Yes. I agree. If the Mass is officially changed so it is no longer the Holy Sacrifice we know its time to go underground.
Hi DeGaulle, it is your first option, Bergoglio has not been "legitimately elected." How do I know this? Here is how: Bergoglio cannot possibly be a valid Pope because a valid pope must be elected in a valid conclave called according to the law in Universi Dominici Gregis, the Apostolic Constitution governing papal vacancies and elections. The UDG requires that any conclave be preceded by the death of the previous Supreme Pontiff. Benedict XVI is not dead. Therefore, the conclave called in March 2013 was invalidly and prematurely called, and Benedict XVI is still and will be the Vicar of Christ until he dies. To give background to what I said above, in UDG, a conclave can only be called after the death and funeral of the previous Supreme Pontiff has taken place. This is blatantly obvious in the wording and arrangement of UDG. See UDG section 49 which states: "When the funeral rites for the deceased Pope have been celebrated according to the prescribed ritual, and everything necessary for the regular functioning of the election has been prepared..., the Cardinal electors shall meet in the Basilica of Saint Peter's in the Vatican...." Therefore, the entire procedure laid out for a valid papal conclave depends on FIRST celebrating a "the funeral rites for the deceased pontiff." If there is no death and funeral, there simply is no valid conclave. Also, see section 77 of UDG. 77. I decree that the dispositions concerning everything that precedes the election of the Roman Pontiff and the carrying out of the election itself must be observed in full, even if the vacancy of the Apostolic See should occur as a result of the resignation of the Supreme Pontiff, in accordance with the provisions of Canon 333 § 2 of the Code of Canon Law and Canon 44 § 2 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches. This says that the "everything that precedes the election of the Roman Pontiff" that has been laid out in UDG, which includes the "funeral rites of the deceased Pope" must be "observed in full," before a valid conclave can be called, even in the case of a "resignation of the Supreme Pontiff." So, again, a valid conclave to elect a new Supreme Pontiff could not have occurred in Bergoglio's case because Benedict XVI is not deceased! It does not matter if Benedict resigned or not. It doesn't matter if he resigned the munus or the ministry or whatever. So, the problem and solution is very simple to see for anyone who will take the time to read the Declaratio of Benedict XVI and UDG. Again, according to current Church law (which was in force in 2013), a papal conclave cannot be called to replace a Pope who is still alive. The Pope must die first. Then and only then can a valid conclave proceed.
De Gaulle, I feel for you. I'm in the type of parish situation that you dread. our PP is actually a good man who doesn't spout heresy but he makes the Mass a kind of entertainment and there is almost no silence. I drag myself there most of the time. I was amazed to read earlier on this thread that as early as 1944 someone was writing about the spirit of compromise in the church. I'm sorry I can't recall now the context or who posted it but - how long ago was that? I also read the final chapter of the Hillenbrand book linked in its entirety and again, it speaks to us so clearly. Events are speeding up. Yes, this feels like a chastisement and we can only hope the end is near. We know at least that it is closer than it was. Evil is now out in the open. I found the following on Farcebook. Just had to share, as they say! Sometimes I wonder if I am actually going mad because I see the world so differently to just about everyone else around me. I have two daughters who keep the faith and my husband shares my disquiet about a number of things, but my perspective is so much at variance to the prevailing world view. I totally resonate with this quote and I think MOG members will too.
"Because they have lost the vision of the heights from which they have fallen" Excellent quote. This video of Malachi Martin may have been posted before (under a different youtube id), however, it is very good. At 21:21 Malachi says, "If you lose the faith you don't know you've lost it". He expands on this - "they have simply lost the faith".
I was at our Mass for the feast of All-Saints the other evening and our PP celebrated Mass much more simply than he usually does on Sundays. He played a hymn at the beginning and another at the end of Mass. To my delight, they were both traditional. The 'opener' was Faith of Our Fathers, written by Father Faber. Coincidentally (but I don't believe in coincidence!), I had just read an article about Father Faber, in the Catholic Thing last week. and had downloaded a few of his books last weekend. Father Faber was very good about death-bed conversions, among much else. We all need a lot of those. But, I digress.
Hi InVeritatem. I want to put your mind at ease. 1. Read this document, the Declaratio of Benedict XVI (https://www.vatican.va/content/bene...ments/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20130211_declaratio.html) in which Benedict says: ...I declare that I renounce the ministry of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter, entrusted to me by the Cardinals on 19 April 2005, in such a way, that as from 28 February 2013, at 20:00 hours, the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter, will be vacant and a Conclave to elect the new Supreme Pontiff will have to be convoked by those whose competence it is. Note that Benedict said that as of 28 February 2013, the See of Rome "will be vacant." Then he says that "a Conclave...will have to be convoked." Now there are disagreements about whether or not the particular words Benedict used constitute a "lawful vacancy." However, for the sake of argument, let's assume that after 28 February 2013, the See of Rome was indeed vacant and a Conclave was needed. But when and how is this Conclave to be "convoked?" The answer is found in the Apostolic Constitution governing a vacancy of the Apostolic See. 2. So, then read this document, the Apostolic Constitution of JPII and Benedict XVI, called Universi Dominici Gregis (https://www.vatican.va/content/john...ii_apc_22021996_universi-dominici-gregis.html) which is the governing law on what is to be done in case of a vacancy in the Apostolic See: 49. When the funeral rites for the deceased Pope have been celebrated according to the prescribed ritual, and everything necessary for the regular functioning of the election has been prepared, on the appointed day — and thus on the fifteenth day after the death of the Pope or, in conformity with the provisions of No. 37 of the present Constitution, not later than the twentieth — the Cardinal electors shall meet in the Basilica of Saint Peter's in the Vatican... Note that section 49 is the first section in Chapter III (THE BEGINNING OF THE ELECTION) of Part 2 of UDG. It states unequivocally, as a condition for the "beginning of the election," that "the funeral rites for the deceased Pope have been celebrated...." It does not say IF the funeral rites are celebrated, it says WHEN they are celebrated. This means that the funeral rites being celebrated are a NECESSARY CONDITION that must be satisfied BEFORE "the beginning of the election." Otherwise, the election will be invalid. As we know, Benedict XVI's funeral has not been celebrated because he is still alive. Therefore, any putative papal election that has taken place to replace Benedict XVI (namely the 2013 Conclave) is null and void, according to the law in UDG. UDG was the law in force in 2013, and it is still in force today. So, your concern about "a reigning Pontiff" needs to be informed by the law of the Church and the facts. Bergoglio is not the legitimate "reigning Pontiff." He is a usurper because the Conclave in which he was elected was not a lawfully-executed Conclave. Therefore, you should feel free to resist him based on facts, law and logic. And also remember that the actual "reigning Pontiff" is still Benedict XVI, whom you are obliged to love and support. You should not call Benedict XVI "either a heretic or evil." That would be schismatic, heretical, and a terrible sin.
Thanks PNF, I have to be honest I am ignorant of matters pertaining to Cannon Law. I will have a look although I can't guarantee I will be able to respond meaningfully.
I understand. No need to respond to me. Just pray about it and don't worry. Your feeling that something is not right with Bergoglio comes from a good place. No one will claim that Benedict XVI was an illegitimate Pope. Build your spiritual life upon his teaching, as the true Vicar of Christ, the Rock. The the teaching of the true Vicar is always faithful to his Master, Jesus. Take care.
I know a lot of Catholics who are frequent Mass goers and yet they are so indifferent to the sins of abortions, adultery, and gay marriage.
Are you interpreting UDG to mean (a) that no valid Pope can resign or (b) that a Pooe can resign but cannot be replaced until after he is dead and buried? We know that a Pope can resign and be replaced during his lifetime because that has happened in the past. Therefore, unless you find something wrong with the resignation, are you saying that the election of Francis was invalid based on a sloppily worded document? There were plenty of Canon lawyers at that Conclave and not one of them questioned its validity. The Universal Church accepted Francis as Pope. As I understand it, that removes any doubt concerning his ascent to the See of Peter. The men qualified and tasked with the responsibility of choosing a Pope tell us that Francis is Pope. Benedict resigned. With no other claimants to the papacy, I fail to see how we can take it upon ourselves to declare Francis a false Pope. The only other possibility is that the See is vacant and God has left the sheep without a shepherd which doesn't sound right particularly in this troubled time. For my part, I can't pretend to like anything about Francis or his papacy, but I'm conscious of what St. Paul said after he had rebuked the High Priest: "Brothers, I did not realise it was the High Priest, certainly Scripture says, you will not curse your people's leader". https://www.catholic.org/bible/book.php?id=51&bible_chapter=23. Given that Paul had so much deference for the High Priest, I reckon I need to be very careful what I say about Pope Francis. I don't blame anyone for having doubts. Pope Francis and his shenanigans would try the patience of a Saint. The Apologists aren't helping either. This, from Catholic Answers, is unconvincing. I got as far as the part where the expert said that we can all know who is the real Pope because he's the one saying Mass in St. Peter's. I couldn't force myself to watch any more after that. I know that Catholic Answers have to be careful to stay in the Bishops' good books, but sometimes their attempts to explain things away can be worse than saying nothing at all. https://www.catholic.com/audio/caf/...ieces-of-evidence-that-francis-is-an-antipope
The part I watched wasn't convincing. Maybe he made a better case later in the discussion, but saying Mass in St. Peter's doesn't make anyone Pope. Frankly, the little I watched of it came across like a hit-piece on a former colleague - a sugar coated hit piece on a man who had been a colleague and probably a mentor. I suppose it was their attempt to correct him with charity.
