| Welcome, Guest |
You have to register before you can post on our site.
|
| Online Users |
There are currently 334 online users.
» 0 Member(s) | 331 Guest(s)
Bing, Google, Yandex
|
|
|
| Opinion: A New Ecumenical Mass in Motion |
|
Posted by: Stone - 04-29-2023, 06:06 AM - Forum: General Commentary
- No Replies
|
 |
A NEW ECUMENICAL MASS IN MOTION
TIA | April 28, 2023
Along with the increasing asphyxiation of the Tridentine Mass being promoted by Francis, Roche & Company Ltd., there is talk of a New Ecumenical Mass being prepared by the same destruction crew. On April 18, an important precedent took place in the Basilica of St. John Lateran in Rome and another is programmed for May 14.
The facts are quite objective independent of the poor excuses being made to cover what happened.
On April 18, two Anglican bishops celebrated a “mass” attended by 50 Anglican priests at the Basilica of St. John Lateran, which is the official Cathedral of Rome, that is, the Cathedral of the Pope.
We know that at least since 1896, after the promulgation of the Bull Apostolicae curae by Leo XIII, all of the Anglican sacraments are null and void. This is tantamount to saying that their ordinations of priests and consecrations of bishops are invalid. So, the “mass” of those Anglican heretics was a parody not so different from a “mass” performed by laymen in that prestigious church.
![[Image: bev279_Lat.jpg]](https://traditioninaction.org/bev/bevimages(250-299)/bev279_Lat.jpg)
Heretics in the presbitery of the Pope’s Cathedral
The flimsy excuse given by Bishop Guerino di Tora, Vicar of the Cathedral, did not convince anyone. He said that since the Anglican delegation was being guided by a Catholic priest, the priest in charge of St. John Lateran wrongly supposed that all the members of that delegation were Catholics and “mistakenly” allowed them to say their “mass.” So, because of this “miscommunication,” the Anglicans desecrated that important Catholic place.
A similar “miscommunication” took place in January 2016 when a group of Finnish Lutheran heretics were visiting Francis; after the audience they went to visit St. Peter’s Basilica and came across a Mass being said. The priest celebrating the Mass gave Communion to the group “by mistake” – even after those Protestant visitors crossed their arms over their chests to indicate they did not want to receive.
Loss of the sense of the truth
These lies proffered as excuses in order to allow religious activities that are forbidden – even in the Conciliar Church – merit a moment of reflection.
The 8th Commandment states: Thou shalt not bear false witness. This obliges us to tell the truth always. Now then, to advance the progressivist agenda we see the Pope, the Vatican and many, many religious authorities, and a multitude of priests blatantly lying to excuse the inexcusable, as, for example, the shameful incidents mentioned in this article.
This crime alone would be reason for the culpable parties to be condemned to Hell should they die and appear in this state of mind before God, since it is a direct and shameless offense against the 8th Commandment.
However, the whole Catholic press – nay, the whole world media – does not question those lies. It considers them as “necessary lies” to cover for the radical papal initiatives turned toward continuing Vatican II ecumenism. Most likely Francis knew about and allowed that Anglican “mass” at St. John Lateran and that Communion given to Protestants at the Vatican, but there is a masquerade pretending that Francis did not allow them and they were just “mistakes.”
Some persons smile and say: “Well, after all, he’s a Jesuit…” So, are the Jesuits dispensed from the observance of the 8th Commandment? Does this smiling person not also sin by complacency with the crime and by covering for the guilty?
Trial balloons
I believe that the “miscommunication” that allowed the 52 Anglicans at St. John Lateran was a trial balloon for the Ecumenical Mass that important segments of the Conciliar Church are demanding.
Another trial balloon will be the permission given by Francis to Tawadros II, head of the Egyptian Coptic Monophysitists, to celebrate a “mass” at the same Lateran Basilica.
Let us not forget, as the media is doing, that Tawadros is Monophysitist and that the heresy of Monophysitism, or Monophysism, denies that Our Lord Jesus Christ has two natures – the divine and the human. Its followers affirm He has only the divine nature, which supposedly entirely absorbed His human nature.
This doctrine was condemned in 451 by the Council of Chalcedon when it solemnly declared that Our Lord has two natures that are without division or confusion, but hypostatically united.
![[Image: bev279_Taw.jpg]](https://traditioninaction.org/bev/bevimages(250-299)/bev279_Taw.jpg)
A blatant heretic received warmly by Pope Francis in 2013 as if he were an equal
Ten years ago on May 10, 2013, Francis received Tawadros at the Vatican and asked the heretic to give a “blessing” to himself and those present. Then, he proposed to the heretic that they meet on that same date from time to time to commemorate the historic encounter.
This is why the head of the Egyptian Coptic Monophysitists is scheduled to return to Rome in May of 2023. This time, however, Francis more boldly is inviting him to say a “mass” in the Pope’s Cathedral.
I believe that both the Anglican “mass” and the Monophysitist “mass” are part of the same agenda: Bergoglio is preparing Catholics for his Ecumenical Mass, which will take in all heretics who “believe” in Christ.
This progressivist/ecumenical “mass” being pushed by Francis will no longer have anything to do with a real Mass or the Catholic Faith. While it can be said that the Novus Ordo Missae has the flavor of Protestantism, we can admit the validity of its Sacraments; however, the coming new ecumenical “mass” will be entirely invalid.
As a matter of fact, the only way to bring together all heretics who think that Christ was the Savior would be to make vague affirmations about the controversial points of doctrine involved. However, the Catholic Creed was defined throughout History in opposition to those same heresies that Progressivism now wants to put together under the umbrella of the Conciliar Church. Therefore, this effort would completely deconstruct the Catholic Creed.
If St. Pius X could define Modernism as the “synthesis of all heresies” because it tolerated all heresies in their seed form, Progressivism goes further by germinating those seeds, cultivating the trees and harvesting their poisonous fruits. In other words, Progressivism – acting through Francis with his New Ecumenical Mass – brings to fruition the worst apostasy in History.
It is something of Apocalyptic proportions that could be accomplished by the Antichrist or one of his closest precursors.
![[Image: bev279_Ant.jpg]](https://traditioninaction.org/bev/bevimages(250-299)/bev279_Ant.jpg)
The Antichrist sitting atop the diabolical leviathan |
|
|
| Transgender "Medicine" |
|
Posted by: Stone - 04-27-2023, 06:07 AM - Forum: General Commentary
- No Replies
|
|
Affirmation Generation: The Lies of Transgender Medicine
From the website: https://affirmationgenerationmovie.com/
SYNOPSIS:
Detransitioners Michelle, Laura, Cat, David, Joel and Abel tell the stories of their gender distress, transgender medicalization, and subsequent detransition. Without diagnostic clarity or mental health evaluations, their doctors quickly affirmed them as “transgender,” and mindlessly ushered them along the path of medical transition. (The “gender-affirming care” is the only treatment recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics.) These young people were harmed irrevocably by the doctors they trusted. AFFIRMATION GENERATION demonstrates how the “one-size-fits-all” medicalization – the “gender-affirming care” – has failed these patients.
The stories of the detransitioners are examined by twelve leading experts with decades of clinical practice treating gender-distressed patients: psychotherapists Lisa Marchiano, Sasha Ayad, Stella O’Malley, physician-scientist Lisa Littman, endocrinologist Dr. William Malone, MD; Licensed Marriage & Family Therapist Stephanie Winn, sociologist Dr. Michael Biggs, pediatrician Dr. Julia Mason, NYT best-selling writer Lisa Selin Davis, and LGB activist & lifelong Liberal Democrat Joey Brite, among others. The 90-minute documentary cites 45 peer-reviewed medical and journalist articles.
|
|
|
|
| Bishop Lazo's Declaration of Faith |
|
Posted by: SAguide - 04-26-2023, 10:10 PM - Forum: Bp. Salvador L. Lazo
- No Replies
|
 |
My Declaration of Faith
To His Holiness John Paul II ,
Bishop of Rome and Vicar of Jesus Christ,
Successor of Saint Peter, Prince of the Apostles,
Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Patriarch of the West,
Primate of Italy, Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province,
Sovereign of Vatican City.
Ascension Thursday
May 21, 1998
Most Holy Father,
On this tenth anniversary of the consecration of the four Catholic bishops by His Grace Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre for the survival of the Catholic Faith, by the grace of God, I declare that I am Roman Catholic. My religion was founded by Jesus Christ when He said to Peter: “Thou art Peter and upon this Rock, I will build My Church” (Mt. 16: 18).
Holy Father, my Credo is the Apostles’ Creed. The deposit of Faith came from Jesus Christ and was completed at the death of the last Apostle. It was entrusted to the Roman Catholic Church to serve as a guide for the salvation of souls to the end of time.
Saint Paul instructed Timothy: “O Timothy, keep the deposit” (1 Tm. 6:20), the deposit of Faith! Holy Father, it seems that Saint Paul is telling me: “Keep the deposit…the deposit that is entrusted to you, not discovered by you. You receive it: you did not draw it from your resources. It is not the fruit of any personal understanding but of teaching. It is not personal use, but it belongs to public tradition. It does not come from you, but it has come to you. With respect to it, you cannot act as an author, but only a simple keeper. You are not its initiator but its disciple. It is not for you to direct it, but your duty to follow it” (Saint Vincent of Lerins, Commonitorium, No. 21).
The Holy Council of Vatican I teaches that “the doctrine of Faith that God has revealed, was not proposed to the minds of men as a philosophical discovery to be perfected, but as the divine deposit, entrusted to the Spouse of Christ that she might faithfully keep it and infallibly define it. Consequently, the meaning of the sacred dogmas which must always be preserved, is that which our Holy Mother the Church has determined. Never is it permissible to depart from this in the name of a deeper understanding” (Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius, Dz.1800).
“The Holy Ghost was promised to the successors of Peter, not that they might make known new doctrine by His Revelation but rather that, with His assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully explain the Revelation or deposit of Faith that was handed down through the Apostles” (Vatican I, Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus Dz. 1836).
Moreover, “the power of the Pope is not unlimited; not only can he not change anything which is of divine institution (to suppress episcopal jurisdiction, for instance), but he is to build and not to destroy (cf. II Cor.10,8); he is enjoined, through natural law, not to sow confusion in the flock of Christ” (Dict. de Theol. Cath., II, col.2039-2040).
Saint Paul too confirmed the Faith of his converts: “But though we or an angel from heaven preach a Gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema” (Gal. 1:8).
As a Catholic Bishop, briefly, this is my stand on the Post Conciliar reforms of the Second Vatican Council. If the Conciliar reforms are according to the will of Jesus Christ, then, I will gladly cooperate in their implementation. But if the Conciliar reforms are planned for the destruction of the Catholic Religion founded by Jesus Christ, then, I refuse to give my cooperation.
Holy Father, in 1969, a communication from Rome was received in San Fernando Diocese of La Union. It said the Tridentine Latin Mass was to be suppressed and the Novus Ordo Missae was to be implemented. There was no reason given. Since the order came from Rome it was obeyed without any protest (Roma locuta est, causa finita est [Rome has spoken; the matter is closed]).
I retired in 1993, 23 years after my episcopal consecration. Since my retirement, I discovered the real reason for the illegal suppression of the traditional Latin Mass. The ancient Mass was an obstacle to the introduction of ecumenism. The Catholic Mass contained Catholic dogmas, which Protestants denied. To achieve unity with Protestant sects, the Tridentine Latin Mass had to be scrapped, being replaced by the Novus Ordo Missae.
The Novus Ordo Missae was a concoction of Monsignor Annibale Bugnini. Six Protestant ministers helped Monsignor Bugnini in fabricating it. The innovators saw to it that no Catholic dogmas offensive to Protestant ears were left in the prayers. They deleted all that expressed the Catholic dogmas fully and replaced them with very ambiguous Protestantizing and heretical things. They even changed the form of the consecration given by Jesus Christ. With these modifications, the new rite of the Mass became more Protestant than Catholic.
The Protestants maintain that the Mass is a mere meal, a mere communion, a mere banquet, a memorial. The Council of Trent emphasized the reality of the sacrifice of the Mass, which is an unbloody renewal of the bloody sacrifice of Christ on Mount Calvary. “He, therefore, our God and Lord, though He was about to offer Himself once to God the Father upon the altar of the Cross…offered to God the Father His own body and blood under the species of bread and wine…at the last Supper on the night He was betrayed, so that He might leave to His beloved Spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as nature of man demands), whereby that bloody sacrifice once to be completed on the Cross might be represented…” (Dz. 938).The Mass is also a communion to the sacrifice previously celebrated: a banquet where one eats the immolated Victim of the sacrifice. But if there is no sacrifice there is no communion with it. Mass is first and foremost a sacrifice and secondly a communion or a meal.
It is also noted that in the Novus Ordo Missae, Christ’s real Eucharistic Presence is implicitly denied. The same observation is also true concerning the Church’s doctrine of transubstantiation.
Connected with this, in the Novus Ordo Missae, the priest has been demoted from a priest who offers a sacrifice to one who merely presides over the assembly. Now he is the President of the assembly. For this role he faces the people. In the Traditional Mass, the priest, on the contrary, faces the tabernacle and the altar where is Christ.
After having known those mutations, I decided to stop saying the new rite of the Mass, which I was saying for more than twenty-seven years in obedience to ecclesiastical superiors. I returned to the Tridentine Latin Mass because it is the Mass instituted by Jesus Christ at the Last Supper which is the unbloody renewal of the bloody sacrifice of Jesus Christ on Mount Calvary. This Mass of all times has sanctified the lives of millions down the centuries.
Holy Father, with all the respect I have for you and for the Holy See of Saint Peter, I cannot follow your own teaching of the “universal salvation”, it contradicts Sacred Scripture.
Holy Father, are all men going to be saved? Jesus Christ wanted all men to be redeemed. In fact, He died for us all. Still, not all men are going to be saved because not all men fulfill all the necessary conditions in order to be numbered among the elects of God in heaven.
Before Jesus Christ ascended to Heaven, He entrusted to His Apostles the duty of preaching the Gospel to every creature. His instructions already hinted that all souls were not going to be saved. He said: “Go into the whole world, and preach the Gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; he that believeth not shall be condemned.” (Mk.16:15-16).
Saint Paul supported this in his instruction to his converts: “Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the Kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterous, nor the effeminate, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, not drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners shall possess the Kingdom of God” (1 Cor. 6:9-10).
Holy Father, should we respect false religions? Jesus Christ founded only one Church in which one can find eternal salvation. This is the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church. When He gave all the doctrines and all the truths needed to be saved Christ did not say: “Respect all false religions.” In fact, the Son of God was crucified on the cross because He did not compromise His teaching.
In 1910, in his letter “Our Apostolic Mandate”, Pope Saint Pius X warned that the interdenominational spirit is part of the great movement of apostasy being organized in every country for a one world Church. Pope Leo XIII warned that to “treat all religions alike is calculated to bring about the ruin of all forms of religion, and especially of the Catholic Religion, which, as it is the only one that is true, cannot, without great injustice, be regarded as merely equal to other religions” (Encyclical Humanum Genus). The process is this: From Catholicism To Protestantism; From Protestantism To Modernism; From Modernism To Atheism.
Ecumenism, as practiced today, flies in the face of traditional Catholic doctrine and practices. It places the one true Religion established by Our Lord on the same base level with false, man-made religions – something that Popes throughout the centuries absolutely forbade Catholics to do: “It is clear that the Apostolic See can by no means take part in these (ecumenical) assemblies, nor is it in any way lawful for Catholics to give to such enterprises their encouragement or support” (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos).
I am for eternal Rome, the Rome of Saints Peter and Paul. I do not follow Masonic Rome. Pope Leo XIII condemned Freemasonry in his encyclical Humanum Genus in 1884. Neither do I accept modernist Rome. Pope Saint Pius X also condemned modernism in his encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis, in 1907. I do not serve the Rome that is controlled by Freemasons who are the agents of Lucifer, the Prince of devils.
But I support the Rome that leads the Catholic Church faithfully to do the will of Jesus Christ – the glorification of the most holy and Triune God – God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost.
I consider myself fortunate because in this present crisis of the Catholic Church I received the grace to have returned to the Church that adheres to Catholic Tradition. Thank God, I am again saying the Traditional Latin Mass – the Mass instituted by Jesus at the Last Supper, the Mass of my ordination.
May the Blessed Mother Mary, Saint Joseph, Saint Anthony my patron saint, Saint Michael and my guardian Angel assist me to remain faithful to the Catholic Church founded by Jesus Christ for the salvation of men.
May I obtain the grace to remain and die in the bosom of the Holy Roman Catholic Apostolic Church that adheres to the ancient traditions and be always a faithful priest and bishop of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
Most respectfully,
(Signed)
Bishop Salvador L. Lazo, DD
Bishop Emeritus
San Fernando Diocese of La Union
|
|
|
|
| Letters of Concern to Bp. Lazo from other Bishops in the Philippines |
|
Posted by: SAguide - 04-26-2023, 09:46 PM - Forum: Bp. Salvador L. Lazo
- No Replies
|
|
Here is the letter of Archbishop Talamayan:
Archdiocese of Tuguegarao
Archbishop’s Residence
September 21, 1996
His Excellency The Most Reverend SALVADOR L. LAZO, D.D
Bishop Emeritus of San Fernando (La Union)
10A - M. Gregorio Street
Project 4, 1109 Quezon City
Your Excellency:
Immediately after the July meeting of the CBCP, I tried my best to get in touch with you. You were abroad. Soon after it was my turn to go abroad, and on my return I repeatedly tried to contact you without much success. I would have preferred to take up the matter I am writing about you personally, but the urgency of my mission and my own personal regard for you make it necessary that I write you now.
Jose Cardinal Sanchez of the Congregation on the Clergy and your brother-bishops in the CBCP have separately asked me to talk to you about your apparent association with the so called “Pope Pius X” movement which has for its aim the reverse of the liturgical reforms of the Second Vatican Council and a return to Tridentine norms. You and I of course know that this movement goes back in someway to Archbishop Lefebvre who has been declared by the Holy See to be in schism.
I have always held you in the highest esteem, and even now I look up to your wisdom, prudence and to your undeniable accomplishments. You have been in many ways my inspiration in the priesthood as well as in the episcopacy. I know it is furthest from your intentions to do wrong, in any way whatsoever, to the Church which you have faithfully served all these years.
You and I both share the faith that no matter what we might individually believe of think, it is to the Church, and to the apostolic authority of Peter’s successor that the Lord Jesus gave the power to bind and to lose. This same Church which has profited abundantly from your many years of committed service now binds us to the reforms she has instituted inspired by the Spirit of God. Whatever may be your noble intentions, your brother bishops and the authorities of the Church believe that your continued association with a schismatic group is hurting the Church. They beg you then to dissociate yourself from this movement as expeditiously and as unequivocally as possible.
Allow me to assure you that your brother-bishops do not have condemnation or ridicule for you in their hearts, but only love and deepest concern. They have asked me to convey this to you. In fact, Cardinal Sin is making you the formal offer of an assignment in the Archdiocese of Manila.
I have known you for so long, Your Excellency, that I do not doubt that the goodness that is in your heart and the sincere love you have for Christ’s Body, His Pilgrim people, will prompt you to give this request of your brother-bishops and our Roman authorities your immediate and favorable response.
Please give me your latest phone number, so that I can call you up more frequently to find out from you how I may be of help.
Please be assured of the continued esteem of the Cagayanos for you, who hold you dearly in their memory, and of my personal regard.
Sincerely in Domino,
(sgd) + DIOSDADO A. TALAMAYAN. D.D
Archbishop of Tuguegarao
cc:
JOSE CARDINAL SANCHEZ, D.D.
Prefect, Congregation of the Clergy
The Vatican
The Most Reverend GIAN VINCENZO MORENI, D.D
Apostolic Nuncion
Taft Avenue, Manila
JAIME CARDINAL SIN, D.D.
Arzobispado de Manila Manila ARCHBISHOP OSCAR CRUZ
President,
Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines
Manila
Here is another letter, this one from Archbishop Gordoncillo:
Archdiocese of Capiz
Chancery Office
6 June 1998
Most Rev. Salvador L. Lazo, D.D
10A - M. Gregorio Street
Proj. 4, Quezon City 1109
Your Excellency: Bishop Lazo,
Pax in Domino!
I have been receiving papers and articles from outside the Philippines with your name used as the sender, although the stamps, in many cases, are U.S or Canada. Being a friend Bishop to your Excellency I am a bit disturbed that your good self is being used by them and taken advantage of.
Some literatures are about and sent from the group of Rev. Fr. Grunner, while others concern the schismatic group of Archbishop Lefebvre. I hope you will not take this letter of mine as an intrusion or a meddling into your life. If I write you this it is because being brothers in the Apostolic Ministry I care for your good and your good name – remember our brotherhood in the PRH?
Please remember that we have the Apostolic Ordination and therefore let us be always united with the Apostolic anointing of all the Bishops of the Catholic Church. Hence let us always live and remain united and one with the Catholic Church which is entrusted by Our Lord to our Holy Father, Pope John Paul II. I am sure you still remember the phrase we used to cite and quote during our Theology days: “Ubi Petrus, Ibi Ecclesia.” Especially now that we are getting older I am already on my way to the 70’s – the more we should cling to the faith that Jesus entrusted to His Church: the Boat that He gave to Peter to stir.
I hope you sever all connections with the aforementioned groups. We are not condemning anybody … they are God’s children too and God will take care of them some other way. But as successors of the Apostles let us hold unto the Church and follow the lead of the Holy Father … and this until death!
I am not correcting you … I am just reminding us (you and me) that we have to remain faithful and loyal to the Church and the Pope we love.
With my fraternal regards and humble prayers, I remain.
Fraternally yours in Christ our Lord,
(sgd) Abp. Onie G. (Gordoncillo)
|
|
|
|
| My Return To The TRADITIONAL LATIN MASS Autobiography By Bishop Salvador L. Lazo |
|
Posted by: SAguide - 04-26-2023, 09:34 PM - Forum: Bp. Salvador L. Lazo
- No Replies
|
|
My Return To The TRADITIONAL LATIN MASS
Autobiography of a Traditional Catholic Bishop
By Bishop Salvador L. Lazo
I. CHILDHOOD
THE Archdiocese of Tuguegarao is my home diocese. As a diocese it was carved from the Diocese of Nueva Segovia in 1910 and elevated into an Archdiocese in September 1974. The suffragan dioceses are:1. Diocese of Ilagan 2. Diocese of Bayombong 3. Prelature of Batanes-Babuyanes
In 1998 their populations were: 1. Cagayan - 995,572 2. Isabela - 1,189,739 3. Batanes-Babuyanes - 23,998 4. Nueva Vizcaya - 446,084
TUGUEGARAO is the capital town of Cagayan province. Cagayan Valley is irrigated by the Rio Grande also called Cagayan River, the longest River in the archipelago.The South-Eastern part of Cagayan is known as the Itawis District. The district is divided into three parts by the Rio Chico, a tributary of Rio Grande. On the banks of the Chico River are situated the towns of Tuao, Rizal, Piat, and Sto. Nino or Faire where I saw the first light of day on May 1, 1917. Seven children came to bless the union of my parents. I was the third child. My parents – Fortunato and Emiliana Lazo – were financially poor but rich in their love for God and for their fellowmen. My father studied law and served as Justice of the Peace of our little town. Every night my father led the family in reciting the holy rosary and accompanied his family to Sunday Mass. My mother on the other hand, enticed the pagan Igorots and Kalingas of the Cordillera Mountains to barter their forest products like rattan and forest root crops. In exchange, my mother give them laundry soap, matches, small knives, and second-hand clothes. She regularly laundered the dirty linens of the parish Church. In summer she invited the Kalingas and Igorots to come to our house so that she could teach them the Catechism. My mother passed away while giving birth to her seventh child in 1926. Aunt Lorenza, her sister, took care of us in our growing years. The family roots can be traced to the small town of San Vicente, Ilocos Sur, located along the coast of the China Sea of the Cordilleras. They moved to Cagayan due to political disturbances caused by the Philippine Revolution at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century (1898-1909).
IN 1934, the bishop of the Diocese of Tuguegarao was the Most Rev. Constance Jurgens, CICM, DD, Dutchman, known for his holiness of life, his apostolic zeal and Christlike charity to the poor. Having finished my elementary grades in Sto. Nino Central School in 1933, my father brought me to Tuguegarao to study at the Cagayan High School because, in those days, Sto. Nino did not have a high school, much less a Catholic secondary institution.
II. VOCATION
AN ARRANGEMENT was made for me to stay in the dormitory of the boys living under the care of the bishop; Fr. Oscar Deltor CICM was the prefect of discipline. At the end of the school year Bishop Jurgens told me that he was going to send me to Christ the King Mission Seminary in New Manila, Quezon City. That was in 1935. When I graduated from the classical secondary in Christ the King Mission Seminary, I went on to college. At the end of the academic year in March 1940, the Very Rev. Herman Konding, SVD, Rector, informed me about the death of my father. I went home but he was already buried when I reached Sto. Nino.
IN 1942 World War II broke out. Being a Dutchman, Bishop Jurgens was rounded up with all the foreigners who were enemies of Japan. Japanese Armed Forces sent them to the Concentration Camp in Los Banos, Laguna. American Missionaries in Christ the King Mission Seminary joined their fellowmen Americans either in the University of Sto. Tomas Concentration Camp in Manila or in Los Banos. Christ the King Mission Seminary was built along E. Rodriguez Avenue, a road through one of the suburbs of Manila. The predictions, then, were that a division of the American Liberation Forces under the command of General Douglas MacArthur was going to enter Manila along E. Rodriguez Avenue. Considering the imminent danger of a bloody encounter between Japanese Armed forces defending Manila and the invading American army, the novices were evacuated and sent to the Immaculate Conception Theology Seminary in Vigan, Ilocos Sur. Rev. Father Ignatz Hetteger, SVD, was the novice master but a young priest, Rev. Father Alois Lehberger, SVD, was going to lead the trip which was made hazardous by the Kempetai of the Japanese Armed Forces.
DURING the war, Cagayan was one of those territories occupied by the Japanese Armed Forces. The Japanese soldiers frequently raided the towns and barrios. Because of the unpredictable raids, life was miserable and unstable. Food like rice and domestic animals and vegetables were looted. They raped women and killed the men-folk suspected of being guerrillas. One of the victims was my brother, Manuel, who was a seminarian at the Immaculate Conception Seminary in Vigan.
IN ONE of the raids the soldiers caught Manuel. They then towed him with some innocent people to Faire, Dungao Ferry twelve kilometers away. At the ferry, they burned houses and while one of big houses was on fire, the cruel Japanese shot Manuel to death. When their victim was dying, his torturers threw him into one of the burning houses. After the burning was over, those barbarians collected his ashes and hurled them into the flowing waters of the Rio Grande.
IN VIGAN Theology Seminary – the novices of the Divine Word Missionaries made their Perpetual Vows before Rev. Father Herman Konding, SVD, the Rector. Although I was accepted in the balloting for the Perpetual Vows, I decided not to make them. My membership of the Society of the Divine Word Missionaries (Societas Verbo Divini) had ended. This was in March I945.
III. ORDINATION
THE decision to leave the Society of the Divine Word necessitated that I see Bishop Jurgens, of Tuguegarao, Cagayan. I applied for the Diocese of Tuguegarao and the bishop accepted me. My next move was to make arrangements with the Father Rector of the Immaculate Conception Theology Seminary of Vigan, Ilocos Sur, so that I could continue my theological studies. My remaining theological studies lasted for two years. I finished my studies in March 1947. When Very Rev. Father Rector Herman Konding, SVD, announced the graduating class, I was included in the following list of graduates.
THE ORDAINING prelate was the Most Rev. Mariano Madriaga, DD., archbishop of Lingayen, Dagupan. The ordination ceremony took place in St. Paul’s Cathedral of Vigan, Ilocos Sur on March 22, 1947. When I was ordained, there were no member of my family present. My only living sister, Teresa, could not attend it due to communication problem. Cagayan was so destroyed and was not yet rehabilitated. The following day the newly ordained priests said their Tridentine Latin Mass either in St. Paul’s Cathedral or in the Seminary chapel. Our relatives, benefactors and friends filled the big St. Paul’s Cathedral both at the ordination and for the Mass of thanksgiving said by the newly ordained priests.
IN THE week following our ordination, we went to our home dioceses for the CANTA MISA which were Masses of thanksgiving offered to Godfor the gift of our priesthood, and to thank relatives, benefactors, and friends for helping us in our studies. In the sermons the celebrants usually thanked their families, relatives, benefactors, and friends for the help they had contributed so that they could reach the altar of God. When they addressed the congregation, they usually asked for their continued support for the success of their ministry, for their perseverance to the end of their lives so that they would never betray their greatest friend and benefactor, Jesus Christ.
IV. FIRST YEARS OF PRIESTHOOD
AFTER the CANTA MISA, the new priests were given a few weeks of vacation so that they could visit their relatives, benefactors, and friends. In my case, I had to go back to Bishop Jurgens to present myself in order to start my pastoral ministry. Bishop Jurgens gave me my first assignment. He sent me to be the assistant of Msgr. Felix Domingo, the Vicar General, parish priest of St. Peter’s Cathedral. In my visit, I saw that Bishop Jurgens, my benefactor, was sick and his tuberculosis was worsening. He came out of the Concentration Camp of the Japanese Armed Forces alive but a very sick man. On May 13, 1950, he went home to God. Priest and faithful were saddened at his death, as he was a holy man who showed apostolic zeal. He was loved by all his flock especially the poor. My second parish was San Jose, Baggao, Cagayan. San Jose and the surrounding barrios were densely populated. So I thought of founding a secondary high school. The institution was San Jose Academy.
ON MAY 1950, Bishop Alejandro Olalia, then the co-adjutor, took over the government of Tuguegarao Diocese. As soon as Bishop Olalia was installed, one of the first moves was the transfer of the minor seminarians from Vigan minor seminary to Tuguegarao, the seat of the Diocese. The minor seminary was called after the old Colegio de San Jacinto de Tuguegarao – San Jacinto Minor Seminary which was run by the Dominican Fathers. Dominicans closed the old Colegio de San Jacinto de Tuguegarao for financial reasons. When the minor seminarians arrived from Vigan, there was no building ready and so they were temporarily housed at the bishop’s residence. The faculty for the first operation were:
Rector: Rev. Fr. Telesforo Cordova
Prefect of Discipline: Rev. Fr. Salvador Lazo
Dean of Studies: Rev. Fr. Salvador Lazo
Procurator: Rev. Fr. Juan Quinto
Music Instructor: Rev. Fr. Jose Ingaran
English/Public Speaking Instructor: Rev. Fr. Domingo Mallo
V. RECTOR OF SEMINARY
AT THE end of the commencement exercises in 1951, a revamp was announced. Bishop Olalia finally made his decision on who were to take care of the administration. In June 1951, the assignments for coming school year were published. Father Cordova became the parish priest of a big parish in the diocese. Also the other priests in the faculty were given different parishes. As the academic year in 1951 began, I was designated as the Rector of the San Jacinto Minor Seminary. I objected to it but the appointing authority would have none of it.
IN 1954, in his fourth year as the Prelate of the Diocese of Tuguegarao, Bishop Olalia was promoted to the See of the Archdiocese of Lipa. As a result, a new bishop came to the Diocese as administrator. This was Bishop Juan C. Sison of Nueva Segovia. As administrator of Tuguegarao Diocese, he did not make major changes. He confirmed me in my new responsibility as Rector of the San Jacinto Minor Seminary, when I presented to him my resignation. He said: “Stay there until I get someone to take over your office”.
EARLY in 1957, a new Bishop was preconized. The new bishop-elect was a parish priest of Piat, Cagayan, whose Patron Saint is St. Dominic de Guzman. Piat though is more known as the sanctuary of Our Lady of Visitation. The bishop-elect was the Most Rev. Teodulfo S. Domingo.
FOLLOWING the installation ceremonies, I went to him to tender my resignation as Rector of the San Jacinto Minor Seminary. He did not accept it. Instead he confirmed it. There was no alternative, so I tried to be resigned to my responsibility. I faced the problems best as I could. In every diocese there has to be a seminary, and the seminary needs priests to run it. Therefore, I reflected on the policies and the regulations to direct the institution.
IN 1962, Pope John XXIII announced the Second Vatican Council. Bishop Domingo, my bishop went to Rome as a delegate. On coming home for the first time from Vatican II Council, we expected some bulletins, newsletters, or flyers to update us on what was happening in the Council. But there was none. I wondered why information on the Council were not disseminated. At least nothing reached the Diocese of Tuguegarao. In 1965, the Second Vatican Council came to an end. The delegates came home and there was nothing for the clergy and people in Tuguegarao Diocese in the way of information.
[b]VI. PARISH PRIEST[/b]
IN 1967, Rev. Fr. Miguel Purugganan finished his studies in the Gregorian University in Rome. Bishop Domingo removed me from the office of Rector. Upon his arrival Fr. Purugganan took over the responsibility of the San Jacinto Minor Seminary. Bishop Domingo assigned me as Parish Priest of Lal-lo Cagayan. In 1967 the Lal-lo High School was crowded with students. This made me conceive the idea of a secondary school. After studying the project, I decided to submit my application to the Department of Education for the Lyceum of Lal-lo. The Department of education approved my application. In 1968-69, Lyceum of Lal-lo started to operate.
IN 1969, the Novus Ordo Missae came to the Diocese of Tuguegarao for implementation. We were told to change the Tridentine Latin Mass of St. Pius V. We wanted to know why and there was no explanation given. Since we wanted to show our customary obedience to our ecclesiastical superiors the order was implemented. ROMA LOCUTA, CAUSA FINITA. We little thought that our submissiveness was taken advantage of. The Latin Mass instituted by Jesus Christ was altered to a concoction of Msgr. Annibale Bugnini, a Freemason. The innovators gave us a counterfeit of the Latin Mass which is the Bugnini Mass. The manoeuvres of the Masonic manipulators made us feel bitter the moment the deception was unmasked. The reformers gave us poison instead of nourishing spiritual food.
[b]VII. BISHOP[/b]
IN 1969, during my second year as parish priest of Lal-lo, I was preconized Auxiliary Bishop of the Diocese of Tuguegarao. Bishop Domingo was not in the Diocese then. He was in the United States visiting his brother but was present for the Episcopal ordination which was presided over by the Nuncio, the Most Rev. Carmine Rocco, DD. After my consecration, I continued saying the Novus Ordo Missae. My brother Jose, then a missionary priest of the Society of the Divine Word, (SVD) attended my Episcopal consecration on February 3, I970. But on April 25, he went home to God. As a newly consecrated bishop I attended his burial mass in Christ the King Mission Church – he was buried in the cemetery of the Society in New Manila.
IN VIGAN, there was a newly consecrated bishop, the Most Rev. Antonio Buenafe who was designated Auxiliary bishop of Nueva Segovia. His term however did not last long. A few days after his consecration he boarded a bus, Times Transit, for Manila. There was a quarrel among the passengers and the new bishop was shot by accident, in that cross fire. The gunshot was fatal. My superiors assigned me to take his place. Installation ceremonies in St. Paul’s Cathedral were presided over by the Nuncio, Most Rev. Bruno Torpigliani, DD, on August 1977. My stay in the Archdiocese of Nueva Segovia was only three years. Towards the end of this stint, I was sent to go to the Diocese of San Fernando of La Union because Bishop Victorino C. Ligot was very seriously sick in Cardinal Santos Medical Center in Metro Manila. Hearing this, I rushed to his bedside. He could no longer speak as he was in a coma. Bishop Ligot finally died on September 18, 1980.
AFTER the funeral Mass, Archbishop Bruno Torpigliani, DD, the Nuncio, made me the administrator of the Diocese of San Fernando, La Union and a few months later, I became its second residential bishop. The Catholic leaders convened to decide on the date for my installation as the second ordinary of the Diocese of San Fernando, La Union, Philippines. The installation was done in the context of the Novus Ordo Missae on March 9, 1981. I continued saying this New Rite until I reached the age of retirement.
A FEW days after the celebrations, I went to the Diocesan Curia. It was not a building separate from the Cathedral. It was in the southern most part of the Cathedral Rectory. Fr. Laxamana, the secretary, welcomed me and then showed me around. In front of the Curia offices, there is three-story building just finished through the efforts of the late Bishop Victorino Ligot. The Philtrust Bank was renting the ground floor. The third floor was occupied by the Insurance companies. The second floor was reserved for Diocesan Minor Seminary – the Heart of Jesus Minor Seminary – which was operated by the diocesan priests. My second official visit was directed to the parishes and the diocesan schools. My overall impression was that Bishop Ligot served well the Diocese. I decided to build on his accomplishments.
MY GENERAL evaluation suggested that I first tackle the seminary problem. The seminarians should have a separate building and lot. Consequently, I took steps to look for a location where the Seminary building could be constructed. Then applications for funding were made. In a year, positive response was received from funding agencies abroad. With this money, four hectares of land was bought in San Vicente, San Fernando, La Union, a barrio near the sea. The cornerstone of the administration building was blessed. And before long, the chapel and the dormitory followed. Other buildings came later: the residence of the bishop, convents for two communities of Sisters, and finally the St. Joseph Pastoral Center.
AFTER having familiarized myself with the Curia set-up, I turned my attention to the programs for the gatherings of the priests that is, the Recollections and Pastoral Assemblies. In the study of the finances funds were allocated for the sick priests and for the material and spiritual welfare of the priests for the diocese. In the Diocese the following apostolates received encouragements:
1) The Catechetical Instructions for all the Public schools given to the care of the Pastorelle Sisters (Sisters of Jesus, the Good Shepherd)
2) The Diocesan Schools (under the care of the Bishop, through the Diocesan Superintendent who was directly responsible to the Bishop). St. Louis College is owned by CICM Missionaries (Congregation of the Immaculate Heart of Mary).
3) The Biblical Apostolate.
4) The Perpetual Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament in some Parish Churches and Chapels of Religious Sisters.
5) The Holy Name Society (for men)
6) Family Rosary (under the flagship of the Blue Army)
7) Apostleship of Prayer.
8) Catholic Women’s League.
9) Social Action for the poor through the Catholic Relief Services.
10) Knights of Columbus.
11) Children of Mary.
IN MARCH 1990, a very big earthquake shook the Island of Luzon. The epicenter was only 50 kilometres from the southern border of the Diocese of La Union. It had the strength of 7.8 Richter Scales. The damage was very great and extensive: 8 Parish Churches, 5 school buildings, and 5 rectories were partly or totally destroyed. Appeals were made to the funding agencies in Germany. Through the funds received, part of the damages were restored. But much of the damage of the destructive tremor were never rehabilitated.
VIII. BISHOP EMERITUS
IN I992, my only sister Teresa retired from her teaching job, as a college dean in a Zamboanga City, on retirement. She was also sick. So she went to her doctor in the University of Santo Tomas Hospital, Manila. Her physician diagnosed that her cancer was in an advanced stage. I wanted a second opinion so I advised her to go to the Philippine General Hospital, Manila. Doctors in the PGH confirmed the UST diagnosis. She was living with us in Project 4, Quezon City. I decided that she should go home to Zamboanga City where her in-laws were residing so that they could help her and her only daughter Emily in case she was going to die. If she were going to die she could be buried beside Andres, her husband who went home to God many years ago. She passed away on December 21st,1996. God rest her soul.
IN MY thirteenth year as bishop of the Diocese, I reached my retirement age. By Canon Law I was supposed to retire. I informed the nunciature and requested for replacement. Soon enough the most Rev. Antonio Tobias, Bishop of Pagadian Diocese in Mindanao was announced as my successor. The new nuncio was invited by Bishop Tobias for the installment. The Most Rev. Gian Vincenzo Moreni, D.D. came to grace the occasion. As soon as the banquet was over I said goodbye to His Excellency Bishop Tobias. I left the Diocese of San Fernando, La Union, to go on my own for good. That was on July 16, 1993. THERE were invitations that I should stay in the diocese on account of my advanced age. An emerging community of Sisters reminded me: “You are getting old. Stay with us we will take care of you”. Well, I thanked them for their overtures. But there seemed to be a strong beckoning to leave San Fernando Diocese of La Union. I knew there were only few prospects for me outside the Diocese but somehow I heeded the call of city life. I lived with my sister, Teresa, who also had retired from the office of dean of a college in Zamboanga City. Pooling our modest resources together we constructed a humble residence and there we lived.
IX. THE DECISIVE VISIT
THE PLACE chosen for the building of our humble residence was not far from the Priory of the Society of St. Pius X. One night Mr. Antonio Malaya, Jr., and four catechists of the Priory paid me a visit. The four catechists were loaded with books. After the initial pleasantries, I put a question to my visitors: “May I know why are you visiting me”? They replied: “We want to know you”. I was happy at the reply. Mr. Malaya extended his hands and said: “Glad to know you”. The Catechists were Jade Liboro, Agnes Mendoza, Mitzie Noche, Jonna Tabuada; they too held out their hands.
IN LESS than an hour of a lively conversation they announced that they wanted to leave. On hearing this, one of the catechists inquired: “Can we leave these books with you”? I was happy at the suggestion and my rejoinder was: “I’ll be happy if you do so”. Leaving the books on the chairs my visitors stood up and bade goodbye. I was happy they left the books. I like to read. In fact one of the things I missed as a bishop was to read for pleasure. Also I was eager to update myself. As a bishop I had plenty to read. I read the hand-outs from the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) so that I could submit credible reports.
WHAT was so puzzling to me was the fact that here was an international conference of 2200 Catholic bishops and there were no bulletins, nor flyers to give us an idea of what was happening in Vatican II. It seemed that we were deliberately left in the dark. Was this an act of premeditated strategy? Well, I didn’t know.
X. BOOKS WHICH “CONVERTED” A BISHOP
SO WHEN my visitors were gone I scanned the titles of the books. To my joy they were the ones I wanted so much to read. Some of these titles:
1. AA-1025, The Memoirs of an Anti-Apostle - Marie Carré, TAN.
2. The Kingship of Christ and The Conversion of the Jewish Nation – Rev. Denis Fahey, C.S.SP.
3. Supernatural Life: Collections of Essay
4. Freemasonry and the Vatican -Visconte Leon de Poncins 5. Encyclicals: a) Humanum Genus - Pope Leo XIII b) Pascendi Gregis - Pope St Pius X c) Mortalium Animos - Pope Pius XI b) Mediator Dei - Pope Pius XII
6. Pope John XXIII Council – by Michael Davis, Angelus Press.
READING these books gave me a better idea of the crisis and confusion in the Church today. It became clear to me who are the real enemies of the Catholic Church. Father Denis Fahey pinpointed them when he wrote: “The enemies of the Catholic Church are three. One invisible, Satan, and two visible: a) Talmudic Judaism, and b) Freemasonry"
TALMUDIC JUDAISM
“That Judaism is the visible chief enemy of the Catholic Church, is evident from the Church history, from words and deeds of individuals, and groups and the teachings of the Talmud of which the Kabalah constitute the basis of Judaism”.
FREEMASONRY
“The third visible enemy of the Catholic Church is Freemasonry. Many Christians are reluctant to say anything about the power and control of Judeo-Masonry about its exercise in government, Church, and society, for fear of offending Jewish Masonic friends and neighbours. Many Masons are Christians who are ordinary good, patriotic citizens who joined the Lodge for fraternal and social reasons. They are not privy to the secret machinations of the upper echelons of Freemasonry. Nevertheless it is the degree to which he renders a disservice to his Christian religion – The first duty of any Mason is to obey the mandate of the Master (not Christ but rather the Master of the Lodge)” - from the jacket of the book advertised.
ONE OF the books that surprised me was AA-1025, The Memoirs of an Anti-Apostle, by Marie Carré. These memoirs of an anti-apostle were about a communist who purposely entered the seminary for the Catholic priesthood with the intent to subvert and destroy the Church from within. This exposed the plan of the Masons to send and finance bright boys to the seminary to study for the Catholic priesthood. The project was started more than a hundred years before Vatican II was convened. Some of these priests were already bishops when Vatican II started, and ready for the Council.
ANOTHER book that was very enlightening was Conspiracy Against Life. The jacket makes this advertisement: In an all–out exposé, this book shows how the United Nations is used as killing machine of these conspirators (the Freemasons) to destroy the Roman Catholic Church and society. It reveals how they dominate the world by controlling all religious and politicians. Politics are manipulated by centralizing banking trade and the military. Global religion is syncretized by ranking Jesus, at the same rank as Allah, Vishnu, Buddha, and other ancient religious leaders. They p roclaim the fallen Angel, Lucifer, the highest of all gods from whom Freemasons receive power, inspiration and knowledge. Their mission is to build a kingdom of material prosperity, one world government – a new world order, under Satan’s reign.
THIS is what I saw on the jackets of the books I received and read. I found them very alarming. And I thought I should unmask them to my friends no matter how frightening were the programs of the enemies of the society and God.
IT HAD been always a puzzle to me that, in spite of the condemnation of Freemasonry by Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical “Humanum Genus” (and by thirteen other popes, as well, starting with Pope Clement XII in 1738) there were Freemasons in the higher authorities of the Church. The magazine “Si, si, no, no” related an instance when a Nuncio had become a Mason, and not long afterwards was given the red hat. What about the loyalties of these ecclesiastical Masons? Reading the books disturbed me greatly as I was still then saying the Novus Ordo Missae. To clear my doubts I read on. After more than a year of searching for the truth, I began to make a decision – I had to return to the Tradition of the Catholic Church and, along with that, to the Tridentine Latin Mass.
XI. CBCP’S COUNTER ATTACK
WHILE in this state of mind, once I came home from a visit at the Priory of the Priests of the Society of St. Pius X, in Quezon City. I was surprised that a visitor from Cardinal Sin, our Metropolitan Primate, was waiting for me. We greeted each other almost simultaneously “Good Morning, Father Pascual. Why this visit?” I inquired. “I would like to go to confession” he replied, and went on talking. “Monsignor, stop going to the priory because you are scandalising Catholics by your bad example”. “Why do I scandalise Catholics?” I wanted to know. And Father Pascual explained: “Don’t you know that there is an ‘advisory’ from the Cardinal prohibiting the faithful to attend the Masses of the priests of the priory? Besides, the priests are the sons of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre who was excommunicated because he was a schismatic.” I tried to tell him that the Episcopal consecration of the four bishops without papal mandate alone did not make Archbishop Lefebvre schismatic. There are world renewed Canonists who corroborate the opinion of Archbishop Lefebvre. The canonists are Valdini, Lara, Capponi, and Guringer. They argued that there was a necessity and, besides, Archbishop Lefebvre did not establish a parallel Church. When I stopped talking, Fr. Pascual reminded of his confession and then left as soon as he got his absolution.
ARCHBISHOP Diosdado Talamayan made his appeal to me in a letter mentioning a possible subsidy in case I listen to his advice to obey the Holy Father, Pope John Paul II. The Archbishop harped on obedience to His Holiness. My response was that obedience must serve faith. My perception is that post-conciliar reforms were Masonic inspired, aimed to destroy the Catholic Religion. I don’t want to cooperate in the diabolical extirpation of the Catholic Religion founded by Jesus Christ for the eternal salvation of immortal souls, not for their eternal damnation. Obedience to the Pope is not a problem to me. I only want that the Pope fulfils all his duties as mandated by Jesus Christ, that he really saves immortal souls for whom Our Lord died on the cross on Mt. Calvary. I love the Pope. That is why I pray daily for him so that he will be faithful to the will of Jesus Christ whose Vicar he is. He must guard faithfully the deposit of faith and interpret it as it was done by the faithful Popes until Vatican II Council. That means no new theologies, no new novelties. Only doctrines from the deposit of faith should be explained and interpreted as Jesus Christ mandated. In other words, my critics always remind me of the words: “Ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia”. The Petrus is the Pope and he has the duty to be faithful to Jesus Christ whose Vicar he is. It means that if the Petrus changes a bit what Christ handed down to us through the apostles, the Pope loses the moral right to expect from us our obedience. Our fidelity to the Pope is dependent upon his fidelity to Jesus Christ, the Son of God. The Pope’s loyalty to the deposit of faith spells my loyalty to the Vicar of Christ.
XIII. EXTRAORDINARY DUTIES OF LAY PEOPLE
ACCUSED of not being in communion with the Church militant, lay people will answer with St. Joan of Arc. “Yes I unite but I serve God first” (Dieu premier servi). Accused of being disobedient to the pope, they explain that “the Holy Ghost was promised to the successors of Peter, not that they make known new doctrine by His revelation, but rather that, with His assistance, they might religiously and faithfully explain the Revelation or deposit of faith that was handed down through the apostles; and the power of the pope is not unlimited, not only can he not change anything which is of divine institution (to suppress Episcopal jurisdiction, for instance) but he is enjoined, through natural law, not to sow confusion in the flock of Christ. (Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, Vol II co1.2039-2040/ cfr. page 19: Is Tradition excommunicated?, by Angelus Press)
SAINT AUGUSTINE, St. Cyprian, Cajetan, St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Thomas Aquinas, all teach that in a danger of the faith and of public scandal “particularly in doctrinal matters, it is not only lawful but right to resist publicly the hierarchy and the Pontiff himself.” St. Thomas writes: “Take note that if there were a danger for the faith, subordinates would be bound to reprove their prelates, even publicly” (II-II, q.33, ad 2m). Cajetan adds: “One must resist the pope who openly destroys the Church”.
XIV. “I RETURNED TO TRADITION”
EARLY in August 1995, after prolonged reflection and prayer, I decided to approach Rev. Fr. Paul Morgan, local superior of the Society of St. Pius X, in the Philippines. I confided to him my plan to return to the traditional Latin Mass. Father Morgan received my confidence with joy and assigned Rev. Fr. Thomas Blute to assist me to re-learn the Latin Mass. But why did I want to go back to the Tridentine Mass and stop saying the new Mass which I had been saying for about twenty seven years? The following are the considerations which strengthened me in my resolve.
A. THE CHURCH HAS SPOKEN...
1) In the letter, “Super quibusdam” (September 29, 1351), Pope Clement VI taught: “The Roman Pontiff regarding the administration of the sacraments of the Church, can tolerate and even permit different rites of the Church of Christ, always without violating those which pertain to the integrity and necessary part of the sacraments”.
2) The Council of Trent, session XXI, Chapter 2: “The Council declares furthermore that this power has always been in the Church, that in the administration of the Sacraments, without violating their substance, she may determine or change whatever she may judge to be more expedient for the benefit of those who receive them or for the veneration of the Sacrament, according to the variety of circumstances, times and places.”
3) Pope St. Pius X in the letter Ex quo non (Dec. 26, 1910); “It is well known that to the Church there belongs no right whatsoever to innovate anything touching on the substance of the Sacraments”.
4) And finally, on Nov. 30, 1947, Pope Pius XII issued the Apostolic constitution “Sacramentum Ordinis” which reiterates and clarifies the same principle as the Council of Trent teaches, that “the seven sacraments of the new law have all been instituted by Jesus Christ Our Lord, and the Church has no power over the ‘substance of the sacraments’, that is over the things which, as the sources of revelation, witness, CHRIST THE LORD HIMSELF decreed to be preserved in a sacramental sign.” (DzS. 3857)
B. THE FORM GIVEN BY CHRIST FOR THE CONSECRATION OF THE PRECIOUS BLOOD HAS BEEN TAMPERED WITH.
IN THE confecting the sacrament two things must be distinguished – the substance and the ceremonies. The ceremonies may change, but the substance never changes. The substance is the MATTER AND THE FORM.
FOR THE Eucharist the matter is twofold; likewise the form is twofold. The matter is bread and wine. The form for the BREAD: THIS IS MY BODY. The form for the WINE: THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD; OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL TESTAMENT, THE MYSTERY OF FAITH, WHICH SHALL BE SHED FOR YOU AND FOR MANY UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS.
IN THE NOVUS ORDO MISSAE, The last clause is different. It says: which shall be shed for you and FOR ALL unto the remission of sins. With this change, the form for the consecration of the wine is altered from “for many” to “for all”. This change touches the essential words given by JESUS CHRIST. This change may invalidate the consecration of the Precious Blood by changing the intention of the celebrant (see the theological study called The Ottaviani Intervention). This form leads to the heresy of universal salvation. Through Christ’s death on the cross on Mt. Calvary, He redeemed all. But because not all men do all that are necessary for salvation, therefore not all are saved, hence, the form “for all” leads to that heresy.
THE QUESTION of the validity of the new consecration was answered long before it was even asked, because it is the unalterable teaching of the Magisterium that not even the Church Herself, that is “no Pope, no bishop, not even a council - has the right or the power to innovate anything touching on the substance of the sacraments”. To do this is to change the very words JESUS CHRIST has given. Otherwise Christ’s promise will not be true. “He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has everlasting life and I will raise him up on the last day.”
THE MATTER and the form have no power in themselves to give grace. The power depends entirely on the will of God, who has promised this grace. The realisation of the promise depends on certain things and words so that if they are not there, the sacrament is not fulfilled. Let us quote from the FATHERS....
ST. AUGUSTINE: “The word is joined to the element, and it becomes a sacrament.”
ST. AMBROSE: “When it is time to confect the Blessed Sacrament, the priest does not use his own words; instead, he pronounces the words of Our Lord. It is the words of Our Lord that confect the Sacrament.”
C. THE TRADITIONAL LATIN MASS, OBSTACLE TO ECUMENISM, IS SCRAPPED
THE ANCIENT Mass was scrapped because of Ecumenism. Ecumenism Ecumenism aims at unity with all religions, especially Protestantism. But the old Mass contained many Catholic dogmas which Protestants denied. Therefore the Mass instituted by Jesus Christ was changed for the Mass which was a concoction of Fr. Annibale Bugnini, a Freemason. Six Protestant ministers who assisted him saw to it that all the Catholic dogmas offensive to Protestant ears were deleted. Prayers stressing the idea of sacrifice were dropped, and the Protestant practices like the offertory procession and the prayer of the faithful were introduced. This way the Traditional Latin Mass was Protestantized. And the result? Many Catholics were and still are, converted to Protestantism. This is the fruit of ecumenism.
D. NOVUS ORDO MISSAE
WHAT do we say about the Novus Ordo Missae? The music is often Rock ‘n Roll, often accompanied by guitars. Then, there are irreverent dances by the laity and the priests and the imitation of the TV presentations. With all these the sense of the sacred is minimised, if not altogether cancelled. All these bring to us the nostalgia of the Plain Chant, the official Church Music. The memory of the “Missa de Angelis” on Sundays, the solemn melodies of the “Magnificat” at Vespers and the angelic tune of the “Salve Regina” at Compline. Then there is the awe-inspiring “Veni Creator” that begins every solemn occasion in the life of the Church. And the “Pange Lingua” and “Tantum Ergo” at the solemn exposition of the Blessed Sacrament. Nor do we forget the “Requiem Mass” of the dead with its “Libera Me” for the absolution. We should not forget the solemn “Te Deum”, the hymn of thanksgiving that usually terminates every great feast of the Liturgical Year.
WHAT about the sermons and homilies of the Novus Ordo Missae? Our preachers talk about the social problems of the country, like the eruptions of Mt. Pinatubo in Central Luzon; they comment on the construction of the dam in Casecnan, in the Caraballo Mountains, the denudations of our forests, like those in Mt. Apo in Mindanao, the NAMFREL performances both in the local and national elections and the destructive flood of Ormoc City. They also question the death penalty law, the scams committed by the government officials and by the peace officers, the members of the Philippine National Police (PNP) and the military. Indeed, the flock is not fed with the bread of eternal truths of salvation or the explanation of the Gospel of that Sunday to feed the flock hungry for the word of God.
E. CATHOLIC DOCTRINE ON TRADITIONAL LATIN MASS
THE Council of Trent (1545-1563) defined the unchanging Catholic Doctrine on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Essentially it has three realities:
1) The first reality, Transubstantiation, is real. It is the will of God. Therefore Divine Eucharistic Presence in the Sacred Host is real.
2) The second reality is that the Holy Mass is a sacrifice, which is the renewal of the sacrifice on Mt. Calvary. The Holy Mass is first and foremost a sacrifice of forgiveness and expiation of sins. It is also a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving. Furthermore, the Holy Mass is a communion at the sacrifice just celebrated.
3) The third reality is the role of the priest. His role is essential and exclusive. He offers the sacrifice and he does this alone, for he alone has received the sacrament of Holy Orders. Because of his ordination to the holy priesthood, he alone has the power to consecrate the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
F. TRADITIONALIST AGAIN
1. A sacrament is visible sign, instituted by Jesus Christ to give grace. The Holy Eucharist is one of the seven sacraments.
2. The Novus Ordo Missae was not instituted by Jesus Christ. It was a concoction of Fr. Annibale Bugnini and six Protestant ministers helped him in fabricating it. Therefore the Novus Ordo Missae is the work of men only. They did not have the power to give to their work the power that Christ gave to His. Hence, the Bugnini Mass is spiritually barren. It cannot sanctify like the Mass instituted by Jesus Christ.
3. Jesus Christ did not give to Pope Paul VI the power to institute a sacrament. Consequently Pope Paul VI by his slipshod approval could not give to the Novus Ordo Missae the sacramental power which Jesus Christ has given to the Mass He instituted at the Last Supper.
BECAUSE of these considerations, I was happy to return to the traditional Mass, the Mass of my ordination. On August 22, 1995, the feast of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, after twenty-seven years celebrating the new rite, I offered the Tridentine Latin Holy Mass, the Mass of all time. I was happy for the unique privilege. And gratitude filled my heart deeply to be able again to offer the Holy Mass that is acceptable to the holy and triune God, God, the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost.
MAY Mary, the Mother of God, St. Joseph, Saint Anthony, my Patron Saint, St. Michael, my guardian angel, assist me as a priest and bishop to be faithful to Jesus Christ, my Lord and King to the end of my life.
LATE IN 1995, Bishop Bernard Fellay, Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X, invited me through Rev. Father Paul Morgan, the Society’s local Superior, to the priestly ordinations at Ecône, Switzerland, that were to take place in June 1996. I wrote to the Superior General that I could not give a positive answer on two counts: First, I was not financially able and second, as I was already almost an octogenarian, someone had to accompany me as my attendant. Bishop Fellay wrote back and assured me that he would provide free plane tickets for the two of us. Thus, in June 1996, accompanied by Rev. Father Paul Morgan and Mr. Dominador Jerusalem, my attendant and secretary, I boarded a plane of Singapore Airlines which landed us in Zurich, Switzerland. From Zurich, we took the train to Martigny, the nearest station to Ecône. From there we motored to the International Seminary of the Society of St. Pius X, in Ecône, two days before the ordinations.
ON THE ordination day the ceremonies were unfolded in an improvised chapel on a meadow nearby so that the thousands of relatives, guests and friends could be accommodated. There were many sisters, priests and five bishops, i.e., the four bishops of the Society – Bishop Fellay, Bishop Williamson, Bishop de Mallerais, Bishop Gallereta, and myself. We all imposed our hands on the ordinands. The priests did the same. After the ordination rites, there was a banquet at the end of which I was asked to say a few words. Later on, Rev. Father Peter Scott, the district superior of the US, approached me and said: “Your Excellency, you speak English, so you could come to the US and tell us how you came back to Tradition”. The following day, Fr. Scott gave me the schedule of the communities and parishes where I was expected to narrate the story of my return to Tradition.
BEFORE leaving Europe, Father Morgan proposed that we go to France to visit the shrine of Our Lady of La Salette in Southern France, the Shrine of Our Lady of Lourdes, Shrine of the Miraculous Medal, at La Rue du Bac in Paris, of St. John Marie Vianney and the most famous of all, Our Lady of Fatima in Portugal. Before proceeding to Fatima, we were welcomed at the house of Mr. John Morgan, Father Morgan’s brother. He cooked for us a delicious meal. We spent the night in a Traditional Capuchin Monastery where I was asked to give a conference to the Friars on how I got back to Tradition after twenty seven years in the Novus Ordo Missae. While waiting for the car the following day, Brother Didacus told us that their Monastery was formerly a Masonic lodge and the Masons had their regular assembly in the building before the Capuchin Monks bought the facility for their use. As soon as the car arrived we motored to the airport of Lyon. From there we flew to Lisbon. Three days were spent in Fatima and we returned to Paris for the plane that landed us in Singapore. After a few days in this city, we flew to Kuala Lumpur. On the third day, our host took us to Malacca to see the place where St. Francis Xavier was buried for over one year. In the afternoon we motored back to Kuala Lumpur. From this City, we boarded the plane for Manila via Singapore.
BACK IN the Philippines, I found out that I was scheduled to address several groups of people who wanted to know why I rejected the New Rite of the Mass. They found it strange that the New Mass was imposed by the Catholic Bishops and yet I, a bishop of the CBCP, was opposing the hierarchy. My explanation was needed and I welcomed these occasions to enlighten my people why there was a crisis and such confusion in the Catholic Church today. For ignorance is rampant not only among the lay Catholics but also among the priests. I myself did not know what happened at the Second Vatican Council before I retired from the governance of the diocese of San Fernando of La Union, in 1993. It took me about two years to update myself and to realise that there was a conspiracy on the part of the enemies of the Catholic Church. Martin Luther has said: “Destroy the Catholic Mass and you will destroy the Catholic Religion.”
MAY God give give us the grace to persevere to the end faithful to Catholic Tradition and to the Traditional Latin Mass because only those who persevere will receive the crown of victory.
+ Salvador L. Lazo
Bibliography
1. Fahey, Denis FR. – C.S.Sp. The Mystical Body of Christ and Reorganization of Society: Christian Book Club of America, Palmdale, California 1995.
2. Carré, Marie. AA 1025 The Memoirs of an Anti-Apostle., Tan Books and Publishers, Inc., 1991.
3. Fahey, Denis Fr.- C.S.Sp. The Kingship of Christ and The Conversion of the Jewish Nation: Christian Book Club of America, Palmdale, California, reprinted 1993.
4. Gamber, Klaus Monsignor. The Reform of the Roman Liturgy, Its Problems and Background, Una Voce Press, New York: 1993.
5. Davies, Michael, Liturgical Revolution, Vol. II - Pope John’s Council. Angelus Press, 1977.
6. Davies, Michael, Liturgical Revolution, Vol. III – Pope Paul’s New Mass, Angelus Press, 1980.
7. Wiltgen, Ralph Rev., SVD, The Rhine Flows Into the Tiber - A History of Vatican II, Tan Books and Publishers, Inc.
8. Dillon, George Mgr, (DD) Freemasonry Unmasked: Christian Book of America, Palmdale, California, 1950.
9. Poncins, Vicomte Leon, Freemasonry and the Vatican; Omni Christian Book Club, Palmdale, California, 1968.
10. Lefebvre, Marcel Archbishop, An Open Letter To Confused Catholics: Angelus Press, 1986.
11. Conspiracy Against Life - (Evangelium Vitae’s Conclusive Evidence), Philippines: Two Hearts Media Organization, 1996.
12. Encyclicals: Humanum Genus - Freemasonry - Leo XIII Pascendi Gregis - Modernism - St. Pius X Mortalium Animos - Pius XI Mediator Dei - Pius XII
13. Davies, Michael, Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre (Vol. 1, Vol. 2 ), Angelus Press, 1983.
14. Romano Amerio. Iota Unum - A Study of Changes in the Catholic Church in the XXth Century, Sarto House, Kansas, Missouri, 1996.
15. Le Roux, Abbé Daniel, Peter, Lovest Thou Me? Instauratio Press, Australia, 1989.
16. Is Tradition Excommunicated? – A Collection of Essays, Angelus Press.
17. Martin, Malachi, The Jesuit – The Betrayal of the Catholic Church.
18. Omlor, Patrick Henry - Questioning the Validity of the English Missal.
19. Hildebrand, Dietriecht, The Devasted Vineyard.
20. Radecki – What’s Happening to the Catholic Church.
Note: I don't know if it was a misprint in the numbering, but number XII is missing from the website this was taken from.
|
|
|
|
| Vatican preparing document for couples living in ‘new unions’ after ‘marriage failure’ |
|
Posted by: Stone - 04-26-2023, 09:26 AM - Forum: Vatican II and the Fruits of Modernism
- No Replies
|
|
Vatican preparing document for couples living in ‘new unions’ after ‘marriage failure’
Cdl. Kevin Farrell, a notable promoter of Pope Francis' 2016 apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia, revealed that his dicastery was preparing a document in line with the Pope's wishes on people who ‘live in new unions’ after ‘marriage failure.’
![[Image: farrell-francis-810x500.jpg]](https://www.lifesitenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/farrell-francis-810x500.jpg)
Cdl. Kevin Farrell with Pope Francis, June 2022.
Dicastery for Laity, Family and Life/Flickr
Apr 26, 2023
VATICAN CITY (LifeSiteNews - adapted) — A Vatican dicastery is preparing a text on the divorced and “re-married” in line with the wishes of Pope Francis, who has called for people in such circumstances to receive Holy Communion – contrary to Catholic teaching.
Cardinal Kevin Farrell, prefect of the Dicastery for Laity, Family, and Life, made the revelation during the dicastery’s plenary assembly last week.
In a brief greeting to Pope Francis on April 22, the 75-year-old cardinal referenced the “challenges” the dicastery had been studying during its plenary assembly. These included “the challenges of those experiencing marriage crises of all kinds, resulting in the consequent short-circuiting of the transmission of the faith,” he said.
Continuing, Farrell stated:
Quote:Today, the need for a specific ministeriality, an authentic closeness and witness on the part of married couples in the service of families, for the pastoral care of those experiencing crises and problems of all kinds is more urgent than ever in the area of family ministry.
With such a focus, Farrell praised the Synod on Synodality, claiming “we are already seeing the fruits that can arise from this reflection, which is situated at the heart of the synodal journey involving the Church on all continents.”
“On this front,” said Farrell, “the dicastery is working on the preparation of a text specifically regarding – as you wished, Holiness – men and women who, having marriage failure behind them, live in new unions.”
Farrell’s praise for the synod gives some clues as to the contents of the dicastery’s document. The latest document to emerge from the Synod on Synodality calls for further “inclusion” for the “neglected and excluded.” Among those who “feel a tension between belonging to the Church and the experience of their own affective relationships,” the document listed:
- “re-married” divorcees,
- single parents,
- people in polygamous “marriages,”
- “LGBTQ people,” etc.
“All in need of a more welcoming Church,” the document stated.
It added that many of the preceding, localized synodal documents had written of “the pain of not being able to access the Sacraments experienced by remarried divorcees and those who have entered into polygamous marriages. There is no unanimity on how to deal with these situations.”
As yet, Farrell has not given any further details about the contents or release date of the document which his dicastery is preparing. LifeSiteNews has contacted the dicastery for more information and will update this report upon receipt of a response.
Divorced and ‘re-married’ theme
The subject of the divorced and “re-married” has been a prominent feature of Pope Francis’ pontificate, especially in light of the now infamous footnote 351 in Chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia, Francis’ apostolic exhortation following the closure of the Synod on the Family.
In the brief lines of the footnote, Pope Francis opened the door to allowing the divorced and “re-married” access to receive Holy Communion.
READ: Pope Francis opens door to Communion for ‘remarried’ Catholics in landmark exhortation
The chapter presents the case for a deeper “integration” of those in “irregular unions” into the life of the Church. In the footnote, he stated that this “integration” can, “in certain cases,” involve admittance to the sacraments, including the Eucharist. It reads:
Quote:In certain cases, this can include the help of the sacraments… I would also point out that the Eucharist ‘is not a prize for the perfect, but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak.’
Causing instant consternation amongst Catholics – clerical and lay – the text was subsequently defended by Francis during an in-flight interview.
Francis was asked if Amoris Laetitia contained a “change in discipline that governs access to the sacraments” for Catholics who are divorced and “re-married.” He replied, “I can say yes, period.” Adding, however, that this would be “too small” of an answer, the Pope then urged reading the presentation of Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, calling the heterodox Schönborn a “great theologian who knows the doctrine of the Church.”
“In that presentation your question will have the answer,” said Francis.
Schönborn’s presentation included the controversial footnote, expanding on the Pope’s words and writing that “In the sense of this ‘via caritatis’ (AL 306), the Pope affirms, in a humble and simple manner, in a note (351) that the help of the sacraments may also be given ‘in certain cases.’”
Francis later told bishops in Buenos Aires that there was “no other” interpretation of Amoris Laetitia than to allow the divorced and “re-married” to receive Holy Communion
Within months, a group of Catholic scholars issued a letter to all the cardinals and patriarchs, warning that Amoris Laetitia contained “dangers to the faith.”
Cdl. Farrell’s promotion of papal confusion
Farrell himself, raised by Francis to lead the Dicastery for Laity, Family, and Life in 2016, has been a consistent defender and promoter of Amoris Laetitia. While still new in his post, Farrell stated his desire to implement marriage and family programs based on the document.
Weeks prior, Farrell had championed Amoris Laetitia as remaining “faithful to the doctrine and to the teaching of the Church.”
“I firmly believe [Amoris Laetitia] is the teaching of the Church,” said Farrell. “This is a pastoral document telling us how we should proceed. I believe we should take it as it is.”
Farrell added he wasn’t necessarily saying the divorced and “re-married” should de facto receive Communion, saying instead “that’s a process of discernment and of conscience,” and a “journey.”
“The priest, the pastor needs to accompany people in difficult situations,” he added.
In contrast, Pope John Paul II’s Familiaris Consortio championed the Catholic Church’s longstanding teaching that the divorced and remarried whose previous unions the Church has not declared null may not receive Holy Communion. John Paul II wrote:
Quote:[The] Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist. Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage.
|
|
|
|
| Rumors circulating that the SSPX will consecrate bishops? |
|
Posted by: Stone - 04-25-2023, 07:06 AM - Forum: The New-Conciliar SSPX
- Replies (3)
|
|
The False Resistance blog, Non Possumus, is citing an anonymous contact on April 20, 2023 that:
Quote:This week, Fr. Pagliarani has given this instruction to the priests of the SSPX: "Begin to prepare the faithful for eventual episcopal consecrations" (Non Possumus cannot reveal the source of this information, but it is certain).[computer translated from the Spanish]
I was a bit incredulous when I first read this. The SSPX would not make such a move without Rome's blessing, before whom they've cowered for years now. And given the recent Roman milieu of suppressing all things 'traditional' it would hardly make sense, unless one was bipolar or schizophrenic, to suppress the Latin Mass on the one hand but allow more traditional bishops on the other.
But this rumor may be gathering steam. Another Spanish blog is reporting, even more specifically, that a certain Fr. Pablo Enrique Suárez,
Quote:"an Argentine, ordained in 2001 by the Lefebvrist bishop Alfonso José de Galarreta, and who currently lives in Rome sheltered by Bergoglio (alias Francisco) and with "authorization" of the superior Pro. Davide Pagliarani, would be "consecrated bishop" in a short time. [...] Those who had the chance to meet Suárez will recognize that he is about to achieve what he always wanted: a miter, even if for that he must sell his own mother."
Time will tell if this is just another rumor or if it has more substance. If Rome does allow the SSPX episcopal consecrations, it will surely not be anyone staunchly traditional but rather a bishop willing to placate and compromise with both Rome and tradition.
|
|
|
|
| The Recusant #60: SSPX Watch! |
|
Posted by: Stone - 04-23-2023, 08:03 AM - Forum: True vs. False Resistance
- Replies (4)
|
|
Taken from The Recusant #60 - Easter 2023
SSPX Watch!
SSPX Sick Calls?
The SSPX priory at Ridgefield, Connecticut recently included this notice in their bulletin.
“Sick calls are for those who are listed in our records as parishioners.”
The first reaction is to be shocked at such a lack of apostolic zeal. Is this not the equivalent of saying: People can go to hell, what business of ours is that?
The second, is to ask oneself: why? To answer, let us translate this scandalous notice into normal English. “We don’t have jurisdiction over anyone: our conciliar masters have only granted us jurisdiction over those people who are definitely our people, but not over their people. They would be very displeased if we trespassed on their territory!”
Bearing in mind Pope Francis’s approval for SSPX ordinations, jurisdiction for their confessions, the approval of their marriages, the SSPX’s recourse to conciliar courts using the modernist 1983 Code of Canon Law, and all the rest - isn’t this entirely consistent with a priestly Society which has been secretly absorbed into the conciliar church and now has to abide by their jurisdiction?
More Navel-Gazing
Listening to Fr Paul Robinson and Mr James Vogel talking about podcasts, the Angelus Press, etc. (here) has to be one of the most boring experiences of the year so far, a veritable cure for insomnia if ever there was one.
What’s more, when one considers that this is in effect the Angelus Press talking about the Angelus Press, a podcast about podcasts, one is reminded of the time the SSPX issued a press release about press releases. One of the surest signs of an organisation becoming ineffectual and rotten on the inside is when it starts to look inward and wastes time talking about itself.
The one noteworthy piece of news to be gathered, is that: Fr Paul Robinson Takes Over at Angelus Press
Go on, tell me again all about how The Realist Guide was just one rogue priest. Tell me again that it doesn’t represent his superiors or the SSPX as a whole. Not only has Angelus Press been selling that scandalous book, the SSPX has now placed its author in charge of Angelus.
The man who wrote a book promoting evolutionist ideas is now in charge of publishing the SSPX’s books for the whole English-speaking world.
Doubtful Novus Ordo Bishop Consecrates German SSPX’s Holy Oils
Bishop Vitus Huonder has featured in these pages before. Until now he has only been celebrating Mass on SSPX altars - that is, until Holy Week 2023. He has now been used to consecrate the holy oils at Zaitskofen, Germany. Are the SSPX bigwigs intending to ease him into the bloodstream? First doubtful oils, then..? Doubtful confirmations? Doubtful ordinations? He was consecrated bishop in the new rite of episcopal consecration in 2007, by a bishop who was himself also so consecrated in 1987 - “second generation doubtful,” in other words.
|
|
|
|
| Vatican permits Anglican ‘Mass’ at St. John Lateran Cathedral in Rome |
|
Posted by: Stone - 04-20-2023, 07:04 AM - Forum: Pope Francis
- Replies (1)
|
|
Dear friends, I haven't found too many places reporting this so please forgive the sedevacantist sourcing. I have slightly adapted the article to removed sedevacantist references (such as removing quotes from the titles of various bishops and popes, etc.).
Vatican permits Anglican ‘Mass’ at St. John Lateran Cathedral in Rome
![[Image: wthm6f7wco6s1qmh7ibzv24xwlyrrxfacoe2bk6....ormat=webp]](https://assistant.gloria.tv/1z94gyaCTBei3D8MsGrYwjE6j/wthm6f7wco6s1qmh7ibzv24xwlyrrxfacoe2bk6.webp?secure=WYIuz0sc_XWwwRwrZlZ4WQ&expires=1682885993&format=webp)
Mr. Jonathan Baker leads an Anglican ‘Mass’ in St. John’s Cathedral, Rome
NOW [adapted, some hyperlinks removed] | April 19, 2023
As we noted in our last post, ideas have consequences.
News reached us this morning that a group of clerics of the so-called Church of England, led by ‘Bishop’ Jonathan Baker of Fulham (associated with the diocese of London), performed the Anglican worship service (which they call ‘Mass’, in imitation of Catholicism) at the Basilica of St. John Lateran in Rome, east of Vatican City.
The official Facebook page of St Philip the Apostle, South Tottenham, posted a number of photos on Apr. 18, 2023 (see here).
The Basilica of St. John Lateran is the cathedral church of the Pope. Its full name is “Archbasilica Cathedral of the Most Holy Savior and of Saints John the Baptist and John the Evangelist in the Lateran”. This cathedral, and not St. Peter’s Basilica in the Vatican, is where the episcopal chair of the Roman Pontiff is located, the real cathedra of the Pope. The historic church building can be traced back to the fourth century.
So this is where Anglican clerics just offered ‘Mass’, with the permission of the ‘Holy See’ of Jorge Bergoglio, as noted by the administrator of the Facebook page in reply to a commenter: “the Holy See are [sic] very gracious to let us use their church”.
Some people might be wondering what the big deal is. Quite simply, the big deal is that an Anglican Mass is:- invalid, as its priests and bishops are not validly ordained, according to the solemn judgment of Pope Leo XIII
- the formal and heretical worship of a false religion, created by King Henry VIII
To use a church building that was consecrated for true Christian worship by the only true religion, for the false worship of a man-made heretical sect, is a sacrilege of staggering proportions. This holds true very specifically also for the altar on which the pseudo-Mass was offered, assuming it is a traditional altar consecrated by a valid Catholic Pope or bishop (which it may not be).
Some will point out that St. John Lateran has long been desecrated de facto through the sacrilegious worship of the Vatican II religion, specifically the Novus Ordo Missae (‘New Mass’), and that is very true. However, this latest occurrence adds another level of wickedness to it all, inasmuch as the Vatican II religion does what it does under the label of Catholicism, whereas permitting Anglican worship is to explicitly allow non-Catholic worship as non-Catholic.
As regards the invalidity of Anglican holy orders, in 1896 Pope Leo XIII issued a definitive judgment that is probably infallible:
Quote:Then, considering that this matter, although already decided, had been by certain persons for whatever reason recalled into discussion, and that thence it might follow that a pernicious error would be fostered in the minds of many who might suppose that they possessed the Sacrament and effects of Orders, where these are nowise to be found, it seemed good to Us in the Lord to pronounce our judgment.
Wherefore, strictly adhering, in this matter, to the decrees of the pontiffs, our predecessors, and confirming them most fully, and, as it were, renewing them by our authority, of our own initiative and certain knowledge, we pronounce and declare that ordinations carried out according to the Anglican rite have been, and are, absolutely null and utterly void.
(Pope Leo XIII, Apostolic Constitution Apostolicae Curae, nn. 35-36; underlining added.)
Though the Vatican web site has somehow not seen fit to publish the ecumenical joy stopper Apostolicae Curae on its own web site in any language other than Latin, even official Novus Ordo teaching affirms the decree of Pope Leo XIII:
Quote:With regard to those truths connected to revelation by historical necessity and which are to be held definitively, but are not able to be declared as divinely revealed, the following examples can be given: the legitimacy of the election of the Supreme Pontiff or of the celebration of an ecumenical council, the canonizations of saints (dogmatic facts), the declaration of Pope Leo XIII in the Apostolic Letter Apostolicae Curae on the invalidity of Anglican ordinations.
(Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the Professio Fidei, n. 11)
At the same time, of course, the basis for a “re-evaluation” of Pope Leo XIII’s verdict on Anglican orders was already laid in 1979, when a joint Anglican-NovusOrdo commission discovered a “new context” in which to discuss the matter.
The false Novus Ordo hierarchy knows that it cannot simply overturn Pope Leo’s declaration from one day to the next. Therefore, they proceed more subtly and establish gradual acceptance of Anglican orders in the practical order while leaving the doctrine theoretically untouched for the time being. This is accomplished by repeatedly making token ecumenical gestures that imply or suggest an acceptance of validity. In this manner, approval of Anglican orders is slowly enshrined in the minds of the people. When the moment comes for the revolution to be made on the doctrinal level, the minds of the people will already have been sufficiently conditioned to accept the new teaching, and resistance will be minimal.
There is, then, real method to the madness — the madness of saying one thing while doing another. For the time being, Francis is more interested in a practical revolution than a theoretical one. In his view, the theoretical will follow the practical anyway, and takes precedence over it. This kind of “theological existentialism” can be considered an application of the principle he enunciated in his 2013 exhortation Evangelii Gaudium: “Realities are greater than ideas” (n. 233).
Thus, we can view the Anglican ‘Mass’ in St. John Lateran as simply the latest in an ongoing history of gradually making Anglican orders and sacraments acceptable to Catholics (or those who mean to be Catholics). There are sundry instances where Francis, or one of his predecessors of infelicitous memory, did something similar to advance the cause of ecumenism at the expense of Catholic truth.
For instance, in 2017, Pope Francis claimed that it is perfectly fine for Catholics to attend an Anglican ‘Mass’ if there is no Catholic Mass available:
Francis’ Double Standard: Traditional Latin Mass forbidden, but Anglican Service is fine
Keep in mind that Anglican ‘Masses’, even according to Novus Ordo theology, are invalid!
Also in 2017, the Vatican permitted Anglican Evensong to be celebrated in St. Peter’s Basilica. In 2014, Francis received a ‘blessing’ from the invalid ‘Archbishop’ of Canterbury, Justin Welby, a mere layman. That same year, the false pope granted his deceased friend Tony Palmer, an Anglican-Evangelical ‘bishop’, to be buried as a Catholic bishop.
In 2018, permission was given for the Coptic Orthodox to offer Mass in the Basilica of St. Paul’s outside the Walls in Rome. Although the Mass was valid, this was a grave offense to God because offered by heretics (the subjective dispositions of the individuals involved are irrelevant to the objective evil that took place).
Given the above, is it terribly surprising that Francis revealed a few years ago that he had once substituted for a friend and led a Lutheran prayer service?
All heretical worship is false worship and is a sin against the First Commandment:
Quote:False worship is opposed to the truth of religion (e.g., Old Testament rites which signify that Christ is still to come), or of rites (e.g., Mass by a layman, Mass according to a form disapproved by the Church), or of facts (e.g., fictitious revelations, ecstasies, mysticism, miracles, relies), or of morals (e.g., human sacrifice, praises of God to the accompaniment of lascivious words or music, etc.).
(Rev. John A. McHugh & Charles J. Callan, Moral Theology [New York, NY: Joseph F. Wagner, 1958], n. 2274)
Since heretical worship is always at the very least “opposed to the truth of religion”, it always constitutes false worship. (Whoever thinks this is no big deal may wish to review Jude 11 and Numbers 16 in Holy Scripture, in addition to John 4:24.)
That’s how a Catholic looks at these things, but Catholicism has not been permitted in the Vatican for many decades now. In fact, Bergoglio has said the Church needs Anglicans as Anglicans; and, on another occasion, he claimed that Catholics need Protestants.
In 2009, Pope Benedict XVI gave to the English Archlayman of Canterbury a pectoral cross (signifying episcopal authority), something that had also been done by Pope John Paul II in 2003; and in 1966 Pope Paul VI gave his own episcopal ring to the ‘Archbishop’ of Canterbury (see photo here).
Thus it is evident that the gradual acceptance of Anglican ordinations has been going on for quite a while and is by no means unique to Bergoglio, who is merely continuing and advancing the trend. All this is the rotten fruit of the theology of Vatican II, especially regarding the Church (ecclesiology).
On Mar. 25, 1993, Pope John Paul II promulgated the Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism. This lengthy document gives concrete application to the council’s new ecclesiology and legislates:
Quote:Catholic churches are consecrated or blessed buildings which have an important theological and liturgical significance for the Catholic community. They are therefore generally [!] reserved for Catholic worship. However, if priests, ministers or communities not in full communion with the Catholic Church do not have a place or the liturgical objects necessary for celebrating worthily their religious ceremonies, the diocesan Bishop may allow them the use of a church or a Catholic building and also lend them what may be necessary for their services. Under similar circumstances, permission may be given to them for interment or for the celebration of services at Catholic cemeteries.
(John Paul II, Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms of Ecumenism, n. 137)
Now, some will object that this explicitly states that Protestants must be lacking a place for their worship as a condition for them being permitted to use a Catholic church. That is indeed true but irrelevant for two reasons: (1) It does not say that that this is the only scenario under which a Protestant service may be conducted in a Catholic church; (2) even if it did say so, since heretical worship is no longer forbidden in Catholic churches in principle but merely by circumstance, the door has been opened to this sacrilege, and now it is merely a question of determining under what precise circumstances it may take place. As if John Paul II admits one set of circumstances, there is no reason why Francis couldn’t admit another.
As we said before, ideas have consequences. On what grounds could anyone argue that it is licit to allow Protestants to use a Catholic church for their worship if they have no other place, but not if, for example, some “spiritual advantage”, such as “furthering the cause of Christian unity”, suggests it (to use typical Vatican II speak)? Surely, offering ‘Mass’ in an ancient Roman cathedral can only help foster fraternity and good mutual relations, which in turn will help promote the unity of all Christians, right?
By the way: According to a news report by Jules Gomes at Church Militant, this ‘Bishop’ Baker who led the Anglican worship in St. John’s yesterday is on record admitting to being an active Freemason. Furthermore, as someone who is ‘remarried’ after civil divorce, he apparently takes the Sixth Commandment as more of a divine suggestion. No wonder Bergoglio loves him [...].
Meanwhile, it has been announced that Pope Francis has gifted a relic of the True Cross to King Charles III to be used in his coronation ceremony on May 6. King Charles is not merely the monarch of the United Kingdom but, in that function, also the official head of the Church of England, which is simply a Protestant sect established by King Henry VIII in the 16th century after Pope Clement VII refused to “accompany” him in his desire to have his valid marriage declared null so he could raise up seed with another woman without being considered a bigamist or an adulterer.
Ladies and gentlemen, all of this chaos we see in Rome makes sense once you stop thinking that Jorge Bergoglio is the Pope of the Catholic Church, or that he intends to promote Catholicism and the good of souls. Once you consider that the man is an impostor, a charlatan, an anti-Catholic agent whose aim is to damage Catholicism in every way possible, to ruin souls eternally, and to humiliate the Church before the world, it all begins to make sense.
It’s time to end the cognitive dissonance.
|
|
|
|
| Please pray for Alma |
|
Posted by: Stone - 04-19-2023, 07:56 PM - Forum: Appeals for Prayer
- No Replies
|
|
Dear friends,
In your charity and kindness, please keep Mrs. Alma C. in your prayers. She is ill in the hospital with multiple health issues. Some of you who know the family may recall that Alma's husband Ron passed away two years ago.
With much compassion, let us offer our fervent prayers that Alma may obtain the special graces needed for a speedy and full recovery!
Almighty and Everlasting God, the eternal salvation of those who believe in You, hear us on behalf of Your servants who are sick,
for whom we humbly beg the help of your mercy, so that, being restored to health, they may render thanks to you in your Church. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.
|
|
|
|
| The Recusant: SSPX Moves Closer to Accepting the New Mass |
|
Posted by: Stone - 04-19-2023, 07:28 AM - Forum: The New-Conciliar SSPX
- Replies (7)
|
|
Taken from The Recusant #60 - Easter 2023:
Some people won’t believe it until the day arrives where they go to their SSPX chapel and find the hybrid Mass being celebrated there. For those of us who are paying attention, however, the warning signs are already starting to manifest…
The SSPX Moves Closer to Accepting the New Mass
Exaggeration? Sensational, click-baity headline? Sadly not. Take a look for yourself. And if you having read what follows and given it due consideration, you still have any doubt at all, then write to your local SSPX priest and ask him to justify even part of what follows.
PART 1 - Denying Quo Primum’s authority; defending Paul VI’s right to make a New Mass
Here is what Fr. Paul Robinson, acting as an official mouthpiece for the SSPX, has to say about the authority of Quo Primum. It is so shocking that we will quote him at some length:
Quote:Fr. Paul Robinson: “Pius V [sic] wanted to canonise the Mass, to set it in stone and say: this is what it is. And he uses very strong language in Quo Primum, saying that, you know, this shall be in force for perpetuity, the wrath of Ss. Peter and Paul will fall on those who dare change this missal, and so on. And what happens with the Traditionalist movement is sometimes Traditionalists interpret that document as meaning that the Mass can never be changed, that somehow St. Pius V was wanting to bind all of his successors in the papacy. And so they use Quo Primum to say that the Traditional Mass effectively is the only Mass that ever could be or will be till the end, and that any other legislative acts of the Popes to try to introduce a new Mass or try to modify the old Mass are illegitimate for that reason.
Andrew: Let me jump in real quick Father, and ask if you could clarify two points for me. One is: when you say that this is a “disciplinary” bull, it’s not that he’s trying to discipline someone, it’s that it’s more about legislation, it’s not about dogma. Is that correct?
Fr. Paul Robinson: That’s correct, it more concerns the practices of the Church rather than the doctrine of the Church.
Andrew: OK, and so then when you said: “It’s not [that] no one can ever change it” - successors of Pius V [sic], of Pope Pius V [sic], could, when he was saying that no one could change it, when he was using that very strong language, who was he talking about, if not the next Popes coming down the line?
Fr. Paul Robinson: Well he was referring to those who were not in a position to do such things. For one thing, he was referring to the printers. He specifically mentions the printers, you know, they were to print exactly what he put, they weren’t to, you know, do their own editing on the missal. But he was also referring to people lower in the hierarchy: he wasn’t wanting people like a bishop of a diocese, or a certain cardinal, or priests in their parish taking the missal and modifying the missal. Certainly the Pope, St. Pius V, was not anticipating legislating to all his successors, as though he had a power that all the other Popes had, like he could take power away from the other Popes, he certainly wasn’t wanting to set limits on the power of future Popes to either change that missal or bring in a different Mass. And that’s precisely what the questioner is sort of highlighting, because people are going to the questioner and saying, well, if you believe that Quo Primum binds the future Popes, how can it be that other Popes have changed the missal? Such as St. Pius X, or, um, other Popes who have added Saints to the missal, or the missal that we use, the 1962 missal was changed by John XXIII, he added the name of St. Joseph to the canon, for instance. So how is it that these Popes have changed what St Pius V established, if your argument is correct, that no Popes can lawfully change the missal after St. Pius V? And what I’m saying is that this is just a wrong interpretation of Quo Primum, St. Pius V was not wanting to bind all his successors that you can’t change the missal.
Andrew: I see. So, in a sense, Quo Primum was effective and perfect for its time, and what it does is it says: this is the Mass, there’s nothing wrong with this Mass, use this one, Popes down the line can change it. So I guess we’re left with two conclusions. One, that is, to use an argument of: Quo Primum is there so that’s why we have to use this Mass, - it’s kind of an ineffective argument because that’s not really what Quo Primum does, like you said, it doesn’t lock the Mass down.
Fr. Paul Robinson: It’s not an ineffective argument, it’s the wrong argument to make with Quo Primum.
Andrew: Oh, I see.”
Oh my, oh my, oh my… where does one even begin?
The first point to note is that this “SSPX podcast” is not recent, and has been out there for a good four years or so (April 2019, since you ask). We just never noticed it; neither did any ofyou, it seems, or if you did you kept awfully quiet about it. I know, I know, listening to him speak is almost a form of Chinese torture, you are forgiven on that score at least. Still, be glad that somebody did, or the hideous implications of what was said might have passed us all by.
The second point is simply to point out that Fr. Robinson is absolutely wrong on this question; as wrong as he is about the earth being billions of years old; as wrong as he was about covid lockdowns being a good thing for which we should all be thankful and concerning which we mustn’t spread “conspiracy theories” (yes, remember that one?!) To show how wrong he is, all that we really should have to do is to take a look at the text of
Quo Primum itself:
Quote:“Furthermore, by these presents and by virtue of Our Apostolic authority, We give and grant in perpetuity that for the singing or reading of Mass in any church whatsoever this Missal may be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment or censure, and may be freely and lawfully used. … We likewise order and declare that no one whosoever shall be forced or coerced into altering this Missal; and this present Constitution can never be revoked or modified, but shall forever remain valid and have the force of law. […] Therefore, no one whosoever is permitted to alter this notice of Our permission …Should anyone, however, presume to commit such an act, he should know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.”
Those words surely speak for themselves. They are the first and most important piece of evidence in defence of Quo Primum. The second is common sense. As regular readers may recall, the question of whether or not Quo Primum is still in force was dealt with in these very pages as recently as late 2021 (Recusant 56, p.45). A number of points were made, which can be summarised as follows:
• St Pius V clearly thought that he could bind his successors, his own words at the end of Quo Primum itself leave no doubt and no room for interpretation. Why would he say something so misleading in such clear language, and why did no one even attempt to correct him?
• When it came time to beatify and canonise him, why did nobody point out that this Saintly Pope had got things so wrong and misled everyone about so serious a matter?
• Every one of his successors, up to and including John XXIII, clearly considered themselves bound by Quo Primum and behaved accordingly. Quo Primum, including those very words just quoted, appeared in the front of every altar missal up to including the 1962 edition.
• It is misleading and untrue to say that Quo Primum is purely “disciplinary,” since its object, the thing with which it is concerned, is not a mere matter of discipline. The object of Quo Primum, is in fact the Mass, something which is intimately connected with the Faith itself as the Council of Trent and every Protestant reformer understood very well. Likewise, the past fifty-plus years since 1970 have amply demonstrated that whether a priest says the Novus Ordo Mass or the Traditional Mass is not a mere matter of discipline: the Faith itself is at stake. Finally, we must remember that the Traditional Roman Rite is the work of the Holy Ghost and goes right back to the very earliest times of the Church: is it really to be treated as being of no greater importance than the question of, say, whether or not a priest can grow a beard?
• Quo Primum is the work of the Council of Trent, as the text of the document itself makes clear. It is therefore not merely of one particular Pope, even if we are talking about the only Pope to have been canonised for about six-hundred years. Every altar missal up to and including the 1962 edition carried the title “Missale Romanum: Ex Decreto Sacrosancti Concilii Tridentini” [by decree of the Sacred Council of Trent] followed by the name of St. Pius V, making it clear that whilst it was a work carried out by that Pope, it was done at the command of the Council of Trent. Again, the very text of Quo Primum itself also makes this clear.
• Further evidence that what is at issue is the authority of the Council of Trent, not the mere authority of any one given Pope, is the very fact that for the past several hundred years, the Traditional Roman Rite of Mass has been widely known as the “Tridentine” Mass, i.e. the Mass “of the Council of Trent.”
The right question to ask, therefore, would be not just whether a Pope can bind his successors, but rather whether a Council can bind future Popes. Can a Council bind future Popes concerning a matter of Tradition which goes right back to the very earliest days of the Church? And it is not even merely a Council, the right question to ask is: are future Popes bound by the Tradition of the Church? The question almost answers itself.
A Pope Writing to the Printers!
To whom did St. Pius V address his words in Quo Primum? Fr Robinson informs us that, “Well he was referring to those who were not in a position to do such things.” So he was telling people who didn’t have the authority to change things that they didn’t have the authority to change things? Apart from being circular reasoning, this would make St Pius V’s words fatuous, trivial and a waste of effort: utterly pointless, in other words.
According to Fr Paul Robinson, Pope St Pius V told people “who weren’t in a position” to do such things not to do those things that they weren’t in a position to do anyway. Got it? St Pius V wants you to know that people who obviously don’t get to change the Mass, don’t get to change the Mass. Why would the Saintly Pope make himself and the Church look so ridiculous? And why did nobody else ever comment on it in the four centuries following?
Quote:“For one thing, he was referring to the printers. He specifically mentions the printers, you know, they were to print exactly what he put, they weren’t to, you know, do their own editing on the missal.”
Anything - anything! - which is sent to the printers, has to be printed accurately. That goes without saying. If this very newsletter were sent to the printers and came back with a lot of rainbow flag logos over it and the text of the editorial substituted for a plea for tolerance, diversity and “human rights,” the editor might very well ask for his money back. Are we really to believe that St. Pius V went to the effort of promulgating a papal bull in order to make sure that the printers did their job properly, the job that they’re being paid for and which they already know they have to do properly? Is that what we’re being asked to believe? Does that sound at all plausible?
Quote:“But he was also referring to people lower in the hierarchy: he wasn’t wanting people like a bishop of a diocese, or a certain cardinal, or priests in their parish taking the missal and modifying the missal. Certainly the Pope, St. Pius V, was not anticipating legislating to all his successors …”
Likewise, are we being asked seriously to believe that St Pius V considered the threat of a lowly parish priest changing the Roman Rite of Mass as being so serious that he addressed it in a papal bull? A papal bull which itself claims the authority of the Council of Trent?
Rather unsurprisingly, Fr Robinson offers no evidence whatever for these ridiculous claims. Nor does he quote from the text of Quo Primum. Whilst parish priests and printers are mentioned earlier on in the text, it is clear that St. Pius V is no longer talking about them later on
in the text when talks ab out permission to use his missal and says that it can be used without scruple of conscience and without “fear of incurring any penalty, judgement or censure.”
Were 16th Century printers in the habit of excommunicating priests for using the wrong missal? Is it likely that a parish priest might attempt to excommunicate one of his juniors for using the Roman missal? What rubbish. Here is what Quo Primum actually says about using the Traditional Roman (“Tridentine”) Missal:
Quote:“Furthermore, by these presents and by virtue of Our Apostolic authority, We give and grant in perpetuity that for the singing or reading of Mass in any church whatsoever this Missal may be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment or censure, and may be freely and lawfully used. … We likewise order and declare that no one whosoever shall be forced or coerced into altering this Missal; …”
Clearly these words are aimed at someone in authority. Who is likely to be the one doing the excommunicating? Who would be the one doing the coercing? To a lesser extent this might conceivably mean the bishop of a diocese, but surely the primary person to whom this would apply above all others would be a Pope? Quo Primum also says:
Quote:“[…] And this present Constitution can never be revoked or modified, but shall forever remain valid and have the force of law.”
Again, who would do the “revoking” - or who would most likely try to revoke it? Is that not the sort of thing a future Pope would most likely be the one to do?
The Mass has always been changing!
Worse still is Fr Robinson’s argument, essentially a reheated version of an old and fallacious argument long used by Novus Ordo liberals (“The Mass has always been changing!”), that:
Quote:“…[people are] saying, well, if you believe that Quo Primum binds the future Popes, how can it be that other Popes have changed the missal? Such as St. Pius X, or, um, other Popes who have added Saints to the missal, or the missal that we use, the 1962 missal was changed by John XXIII, he added the name of St. Joseph to the canon, for instance. So how is it that these Popes have changed what St Pius V established, if your argument is correct, that no Popes can lawfully change the missal after St. Pius V?”
What is the problem with this argument? Well, first of all, his attempt to use St Pius X to prove his point is unfortunate. St Pius X changed the ranking of certain feasts in order to restore the status of Sundays to what they had been in the time of St Pius V. This was not a change to the actual rite itself, more of a smaller change to the calendar and even then, it was more in the way of putting things back to how they had been when there weren’t as many Saints in the calendar. The fact that St Pius X himself was careful to show that he wasn’t really altering the Roman Rite of Mass and falling foul of Quo Primum surely shows, if anything, that he felt that Quo Primum was binding on him.
Secondly - it sounds obvious but let’s point it out anyway - there are changes and there are changes. The changes made to the Mass after Vatican II, replacing the “Tridentine” Mass with the New Mass, are radical and essential: this is a change from one thing to something totally different. By comparison, the so-called “changes” cited by Fr Robinson are almost of no account. Yes, adding St Joseph’s name into the canon is in its own way controversial.
Equally controversial was St Gregory the Great adding six words (“diesque nostras in tua pace disponas”) into the canon of the Mass. But, once accomplished, even those changes did not leave the Traditional Roman Rite looking unrecognisable as though it had been replaced -view mirror, but if I steal your car from your driveway and leave a roller-skate in its place, I can’t then tell you: “Why are you so upset? There’s always been changes happening to your car!”; likewise, if I were to burn your house to the ground and present you with a cardboard box to live in instead, I cannot justify my actions by pointing out that you recently repainted your garden fence and one time even replaced the tiles on the roof, so you’ve no right to object to one further change! Is that such an absurd comparison? Remember, Fr Robinson talks about “other Popes who have added Saints to the missal” as an example of “changing the missal.” Is adding a Saint to the missal the same as replacing the Traditional Mass with Paul VI’s New Mass? Are we to make no distinction between essential changes and non-essential changes? Surely neither Fr Robinson nor Andrew can really be quite so obtuse?
And if the listener had any doubt at all that what Fr Robinson is offering is nothing more than a well-worn conciliar argument, one employed for decades by Novus Ordo Catholics to try to defend the legitimacy of the New Mass, the fact that Andrew picks up on and amplifies his sentiment should leave no one in any doubt at all. How does this sound in the mouth of a supposed Traditionalist:
Quote:“I see. So, in a sense, Quo Primum was effective and perfect for its time, and what it does is it says: this is the Mass, there’s nothing wrong with this Mass, use this one, Popes down the line can change it.”
Notice how Quo Primum was good in its time. Rather like Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors was supposedly good for the 1800s but Vatican II’s Dignitatis Humanae with its teaching on Religious Liberty was good for our own era, as the late Cardinal Ratzinger (in)famously taught. Is this not classic modernism, using a spurious method of historical context to empty the truth of any objective meaning?
Andrew even claims that Quo Primum, “says: this is the Mass, there’s nothing wrong with this Mass, use this one, Popes down the line can change it” - no, no, NO Andrew, you great ninny, it pointedly doesn’t say that! And I challenge anyone to find any words which even hint at such a thing. Ah! I want to put my head in my hands and weep! This fellow Andrew presumably knows how to read, so he really has no excuse: just read what it says, it isn’t hard! How does anyone manage to take crystal clear statements such as:
• “This present Constitution can never be revoked or modified, but shall forever remain valid and have the force of law,” and,
• “Therefore, no one whosoever is permitted to alter this,” and,
• “Should anyone, however, presume to commit such an act, he should know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.”
- and read them as saying: “Popes down the line can change it”..?! It defies common sense. The only possible answer, incredible though it may sound, is that he didn’t bother to read the text of Quo Primum prior to the podcast. And yet if you or I were about to do a podcast discussing Quo Primum, surely that is the first thing you would do in order to prepare? It isn’t a particularly wordy or difficult to read text, and it is quite short too. There really is no excuse. Fr Robinson does not correct him either, meaning he shares Andrew’s, er, creative interpretation of what Quo Primum says; being a priest he has even less of an excuse.
Fr Hesse on Quo Primum
We have quoted the late, great Fr Hesse here before. Out of gratitude, do please say a quick prayer for the repose of his soul. Here, once again, is what he had to say on the question.
Quote:“The Fathers of Trent therefore said that the Pope could not change the rites. Is that my interpretation or is it papal teaching? It is implicit papal teaching because - have you ever held a Roman [altar] Missal in your hands? Well if you get a chance, look up the first decrees at the beginning of the book. At the beginning of the Roman Missal, you will find the decree Quo Primum by Pius V. And as the only exception in Church history, you will not only find Pius V’s decree, but you will find three other decrees. All through Church history, no Pope published a book without cancelling his predecessor’s document if there was one. The typical way, for example, of publishing the Code of Canon law, or the Corpus Iuris Canonici which was its predecessor before 1917, would be to authorise a new edition and put in one’s own document. Like Pope Urban IX, who put in his name and threw out his predecessor’s decree.
The Roman Missal since 1570 is the only exception in Church history. Why? Because Pius V did nothing else but respect the Council of Trent when he codified what was there. When Pius V, Saint Pius V, in 1570 published the Roman Missal, he did not change anything. He changed a few little rubrics that were not clear, they were kind of confusing, so he changed them. But the book as such was the missal that had been used for centuries by the Roman Curia. And he canonised it with the decree Quo Primum, in which he says: not only the book must not ever be changed in the future, this Mass must be said by all priests in the future, but the decree as such is irreformable. Some people now argue that a Pope cannot bind a Pope. They argue in what you call legalistic nonsense. They quote Roman law, and they misquote Roman law, because they quote Roman law well but they quote Roman law on a wrong level, by quoting the old line: par in parem potestatem non habet - “An equal has no power over an equal.”
The Pope, at first sight, may seem another Pope’s equal. But then, how about the dogma of the Immaculate Conception? Can a future Pope take that back? No, you know very well he can’t. So that means that the Pope’s have to respect their predecessors. […] So Tradition binds the Pope. Especially in liturgy. Why? The oldest liturgical principle, written down the first time in the year 250, exactly 750 years ago, is: Lex orandi statuat legem credendi. The law of what has to be prayed will determine the law of what has to be believed. Do not confused the law of what has to be believed with the Deposit of Faith.
The Deposit of Faith is at the very beginning of everything. But the law of what has to be prayed will determine what has to be believed. What is the law of what has to be believed? The Creed, for example. Every time you recite the creed at Sunday Mass, you recite what you have to believe in order to remain a Catholic. Now in the liturgy, you always found the feast of the Immaculate Conception. You talk about lex ordandi, the law of what has to be prayed: in an ancient missal of the 14th century or in a handwritten missal of the eighth century, you will find the feast of the Immaculate Conception on December 8th. That’s the law of what has to be prayed, because the priests had to celebrate that feast. However it only became the law of what has to be believed in 1854 when Pope Pius IX proclaimed the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. So you can easily see in history that the law of what has to be prayed will determine the law of what has to be believed. Lex orandi statuat legem credendi. […]
You can see from this principle that the Roman Missal cannot be considered a mere disciplinary law. It is much more than that, it is way above any discipline. The Roman Missal is the number one law of what has to be prayed because Holy Mass is the number one prayer! Therefore, when Pius V said: this missal cannot be changed, and this decree confirming that is irreformable - he did in fact bind his successors. I ask you, is this my interpretation or is it that of the Popes? Well I showed you, that is the papal interpretation. Because even John XXIII did not dare to take out Quo Primum or the decree following it by Clement VIII, or the decree by Urban VIII. He did not dare to replace these documents.
That means even John XXIII visibly thought that he was bound by his predecessors decrees. That makes four hundred years of Popes being who ‘felt’ that they were bound. Of course, the Popes didn’t just have a ‘feeling’ about it. Leave the feelings in California!” (See: https://youtu.be/FABY6aIJw6A)
Well said, Fr Hesse. It chills one to the bone to reflect that this man was a priest-friend of the SSPX and that when he spoke these words, some twenty years ago or less, virtually every single one of his SSPX priestly friends would have agreed with him. And yet look at the SSPX today, with the likes of Fr Paul Robinson as its mouthpiece: a 180 degree change.
“Quo Primum is still in force, it binds all of St Pius V’s successors.” “Quo Primum isn’t in force and it had no power to bind any of St Pius V’s successors.” Which is correct, the SSPX of yesterday, or the SSPX of today?
So dramatic is the change that some SSPX priests appear not to have got the proverbial memo and are still repeating the old understanding of Quo Primum. Even our own district superior, Fr Robert Brucciani (no hide-bound conservative reactionary he!) wrote as recently as 2021 in the British District Newsletter ‘Ite Missa Est’ that:
Quote:“Pope St. Pius V, following a decree of the Council of Trent, promulgated the bull Quo Primum to fix the Rite of Mass for all time for the Latin Church. Henceforth the Rite was known as the Tridentine Rite of Mass.”
Well said, Fr Brucciani. Quo Primum fixed the Traditional Roman Rite for all time, not just during the lifetime of St. Pius V or until one of his successors felt like changing it!
Was the New Mass ‘Legitimately Promulgated’..?
Let us return briefly to this question. Remember that in its April 2012 Doctrinal Declaration, the SSPX famously described the New Mass as, “legitimately promulgated by Pope Paul VI…” Remember too that Fr Daniel Themann and others tried to spin this phrase as signifying not that the New Mass was legitimately promulgated (why on earth would anyone think that?!), but that the Pope had the legitimate authority to promulgate it. This interpretation was repeated by our unfortunate correspondent in the last issue (‘Is the Resistance Justified?’ - Recusant 59, p.42 ff), who claimed that words such as “legitimately promulgated” when used to describe the New Mass,
Quote:“...merely mean that the Society recognizes that Paul VI and John Paul II had the right to promulgate liturgical rites. Hence, it is not a judgment on the Novus Ordo itself.”
This is as laughable, but we have pointed out plenty of times already that the words mean what they say. In previous Recusant issues we have reproduced an article by Fr Paul Kramer showing that the New Mass was never in fact promulgated, and one by Fr Gregory Hesse proving that no Pope had the right to promulgate such a rite in any case.
Fr Robinson goes on later in this interview to say that, whilst Paul VI was able to change the Mass and promulgate a New Rite had he so wished, in fact he didn’t because the Novus Ordo was never actually promulgated. He is quite right on that last point. The question of whether Paul VI could have promulgated the New Mass legitimately is where he falls down.
In short: whereas we deny the legitimacy of the New Mass and uphold the legitimacy of Quo Primum, Fr Robinson & co. deny the legitimacy of Quo Primum – corollary? Sliding towards defending the legitimacy of the New Mass, isn’t that where this leads?
|
|
|
|
| Hong Kong bishop visits Beijing on historic trip |
|
Posted by: Stone - 04-18-2023, 07:01 AM - Forum: Global News
- No Replies
|
|
Hong Kong bishop visits Beijing on historic trip
April 17, 2023
HONG KONG (AP) — Hong Kong’s Roman Catholic bishop arrived in Beijing on Monday, marking the first visit to the Chinese capital by the city’s bishop in nearly three decades, despite signs of Sino-Vatican strains.
The five-day trip by Bishop Stephen Chow began about two weeks after Vatican News, the news portal of the Holy See, reported that China had unilaterally appointed a new bishop to Shanghai.
Chow, who was named by Pope Francis as the city’s bishop in 2021, earlier said that the visit underscores the mission of the Hong Kong Diocese to be a bridge church and promote exchanges between the two sides. He was invited to visit the Chinese capital by his counterpart there.
China’s ruling Communist Party closely controls organized religion, which it sees as a potential threat to its monopoly on power. People are allowed to worship in institutions that abide by party rules. Some Christians have set up underground churches, which are considered illegal and harassed by authorities.
In 2018, the Vatican and China signed a “provisional agreement ” over the appointment of bishops, a breakthrough on an issue that stymied diplomatic relations for decades and aggravated a split among Chinese Catholics.
The deal was also harshly criticized by Hong Kong Cardinal Joseph Zen.
The Hong Kong Diocese did not reveal Chow’s itinerary when announcing his trip in March. But it said in a statement that it accepted the invitation from Beijing’s diocese in the spirit of brotherhood.
Kung Kao Po, a publication affiliated with the Hong Kong Diocese, reported that Chow would meet with his counterpart, Joseph Li, visit the National Seminary of Catholic Church in China and host a thanksgiving Mass at the Xuanwumen Catholic Church.
He would also visit the tomb of Matteo Ricci, one of the first Jesuits to live in China who died in Beijing in 1610, and other organizations that facilitated cultural exchanges, the report added.
|
|
|
|
|
![[Image: 1445ggrmlcps2xb6n2l1z5bobhtbywm2vp4t6jm....ormat=webp]](https://assistant.gloria.tv/1z94gyaCTBei3D8MsGrYwjE6j/1445ggrmlcps2xb6n2l1z5bobhtbywm2vp4t6jm.webp?secure=eBa4Vm5_hJaPU2T6wUEUCA&expires=1683595574&format=webp)
![[Image: so2xhda78zceb05vziprshbe488a5pfo4lt9sst....ormat=webp]](https://assistant.gloria.tv/1z94gyaCTBei3D8MsGrYwjE6j/so2xhda78zceb05vziprshbe488a5pfo4lt9sst.webp?secure=A3mFaw2c06IB6pJnqr6UYw&expires=1683432694&format=webp)
![[Image: BishopLazo.jpg]](https://www.sspxasia.com/Images/Newsletters/Images-Mar-Apr-2000/BishopLazo.jpg)
![[Image: Screenshot-2023-04-23-075959.png]](https://i.postimg.cc/cJPTQpjB/Screenshot-2023-04-23-075959.png)
![[Image: Capture.png]](https://i.postimg.cc/GtQVfCRR/Capture.png)
