In 2010, Michael Voris gave a presentation to a live audience on the Church Militant program, Catholic Investigative Agency. It was about the inception of the Novus Ordo Missae, the characters behind its creation, the ideological underpinnings of the new liturgy, and the potentially damaging effects it might have on the Catholic Faith of those who attend it.
It was excellent work. In fact, I’d say it’s one of the best analyses I’ve seen on the topic. Voris ties together many of the disparate threads that paint a larger picture of liturgical revolt, from the masonic accusations against the architect of the new Mass, Annibale Bugnini, to the observations of contemporaries, theologians, and insiders about the intentional protestantization of the new liturgy, to the incisive theological analysis and objections on the new liturgy offered by by Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani.
It’s calm, measured, and filled with historical facts, quotes, and references. Chris Jackson at The Remnant provides an edited/condensed version of the episode. I encourage you to watch it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_vwwajyASI?rel=0
There’s just one problem. Voris, in citing the theological deformations of the Novus Ordo and the quite possibly faith-damaging effects it has on those who frequent it, makes essentially the same argument he recently condemned from the SSPX. While Voris doesn’t come right out and say that Catholics should avoid the Novus Ordo (or not go to Mass if they have no choice but to attend it), the only logical conclusion one could reach if they believe it is actually damaging to the Catholic Faith is to avoid it whenever possible. The exact measure and extent of how this should be accomplished is open to discussion. But the underlying principles are the same.
In his more recent commentary on the SSPX, Voris seems to have forgotten his earlier position entirely:
[T]he priest says the New Mass is a danger to souls.
Now stop for a moment and consider what this priest is saying: The New Mass, meaning the Mass of Pope Paul VI, the Novus Ordo, is an offense against God. A Mass approved by and offered by the popes of Our Blessed Lord’s Holy Catholic Church and nearly every single bishop is an offense against God. Further, you are instructed not to go to Mass on Sunday if you must go to a Novus Ordo, New Mass.
This is a classic case of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Sure, there are abuses that occur in the New Mass owing to all kinds of issues that we point out here on the Vortex all the time.
But those abuses are just that — abuses. And they are to be placed at the feet of errant bishops, lazy unfaithful priests, dissident theologians and so forth. But to tell Catholics to stay home and not attend Mass on Sunday and refuse to fulfill their Sunday obligation to assist at the sacrifice of the Mass is beyond imagining. To call the Mass an “offense against God”? Are you serious? To encourage people to commit mortal sin by refusing to fulfill their Sunday obligation?
But it’s good that this video is out there because now the mask can finally be taken off this renegade outfit.
I would counter with something similar: it’s good that this Voris video is out there because now the mask can finally be taken off the inexplicable changes that have taken place over the past five years at Church Militant.
But let’s not get stuck in the obvious critique. Many will use this video to attack Voris’s current position, which one can only surmise may stem from influences within the Church Militant organization that are virulently anti-SSPX. And while there are certainly questions there worth asking, I’d like to focus on the more positive point:
Michael Voris was right.
The analysis he provided in that episode was exactly the sort of thing we need more of. It was balanced, well-researched, and persuasive. It’s a reminder that Voris is more than just a bad bishop (or SSPX) bashing demagogue, which is the image that, for better or worse, he has fostered. Frankly, there’s a place for that kind of thing in an ecclesial climate like ours.
But this video represents something better than the torrent of episcopal outrage porn that’s so easy to fall into.
All of us who have been forced to live in these confusing times, in the post-conciliar crisis, under the specter of a liturgy that has coincided with (and quite likely caused) a decimation of our faith, are trying, if we love God and His Church, to find our way back to the eternal Catholic truths that lie buried beneath the rubble of the ecclesiastical revolution. We are like archeologists and anthropologists, trying to piece together a puzzle about the life of a great civilization before some cataclysmic event brought it abruptly to an end. The clues lie scattered throughout history, obscured from sight but not lost. Bit by bit, we’re uncovering orthodoxy, re-discovering the traditions and beliefs that made Catholicism the driving force of Western Civilization for so many centuries.
I’m glad this video was brought to light. I would encourage you to resist the temptation to use it only as a rhetorical cudgel against Voris and Church Militant. Let’s instead take the opportunity to encourage him to remember the ideas his apostolate was built on, and to urge a return to the work of restoration – a work that eschews the needless vilification of those who don’t agree on every fine point and detail of ecclesiology or approach, but are nonetheless working towards the same goal.
Whenever good work is being done, the Devil tries to find ways to destroy it. Sometimes, this is through the temptation and corruption of those doing the work. Sometimes, it’s through the influence of toxic individuals who offer bad counsel. Sometimes, there is an oppression of finances or the spiritual life. Whatever his means, some are sure to plague any worthwhile apostolate, and all must be resisted.
I hope that for Michael Voris, the recovery of this video serves as a reminder of what made Church Militant popular in the first place, and an opportunity to reflect on how he can work together with those who could be his allies for the benefit of the actual Church Militant, of which we are all a part.
I encourage you to pray for guidance for Michael Voris and the people who work with him. They have built a powerful platform, and it’s one that could truly benefit the faithful at this moment. May they do God’s will in their endeavors.
Steve Skojec is the Founding Publisher of OnePeterFive.com. He received his BA in Communications and Theology from Franciscan University of Steubenville in 2001. His commentary has appeared in The New York Times, USA Today, The Washington Post, The Washington Times, Crisis Magazine, EWTN, Huffington Post Live, The Fox News Channel, Foreign Policy, and the BBC. Steve and his wife Jamie have eight children. You can find more of his writing at his Substack, The Skojec File.
FWIW, Voris has stated publicly at the Argument of the Month club(maybe 3 years ago) that his parish is NO and that is what he regularly attends.
I’ve been told by people who know him that he prefers the NO, and has made that adamantly clear at times. That said, I have a friend who attends the TLM at Assumption Grotto and sometimes sees him there.
I don’t begin to claim to understand his motivations or preferences. But the video was dead-on. And if he really views CM as an apostolate, we need more of that, and fewer attacks on orthodox Catholics who don’t fit neatly into the CM worldview.
Totally agree. Speaking with friends I often say he’s at his best when it’s in depth, well researched pieces, not just a what did Dolan do today piece or a Karl Keating eats caviar piece. People who at first were energized with “real Catholicsm” have faded in interest when it degenerates into Jerry Springer for Catholics. I also liked their in depth historical stuff on The Rockefeller Foundation: http://www.churchmilitant.com/video/episode/the-rockefeller-foundation Constantly tearing the garments leaves one to wonder if they are still clothed at all.
My family attends a very traditional NO parish. We have Latin for the Gloria, Sanctus, Agnus Dei, and the priests usually use the longer Eucharistic Prayer which is the one that is considered most like the Latin. It is a very reverent Mass. You can see a film about it by Storytel at their website. Saint Peter Parish in Omaha is really the best of Vatican II. The reverence is palpable.
However, Cardinal Ottaviani said in the Ottaviani intervention, that the Novus Ordo was a striking departure from a Catholic theology of the Mass. He was talking about the original Novus Ordo texts in the original Latin celebrated the way you describe. No matter how reverent the Mass seems, the Missal itself is deficient. The Mass, texts, prayers, and words have been gutted of the Catholic theology that the Church knew for centuries. This can be clearly seen between a comparison of Missals between the Paul VI Novus Ordo rite and the TLM rite.
If your parish is orthodox and traditional, the priests should be celebrating the TLM. The TLM should be celebrated and scheduled at least once on Sundays at parishes. The TLM is the Mass that should be celebrated by traditional orthodox diocene priests for these type of healthy orthodox parishes in these conservative dioceses.
It’s a damning indictment that the reverent mass of your parish is ‘just an option’ in the NO world, and considered of equal value to, say, one of Pope Francis’ pop/clown masses.
P. Francis’ pop/clown masses? On what planet has he celebrated these?
Earth. He’s quite fond of them in his home country. World Youth Day’s liturgical abuses were a prime example. Just check out this abomination: https://youtu.be/RwS9umpEkvs
The point i think he makes clear and we all should take cue from this lest we paint ourselves proteatant is that we have to make change within the church and never separate ourselves from it. Once we separate ourselves from the church by disobedience to its authority we become adulterers against Jesus Christ himself. We then become protestants just like every other denomination which professes they are “getting back” to the real truth… Novus ordo may have been the brain child of influential dissidents but the Holy Spirit can not be influenced. He makes right our crooked lines. The NO is valid no matter how much we you or anyone complains about it. I have no problem with the NO only when it is abused is it problematic. A Change in reverence among the faithful has to come from the heart no matter what liturgy you attend. You can be clean vessels on the oitside but is the inside pure?
We haven’t dealt much with the creation of the Novus Ordo here, but suffice to say that the experts Voris cited are correct: the New Mass in its very design undermines the Catholicity of the Mass, and this explains why it has coincided with such a massive loss of faith.
There are really very few who seriously argue that the Novus Ordo is invalid on a wide scale. But validity is not the sine qua non of good liturgy.
We need to move beyond debates of whether it’s valid and into whether it’s good for us, or pleasing to God.
And there is a critical question: if the new Mass, in even its best and most reverent dress, is still theologically and anthropologically inferior to its predecessor or the other approved Catholic rites, why must we continue to accept it as the ordinary form of the Roman Rite?
Bugnini and others knew that allowing priest-induced variations around the canon and the parts that allowed the NO to remain valid would have the immediate effect of destroying the universality of the Latin Rite, and hence the spirituality around it. More importantly though, they knew that destroying the Latin Rite would open the Church to acceptance of moral deviance.
You could think of it like a historic district with regulations about renovations down to the color of the paint allowed on a house, to suddenly allow architecture students to improvise whatever fanciful ideas they could come up with to “open up” the historic district to the future. The only result is the destruction of that legacy. That would be the only result. And then behind that there lurks a greedy real estate developer waiting to get his hands on the property. The NO is legal, binding, valid, but at the same time darkening. It’s stunningly cunning!
Steve, have you seen Louie Verrecchio’s take on this? He essentially argues that well-informed Catholics should avoid the Novus Ordo entirely.
Not yet, no.
Good questions, but questions which are hard – and sometimes impossible – for laypeople to answer. On the other hand, the question of the marked difference in actual graces received through the different forms of the Mass is something most people in the pews of any TLM parish can attest to having experienced first hand. Theology, anthropology and even aesthetics are certainly important factors, but it was the flood of actual graces made available through the Traditional Latin Mass which changed my life. I don’t think I’m alone in that, either.
Nobody cares if it’s valid or not. The point is it’s really lame and dorky.
No the point is validity. It may be lame and dorky [I would not use that description], but it is its validity that satisfies my obligation to the precept of the Church that I attend Mass on Sunday.
As I understand it, a black mass is also valid – illicit and totally evil, but valid – in other words a sacrilege of the highest degree. Therefore, one must have a higher standard than mere validity when discerning whether it is appropriate to attend a particular mass.
Well if you’re only satisfied with minimum effort, then good for you, but not all of us care so little about God.
Forget for a moment about these ecclesiastical and theological issues, Church Militant needs to be investigated by bloggers or individuals like yourself if one wants to know more about Michael Voris and his business.
There are speculations as to why he is attacking all those who oppose Vatican II’s Atheistic, Hippie Revolution, the Vatican itself and especially the Pope.
I never accepted his lame excuses because as I explained many times, he is a hypocrite who attacks everything related to Pope Francis, but never mentioned him by name. As we know the buck always stops at the top. Unless the Papacy is vacant and we have an invisible ghost sitting on St. Peter’s Chair.
I think, the bottom line, as with any business, it is all about MONEY, perks and friends in high places.
“To call the Mass an “offense against God”? Are you serious? To encourage people to commit mortal sin by refusing to fulfill their Sunday obligation?”
The thing that gets me the most about that latest Vortex is how he says he is going to play the clip from the SSPX spokesperson so there can be no doubt about what he’s saying, and then immediately, right there, boldly in front of us, proceed to totally misquote him. This is staggering. The SSPX persons was explicitly and clearly talking about the new Mass, not Mass in general. Mass in general, for a Latin Rite Catholic, obviously consists of the EF and OF.
So, Voris is off his game in the latest rounds. But he was on his game big-time in this older post. There is nothing there to disagree with. You can read Muggeridge, Hildebrand, Martin, etc., and get all this same information which is factually correct, attested to by many eye witnesses. But for Voris to misquote SSPX with their words right on the screen, is either willful or medically-induced ignorance. It’s still staggering.
Nonetheless, pray for CMTV to get it’s investigative A game back on the court. This fake-journalism thing with SSPX just has to be vomited out and wiped up.
The fact that Voris has been able to ‘grow’ his ‘apostolate’ so well over the last 5 years is (unfortunately) telling. Money doesn’t grow on trees. There are many layers to the onion and there are more infiltrators/plants in all movements than most people are willing to admit. Those who took over the Catholic buildings aren’t stupid enough to leave anything to chance and people are groomed over many years for their roles.
I think you are ahead of your time with what you have said, but alas, i believe you may well be bang on the money. Voris parallels Francis. Both will show their full hand in good time. But yes…i too give very serious consideration now to the fact Voris may have been an infiltrator all along. His divide and conquer strategy with in the faithful Catholic camp is now unquestionable and the fruits of his work grow increasingly rotten.
Most, if not all humans, at some point, suffer from boredom. It is human nature.
A business can suffer also from boredom and many do.
Boredom in the business world costs money.
You lose your audience (listeners-viewers-readers) who make up your ratings which bring advertisers who in turn bring MONEY, or you simply lose money without the need of advertising such as charities or “apostolates” (which are in reality a “for profit” businesses) if your subscribers and donors decided to stop helping you.
I can give you endless examples where businesses use tactics to get out of boredom and make money through ratings (advertisers) and/or donations and subscriptions.
A business can do 5 things:
1 – Create a crisis.
2 – Exaggerate an existing crisis.
3 – Make an interview with a popular or a controversial individual.
4 – Make promises to attract the audience or create the sense of anticipation and suspense.
5 – Lie. Make a big or small but effective lie.
What is your point?
I have no problem understanding his implication.
Well, are you able to explain it?
“All of us who have been forced to live in these confusing times, in the post-conciliar crisis, under the specter of a liturgy that has coincided with (and quite likely caused) a decimation of our faith, are trying, if we love God and His Church, to find our way back to the eternal Catholic truths that lie buried beneath the rubble of the ecclesiastical revolution. We are like archeologists and anthropologists, trying to piece together a puzzle about the life of a great civilization before some cataclysmic event brought it abruptly to an end. The clues lie scattered throughout history, obscured from sight but not lost. Bit by bit, we’re uncovering orthodoxy, re-discovering the traditions and beliefs that made Catholicism the driving force of Western Civilization for so many centuries.”
The best book I’ve ever read, for those who are trying to make sense out of these times and to piece together that puzzle, is H. J. A. Sire’s Phoenix from the Ashes (Angelico, 2015).
http://www.amazon.com/Phoenix-Ashes-Unmaking-Restoration-Tradition/dp/1621381404
Prof. K – I saw you endorsement of the Sire book over at NLM some weeks ago. I haven’t had a chance to acquire it – and none of the local university libraries here in DC even have it yet – and I was curious about how Sire characterizes the N.O.. One of his chapter subheaders is entitled, “The Mass of Paul VI as an Expression of Heresy” (p. 276). How far does he push that argument, and in what way?
He is more cautious, for sure, than the SSPX propagandists, but he is not afraid to document (in some detail) the heretical understandings and motivations of the architects of the Novus Ordo, and the evidence that they were trying to impose those things on the church as a whole. Fortunately, the errors were always corrected in the 11th hour, but the result is a mishmash and a disaster from the point of view of organic development of the liturgy (as you well know), and Sire is not afraid to say it is not truly part of the Roman Rite — a conclusion that would be difficult to dispute. This is because, in general, he rejects the outlandish ultramontanism that would make the liturgy a simple creation of the pope’s executive fiat.
I should add that the “heresy” to which Sire is referring is what one finds in the original version of the introduction to the General Instruction — the version to which the Ottaviani Intervention was responding. This document was manifestly heretical, and after said intervention, Paul VI immediately revoked it (apparently he hadn’t read it?), had it rewritten, and then promulgated a new version. However, nothing in the Mass was revised, even though this Mass was precisely what Bugnini was commenting on.
Let me also add that Sire’s book is about so much more than the liturgical reform — it is a large-scale exploration of the concept of church crisis and how it plays out on multiple levels. I devoured this book, it was so good.
I sometimes think that the Novus Ordo is the surest proof of the Church’s indefectibility, with all the minimalism that “the gates of hell shall not prevail” entails.
Quite true. I’ve thought the same.
…it is not truly part of the Roman Rite
In short, he sounds like he’s close to László Dobszay’s line, yes?
I suppose that leaves me curious how far he pushes that analysis, given that the liturgical ultramontanism that made the reforms of the 60’s possible long predated that – indeed, it was a necessary background for virtually all of the Twentieth Century liturgical reforms (not that I am condemning them in toto).
Some of us – I don’t know if Prof Sire is one – might even say that Pius XII provided a formal basis, wittingly or unwittingly, for this understanding in Mediator Dei 58 – but I’m afraid I’m moving a little too far afield.
Thanks for the (speedy!) clarification.
Pius XII’s pontificate was far more problematic than traditionally-minded Catholics tend to realize. However, his fundamental conservatism prevailed and held back the floodgates. Once he and John XXIII were gone, the floodgates were thrown open and have never been closed since.
Yes, Dobszay is a fair comparison. And yes, Sire critiques the gradual growth of a legal positivism among popes, which far predates the council. The main difference is that earlier popes used their power to shore up tradition (as they understood it), and later popes used it to innovate, experiment, and tango with the modern world.
However, his fundamental conservatism prevailed and held back the floodgates
Well, for the most part…:)
Part of the reception of Pius XII’s pontificate among traditionalists certainly lies in surface realities – the outward shell (birettas, wimples, veils, packed schools) was still basically there on the ground, at least. But I also think that the impact of Archbp. Lefebvre cannot be underestimated. We use the 1962 liturgical books mainly because of his decision in the early 80’s to standardize on 1962; most of us still fix on Pius XII as the last “uncompromised” pontificate because Lefebvre did. When asked for his evaluation of a catechetical or theological work, he would always urge checking the date – if it was before 1958, it was probably reliable; if later, probably not (this is still a rule of thumb with some value). And keeping Pius XII onside was helpful in focusing the the critique on Vatican II.
But as the traditional movement grows and develops its critique, I think it’s clear that Pius XII’s pontificate really is starting to draw the attention it deserves in the crisis.
We are in agreement. If one could wave a magic wand, we would do better to take our liturgical books as they stood in 1948. Not a year later.
But perhaps a few earlier – you’d still be stuck with the 1942 Common for Popes and the Bea Psalter. And on the other hand the vast multiplication of doubles that piled up over the Tridentine Era stands at risk at times of annihilating the feria days…But no matter: these are perhaps fairly minor irritations.
Thanks for the recommendation. I just plunked down the cash for Bouyer’s memoirs (also on your recommendation) so this one may have to wait.
There’s WAY too much good stuff coming out these days. It’s a sign of life and truth in the midst of insanity. You’ll love the Bouyer. But the Sire has to go on your wishlist!
Fr. Lang of the London Oratory has a new book coming out from Ignatius that is going to be the tour-de-force on ecclesiastical architecture.
There’s WAY too much good stuff coming out these days.
However troubled our age, we have come a long, long way. Compare the flow of scholarly material – and for that matter, musical, artistic and liturgical resources – coming out now with what was on offer thirty or even twenty years ago. Night and day. For a traditionalist-leaning clergy or layperson in the early 80’s, it must all have seemed quite hopeless – you had your dog-eared 30 year old missal or breviary and no place to use ’em, and perhaps a copy of Iota Unum and a few Michael Davies or Gommar dePauw tracts, if that, and no prospect of even an indult, assuming any bishop would even obey it.
I’m curious to know what about the Bouyer book is recommended. From what I read recently he was very much part of the liturgical problem. Is it recommended in the sense that bugnini’s book is recommended?
REALLY GOOD QUESTION. Bouyer was always a more subtle and sophisticated thinker than the other liturgical movement gurus. He shared some of their assumptions and desiderata — initially — but came to be more and more skeptical of the radical (as in: destructive and reconstructive) direction they were going in. Towards the end of the process, he was thoroughly disgusted with Paul VI’s reform. All this comes out in the Memoirs, which is why it makes for such gripping reading. Of course, he talks about a lot of other things, too, since he was a man extremely well connected with the “who’s who” of the 20th century theological world. In short, Bouyer is a complicated figure, but at the end, he’s on the side of the angels.
Good to know. I didn’t know that. Fr. Bonneterre’s book on the liturgical movement only mentioned the bad aspects of bouyer so I suppose I need to read his memoirs now.
Regrettably, Fr. Bonneterre portrays just about everybody in the liturgical movement as a villain, when the reality is so much more nuanced than that. Even the best theologians can have bad ideas, and even reformers can repent and see the light. Bouyer, for instance, bitterly complained about Gueranger’s spirituality, and yet his own spirituality looks positively old-fashioned and Tridentine compared to that of the progressives who triumphed after Vatican II. In any case, Bouyer’s an entertaining writer, so you’ll enjoy the book no matter what.
Can you recommend a more balanced book on the liturgical movement including the concilium’s part in the matter?
No, unfortunately not. What I’ve figured out has been based on many different books. Some important authors are Davies, Reid, Dobszay. Maybe other readers here can recommend a favorite book on the liturgical movement?
There really isn’t one good comprehensive history of the liturgical reform – not yet. Someone’s magnum opus is yet to be born – soon, one hopes.
To those works I might add Klaus Gamber, The Reform of the Roman Liturgy: Its Problems and Background, and Nicola Giampietro, The Development of the Liturgical Reform: As Seen by Cardinal Ferdinando Antonelli from 1948-1970 for *some* aspects of the reform – and, well, I still think that even Bugnini’s book remains an essential primary source. Other works are more focused, like Lauren Pristas’s Collects of the Roman Missals…but none of these works really is the complete package. Together, they do help form a good picture, however, until that magnum opus comes along.
Voris doesn’t exactly have a contradictory view here. It is possible to affirm the NO has serious problems and in some sense does some damage to the faith of those who don’t know the faith well, when the NO is not celebrated properly, but this doesn’t mean one should choose no mass over the NO as one may still receive the Eucharist and all the graces which come along with it. Those Graces outweigh the damage done when it is improperly celebrated. So i don’t think it is really fair to portray these two views as mutually exclusive.
BTW I don’t like the NO and I go to a diocesan Tridentine Mass.
From the post:
“While Voris doesn’t come right out and say that Catholics should avoid the Novus Ordo (or not go to Mass if they have no choice but to attend it), the only logical conclusion one could reach if they believe it is actually damaging to the Catholic Faith is to avoid it whenever possible. The exact measure and extent of how this should be accomplished is open to discussion. But the underlying principles are the same.”
I don’t want to speak for Voris so let me shift to myself. I definitely see many problems with the NO but if that is all there is available I just don’t see any of those problems relieving one of their Sunday obligation (as it is one of ten commandments) and I don’t see how it outweighs the graces one receives from Holy communiom there. If it is between NO and Tridentine mass then that is a no brainer but between nothing and the NO I’m just not convinced the problems outweigh the Sunday obligation. So at least for me the two are not contradictory. The accidents of the Mass of the NO may be offensive but the substance (the Eucharist as sacrifice) is still there and surely it is not offensive and thus one should still go if faced with that and nothing. If I’m wrong please show me as I’m open to correction and learning.
Amen Magister! It is this beating their heads agin the wall…up with sspx, down with cmtv. Why won’t they see they are standing on their heads in every way to prove that sspx is the choice? They refuse to see that cmtv has given the ammo for us to go out to our Bishops, Parish Priests and parishioners. Why won’t they see that sspx is on the outside lookin’ in and to state skip Sunday Mass is proof positive of where they are standing? All will be grateful the day sspx is on the inside, but now are on the outside and are encouraging souls to commit mortally wounding sin.
What CM has done is shot their credibility in the foot due to a personal beef that has them dissing even Bishop Schneider now. Would that Voris would have respect for the one he himself as been promoting as learned and holy.
And while you’re busy looking at what you think is sinful in another, Cheerios, you are completely ignoring Voris’s leading you and a vast array of sheep headlong into publicly calumniating others and making statements based on personal bias and spin for the sake of financial funding.
Michael Voris cannot sell tickets for the Catholic faithful to walk past the cave to see what they might see – wink, wink – and then condemn others for asking the hierarchy to please, for the love of God and the flock, to put on some clothes. By falling short of speaking the truth, Voris makes himself out to not be faithful, but rather to be nothing more than a tease. Accusing others of peddling ecclesiastical porn while doing precisely the same, but adding a shiny bow in one strategic place as if that will somehow render it to be art.
The Societies position on the Novus Ordo Missae is old news. It is just new to you ala CMTV. Kind of like coming out with a click bait video on the shock and awe of Catholic crusades.
You misinterpret intentionally…they have never dissed Bishop Schneider, never. You are mistaken and your words bite…keep your personal vendetta and allow Voris and CMTV to continue informing Catholics and bringing non-Catholics to the Faith.
As for the outsiders, sspx, I was more shocked to see you remnantors profoundly agreeing with ANYONE who would tell faithful Catholics to skip Holy Mass on Sundays if they are attending an N.O. That is serious. That is sin. Old news or not.
CM is in constant misrepresentation mode now, Cheerios. They have dissed Bishop Schneider publicly at CM by editing his words and attempting to speak for him and subsequently wasting his time by asking him to clarify that which was clear.
You may be blinded by the glitter, Cheerios, but having CMTV disrespect His Excellency to the point of negating his prudent admonitions within the context of reporting them is grossly disturbing.
Such behavior, however, has turned CMTV from being a force for truth into a squawk box of how to get CMTV viewership to feel superior despite their being wholly off base in how to treat with fellow Catholics. No amount of capital letters and Voris cheer leading will make that go away.
As to the particulars of the relations between the Society and Rome, they are doctrinal. That is why you must leave them to Rome and not seek to judge that which you do not understand. Rome does understand and so does His Excellency Bishop Schneider which is precisely why the former has declared no schism and the latter rendered prudent recommendations – recommendations that CMTV, if you read their posts, admit would be foolish to ignore. And yet, they do.
Look to your own sins, Cheerios. And judge with right judgment.
Well, you, Pgmgn being without sin chooses to throw? No, not blinded by glitter. They do not disrespect…you chose/choose to ignore that important nuance that was removed from other bloggees. The good Bishop states/re-states what he said in his first and second sentence, clarifying what CMTV hoped would be clarified,
“1. I have not said that there are no reasons which would hinder a canonical recognition of the SSPX, but I said more cautiously ‘To my knowledge there are no weighty reasons’.
2. I have not said that the current canonical situation of the SSPX is OK. The contrary, because of the their uncanonical status it is necessary that they receive the recognition from the Holy See.”
You are blind to those who are concerned for the Faithful. This has been brought to your attention far too many times. May your eyes and soul be opened to Truth.
Cheerios, pay attention to your own points:
1) His Excellency has far more in depth knowledge of the Society than CMTV. Nuance is important here. His Excellency is speaking prudentially and in the proper capacity as one sent from Rome to assess. CMTV jumps to report and claim understanding while having far less knowledge and only the authority it grants itself. That is why CMTV’s usage of the good Bishop’s words to proclaim themselves as having superior knowledge, and by inference, a greater care for not leading souls into danger, is disrespecting of His Excellency and missing the lesson entirely. All the while having a record of previous positions like this 2010 video of Voris declaring all of the things that he would otherwise condemn if said by another. That is illogical.
2) The only one inferring that anybody said all was OKAY is CMTV. The Society doesn’t believe their situation is a-okay, otherwise there would be absolutely no treating with Rome to regularize relations. May your eyes and soul be opened to the truth instead of the spin of division and muck raking that is nothing more than a personal beef run amok.
3) Pay heed to the Bishop’s correlating our present day to the Arian crisis. By calumniating the Society and negating the valid need to assess the Novus Ordo Missae as a rite – not as a them vs us football rivalry – you only aid the confusion in the Church. You shoot your friends in the fog and delay the fight against the true enemy.
God bless you, Cheerios, but zeal must be tempered by prudence or else it runs off the cliff.
“All will be grateful the day sspx is on the inside…”
That statement rings more than a bit hollow. In addition, it is completely false.
JT…not hollow, but mistakenly inaccurate…adjust all (just wishful thinking)to many.
…the actions displayed belie the words and supposed prayers for regularization, cheerios.
Those who truly pray and are working toward regularization of a Catholic Society – like His Excellency Bishop Schneider – do not dig up and attempt to sensationalize long held positions that are already understood/known by those in authority.
IOW: One who truly desires a reconciliation and resolution of differences between estranged spouses doesn’t make exaggerating old wounds their stock-and-trade. The why is because actions speak louder than words.
…you don’t see it, Magister.
Also, per your point about contradiction, I think that presenting these rhetorical questions in 2010:
““We’re not talking about the validity. What we’re talking about is, is this authentic Catholic worship? Is this how Catholics worship God? Is this a break from the past that’s so violent that you can’t really say this is Catholic worship as we have understood it? Has the theology behind the Mass been so manipulated twisted and deformed that Catholics going to this Mass miss something of the theology compared to talking about the traditional Latin Mass, the Tridentine Mass.””
“To make a point, you can receive a sacrament validly and in the process still have your Faith endangered. ..We’re talking about, is this authentic Catholic worship? Is what is going on behind the scenes a possible detriment to your Faith? That’s the question! That’s what Dietrich Von Hildebrand is asking. That’s what Alice Von Hildebrand is asking. That’s what Peter Stravinkskas is asking. That’s what all of these people who have written all of these books are asking! Is this a danger? What’s going on? ”
Conflicts pretty directly with this point made in 2015:
“Now stop for a moment and consider what this priest is saying: The New Mass, meaning the Mass of Pope Paul VI, the Novus Ordo, is an offense against God. A Mass approved by and offered by the popes of Our Blessed Lord’s Holy Catholic Church and nearly every single bishop is an offense against God. … This is a classic case of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Sure, there are abuses that occur in the New Mass owing to all kinds of issues that we point out here on the Vortex all the time.
But those abuses are just that — abuses. And they are to be placed at the feet of errant bishops, lazy unfaithful priests, dissident theologians and so forth.”
“…Those Graces outweigh the damage done when it is improperly celebrated.”
Grace builds on nature, Magister. And humans have 5 senses which is precisely why the Sacraments are presented as outward signs. Outward signs that must take a proper form.
Don’t forget that Jesus Himself refused to jump off the cliff when Satan tempted Him. God will not be mocked. And doing something that is visibly dangerous to the formation of Faith because one has been promised angels to keep one from dashing his/her foot is not advisable.
Pope Leo XIII: “There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition”
What, exactly are you trying, unsuccessfully, to say?
Brilliant, Bill. CC’s comment is completely opaque. Thank you for pointing that out.
I think, could be wrong, that CC is attempting to say that those who think they are upholding doctrine and “obedience” but who, in so doing, allow for even one drop of poison are helping nobody.
That is why the fear of looking at the doctrinal difficulties and a true analysis of the Novus Ordo Missae as a rite is rather telling. The truth will always out so why are Catholic organizations dissembling and calumniating out of fear?
Come on. This is not that complicated.
Imagine a Novus Ordo Mass in which the priest conducted himself in an exemplary fashion and with evident piety, following all the rubrics and giving a solid, wholly orthodox homily. Imagine, further, that the very same Mass was punctuated by truly awful, syrupy, self-celebratory Dan Schutte muzak selected by a female lay “Music Minister”, featuring blasphemous lyrics referring to God as Mother*.
Well, welcome to my parish.
I would submit that such a Mass may actually be a greater danger to souls than the casual, loosey-goosey, guitar Masses that otherwise prevail in my diocese, precisely because the blasphemy occurs in the context of an otherwise sound liturgy. If the priest does everything right but allows blasphemous music, how are the faithful to distinguish truth from error?
*Father of the field and forest, Mother of the snow and rain
Praise to you O God, mighty Lord of all
–Sing O Sing (1987)
Well said, Murray. It is the devil in the business suit with the polished manners that poses the greater danger. Not the devil with horns, tail and a contract ready for signature.
I should perhaps qualify my remarks to say that I have great filial love for our priest, and do not hold him (wholly) responsible for the music selection. He has done a great deal over several years to recover the sacredness of the liturgy after Bishop de Roo laid waste to the orthodox faith in our diocese during his interminable 38-year tenure. I have no doubt that, were it up to our priest, we would have (e.g.) ad orientem Masses, communion kneeling at the rail, and all music in accordance with liturgical law.
However, one of de Roo’s enduring structural “reforms” is the presence of laypeople in positions of influence, at both the parish and chancery level. For instance, I understand that our priest has absurdly limited influence over liturgical music in our parish, and our “music minister” is a full-on Baby Boomer Spirit of VII type who seems to enjoy poking the faithful in the eye with “inclusive”, masturbatory OCP dreck.
But whatever the facts on the ground, my point stands. And that’s why I can feel myself reaching a tipping point, towards the very difficult decision to abandon the parish of my family’s baptism a mere 5 years ago.
Your priest is a product of his seminary days and his current environment. The tsunami swell of lay overreach is a fruit of V2. Tell your priest, if you have the chance, that he has the prayers and admiration of unseen masses who applaud his attempt to fight for what is right…. to include his lawful place as father of his flock.
This is why those who condemn the Society as stating there was no necessity in consecrating bishops are patently wrong. When even those priests determined to put the sacred back in the Sacrifice of the Mass are persecuted by both bishop and flock, there is no reality in the belief that Catholic Tradition, to include the traditional formation of priestly vocations, would have been DOA years ago. No FSSP then, no ICK, no diocesan Latin Mass. And the lie that the TLM had been abrogated would still rein supreme to choke us all in the morass you have so aptly described.
To throw out a slightly tangential question: any opinions on the (Anglican) Ordinariate Use Mass as a close vernacular approximation to the TLM?
I’ve attended our Ordinariate parish a few times, and am seriously considering moving my family from our Novus Ordo cathedral parish (which has a reverent celebration combined with awful, often heterodox music), either to our sole TLM-offering parish, offering two Latin Masses per week, or to the Ordinariate parish, which offers daily Mattins and Mass.
Each time I attend an Ordinariate Mass, I am struck by its reverence and beauty. Like the TLM, it offers virtually no scope for priestly improvisation or self-expression, it uses elevated liturgical language (in this case, 16th-century English), and it makes heavy use of plainchant and traditional hymns. As far as I can tell, it is an organic development of the Tridentine Mass. Thoughts?
Much could be said here. I am a member of the Ordinariate and I’d take it any day over the NO but maybe not over the Tridentine Mass as the ordinariate mass does have elements from the Book of Common prayer.
I’ve never been, but I’m curious about it.
Speaking as someone who has served the Ordinariate use..
What’s there now is a provisional, not entirely complete missal – the final version will not be published until the end of the year, as things stand now. What’s lacking really is just some of the propers, Holy Week rites, etc.
In a nutshell: yes, it’s closer on balance to the Traditional Roman Rite than it is the N.O., and it is astonishing how many good elements made it in; it is vastly superior to the Book of Divine Worship foisted on the Anglican Use communities in 1983. I would even argue that, more than the MR3 translation, it is the one true product of the Benedictine Reform of the Reform – not perfect, but on balance a giant step in the right direction. Bear in mind that there are different options for the ordinary of the Mass, but all are drawing heavily on the Book of Common Prayer, the Roman Rite (both forms) and even the English Missal. On the most traditional option, you end up with an ordinary that’s very close indeed to the Roman Rite in hieratic (17th century) English, with the three additional Anglican penitential prayers (the Prayer of Humble Access, etc.) added in.
Beyond that: On the downside, it uses the modern three year lectionary, but on the upside, the translation is the RSV-Catholic, not the NAB. On the downside, it is based on the Novus Ordo calendar, but heavily modified to include Septuagesima Season, Sundays After Trinity, the Octave of Pentecost, Rogation and Ember Days, and various special feasts relevant to English Catholicism. The rubrics we use are basically those of the Roman Rite; celebration is supposed to be ad orientem and communion on the tongue (in both kinds) as normative. And needless to say, the music on offer (usually based on the English Gradual and the 1940 Hymnal, in my experience) is usually a few light years beyond what prevails in the Latin Rite Church, even in some traditional communities. The Anglican heritage, or what’s left of it, takes sacred music seriously.
I will close by saying that it would be very welcome to see an expanded indult for the celebration of the Ordinariate missal by Latin Rite priests, especially in English-speaking countries.
Not go half way? People should always go the whole way and go traditional always.
Amen, amen.
Since the release of that video, I often get the sort-of imprudent judgement against him.
Congratulations!
You made it well in this article, and you made my day again, as you disappointed me not.
I will pray that Michael stays the course, for his assertion is absolutely true:
Abuses of the Novus Ordo are rampant to the point of being the expected norm; such abuses must be avoided and fought insofar as is reasonable for a given Catholic according to his circumstances.
But to attribute unholiness, sacrilege, or evil of any sort to the Novus Ordo *itself, intrinsically* is nothing short of blasphemy.
Daniel: I take it that you mean his assertions ( in 2010) are absolutely true.
As for your last comment I feel the NOM is intrinsically ill formed however because it does have the essence of validity, that validity also has the ability to mislead and therefore is a danger to Orthodoxy and therefore,souls
Great posting. As many are increasingly frustrated with Voris and CMTV, we must not write him off, but rather pray that he overcomes these stirrings of danger. May God bless Voris and CMTV, but also the holy priests and bishops of the Society which Voris wrongly shackles. Thank you for this reminder; I personally needed it, having been caught up in so much anger. As Jesum per Mariam
Matt: I agree… Michael Voris and CMTV do great work however he now seems to have done an about face. We undertake to Pray for Him and SSPX.
Michael Voris has always maintained that the Church needs reform but such reform must take place from within the Church. The video demonstrates Voris’ contention that the Church badly needs reform. The recent criticisms of the SSPX demonstrates Voris’ contention that reform needs to come from within the Church not from without.
In a letter on May 3, 1994, Cardinal Edward Cassidy, President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, answered a question sent to him about the SSPX as follows:
“As far as your question is concerned, I would like to point out immediately that the Dicastery for ecumenism is not concerned with the Society of St Pius X. The situation of the members of that Society is an INTERNAL affair of the Catholic Church. The Society of St Pius X is not another Church or Ecclesial Community in the sense that this Dicastery uses those terms. Certainly, the Mass and the sacraments administered by the priests of the Society of St Pius X are valid.”
Pope Benedict’s letter to the bishops in 2009 states that “the remission of the excommunication has the same aim as that of the punishment: namely, to invite the four Bishops once more to return”; and “In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church.” It seems clear to me that outside of communion with the Pope and bishops is outside the Church.
Hans: “it seems clear to me that outside communion with the Pope and Bishops, is outside the Church”
Are you suggesting that those that engage in Homosexual , clown, witch, and any number of other atrocious ‘Masses’ invented about 50 years ago are, because they are endured or at least tolerated by the Holy Father and those gelded Bishops are ‘inside’ the Church. But those that stand by the Mass of the Ages, the Mass of the Angels, the Mass of Hundred of years and served the Saints the martyrs, are ‘outside’ the Church?
Get real….
My comment you quoted is based on Pope Emeritus Benedict’s 2009 letter to the bishops. The FSSP who stand by the Mass of the Ages, and The Mass of the Angels, are inside the Church because they are in full communion with Rome. SSPX is not in full communion with Rome.
My original comment was to point out that Michael Voris’ video on the problems with the N.O. doesn’t necessarily lead to the conclusion to commit mortal sin and skip mass if the N.O. is the only mass that is available. Reform needs to take place, but it needs to take place from within and in full communion with the Church. That has always been CMTV’s position and the video posted in this article doesn’t contradict that position.
Hans: “Reform needs to take place” I gather you are speaking of the Reform of the reform. Why was it necessary to have a ‘reform of the reform’. That suggests to me that the initial reform was defective in the First place. Otherwise why was it necessary to Reform that reform.
I emphatically dispute your assertion that the SPPX are not in communion with Rome. There are canonical problems but that doesn’t descend into schism or any other irregularity.
As a long time admirer of Voris and CMTV I am appalled at his propensity to bend with the winds. What he say now about the ones fulfilment of the Sunday obligation is completely at odds with what he said in 2010.
Michael seems to indulge is some fence sitting here and there are some who wonder at his motives
You maintain that the SSPX are in full communion with Rome?
Continue as a tempest in the Vortex teapot, Hans, and you will rob yourself and others of the opportunity of fighting the good fight.
Look to the doctrinal issues and ask yourself ‘why’ anyone would be so adamant in holding the position they do. That will give you the answers to the questions that need answering.
…is CM in full communion with his Bishop?
This pretense that the Pope is above reproach while Cardinals, Bishops, priests, etc are fair game is to be intellectually dishonest. It is to present a vision of the Catholic Church that is not Catholic.
CM is not the Church, but the apostolate is obedient to the Bishop of Detroit in matters of faith and morals. One of the criticisms of the Pope Francis from traditional minded Catholics is that he acts as if he is just one bishop among many. Yet when CM refuses to treat the Pope as one bishop among many by refusing to criticize him as it does the other bishops, the same traditional minded Catholics have a fit.
…that is precisely why Church Militant is no longer called Real Catholic TV, Hans. Because the Bishop of Detroit told Voris to cease and desist unless every news story was reviewed first by the diocese and given approval.
So Michael chose to abandon the name and then press forward with his news stories. Why? Because to seek the approval of the Bishop of Detroit would hinder the truth coming out – any of it.
This is the case with the Society too, whether you see the doctrinal issues or not. The Society submits to the Pope in so much as what is required does not conflict with the fullness of the Deposit of the Faith. (Just because you have not been educated as to what those issues are does not mean that they aren’t real issues for ALL Catholics. Hence Bishop Schneider’s prudential statements.)
And whereas you have been led to believe that not criticizing the Pope is some distinction outlining that he is not a bishop among many, the reality is that CM treats the Church as if the Pope were merely a figure head. Calling the Pope out when he is wrong, is to treat him as the Pope, Hans. Being Pope doesn’t mean hands off, cannot criticize. That is a false construct.
Similarly it would be to honor the headship of a father to come to him and ask him to resolve any and all issues within the home, not allow him to laze around as if he had no authority or right to act. Laying one’s fears, concerns, etc at the feet of the Holy Father is to show filial dependence. To not treat him as such is to offer hollow sentiment while trashing the wretched mess of ‘his’ house.
Follow the money.
…but the use of $$$ as a means of putting someone off the pursuit and exposing of Truth is the work of the Devil. That’s why open wounds need to be treated charitably and when in financial need, one needs primarily to keep their principles intact.
Hans, your contention seems rather an admission that Voris prefers to dance around the issues of what to do while thoroughly exposing the corruption and danger of certain issues. That is Voris falls short of putting his mouth completely where his actions are.
Much like putting the liquor out on the table, setting up the glasses, pouring drinks, winking at the party guests, but then saying, “I never once told anyone to take a drink.”
That, friend, is cowardice. If the idea is to not drink, then all the preceding behavior is disingenuous. God is neither mocked nor fooled, Hans. One may not speak the word, but one’s actions and thoughts speak far louder.
Michael Voris doesn’t fall short nor display cowardice. I have seen you pop in before to blast him. Your criticisms are what fall short. Well written Hans!
Michael Voris shows cowardice in not making a public apology for his own scandalizing of the faithful with regard to the Novus Ordo Missae. He also shows cowardice in continuing to use Bishop Schneider as a news source while publicly implying that his prudential assessments be ignored. (…or steamrolled.)
That you cannot see this void of truth/consistency, Cheerios, is rather just another demonstration of the cult mentality being fostered at CMTV. They pretend fidelity to the Pope while their actions convey a rather Sedesvecantist view of the Church – as if there is no Pope.
CMTV has turned into a big tease – tantalizing without delivering. Declaring what it has no authority or right to declare. And misleading those who would otherwise behave charitably, as both Bishop Schneider and Bishop Morlino has advised, by way of salacious, muck raking.
The fact that you are allowed to post here on OnePeterFive and discuss this should give you some idea as to what is wrong over at CM. True Catholic education doesn’t happen in a darkened barrel with only one voice telling folks what’s what, especially when said person has no grace of state to take on such a role.
He clearly displayed craven cowardice by not posting the questions he put to Bs. Schneider in the “clarification” email. It was borderline malicious. He ignored calls from many places to publish, like a real journalist, the question he asked him. But it’s evident on some levels that the questions themselves did a bit of leading the witness. That is why he redacted them. Let’s not even bring up the burying of the lede with the first interview, and the misrepresentation of what the Bs. said in the first place.
This criticism of him is valid and persuasive. It’s a winning criticism because it’s true. No journalist does what he did and gets away with it. What journalist publishes half of an interview? The “clarification” only added more confusion to who and what CMTV is doing. It did not however “clarify” Bs. Schneider’s position which was perfectly clear in the first interview, and only reiterated in total in the clarification.
Cheerios, your water-carrying and the strange reason you do it are what fall short here. If you disagree, post the missing questions. Or at least some conjecture on why they are still redacted. If you try to explain it here, you might see your own machinations on display.
🙂
Doug, we disagree, have disagreed, and will continue to disagree. I told you that you keep playing the same old notes. The redo had to do with some sedes and rads leaving out info…why don’t you get this?
for example, if someone printed the good Bishop said there are no reasons which hinder a canonical recognition of the sspx…The Bishop was clarifying by saying:
“1. I have not said that there are no reasons which would hinder a canonical recognition of the SSPX, but I said more cautiously ‘TO MY KNOWLEDGE THERE ARE NO WEIGHTY REASONS.”
Do you see why this needed to be clarified? Does it still escape you? Watch, here is the next example: the good Bishop said the current canonical situation of the SSPX is OK. UH-OH, no he didn’t say that, so he clarifies by saying:
“2. I have not said that the current canonical situation of the SSPX is OK. The contrary, because of the their uncanonical status it is necessary that they receive the recognition from the Holy See.”
Put the hatchets away! This isn’t what you all make it out to be, but you refuse to open your eyes. Doug, we’re done. Please stop replying to me. I’m done with pigmigin and will not respond to her vile remarks regarding Michael Voris, cmtv, nor sspx … AND, I’m done trying without success to help you understand your error.
God’s blessings upon the faithful of the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church! May all strive to grow in holiness, bringing souls to the Church, in order to be together with Him eternally.
….and you keep up the sour note of reiterating words you cannot seem to understand, Cheerios, all while leaving off the admonition of the good Bishop to stop the infighting. That is why your promoting yourself as an advocate for CM is rather just a continued advertisement of their backward and less than honest reporting.
So indeed, put the hatchet away, Cheerios. Stop cherry picking His Excellencies words to meet the CM ideology. It’s not Catholic, it’s not truthful, and it is a grave abuse of what was previously a fruitful platform.
So sad.
Hey Cheerios,
First, don’t reply to someone you don’t want a reply from! Just don’t reply and move on. But since you replied, I’m replying in kind.
Second. Answer me directly: do you have a familial or close relationship with any personal or staff or friends of personal or staff of CMTV? I asked you this earlier, two or three times I think, and you have not answered. It’s pertinent. You don’t have to say who of course, but a simply yes or no answer would be corrective. No obfuscation. Anything but that would be deceptive.
“Same old notes”? The paint on the Voris-SSPX kerfuffle isn’t even dry yet.
“The redo had to do with some sedes and rads leaving out info”
Specific examples, or it didn’t happen. That is a ruse, a misrepresentation, and perhaps even an outright lie. That is what you are told. But you have no proof, no comments, no links. Nothing. Pointing to some old position paper by the SSPX or something else would be a lie. Contextual proof or it doesn’t exist. And then don’t tell me Voris wrote to the Bs. again because one or two anonymous bloggers like “TRURAD” or “fruitloopsinmysock” wrote a comment that CMTV mods deleted. Really?
Now on to your terrible explanations. And they are truly of the worst quality. Let me vivisect these in quick succession:
“I have not said that there are no reasons…”
Insert any question that would make the Bs. respond like that. Like this:
“Bs., some have said there are no reasons….”
But Cheerios, nobody anywhere claimed that. It’s red herring. Citations in with references to the original video, or it did not happen. Prove otherwise!
“I have not said that the current canonical situation of the SSPX is OK.”
Again, supply the question. For the Bs. to respond as he did, the question would have to be:
“Bs., some have said the that canonical situation is OK”
Like who? Who has said this in specific reference to the first interview? Precisely no one that Google can find. There were no comments on CMTV, Remnant, OnePeterFive, that said anything like that. Anything on CMTV was deleted you know. Before I got banned at CMTV, I pointed that out and my comment is still there, oddly. Christine Niles’s response to me was to call me a liar. That is very tricky and deceptive. That is a play straight of the evasion and misrepresentation playbook used at entertainment outlets like MSNBC and Huffington.
The reason Voris did not print his questions is because he had to commit an egregious wrong to dig himself out of the hole he dug in the first article by burying the lede, and then misrepresenting the context of this “clarification”. This is a fact.
Cheerios. A reporter does not report half of an interview. That is a type of lie, no doubt.
Here is another example. You pick the question OK?
First, the Bishop’s answer:
“There are seven.”
What is the question? A or B?
A: “Bishop, how many deadly sins are there?”
B: “Bishop, how many bruises are there on Kasper’s chin from where you socked him?”
If you printed only the answer, how do you know what the question was? You don’t. You can’t. And that is intentional.
No journalist would print a bunch of interview answers unless the intention was to mislead. That is precisely and exactly what Voris did with this “interview”. Is it even an interview? It is inescapable and inevitable that if you go deeper into the Bishop’s responses, you will come to the same conclusion. Read the clarification several times. The odd structure and strange grammatical arrangement of the entire clarification is revealing.
Cheerios, I edit articles for a major online magazine. They are in the top 3000 sites in the world. All the article are long and involved and usually of some technical nature. I’m paid a lot of money to deconstruct articles, smash them up, help fix them, and get them ready for a site that is known for its editorial prowess. They hire me to weed out the problem with articles. I write for them as well. My point is this: I know BS when I read it. I’m paid to find and prevent it from being published.
Voris’s clarification article would never have made it past my BS meter. In fact, it’s one of the worst articles I have ever read. What makes it so bad and unique is that it took a particular talent and a very high skill level to create the kinds of errors Voris did. Only someone that KNOWS how to detect BS could have even written it! Only someone with inside knowledge of what constitutes a non-BS article could produce this piece. He knew exactly what he was doing. Again, go look up “burying the lede”. Voris knows this term intimately from his own investigative journalism. He could smell it a mile away. But so I can I and others trained to find this stuff. And the best person to bury a lede is the person who knows when others are doing it. Voris did it, I see it.
So, Voris: publish the entire unedited exchange. Prove me wrong. I’ll eat crow and resubscribe and tell everyone here.
“…but you refuse to open your eyes”
Cheerios. I have professional, trained eyes. What kind of eyes do you have? I’m not done trying to make you see your error. Stick around.
And so you don’t forget, please answer my very direct second question from up top before you say anything else, if you please. I just want to clear that up as a matter of integrity.
return to sender…address unknown…no such pocket…no such zone!
1. Post the Voris questions
2. Post your affiliation
No song or dance needed. Just put up or shut up, that’s all. Not asking much.
return to sender…I ask you to never reply to me again…do not insult me, sir.
I’m always going to reply to you Cheerios. With each non-answer you kind of fill in the blank. I have no idea why it’s hard to answer, unless you actually are CMTV staff! If you were, or had an affiliation, you should come clean. If not, just say so and I won’t bug you every time you post as Cheerios.
Again, Cheerios, your posts here and elsewhere are no defense of Voris but rather ongoing proof of the cult mentality being inculcated by blackout of painful truth.
If you have a mind to support Voris, you should write to him and ask him to address these serious disconnects and apologize publicly for misleading folks.
What exactly is the “issue of what to do?”
The issue is that Catholics need to recognize and accept that the Catholic Church has a hierarchy that is visibly compromised. Hires and fires are what constitute policy, not what one says.
The what to do about it is to follow the prudential admonitions of His Excellency Bishop Schneider. Why? Because we are in a grave crisis, friend, and shooting allies because we want to keep ourselves clean according to what ‘we’ perceive as the letter is no cleanliness. It is, in many cases, a malicious cop out that sends the message of personal grudge and a desire for heightened market share rather than fighting the real problems at hand.
We are the Mystical Body, Hans. And while CM may take the road that they perceive they are called to do, they do no service to the Church or the Body as a whole by attempting to excoriate the hands for not being feet or the eyes for not being a tongue…..or, mostly, for pretending that the Body has no accountable head.
CM doesn’t want people breaking communion with Rome. It’s not “shooting allies” it’s keeping allies in the barque of Peter.
…if that is the true impetus of Voris’s actions then he should act prudentially and not sow division by dismissing His Excellency Bishop Schneider’s prudential assessment.
CM likes to advocate that others have seemingly done evil (by inferring that the Society broke with Rome) so that good may result. Well, Hans, CM, to be consistent in their position should tend to their own sins. That is they should cease and desist to calumniate fellow Catholics just because of his own fears about what others may do.
By fear mongering and falsely bandying about the term schism, CM is encouraging others to sin and act in opposition to true charity. He is encouraging Catholics – without a license – to act as judge and jury to fellow Catholics who have been fighting this crisis for far longer than he. (Without the Society, there would have been no FSSP, friend. That is with no Society to have upheld tradition and shunned modernity, there would have been no move to reject the selfsame heresies that Voris reports on daily.)
To put it another way, there is a huge boil that needs to be drained. The body is suffering. CM cannot in all honesty heap steaming bandages atop the wound in the attempt to bring the boil to a head while deriding others who state clearly that the wound must be lanced.
Out of curiosity, where does the idea that one may be in “partial communion” with the Body of Christ come from? Can we demonstrate this anywhere in history? You’re either in communion with Christ’s mystical Body or not; there’s no such thing as partial communion.
The SSPX are Catholic, plain and simple–with irregular canonical status.
They, sspx, have placed themselves outside by their choice — until they choose to do as requested, they will remain outside by their choice.
You evaded my question all together.
….and would you advocate that Michael Voris sign an agreement with his diocesan bishop to cease and desist being truthful about the rot being sold in Detroit so he can bring back the name RealCatholicTV?
Of course not. Making such an agreement would prevent Michael from reporting the truth. That is why Voris made a choice, to put himself on the outs with his lawful bishop.
Try being consistent, Cheerios. You may get away with being an idealogue elsewhere, but not here.
Your words are vile here and elsewhere. I’m surprised you are allowed to say such rubbish anywhere. Michael Voris and cmtv are concerned about souls and continue to serve the Lord. I don’t know your trade, but when you are assisting souls the way they are, then and maybe then you would see the good done by them. This conversation needs to end.
Get out of the personal attacks of vile and other divisive nonsense, Cheerios.
What needs to end is CMTV spin. And that’s precisely why there is no actual conversing with you – on this forum or any other.
So you maintain that the Society is in full communion with Rome?
I maintain, as Bp. Schneider has concluded, that there are no “weighty reasons in order to deny the clergy and faithful of the SSPX the official canonical recognition” and that they “should be accepted as they are.”
My question was, is there a such thing as partial communion?
That’s rather a new invention to my knowledge.
Hans, if you cannot answer the simple question of “is there a such thing as partial communion” then you ought to completely drop the façade of “full communion.” I don’t have any connection with the SSPX, never dawned the door of a SSPX chapel, or received the Sacraments from any of their priests, so this isn’t a personal issue for me.
What is close to me, though, is when Catholics continue a false narrative of schism and derision against a group of Catholics who have legitimate concerns and critiques of the whole post-conciliar experiment, who pray and believe as our ancestors believed and prayed, and who have maintain the faith during an unprecedented loss of faith. That is certainly not charity.
Mundabor had an interesting post the other day concerning the SSPX. It is entitled “The Athanasius Question“.
He lays out, quite eloquently, how Sts. Athanasius and Eusebius ordained bishops without the permission of Pope Liberius and compares this to Lefebvre. The similarities are astounding.
Look, the problems aren’t a matter of critiques or clarification. It’s a wholesale rejection of V2. Pope Benedict stated clearly in his letter to the bishops that “the problems now to be addressed are essentially doctrinal in nature and concern primarily the acceptance of the Second Vatican Council and the post-conciliar magisterium of the Popes.”
In regards to “The Athanasius Question,” Lefebvre didn’t merely ordain without permission, Lefebvre did so in direct contradiction of the Pope.
So to answer your question, no, there is no “partial communion” when the problems are doctrinal in nature. From what you’ve stated, you seem to agree with me that they are not in full communion with Rome.
You need to seek out the fullness of truth regarding the state of necessity that precipitated the consecration of 4 bishops by Archbishop Lefebvre, Hans. That is the state of necessity that His Excellency perceived at the time of said actions. Your stating that the action wasn’t done merely without permission but in direct contradiction of the Pope is to basically reiterate the same state (no permission). But then that is the style promoted at CM to make that which is old news appear new and shocking.
That would be like me saying, my daughter went out with that boy not only without permission, but in opposition to the necessity of getting direct authorization from her Dad. (Since direct permission from the Pope is already an understood condition, restating things in different ways to make something appear worse than it is is misleading and salacious.)
That is why looking to CM for understanding in this area is to obtain no understanding and, frankly, a false narrative of the surrounding circumstances.
From what you have stated, you have been successfully corralled into the false narrative that would have you shoot allies in the fog – just as His Excellency Bishop Schneider (and common sense, I might add) advised against.
I stopped going to Voris’ site months ago. And I kick myself for having given him any $$. But, live and learn.
Thank you for answering.
Can you please tell me what doctrines were defined at the Second Vatican Council which are required for belief of all Catholics, otherwise we fall under the condemnation of an anathema?
Cardinal Ratzinger (of the CDF) told us that, “The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero. The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of super dogma which takes away the importance of all the rest.”
So, which doctrines defined by the Council are we obliged to assent to which were defined with an anathema sit?
And no, I do not agree with you that they are outside of the Church.
You do not have in mind the things of God, but of man. Ever ask yourself why the concern is “primarily the acceptance of the Second Vatican Council and the post-conciliar magisterium of the Popes.” As a good Catholic, one should believe that the “post-conciliar magisterium of the Popes” is the same as the pre-conciliar magisterium of all the other Popes, right? The post-conciliar Popes have reigned over a Church disaster of epic proportions. The question has been asked, “Why?” Many indications point to the 2V Council. There is a plethora of books, articles, and talks on the manifest issues stemming from it. It would seem to me that someone who seeks Truth (that is, Jesus Christ) is forced to grapple with these issues, and not flee from the wolves. Most people hide from the truth by making such arguments as you do. It is quite safe to attack those who point out the wolves, who are standing at the front of the battle. I suppose after it is all over, the same people will say they always secretly agreed with the SSPX.
I have in mind the authority of Pope Emeritus Benedict on the matter. As Padre Pio has said: “the will of the authorities is the will of God.” The problem isn’t V2 itself, it’s the hermeneutic of rupture that took place in the aftermath of V2.
….God allows by His permissive will for us to fall into crisis, Hans. It is a time of trial brought on by less than faithful behavior. And while the problem isn’t V2 itself, V2 is the ambiguity train that has allowed for the modernism previously condemned to be ushered into the Church on golden rails.
This precision in understanding is something denied to viewers at CM because they are fearful of scandalizing the flock. Thing is, Hans, the flock is already scandalized and it is only the truth, the whole Truth, that will set them free and get things back to the requisite clarity in teaching that we all need to save our souls.
Much like the desire to shield a child from the horrors of war. One doesn’t want to abrade a child’s innocence. Not at all. But when the butcher is at the back door, it is time to act for the fear that would prevent you from speaking out will get everyone in the house killed.
Yes the flock is scandalized. No need to add more scandal by implying that Christ failed to make good on his promise that the gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church.
CM, the SSPX’s position is precisely that Christ has not abandoned His Church and that that gates of Hell will not prevail. (This is a huge nasty, dirty crisis. Being completely honest about it is to trust in Christ.)
That is why these false constructs of CM as to what means what need to go. CM needs to stop interpreting and stick to the doctrine. What does it say? What doesn’t it say? Not ….oh, no, this will imply this and frighten poor Johnnie. It’s time Johnnie grew up as is proper to a true Soldier of Christ. (Again, follow Bishop Schneider’s prudent admonishments. His Excellency is far better positioned to speak than the laymen at CMTV.)
Catholics need to understand that Christ is with them, facing down the enemy even if said enemy is sitting beside them in the pew or holding an office in Rome. To speak the Truth boldly and to stick to only the Truth is to trust in Christ Jesus.
The best positioned to have spoken on the matter is Pope Benedict in his letter to the Bishops. If SSPX’s position is truly that Christ will not abandon his Church, why the hesitation to fully submit to the Church through Ecclesia Dei like the FSSP?
…an 11th hour preamble that required the Society state that all was well with V2 documents – ALL of them – was inserted as a prerequisite to what had previously offered as a come-as-you-are invitation.
And we all know that there are decided issues at play with the ambiguous nature of V2 documents. (Again, reread Bishop Schneider’s statements. All of them minus the CM spin. His Excellency is both learned and pious, and nobody’s fool I might add.)
Would you fully submit to the authority if it required that you never speak out openly about the ambiguities of V2? To sign such a bargain would be to opt for union on paper with Rome while knowing that there are very real issues that have distanced the Church today from what She has always taught.
This is the same reason why CM changed is name rather than have to submit its material to the Diocesan Bishop.
No doubt because they will be forced to submit to demands they can’t reconcile with their beliefs. Many traditional priests (including those in the FSSP) have had to agree that at some point they will celebrate the Novus Ordo at the bishop’s request. Some have to make this agreement to be incardinated in a diocese. I’m aware of another order recently made subject to such conditions.
Based on what they believe and their current critiques, it’s understandable that they don’t want to make themselves vulnerable to compromises they can’t make in good conscience.
….no wonder there is this sudden pull back on the dangerous aspects of the Novus Ordo Missae at CM. Please pass on my support, for what it’s worth, to those priests being persecuted. For it is persecution – no doubt.
God have mercy.
I have never heard of any FSSP priests being forced to celebrate a Novus Order at the bishop’s request. The FSSP is directly under the Pope’s supervision through Ecclesia Dei Commission. They are a Society of Pontifical Right, and as such, they don’t have to go through the process of being under a diocesan bishop. My former TLM group is in the process of raising funds to build a church. Once the church is built they plan to gift the church to the FSSP in order to avoid a bishop down the road from using the Church to celebrate a Novus Ordo mass.
What exactly are the “beliefs” the SSPX cannot reconcile?
I was not aware that Padre Pio was speaking of the authorities outside his own situation. Was he? The rupture that took place after V2 was due in large part because of V2; otherwise it would simply be a historical marker that one mentions to make clearer a time in history. Yes, I’m afraid the problem is V2 itself. It’s okay, you can handle it.
As others have pointed out, the very fact that we have to construct warring “hermeneutics” of Vatican II demonstrates the fundamental (and intentional) ambiguity of the conciliar documents.
Exactly.
V2, read through the lenses of tradition is not a problem.
Everyone knows that for instructions to be good or a contract to be binding, it must be clear in its words. That is there can be no reliance upon having a little bird on one’s shoulder. The document must speak clearly for itself.
V2 documents do not. This is why they were deigned from the beginning to be of a pastoral and not doctrinal nature.
Not sure if you’ve ever struggled to construct a bike, say, from a set of unclear directions or if you’ve ever been taken to court thanks to an ambiguous contract. But such a lack of precision should never be allowed within documents that deal with the salvation of souls. But perhaps that is why Our Lord questioned for our benefit whether or not He’d actually find any Faith upon His return.
Council Fathers on Ambiguity in Vatican II
Unclear contracts are binding if the intent of the parties can be ascertained. It is clearly the intent that the V2 documents be read and understood through the lens of tradition
It is clearly the intent that the V2 documents be read and understood through the lens of tradition
That’s actually far from clear. Kasper Admits Intentional Ambiguity:
See also the link I posted in my comment below: Council Fathers on Ambiguity in Vatican II. The article’s conclusion (my emphases):
As a hermeneutic principal it is quite clear
Whether or not that’s the case, that’s a different claim from the one you made above, to which I was responding:
Unclear contracts are binding if the intent of the parties can be ascertained. It is clearly the intent that the V2 documents be read and understood through the lens of tradition
In other words:
“It is clearly the intent [of the Council Fathers] that the V2 documents be read and understood through the lens of tradition”.
But I have just demonstrated that this contention is plainly incorrect, using the words of Cardinal Kasper and the objections of several Council Fathers, including Pope Paul VI and the future Pope John Paul II. There’s really no significant doubt about this. Archbishop Schneider and others have called for papal declarations to resolve the ambiguities swirling around and through the conciliar documents.
I never said it was the intent of the Council Fathers. You’re adding to my quote.
No, in what turns out to be a stroke of irony, I’m trying to remove ambiguity from your quote.
Let’s walk through this step by step. You wrote:
Unclear contracts are binding if the intent of the parties can be ascertained.
So far, so good. Following your analogy, we only have to ascertain the intent of the drafters of the “contract”. Who drafted the V2 documents again? Right, the Council Fathers.
It is clearly the intent that the V2 documents be read and understood through the lens of tradition
It is clearly the intent of whom? The drafters, of course, according to the analogy that you yourself chose to put forward. Who else would we look to to ascertain intent? And it turns out that a significant number of the drafters intended to leave ambiguities in the texts to be exploited later, as indeed they were. Another group of the drafters objected to these ambiguities at the time of drafting, though with limited success.
Now, if you want to make the further claim that the intent of the people who actually wrote the document is irrelevant, well, we can talk about that. But that’s clearly a very different argument than the one we started out with.
Okay, so what exactly is your point?
Murray made the point very clearly, Hans. You need to read what he’s already written and also take ownership of your sidestepping his rather patient engagement of logic and example.
Murray’s “patient engagement of logic and example” is a distortion of what I said. When I engage in discussions I don’t distort what other people say to make my point, and I expect the same respect in return.
…’you’ are distorting what you said, Hans. Either that or you were not as clear in presenting your case as you believe. The circular argument that you present of being unclear and then ascribing the distortion to the reader attempting to understand your message is a microcosm of the disaster of Vatican II documentation. (IOW: One doesn’t communicate clearly by way of intentions, but by way of what is actually communicated. In this instance, what words you use. The same goes for VII documents.)
Thank you for the illustration.
I agree that I wasn’t clear. The problem is when I explained what I meant I basically was told “no, THIS is what you meant.”
Actually, Hans, you are being told that what you actually say conveys a different meaning than what you believe it does. That is precisely why clarity is paramount. That is precisely why the disconnects in V2, the formation of the Novus Ordo Missae, etc are coming to light.
That is why are instructed to judge with right judgment and to look to the fruits to determine the good.
I very much agree clarity is paramount. I wish the V2 documents were as clear as Trent. But being that they are not we as Catholics we need to square them with Catholic teaching by applying correct interpretive principles, rather than throw them out.
Why do we have to do anything with them? As a pastoral council that introduced no new dogma, the only binding things within V2 documents are those re-assertions of previously stated teachings.
Better to just stick to the previous, more clearly-stated teachings.
“..Why do we have to do anything with them?”
We have to speak out against them and/or seek to clarify them, Steve, because if not the option to not stick to the previous, more clearly-stated teachings will always be precisely that – an option.
And this is why lawful jurisdiction is being withheld from the Society. This is also why bishops get away with persecuting the FSSP, playing sign-zee-paper as a “condition” before incardating solid priests into their diocese.
Ambiguity is a tool, Steve. It needs to be called out as such, for if not, then the purposeful muddying of what was previously clear becomes accepted. That is a danger to souls. A danger that truly, and stealthily blackens even as it supposedly transmits grace. The devil may know as others purport who the bishop is in a diocese, but he is also very clever in making use of said bishop to hamstring the faithful. That is why the Church does supply in states of necessity…and why making sweeping statement about what others are objectively doing is no position for anyone who understands the current crisis.
To understand this is to understand why Catholics are now having to petition the Holy Father to speak clearly regarding marriage. It has come to that.
Because they are part of the ordinary magisterium and as such require religious submission of will and intellect.
To the extent that they deal with faith and morals (see especially Can. 749, 750 §2, 752), yes. Absolutely. However, we know from several papal affirmations (from St. John XXIII, Bl. Paul VI, and Benedict XVI) that the Vatican II documents contain no new dogmatic content. There is nothing definitive in them that was not previously affirmed by the Magisterium.
We are not, however, required to provide “religious submission of intellect and will” to fuzzy affirmations of goodwill towards the secular world (as found in Gaudium et spes), or to dubious rephrasings of prior dogmatic teaching (as in Dignitatis Humanae). We are, as far as I can tell, free to deplore the abundant escape hatches left in Sacrosanctum Concilium which have been used (as intended) to immerse the Church in liturgical chaos. Et cetera.
Right, but I believe Pope Paul VI stated that V2 is part of the universal and ordinary magesterium and must be adhered to by all.
There is no contradiction between these statements. Look at Can. 749, which I referenced above (my emphases):
This passage is worded very closely after Lumen Gentium 25.
For “religious submission of intellect and will”, see Can. 752:
It really couldn’t be any clearer. The magisterial teaching authority of the Church to which we must provide “religious submission of intellect and will” is limited to matters of faith and morals.
Paul VI is of course correct: to the extent that Vatican II exercises the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium (that is, to the extent that it teaches on matters of faith or morals), it is to be obeyed.
But we know two other things:
First, that Vatican II contains no new magisterial teachings on faith or morals; we are bound by prior magisterial formulations, no matter how politically incorrect they may seem to modern readers.
Second, that a great deal of material in the Vatican II documents does not bear on matters of faith or morals. By definition, then, this material does not carry magisterial teaching authority.
Excellent summation, Murray. Thank you.
Why do you think the materials in Vatican II do not bear on matters of faith or morals?
My goodness, where on earth did you get that idea? Not in anything I wrote.
Can I at least take it as read that you are now clear on what, precisely, constitutes the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, as laid out in Lumen Gentium 25 and Canon Law?
To answer your question, I clearly wrote that
1. To the extent that Vatican II teaches on matters of faith or morals, it is to be obeyed.
2. There is no new magisterial teaching on faith and morals in Vatican II.
3. There is a great deal of material in the 16 documents of Vatican II that does not bear on matters of faith or morals.
As an illustration of point 3, consider this excerpt from Gaudium et spes 4:
Now, GeS also contains a great deal of material which reiterates or references prior magisterial teaching (and would fall under point 1, above), but the above passage (and many, many like it) is purely descriptive, that clearly does not teach on faith and morals.
And we can raise our eyebrows at it, if we so wish. Have we really entered into a “new stage of history”? If so, how precisely is it qualitatively different from any other stage of history? Is this actually the only stage of history in which changes recoil upon [us], upon [our] decisions and desires, both individual and collective, and upon [our] manner of thinking and acting with respect to things and to people, whatever that is taken to mean?
Likewise with Sacrosanctum Concilium, which lays out a plan for the reform of the Roman liturgy. Take Section 34 (please):
Agree or disagree with the sentiment expressed, this is certainly not a teaching on faith or morals.
The examples of non-magisterial teaching in Vatican II could be multiplied almost without end. But why should we expect any different? The Church has always acknowledged that she wields several levels of teaching authority. And no less than three popes have stated that Vatican II contains no new dogmatic teachings.
If you wish to continue on your quixotic quest, Hans, please (please) bring something new to the discussion: Cite a magisterial teaching of Vatican II to which we are to provide religious submission of intellect and will, that is not an affirmation or restatement of prior magisterial teaching.
Okay. I think we can agree that the materials of V2 do bear on matters of faith and morals and require religious submission of intellect and will. You say “a great amount” doesn’t bear on matters of faith and morals. I have no idea what you mean by that, and furthermore it’s irrelevant to the discussion. Pope Benedict cited the SSPX’s refusal to accept V2 as a reason to keep them from full communion with the Church in his 2009 letter to the bishops. Apparently, according to the supreme legislator at the time, acceptance of the V2 was quite important. .
I have no idea what you mean by that…
Which is exactly why I provided two excerpts out of many such passages: to illustrate that the documents of Vatican II are not monolithically magisterial, as you wish to contend against all common sense and Church teaching. But it’s abundantly clear that it’s pointless trying to engage in reasoned conversation with you. Once again, I wish you all the best.
Once again, I’m not sure exactly what we disagree on, but, take care.
…it is that lack of understanding which makes parroting CM talking points out to be mere indoctrination, Hans, not education and a true representation of what the Catholic Church teaches.
Be wary of sensationalism.
…and the supreme legislator was subsequently bullied out of office, Hans. By whom? Look to those who are protecting the entirety of V2 which, by your own admission, includes that which is ambiguous.
This is also why Bishop Schneider speaks basically of team building in his prudential statements. That is not shooting one’s friends in the fog. CM’s making themselves out to be a single wee little boat is foolhardy:
“Both Lepanto and Church Militant sow division wherever they tread. They do not seem to acknowledge the need to work with civic society and its representatives on a project like the World Meeting of Families. And we are not going to spend/waste time arguing with them. They are sincere, but also destructive. No one on our leadership team supports abortion or Planned Parenthood” – Abp. Charles Chaput
To put it bluntly, Hans, CM is isolating itself, depriving the faithful of the unity to be found in faithfully seeking to uphold the fullness of the Deposit of the Faith with others of sound Catholic principle. Pray God, Voris wakes up from his stupor and engages properly if not prudently moving forward.
Speaking the truth will always cause division. As Our Lord Himself said, He came not to bring peace but division. If the SSPX really says coming into full communion with Rome will compromise their beliefs, the logical consequence of that statement is that the Pope and everyone in communion with him are all in sin. To say the Church is in sin and you are not is pride, and pride is the devil’s favorite sin. Caveat PGMGN and God Bless.
If Vatican II was the whole of ‘the’ Church, you may have a point, Hans. Holy Mother Church, however, is far more than one ambiguous, and foul fruited council.
That is the truth that divides, Hans. Not CM’s fiery attempts to foment division based on sensationalized, but rather simplistic rhetoric.
This is why the Society holds her position, being one with Holy Mother Church, but not one in accepting ambiguity as Catholic truth for that can never be. (…as you said, VII was no Trent.)
And yet you are the one making the judgement of sin. I only say, do not judge until the truth is fully analyzed without false and prideful caveats. To say that one must swallow that which is not Catholic in order to be recognized Catholic is sophistry. And sophistry, friend, was the tool employed in the Garden to play on the pride of men who would be gods.
I have no such desire which is why I cannot yield in accepting the new gospel of VII. Take that as you’d like.
https://veneremurcernui.wordpress.com/2015/08/28/a-cry-of-the-heart-towards-my-friends-at-cmtv/
We can judge sin, we cannot judge guilt of sin. VII is not the whole Church but as Pope Benedict stated, the Society’s refusal to accept it is keeping the Society outside of communion with the Church. There is no “new gospel of VII” as you assert. When you say that, you are agreeing with the liberal “spirit of Vatican II” folks who think the Church changed her teachings after the Second Vatican Council.
No, friend, there is no new gospel. That is why knowledgeable Catholics cannot allow V2 ambiguities to be signed off as Catholic. They’re not. To sign off on that which one knows is wrong or harmful is sin…. even if it was allowed back in the day as a non-binding compromise.
That is why your position of ignoring reality is doing nothing but enabling those liberals who are pushing the Spirit of V2. Good luck with that.
I agree with clarification, and if that was truly all the SSPX wanted there would be no issue. Clarification is one thing, wholesale rejection is another.
In regards to CM, I find it odd that Voris get slammed for slamming a priest, without faculties, for telling Catholics to commit mortal sin by skipping mass.
“…if that was truly all the SSPX wanted there would be no issue.”
Correction, Hans, if that is all the Society wanted there ‘should’ be no issue. But that is precisely the issue. For the requisite signing off on the entirety of V2 as being integral to Catholic Faith, without any correction/clarification, would be a lie. (That is why Bishop Schneider made those prudential statements.)
IOW: There are other entities at play, Hans, who want the whole of V2 to push forward without anybody clarifying, redacting, editing any of the ambiguities. Specifically, it is the liberal faction within the Church that is not about to give up their main tool for change.
As to CM and the ‘slamming’ of Voris, it is more detailed than that. There are doctrinal issues at the root of the issue. That is why Voris, having come to the understanding that he does in his own 2010 position, turning around to excoriate others – and steep misunderstanding by way of pointing the finger and saying, “They want YOU to commit mortal sin,” is disingenuous. It is a distraction. It is sowing division.
And while you may key in on a priest who you believe has no faculties, Voris has zero faculties and no grace of state to be overriding the prudential statements of His Excellency Bishop Schneider who was very clear about what is going on.
So, you have no problem that the priest with no faculties told Catholics to commit mortal sin, but you do have a problem with Voris as a Catholic journalist reporting on it. That just shows that liberals do not have a monopoly when it comes to the crisis in the Church.
Hans, you have a problem with logical Catholic reasoning. As to monopolies, despite Voris’s attempts to paint it otherwise, he doesn’t corner the market on caring for souls. But it would seem, based on your circular thinking, that you’re firmly in the CMTV corral.
Good luck with that.
We need to square them with Catholic teaching by clarifying them so that those with less than pure intention within the Church will not continue to exploit them to wreak havoc – as is happening now. (The Vatican has been falling all over itself to admit it’s supposed mistakes of the past in contributing to schism, the Protestant Revolt, etc. So why the stubborn attitude of not accepting that that which is visibly unclear requires clarification so all can move forward?)
Why do you think the CCC Version 1 was “officially” replaced with the clarity of CCC Version 2, Hans? Because it Version 1 was unclear and showed clear signs of being able to be misinterpreted.
As to ‘throwing them out’, V2 documents were not set out to be binding, Hans. That is why pretending that they are and elevating the “acceptance of VII in all particulars” as a preamble for the Society to obtain jurisdiction is not something they can do. This is why Bishop Schneider states that history will show that an unnecessary burden was placed on the Society.
So whereas you state that you wish V2 documents were as clear as Trent, others know they aren’t and understand the fallout of that compromise. It would be similar to you being denied Holy Communion until you signed a document stating that you “believe” that V2 documents ARE as clear as Trent. Would you sign? Would it be honest to sign? Would it be an obstacle for you?
This is what Bishop Schneider is outlining, not once, but twice thanks to CM’s insistence on fomenting division. And considering the Vatican is currently planning a mutual celebration of Martin Luther in ’17, this charge of Voris’s is doubly ludicrous for it points to the precise disconnects that he would denounce others for being honest about.
From what I’ve seen, CM doesn’t want someone watching its programming to despair and join SSPX chapels. As Bishop Morlino stated it’s best to “stay away.” I would love to see a “syllabus of errors for V2” or some other sort of clarifying document. However, while nothing dogmatic was set forth at the Second Vatican Council, it’s still part of the ordinary magisterium and as such requires respect as well as assent of mind and will. Some documents are great, others leave something left to be desired, but all can be squared with Catholic teaching.
But what CM is doing is encouraging despair and false judgement of others by shinnying around that which is true so as to reach a good outcome. That is why CM’s saying that it is never acceptable to do evil that good might result when speaking of others is precisely what calls out their hypocrisy. Overstepping the truth is not being honest CM, but adding fuel to division and painful condemnation and, sometimes splits, within Catholic families.
That is not okay.
AS to all can be squared with Catholic teaching leaves the door wide open to those who choose not to square what is ‘written’ with Catholic teaching. This is also why predicating the magisterium on novelties/ambiguities introduced via a non-binding council is suspect.
IOW: You cannot allow a math error to pass in addition and then predicate all teaching of higher math on that erroneous presumption. If you do that, the answer, will be wrong. In the case of engineering or architecture, to do as much puts lives at risk and causes all manner of law suits and pain.
Doubling and tripling down on bad policy is, sorry, bad policy. That is why persisting in stating that one must assent in mind and will to that which is unclear is not binding. It cannot be. Much like you, in good conscience, couldn’t sign a document that VII is clear as Trent. Why? Because it is not true.
Including Nostra Aetate? Really?
The solution is very simple and clear: submit to the Pope through the Ecclesia Dei commission, like the FSSP. Problem solved.
No, Hans, the solution is not very simple and clear. If such were the case, the problem would be solved. That is why those who live in glass houses are advised not to throw stones.
That is you may think you see everyone else’s situation clearly, but you are clearly seen to be very vulnerable and, in the case of CM, visibly compromised.
You may want to write the Pope, however, and suggest he do what Bishop Schneider suggested. That way, unlike happened in 2012, there may not be the last minute strings of having to sign a document that would compromise the truth.
God bless.
The solution is simple as I pointed out. The problem is that the Society rejects wholesale the Second Vatican Council as Pope Benedict stated in his 2009 letter to the bishops. The Society’s lack of communion with Rome is nobody’s fault but the Society’s.
I have no idea why you think CM is compromised for rightfully criticizing the Society for telling Catholics to commit mortal sin by skipping Mass. It’s so blatantly wrong for a priest without faculties to exhort Catholics to commit mortal sin. Thank God for CM bringing the truth to the forefront
Hans, if the solution is simple, tweet the Holy Father. Tell him what he should do to keep wayward bishops from throwing obstacles in the way. For whereas you are spun up to believe it is a wholesale rejection, the problem is the ‘necessity’ to pretend a wholesale acceptance – even to those parts which are wreaking havoc within the Church for their ambiguity and novelty.
That may be the way CM works, keeping the outside of the cup clean just so that you keep getting filled up despite the dirt of compromise inside, but that’s not what God has called others to do.
As for blatant wrong, that is CM’s corralling the ill informed and whipping them up to become his personal beating stick. I understand that you have no idea what I mean. Especially now. Just another reason I have no respect for CM. Playing off the ignorance of the masses is no charity.
God bless.
Thank you, PGMGN. Completely accurate.
A lot of the ‘logic’ taught over at CM is at the root of this disconnect. I get it on other websites all the time. Again, that’s why I’m so disappointed in Voris. He’s spreading error and it’s rather cruel as he’s conditioned folks to look to him as some authority.
The drafter of a contract is not necessarily a party to a contract.
All right, now that you’ve moved decisively into the splitting-hairs-and-pretending-not-to-understand portion of the discussion, I think we’re done. All the best, Hans.
No, I was still at the “please refrain from distorting what I said” portion of the discussion. Best to you as well, Murray.
The only document that comes to mind where that intent was explicitly stated in the document was Dignitatis Humanae. Otherwise, according the the post-conciliar magesterium of the Popes, we are to interpret the documents through the lens of tradition.
Absent a magisterial declaration, the lens of tradition itself tends to a clamoring multiplicity of hermeneutics in these troubled and troubling times. In case you haven’t noticed, we now have high-ranking clerics attempting to retcon Jesus’s words on marriage, and claiming historical precedents for so doing. Tell me, which hermeneutic should we employ in order to employ a Hermeneutic of Continuity to Vatican II?
….one shouldn’t have to suffer litigation to understand and be held accountable for that which is admittedly unclear, Hans. If such is the case, then you should back off of the SSPX until they have their day in court, where the lies and falsehoods will be brought out and exposed in accordance with the Truth. Not CM’s spin of “irregular status” being code word for “schism.” (That’s jury tampering.)
Perhaps that is why Bishop Schneider is attempting to put a gag order on those who would otherwise behave uncharitably – not once, not twice even, but consistently now. And for what reason?
That being said, it is becoming increasingly clear via examination and distance, that certain passages of V2 documents were intended to appease, not teach and not to be binding. That is why looking to what the Church has always taught is highly advisable.
What “lies and falsehoods” are you talking about?
…those propagated by CM for starters.
Oy vey
Clear as a mud puddle. Look, the fruit of V2 is rotten. It cannot be denied. Refusing to admit the problem only exacerbates it.
The “spirit of V2” is rotten. V2 understood in continuity with tradition is not.
Saith Hans…
Saith you to the contrary
See Murray’s reply above.
There is not one – NOT ONE- similarity twixt Athanasius and Lefebvre and IANS warned hm not to run that disingenuous scam but he chose to do so anyways and refused to post my response to his claims.
Liberius is a Saint – at least he was one for a millennium; Google
Rad Trad + Saint Liberius
Saint Athanasius (see Hx of the Arians at New Advent/Catholic Encyclopedia/Church FATHERS) defended the orthodoxy of Liberius and blamed his putative lapse on Liberius having been captured and tortured by the emperor.
Lefebvre alled John Paul LL and Antichrist whereas Athanasius called Liberius a faithful and orthodox Pope.
The lying propaganda of the sspx is a disgrace but they continue their lies no matter what and now we have Mandator aping and promoting their lies.
Just what the yrad world needs, another powerful platform to promote their lies
You refer to yourself in the third person? Yikes….
Yes, that is the real problem, not your doctrinal and spiritual errors.
Lawyers warn each other not to ask questions if they are unsure of the answers.
You asked a question and IANS responded; you could write, “thank you.”
And IANS corrected you on the false “Lefebvre is Athanasius” meme which is attached to the schism as solidly as lies are attached to the Clintons and so you could write, “thank you.”
Or, you could take the jejune and epicene way out and continue to drop responses that completely avoid the matters under discussion.
Three separate responses on one thread without waiting for a reply, and referring to yourself in the third person–at least twice–doesn’t quite give confidence that a rational discourse would take place.
From what I understand, Lefebvre went forward with the consecrations under the intent of grave emergency, which the 1984 code of canon law allows for. Interesting that the canon allows for such a subjective intention, no?
Besides, I only mentioned Mundabor’s article an interesting parallel, I have no intention of defending it–that would be Mundabor’s job.
You did reply so why write that IANS did not wait for a reply?
IANS will not waste any more time on one who seems unable to have an honest exchange.
Adios
Completely missed the point.
G’day sir.
One suspects you are echoing Mr Ferrar’s “Gnostic Twaddle” post which claims there is no such thing as partial communion but that just reflects his error of falling for the sspx lies.
Full and Partial Communion is part of Catholic Tradition as can easily be seen by reading entries 169b and following in the Baltimore Catechism.
Google
The Marks and Attributes of the Church
Lesson 12 from the Baltimore Catechism
and begin at 168b
Thus, one can trust the claims of the SSPX schism and those who succor it as far as those supporters could pick-up Rosie O’Donnell and throw her.
The whole theology and terminology of “full Communion” is Modernist. “full communion” is Modernist gibberish and terminology. Comes from Karl Rahner’s theology, heresy, and Modernism.
So where in tradition does “partial communion” come from?
“partial communion” does not come from anywhere in tradition.
Hopefully a person with more knowledge and expertise in this matter can help answer the following.
I have a serious question regarding Pope Benedict XVI’s statement that the ministers of the SSPX “do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church.”
Is the Pope saying that they do not excercise any ministry in the Church….or…that, while they do exercise ministry in the Church, they nonethess do so “illegitimately” because of their lack of canonical status?
Couldn’t Pope Benedict XVI have simply stated that they (the SSPX priests) “do not…exercise any ministry in the Church”?
In my dictionary, the primary definition of the word “illegitimate” simply means “against the law”. I think most would generally agree that their (the SSPX) ministry is performed in a way that is “against the law”, but does this very fact mean that their ministry lacks effect?
What does it mean to exercise a ministry in the Church and who is able to exercise it/them? I’m simply seeking a bit more clarity because it doesn’t seem clear to me that “illegitimate ministry” equates to being “outside the church”.
Thanks,
Keith
His Excellency Most Reverend Bishop Morlino in an article linked below provides some clarity to your question.
http://www.madisoncatholicherald.org/bishopscolumns/5803-society-of-st-pius-x.html
And Bishop Morlino clearly states there is no schism – unlike CMTV that makes egregious use of others statements to mislead and grow their Voris-centric magisterium that seeks to speak on behalf of Rome (i.e. code word for schism?) while purporting to exercise a filial submission to the Holy Father.
Thank you again, Hans, for illustrating the disconnect of speaking out both sides of one’s mouth. His Excellency ‘Most’ Reverend Bishop Morlino is very clear and yet even ‘he’ is not listened to by CMTV, but distorted.
Where on this forum did I say they were in schism? My original comment was that Voris’ 2010 video dealing with the problems of the N.O. does not necessarily lead one to commit mortal sin and skip mass if the only mass available is a N.O. Mass.
Hans, it is your endorsement of CM that leads me to say what I have. If I have falsely accused you of declaring schism where there is none, then you have my apology. I appreciate your discernment in this area if only for the sake of not exacerbating misunderstanding.
As to Voris, it is intellectually dishonest to imply that talking about nothing but what is wrong with something without coming out and saying what another should do doesn’t influence folks. That is why I’ve discontinued to look to Voris for any truth in advertising.
His actions don’t match his words.
One cannot set out all the instruments to create a bonfire, dance around, point, hoot, holler, draw a map to where the matches are to be found and then legitimately say they had no intention of starting a fire. To do so reflects cowardice and dishonesty. As in “I” don’t want to be the one to pull the trigger. I don’t want to be “that” guy. But I’ll provoke until something happens and then exploit the news op presented by the logical conclusion I facilitated with my ‘news’ reports.
That kind of shinnying doesn’t cut it, Hans. Let your yes be yes and your no be no. Take a principled position and follow through, don’t sandbag other folks who have had to make prudential decisions just to build a following based on fear.
I think we have a clear winner. Well done PGMGN for that heroic effort in truthseeking and outreach
Just want the spin to stop, Pilgrim. God bless ;^)
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2015/08/bishop-athanasius-schneider-there-are.html
Dear Steve. The Prelate with a position of authority to pronounce on this matter- Cardinal Mueller, CDF Prefect – said publicly the sspx is in schism – and that was said recently.
Irrespective of who said what when, do you think the SSPX will ever reconcile with this Pope?
Most would say, no, which begs the question; is it only a particular Pope they would reconcile with – with the obvious possibility being that the sspx could again go into schism if the successor to the Pope they find acceptable seems to them unacceptable?
Within Catholic Tradition, a schism has never – as in never ever – been acceptable for any reason and yet uncountable are those who praise it; talk about a noxious novelty.
Jesus Christ is, has always been, and always will be (until the end of time) the head of His One True Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church and, thus, the sspx ideology is akin to the very anthropocentric orientation they deride in others – especially the Pope.
Who can leave the Church established and headed by Jesus Christ?
Just look around, they are legion.
And that legion knows that they, not Jesus Christ, are the ones chosen by God to save His Catholic Church and that legion refuses to endure the mysterium iniquitatis affecting the One True Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church and which mysterious suffering is being permitted by Jesus Christ for reasons He is not obligated to tell IANS, or anyone else, about.
Sure, we can all make guesses as to the proximate causes of this mystery of evil but it is our duty to remain faithful to and in full communion with the Church Jesus is the head of.
Supplied this and emergency that? What next, the invisible church of the protestant sects?
He said that they are in “de facto” schism, and this significantly qualified statement was made lacking the benefit of an official pronouncement. Of course, it is to Ecclesia Dei that Pope Benedict delegated the authority of managing relations with the SSPX, and they have always been quite careful to point out that no actual schism exists.
There is. no. schism. What schism there might have been is gone since the lifting of the excommunications. You’ve answered not a single question about what specifically the SSPX must do in order to be accepted by Rome. Nobody knows, in fact, other than treating the Second Vatican Council like a supercouncil, and the new liturgy as anything more than a paen to ecumania and diminution of the Catholic Faith.
I’m really not interested in whatever your personal hyper-bias is here. My affiliation with the SSPX ends with my Angelus Press Missal, and some friendly correspondence with folks on the inside. But when heretics run rampant through the Church without so much as a stern word from the pope and one group is kept outside of perfect, clear communion because they hold fast to the same faith my grandfather did, I’m going to give them a wide berth.
Their version of Catholicism looks and feels authentic. Their version of doctrine matches my understanding of doctrine. The pope may declare them in a state of canonical nullity, but the reasons why are clear: Rome knows that they cannot reconcile the post-conciliar experiment with the pre-conciliar reality. Accepting the SSPX “as they are,” as Bp. Schneider has said should be done would be to point the finger at themselves and shout, “Guilty!”
That’s not going to happen. Injustice will persist.
Dear Steve. If you go back and check- Dec 23, 2013 – you will see the Prefect of the CDF, Cardinal Mueller, said simply the sspx are in schism and suspended from the sacraments.
He uses no adjectives modifying schism.
The hyper-bias of IANS is necessary to speed past the lies, heresies, and ahistorical ecclesiastical history they promote as Tradition but are merely weak attempts to justify their perfidious ideology (admit it, it is easy for you to think of IANS as extra-terrestial like, The Enterprise).
There exist a simple reason the heretics you note are not excommunicated; they never established a petit ecclesia as did mons lefebvre; it is sort of surprising that you can not see that as the most likely reason they remain a schism.
Think of all the faithful Trads (IANS limned then before) who have publicly identified their problems with V2, Mass, and Pope and are yet in full Communion and not ever excommunicated.
What is the ONE difference; Lefebvre established a small church which, it claims, has tribunals that have supplanted the authority of Rome.
Nice gig if you can get it….
Again, I’m not going to go snipe hunting. A quote and a link would be helpful.
Lefebvre — whose decision to consecrate bishops is never something I’ve defended — didn’t establish a “petite ecclesia.” He simply refused to get into the phony veneer of the thing that was being called the real Church.
I don’t claim to understand how this’ll all get reconciled. But I agree with the SSPX doctrinal arguments and find Rome’s rebuttals specious. Principally, because…they’re specious.
There’s no question there are problems with the SSPX. But it never would have happened if Rome didn’t decide to dress up and pretend the Church was something she was not.
Dear Steve. Yeah, Mons. Lefebvre did establish a petit ecclesia.
To see the facts, google
Amateur Brain Surgeon + petit ecclesia
and see the second link that is posted
O, and Steve, isn’t the Prefect of the CDF also the head of the PCED?
Thus, when Cardinal Mullers says publicly, the sspx are a schism and suspended from the sacraments he is not publicly saying something he privately as head of the Pontifical Commission of Ecclesia Dei does not believe.
“I encourage you to pray for guidance for Michael Voris and the people
who work with him. They have built a powerful platform, and it’s one
that could truly benefit the faithful at this moment. May they do God’s
will in their endeavors.–Steve Skojec
Amen to that Steve.
We should all support Michael Voris and ChurchMilitant.TV especially since the advent of Pope Francis who is completing the Modernist destruction of the Catholic Church with a vengeance by focusing it on worldly versus eternal concerns.
Support Michael Voris when he attacks those who are trying to actually follow the Catholic Faith as transmitted to the faithful over 1900 years? Sorry, I can no longer support Voris. He equivocates.
Whatever internal pressures are being brought to bear against Voris in no longer stopping the lies and falsehoods, it is clear that CM was doing critical work. That is they were addressing the roots of problems – rites, doctrines, disconnects – instead of merely going after persons and manufactured personal vendettas as seems to be the format of the present day.
This proof of Voris’s switcho-chango is not so much an I-told-ya-so about him, but an I told you so about the dangerous aspects posed by the Novus Ordo Missae as to the transmission of Catholic principles. The attack that has subdued Voris is further proof of the spiritual danger of the Novus Ordo Missae – and Michael’s switch is merely the usage of misguided zeal.
That happens to a lot of folks. They throw the baby out with the bathwater by believing ‘zeal’ that crushes souls is going to save them. Voris is a victim of his own zeal.
Prayers for Michael that he may wake up to the very real spiritual battle that has seen him disoriented in the fog for far too long. And God bless Bishop Schneider for speaking so clearly as to help facilitate this revelation of truth.
I was born in 1950, the abuses in the Latin Mass were as bad as any in the Novus Ordo!
….we’re discussing the rites themselves, john.
john654 … and what were those abuses? People did not really have a “notion” of abuses as they do now.
So I’m going to step in for a moment with a few housekeeping items:
I provide very light comment moderation because I believe these issues are best discussed so that disagreements may be understood and truth prevail. So I would remind everyone that civility and charity should be the hallmarks of our discussion here. Debate is welcome. Ad hominem, judgments on the sinfulness of others, etc. are not.
Secondly, I would reiterate that this post is not an attack on Michael Voris or CMTV, but an analysis of the differing positions he displayed in 2010 and 2015, and an encouragement for him to re-evaluate why his position seems to have changed, and whether he would still support the fundamental assessments on the dangers inherent in the Novus Ordo that he offered his viewers then. It is also an invitation to STOP attacking the SSPX, to evaluate their theological positions on their individual merits, to cease assertions of schism when Rome carefully avoids such language, and to work toward unity, not discord, between the Society and Rome.
Thirdly, I have never stated — in this post or in any other — that I concur with the position expressed in the Society video that advises people not to attend Mass if they are unable to attend a TLM. I have been a devotee of the TLM for the past 11 years, and I take my family every Sunday. It is a central consideration of every move we’ve made to a new home or area. That said, if we are unable to attend, we always go to a Novus Ordo or a Byzantine liturgy.
What is being lost in this discussion is the larger point: the analysis provided by Voris in his video about the Novus Ordo is rooted in the same logic as that of the SSPX: if the normative liturgy of the Church is damaging to the faith, that means we must determine how to act accordingly.
If a Mass is somehow damaging, should we go? Shouldn’t we avoid it whenever possible? Shouldn’t we take our family to a TLM, an Eastern rite liturgy, an Anglican Use parish, etc.?
One needn’t reach the same conclusion as the SSPX: that we should *never* go to a Novus Ordo. But if the assertions made by Voris are true, and the theology of worship has been so distorted as to diminish significantly the Catholic ethos of the new liturgy, it does mean we should limit our exposure to it. It does mean, in fact, that it is most likely “an offense against God”.
How can a liturgy that is bad for the faithful be pleasing to God? There is a difference between the Sacrifice of the Cross, made present on the altar at any valid Mass, which is always pleasing to God, and the liturgy which surrounds it, which can either affirm or deny that sacrifice in its gestures, rituals, prayers, and semiotics. If the consecration is valid in both forms, then it is the common thread; we must then separate the consecration and the structure of the Mass in any such evaluation.
One may certainly, therefore, find a liturgy deficient and yes, even offensive in the sight of Heaven without ever denying its validity.
Pipe down Steve, or I will be forced to ban you. No facts allowed.
This man is using a fake account and masquerading as moderator for the ChurchMilitant.com site. None of his commentary comes from any of our staff. He’s being reported to Disqus.
“I’ll report you to Disqus!” That’ll teach ’em Christine.
….methinks this is proof of the Sedesvedantist spirit that has overtaken CMTV. Or schism at the very least. They seek now to rule all of Christendom. Should we write an article and present it as fact?
What a joke. Would that there was some similar explanation for the complete mental and Catholic disconnect over at CMTV land.
….and thank you, Ms. Niles, for calling all our attention to the humor of Klinks posts. Humor is a good thing.
You don’t own the term “Church Militant”. The arrogance over at CMTV is breathtaking.
Why? Because he makes satirical sense? Because he exposes the severe abuses CM commit in their “commitment to the Truth?”
You may not fool everyone but some of the SSPX people want to believe in you like you were irregular canonical status(Santa Claus). I hope you know this is not a Church Militant site.
I don’t think Michael Voris’ view have changed, maybe sharpened. There are many of us who have suffered with the Newer Liturgy and even more so with the abuses that continuously get worse, for now. The Mass and the internal matters of the Actual Church are one thing, the SSPX is another. Like the new Liturgy or the ambiguous teachings, the SSPX is something to be corrected. It is something that takes away from the Faithful and takes the Faithful away from the Church. He has not attacked the SSPX, just shed light about the group with no canonical status, and there clear misinformation campaign. The Remnant, (edited by Thomas Woods, champion of usury) has publish a point by point of his fbi investigation that appears to have been written by a Jehovah’s witness.
I am so grateful for Michael Voris who explains both the characters of the Vatican 2 and equally the tactics of the SSPX who like Thomas Woods are the most incredible capitalists.
There are many things that God may find offensive, the question of the moment which is the most offensive.
We know that as the Synod is in session the SSPX will move to attack the Church. In one sense they are the new Lutherans.
“it does mean we should limit our exposure to it.” It also does not mean that we should ever be in Schism much less intentionally remain in it, especially when there are alternatives.
“Society video that advises people not to attend Mass” You pick and choose, it gets to be a habit after a while. This reminds me of a person from another country with a particular race who goes back and forth in identity from race to region depending on what is convenient or someone who says personally I don’t believe in it but….
Steve, you hit it spot on. And I agree with others, he has had an about face in his almost aggressive condemnation of the SSPX, while even being irregular and not in full communion with the Church, does generally adhere to orthodox Catholicism. I am speculating here, but he does seem to be taking advice from prelates who seem to be in ‘arch enemy’ mode with the SSPX. One of the most vocal, although I don’t know if Voris is associated with him is Fr. Paul Nicholson who compared their Mass with a Satanic Black Mass. A ridiculous over the top attack on the SSPX. Priest such as this in MHO should NOT have such a big megaphone, but alas, some of them do indeed.
Along with others, I agree Michael Voris and CM and the SSPX need our prayers! His ministry has a huge potential for helping to turn around the garbage we see and experience in the Church and is needed to be in unity with the universal Church Militant. The confusion we are experiencing seems to all be a part of the Diabolical Disorientation prophesied by Our Lady. May she help to dispel the confusion.
I read recently (and I can’t remember where) that indeed, Voris is associated with Nicholson. I’m not sure if he is Voris’ confessor….? I have to be honest, Nicholson gives me the creeps, for a number of reasons.
I’d personally like very much to see an open discussion as to the basis for doctrinal disagreements. The Society has taken a very strong stand in accordance with their understanding of these issues. CMTV has similarly taken a stand with regard to issues – and incurring the displeasure of their Bishop in so doing.
And it is precisely all of the above and the uptick in infighting that leads this Catholic to believe that it is past time to review these differences in the light of day. Secrecy, name calling, etc will do nothing to correct errors. It only serves to hide them and thereby leave souls vulnerable in what is truly a time of great and predicted crisis within Holy Mother Church. Let’s not let the smoke of Satan keep us blind as to where to find the oxygen necessary to think clearly and solve the problems.
The incessant need to find something about the Society that can be attacked serves as a constant distraction from the discussion that they have tried to bring to the table for thirty years. Their theological concerns and objections should bother ALL of us, even if we want nothing to do with the Society. These concerns lie at the very root of why we are experiencing the crisis of faith we are today. They are why, in fact, we’re dealing with the diabolical machinations at this Synod.
It matter little whether Voris and company are consistent in their attacks on both the SSPX and the bad bishops. Rome isn’t so consistent. Kasper, Marx, Maradiaga, Bonny, Daneels, Koch…the list goes on and on. These men are in good standing with Rome. These men are *promoted* by Rome. And they, unlike the SSPX, espouse *actual* heresy.
The ideological alignment of the powers at work in the Vatican is crystal clear. That the enemies of Rome appear undeniably Catholic in their beliefs and praxis (but have an obedience problem) and the friends of Rome are undeniably heterodox in their beliefs and praxis (and have a much more significant obedience problem) speaks volumes about how aggressively we should line up to attack Rome’s enemies.
I can see where the real evil is, and it goes completely undisciplined.
That’s why I triple down on my admiration for His Excellency Bishop Schneider, a learned and holy man.
Thank you again, Steve,for providing a format for true education and understanding.
This isn’t a fidelity contest, but a fight for the Faith. And that should concern us all.
God bless.
“The incessant need to find something about the Society that can be attacked ” You are to funny.
JOB AT HOME SPECIAL REPORT………After earning an average of 19952 Dollars monthly,I’m finally getting 98 Dollars an hour,just working 4-5 hours daily online….It’s time to take some action and you can join it too.It is simple,dedicated and easy way to get rich.Three weeks from now you will wishyou have started today – I promise!….HERE I STARTED-TAKE A LOOK AT….ttb……
➤➤➤➤ http://googlehomejobsnetworklifetimeonline/start/earning/…. ⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛
Read the free online book by Hutton Gibson at http://www.huttongibson.com called “Is the Pope Catholic?”
Just as a reminder of one of Mr. Voris’ points:
Anyone who confesses to an SSPX priest is *not* absolved. The SSPX priest would likely not have faculties from the local ordinary. A priest is the vicar of the ordinary and if the ordinary has not granted the faculty to absolve, then no absolution takes place when a Society priest “absolves.”
The office of presbyter was a kind of concession in the early Church; as the body of Christians grew, it became impossible for the bishop to minister to their sacramental needs. Priests are “deputies” of a bishop and exercise the ministry of the bishop. Even religious priests have to obtain faculties from the ordinary in whose diocese they are staying.
The very fact that SSPX attendees are blackening their souls when they receive unworthily is a sign that the Society, for all the many goods it intends, is failing at the most fundamental level when it deceives Christians into believing that they’ve been absolved of their sins. Especially mortal ones.
I pray that something can be worked out where the Society’s priests are given the faculties they need while a longer term plan is put in place for full reconciliation. I’m very sympathetic to them, but they must be called out on leading people astray in their personal lives. Unworthy reception of the Holy Eucharist is one of the worst things a person can do in this life.
I see Mr. Voris as acting very prudently in warning people of the Society. You can agree with the Society’s criticisms on many points while still recognizing that they are grossly negligent in hearing the confessions of sinners.
Diabolus, you are making a generalized statement that is not precisely true in all cases.
It is just such generalized presumptions of judgment, however, which do not belong to you or CM, that leads you to calumniate others as “…blackening their souls when they receive unworthily.”
CM admonished me only two days ago that it would be FOOLISH in light of Bishop Schneider’s standing and his being a learned and holy man to ignore his prudential assessments. And yet, in the same breath, CM did precisely that before cutting me off their website.
That said, CM must be called out for their lack of true charity and their grasping of a definitive authority which, frankly, they will never possess. As to who is grossly negligent, I would caution you to step lightly in your condemnation for the Church does supply in case of necessity. And if you are of a mind that there is no grave crisis within the Church at present, I would ask you if you believe it a sign of health in the Church that priests, Bishops, Cardinals and faithful are now having to petition the Holy Father to speak clearly about his position regarding the Sacrament of Marriage.
I already said that I was sympathetic to the SSPX. Implied is that I already agree that there is a crisis in the Church.
This is the rubric under which Christians are led to believe, inch by inch, that the Church is invisible. If I decide there’s a crisis and if I decide that this bishop is bad… I can use any chain of “I think that…” clauses to convince myself that it’s okay to bypass the hierarchy in my pursuit of grace.
Every demon loose on the earth knows exactly who the ordinary is by name no matter where he operates. Hint: It’s not Bps. Fellay or Williams.
For years, a thriving FSSP parish has operated in my nearby city. It’s grown considerably over the last 15-20 years and its pastors have been good men who have faithfully ministered to the Catholics attached to the usus antiquior.
Not 20 minutes away, there’s an SSPX chapel. Why? The city’s bishops have demonstrated great concern for the spiritual needs of the TradCats, even before Summum was published. Why would an SSPX adherent still go to the chapel for confession when the exact sacrament is offered a few miles away by priests who have been granted faculties by the ordinary? Is it possible that said adherents believe that a “case of necessity” exists even though all evidence says otherwise?
The same city boasts several different Eastern Catholic parishes. Again, the SSPX operates without the sanction of the Latin ordinary. Why? Would it not be preferable for the SSPX follower to attend the Melkite or Ruthenian parishes, which are in communion with Rome and have priests with proper faculties, if they don’t “trust” the FSSP? They may have no attachment to the Divine Liturgy, but they would at least have reverent, inspiring worship and valid sacramental support.
At some point, the “invisible” Church theory starts to fall apart.
Diabolus, then show your charity by not calumniating others by saying they are blackening their souls etc. You speak wholly out of turn.
Your misunderstanding of obedience is how step by step those with eyes to see are blindfolded so as not to judge the fruits of crisis dangling right before them.
This idea that it is a matter of concern for Trads vs. some other group displays a complete lack of understanding of the issues at hand. But that too is okay, friend. But it is also all the more reason why those who are desirous of keeping the Faith to exercise restraint in speaking out of turn.
The issue here is not a fear of invisible Church, but the reality of visible crisis and rot being bred inside Holy Mother Church. That is also why the offer of what you propose as the same is not always the case, friend. One can be scandalized and absolved in the selfsame confessional. And whereas that may not be something you grasp or care to undertake discussing, too many who know the Faith and understand the connection practice has with the fruits that come.
Again, look to Bishop Schneider. Those who advocate peaceful navigation of crisis are most often those acting under the hand of the Holy Spirit. Those who indignantly sow division and speak in spiteful terms – especially about persons/groups – are not always speaking from pure intentions.
It is not calumny to point out that since the time of the Apostles, only those men consecrated to the priesthood and who remained true to their bishops had the power to absolve men of their sins. You’ve still not explained why the SSPX continues to compete with a long established FSSP parish that has been fully supported by very good bishops for 15-20 years. (I thank God repeatedly every week that he has sent us good shepherds to tend his flock. May the Lord grant them many years in peace, health and happiness.)
Diabolus, it is precisely about calumny and an overall lack of prudence fueled by a false sense of zeal and fear.
As for the SSPX competing, you need to get it clear that it is the FSSP competing with the SSPX. Follow the chapel trail, friend. Where there is SSPX, FSSP will follow – maybe. The FSSP is still awaiting the bishop they were promised at the time their order was created. That means that the FSSP is dependent on the largess of the diocesan bishop.
So while you may think the SSPX should just up and disappear from your town, in reality, were they to do so the FSSP could similarly disappear. (Don’t kid yourself into thinking that every bishop loves the FSSP. Nothing could be further from reality.)
For the FSSP is too often only allowed reluctantly in a diocese to combat the SSPX. If you have a TLM friendly Bishop, and I mean all the sacraments and traditional parish practices, give true thanks to God. But to continue to deride the vehicle He has deigned to use to get that grace for you is to be wholly uncharitable and ungrateful in my view.
As to the deeper whys and wherefores about your question, again I would refer you to the prudential suggestions of Bishop Schneider. He speaks for good reason, even if you and/or CM may feel it to be frightening.
I’m not in the business of guessing the mind of God. I know that we’ve had good bishops and that the diocese as a whole has stepped up over the years to help the TradCats. For years, it was only a community and at least two Novus Ordo parishes agreed to let them use their churches for divine worship, until they were able to establish their own, which they did many years ago. One of those pastors spoke to the congregation at Mass one Sunday to express his sincere thanks for letting him get to know them. He became a fan of the TLM and was genuinely moved by the love of those who are attached to the old ritual. The priest was a convert from Baptistry and knew very little about how the Roman Church worshipped before Vatican II.
I truly feel for those who do not have the TLM. I drive an hour each way, but count it as nothing because the graces it provides are with me throughout the week. If the SSPX does good — and I believe it does — then it is because the Lord wills it. But to warn people that they are not being absolved when they depart from the tradition handed down to us by the Apostles is not to be fearful or to calumniate. I wish nothing more than for the SSPX to be regularized; I believe Mr. Voris wants the same.
It’s more than being attached to the old ritual. That may be the source for your misunderstanding the issue at hand. But no matter. I appreciate your candor.
That is also why I would sincerely ask you to back off of believing it to be charitable to imply that others are blackening their souls etc. You do not know the mind of God. Neither does Michael Voris. And since we are are most definitely in a time of crisis, those with the knowledge and impetus to act must do so.
Keep in mind that there was no official declaration of crisis from the Holy Father during the Arian heresy. That is why we must have Faith in God and His promises. That is also why it may be technically accurate to say there is no normal jurisdiction, but there is supplied jurisdiction when such is necessary. And since that will never be declared until after the fact, Catholics must act in accordance with their conscience and a well formed understanding of the Catholic Faith and canon law. (Arianism was just a teaching at the time, not called heresy by those who embraced it. I know it’s odd to think of living through that kind of disconnect, but so we are.)
This is why I would again advise that you and Michael Voris adhere to the admonitions of Bishop Schneider and exercise prudence.
In fairness, PGMGN, sacramental jurisdiction is a well-established ecclesiastical concept. If, in fact, they are wrong about supplied jurisdiction, then their absolutions are invalid.
It’s a risk I wouldn’t take, and DC’s assertion that receiving the Eucharist unworthily amounts to the “blackening” of souls is not unfounded. It’s a horror to contemplate, and one of the most questionable aspects of SSPX operation.
….and yet, Steve, you yourself have reported that in practice the Vatican has said the Society has done right in absolving even those grave sins that require priests to notify Rome. (I have also encountered married couples from the SSPX who sought diocesan annulment only to be told no.)
So whereas you and others may not want to take the risk, and it is putting oneself out there, it is not fair to state that, “The very fact that SSPX attendees are blackening their souls when they receive unworthily is a sign that the Society, for all the many goods it intends, is failing at the most fundamental level when it deceives Christians into believing that they’ve been absolved of their sins. Especially mortal ones.”
Yes, a blackened soul is a horror to contemplate, but again, I would not put myself in a position to judge the dispositions of others who do not have the access that you do. We know not their intent, position, etc. And I’ve too many friends and family that needlessly pierce each other to the core by making sweeping statements such as these.
I’ll adhere to Sacred Tradition.
So do I, Diabolus, and so does Bishop Schneider. All of it. That is why I take CM and your position regarding His Excellencies statements as marks of pride, not a true desire for the regularization of anything. And most assuredly not a true filial submission to Pope Francis.
Being attached to the old ritual means being necessarily being formed by the theology that it imparts. That theology is the theology and prayer of centuries of Christians. Therefore, to be attached to the ritual is to be deep in Trinitarian theology and authentic Christian prayer. I don’t apologize for this attachment at all. It made great saints for many centuries.
Vatican II is, by Bp. Schneider’s admission, a pastoral council that changed nothing dogmatically since it was pastoral. As such, it will ossify and blow away just like its “spirit” thereof partisans.
I’m sorry, Diabolus, but I cannot take your usage of Bp Schneider’s words to equate to your truly understanding anything of the situation at hand. For you parse him even as you parse Sacred Tradition.
And yet your description of what it means to be attached to the old ritual implies a decided break with that which is Catholic in those formed beneath the Novus Ordo Missae. Thank you for your comments. You have said it of your own mouth.
Peter Kwasniewski has said more or less than same as I have regarding the old ritual as vehicle for the theology of the Church, but in much more depth. He writes for this site. You can pick up his book, Resurgent in the Midst of Crisis. It’s a great read.
Thanks, Diabolus, but that said it speaks to the malformation brought about by the Novus Ordo Missae. And as Steve has stated, many TLM priests to include the FSSP, in order to be incardated, need to agree to say the NO.
This is dangerous compromise, Diabolus.
And another reason why I cannot endorse your previous statements as being charitable.
I agree that this is something to be concerned with. The jurisdictional issues are particularly troubling. I’ve been told by people within the SSPX that when someone comes to confession with an excommunicable offense (I assume abortion is the most likely) there is certain paperwork that must be submitted to Rome.
In every case this individual was aware of, Rome confirmed the validity of the absolution and the removal of the delict. (I don’t know the technicalities of this process, so forgive me if I’m representing it inaccurately.)
This is an interesting fact, if true. I suggested to this individual that such cases have documentary evidence which could be made public with the names redacted, to show that Rome is validating these sacraments in need of jurisdiction. They told me that the danger of compromising the sacramental seal made it too risky.
So we are left wondering. Personally, I wouldn’t ever rely on “ecclesia supplet” to make sure I was absolved or married. Far too dangerous.
As for the question of competition, I think it has something to do with the complete instability of traditional communities as subject to the local ordinary. There are FSSP chapels that have been all but suppressed in their dioceses; others are not ever allowed to operate. People speak glowingly about my diocese (Arlington, VA) as regards Summorum Pontificum, but the FSSP aren’t allowed here and we have not one dedicated chapel for the TLM.
Today, I heard that the TLM in Steubenville, Ohio, is ending in a couple weeks, because the pastor of St. Peter’s isn’t being sent an assistant and he can’t keep up with the Mass schedule. This is a stable community that has been in place for years. People feel comfortable sending their children to Franciscan University knowing that they can get to a TLM, only to now find out that it will be gone.
The SSPX avoids all that. They operate where they operate. Their situation is very questionable, but I can sympathize with the ability to operate without fear of capricious suppression.
I realize there is capriciousness as you say in operation in some dioceses. I would however point to an article that explained that there are huge logistical obstacles to having a regular TLM. But I don’t have the time to dig up the link 🙂
Re: the FSSP and some bishops. The Fraternity’s biggest problem is that it’s getting vocations, but it cannot keep up with the demand from ordinaries. This is what I’ve read, but I’ve not asked my pastor concerning its accuracy.
N.O. priests are booked solid. I think, I hope, that most of the problems with the expansion of the old rite have to do with the priestly shortage. Priests in many dioceses are so busy that they hit the three Mass limit on Sundays every Sunday. So getting them to offer yet another Mass for the TLM crowd becomes impossible.
Here’s a thought experiment:
If you had someone in your family who was possessed, would you want an SSPX cleric to perform an exorcism or a diocesan/religious? Remember that in this rite, the priest must be given explicit permission by his bishop to perform it. In cases of diabolical possession, the demon knows who the bishop is and he knows whether the exorcist has the power to drive him away in virtue of his fidelity to the ordinary. Woe be to the priest who does not have his bishop’s backing.
There are not *two* bishops for a diocese.
The N.O. will die on the vine. It’s a vehicle for abuse and anyone who goes to a FSSP parish can see that it has children and families and young people and, most importantly, a lively faith in the Most Blessed Sacrament. The N.O. has lots of old people (I’m moving into their ranks; I expect the AARP mailings to start coming in a few short years) and no children. Or few children. This is what I observe although, to be honest, I try to avoid them.
….and at the same time, Steve, I have been subjected to the horror of those with the paperwork to absolve who have scandalized me to the point of fearing letting my children anywhere near them.
It is rather like having to attend a mass that has the grace, but at the same time scandalizes the senses and abrades the Faith. What to do?
Again, that is why I find it disturbing to make sweeping statements that call out others as, “… blackening their souls and receiving Communion unworthily.”
I understand the real necessity of proper form and jurisdiction, but when it comes to it, one could also say that Our Lord is present in the Blessed Sacrament at a Black Mass, but there is no way we could attend. That may not be your experience, but having moved cross country upwards of 4 times myself, it is, albeit inflated, an idea of what it can be like on the ground.
It is through the ordination itself and not delegation from the Pope that a bishop has the authority to exercise the sacraments. The present Canon Law that has Rome choose all the bishops of the Roman Rite (and some Eastern Rites of few hierarchy) is a rather recent rule and IT IS OF ECCLESIASTICAL ORIGIN. The bestowing and curtailing of jurisdiction by Rome is NOT AN ABSOLUTE RULE. When Eastern bishops are elected and chosen by their hierarchs their ordination is communicated to Rome but it is by their apostolic ordination that they have the authority to exercise the sacraments; IT IS NOT DELEGATED TO THEM BY THE POPE. That is the reason why also that the Catholic Church accepts the jurisdiction and apostolic authority of the separated Eastern Churches which have never had to go to Rome to get permission to exercise the sacraments. Rome knows this, and the reason behind it is the higher divine law of salvation of souls as the supreme rule. The CRISES arising from Vat II with a bureaucratic imposing of a totally streamed lined NO by an imperial Pope Paul VI, WHICH SURPASSED HIS AUTHORITY IN DE FACTO PROHIBITING THE TRADITIONAL LITURGY, shows that the Pope can make terrible errors of practical judgment that REQUIRE A NON PARTICIPATION BY THE BODY. The problem there was the bishops were too passive and unaware of their apostolic authority and exaggerated the papal authority. The British hierarchy thought they had to ask the Pope permission to continue the Traditional Liturgy and that the Pope had the authority to command another rendition of it that made it virtually a variation of the Anglican services. Lefevbre had significant numbers of clergy, religious, and above all laity, ie a BODY of Churches continuing. As he got older he saw the danger of the Tradition being practically eliminated, so he broke the current ecclesiastical law IN ORDER TO PRESERVE THE TRADITIONAL ONE. (That could have brought a demand to have a MUCH MORE TRADITIONAL VERSION THAN THE ONE WE GOT, btw). But the bishops were just too unaware of their apostolic authority. I saw this personally when in 1983 a bishop was suppose to confirm a class of teens on a Sat. evening and didn’t arrive. There had been a mistake on the bishop’s calendar. This was in winter with a lot of snow. It was already an hour that passed and it would take him more than another hour to get there. One of the priests suggested he delegate the Pastor to do it. But the bishop said HE DID NOT HAVE THE FACULTY TO DO THAT AND HE WOULD HAVE TO CALL THE NUNCIO IN D.C. TO GRANT THE PERMISSION AND THAT WAS IMPOSSIBLE BECAUSE THE PHONE WAS ON A TAPE.
I thought to myself, doesn’t he realize he has apostolic authority himself? All the Eastern priests have been confirming right after baptism since the Church’s beginning.
So he came, but it was very late and some could not stay at that time of the year and left, though most stayed.
That is the most stark example I’ve ever known of HOW LITTLE A BISHOP HAD OF HIS APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY.
I look at LeFevbre as having that awareness and practicality. In exceptional times, exceptional responses are sometimes REQUIRED. The Pope himself ORDERING TO REPLACE THE TRADITIONAL LITURGY WITH A VERY INADEQUATE RENDITION OF IT and the reigning Pope having little sense of the damage the NO was doing ( he was the one who permitted the “for all” in the Consecration of the wine and said it was a CORRECT TRANSLATION ! ) certainly made this “push back” justified.
Why would an SSPX adherent still go to the chapel for confession when the
exact same sacrament is offered a few miles away by priests who have
been granted faculties by the ordinary? Doctrine
Ah..another person banished from Voris’ Vortex? I’m in good company..
It isn’t persons banished from the Vortex, but logic and charity and a truly Catholic mindset. But that’s what happens when folks begin running on fear instead of Truth.
https://veneremurcernui.wordpress.com/2015/08/28/a-cry-of-the-heart-towards-my-friends-at-cmtv/
Thank you.
If you mean the people at the Vortex are running on fear –fear of what, losing their ‘funder’ spoken of at the Dallas blog?
SSPX would argue that jurisdiction is supplied them due to the state of crisis in the Church. Subjectively, I know of solid diocesan priests to whom I can confess, but in the past, and prior to my happy affiliation with the Society, I sincerely questioned the point of confessing to a priest evidently lacking supernatural faith. “Hold your nose and vote Diocesan” was not particularly comforting…
Mmmm, so, you think the Church supplies jurisdiction in the already existing Jurisdiction of a Bishop who are in full communion with the Church.
Well, that is a claim that ANY vagus Bishop could make but, on its face, it is insane.
It appears that a particular “vagus” Bishop of Rome has just made that claim on behalf of the SSPX, at least for the Year of Jubilee. I’m hoping you’re on the wrong side of history, and that when all is said and done, Abp. Lefebvre will be recognized for what he has done to save Holy Tradition!
I describe the changes as a break with the Traditional Liturgy, BUT NOT AS A SACRAMENTAL BREAK. There was just enough of hesitation on Paul VI’s part to preserve the reality of Sacrifice as to keep the new Liturgy VALID.
But the Interim Roman Missal shows what was the direction of the changes: the vernacular text of the Interim Mass was for us the TEXT OF THE ST.JOSEPH’S MISSAL a good text of the Traditional Liturgy. But what Paul VI did was PREVENT THE TRADITIONAL CEREMONIAL FROM BEING USED EXCEPT IN THE MOST MINIMAL WAY. This prohibition STILL REMAINS, AND THAT REALLY PROHIBITS A REFORM OF THE REFORM FROM HAPPENING
Also, Paul VI IMPOSED the new Mass starting in Advent of 1969. THIS WAS BEYOND HIS AUTHORITY TO DO. I remember reading years ago that St Robert Bellarmine when writing of the limitations on papal authority used as one of his examples IF THE POPE DECIDED TO DESTROY THE LITURGY OF THE CHURCH (probably never thinking such a possibility of that ever would come to pass). In that case he argued for passive resistance on a large scale.
The hierarchy of the Church COULD HAVE RESISTED PAUL VI’s imposition, The hierarchy of Great Britain asked Paul VI TO GRANT AN EXCEPTION. Paul VI granted a five year period (as I remember) BUT THEN PULLED A BUREAUCRATIC TRICK IN REQUIRING EVERY BISHOP TO PRESENT A LETTER OF RESIGNATION ON HIS 75th BIRTHDAY and proceeded to appoint progressive bishops to take the place of the Traditionally minded. It is interesting to point out that when the Pope met Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras in the Holy Land in 1969 prior to Advent when the change was supposed to start, the Patriarch advised him to SIMPLY TRANSLATE THE LITURGY INTO THE VERNACULAR. But Paul VI did not listen to this Apostolic successor to the Apostles, Instead, he followed Bugnini with a few key corrections that prevented a break in SACRAMENTAL validity . This is where Bishop Athanasius Schneider’s recent comment makes so much sense, namely that those against SSPX gave too much emphasis to the papal office and Vat II vis-à-vis the entire Tradition de facto. Now the appointment of bishops is exclusively by the pope is NOT OF DIVINE ORIGIN. it is of ecclesiastical origin, Thus when LeFevbre ordained 4 bishops, seeing the DE FACTO prohibition of the Traditional Liturgy almost eliminated, he certainly broke positive ecclesiastical canon law FOR THE ROMAN RITE, BUT THAT WAS TO PRESERVE A HIGHER LAW OF CONTINUITY OF TRADITION. Voris can not see this point at all. Voris gives that quote that says that bishops are to be SONS of the Pope, UNDER HIM AS INFERIORS. When I hear this I think can you even imagine if THAT was how the 11 other Apostles thought was the meaning of their union with Peter ?! St Gregory the Great put that to rest with his Servant of the Servants of God!
The conclusion is obvious. Paul VI’s RENDITION of the Liturgy was the most imprudent act of any pope in centuries. It is up to the Bishops to BE CREATIVELY TRADITIONAL ABOUT THE LITURGY. To re-introduce much of the symbolism that was cut away and insist on a series of restorations that will manifest the divine orientation of the Liturgy, which the N.O. obscures, though does not completely deny.
Huge world events fast coming will allow a necessary correction to emerge. In the Era of Peace promised after the great conflict Vat II will NOT BE REMEMBERED AT ALL!
There is no such thing as a “reform of the reform,” there are two “reforms.” One is the restoration started by Dom Prosper Gueranger that can be seen in and up to the 1962 liturgy, and the other is the revolution of the modern liturgists. Dom Prosper Gueranger’s goal was more to restore what was already present in tradition. To expose the beauty and help common people understand. The modern liturgists though wanted to “raize the bastions,” meaning they saw fault in tradition and wanted to destroy it in order to build something new.
did you listen to the same video I did? review it again, because I only heard a condemnation of “don’t go to NO”
If a mass is ‘somehow damaging’ to our Faith, can we truly argue that it is the Catholic Mass?
Michael Voris has taken many pains to make it clear that the Novus Ordo, although extremely flawed and abused, is entirely licit. Whether the year was 2010 or 2015, he has held the same position. Even though he has shown the many flaws in the Novus Ordo, he has never gone as far as the SSPX to say that it is sinful to attend it. I agree with that position.
There have always been problems in the Church. But we cannot go the route of the sedevacantists and say that the Church itself ‘is’ the problem. Voris has taken a noble and unwavering position. A position which states that the Novus Ordo was created in a time of dissent, is inherently flawed, and regularly abused, but nonetheless ‘licit’. Actually, if one truly follows the One True Church, there is no other position that can be held.
In fact, it was a link from the Church Militant site that led me to this site. I have loved both your site and Church Militant for some time, due to the Truth being proclaimed on these sites. But this article seems, and maybe I have read it wrong, or maybe it was written unclearly, but it seems like an attack on Michael Voris. And maybe it is not. I do not know the secrets of your heart, Mr. Skojec, as our blessed Lord does. But please be more clear in the future. I think many people were confused of your intent after reading this article, as I was.
Thank you for all the great content. May the Sacred Heart of Jesus have mercy on you. Pax Domini Sit Semper Vobiscum!
Augustine of VA, Steve has been very clear. MV on the other hand shifts his positions and, of late, has given over to the strange position of demonizing others. That said, your intimation that the Society is going the way of Sedesvecantists is intriguing. I wonder what led you to that erroneous understanding…..or the desire to conflate issues. Surely not the prudential statements of Bishop Schneider, nor even the statements of Bishop Morlino as pertains his diocese in Madison.
Your assumption that others believe the Church is the problem is similarly off base. The Church is inviolate. And whoever has led you to believe that other Catholics believe the ‘Church’ is the problem are either uninformed or relaying information in such a simplistic manner as to skip over the truth.
So while you state that MV has consistently held the same position, you would do well to understand the reality that despite CMTV’s sensationalized non-expose, the Society has held their same position since the beginning. (The Society video was obviously a public proclamation, no hiding. And the fact that the video was merely a new vehicle of conveying a long held position is also telling. Nothing has changed with the Society. But much has changed at CMTV.)
If one follows the one true Church and the truth without the spin, you’ll find that the Society does not say that the Novus Ordo Missae is what you say. Rather they are consistent in stating that it could and has proven a danger to the Faith.
That is why MV is so suspect in his rampant attacks on other Catholics and word smything:
https://veneremurcernui.wordpress.com/2015/08/28/a-cry-of-the-heart-towards-my-friends-at-cmtv/
I pray God to have mercy on us ALL. And I thank Steve and other Catholic news outlets for allowing discussion and truth.
Famous Traditionalists have publicly delineated their problems with Pope, Council, and Mass – Romano Amerio, “Iota Unum”; Roberto de Mattei, “The Second Vatican Council, an untold story,” Msge. Brunero Gherardhini, “The Ecumenical Second Council, a much needed discussion” – and yet none on these men were excommunicated.
Why is that?
None of them established a petit ecclesia as did Mons Lefebvre.
It really is that simple and the plain and simple truth is that the Bishop Fellay is sinking in a quicksand of his own making – works and words – and he is slowly going under weighed down by his flock which he has taught that the Pope, Council, and Mass are, collectively, expressions of the modernist heresy of the modern One Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Obviously, one does not think his sheep are stupid and so why this odd relationship/Kabuki Dance with the Church authorities; what’s it all about, Alfie?
Who knows; but we can be absolutely sure it is not about the SSPX reconciling with a Hierarchy it sees as modernist – that makes no sense.
What does make sense is that Fellay and the SSPX keeps in touch with the authorities because Fellay and the SSPX want to be available when the One True Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church surrenders to the petit ecclesia established by Mons. Lefebvre.
The sspx on the new mass is quite mundane and a much better source is Rad Trad series on the Liturgy as he really digs into the real reasons for the reforms and he identifies Pope Saint Pius X as a major problem in the reform whereas the SSPX’s criticism of the reform is puissantly polemical and far more propaganda than source of information.
The sspx is an annealed schism that ain’t ending absent a literal miracle. Go on, just try and imagine Fellay trying to get his sheep to accept a reconciliation with the authorities after he has taught three generations of them that the authorities are untrustworthy, error-teaching, modernists.
Stop fooling your own selves.
http://www,newadvent,org/fathers/28155.htm
to read Saint Athanasius in his own words explicating and recapitulating the facts of the Arian Party and how his (Athanaisus) situation was not even within a galactic distance of the Lefebvre- Pope Saint John Paul ll situation.
The funny thing is that the sspx and those who succor it will not cease their unsupportable claim which is probative of the reality that the sspx is an ideological movement and, thus, not correctable by facts, reason, and evidence for an ideology is akin to a delusion which, also, is not correctable by facts.
Schisms do not preserve Tradition; they produce insanity.
Dear Steve, Gerhard Cardinal Mueller was named head of the PCED (replacing Levada) on July 2, 2012.
Sorry, IANS could not locate the place where we were having this exchange.
Link? The head of the CDF was never the head of the PCED. Cdl. Hoyos was prefect of PCED when Ratzinger was prefect of CDF.
Dear Steve. It is an unwieldy process to post a link here as IANS can not copy and paste a link here but, anyways, google
http://www.adoremus.org/0611Hitchcock,html
And no, IANS is not tricking you into a snipe hunt.
Long, long ago, The Abbe de Nantes exposed the facts about Mons lefebvre’s creation of a petit ecclesia using information from the internal bulletins of the SSPX itself and which information was initially developed during an investigation into same by those who were sympathetic to the schism.
IANS coud post a link but you have already closed your mind about these matters, albeit with inadequate information.
Dear Steve. See today’s Bollettino; The SSPX has won; their sacraments are now all valid as of today.
So much for arguing facts anymore 🙂
C’est la vie; IANS is not disappointed, just wrong; he is happy for those who succored the schism.
That whirring sound you hear is CMTV getting ready to spin the bombshell news about SSPX from Pope Francis today, 9/1.
They are crafting a letter to the Pope right now to clarify his pronouncement.
It is interesting to read this article. Thanks for sharing.
I was recently banned from commenting over at Church Militant. The reason being that I suggested their treatment of the SSPX wasn’t charitable and that it wasn’t in keeping with what the Holy See has actually said. Any comments I made that quoted the Holy See were deleted if they didn’t suit the journalistic line at Church Militant.
It is clear to me that there has been a huge shift at Church Militant, and not for the better.
I believe the rule at Church Militant is to ban imbeciles. You may not want to brag about that.
“Frankly, there’s a place for that kind of thing in an ecclesial climate like ours.” No, that directly contradicts the Holy Scriptures and the teachings of the Fathers.
Furthermore, Michael Voris cannot be right if he is at all opposed to the bishops in union with the Holy See of Rome. There is this thing, this fundamental Truth of sacramental theology. It is called Apostolic Authority and it is given to the bishop, not the laity. Are you seriously going to argue to this extent with the people who have received an indelible mark from Almighty God in the HOPE that you are right and they are wrong?
Follow the counsel of the Fathers: “See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop.” St. Ignatius.
3woodwork