Top Eleven Significant Events of 2013

Tradblogs is proud to present a review of 2013's top eleven events.

Without further ado, in no particular order:

Bishop Fellay's April 15^th Doctrinal Declaration

Originally submitted to Rome on April 15^th 2012, in March of 2013 the “AFD” was leaked to the public. Notably, the AFD accepted the Novus Ordo Missae as legitimately promulgated. The AFD has been well examined and analyzed by several priests (see here and here), Bishop Williamson, and there are also some helpful lay comments and insights to be found on the various trad forums. The AFD was instrumental in garnering and cultivating support for the SSPX Resistance.

 

Growing Resistance

While many of the major names (at least in the American Resistance) had already parted ways or been expelled from the NSSPX (+Williamson, Frs Pfeiffer, Hewko et al.) in 2012, the dissent has markedly grown in 2013.

-Declaration of Fr. Arizaga

-Declaration of Fr. Trauner

-Fr Girouard's Open Letter

-Letter of the thirty-seven Frenchpriests to +Fellay

-Commemoration of the 25^th Anniversary of the 1988 consecrations and subsequent declaration.

-The establishment of mass centers throughout the US

-Opening of Our Lady of Mt CarmelSeminary in Boston, KY

-Opening of San Jose Monastery in Columbia

-Many other instances of growth organized chronologically here.

Fr Pinaud's unjust trial and detainment

An event likely unknown or overlooked by many Catholics, Fr. Pinaud (one of the thirty-seven priests responsible for the open letter tto +Fellay) was subjected to a despicable spygame wherein Fr. Waillez (District Superior of Belgium) not only attempted to assume the identity of Fr. Pinaud by creating an email account in his name but also hacked into Fr. Pinaud's email to read his correspondences, for the purpose of confirming that Pinaud was a dissenter.

Fr Pinaud was subsequently detained for trial, which, under the supervision of + Fellay and Frs. Wuilloud, Petrucci and Quilton decided that “... we condemn Father PINAUD to a medicinal punishment of suspension of all acts by removing both the power of order and the power of jurisdiction (can. 2278 ss. CIC-17 and 1333 CIC-83). The lifting of this censure should be reserved according to law (can. 2245 CIC-17 and 1355 CIC-83).”

This is a clear and blatant usurpation of the Church's authority by a sacramental bishop and priests under his care, none of which enjoy the jurisdiction to hold an ecclesiastical trial, much less to actually inflict penalties. We must remark in shock and disdain at the arrogance and hubris on the part of Fellay & co to appeal to Canon Law (or, Conciliar Law) in their findings, as if they had any authority whatsoever to enforce or employ it in the way they presume to. This only contributes to the lamentable “parrelel churchism” found within the traditional world.  

For more information on this despicable affair please see:  here, here and here (primary sources provided within links).

Fellay's Waffling

It is apparent to us that Ratzinger's resignation has caused quite a bit of confusion for Bishop Fellay. As reported by Catholic Family News, +Fellay declared that “we have a genuine modernist (Francis),” at the Angelus Press Conference in October. While some took this as an opportunity to show us that “nothing has changed,” +Fellay quickly backtracked barely a month later, and in an interview with DICI clarified that Bergoglio isn't truly a modernist, just a modernist in his actions-- whatever that means. He took the opportunity to describe the primary role of the SSPX as celebrating the TLM, which is an inadvertent admission of how similar the SSPX has become to the FSSP in principle. For more information, see our analysis here. 

Ratzinger Resigns, Bergoglio Elected

Many centuries ago, popes infrequently resigned for the good of the Church -- whether they wanted to heal a schism or felt they were unqualified for the office from the start of their papacy.  Although hinted at as a consideration on and off during the latter days of the John Paul II era, never before had the man in the Vatican cited health concerns as reason enough to warrant rescension of the Petrine ministry.  But in a stunning announcement this past February, Joseph Ratzinger did just that, and officially resigned the office of the conciliar papacy at the month's conclusion.  Two weeks later, the conciliar cardinals elected Jorge Bergoglio as Ratzinger's replacement; as Cardinal Bergoglio he was seen posing with Protestant in communicatio in sacris acatholicis and was knowingly photographed lighting a menorah at a Jewish event, the man had barely stepped out to see the crowd in St. Peter's Square that dark March 13th night when Trads were variously worried (at the scandal he could and probably would cause Catholics stuck in Novus Ordo Land) and overjoyed (at how much more clearly he could prove their theological stances), and "brick by brick" Ratzingerian hermeneuticists were ready to turn off their televisions and curl into balls on the floor.

"There is no Catholic God" and Arian-esque statements

In October, Tradblogs covered the apparently Arian theological positions Francis made known in an interview published earlier that month.  See that post here.

The World Youth Day Beachball Bruhaha

Following another large Charismatic Movement event the Conciliar Church calls "World Youth Day" in Rio this past July -- well, where Tradblogs could describe for you what happened, a single picture more than suffices for the atrocity:

Sedebenediciplenism

Shortly before the public embrace by Fr. Paul Kramer of the opinion that Benedict XVI, and not Francis, is currently pope, that opinion (which was already held by a few a small number of semi-Trads) was set down as a new theory of papal identification formulated by one Alan Aversa:

sedebenediciplenism /sˌɛdɪbənɪdˈɪsɪplˌiːnɪzəm/ = the position where Benedict XVI is considered a true pope and Francis I is considered an anti-pope. Benedict XVI—initially not a true pope because of his leadership of the non-Catholic, schismatic Conciliar Church sect, although validly elected pope for the Catholic Church—became a true pope of the Catholic Church when he resigned his leadership role of the Conciliar Church on February 28, 2013. According to sedebenediciplenists, Benedict XVI did public penance for his ecumenical sins by promulgating Summorum Pontificum, un-"excommunicating" the SSPX bishops, disciplining LCWR and related groups, and supporting the SSPX; thus, he is no longer a heretic and can be and is a valid pope of the Catholic Church.

Since Mr. Aversa's initial formulation of the sedebenediciplenist position, the mutation of Fr. Kramer's variety has arisen which does not posit Johannine ff. sedevacantist as its starting point; rather, it recognizes the conciliar and postconciliar papal claimants as legitimate popes up through and including Benedict, merely stipulating that Benedict's resignation in February was invalid and as such he is still head of the (Conciliar) Church.  Referring to reasons as disparate as duress ("He was pressured to resign!  Death threats were made!") to faulty Latin in the resignation document itself ("Wrong tense here, declension there"), this brand of theory-supporter is further known as "sedebenediciplenist conciliar legitimists," whereas those who subscribe to Mr. Aversa's initial formulation are identified as "sedebenediciplenist conciliar illegitimists."  As a shorthand, however, we propose the following development in the terminology:  Aversan sedebene. (the original school of thought) and Kramerian sedebene. (the conciliar legitimist morphosis).

Francis & his condescension towards Trads (neo-pelagianism)

In rhetoric from early June which can only be described as baffling, Francis stated that a "Pelagian current" runs through the Church in "restorationist groups," i.e. Trad-leaning groups within the Conciliar Church.  This is how St. Alphonsus Liguori, in his History of Heresies, describes the heresy of Pelagianism:

First.--That Adam and Eve were created mortal, and that their sin only hurt themselves, and not their posterity.  Second.--Infants are now born in the same state that Adam was before his fall.  Third.--Children dying without baptism, do not indeed go to heaven, but they posses eternal life.  Such, St. Augustine testifies, were the errors of Pelagius.  The principal error of Pelagius and his followers was, concerning Grace and Free-Will, for he asserted, that man, by the natural force of his free-will, could fulfill all the Divine precepts, conquer all temptations and passions, and arrive at perfection without the assistance of grace. (page 109)

As such, we call this rhetoric coming from Francis baffling because we have not seen it in Trad-leaning or even actually Trad groups.  If anything, examing Francis and his likewise modernist retinue...

If Francis takes one breath to mischaracterize Trad-leaning groups, he takes another to mock them:  on the very same occasion, he said "[ . . . ] when I was elected, I received a letter from one of these groups, and they said:  'Your Holiness, we offer you this spiritual treasure:  3,525 rosaries.'  Why don't they say, 'we pray for you, we ask...', but this thing of counting..."  Naturally padded with the phrase "not to laugh at it, I took it with respect" -- of course.

Francis took an even larger swipe against the Trad-leaning members of his religion in his "apostolic exhortation" Evangelium Gaudium, 93-97, this time accusing Trads of "neopelagianism" in paragraphs under a section titled "No to spiritual worldliness."

Francis Blasphemes the Blessed Virgin

Twice already Francis has blasphemed against the Blessed Virgin Mary.  In the first instance, after likening Mary to the Church (good!) he went on to say that the Church has flaws (bad! embarrassingly bad! heretically bad!)

In the second instance, Francis harkened to John Paul II when he said of Mary at the Crucifixion that 

The Gospel tells us nothing: if she said a word or not ... She was quiet, but in her heart -  how much she said to the Lord!  'You told me then  - that's what we have read - that He will be great. You told me that You would give him the throne of his father David, that he will reign over the house of Jacob forever. And now I see Him there!' The Blessed Mother was human! And perhaps she would have  wanted  to say, 'lies! I have been cheated!'. John Paul II said this when he spoke of the Mother of God at one point. But she was  overshadowed with the silence of the mystery that she did not understand, and with this silence, she has accepted that this mystery can grow and flourish in the hope.

Should the reader follow the provided link, he will see that for all the other heretical things John Paul II said, oddly enough that sentiment was not one of them.

Ecumenism of Blood

In mid-December, Francis coined a new term of his own:  "Ecumenism of Blood."  He discusses his theological novelty thus:

For me, ecumenism is a priority. Today, there's the ecumenism of blood. In some countries they kill Christians because they wear a cross or have a Bible, and before killing them they don't ask if they're Anglicans, Lutherans, Catholic or Orthodox. The blood is mixed. For those who kill, we're Christians. We're united in blood, even if among ourselves we still haven't succeeded in taking the necessary steps towards unity and perhaps the moment hasn't arrived. Unity is a grace that we have to ask for.
In Hamburg [Germany], I knew a pastor who was working on the beatification cause of a Catholic priest sent to the guillotine by the Nazis because he was teaching catechism to children. After him in the line-up of the condemned was a Lutheran pastor killed for the same reason. Their blood was mixed. The pastor told me he'd gone to his bishop and said to him: 'I'll continue to pursue the cause, but both of them together, not just the Catholic.' That's the ecumenism of blood. It exists today too, all you have to do is read the papers.

What we should take away from this:  Francis believes a Lutheran pastor killed for teaching children a presumably Lutheran catechism is as meritorious as a Catholic priest murdered for teaching children a presumably Catholic catechism.

HONORABLE MENTIONS: +Williamson's planned acquisition of a priestly house, Fr Rioult's "The Impossible Reconciliation", Bergoglio earns "Person of the Year" from Time Magazine, the advancing "canonizations" of JPII and JXXIII,

A Few Thoughts on Francis' Recent Interview

Ember Wednesday in Advent

 From The Vatican Insider

While most of the world may concern itself more with the temporary canonization of Francis by Time and The Advocate, we would like to draw your attention to his recent interview conducted by Andrea Tornielli (author of "Pope Francis: Pope of a New World").

CHRISTMAS

[Christmas] speaks of tenderness and hope. When God meets us he tells us two things. The first thing he says is: have hope. God always opens doors, he never closes them. He is the father who opens doors for us. The second thing he says is: don’t be afraid of tenderness. When Christians forget about hope and tenderness they become a cold Church, that loses its sense of direction and is held back by ideologies and worldly attitudes, whereas God’s simplicity tells you: go forward, I am a Father who caresses you.

God certainly gives hope, yes; and charity is God's love, loving one's neighbor as God loves them, and for the sake of God.  Often this is done with "tenderness" if we are to think in terms of emulating Our Lord, and being meek and humble of heart.  However, Francis' priorities are obvious: he sees the Church as a social organization, and that the worst (or at least, one of the most undesirable) things it could become is "cold."  In the first place, the Church is the Spotless Bride of Christ, and She does not "become" anything other than what He has willed Her to be-- Francis identifies the nature of the Church according to the dispositions of Her members.  If this was true, the Church would not only be cold, She would be a murderer, an adulteress, a thief, an ingrate, etc.  But this is not true, because Her nature is not defined by Her members.

Additionally, when God "meets us" (a regrettably modernist and protestant expression), He does not always tell us to "go forward."  In fact, in many cases, God "meets us" as He met St Paul, or as He met St Peter fleeing Rome.  He will purify us and chastise us so that we see the evil in the direction we were headed prior to "meeting" Him.  He has already said " If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me" (Mat. XII). 

There is also the unsettling emanation of Arianism.  We touched on this in an earlier post.  In Francis' interview with La Repubblica he over-distinguished between the Father and the Son, stating "...there is no Catholic God, there is God and I believe in Jesus Christ, his incarnation. Jesus is my teacher and my pastor, but God, the Father, Abba, is the light and the Creator. This is my Being."  The contrarian tone of "...but God, the Father... is the light and the Creator.  This is my Being," is enough of an equivocation enough to warrant a double take.  In this recent interview, Francis says: 

 The Greek Fathers called [the Incarnation] syncatabasis, divine condescension that is: God coming down to be with us. It is one of God’s mysteries.  John Paul II said God became a child who was entirely dependent on the care of a father and mother. This is why Christmas gives us so much joy. We don’t feel alone any more; God has come down to be with us. Jesus became one of us and suffered the worst death for us, that of a criminal on the Cross.” 

For any practicing Catholic who has written an academic paper on a subject which is filled with "experts" who predicate all of their theories on a denial of religion, there is an elusive way in which we can write about such topics without drawing too much attention to the fact that we disagree with and disdain what we are supposed to believe according to secular professors.  This is a very simple method which simply requires a sentence to begin "Scientists/doctors/philosophers believe/say/theorize X."  It is a very "unbiased" and distanced way of telling someone what they want to hear without actually saying that you share the belief.  Francis cites what the Greeks call the incarnation, and what JPII said about the incarnation but all that he says is that "God came down to be with us.  Jesus became one of us..."  Again with the distinction.  God "coming down to us" could mean anything.  Jesus becoming one of us isn't necessarily the same thing.  Especially when the words are coming out of the mouth of a modernist!  Who knows?  Maybe it's a translation error, or maybe it's not and we're just nuts.  But the suspicious way in which Bergoglio continues to distinguish between God and Jesus continues...

The entire second page of the interview is filled with the obligatory shout-out to the poor.

ECUMENISM

Over the course of these first nine months, I have received visits from many Orthodox brothers: Bartholomew, Hilarion, the theologian Zizioulas, the Copt Tawadros... They have the apostolic succession; I received them as brother bishops. It is painful that we are not yet able to celebrate the Eucharist together, but there is friendship. I believe that the way forward is this: friendship, common work and prayer for unity. We blessed each other; one brother blesses the other, one brother is called Peter and the other Andrew, Mark, Thomas…

There isn't really much to comment on here.  The work is done for us.  An heretic receiving heretics... you know what they say about birds of a feather.  The heretics retain material apostolic succession, but it's clear that Francis means that they are formal successors (with both power of order and jurisdiction) by the way he refers to them as equals.  Notice how "the way forward" doesn't include conversion?  It will be interesting to see how God caresses them.

Yes, for me ecumenism is a priority (You don't say?). Today there is an ecumenism of blood. In some countries they kill Christians for wearing a cross or having a Bible and before they kill them they do not ask them whether they are Anglican, Lutheran, Catholic or Orthodox. Their blood is mixed... I knew a parish priest in Hamburg who was dealing with the beatification cause of a Catholic priest guillotined by the Nazis for teaching children the catechism.  After him, in the list of condemned individuals, was a Lutheran pastor who was killed for the same reason. Their blood was mixed. The parish priest told me he had gone to the bishop and said to him: “I will continue to deal with the cause, but both of their causes, not just the Catholic priest’s.” This is what ecumenism of blood is. It still exists today. Those who kill Christians don’t ask for your identity card to see which Church you were baptised in. We need to take these facts into consideration.

Well, this is just filthy.  Many commentators have already chimed in with comments on this passage, and we can only echo their not-so-surprised shock at the absolute scandal of this "ecumenism of blood." Does Bergoglio not realize that in the past, the Church would have done exactly what the Nazis did to those who spread heresy?  That's a rhetorical question, of course; he must know and has likely already "apologized" for it publicly, or plans to.  There are no greater crimes than those against the Faith, because such crimes are direct assaults on God.  The spreading of heresy was dealt with so severely because the death of the soul is infinitely worse than the death of the body.  Naturally, we can't expect someone so preoccupied with materialism and the corporal works to appreciate that-- in fact, it's apparent he abhors it.  

Then there is the idea that how others regard "Christians" must be "taken into consideration."  Again we have the faith in flux.  While the Church is defined by what Her members are feeling at the time, a Christian is defined by what his enemies think he is.  The entire quoted paragraph accurately reflects the wicked indifferentism of the modern world towards religion.



MISCELLANIOUS 

Questions posed by Tornielli in bold.

Some of the passages in the "Evangelii Gaudium" attracted the criticism of ultraconservatives in the USA. As a Pope, what does it feel like to be called a "Marxist"?

"The Marxist ideology is wrong. But I have met many Marxists in my life who are good people, so I don’t feel offended."


Three guesses as to whether we actually believe he thinks Marxism is wrong (and the first two don't count), although we certainly didn't expect him to say that it is.  But Marxists are good people, so it probably doesn't matter.  They must be playing checkers with all the other atheists in Heaven.


In the Apostolic Exhortation you called for prudent and bold pastoral choices regarding the sacraments. What were you referring to?

When I speak of prudence I do not think of it in terms of an attitude that paralyses but as the virtue of a leader. Prudence is a virtue of government. So is boldness.  One must govern with boldness and prudence. I spoke about baptism and communion as spiritual food that helps one to go on; it is to be considered a remedy not a prize. Some immediately thought about  the sacraments for remarried divorcees, but I did not refer to any specific cases; I simply wanted to point out a principle. We must try to facilitate people’s faith, rather than control it. Last year in Argentina I condemned the attitude of some priests who did not baptise the children of unmarried mothers. This is a sick mentality.

"For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.  Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you, and many sleep" (I Cor, XI).

St Paul teaches us not to profane the Holy Sacrament, and attributes the Corinthians doing so as a cause for their ills.  Of course, to a man like Bergoglio who believes that all Christians are united in blood, there is no true distinction between a non-Catholic "Christian" and a Catholic, or a person in sanctifying grace or one in mortal sin.  

And what about remarried divorcees?
 
"The exclusion of divorced people who contract a second marriage from communion is not a sanction. It is important to remember this. But I didn’t talk about this in the Exhortation."

Certainly he wouldn't condemn the practice of withholding Holy Communion from public sinners.  I suppose we expected a bit of a more of an artful dodge, though. 


May I ask you if the Church will have women cardinals in the future?

"I don’t know where this idea sprang from. Women in the Church must be valued not 'clericalised.' Whoever thinks of women as cardinals suffers a bit from clericalism." 

It sprang from the perpetually-flapping hole under your nose, sir.  This is a remarkable statement.  In telling the conservatives what they want to hear (something along the lines of "no women cardinals") he simultaneously slaps them in the face by saying they suffer from clericalism, which is NO-speak for telling someone they need to get with the times and realize that clerics don't have anything John Q. Layman the accountant doesn't have, nor do they enjoy any special privileges or rights.  


Could you have imagined a year ago that you would be celebrating Christmas 2013 in St. Peter’s?

"Absolutely not." 

If only...



 

Serve the World, Receive Its Praises

Feast of St. Damasus I, Pope and Confessor

How to become Time Magazine's Man of the Year:

Step 1.  Finagle your way to the top of a religious organization.

Step 2.  Remind everyone of how humble you are whenever possible.

Step 3.  Throw your organization's traditions under the bus you say you ride around in.

Step 4.  Marginalize and insult anybody who doesn't like the "new way."

Step 5.  Totally misrepresent the very nature of your organization.

Step 6.  Accept the Man of the Year honor -- humbly, of course!

To read the dreck rationale for the choice, see here.

Kyrie Eleison!
Christe Eleison!
Kyrie Eleison!

Traditional Catholic Publishers

Feast of St. Nicholas, Bishop and Confessor

Benziger, Desclee, Dessain, Mame, Pustet -- such names belonged to the great Catholic publishers of the earlier half of the twentieth century.  Following the creation of the Conciliar Church in the 1960s and the propagation of its new perverse doctrines, the aforementioned publishing houses mostly failed or faded into shadows of their former selves.  But in response to the Conciliar revolution, Catholics especially in the English-speaking world endeavored to found new publishing houses.  The following is a short list of such publishers, their affiliation (if known), and notable titles they produce:

-The Aquinas Institute
Notable titles:  Summa Theologiae, Commentaries

-Baronius Press (Conciliar Church's "Conservative" Ratzingerians)
Notable titles:  1962 hand missal, 1961 Latin-English breviary, DRC bibles

-Loreto Publications
Notable titles:  Blessed Sacrament Prayerbook, Commentary of Cornelius a Lapide, DRC bibles

-Maximus Scriptorius Publications
Notable titles:  Smith's Latin-English Dictionary, pre-Challoner Douay-Rheims photo-reproduction

-Nova et Vetera (Conciliar Church's FSSP trap)
Notable titles:  1962 altar missal, 1961 Latin breviary, 1962 lectionary

-Preserving Christian Publications
Notable titles:  The Roman Ritual, St. Robert Bellarmine's Commentary on the Psalms

-Refuge of Sinners Publishing
Notable titles:  Parente's Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology, Tanquerey's The Spiritual Life

-Romanitas Press
Notable titles:  Candles in the Roman Rite, The Liturgical Altar

 -Tradibooks (Sedevacantist)
Notable titles:  The Relations of the Church to Society, Commonitorium Against Heresies

[List to be updated as necessary.]

As Christmas fast approaches, please consider buying directly from the above Catholic publishers via their websites.  But especially consider donating to the Opera Omnia project of The Aquinas Institute, which aims to reprint in totally re-typeset Latin and English the complete works of St. Thomas Aquinas, the Angelic Doctor.  It very well may be the most important publishing event of the whole Traditional Catholic Publishing era.  Doubt it?  Easily verifiable, as single volumes start at $35.66 on Amazon.com.

From Menzingen: A New Interview with Bishop Fellay

Vigil of the Feast of St. Nicholas

 

Article published by DICI, our comments below.

N.B. Due to the length of the interview, it is not transcribed in this post.

Fellay begins the interview with the obligatory shout out to “Pope Emeritus” Ratzinger by mentioning the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum and the positive effect it had on the Franciscan Immaculata.  He slyly intimates that this same Motu Proprio caused them to pose certain questions about the council.  This is probably objectively true, since the Old Mass inspires such awe in any half aware person that they can't possibly fathom it being the product of the same Church that gave us the Novus Ordo (hint: it wasn't!).  Nevertheless, understanding that Ratzinger's SP was a political maneuver in the spirit of the “hermeneutic of continuity” to integrate the TLM into the VII religion, we know that it was certainly not intended to sow dissent against the Council, quite the contrary.

Fellay then pits Francis against his buddy Ratzinger when he claims that Francis' action against the Immaculata in restricting their use of the TLM is “directly contrary to the Motu Proprio, which spoke about a right [to celebrate the TLM].”  Is this how far the leader of the largest traditional group in the world has sunk?  Citing conciliar documents to enforce the TLM as a right?  Quo Primum, anyone?  The traditional faith is not promoted by conciliar documents, and these are dark times when the SG of the SSPX attempts to do so.

Throughout this interview, it can be very difficult to ascertain just exactly what Fellay's point is.  He seems to be thinking out loud.  For example, he begins this interview with a moderate lauding of Ratzinger, and shortly afterward says that “Obviously, the attitude [of Francis] is not the same [as the attitude of Benedict]. The approach, the definition of the problems that affect the Church is not the same!” This is true to a certain degree as it's apparent that Ratzinger “valued” (however arbitrarily, and if entirely for the wrong reasons) ceremony and tradition, whereas Francis is a true child of VII, and cannot seem to abide that which is not novel; nevertheless, we should not pretend as if these men are cut from different cloths.  They are not, and Fellay even acknowledges this later in the interview when he says 

“We have gone from one pontificate to another, and the Church’s situation has stayed the same. The basic lines remain the same. On the surface there are variations: one might say that these are variations on a well-known theme! The basic assertions: we find them, for example, about the Council [he goes on to mention the different ways the VII popes will explain the Council].” 

Which is it, Bishop Fellay?  Is Bergoglio is radical departure from Ratzinger, or are they both saying the same thing in different ways?

It should be apparent by now (hopefully it was already, dear reader!) that Fellay has fallen quite far from the tree as concerns the great Archbishop Lefebvre.  He says: “Perhaps I should have said [Francis is] a modernist in his actions. Once again, he is not a modernist in the absolute, theoretical sense: a man who develops a whole coherent system; that coherence does not exist.”  OK... what's the old saying? Bishop Fellay speaks louder than actions?  No, that's not it. Hmm... Oh!  Actions speak louder than words, yes.  Has the Church condemned heretics only when they had “coherent systems?  Whatever distinction Fellay hopes to make here is not clear at all, only that he is trying to back step once again from his comments several months ago where he called Francis a “genuine modernist.”

The most difficult thing to stomach is that Fellay is making it abundantly clear that he has no idea what a modernist is (or if he does, he refuses to recognize it)! This is the superior general of the world's largest traditional priestly society, named after the hammer of modernists, and he couldn't pick one out if one whispered in his ear.  For, preceding this weak retraction of the only worthy thing he's publicly said in the last year, he admits:

“It is difficult to arrive at a judgment about his words because a little later on, or almost at the same time, you find words about the faith, about points of faith, about points of morality, which are very clear and condemn sin, the devil; statements that explain very forcefully and very clearly that no one can go to heaven without true contrition for one’s sins, no one can expect mercy from the Good Lord unless one seriously regrets one’s sins.  All these are reminders that we are very happy about, very necessary reminders!  But unfortunately they have already lost a large part of their force because of the contrary statements."

*Ahem*

That is textbook modernism.

“In the writings and addresses they seem not unfrequently to advocate now one doctrine now another so that one would be disposed to regard them as vague and doubtful. But there is a reason for this, and it is to be found in their ideas as to the mutual separation of science and faith. Hence in their books you find some things which might well be expressed by a Catholic, but in the next page you find other things which might have been dictated by a rationalist (Pascendi, no 18).”

Time to smell the coffee, Bishop Fellay.  Your very description of Francis is tantamount to calling him a modernist!

He also makes two claims in particular which trouble us, as concern the teaching role and authority of the pope and the Church.  He speaks of the “muddling” of what is doctrine and what is the pope speaking as a private theologian.   Well, if this “muddling” contains error, we cannot take solace in either instance!  Just because a true pope could never promulgate or approve a harmful or erroneous law, discipline, liturgy, etc. for the Church does not mean that he can express all the heresy that he likes as a “private theologian” when he speaks publicly!   There is some confusion here, probably based on the idea of the pope as a “private theologian” and thinking that errors or heresies in such a capacity are therefore “private,” but this isn't true.  When Francis tells the world that there is no Catholic God, he is not “saved” from the effects of such an heresy simply because he's not making a law or commanding that others believe it.  Along the same lines, Fellay remarks “Faith and morals are the two points that the Church teaches and where infallibility can be invoked.”  To say such a thing would lead us to conclude that the Church, in Her magisterium, can teach error on faith or morals. The Church's magisterium does not “invoke” infallibility, it is infallible.   The Church is a benevolent mother and the Spotless Bride of Christ, and can therefore never feed Her children stones when they ask for bread. The idea that the Church “can” invoke infallibility on faith and morals as concerns the magisterium (is that what Fellay is referring to? Who knows) is preposterous, and eventually turns the deposit of faith into a cafeteria line of options.

The last part of the interview that concerns us regards Fellay's comments on the TLM and the purpose of the SSPX.  He says that the primary purpose of the SSPX is the Mass. He says “The Mass really is the pump that distributes throughout the Mystical Body the graces merited on the Cross.”  True enough, but it is the faith that informs the Mass! The undermining of the faith by the modernists in the seminaries in the first half of the twentieth century and at VII occurred before the widespread and universal use of the bastard liturgy.  The Mass proceeds from the faith, and the Mass perpetuates the faith.  It is entirely possible to have the Mass without the integral faith, as we see with the indult groups, where men are trained to perform the ceremonies (perhaps even quite beautifully) but with little to no concern as to whether they know the doctrines it expresses, or even whether or not they are properly ordained! The world lost the faith before it lost the mass.

All in all, there is nothing particularly new to us in this interview.  It may simply serve as a reminder that leopards do not change their spots.  Fellay's unwarranted attraction to Ratzinger is still apparent, and we can only imagine the "heartbreak" he's experiencing at now having the thin veil of traditionalism that surrounded the Novus Ordo papacy during Ratzinger's occupation ripped off, stomped on, and then danced on (and maybe had a dreidel spun on it's rags?). The New Church and its pimps are full of disdain and contempt for the Catholic religion. If Fellay were to emulate them in something, instead of it being their double speak and confusing manner, have him direct that same attitude towards their unwelcome and hostile innovations. God help us.

Fr Paul Kramer: Sedevacantist

Vigil of St. Saturninus

 

 Originally found on Archbishop Lefebvre Forums: http://abplefebvreforums.proboards.com/thread/1139/fr-kramer-on-francis?page=1&scrollTo=10487

""Pope" Francis in Evangelii Gaudium n. 247: "We hold the Jewish people in special regard because their covenant with God has never been revoked". This text is an explicit profession of heresy, directly opposed to the solemn dogmatic definition of Pope Eugenius III and the Ecumenical Council of Florence, and the doctrine taught by the supreme magisterium of Pope Benedict XIV in Ex Quo Primum, set forth repeatedly and explicitly citing the definition of Florence, to wit, that the Mosaic covenant has been "revoked" and "abrogated". I have been saying for years that when a "pope" will officially teach explicit and clear heresy flatly contradicting the infallibly defined dogma of the Catholic faith, then you will know that he is the false pope prophecied in many Church approved prophecies and Marian apparitions. St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Alohonsus Liguori, St. Antoninus and Pope Innocent III all teach that when the pope demonstrates himself to be a manifest heretic, i.e. a plainly manifested public heretic, he ceases to be pope (or, if already was a public heretic he was invalidly elected) because he is not a Catholic -- not a member of the Catholic Church. Bellarmine explains that the Roman Pontiff is the visible head of the Church, and the head is a member. One who is not a member cannot be the head, and therefore the election to the supreme pontificate of a public heretic is canonically null & void. The heresy of Bergoglio in no. 247 is such a clear cut case of manifest, public heresy, expressed in stark, unequivocal terms, that it can be said without doubt that if this proposition of no. 247 is not manifestly heretical, then nothing else can be said to be so. It is morally impossible that one who manifestly displays such clearly expressed contempt for a defined dogma of faith by plainly denying it, can be believed to validly hold the office of Roman Pontiff. St. Francis of Assisi foretold of the uncanonically elected pope who would not be "a true pastor but a destroyer". Bergoglio plainly fits the description."

Fr Kramer's Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/paul.kramer.1023611?fref=ts

TB refrains from any comment at this time, though the effects of this are worth considering.  Will Fr Kramer face alienation from insistent sedeplenists?  Could his new public position on this issue create a ripple effect of sorts for other traditional priests?  Will he soon come to hold the same position on the other conciliar pontiffs?

We wish Fr. Kramer the best.

Francis: Address to Lutherans

Twenty-Fifth Sunday after Pentecost

Original article found here, TB comments in blue.  Formatting added, italics removed.

I warmly welcome you, the members of the Lutheran World Federation and the representatives of the Lutheran-Catholic Commission on Unity. This meeting follows upon my very cordial and pleasant meeting with you, dear Bishop Younan ("Bishop" Younan is a protestant, and they don't have valid orders), and with the Secretary of the Lutheran World Federation, the Reverend Junge, during the inaugural celebration of my ministry as the Bishop of Rome.

It is with a sense of profound gratitude to our Lord Jesus Christ that I think of the many advances made in relations between Lutherans and Catholics in these past decades (Which advances are those?), not only through theological dialogue (Like this?), but also through fraternal cooperation in a variety of pastoral settings, and above all, in the commitment to progress in spiritual ecumenism (Above all?  Wouldn't the most important thing for someone who rejects the authority of the Church be to submit to it?)

In a certain sense, this last area constitutes the soul of our journey towards full communion, and permits us even now a foretaste of its results, however imperfect (Yes, heresy is delicious.  Mmmm!). In the measure in which we draw closer to our Lord Jesus Christ in humility of spirit (Except that protestants, insofar as they reject the authority of the Church, are not humble in spirit-- in fact, they are incessantly prideful in spirit by invoking private interpretations and "personal relationships" with Jesus Christ over the authority of the Magisterium), we are certain to draw closer to one another (Which is an ultimately meaningless bond if it does not include the bond of faith). And, in the measure in which we ask the Lord for the gift of unity (True unity is a unity of faith, mind you.  A unity between disagreeing faiths is a false unity.  It is as efficacious and meaningful as a unity between oil and water), we are sure that he will take us by the hand and be our guide.

This year, as a result of a now fifty year old theological dialogue and with a view to the commemoration of the five-hundredth anniversary of the Reformation (Oh boy, can you bear the anticipation?), the text of the Lutheran-Catholic Commission on Unity was published, with the significant title: From Conflict to Communion. Lutheran-Catholic Common Commemoration of the Reformation in 2017.

I believe that it is truly important for everyone to confront in dialogue the historical reality of the Reformation, its consequences and the responses it elicited (This is a wonderful idea.  Let's encourage Lutherans to abandon their heretical views on justification, their denial of more than half the sacraments instituted by Christ, their rejection of the Church's teaching authority, their contempt for sacred images and their practical concessions to modern evils like contraception). Catholics and Lutherans can ask forgiveness for the harm they have caused one another (Oh, I guess he meant something else.  Sorry, Marty!) and for their offenses committed in the sight of God (Dear Lord, forgive me for the sins of my ancestors who were martyred for their faith during The Pilgrimage of Grace.  I would go to confession for it but I'm forgiven anyways). Together we can rejoice in the longing for unity which the Lord has awakened in our hearts, and which makes us look with hope to the future (Can't wait for that brave, new world!).

In light of this decades-long journey (Reader, note that this is an allusion to VII, which opened the ecumenical flood-gates for a false union between Catholics and protestants.  Only after VII-- which occurred "decades" ago-- could such a "dialogue" occur) and of the many examples of fraternal communion between Lutherans and Catholics which we have witnessed, and encouraged by faith in the grace given to us (Us?  as in, Catholics and Lutherans?  Does Francis understand that only Catholics can enjoy Sanctifying Grace?) in the Lord Jesus Christ, I am certain that we will continue our journey of dialogue and of communion (obligatory youtube link), addressing fundamental questions as well as differences in the fields of anthropology and ethics. Certainly, there is no lack of difficulties (For a Catholic, there is no difficulty.  A Catholic has the truth, and does not barter with someone who is in error or heresy.  The difficulty is on the part of the Lutheran, who must find a true humility and co-operate with God's graces that will lead him to the True Faith), and none will lack in the future.

They will continue to require patience, dialogue and mutual understanding. But we must not be afraid! We know well - as Benedict XVI often reminded us - that unity is not primarily the fruit of our labors, but the working of the Holy Spirit, to whom we must open our hearts in faith, so that he will lead us along the paths of reconciliation and communion (Unity of faith is the only unity worth pursuing.  The fraternal unity that is being pursued by Francis and the Conciliar Church is a goal of freemasonry, not a goal of the Catholic Church.  The Catholic Church seeks only to serve Her Divine Groom, Christ Our Lord, Whose wish is to have all men united to Him in His Church by the bond of faith).

Regarding Updates

The Dedication of the Archbasilica of the Holy Savior

 

Hello, readers of TB.  We are dedicated to weekly updates.  Unfortunately, sometimes "life happens" and this goal may be left not achieved.  Please keep us in your prayers as we deal with those things which keep us from updating, though you can "take it to the bank" that more updates will be coming SOON!

In the meantime, you can read this short article on today's feast.

Pax Christi

--TB

Vatican: Happy Diwali!

Vigil of the Feast of All Saints

Diwali (Deepavali, Divali) is an Hindu festival that spans five days, usually falling between the middle of October and the middle of November. During Diwali, each day is dedicated to different Hindu "gods" or "goddesses," and certain traditions are honored in order to please them. Among these include offering a candle and sweets near a Holy Basil tree (or some other “sacred” tree) in order to appease their god of death, receiving oil massages, worshiping the goddess of wealth, and keeping one's household spotless in order to receive a visit from the goddess Lakshmi, who will look especially favorably upon you if you worship a broom (Pramodkumar, Meri Khoj Ek Bharat Ki, pp108-09).

As Diwali is about to commence, the Vatican has issued a statement addressing the Hindu community. Brief comments from TB are provided at the end

N.B.: The primary article is sporadically spaced, sometimes skipping several lines between sentences, other times having two or three words running together with no spaces. These errors were all fixed in transcription, without citing where they appear.

(Begin)

Dear Hindu Friends,

1. In a spirit of friendship, the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue extends to you best wishes and cordial greetings as you celebrate Deepavali on 3 November next. May God, the source of all light and life, illumine your lives and deepen your happiness and peace.

2. In this highly competitive world where increasingly individualistic and materialistic tendencies adversely affect human relationships and often create divisions in families and society as a whole, we wish to share our thoughts on how Christians and Hindus can foster human relationships for the good of all humanity through friendship and solidarity.

3. Relationships are fundamental to human existence. Security and peace in the local, national and international communities are largely determined by the quality of our human interaction. Experience teaches us that, the deeper our human relationships, the more we are able to advance towards cooperation, peace-building, genuine solidarity and harmony. In short, the ability to foster respectful relationships is the measure of authentic human progress and essential for promoting peace and integral development.

4. Such relationships ought to flow naturally from our shared humanity. Indeed, human relationships are at the heart of human existence and its progress and naturally give rise to a sense of solidarity with others. Regardless of our ethnic, cultural, religious and ideological differences, all of us belong to the one human family.

5. Sadly, with the increase of materialism in society and a growing disregard for deeper spiritual and religious values, there now exists a dangerous trend to accord the same value to material things as to human relationships, thereby reducing the human person from a ‘someone’ to a ‘something’ that can be cast aside at will. Furthermore, individualistic tendencies engender a false sense of security and favour what His Holiness Pope Francis has described as ‘a culture of exclusion’, ‘a throwaway culture’ and ‘a globalization of indifference’.

6. The promotion of a ‘culture of relationship’ and ‘a culture of solidarity’ is thus imperative for all peoples, and calls for the fostering of relationships based on friendship and mutual respect for the benefit of the entire human family. This requires a common recognition and promotion of the intrinsic dignity of the human person. It is evident then that friendship and solidarity are closely related. In the end, a “culture of solidarity means seeing others not as rivals or statistics,but brothers and sisters” (Pope Francis, Visit to the Community of Varginha (Manguinhos), Rio de Janeiro, 25 July 2013).

7. Finally, we wish to state our conviction that a culture of solidarity can only be achieved as “the fruit of a concerted effort on the part of all, in service of the common good” (Pope Francis, Meeting with Brazil’s Leaders of Society, Rio de Janeiro, 27 July 2013) Sustained by the teachings of our respective religions and aware of the importance of building genuine relationships, may we, Hindus and Christians, work individually and collectively, with all religious traditions and people of good will, to foster and strengthen the human family through friendship and solidarity (TB: Oh really?  Pius XI disagrees: "When once men recognize, both in private and in public life, that Christ is King, society will at last receive the great blessings of real liberty, well-ordered discipline, peace and harmony [Quas Primas]."). We wish you a happy celebration of Deepavali!

Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran

President Pontifical Council for Inter-religious Dialogue

Father Miguel Ángel Ayuso Guixot, MCCJ

Secretary 

Vatican News

(End)

What can be said? This letter drips with masonic sentimentality, appealing to the bond of human fraternity to help foster relationships between cultures, nations and religions, completely irrespective of any objective truth -- not to mention the complete and utter disregard for the urgency of conversion on the part of the pagans.
 

Of course, it is the height of scandal for anyone who purports to represent the Catholic Church and to be sent by Her to wish a pagan people well during their celebration of a pagan feast, devoted to superstitious customs directed towards false gods which are in fact demons:  "But the things that the heathen do immolate, to devils they do immolate, and not to God.  And I will not have you become fellows of devils" (I Cor. X: 20).

Conciliar Church: Arian Pope?

Feast of Ss. Simon and Jude, Apostles

Earlier today, the pope of the Conciliar Church was quoted by Vatican Radio as stating that Christ prays and intercede for us; the man was quoted directly as saying (in translation) "It is to [Christ] we must entrust our problems, our life and many other things so that He may take them to the Father" (see full article here).

Taken together with Francis' previous sentiment that "[ . . . ] I believe in God. Not in a catholic God; a catholic God does not exist; God exists. And I believe in Jesus Christ, his incarnation. Jesus is my master/teacher and pastor, but God, the Father, Abba, is the light and the Creator" (see original Italian text and the quoted English translation here).

Trads must consider:  is the pope of the Conciliar Church an Arian?

For those who require a refresher on this heresy from the time of the early Church, the Catholic Encyclopedia defines Arianism as follows:

"Such is the genuine doctrine of Arius.  Using Greek terms, it denies that the Son is of one essence, nature, or substance with God; He is not consubstantial (homoousios) with the Father, and therefore not like Him, or equal in dignity, or co-eternal, or within the real sphere of Deity.  The Logos which St. John exalts is an attribute, Reason, belonging to the Divine nature, not a person distinct from another, and therefore is a Son merely in figure of speech.  These consequences follow upon the principle which Arius maintains in his letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia, that the Son 'is no part of the Ingenerate'" (see full article here).

To reflect on the past fifty years of Conciliar revolution, how far the fall for that counterfeit faith:  first the Sacred Liturgy and other sacraments are suppressed and replaced by protestantized services, and Catholic countries are instructed to strike out the name of Christ from their constitutions; then, false sects are invited to practice their blasphemous rituals in Catholic churches in Assissi in the mid-1980s; the nouvelle theologie and its rotten fruits are identified to be in harmony with Catholic Tradition by way of Ratzingerian hermeneutics; finally, the duped flocks of the Conciliar Church are told by their pope that the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity is distinct from God as creator, and that the Son intercedes for them by praying to God the Father.  How can anyone look at these past fifty years in anything besides angry, revolted amazement?

A Happy and Blessed St. Crispin's Day!

St. Isidore the Farmer, Ss. Chrysanthus & Daria

 

 Ss. Crispin and Crispinian are Catholic martyrs who died October 25th, A.D. 285/286. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, they are believed to have been brothers of “distinguished Roman descent” who went to Gaul as missionaries, where they were eventually martyred during the reign of Diocletian. Initially, Maximianus the Co-Emperor sought to tempt them away from the faith, to which they replied:

Thy threats do not terrify us, for Christ is our life, and death is our gain. Thy rank and possessions are nought to us, for we have long before this sacrificed the like for the sake of Christ and rejoice in what we have done. If thou shouldst acknowledge and love Christ thou wouldst give not only all the treasures of this life, but even the glory of thy crown itself in order through the exercise of compassion to win eternal life.

They were tortured by the rack, having their skin cut off, and awls driven under their nails. Then, a millstone was wrapped around their necks and they were thrown into the river Aisne. They swam to the other side. Afterwards, they were burnt... but they didn't burn. Finally, under the order of Maximianus, they were beheaded. They are the patron saints of shoemakers, tanners and saddlers.

According to Wikipedia, these holy saints were removed from the Calendar after Vatican II. However, according to my own research, this does not appear to be the case. According to the Divinum Officium site, no breviary commemorates the Feast of Ss. Crispin and Crispinian except at the martyrology during Prima (click to view this same commemoration) of October 24th. They are, however, commemorated according to the Sarum Use. A liturgical calendar from the Institute for Studies of Illuminated Manuscripts provides us this A.D. 1503-1505 Sarum Liturgical calendar; a bit of scrolling is required to reach October 25th.

Now we provide users with a Sarum Use breviary, which commemorates the saints on October 25th at Vespers. Readers can view for themselves the hymn for their feast, though we will provide the Magnificat antiphon and the collect:

In Heaven rejoice the souls of the saints, who followed the footsteps of Christ: and because for His love they shed their blood, therefore with Christ they shall reign forever.

Almighty, everlasting God, grant us worthily to venerate thy holy Martyrs, Crispin and Crispinian, that so we may be delivered from the dangers of this world, and may be worthy of eternal joys. Per Dominum Nostrum &c.

Saint Crispin's day, however, was immortalized not by the holy death of these brother-saints, but by the work of William Shakespeare's Henry V. In Shakespeare's account, Henry inspires his soldiers by appealing to the brothers Crispin, an identifiable pair of saints to an army of English peasants facing the might of the French army at Agincourt, A.D. 1415.

For brevity's sake, the famous St Crispin's Day speech will not be transcribed here, but hyperlinked. After reading it, we suggest a viewing of the quintessential Crispin's Day Speech from Henry V (1989) directed and starring Kenneth Brannagh (that's right, not Olivier). While the “actual” Crispin's Day speech ends around the 3:50 mark, we encourage readers to continue through the video, to watch King Henry's retort to Montjoy, who comes seeking surrender from the English army.

A tired and sickly army of Englishmen significantly outnumbered by the French Army (the ratio is usually considered 5:1) prevailed against their mighty foe, and upon victory, sung Non Nobis.  Traditional Catholics should easily find an affinity not only with the heroic martyrdom of Ss. Crispin and Crispinian, but also with the wonderful allegory that can be found in Shakespeare's story of King Henry's victory against insurmountable odds.  As resisting Catholics, we are few in number and "our gayness and our gilt" are oft' besmirched.  But by the mass, our hearts are in the trim!  

Without further ceremony (what art thou, O idle ceremony?) I wish all resisting Catholics holding to the traditions of our holy martyrs a most blessed and glorious St. Crispin's day, and an especially warm greeting to those Catholics of Celtic descent.  Ss. Crispin and Crispinian, pray for us!