Old heretic Martin's "sin boldly" comment is almost saintly. The Pope's protegee and ghostwriter, Archbishop Fernandez of "Heal me with your Mouth" fame (he did a pub and club crawl for research y'know) has resigned the plum job Pope Francis gave him at the University in Argentina. He had his eye on the spot as Bishop of the second largest diocese in Argentina and the (orthodox) Bishop there is about to reach the age where the Pope decides whether he should stay or go. Looks like the fairy godfather is about to make the Fernandez wish come true. The best jobs go to the best boys. Then, hot on the heels of the Chilean debacle, there's the Honduran disgrace (remember Maradiaga was his link man with Soros). Evil piled upon evil is the hallmark of this papacy. The stench from the rotten fruit grows more putrid by the day. Those German heretics might be the best of the bunch because there's more than a hint of Masonry about Pope Francis and his henchmen. :http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edwa...ainst-honduran-bishop-accused-of-sexual-abuse Still No Action Taken Against Honduran Bishop Accused of Sexual Abuse Auxiliary Bishop Juan Jose Pineda, who also faces allegations of financial corruption, remains protected by Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga who continues to face financial questions of his own. Edward Pentin Despite serious allegations involving abuse of seminarians and financial misconduct leveled against him, Honduran Auxiliary Bishop Juan José Pineda Fasquelle of Tegucigalpa remains in position, and put in charge of the archdiocese during the frequent times Cardinal Oscar Andrés Rodriguez Maradiaga is away. Sources in the Honduran capital have told the Register that no action has been taken against Bishop Pineda, even though a papal investigation last year contained accounts of sexual abuse allegedly perpetrated by Bishop Pineda against priests and seminarians, as well as allegations of extensive financial misconduct and corruption. The head of the investigation, retired Argentine Bishop Alcides Jorge Pedro Casaretto, was reportedly shocked by the testimonies, taken from more than 50 witnesses, including diocesan staff members and priests. The Register obtained affidavits from two of the seminarians who accused Bishop Pineda of sexual abuse, and published them last month. “Everything is kept silent and so everything continues as it always has,” an informed Honduran source told the Register. “Unfortunately, nothing has changed, only threats have been made against those who have revealed themselves.” Another source, working for the Church there, also told the Register April 26 that “everything is the same” and that “Pineda remains in his position with the protection of Maradiaga.” Investigations carried out by the Register last month, and more recently, show the bishop, who lives in a country where 63% of the population live below the poverty line, enjoys a lavish lifestyle which includes ownership of several expensive cars and frequent air travel. He flew first class on at least two occasions to Madrid last November, including one trip — a week-long Jesuit-run retreat in Spain — that was meant as a sanction following allegations made to the papal investigation. More significant is the whereabouts of L30 million ($1.3 million) which Bishop Pineda allegedly convinced the Honduran government, at that time led by President Porfirio Lobo Sosa, to donate towards Church-run charitable projects, specifically a “Foundation for Education and Social Communication” and to the ‘Suyapa Foundation’ that funds Church media. The funds never passed through the ordinary accounting of the diocese, the Register has learned, leading to the new government of President Juan Orlando Hernandez to deny giving a second tranche of L30 million that Bishop Pineda had requested. The first instalment was deposited with a trust in the BAC Bank in Honduras but the money “completely disappeared” from the account, a source with knowledge of the matter said. Invisible “Projects” Bishop Pineda tried to account for the money by issuing a report, but the source said the document “lacks any formality, accounting support, control procedure, contracts, bids, invoices, payment vouchers, receipts and documentary evidence that sustain and prove that said money has not disappeared by magic.” He said the bishop “received a visible amount of money to assemble non-existent, invisible projects” and added that a “serious audit would suffice and confirm that the money received from the government was not used for the requested purposes.” In addition to these allegations, questions also continue to be asked of Cardinal Rodriguez Maradiaga, not only over why he continues to allow Bishop Pineda to remain as a bishop of the archdiocese and has sometimes left him in charge, but also over his own handling of archdiocesan finances. The cardinal, who is coordinator of the C9 Council of Cardinals advising the Pope on Church reform, including finances, denied having received $600,000 from the University of Tegucigalpa in 2015, as a sort of “salary” for being the chancellor of the University. He said the allegations were “old news” and maintained the money from the university was not given to him personally but was transferred in the name of the archdiocese and went to pay for seminarians’ tuition, property maintenance, and rural or poor priests. But the Register’s own investigations, later confirmed in a later Feb. 5 article in L’Espresso, uncovered documentation revealing that the $600,000 the cardinal received from the university, and other income from the institution, do not appear on any of the accounting that the archdiocese presented to the Pope during the Honduran bishops’ ad limina last September. The cardinal is also accused of losing nearly $1.2 million given to him in good faith by friends to be placed in a foundation for the archdiocese, set up and run by an investor called Youssry Henien. The cardinal also lost some of his own money in the investment. “Is it possible that, after all, justice cannot be done?” asked one of the Register’s sources in Honduras, adding that the “committee that was sent to Chile to investigate abuse claims there has already been here, but nothing has happened.” He wondered why the Pope “continues to ignore us” and to let them be led in such a way. “Please help us to raise our voice,” he added. The Register contacted both Cardinal Marc Ouellet, prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, and Archbishop Luis Ladaria, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, to find out if any action had been, or would be, taken, but neither responded to our inquiries. All the above allegations were put to both Bishop Pineda and Cardinal Rodriguez Maradiaga last month but they also chose not to respond.
To clarify Dolours, if the SSPX priests spent all their time disparaging the official Church and Council I wouldn't go there, but they don't. They just try to get their congregation to live good Catholic lives. Also I only gave the pro-life thing as a for instance, another example you could give would be birth control. How likely is it that the people in the pews beside you consider the Church's position on that to be a joke of some sort and very consciously ignore it? Anyway you are talking there about having to grit your teeth at times to get through mass in that Church so isn't it good to go to a mass where you don't have to do that? Yes its true that Pope Francis did not support Cardinal Sarah but nonetheless it seems significant that he threw his support behind that view of receiving the Eucharist etc. It really does seem right to receive on the tongue from a priest and kneeling and its not easy to do that at most normal masses. Again I appreciate you make good points but maybe there are clear advantages to attending SSPX masses too I will wager!
Looking at what Father Kramer said, there appears to be valid reasons for doubt: We all know the Protestant theology about the Eucharist is that there is no such thing as the Real Presence. Also, in the SSPX archives article I posted earlier:
This is the real situation we are facing now. We keep hearing that we just don't have to obey the Pope when he promotes error. This is EXACTLY what happened with Abp Lefebvre and the SSPX after Vatican II. He refused to obey the pope in the error of the Novus Ordo mass.
Besides, the ones at the very top often keep themselves aloof and try not to get involved with the dirtiest work - while actively fostering it - so there´s always some plausible deniability. It´s common tactics . Kind of reminds me of Hitler and the "final solution". "(Hitler) never visited a single death camp and would not speak openly about his plans to annihilate the Jews, but the Führer's indelible imprint can be found at every stage of the 'Final Solution', writes Professor Ian Kershaw. What is surprising, then, is that Hitler never visited a single concentration camp, let alone death camp. He kept himself aloof from the dirtiest work of his regime. He did not speak about the "Final Solution", even to his closest entourage, other than in vague terms. He spoke publicly, and in the most vicious way, about the persecution of the Jews, but he never associated himself in plain language with their killing, as Himmler did. No written order by Hitler for the Final Solution has ever been found. It is as good as certain that none ever existed. The distance that Hitler kept between himself and the actual killing has fuelled neo-Nazi claims that he was not responsible for the murder of the Jews, and that Himmler kept him in ignorance of what was taking place. In truth, however, Hitler's indelible imprint can be found at every stage of the Final Solution. His central role is superficially obscured by the deliberate camouflage language about the extermination used by the Nazi leadership; by his extreme unbureaucratic leadership style, and by the high premium he attached to secrecy. Orders on sensitive issues were passed on verbally, on a "need-to-know" basis. That the paper trail often stops before it reaches him is testimony not to his ignorance of the Final Solution, but to the way his dictatorship worked." Meanwhile, his propaganda machine carefully cultivated the image of a soft, loving leader - while he was plotting the extermination of 6 million Jews... The passage above excerpted from this very interesting article - can we see the common pattern? Hitler kept himself aloof from the dirtiest work By Professor Ian Kershaw 12:01AM GMT 23 Jan 2005 He never visited a single death camp and would not speak openly about his plans to annihilate the Jews, but the Führer's indelible imprint can be found at every stage of the 'Final Solution', writes Professor Ian Kershaw The Nazi attack on the very basis of humanity, at its centre the Nazi "Final Solution" – the attempt to annihilate the Jews of Europe – is rightly associated for ever with the name of Adolf Hitler. The one thing that everyone knows about him is that he was the most radical of radical anti-Semites – a paranoid Jew-hater. From the beginning of his political "career" onwards he repeatedly spoke of the need to "remove" the Jews. Once he became dictator of Germany, the "removal" of the Jews began, first from Germany, later from all over Europe. By 1941, "removal" meant extermination. Auschwitz emerged as the place where the most were killed: about one million people were murdered in its gas chambers. What is surprising, then, is that Hitler never visited a single concentration camp, let alone death camp. He kept himself aloof from the dirtiest work of his regime. He did not speak about the "Final Solution", even to his closest entourage, other than in vague terms. He spoke publicly, and in the most vicious way, about the persecution of the Jews, but he never associated himself in plain language with their killing, as Himmler did. In October 1943 the Reichsführer addressed SS leaders about what it was like to see 1,000 corpses lying side by side, describing "the extermination of the Jewish people" as a "glorious page in our history that has never been written and is never to be written". No written order by Hitler for the Final Solution has ever been found. It is as good as certain that none ever existed. The distance that Hitler kept between himself and the actual killing has fuelled neo-Nazi claims that he was not responsible for the murder of the Jews, and that Himmler kept him in ignorance of what was taking place. In truth, however, Hitler's indelible imprint can be found at every stage of the Final Solution. His central role is superficially obscured by the deliberate camouflage language about the extermination used by the Nazi leadership; by his extreme unbureaucratic leadership style, and by the high premium he attached to secrecy. Orders on sensitive issues were passed on verbally, on a "need-to-know" basis. That the paper trail often stops before it reaches him is testimony not to his ignorance of the Final Solution, but to the way his dictatorship worked. With Hitler's takeover of power on January 30, 1933, a proto-genocidal elite, backed by the huge Nazi mass movement, gained control over a modern, sophisticated state. Its message was one of national renewal to be achieved through racial cleansing – at its core the "removal" of the Jews. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uk...ept-himself-aloof-from-the-dirtiest-work.html
I pray that you find peace in your soul over this matter, Sg. At some point we all have had to do that, or will have to do that. God bless.
Praetorian, I know that we will never have the answer to following questions but I do wonder if things would be different now in the Church if Archbishop Lefebvre had "stayed with Rome"? It is difficult for me to look at the SSPX and not ask this question. In addition, I can't help but wonder if Rome and the SSPX had worked things out prior to the current pontificate would things be different now? I just can't look on this situation positively because ultimately it is not positive and that does not mean to say that I am looking at them as a strange "cult" or demonizing them, I don't believe that anyone on the forum believes this to be the case. I also feel that where we find ourselves now was meant to be. I suppose that this is due to studying so many prophecies but also from looking at the world around us it is difficult to think that one Archbishop could have made a huge difference but may be he could have? Archbishop Lefebvre did not remain silent but maybe he did not speak out loudly enough, idk? I also realize that 1968 was one of the worst years for humankind and in France things were really bad in 1968. Awhile ago, I read about the meeting of Archbishop Lefebvre and Padre Pio and the alleged exchange that the two of them had. The following is from Wikipedia, I find the story to be interesting because imo this is something that I believe Padre Pio would have done although Archbishop Lefebvre has refuted it, ************* Padre Pio and Marcel Lefebvre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcel_Lefebvre In April 1967, three years before founding the SSPX, Archbishop Lefebvre briefly met the Italian saint and mystic Padre Pio of Pietrelcina to ask his blessing on a forthcoming general chapter of the Holy Ghost Fathers. Pascal Cataneo**, a priest claiming to be an associate of Padre Pio, claimed in the book "Padre Pio Gleanings" that the saint had prophesied about Abp. Lefebvre. He wrote: "Padre Pio looked at Lefebvre very sternly and said: "Never cause discord among your brothers and always practise the rule of obedience; above all when it seems to you that the errors of those in authority are all the more serious. There is no other road than that of obedience, especially for those of us who have made this vow."... It seems Archbishop Lefebvre did not see things in quite the same way even if he did respond to Padre Pio with: "I will remember that, Father." Padre Pio looked at him intensely and, seeing what would soon happen, said: "No! You will forget it! You will tear apart the community of faithful, oppose the will of your superiors and even go against the orders of the pope himself and this will happen quite soon..."[42] However, Lefebvre dismissed the allegation as a "slander, a fabrication",[43][44] giving his own account of the event, as well as photographic evidence backing his counter-claim: "The meeting which took place after Easter in 1967 lasted two minutes … I told him in a few words the purpose of my visit: for him to bless the Congregation of the Holy Ghost which was due to hold an extraordinary General Chapter meeting … Then Padre Pio cried out. 'Me, bless an archbishop, no, no, it is you who should be blessing me!' And he bowed, to receive the blessing. I blessed him, he kissed my ring and continued on his way to the confessional... That was the whole of the meeting, no more, no less..."[43][44] Author Griff Ruby* pointed out that Padre Pio had no known associate or acquaintance by the name "Pascal Cataneo".[44] Here are two photos of the meeting, Padre Pio of Pietrelcina kissing Archbishop Lefebvre's ring Padre Pio in jovial conversation with Archbishop Lefebvre *********** This is SSPX own take on this story, http://archives.sspx.org/archbishop_lefebvre/padre_pio_and_archbishop.htm I often reflect on something that Padraig had said on the forum awhile back, we must stay in the world. Maybe I have expanded on this very good advice but I took this to mean stay and fight the good fight. I don't believe that Archbishop Lefebvre did that, maybe if he did he would also be a saint someday like Padre Pio? Btw, I think that there is some controversy(?) surrounding Griff Ruby Exposed - YouTube * the author of the book which contains the account of the above events and discredits Pascal Cataneo as an acquaintance of Padre Pio's. Here is a link to Amazon to the book which Pascal Cataneo wrote about Padre Pio, Padre Pio: Glimpse Into the Miraculous by Pascal Cataneo** More questions, I suppose.
About 11 years ago now, Benedict XIV knew that there were folks who did not like the NO. So His Holiness issued Summorum Pontificum, and that lead to a motu proprio which meant that the Faithful could attend the TLM more widely in churches. Arch. Sample just celebrated the 10th Anniversary of this (a little late) at the National Shrine with a Pontifical High Mass. So this need has been addressed by the Church.
You raise good points about the holiness of the Mass you attend, but what if you stayed in the normal parish and became leaven there for the congregation there? I believe your presence and holiness when you receive Our Lord would be noticed by the congregants and your witness to His Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity may inspire them to receive with more reverence. Also the normal parishes always have great need for volunteers to teach 'faith formation' as it is called in the United States and many other ways to volunteer to teach the faith to the younger people. You could be missionaries of holiness right where you live. Maybe you could attend the Novus Ordo Mass with some of your SSPX friends so that you do not feel lonely in the congregation. Become leaven in the Novus Ordo parish instead!
While this need was addressed by a pope, BXVI, it has not been acted upon by the majority of the world's bishops. Quite the opposite, actually, as many (the majority?) of the bishops effectively still forbid its celebration in their diocese.
I do follow Fr Kevin m Cusick and he has gone from saying one TLM Mass a week to all TLM with only one NO which is the Saturday vigil All with Cardinal approval He is a very happy and blessed priest
A Priest’s View Of Latin Mass Vs. New Ma Constantly I hear from people that they do not go to the Latin Mass because they do not understand Latin. (Some even think that the homily is in Latin.) So please, just for now, let us put aside the argument of the language; Latin or English and go to the prayers and actions that are part of the rubrics of the two masses. Let us also look at who is the center of focus and the way the people participate, dress and receive God in Holy Communion at the two masses. As a priest, I want to re-clarify what are the differences on how Jesus is treated in the two masses. This will be from my own stand point as a priest who has for years celebrated the New Mass in English and Spanish, and now, for the last 7 years offered the Ancient Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. http://www.traditionalcatholicpriest.com/2015/01/29/priests-view-latin-mass-vs-new-mass/
Excellent! Yes, the whole structure of the Novus Ordo seems to move away from reverence. Away from "Romanism" and towards Protestantism, but then that is exactly what it was designed to do. I think that the removal of the patens and guarding against any particulate falling on the floor really damaged the belief in the Real Presence.
Thank you for posting this Sunburst! I was mentally saying “yep, check, check, check” over everything in the differences listed. I grew up in the NO, and within the last couple of months have been blessed to relocate near a FSSP parish (some of my priests’ homilies end up on Sensus Fidelium ). This may trigger someone, but honestly when I attended my first traditional Mass a few months ago I interioriorly had a deeply spiritual experience where I felt that I had become Catholic for the first time. It was so incredibly different. I felt that I was genuinely part of “community” in the communion of saints more than any Mass I had been to (the realization that THIS is the Mass St Padre Pio wept at in Italy, THIS is the Mass St. Therese went to in France, THIS is the Mass of St John Fisher in England, etc) and had the experience of feeling spiritually united to them in the worship of Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament. For those who have never attended a traditional Mass, it is SO MUCH MORE than “just the language” of Latin. I used to think that was the only difference. So wrong. I have no desire to attend any NO Masses anymore. I have spent years teaching Faith Formation, leading a Latin leaning traditional choir, and many other volunteer activities in my old NO parish. For the first time in my life I feel like a Catholic. I have no judgment towards anyone attending NO, but I will not deny the impact the switch has made on my spiritual life. Satan is absolutely livid at me over it and has been very active trying to wear me down lately, including influencing my husband to hate the traditional Mass and refuse to come (whereas he has had no problem attending an easy peasy NO Mass for 10 years. Huh. A non Catholic has no problem going to a NO but hates a traditional Mass? If that doesn’t say something about the NO.....) For me, this reinforces the argument of the greater abundance of grace available through the traditional Mass and Satan’s hate of it. That’s enough for me
I've been thinking about this on and off during the day. To be honest, my thoughts are all over the place on it because I see a problem but I don't really see a solution. If I can make some sense out of them in my own mind, I'll lay out my thoughts in another post on the overall issue of the Old and New Mass and the benefits or otherwise of seeking out the TLM in out of the way churches. In this post, I just want to make it clear that I don't have to grit my teeth during Mass in our parish. The chatter happens to a lesser extent before Mass and a greater extent after Mass. If I weren't too lazy to drag myself out of bed for earlier Masses, I probably wouldn't have to grit my teeth at all. There are usually two sources of chatter, especially after Mass. One source is the choir - probably due to some kind of adrenaline rush after the round of applause. The other tends to be relatives of the person for whom the Mass has been offered on the anniversary of his/her death. The vast majority of the congregation leave quietly enough with a small number staying to pray. I would be interested to hear how an SSPX priest presents a homily on contraception at a Sunday Mass attended by young families with children. If memory serves me, pre-Vatican 11 sermons on such sensitive topics were reserved for parish retreats - the annual Parish Mission. There will always be a clear advantage to attending a Mass - any Mass - celebrated with reverence. Surely, the more properly disposed and reverent those present, the greater will be the fruits. Nevertheless, I'm not so sure that there wouldn't be equally as many such people attending a regular Mass as there would be at an SSPX Mass. The percentage of devout people at an SSPX would no doubt be higher but the actual numbers may not be. Hope that makes sense.
In my personal experience, the TLM has fewer in attendance in our area but it is a diocesan Mass, not SSPX. I think one has to travel to somewhere in Virginia from our place in Maryland to attend SSPX. Not close
The following sounds familiar, Praetorian, Atheists would not be approved as Godparents unless they are fallen away Catholics and then lie about this but I fully understand your point. I think that something should be changed regarding Godparents, Godparents are very often symbolic rather than someone who helps guide the child's religious upbringing. I also realize that this is a difficult thing to control. In this particular situation, I think that a bishop should have approved this couple becoming the Godparents for their niece and it would be nice to see an official statement from the Vatican to correct this problem. I thought that the article was very good though because it was a very recent story and it discussed many of the things that we were discussing on this thread in regard to the SSPX. Here is a link to the article for those who may have missed it, http://fsspx.news/en/news-events/news/diocese-buffalo-denies-catholicity-society-st-pius-x .
