SgC I can agree with so much of what has been written by these very venerable person's because I have witnessed the differences in graces received by the faithful according to the reverence in which the Mass is celebrated, the holiness of the priest and even the general holiness of the Church in its members at a given time. I agree that these external factors can affect the amount of grace a person receives, if that person is only going to Mass to fulfil an obligation and of course there has always been many of those types, even when the TLM was universally celebrated before the new rite was instituted. How great it is to be at the Mass of a holy priest, the internal graces are almost tangible and everyone would agree that going to the Mass said by Padre Pio would have been beyond a privilege because of the graces one would have received. After the new rite was instituted in the 60's (at my parents parish and throughout Australia) we did not have the luxury of attending a TLM and so we attended the NO Mass, that has been pretty well the norm for the life of all Catholics including my life since then. So we attended the NO Mass as it was the only Mass available. When raising my children I was blessed by God to have a parish priest for many years who was a very holy priest may he rest in peace. People travelled many miles to attend his Masses. I witnessed innumerable graces within our parish, and when he retired the next appointed priest was near a complete opposite, going to mass would nearly make you cry, with the changes he wrought within the first month and Mass attendance dropped off remarkably. There is a story of a little Chinese girl who witnessed the desecration of the The Most Blessed Sacrament which was thrown from the ciborium on to the floor and trampled by soldiers, (a much greater desecration than the NO Mass, I would say). This little girl came and prayed each day on her knees before the desecrated Eucharist and then bent over and with her tongue received Jesus, she did this each day until there remained one host left on the floor. On that final day she was discovered by the soldiers and as she received the last host she was shot dead. This was witnessed by the priest that the soldiers had imprisoned in a small room attached to the church. So I ask.....is the individual really any poorer in grace when they reverently and wholeheartedly attend the valid NO Mass? The sincere individual is there to Love and Adore the Lord, maybe the priest is not a holy priest, maybe the Mass is not reverently said and maybe they have reduced the Mass to where Jesus is called to carry His cross again, in abject humiliation; would Jesus not look out for a Veronica, for a Simon of Cyrene or a little saintly girl to Love him? Would Jesus not deserve this? And wouldn't the graces for these individuals be astronomical!
God sees in our hearts the desire to offer up and make reparations to Him in the least desirable circumstances. He is there and we join with Him. He calls us. None of us can go there unless we are called. I have learned much from you, Josephite. I have felt this way lately, that we have been called to stand in the gap for Him.
Yes, all the above mentioned points are definitive teachings of the Church which are non-negotiable. And yet, we have this man confusing the flock. Why does he not have the charism granted to a true Vicar of Christ? Below are excerpts from the website wherepeteris. This article was actually written to defend Bergoglio, but ironically it provides many points to show that Bergoglio cannot be a true Pope. '........even if the scope of infallibility is very narrow, the scope of divine assistance that the Pope receives from the Holy Spirit is very wide. The Holy Father is helped in his task by the Holy Spirit throughout all of his magisterial acts, even in matters of discipline. [.....] Scarcely a week goes by without a new scandal breaking out involving something Francis says or does. Nothing he does is immune: from his decisions on how to deal with the abuse scandal to his signing of the Abu Dhabi Declaration or the Vatican-China deal. His decisions about the Synod of Bishops are pilloried, whether it’s the main topic for the assembly or his choices on which bishops are invited to attend. His choices on to who to elevate as bishop or cardinal are criticized, his decisions on who he demotes or transfers are attacked. Negative assumptions about his motives are made whenever he accepts a resignation or elects not to renew a curial official’s mandate. He’s accused of plotting against the Church’s doctrine when he decides to reorganize a papal institute. Francis is disparaged when he gives relics to brethren from separated churches. He is accused for every public gesture he makes, from his setting up a Nativity scene in the Vatican representing the corporal works of mercy, to blessing a carved wooden image that the critics are certain is pagan (official denials notwithstanding). Even his choice to wear more humble papal garments is mocked, and his choice to not allow pilgrims to kiss the papal ring is viewed with suspicion. Everything he does is wrong, wrong, wrong. [....] But let us not just focus on papal actions. Let’s consider his magisterial teachings. What do papal critics say about Francis’ Magisterium? According to them, Francis was wrong in Laudato ‘Si: it is liberal claptrap. Francis was wrong on the sacramental discipline he laid out in Amoris Laetitia: it is heretical. Francis was wrong in his revision to the Catechism on the death penalty: he cannot do that, it’s just his personal opinion (which happens to be heretical). Francis was wrong when he decided to add “ecological sin” to the Catechism: there is no such thing. Francis was wrong in his homilies about the multiplication of the loaves. Francis was wrong in asking Christians to evangelize, not proselytize. Francis was wrong in his addresses comparing the Holy Family to immigrants. In fact, Francis was wrong whenever he taught anything about immigration. Francis was wrong whenever he taught something about social justice, about helping the poor or anything that could be construed as politically liberal. Francis was wrong every time he opened his mouth to teach something on faith and morals that wasn’t related to abortion, homosexual behavior, or any of the topics preapproved by his critics. In fact, even when he teaches on those topics, he is still wrong because what he says can be misinterpreted. He is wrong for not condemning those ills more forcefully. He is wrong for not talking about them more. Francis is always considered wrong, period. This got me thinking. Doesn’t the Church teach, as I said at the beginning of this article, that the Holy Spirit gives His divine assistance to the Pope when he teaches, even non-infallibly, and even in matters of discipline? How can a Pope, who is granted divine assistance of the Holy Spirit in his Ordinary Magisterium, promulgate error in his teachings–not once, not twice, not thrice, but almost every single time? How can a man have so much protection from the Holy Spirit, yet manage to get everything so consistently wrong all the time? This can be described as nothing short of a miracle in itself. This is something unheard of throughout the entire history of the Church. Granted, a person can reject the inspirations of the Holy Spirit. Still, it does not cease to be remarkable that someone with so much assistance from the Holy Spirit could reject it so many times! Even the Borgia popes, as evil as they were, did not teach heresy! And who would be more impervious to the action of the Holy Spirit than they? Even the supposedly heretical popes that Francis’ critics (and Protestants) use as talking points against papal primacy are typically alleged to have committed only one heresy in each of their papacies, and never in magisterial documents that were binding on the whole faithful. But here comes Francis, remarkably soiling Peter’s record almost anytime he opens his mouth or wields a pen. If it would come to pass that a Pope could and would do this so consistently, maybe God really should not have given us so many assurances on the reliability of Peter. (From this point, the writer goes on to say that it can't be Bergoglio who is in the wrong, but those who criticise him.) Or maybe… maybe (this is a crazy thought, but hear me out)… it is those who tar and feather the Pope, day and night, who are wrong… possibly? I mean, isn’t it more likely–given the divine assistance promised to the Pope–that what we are witnessing is the work of an unhinged media cabal deliberately working to undermine Francis’ papacy whenever possible, by whatever means possible? Maybe the way that those outlets criticize Francis whenever he lifts his pinky finger is a sign–not of how Francis is unreliable, but of how unreliable those outlets are when reporting on Francis? Maybe? [...] https://wherepeteris.com/the-infallibly-erring-pope/ (edited to add that the emphasis in red is mine -SgC) Bergoglio has dropped the title of Vicar of Christ in this year's Annuario Potificio, and relegated it to a historical title. And, right from the word go in March 2013, he has emphasised that he is the Bishop of Rome. It just further convinces me that he is not the Pope. +
There are now 3 reasons I call him Bergoglio: 1. I simply cannot believe that he is our Pope. 2. He has clearly indicated that he is not the Vicar of Christ, by dropping the title from this year's Annuario Pontificio. 3. I am not calling him by any derogatory name. It is his surname after all. Honestly, I do honour the office itself. It is the man who is apparently holding that office now, that in all good conscience, I cannot give honour to. To give an idea as to why I feel this way, I give the example of St John the Apostle jumping up and fleeing the Roman bath house that he was in when he saw the heretic Cerinthus sitting across from him. +
Dear Josephite, I understand what you are saying and find nothing wrong with it. But the point I was trying to make is that the NO mass cannot compare with the TLM. I believe that the NO mass is the 'bad mass' that is mentioned in the unreleased part of the Third Secret, as told by Fr Ingo Dollinger and implied by Pope Pius XII. There is also no denying that no matter how reverently one assists at a NO mass, one is probably committing sacrilege by trampling on small crumbs of the Holy Eucharist on the floor because the majority are being given Holy Communion in the hand. +
I believe as you do that the NO mass cannot compare with the TLM for reverence and worship. Jesus' blood was splatted everywhere on the ground on the way to Calvary and many hostile and mindless people trampled it underfoot however this did not stop Veronica from running over to Jesus to offer her veil, and it did not stop Simon of Cyrene taking the blood soaked wood of the cross in his arms to relieve Jesus nor did it stop the holy women of Jerusalem from following in tears as He made His way to Calvary. Jesus knows our intentions and He thirsts for the Veronica's, Simon's and Holy women and men, in His agony.
Maybe I'm being misunderstood. I am not asking anyone to stop going to the NO mass if they are unable to get to a TLM. Going to a valid NO mass is better than not going to Mass at all. The situation would be different if there is any doubt as to the validity of a Mass due to certain things that the priest does or does not do. +
This picture is funny In some ways Ann reminds me of St. Catherine of Siena. Before she was born the residence of the popes had been moved from Rome to Avignon France and remained there for almost 70 years. St. Catherine finally convinced the last pope in Avignon to return to Rome. When she was young, her parents wanted her to marry so Catherine cut her hair very short to look less attractive; she wanted to devote her life to God alone. Later she had an entourage to whom she was constantly dictating letters, books, etc I'm sure more than a few people in Siena thought she was wrong and heartily disapproved of her strong willed pursuit of God and the truth.
I'm sorry, it was not my intention to accuse you at all. Your points are great and I'm just trying to tease this out. I am aware the issue is language. I meant that if my putative disciple cursed or even spat at Judas at that moment that it would be hard to consider such vulgarity as anything more than venial. I fully agree one should not use derogatory language. I just wish to make the point that, in this case, it is not nearly so grave as the issues which provoked it. You certainly speak clearly, which is why you enable us to get to the nub of the issue-I assure you I am listening to this and am reconsidering my position in the light of it. You are absolutely right that it would be better to criticise without using demeaning language-in fact it only weakens the critique. Mundabor's vulgarity is gratuitous, telling us nothing really about Pope Francis. It makes me uncomfortable, and I do not 'like' any post in which he uses this language, but I plough on because his blogs are doctrinally sound and quite informative and relevant. I hope we can continue to debate in this manner. You are always right on point and pay me the respect of saying exactly what is your opinion. This is how we can all get closer to what is right and true. I thank you, and hope you can forgive me if I have spoken out of turn.
There is a valid reason to call him by his surname. It is a pope's duty to uphold and defend the Magisterium-arguably his only duty. When Pope Francis chooses to speak or act in a manner that undermines the Magisterium he is bound to defend, it can be construed that he is not acting as the Pope at that moment, but in his own private capacity, which makes the use of his surname quite logical, in my opinion. As you say, it is his name.
I agree entirely and think also that this pastoral Council has been given far more attention, on both sides of the debate, than it ever deserved. It's about as relevant nowadays as Carnaby Street.
Archbishop Viganò on Vatican II: “It Is Preferable to Let the Whole Thing Drop and Be Forgotten” June 17, 2020 https://catholicfamilynews.com/blog...to-let-the-whole-thing-drop-and-be-forgotten/ Editor’s Note: Catholic Family News is pleased to welcome back Dr. Maike Hickson, who has contributed articles to CFN in the past and is a longtime friend of our apostolate, together with her husband, Dr. Robert Hickson. It is our honor to publish her report on the latest from Archbishop Viganò, including a full English translation of His Excellency’s newest letter (see below). – Matt Gaspers, CFN Managing Editor ***** Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, in a response to an Italian law professor, discusses the question of what the Catholic Church’s response to “heretical propositions or those which favor heresy” of the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) should be. He explains that they “should be condemned, and we can only hope that this will happen as soon as possible.” In slight disagreement with Bishop Athanasius Schneider, the Italian prelate now says that he thinks the Council should be “dropped” and “be forgotten.” He makes his own the following words of Professor Paolo Pasqualucci: “If the Council has deviated from the Faith, the Pope has the power to invalidate it. Indeed, it is his duty.” The background of this new intervention by Archbishop Viganò as published by the Italian traditional Catholic website Chiesa e post concilio (see the full text below) is a discussion inspired by Bishop Schneider concerning some of the grave errors of the Second Vatican Council. On June 1, Bishop Schneider had criticized the Council’s statement that there is a natural right to religious liberty and added that this incorrect teaching will have to be corrected by the Magisterium in the future. Bishop Schneider sees that this erroneous teaching – the notion that God would positively will people to choose false religions – is at the root of the February 4, 2019 Abu Dhabi Statement signed by Pope Francis, which states that the “diversity of religions” is “willed by God.” As Bishop Schneider put it: “one cannot conclude from the existence of the faculty to choose between good and evil, between truth and error, that there follows the natural right to choose, execute and spread error, i.e., a false religion.” Thus, he concluded, “There have been statements made by other Ecumenical Councils that have become obsolete and been forgotten or have even been corrected by the later Magisterium.” In a supportive June 10 response to Bishop Schneider’s own intervention, Archbishop Viganò had supported Bishop Schneider’s criticism but politely disagreed with his statement that the Council itself could remain valid while one could merely officially correct some of its erroneous teachings. In his new June 15 statement, Archbishop Viganò responds to Professor Paolo Pasqualucci’s comments (see below) concerning his June 10 comments. This retired Italian law professor calls both Archbishop Viganò and Bishop Schneider “courageous” prelates and is grateful for their interventions. At the same time, he thinks that a future Magisterium does need to reject the Second Vatican Council in its entirety because of the “the errors against the Faith scattered throughout the documents.” He believes that the “theological and canonical problems raised by this incredible crisis of the Church are very large and will be solved only with difficulty.” Therefore, the professor adds, “we are trying to orient ourselves using the guidance offered us through the grace of God by these two courageous and most valid bishops, the only ones thus far who have faced the enemy in a frontal attack.” Professor Pasqualucci states: “I consider all this as a layman, but in my opinion, after having clearly highlighted the procedural subterfuges and the errors against the Faith scattered throughout the documents, a Pope could very well finally quash the entire Council, ‘thereby confirming his brethren in the Faith.’ This would fall perfectly within his summa potestas iurisdictionis [full power of jurisdiction] over the entire Church, iure divino [by divine law]. The Council is not superior to the Pope. If the Council has deviated from the Faith, the Pope has the power to invalidate it. Indeed, it is his duty.” Professor Pasqualucci is one of the signatories of the open letter written by scholars and priests asking the world’s episcopacy to investigate, and then potentially condemn, Pope Francis’s heretical teachings. As can be seen in the statement posted below, Archbishop Viganò now fully agrees with Professor Pasqualucci’s comments regarding the Council. He, too, is of the opinion that “a Pope could very well finally quash the entire Council.” The Italian prelate also thinks about the Council that “it is preferable to let the whole thing drop and be forgotten.” “The mere fact that Vatican II is susceptible to correction,” explains Archbishop Viganò, “ought to be sufficient to declare its oblivion as soon as its most obvious errors are seen with clarity.” According to Archbishop Viganò, the Council, “beyond the ambiguous and discontinuous formulations, was wanted and conceived for its subversive value, and which as such has caused so many evils.” In the midst of this debate, Archbishop Viganò insists that there is no opposition between him and Bishop Schneider, explaining that “from this fruitful exchange with my brother, Bishop Athanasius, what emerges is how much both of us have solely at heart the re-establishment of the Catholic Faith as the essential foundation for union in Charity. There is no conflict, no opposition: our zeal springs from and grows in the Eucharistic Heart of Our Lord and returns to it so as to be consumed in love for Him.” It is clear that Archbishop Viganò wishes that an open and honest debate take place in the Catholic Church concerning the problems in the Church and its roots. Or, as he just stated in another intervention as published by Marco Tosatti: “Let us learn to call things by their name, with simplicity and calmness; let us stop following, for the sake of living quietly, the illusions of those who speak to us of tolerance and acceptance only when it comes to making room for error and vice; let us stop using their magic words like ‘dialogue,’ ‘solidarity,’ and ‘freedom’ which conceal the adversary’s deception and veil the exploitation, tyranny, and persecution of dissenters.” Go to the link for the full text, which was published with the permission of Archbishop Viganò: +
I agree that the TLM is by far superior to the NO Mass in reverence but possibly not when it comes to the holiness of some priests as has been exposed by Church Militant. Additionally I wouldn't object to you calling the Episcopalian/Anglican Mass or the Lutheran mass as a bad mass because Jesus is not present there. But the Catholic Novus Ordo Mass is a valid Mass, meaning..... Jesus is truly present, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity on our altars! and therefore the Novus Ordo Mass can in no way be considered a bad Mass.
