer that on the other fast days, Alleluia is not sung because it is a song of joy, and those fasts are held because of sins, wherefore they are called fasts of mourning; but this fast, and that of Pentecost, are matters of rejoicing, because they are not held for sins, but so that the power of the devil, and the plague, may be removed; and therefore, Alleluia is sung on them.
|
|
|
|
| The Catholic Trumpet: The Neo-SSPX Now Discourages Conditional Confirmation |
|
Posted by: Stone - 05-26-2025, 08:06 AM - Forum: The Catholic Trumpet
- No Replies
|
|
The Neo-SSPX Now Discourages Conditional Confirmation
![[Image: rs=w:1280]](https://img1.wsimg.com/isteam/ip/df55e1a9-c854-4d0b-a2a9-94177954436c/IMG_5189.png/:/cr=t:0%25,l:0%25,w:100%25,h:100%25/rs=w:1280)
The Catholic Trumpet [slightly adapted and reformatted] | May 15, 2025
Source: “Matters Arising: Conditional Confirmation” by Fr. Nicholas Mary, CSSR, published in Ite Missa Est (SSPX Great Britain, Jan–Feb 2025). Available at:
https://fsspx.uk/en/matters-arising-cond...tion-52375
In 2025, the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) quietly published an article that would have stunned its own founder. Titled “Matters Arising: Conditional Confirmation” and authored by Fr. Nicholas Mary, CSSR, the piece discourages conditional Confirmation for faithful who were confirmed in the post-Vatican II rite. Unless the faithful can produce concrete evidence that their specific Confirmation was invalid—such as the wrong form, the wrong oil, or an invalid minister—they are told not to seek conditional Confirmation. Just “being unsure” is no longer enough.
This position stands in direct contradiction to the sacramental practice and pastoral theology of +Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who—faced with the same crisis—routinely conditionally confirmed souls because the new rite was doubtful in matter, form, minister, and intention.
Let us examine the issue clearly.
I. The 2025 SSPX Position: Trust the Novus Ordo, Unless You Can Prove Otherwise
In Ite Missa Est (Jan–Feb 2025), the SSPX’s UK District published Fr. Nicholas Mary’s article answering a question many traditional Catholics ask: “I was confirmed in the Novus Ordo—should I be conditionally confirmed in the traditional rite?”
His answer:
“We can reply: no, unless you have positive grounds to doubt that your specific Confirmation was invalid when it happened. Otherwise, be at peace.”
— Fr. Nicholas Mary, CSSR, “Matters Arising: Conditional Confirmation,” Ite Missa Est (SSPX UK), Jan–Feb 2025.
Fr. Nicholas Mary argues that:
Conditional Confirmation should not be sought unless there is a prudent doubt based on probable reasons
Sacraments that imprint a character, such as Confirmation, cannot be repeated without grave sin if valid
Seeking conditional Confirmation “just to be sure” may constitute sacrilege, even if done with good intentions.
He concludes that the Novus Ordo Confirmation rite is valid per se and that unless a specific defect can be demonstrated—such as proof of invalid matter (e.g., chrism not made of olive oil), or an invalid minister—one should presume validity.
II. +Archbishop Lefebvre: Conditional Confirmation Was the Norm, Not the Exception
This directly contradicts the position and practice of +Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.
“I confirm because the faithful fear that their children have not received the grace of Confirmation… I may not refuse those who request that their Confirmation be valid… We are clearly at a time when divine natural and supernatural law takes precedence over positive Church law…”
— Archbishop Lefebvre, A Bishop Speaks (Kansas City: Angelus Press, 1975), pp. 275–276.
Lefebvre’s practice was based on the following doctrinal reasons:
1. Matter
Chrism must be made from olive oil. The Church always used this, and no other oil was ever accepted until Paul VI changed the law in 1972. +Archbishop Lefebvre held that if the matter of a sacrament is changed, its substance may be invalidated.
“The Church has always and exclusively used olive oil in the confection of the sacred chrism… No other kind of oil… can be employed… In the West, no theologian ever contested that olive oil was indispensable to the validity of chrism.”
— Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, Vol. II, cols. 2401–2402.
“I recognize the validity of the new Latin formula. I use the old formula to meet the wishes of the faithful and for safety’s sake, keeping to formulas which have communicated grace for centuries with certainty.”
— Archbishop Lefebvre to the CDF, quoted in The WM Review, “Archbishop Lefebvre and Conditional Confirmation,” July 2024.
2. Form
The traditional form—“I confirm thee with the chrism of salvation…”—was replaced in the Novus Ordo with “Be sealed with the Gift of the Holy Spirit.” Lefebvre warned that many bishops shortened or even changed the formula.
“There is no Confirmation if he does not say, ‘I confirm thee in the name of the Father…’”
— Archbishop Lefebvre, Sermon at Écône, 1980s, cited in The Angelus.
3. Minister
The post-1968 rite of episcopal consecration is itself doubtful. +Archbishop Lefebvre conditionally ordained priests and questioned the validity of new bishops’ orders.
“We do not know if these sacraments are valid. That is why we conditionally ordain. We take no risks with the sacraments.”
— Archbishop Lefebvre, Écône Conference, 1979.
4. Intention
To confect a sacrament, the minister must intend “to do what the Church does.” Lefebvre noted that modernist clergy often redefine sacraments, reducing Confirmation to a mere rite of passage or personal expression of faith.
“This Reformation, born of Liberalism and Modernism, is poisoned through and through; it derives from heresy and ends in heresy.”
— Archbishop Lefebvre, Open Letter to Confused Catholics (Angelus Press), p. 9.
Thus, Lefebvre always conditionally confirmed those who had only received the Novus Ordo rite. It was his regular pastoral practice, and he never required exhaustive investigations or documentation. Moral doubt sufficed.
III. What Canon Law and Catholic Theology Say
The 1917 Code of Canon Law:
“The Sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation, and Orders… cannot be repeated. But if a prudent doubt exists about whether really and validly these sacraments were conferred, they are to be conferred again under condition.”
— Canon 732 §2, 1917 Code of Canon Law.
Fr. Henry Davis, SJ, leading 20th-century moral theologian:
“A sacrament that is doubtfully valid must not be used. To do so is gravely sinful. The sacrament must be repeated conditionally if the validity is not morally certain.”
— Fr. Henry Davis, Moral and Pastoral Theology, Vol. III, p. 25.
And from the Catechism of the Council of Trent:
“The conditional form of Baptism is to be used only when after due inquiry doubts are entertained as to the validity of the previous Baptism. In no other case is it ever lawful to administer Baptism a second time, even conditionally.”
— Catechism of the Council of Trent, Part II, “Baptism.”
These laws and principles support Lefebvre’s approach: in a climate of liturgical corruption and doctrinal confusion, prudent doubt is sufficient to justify conditional repetition.
IV. Post-2012 Compromise: Why the SSPX Changed
In April 2012, Bishop Fellay officially submitted the Doctrinal Declaration to Rome, which stated:
“We declare that we accept… the sacramental rites… legitimately promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John Paul II.”
— Doctrinal Declaration, April 15, 2012, §4.
This was the first time the SSPX leadership formally accepted the “legitimacy” of the new rites. Unlike Bishop Fellay’s 2012 Doctrinal Declaration—which was submitted to Rome without retraction and accepted the legitimacy of the New Mass and the Council—+Archbishop Lefebvre refused to sign such a declaration in 1988. Though he initially initialed the Protocol under pressure, he publicly retracted it the next day, calling it a grave mistake that would lead to ‘Operation Suicide.’”
Afterward:- In 2015, Pope Francis recognized SSPX confessions as valid and licit.
- In 2017, Rome granted SSPX marriage faculties under diocesan bishops.
Since then, the SSPX leadership has softened:- No more routine conditional confirmations
- No more strong language about the new rites being doubtful
- Public affirmation of the validity of post-Vatican II sacraments unless proven otherwise
Fr. Nicholas Mary’s article reflects this policy.
V. The Law of Non-Contradiction
You cannot affirm both positions at once.
Either the new Confirmation is objectively doubtful, and conditional Confirmation is prudent and pastoral (Lefebvre’s position),
Or it is to be presumed valid unless proven otherwise (the Neo-SSPX position).
Both cannot be true. One is faithful to the Catholic principle of suprema lex, salus animarum. The other follows a path of human approval and ambiguity.
VI. Fidelity to Lefebvre and the Spirit of St. Athanasius
St. Athanasius withstood exile and persecution for rejecting semi-Arian bishops. He famously said:
“They have the churches, but we have the Faith.”
— St. Athanasius, 4th century.
+Archbishop Lefebvre followed the same principle. He conditionally confirmed because he would not take risks with the sacraments. He did not accept a “rite“ that might be invalid. He believed the Church cannot command doubtful sacraments, and the faithful have a right to sacramental certainty.
The SSPX in 2025 tells the faithful:
“Unless you can prove your Confirmation was invalid, be at peace.”
But peace does not come from assuming grace. It comes from knowing it. And that is why conditional Confirmation is not extremism, but fidelity.
“We do not play with the sacraments. We supply what is missing, for the good of souls.”
— Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Ecône Conference, 1981.
A Word To the Faithful
If you were confirmed in the Novus Ordo “rite,”and you do not have moral certainty that it was valid—
You have the right to be conditionally confirmed.
This is not scrupulosity. It is fidelity.
This is not rebellion. It is clarity.
This is not nostalgia. It is the Church’s eternal law.
Certainty. Validity. Grace.
That is what +Archbishop Lefebvre defended.
That is what the new SSPX no longer offers.
|
|
|
|
|
