Beth was sad at school, sitting on the bench at break, mourning the loss of her friend, Isabella, and looking longingly at classmates chatting with their friends and walking with each other. It was a warm, sunny day, with a few clouds whisping by. Then a smiling girl walked towards her, saying apparently to the air, “Hello everybody, my name is Josephine, Jo, for short.” Then she paused six feet away from Beth, not looking towards her. “I am a very nice person”, she continued, “and I am going to stand here until someone talks to me, because, I have been in this school for three whole days, and not one has talked to me! Hello, hello, somebody, I am really fun to be around. Never fear, Jo is here!”
 
Beth felt her longing was heard, though she had a pang: was this girl a little dingy? Yet Beth was intrigued. How brave, she thought. And the school could be snobbish. She got up and moved cautiously towards the girl. “Hello”, Beth said softly. Jo continued to gaze round. Beth moved closer and said a little louder, “Hello”. Jo gazed up and down at her and then said, in slightly disapproving tone, “Finally, someone in this school talks to me!” Beth hesitated, a pang of doubt halting her. Then Jo flashed a brilliant smile towards Beth. Beth ventured, “My name is Beth”. Jo said, “So, what class do you have next?” “English”. “So do I!” So, Beth and Jo walked to the class they found they had together.
 
Jo and Beth became great companions. They did much together, riding their bicycles to the beach, swimming in the ocean and wading in the creek, fishing from the pier, taking a rubber raft on the creek, and visiting each other in each other’s homes. They had so much fun. They even had adventures that were exciting, if not quite proper. And she was Catholic! Imagine Beth’s excitement when her parents allowed her to attend Mass with her friend! What a disappointment, though! Everything was like another friend’s American Lutheran church! They sang hymns throughout, the “presider” faced the congregation to pray, people whispered loudly in church, no one hardly kneeled, and there was a piano banging out popular tunes! The “homily” was half jokes and the “altar servers” squirmed and looked bored. The “presider” seemed clownish with his plate sized host! “Be a humanist and love all religions” rasped the “presider”. Well, Beth’s parents seemed disappointed when Beth informed them that she would[EH1] not go back there. “Well, why would I”, thought Beth. “My Danish Lutheran church has more reverence than this new thing! I wish we went more!” Maybe Gruntvig was right! “First be human, then Christian!” The new Catholic group seemed slightly wild animal, to Beth!
 
One time, Jo & Beth went into a tunnel where the creek went for a long while, carrying flashlights, though they knew that their parents disapproved of anything dangerous. Another time they walked towards a train tunnel. Jo wanted to go through it, but Beth had been so cautioned by her model railroading oldest brother to never do that, so she refused. Jo frightened her by heading straight for the tunnel, saying harsh words of “prissy!” and “coward!” Beth quickly put her ear to the steel rail and heard a rumble and felt the vibration. “No, Jo, a train is coming! Put your ear to the track if you do not believe me!” Jo looked back disdainfully, then, seeing real fear on Beth’s face, reconsidered, and put her ear to the track. Suddenly, Jo thrust up and yelled, “Well what are you waiting for?” Both girls ran for the steep bank and clawed up, clutching grass and branches, just making the top of the bank, when a huge engine, black and loud like a tornado, whooshed underneath. The girls lay still for a while, until they stopped shaking. Then Jo started laughing. Beth started laughing, too, though a little uncomfortably. Then they walked home.
 
Jo had a wonderful voice. Beth was so proud of her friend, singing a solo in the school concert, which she and her parents attended one evening close to summertime. She had such an unusual, young, melodious yet minor key voice. Jo was invited to join the school’s elite, A Capella Choir. It was a very conservative school, so mostly classical compositions were sung.
 
A week or so later, Beth wondered why her friend seemed difficult to find during breaks. It was close to summer vacation, and she wanted to plan adventures with her friend and invite her to visit with her to meet her family. Finally, Beth saw Jo, on the other side of the quad, not where they usually sat. Beth went up to her and complimented her on her voice and performance. Jo looked very uncomfortable, and looked away. Beth was completely startled. “I have to go!” Jo snapped. Then she was all brilliant smiles when members of the elite A Capella Choir walked near. Jo started talking to them, and walked a ways with them. Beth watched. They left Jo behind. But Jo persisted in her pursuit of new friends, with Beth watching, over the next few days.
 

Finally, Jo came over to where Beth was sitting, and flippantly said, “Hi.” Beth said “Hi”. Maybe she had her friend back. Jo had a pomegranate she was peeling and eating. Then they left for class. Beth went to her art class and pulled out her drawing of fruit and a cow skull on a drape, which her teacher had arranged. She began to finish the skull and started to fill in the red lines of her beginning drawing of a pomegranate on the drape. She looked at the still life, to draw from the real pomegranate. She blinked, and then blinked again. She went up to her teacher and asked, “Did you take away the pomegranate for some reason? I thought it was a nice accent.” The teacher looked stern and said, “Someone stole it.” Beth did not say anything. But she felt sick to her stomach. It was clear, now, that her fun friend was a social climber, leaving friends for more “elite” ones. Beth was not like that. She tended to collect friends, not deserting them simply because she had moved on to better places. After all, people superior to her would still associate with her and tolerate her imperfections, and it helped Beth to improve, Beth reflected, thinking of Isabella. So why should she desert friends she had grown beyond? She wished their parents had not stopped their friendship. She wondered what Isabella thought. Still, Jo could have had gotten the pomegranate from her own home.
 
Beth found Jo on a bench at break and sat down beside her. “Jo, do you mind telling me where you got that pomegranate from? You usually buy your lunch.” Jo gave her a superior look and” smirked, “That stupid art teacher did not even see me take it!” “How did you manage that?” Beth played her along, suddenly realizing Jo thought that Beth would be a co-conspirator. “Just at the end of school yesterday, when everyone had left and he was not in the room. There was water running. He must have been in the back room with the sink, cleaning up. I was quick.” Beth just looked down, hiding her reaction. Then Jo got up, and walked away with Miss A Capella. Jo got up and went into the art room. She told her art teacher. The pomegranate was gone. No one could prove anything. And Jo was an expert at affecting an innocent look. But the teacher thanked Beth warmly.
 
Beth was glad she had her A-student study friend for a companion. She was sorry she had not associated with her more throughout the year, for she was an honest girl, who talked of one day becoming a Christian missionary. But summer was almost here.
 

* * *

 
Beth was sitting by the creek, noticing shadows of pollywog tails wiggling little gold and tan marble bodies hither and dither. It was pleasant sitting on the cool green grass, in the breeze, a healing balm to her wounded feelings.
 
Then she noticed a graceful figure in the distance, moving towards her, dress flowing in the breeze, her hands delicately gliding soft willow branches aside, then into the clear path. It was Isabella! “Hola, mi amiga. I have not seen you all year.” Beth gasped, astonished. Isabella smiled softly. “May I sit down?” Beth said nothing, simply moving aside for Isabella to sit on the grass she had pressed down. “I have been very busy. I know our parents have been angry with you, however, no one ever meant for it to be forever.” Beth’s eyes filled with tears. Isabella continued. “A lot has happened and I have had to help my family a lot. I am sorry I did not come sooner”. “Oh Isabella! I have been a fool!” blurted out Beth. I was so lonely without you and I thought I had found such a fun friend, and she was, but she turned out to just step on me to find ‘better’ friends and she is not even honest!”
 
“Well, let us pray for her right now” said Isabella. She drew out a lovely stone rosary of rose quartz, and began to pray softly. Beth listened and started to follow a little…”full of Grace, blessed art thou…” Isabella said a decade. Then she gently placed the rosary in its velvet purse and sat back with both hands on the grass, a little behind her. “What a lovely day! It is so nice to rest a little.”
Beth asked, after a silent communion, “You said you have been very busy.” “Come, I shall show you.” Isabella took Beth’s hand and they walked hand in hand, rather skipping, to Isabella’s home. Beth held back a little. Isabella giggled slightly, saying, “My parents are not home right now, but even if they were, they would welcome you.” Reassured, Beth walked into Isabella’s home and living room. What a surprise! Why, it looked nothing like the spacious, elegant, Mexican styled room of before! The tasteful Catholic figurines and pictures were still in place, but the room was crammed with what at first appeared to be knick-knacks, and the floor looked like a cross between a fabric store and a used book shop!
 
After Beth’s eyes adjusted to the shadowed light from the brightness of outside, she saw that the room was lined with near life-sized statues of Jesus and Mary, like her vision, and Saints! There must have been eight of them! The shelves had figurines of saints. The “fabric” were beautiful brocades with intricate embroidery in gold, silver, sapphire, ruby and emerald colors, which Isabella called vestments. The books were black leather covered Missals and hymnals, and some very elaborate books one would see on an Altar. There were beautiful paintings of saints, large and small, and a Last Supper tapestry. They were all traditional and all luminously beautiful.
 
Beth’s face asked the question. “We were thrown out of the Novus Ordo church which once allowed us to have our priest say the Tridentine Mass, which is according to the in perpetuity Council of Trent, which protected the Mass from change, though it allowed the various cultures of a dozen Eastern Catholic Rites, which few people know. (Beth was a little dizzy from this elaborate sentence! But she got the gist of it.) All of us, my parents and my brothers, sisters, cousins and friends, found all these in trash cans, thrift stores and tossed in the basement of the church. Some are a little damaged. A friend is restoring those we can save. They locked the church on us, so we could not get our Mass things. It is a miracle that we have found so many. Some are from other churches which have also excluded our Mass.
 
“What will you do?” inquired Beth. “We are praying for a priest to be sent to us and we are trying to find a hall to rent for Mass. Then we will carry some of our sacred things and set up for Mass. We are praying we can buy or build a chapel for Mass.” Beth hoped they would find a place and a real priest. She prayed they would! For she did not want that beautiful, sacred, solemn, holy experience to end! “How can you go on, though, if all the leaders are against you?” “Oh”, said Isabella, “we have a leader, an Archbishop Lefebvre, who has passed on, but he is a saint and his presence helps guide us. We have two Bishop’s, now, that are loyal to his memory, and saying the true Mass. We pray for others not so fortunate, and like one of the Bishop’s had said, try not to be prideful, for ‘God gives Grace to everyone in different measure and we never know who will come through to the end.’ So we never condemn them for that is up to God. We pray for them and are very clear about their inferiority to the true Catholic Faith. We are completely honest about it and I am sorry so many are offended by the truth. But some, by their fidelity to what they do have of Grace, will go to heaven, when some of us by our laziness or inattention, might not!” Beth noticed that Isabella never talked down to her, even if she had to strive to understand her more learned words.
 
“Well, enough of being so serious! Come and see my new puppy! She is a love!”
Moments later, Beth was overwhelmed with a delightful, wiggly warm and so soft puppy, snuggling in her lap as she sat on the grassy lawn in front of the house. It ran round her, and tumbled somersaults over her legs and sniffed her arms and seemed delighted with life. Soon both girls were giggling their troubles away.
 
 
Bernadette
 
 

Photo #1 Beth #2 Our Lady thrown away. #3 Our Lady restored. Photo #4 The slightly Wild Thing Novus Ordo Mass #5 Beth’s Danish Lutheran Church #6 The warm puppy.
 

Pastel-girl swimmer

 

Sculpture face original
 

OL at Maria's-post
 

OLA Ventura-inter

 

DLC-congregation nice

 

Pastel-collie

 

Miraculous Medal

15 July 2015

From Bernadette:
 
 

Our Lady

 
 

Miraculous Medal

 
 

 | Posted by | Categories: Uncategorized |

Prayer Request

15 July 2015

A parishioner writes:
 
 
Dear friends,
 
Please pray for a dear neighbor who suffered a fall and some serious permanent injuries. Her name is Dina.
 
May Our Lord and Our Lady reward you for your charity.
 
In Jesus, Mary and Joseph,
A Parishioner
 
 

 | Posted by | Categories: Uncategorized |

This article is from the November 1914 issue of the Franciscan Herald.

 | Posted by | Categories: T.O.S.F. |

Just a reminder to send in your tally as noted in an excerpt from a previous message:

 

….Fight, Children of the Light, you, the few who can see! (Our Lady of LaSalette)

 

And for those who have not yet joined us in this worldwide Resistance Rosary Crusade, it is never too late to start…go to www.resistancerosarycrusade.com …print off the tally sheet (at the Tally tab)…and begin…

 

Note: To find the total number of rosaries prayed in each country in this first month, go to www.resistancerosarycrusade.com . On the Home page, click on the flags flying high above the world map, and you can see the totals on the respective Tally Sheet displayed.

 

There will still be some additions, so keep checking….and keep praying….and don’t forget to send in your total # of rosaries on the 13th of next month! God Bless…

 

 

 | Posted by | Categories: Uncategorized |

Father speaks, among other things, of the censureship of the talks of Fr John O’Connor, quotes ABL of the necessity to build seminaries (comparison of the refusal to build seminaries to the refusal of married couples to have children) , and on the term “Resistance”, the 10 degrees of humility by the great Franciscan St Anthony of Padua, New Mass – we must reject absolutely, etc..

 

 

 

 

 | Posted by | Categories: Uncategorized |

Father counters the argument that SV is really sedi-privationnism and therefore valid.
 
 


 
 

 | Posted by | Categories: Uncategorized |

The supreme moral principle is “one ought to do good and avoid evil”.  A secondary principle that follows from this supreme moral principle is that “it is morally illicit to do evil so that good may come about”.  In other words, “a good end does not justify using evil means”.  To understand what constitutes a good versus evil act, we need to look at the three determinants of a moral act – object, end, and circumstances.  The object of the act is that to which the act is willfully directed.  The object constitutes the substance of the act, that is, the object gives the act its species.  In stealing $5 from a stranger to buy food to satisfy one’s hunger, for example, “stealing” is the object.  The end is the purpose for which the act is committed.  In this example, “to satisfy one’s hunger” is the end.  Circumstances are factors surrounding the object of the act.  In this example, “$5 from a stranger” are the circumstances.  All three determinants must be good in order for the moral act to be good.  On the other hand, if even one determinant is evil, then the moral act as a whole is evil.  Since the object of a moral act constitutes the substance of the act, it holds the primary place in assessing the goodness or evilness of the act.  This is so much the case that no matter how good the end or the circumstances, an evil object renders a moral act “intrinsically” evil.  Further note that the object is the “means” used to achieve the “end”.  And as mentioned above, one cannot use evil means to justify a good end.

 

The three determinants of a moral act do not take into account the knowledge or awareness on the part of the subject of the goodness or badness of the act.  The three determinants deal with the goodness or badness of the act itself and not the guilt of the subject before God.  In regards to the guilt of the subject before God, the three determinants only constitute the “matter” for sin.  It is the subject’s knowledge and awareness of the evilness of the object, end, and/or circumstances that constitute the “form” for sin.  Therefore, an act that is “materially” sinful is not necessarily “formally” sinful.  In other words, one may perform an act that is evil in its object, end, and circumstances and yet not be guilty of sin before God because he was inculpably ignorant of the evil.  This is very important to understand when correcting those who are performing evil acts; judge the act, but leave the judgement of the soul to God.

 

So what does this have to do with the question of whether one may assist at the Novus Ordo Missae?  Well, if one accepts that the Novus Ordo Missae is “intrinsically” evil, then there can be no end or circumstance, however good, that can morally justify oneself assisting, or giving another the counsel that it is morally licit to assist, at a Mass celebrated using the Novus Ordo Rite.  I want to make clear, however, that it is not the intention of this article to show that the Novus Ordo Missae is “intrinsically” evil.  There are many good books, such as “The Ottaviani Intervention” and “The Problem of the Liturgical Reform”, that show this is the case.  Rather, it is the intention of this article to show:

 

1) that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre did teach that the Novus Ordo Missae, as officially promulgated (read “published” for those who believe it was not truly promulgated) by Pope Paul VI, is “intrinsically” evil,

 

2) what the attitude of a priest who accepts that the Novus Ordo Missae is “intrinsically” evil should be when giving counsel to a person who asks him about the moral liceity of assisting at it.

 

Another thing that must be made clear from the outset is that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre did not teach that the Novus Ordo Missae is “intrinsically” evil because it is necessarily invalid or because it contains explicit heresy.  Rather, the Novus Ordo Missae is “intrinsically” evil because of its omissions in unequivocally expressing the Catholic Church’s teaching in regards to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.  The very definition of evil is “the privation of a due good”.

 

Before we begin with quoting Archbishop Lefebvre and the official position of his Society of St. Pius X in regards to the “intrinsic” evilness of the Novus Ordo Missae, let us first read several quotes of others that point to the “intrinsic” evilness of the Novus Ordo Missae, regardless of whether those quoted understood the gravity of what they were saying.

 

“We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren, that is for the Protestants.”
(Archbishop Bugnini, quoted in “Osservatore Romano”, March 19, 1965)

 

“They (the Protestant ministers) were not simply there as observers, but as consultants as well, and they participate fully in the discussions on Catholic liturgical renewal. It wouldn’t mean much if they just listened, but they contributed.”
(Monsignor Baum, quoted in “The Detroit News”, June 27, 1967)

 

“With the new Liturgy, non-Catholic communities will be able to celebrate the Lord’s Supper with the same prayers as the Catholic Church. Theologically this is possible.”
(Max Thurian, Protestant Minister of Taize, quoted in “La Croix”, May 30, 1969)

 

“….. the Novus Ordo Missae ….. represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session 22 of the Council of Trent. The “canons” of the rite definitely fixed at that time erected an insurmountable barrier against any heresy which might attack the integrity of the Mystery.”
(Letter of Cardinals Alfredo Ottaviani and Antonio Bacci to Pope Paul VI included in “The Short Critical Study of the New Order of Mass” – September 25, 1969)

 

“Today’s liturgical study has brought our respective liturgies to a remarkable similarity, so that there is very little difference in the sacrificial phrasing of the prayer of oblation in the Series Three and that of Eucharistic Prayer II in the Missa Normativa (Novus Ordo Missae).”
(Dr. Ronald Jasper, Anglican Observer on the Consilium, quoted in the London “Catholic Herald”, December 22, 1972)

 

“The liturgical reform is a major conquest of the Catholic Church and has its ecumenical dimensions since the other churches and Christian denominations see in it not only something to be admired, but equally a sign of further progress to come.”
(Archbishop Bugnini, quoted in “Notitiae”, No. 92, April 1974, p. 126)

 

“To tell the truth, it is a different liturgy of the Mass. This needs to be said without ambiguity. The Roman Rite as we knew it no longer exists. It has been destroyed.”
(Father Joseph Gelineau, “Demain la Liturgie”, Paris, 1976, p. 9-10)

 

“There was with Pope Paul VI an ecumenical intention to remove, or at least to correct, or at least to relax, what was too Catholic, in the traditional sense, in the Mass and, I repeat, to get the Catholic Mass closer to the Calvinist service.”
(Jean Guitton, close friend of Pope Paul VI, quoted in “Apropos” (17), December 19, 1993, p. 8ff)

 

Let us now read quotes from Archbishop Lefebvre and the official position of his Society of St. Pius X.

 

“This Mass is not bad in a merely accidental or extrinsic way.  There is something in it that is truly bad.  It was based on a model of the Mass according to Cranmer and Taize (1959).  As I said in Rome to those who interviewed me:  ‘It is a poisoned Mass!'”
(Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in 1981, quoted in “The Biography of Marcel Lefebvre”, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, 2004, Angelus Press, p. 465)

 

“Your perplexity takes perhaps the following form: may I assist at a sacrilegious Mass (i.e., one that does not follow the liturgical rules – my note) which is nevertheless valid, in the absence of any other, in order to satisfy my Sunday obligation? The answer is simple: these Masses cannot be the object of an obligation; we must moreover apply to them the rules of moral theology and canon law as regards the participation or the attendance at an action which endangers the faith or may be sacrilegious.

 

“The New Mass, even when said with piety and respect for the liturgical rules, is subject to the same reservations since it is impregnated with the spirit of Protestantism. It bears within it a poison harmful to the faith.”
(Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, “Open Letter to Confused Catholics”, 1986, Angelus Press, p. 29)

 

“Q: But does not Michael Davies say that attending the Novus Ordo Mass fulfills one’s Sunday duty? And that Archbishop Lefebvre said the same thing?

 

“A: When Michael Davies says it, it is because he claims that the officially promulgated Novus Ordo Mass cannot be intrinsically evil, otherwise the Catholic Church would be defectible. When Archbishop Lefebvre said it, he meant that the Novus Ordo Mass is objectively and intrinsically evil, but Catholics unaware of, or disbelieving in, that evil, because of the rite’s official promulgation, may subjectively fulfill their Sunday duty by attending the new Mass. The third Commandment says, thou shalt keep the Sabbath holy, not, thou shalt attend a semi-Protestant Mass.”
(Bishop Richard Williamson, Letters of the Rector of St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary, December 1, 1996)

 

“Since the expression of intrinsically evil is an extremely strong one, I think it is better to reserve it to the greater evil of the positive expression of heresy, and to keep the expression ‘evil in itself’ to the lesser evil of the omission of the profession of Faith. But one must acknowledge that this omission is in the New Mass in itself, in the Latin original version.”
(Fr. Francois Laisney, from an article entitled “Is the Novus Ordo Missae Evil?”, “The Angelus”, March 1997 Issue)

 

“The dissimulation of Catholic elements and the pandering to Protestants which are evident in the Novus Ordo Missae render it a danger to our faith, and, as such, evil, given that it lacks the good which the sacred rite of Mass ought to have……

 

“If the Novus Ordo Missae is not truly Catholic, then it cannot oblige for one’s Sunday obligation. Many Catholics who do assist at it are unaware of its all pervasive degree of serious innovation and are exempt from guilt. However, any Catholic who is aware of its harm, does not have the right to participate. He could only then assist at it by a mere physical presence without positively taking part in it, and then and for major family reasons (weddings, funerals, etc).”
(“Most Frequenty Asked Questions of the Society of St. Pius X”, Fathers of the Holy Cross Seminary, 1997, Question #5 regarding the Novus Ordo Missae)

 

“The doctrine of the Paschal mystery, with its serious doctrinal deficiencies, is, then, at origin of the liturgical reform. Certainly, the reformed missal does not deny Catholic dogma outright, but its authors have so oriented the gestures and the words, they have made such significant omissions and introduced numerous ambiguous expressions, and all in order to make the rite conform to the theology of the Paschal mystery and to give expression to it. Consequently, the new missal no longer propagates the ‘lex credendi’ of the Church, but rather a doctrine that smacks of heterodoxy. That is why one cannot say that the reformed rite of Mass of 1969 is ‘orthodox’ in the etymological sense of the word: it does not offer ‘right praise’ to God. Equally, one cannot say that the rite of Mass resulting from the reform of 1969 is that of the Church, even if it was conceived by churchmen. And lastly, one cannot say that the new missal is for the faithful ‘the first and indispensable source of the true Christian spirit,’ where the Church ‘communicates in abundance the treasures of the depositum fidei, of the truth of Christ.’ In light of these serious deficiencies, ‘the only attitude of fidelity to the Church and to Catholic doctrine appropriate for our salvation is a categorical refusal to accept this reformation.’”
(“The Problem of the Liturgical Reform”, The Society of St. Pius X, 2001, Angelus Press, para. 122)

 

“Well, the Society is definitely against the New Mass. We even say that it is ‘intrinsically evil’. That’s a delicate label that needs a little explanation. By this we mean that the New Mass in itself – the New Mass as the New Mass, as it is written – is evil, because as such you find in it the definition of evil. The definition of evil is ‘the privation of a due good’. Something that should be in the New Mass is not there and that’s evil. What is really Catholic has been taken out of the New Mass. The Catholic specification of the Mass has been taken away. That’s enough to say that it is evil. And look at the terrible fruits.”
(Bishop Bernard Fellay, conference given in Kansas City, Missouri on March 5, 2002)

 

“However, regardless of the gravity of the sacrilege, the New Mass still remains a sacrilege, and it is still in itself sinful. Furthermore, it is never permitted to knowingly and willingly participate in an evil or sinful thing, even if it is only venially sinful. For the end does not justify the means. Consequently, although it is a good thing to want to assist at Mass and satisfy one’s Sunday obligation, it is never permitted to use a sinful means to do this. To assist at the New Mass, for a person who is aware of the objective sacrilege involved, is consequently at least a venial sin. It is opportunism. Consequently, it is not permissible for a traditional Catholic, who understands that the New Mass is insulting to Our Divine Savior, to assist at the New Mass, and this even if there is no danger of scandal to others or of the perversion of one’s own Faith (as in an older person, for example), and even if it is the only Mass available.”
(Fr. Peter Scott, from the “Questions & Answers” section, “The Angelus”, September 2002 Issue)

 

“Now, even if one wanted to contest the heretical elements of the New Mass, the sole refusal to profess Catholic dogmas quintessential to the Mass renders the new liturgy deficient. It is like a captain who refuses to provide his shipmen with a proper diet. They soon become sick with scurvy due, not so much to direct poison, as from vitamin deficiency. Such is the new Mass. At best, it provides a deficient spiritual diet to the faithful. The correct definition of evil – lack of a due good – clearly shows that the New Mass is evil in and of itself regardless of the circumstances. It is not evil by positive profession of heresy. It is evil by lacking what Catholic dogma should profess: the True Sacrifice, the Real Presence, the ministerial priesthood.”
(Taken from article entitled “Is the New Mass Legit” published on www.sspx.org on May 25, 2011, author unknown)

 

I think these quotes are more than sufficient to demonstrate the position of Archbishop Lefebvre and his Society of St. Pius X in regards to the “intrinsic” evilness of the Novus Ordo Missae.

 

Now given that a priest, Fr. Smith, accepts this position of Archbishop Lefebvre and his Society of St. Pius X, imagine the following scenario:

 

Betty tells Fr. Smith that the priest who celebrates the Novus Ordo Missae at the parish she assists at on Sundays in order to fulfill her Sunday obligation rejects the heresies of Vatican II and even preaches against them, without directly offending the local bishop, in his sermons. He celebrates the Mass in Latin with the outmost respect, piety, and devotion, and according to the official rubrics. Furthermore, he celebrates the Mass on an altar with the tabernacle in the middle and he refuses to give Communion in the hand. Because of these good circumstances, Betty believes that her faith is not in danger and that her attendance is not a scandal to anybody else. She does wish that she could assist at a Traditional Mass, but the closest one is a 3 hrs. drive. She is willing to drive to the Traditional Mass at least once every three months, but between Traditional Masses she believes that she will lose her faith if she goes without Mass and Holy Communion every week.

 

Response #1 of Fr. Smith:

 

Dear Betty, you seem to be a very sincere person and of good will. I see that you love God and want to worship Him at His Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. You surely have the right intention. The circumstances under which you assist at Mass also seem decent. I can understand your dilemma given the current worldwide crisis in the lack of Traditional Masses. Therefore, so long as your good intentions and the decent circumstances continue to exist, and so long as you continue to sincerely believe that you cannot go without Mass, do whatever you need to keep the Faith. If that means you need to assist at the Novus Ordo Missae, then go ahead. God bless you.”

 

Response #2 of Fr. Smith:

 

Dear Betty, you seem to be a very sincere person and of good will. I see that you love God and want to worship Him at His Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. You surely have the right intention. The circumstances under which you assist at Mass also seem decent. I can understand your dilemma given the current worldwide crisis in the lack of Traditional Masses. However, the Novus Ordo Missae is intrinsically evil. Here are the reasons…….Therefore, I cannot in good conscience tell you that it is morally licit for you to assist at the Novus Ordo Missae. I suggest that you try to make it to the Traditional Mass once a month instead of every three months. For the other Sundays, in order to sanctify the day, I suggest praying 15 decades of the Holy Rosary, read the Ordinary and Proper of the Traditional Mass missal for that day, do some spiritual reading, and spend some time in mental prayer. God bless you.”

 

Response #1 of Fr. Smith is not consistent with his belief regarding the “intrinsic” evilness of the Novus Ordo Missae, whereas Response #2 is consistent with his belief. In Response #1, Fr. Smith is pandering to the subjective state of mind of Betty. He is giving her a response based on her perception and not what he believes to be objectively true.  This is subjectivism.  Without informing her of the truth, he is not helping her to properly form her mind. Rather, he keeps her in the state of error. Hence, it is evil counsel. In Response #2, however, Fr. Smith sympathizes with her situation, but firmly gives her the truth so that she can properly form her mind and consequently make the morally good decision. Hence, his counsel here is good.  Now Betty, armed with the truth, may or may not heed Fr. Smith’s counsel.  Nevertheless, the decision she makes will be between her conscience and God. Fr. Smith, on his part, has done his duty.

 | Posted by | Categories: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre |

The Novus Ordo Church is the Catholic Church, which is the True Church?  The problem with that proposition is that a Novus Ordo is per se contrary to the dogma of faith, which requires adherence to the traditional rites (Constance Sess. 39), the preservation of the traditional “order of the liturgy received and approved by the Church” (Auctorem Fidei [33]; Pius IV, Professio Fidei Tridentina; Trent Sess. VII can. xiii de sacramentis in genere, etc.) Thus, being contrary to the Catholic faith in its liturgy, the Novus Ordo quite simply, is not Catholic.  Furthermore, since the Novus Ordo violates the bond of communion of worship, it is materially schismatic, in accordance with the teaching of Innocent III, Juan de Torquemada, and Francisco Suarez.

 

This is patent in view of the fact that a “New Order of Mass” violates the most solemn infallible pronouncements and thus breaks the second bond of communion; and therefore, Innocent III teaches that a pope who changes the rites is not to be obeyed, and Torquemada & Suarez explain that such a pope who changes the rites falls into schism. This has been the constant and unchallenged teaching of the Church down through the ages, summed up by Pius XI in Quas Primas, where it is stated that it is the duty of the Roman Pontiffs to “safeguard the liturgy and preserve it from adulteration”.

 

The doctrine that binds the Church to adhere to the traditional rites was already in place during the patristic age, and is rooted in apostolic teaching: “23 ego enim accepi a Domino quod et tradidi vobis quoniam Dominus Iesus in qua nocte tradebatur accepit panem 24 et gratias agens fregit et dixit hoc est corpus meum pro vobis hoc facite in meam commemorationem 25 similiter et calicem postquam cenavit dicens hic calix novum testamentum est in meo sanguine hoc facite quotienscumque bibetis in meam commemorationem” – 1 Cor. 11: 23-25

 

Source:  http://tradcatknight.blogspot.ca/2015/07/fr-kramer-conciliar-church-is-not.html

 | Posted by | Categories: Uncategorized |

On July 7, 2015 the Dominicans of Avrille published a position statement in regards to the SSPX.  After reading it, I must say that I was disappointed.  This position statement demonstrates the wishy-washiness of the yellow light position.  I would expect by now, after the tsunami of evidence gathered over the last three years of the new direction of the SSPX under Bishop Fellay, that the Dominicans would come to hold the more logical and conclusive position, that is, the red light position.  Below are my comments in red font in response to parts of the Dominicans’ position statement, which is in blue font.

 

The position of the Friary has not changed since the foundation of our community, that is,we continue the combat for the Faith summarized perfectly by the Doctrinal Declaration of Archbishop Lefebvre of November 21, 1974.

 

Excellent!

 

“The contacts that the Society continues occasionally with Roman authorities have for their only end to help these authorities to reappropriate the Tradition that the Church cannot repudiate without losing her identity, and not the search for an advantage for ourselves, or to come to an impossible and purely practical agreement. The day when Tradition will once again regain all its rights, “the problem of our reconciliation will have no further reason to exist and the Church will experience a new youth”. (1)

 

Excellent!

 

We support therefore all the priests still in the SSPX who, not without difficulty, continue the good fight in this spirit. By the grace of God, there are a good number of them, especially in the French District of the Society. The Appeal to the faithful of January 2014 was not a declaration of rupture with the SSPX, but a “public testimony of our firm and faithful attachment to the principles that always guided Archbishop Lefebvre in the combat for the Faith”.

 

What?  First of all, Bishop Fellay, Superior General of the SSPX, no longer holds to the doctrinal and practical positions you’ve just outlined above, so how can you still declare that your friary is not in rupture with the SSPX?  Secondly, the priests who remain publicly silent allow Bishop Fellay to publicly represent their position.  How then can they be said to “continue the good fight in this spirit”?  The internal resistance is dead.  They will not change Bishop Fellay’s direction.  The time for internal resistance is long gone.

 

If there are priests outside of the Society who, clearly and without ambiguity, continue the combat of Archbishop Lefebvre, there is no reason not to support them. To support them does not mean “taking sides” for one Society against another. We have no intention to do anything “against” the Society, and do not wish its collapse : nobody wants that.

 

Priests such as Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer and Fr. David Hewko continue the combat of Archbishop Lefebvre, including the doctrinal and practical positions you’ve outlined above, whereas the SSPX under Bishop Fellay no longer does.  How then can you not “take sides”?  The SSPX has not only collapsed.  It is dead!

 

A suggestion for those who want to remain faithful to the combat of Archbishop Lefebvre: to the word “resistance”, we prefer the expression “combat for the faith”, not only because one does not define oneself by something negative; but because this expression exists since the beginning of Tradition, and includes all those who faithfully continue the combat of Archbishop Lefebvre, no matter what organization they belong to.

 

“Combat for the Faith” is good, but Bishop Fellay now accepts Vatican II in the light of Tradition, so he is no longer combating for the Faith.  And the overwhelming majority of the SSPX priests are going along either by their explicit approval or public silence.  Therefore, the Dominicans should declare a “rupture” with the SSPX and adopt the red light position.

 

1.  Abp. Lefebvre, Letter to Pope Jean Paul II, 2 June 1988.

 | Posted by | Categories: Uncategorized | Tagged: , |