Discussion in 'Pope Francis' started by BrianK, May 26, 2021.
It is all in the Third Secret of Fatima. Padre Pio himself described all this back in 1960:
The strangest possible thing happened to me at Mass this morning and something that frightened me more than a little. Something I beleive is conected with all the terrible things we are currently witnessing in our Church and the World.
I went this morning to the Novus Ordo Mass in Clonard Monastery. I vary between the Old Rite and the New because of my shift pattern but prefer the Old but what can you do? You take what you can. I was reluctant to go this morning as there had been some pressure on me to wear a mask and I did not want to have arguments; but I went anyway.
Usually I sit well out of the road at a little side chapel to St Alphonsus Liguori were I might not get into trouble for not wearing a mask (faint hope).
The Mass started and there was a commotion at the front of the Church. A nun with no shoes on bent double, her headdress covering her whole head like a shroud , her arms outstretched as though on a Cross. She was half speaking half speaking in a tongue, a language I had never heard of before. When she was not doing this she was hissing like a snake.
Two of the Bouncers on the door followed along behind her keeping a close eye on her.
Where in the whole Church did she decide to wind up but right behind me. I mean inches away, hissing and talking this weird language all through mass, very loudly.
To make matters worse the two Bouncers after seeing she was kneeling behind me took themselves off again, leaving me to it.
The fact that half the Church Congregation were rubber necking at me and her right through Mass did not help.
A nun who appeared to me possessed attending Mass and choosing to sit right behind me. I just think it goes with all that is happening all around us.
By the way she really was a nun, I know her habit. I felt like Uncle Fester in the Adams Family.
I’m reluctant to hit the “like” button on this post @padraig !
I am not easily frightened, but I admit I was frightened. I have encountered Possessed people before but never one sitting right behind me at mass..and a nun too of all things...yes I was frightened. The thought of course occurred why out of the whole Church why me? Also of course since she was behind me I could not see what she was up to.
I could only hear the hissing and strange goings on.
The poor woman. Is she old? She could be suffering from dementia. God help her.
I know this priest. He has a TLM parish in the Archdiocese of Washington, DC. in Maryland. He’s wonderful. I have been to Mass there before.
What a cross!
Poor Woman, I hope it is not what I think it is and is just some from of mental illness.
Didn’t you work in mental health or a hospital? I can tell you I work in mental health and folks with mental illness are drawn to me (I don’t know why)… I can be walking across the street- not working- and an individual with mental illness will change their direction and come up to me…
And here is the point where I must draw a line in the sand for myself. It appears the Vatican apparatus, which includes Freemasons and the likes, may use this revised canon, to not crush resistance, but to eventually push Traditionalists into the Pius X Society. Taylor Marshall has suggested this within the past year; he calls it corralling . However one appreciates the Society's love of everything Traditional, they are not in full communion with the Church. No matter how repugnant Pope Francis becomes in his choices, he is still the Pope. There is only one Church.
In response to an article in the Remnant Newspaper, one commentator spoke the following:
Pope Benedict XVI has allowed and permitted and preserved the Latin Mass for you; you should rejoice, but not presume this means that the Church needs to return to this as the only valid and holy form of Mass. I have dislike [of] many of the liturgical abuses taking place perhaps more than you over the years, however, a lack of courage and faith in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist due to a subjective view and understanding of liturgical worship is also at the heart of your vehemence against the decree of the Church about the validity of the Novus Ordo Mass. In other words you decry so called Modernists for their adherence to subjectivity and yet refuse to carry the cross of valid worship by attending the Novus Ordo Mass and being salt to the world in the midst of suffering and trial.
And so I say this to Traditionalists on MOG, if I was not a deacon, I would consider discussing with Geralyn moving to a TLM parish. But that will never be. But if I wasn't a deacon, I would never join myself to the Pius X Society because they are not in full union with Rome. And so I have lived my last 50 years in the Novus Ordo; in the foreseeable future, there is no alternative for me and I will carry the cross as the red highlights above suggest.
But when the Abomination of Desolation (AOD) occurs, then the equation will fundamentally change, and I may live to see it.
Until then, I will live witnessing an increasingly heavy yoke of pressure from those who are also attempting to corral the TLM. But Jesus will be with me to help me carry the Cross of persecution when it comes my way, for all of this will lead to the AOD. Then all faithful Catholics will be united with our Crucified Lord.
Luke 14:27 Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me, cannot be my disciple.
Matthew 11:28 Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light."
We will walk the path of obedience for as long as we are able. I am going to attend midnight Mass this Christmas at Institute of Christ the King. I am so looking forward to it. I do know that God will sort all this out in the end. On Sunday I will attend my parish church and probably hear a very poor sermon. Its all a trial.
Here's the link to the article of the interview with Bishop Schneider...
Bishop Schneider on Latest Vatican Crackdown on Tradition
This is a true Catholic post. I am so glad you posted it. People say they are forced into going to a Mass where there is no full communion with Rome. (SSPX) But there is no forcing anyone. No one is coming to your door at gunpoint and saying you must go to an SSPX church. NO. That is a choice that people have made. They were not corralled. They choose to go. The idea that one cannot obtain a valid Baptism at an NO Church is absurd.
Please go, Maryrose, on behalf of my husband and myself who are unable to go to Mass due to Covid. God be with you in a special way.
The SSPX Is in Communion with Rome
Once one gets past the false accusation that ‘the SSPX is in schism’ (see previous article in this series), a number of other objections may be raised. These often begin with:
Well, I was told that they are not in “full communion” with Rome.
If you are not ex [out of] communionthen you are in communion. Being “in communion” or being “out of communion” (excommunicated) refer to one’s reception of the Sacraments and one’s participation in “the common blessings of ecclesiastical society.”As the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and reception of Holy Communion hold such an essential and normative place in Catholic life, this concept stems from the root word ‘communion.’ Thus, one who is “in communion” may receive Holy Communion, whereas one who is “out of [ex] communion” may not. Like schism, this is a binary term (either “yes” or “no”) and it does not permit of degrees. Thus, no one is in “partial communion” any more than someone is partially pregnant or partially married to someone.
“Full communion” and “partial communion” are novel terms popularized after the Second Vatican Council. Nowhere can these terms be found in the traditional teachings of the Church Fathers, Popes, Ecumenical Councils, Doctors of the Church or Saints of the first nineteen centuries of Catholic teaching. They are based on the erroneous notion that somehow everyone is a member of the Church, but only to varying “degrees.”(Editor’s Note: Here we include a very important footnote which we strongly encourage the reader to diligently study.)
Using this logic, it is said that the schismatic Orthodox groups are not in “full communion” or that Protestants are in “partial communion” with Catholics. Yet this is a terrible misnomer. Neither schismatic Orthodox nor Protestants are allowed to receive Holy Communion or any other Sacraments until they convert. Note as well how, according to the Church’s perennial and constant teaching, members of these groups are not members of the Catholic Church (see footnote #4 below).
Here we have a case where precise Catholic terminology (“being in communion with”) is retained but given a different meaning. Instead of referring to the reception of the Sacred Body of Christ and participation in the Church’s Sacraments, “communion” is used to refer ambiguously to some kind of “fellowship,” “solidarity,” or holding certain beliefs or practices in common. This is a common modernist ploy: to use the same word which has a definite meaning and rich Catholic heritage but substituting a different meaning for it which is based in common parlance. Many people are then duped by this sleight of hand because they are unaware of the true Catholic meaning but are familiar with the common usage meaning.
So in dealing with this objection, the real question is: May the faithful of the SSPX receive Holy Communion in any Catholic parish? The answer is “yes, they may.” Similarly, may any Catholic receive Holy Communion at an SSPX chapel? Again, the answer is “yes, they may.” This is because all are baptized members of the Holy Catholic Church and none are excommunicated or schismatic. With this simple understanding it is clear that the SSPX is in communion and not out of communion.
For clarity’s sake, I would strongly encourage you not to use terms like “full communion” or “partial communion” or even “irregular communion.” If you are ever in a discussion with someone who uses such terms, you should ask them to define the term for you. If they are actually able to provide a reasonable definition (which would be quite out of the ordinary), then ask them for the source for their definition, because I am quite certain it will not come from our tradition or the perennial teaching of Holy Mother Church.
Okay, but they aren’t truly in “union” with Rome.
At times I hear this objection, and so once again, I simply have to ask for a clearer definition of terms. This seems a very imprecise manner of speaking which I think we would do well to avoid. After all, what does it mean to be “truly in union” with Rome, especially in this time of grave crisis?
If being “in union with Rome” is understood as it has always been understood by the Catholic Church, and as is enumerated in the Catechism of the Council of Trent – namely, that one accepts all the de fide teachings of the Church with divine and Catholic faith, administers the same Sacraments, and accepts the legitimate authorities of the Church (i.e., Pope and bishops) – then I would hold that the SSPX is, in fact, in union with Rome.
However, I would note that there are many who carry the name “Catholic” and do not receive the Sacraments and reject numerous infallible de fideteachings. Nevertheless, they rarely suffer the same kind of calumnies and detractions regularly leveled against the SSPX. I do wonder, “Why is this?” Individuals who reject the Sacraments – e.g., who never go to Confession, believing it is unnecessary, or prefer not to get married in the Church – are clearly not “truly in union with Rome.”
Even more abundantly clear, those Catholics who reject de fide teachings – such as the Immaculate Conception, the existence of Purgatory, Transubstantiation, that the Holy Mass is Christ’s Sacrifice, that only men can be ordained to the Priesthood, that Sacred Scripture is inspired and inerrant, that the Sacraments are necessary for salvation, that souls do go to hell and are not annihilated – are also clearly not “truly in union with Rome.” Perhaps they are not in union at all, but that can be a subject for another discussion.
When someone tells me, “But they [the SSPX] aren’t truly in union with Rome,” I generally reply as follows: Is that so? Well, that is news to Rome, considering the Pope has given the SSPX the permission to ordain Roman Catholic priests in any diocese in the world. Moreover, on numerous occasions the Vatican has called on leaders within the SSPX to “report” to Rome for various meetings and the SSPX leaders have always obediently gone. During such visits, they have not presented themselves as “equals” or as outside the authority of Rome (as do leaders of other religious groups and of political states), but rather as inferiors to their superiors.
What other sign do you have that you are in union with Rome other than baptism, professing the Creeds, not being under penalty of excommunication, having valid Orders, praying for the Pope and local bishop at Mass, and reporting in when Rome calls? With a touch of irony, I might well ask: Is there a special badge the priests of the SSPX should wear to prove they are Catholic? Or is their valid Roman Catholic priesthood, unfailing fidelity to Catholic doctrine, and accompanying Sacraments enough?
My point here is that there is a very wide range of interpretation for the phrase “not truly in union with Rome” and such imprecise terms ought to be avoided. They all too easily lead to error and misunderstandings, and by them one can easily fall into sins against charity and unity. Over her 2,000 year history the Church has developed precise terms and we should use those, and use them correctly. Such terms include “schism,” “in communion with” and “excommunicated”.
It has been abundantly shown that the SSPX is neither in schism nor excommunicated. The Catholic Church has also provided important criteria as to who is a member of the Church – i.e., the Mystical Body of Christ, the only Church which Our Lord founded. Those criteria are based on holding all the de fide doctrines of the Church, administering or receiving the same Sacraments, and acknowledging the rightful authorities of the Church hierarchy. Once again, according to all these criteria, the SSPX holds “passing marks” and, quite frankly, much “higher marks” than many others who carry the name “Catholic”.
Just to be clear, nine times out of ten I go to the Novus Ordo mass at my local diocesan parish. Fortunately we have rock solid priests and reverent Novus Ordo masses.
Occasionally I go to the local parish TLM or an FSSP parish TLM. I am NOT “an SSPXer.”
However, we DO have active and lurking MOG forum members who do regularly attend SSPX chapels. Many more are seriously considering it.
In the current Church chaos there is nothing wrong with that.
Therefore old outdated shibboleths and personal opinions against the SSPX MUST be actively corrected. What may have applied thirty years ago does not in the current chaos.
Irregular Canonical Status
“Irregular Canonical Status” is an IrregularTerm
The notion of calling a canonical status “irregular” is, in fact, an irregular occurrence. Nowhere in Church history can we find usage of this term in a theologically or canonically similar manner. The Church Fathers and first Ecumenical Councils never used this term in dealing with those who embraced the early Trinitarian and Christological heresies. The schism between the Eastern Orthodox and Rome does not carry such terms, and neither do the events surrounding the Protestant figures who separated themselves from Rome. Even the Jansenists, Quietists and Modernists of the more recent centuries never faced such unclear terms.
As we said in our previous article, you are either in the Church or you are outof the Church. It is true that one can be in the Church and still be disciplined, censured or placed under penalties, but one’s status is not thereby vaguely referred to as “irregular.” Rather, in such cases, the Church follows a canonical procedure (with legal counsel, trials and even appeals) which ends in a precise and clearly defined judgment. The entire process is documented. The judgment is formal and public.
Most importantly, the individual under penalty knows the precise punishment, reason(s) for the punishment, and what is necessary for proper and formal reconciliation with the Church. Would it not be unjust for an authority to skip the whole juridical process, remain unclear on the specifics, arbitrarily change judgments, act in contradictory ways, and then simply relegate a cleric to “irregular” status?
That being said, this canonical process has not been carried out according to proper ecclesial jurisprudence by the Church vis-à-vis the SSPX. If it had, the public documents recording the process should be readily available. Yet they are nowhere to be found. Thus, it remains clear that regardless of what ambiguous language is used, the priests and bishops of the SSPX as a whole are not under any penalties.
In an Irregular Time of Grave Crisis, What Is Regular?
We could go on and on with the conflicting statements and permissions granted by various Popes and Roman authorities over the years, but it should be clear at this point that the situation is indeed irregular. Yet perhaps instead of saying the SSPX is “irregular,” it would be more accurate to state that the Church hierarchy deals with the Society in a conflicting and irregular manner.
Instead of possibly being an indictment against the SSPX, is this not more likely an indictment of Rome upon herself? After all, one who abides in the truth has no need to change with the wind, contradict its own statements when the ink is hardly dry, or rely upon ambiguous and obfuscating terms. This “irregular” situation of the SSPX is actually one more irrefutable ‘data point’ that we are living through a grave crisis in the Faith and that the Church is suffering through a terrible diabolical disorientation.
Moreover, if we were to follow the foggy logic of “irregular canonical status” to its conclusion, we could apply that to many seemingly “regular” priests and orders in the Church. As noted in a previous article, the Catechism of the Council of Trentexplains that not only are infidels and excommunicated persons out of the Church, but also heretics.
Think for a moment; there exist whole religious orders, like the modern-day Jesuits, who under the guidance of their Superior, may deny the basic dogma of the reality of satan! There is nothing “regular” about this situation, on behalf of the Jesuits or the hierarchy of the Church that allows this to continue.
This is in no way a “what about-ism” as I do not mean to compare an unfortunate reality of the Church with what is manifestly a healthy society of priests in the SSPX. Instead, it is simply an illustration to shed light on the fact that the term “irregular” is too vague and offers no canonical specificity.
One of the hallmarks of the post Second Vatican Council theological atmosphere is that various terms are used that further foment ambiguity and confusion. We have already demonstrated that proper terms exist to speak of all the issues pertaining to the SSPX, and those terms – terms that have stood the test of time – should be used.
If the SSPX fits the criteria necessary to be considered as having validly ordained Roman Catholic priests, offering valid sacraments to parishioners who are fully free to frequent them, then it is not the SSPX that is irregular, but instead the situation in the Church that will simply not call a spade a spade. “But let your speech be yea, yea: no, no: and that which is over and above these, is of evil.” (Matthew 5:37)
In our next two articles, we will look at the topics of jurisdiction and “state of necessity,” and how they apply to the SSPX.
 Ecclesiology refers to an understanding of the nature of the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ. For example, it is a Divine Institution with interrelated human and divine elements. We say there has been a breakdown in understanding of this reality because the average, and even educated, person does not understand what the Church is, or how she works. We see this with the insistence on splitting hairs between “full communion” and “partial communion,” for example. These things show us that many do not understand the basic reality of what it means to be truly part of the Roman Catholic Church.
 Msgr. Camille Perl, Secretary of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, in a May 28, 1996 letter and repeated in Protocol No. 236/98 of March 6, 1998: “In the strict sense you may fulfill your Sunday obligation by attending a Mass celebrated by a priest of the Society of Saint Pius X. …If your intention is simply to participate in Mass according to the 1962 Missal for the sake of devotion, this would not be a sin. It would seem that a modest contribution to the collection at Mass could be justified.”
 The information for this citation can be found in the section entitled “Did Pope Benedict Lift All Suspensions From Society Priests in 2009?” of the linked article.
 The principle of non-contradiction is a fundamental axiom of logic. Its truth is universal and taken as a starting point for further reasoning and arguments. It requires no proof because it is self-evident to human reason and its denial would lead to incoherence and absurdity. In essence, this principle states “It is impossible for the same thing to be and not to be [or, to belong and not to belong to the same thing,] at the same time and in the same respect.”
 This statement applies to the Society as a group, not to any individual priest who may have encountered his own troubles on account of his own infractions. Yet, that likewise holds true for every diocese and every religious order in the world.
Just to be clear, the SSPX is a self-governing body.