Edit: why should the Society be pressured into reconciling with the deal makers in the Vatican by a newspaper editorial from a very small Midwestern religious fortnightly? He seems to contradict himself, too, in his second paragraph.
[SSPX] If the Society of St. Pius X is not regularized soon their priests are going to be formally in schism, disrupting the unity of Christ's Church, and leading countless souls into that kind of confusion that is borne out of a lack of full communion with the Vatican.
And if they remain in that state of schism how can they ever be said to be fully Catholic like...well....like these guys obviously are:
If something doesn't happen soon we fear that we'll never get to see any of these young men dancing in any sanctuary anywhere in the world:
And then what!? Obviously and urgently, the SSPX MUST regularize NOW!
The article was tongue in cheek
ReplyDeleteHaha, it's so funny I forgot to laugh!
DeleteYou just might be a tad obtuse if it went over your head...I'm almost embarrassed for you.
DeleteMaybe it wasn't funny?
DeleteYou might not find sarcasm funny, but you should at least be able to recognize it.
DeletePart of my confusion stems from the fact that Mike himself stays away from Society chapels and has done so for years. I know sarcasm when I see it, but logical consistency sometimes gets in the way of an attempt at irony just as much as just being a tad humorless in the first place.
DeleteI've only followed The Remnant for about 2 years, but Mr. Matt has been a consistent advocate of the SSPX that whole time.... I hold a much more favorable view of the SSPX because of him. (Yes, I used to be a knuckle headed Neo-Cat).
DeleteI'm aware of that, but aware of much else besides. Why then, is it so important to cling to a diocesan apparatus as much as he does? It can't be the travelling distance, of course, for the two communities are close to each other, and Immaculate Heart of Mary is closer to his home, anyway.
DeleteThis isn't an entirely bad point, either, from a reader who like me, finds it hard to watch/read Remnant stuff:
"I can't watch anything from Remnant anymore. It's just constantly MM going "i don't know. I just don't know anymore, Chris. What do you think's happening?" And then Chris, lighting up like his wife just had her first baby (watch w/out the sound), gleefully relates the whole sordid scandal and then MM after egging him on for about 15 minutes, suddenly says, "But we're not sede-vacantists, we support the pope and are loyal sons of his, we don't even go to SSPX chapels, we are in full communion w/Francis and just criticizing him like he asked us to do as long as we continue to support N.O. hierarchy, sacraments, contraception, abortion, sodomy, divorce, sacrilege etc. etc. but I don't know what our friends the "neo catholics" are thinking, Chris, to criticize us for criticizing Francis (when he asked us to (and so did Benny & JP2 & P6(ha!)) while still walking along w/him. They need to keep walkin' along, but to criticize at whine and cheese pilgrimages and conferences the way we do."
May be I am missing something, but I find your reader's reply muddled and nonsensical. Francis is the pope, just an incredibly bad one. The hierarchy is by and large wretched as well, but it's what we've got. To acknowledge these points does not equate to condoning the Pope's or hierarchy's impropriety.
DeleteIf you look past what is probably the result of 12 years of parochial schooling, rabid anti-establishmentism and chronic alcohol poisoning, you'll see it. The Remnant is inconsistent.
DeleteWhat Catholic paper would hire an Alynskite, DNC hack like John Medaille?
I don't know Medaille from a hole in the ground, so your going to have a little less cryptic ("rabid anti-establishmentism and chronic alcohol poisoning??). Right now your main gripe seems to be he doesn't attend an SSPX parish.
DeleteIf you don't know him, perhaps you don't know Remnant?
DeleteCryptic? More like sarcasm. Sorry you didn't get that, I'll try less hard. I was referring to the author of the "confusing" comment. Our dear reader, remember?
MM doesn't just merely not attend it, he avoids it. I've never once seen him at one for the better part of 15 years. I guess it's important to be in "good standing," to borrow his expression, with those priestly liturgical dancers.
Anyway, like David, the traditional priest *does* "compass" the altar:
Et introibo ad altare Dei: ad Deum qui laetificat juventutem meam.
Or
...lavabo inter innocentes manus meas et circumdabo altare tuum Domine.
OK, it wasn't clear (to me) to whom you were referring, especially since I don't know the reader in question.
DeleteHe's one of the Sedevacantist posters. He's not entirely wrong.
DeleteThese characters are in practical schism now. They don't accept several major teachings of Vatican II and the ongoing authority of the Church to develop those teachings according to the wishes of the 2800 bishops who were the Council Fathers.
ReplyDeleteAnd if the poster is content with lampooning the liturgical drapery and dance habits of some, she might take a close look at the SSPX and like clergy poncing around in lace skirts, floral brocade ponchos and carrying flaming handbag accessories.
But Francis has given them ability to hear confessions for the year of mercy! Obviously, The Remnant, expressing the VOV, is signaling that Francis wants a return gesture before he flies into a mad nero egotistical rage and rescinds his "mercy"....
Deletehttp://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/pope-francis-validates-sspx-confessions-for-year-of-mercy/
It's one of Francis' ways of trying to keep them under the same tent despite their dissent from key teachings of an ecumenical Council.
DeleteFrancis is being far more merciful towards the Lefebvre clergy than are many on the very conservative side towards the so-called 'modernists' and VC2 'heterodox.' Think about it.
yeah that's right Paul....ask the FFI 'bout that one. putz.
DeleteWhat is an FFI putz?
DeleteJoseph , catholics do not have to accept any of the 'teachings" of vc2, as it was a pastoral council, so it was non binding, and unlike the 20 previous ecumenical councils, it issued no dogma or anathema, which are binding.
DeleteGo to the sspx website for a series of videos that will aid in your catechism journey.
In addition to what was said above, "developments" based on a council aren't, obviously, binding. Especially when these "developments" are in clear contraction with the rest of the councils, the Bible or ex-cathedra encyclicals which happen to be binding.
DeleteIt's the usual leftist shell game to make a dogmatic council out of a pastoral one and a tradition out of a novelty.
DeleteOh good grief,I'm sedevacantist and even I understand why confused people choose the SSPX over the novus ordo.I will pray for you Joseph.Seriously,I'm not bashing you,for I was once where you are.
DeleteG-d bless you friend.
Joseph,
DeleteVatican Council II is no more an issue.We have found the factual error in the Council and it is linked to the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston.
The 1949 Letter assumed hypothetical cases were explicit i.e objectively visible.Then this error in reasoning has been placed all over Vatican Council II.
If we read Vatican Council II with hypothetical cases being just that - hypothetical, the Council changes. It is then not in contradiction but in accord with the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS), the Feeneyite version. So then there are no exceptions to the old ecclesiology. This is the ecclesiology which the SSPX can support. Since it means there is no change in the exclusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church and all non Catholics need to formally convert into the Church to avoid Hell.
So Vatican Council II is no more an issue after we have discovered the factual error in Vatican Council II.
SSPX has simply to announce that they accept Vatican Council II with Feeneyism instead of Cushingism, with no known exceptions to the dogma EENS instead of known exceptions, with no known salvation outside the Church instead of known salvation.
Similarly they need to announce that they reject Vatican Council II with Cushingism, with the irrational premise and inference used to interpret the Council. So they can ask the contemporary magisterium, to stop interpreting Vatican Council II with Cushingism, which is irrational, non traditional and heretical.
Cushingism cannot be the teaching of the Holy Spirit since the Holy Spirit cannot make an objective mistake, nor contradict the magisterium of the Church before the Council of Trent.
The Council interpreted with Feeneyism changes the discussion between the SSPX and the Vatican. It is the Vatican Curia which will now be on the defensive. The SSPX simply has to ask the CDF/Ecclesia Dei to affirm Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite version).
The St. Benedict Centers, traditionalists, can also ask the Vatican to do the same.
The SSPX and the SBC could begin the dialogue by affirming Vatican Council II in public interpreted without the false premise and inference, which makes the Council a break with Tradition.
It's a win-win situation now.
Joseph,
DeleteHere are two posts from my blog which will help in understanding what I have written above.
There are many posts on EucharistandMission which explain this error in Vatican Council II which is still not being discussed by tradtionalists or liberals.
For over two years the falsehood is clear at Dallas but not proclaimed at the local level : from school to university Catholics are taught the false premise
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/02/for-over-two-years-falsehood-is-clear.html
CDF Notification on Fr.Jacques Dupuis S.j repeats the error of the 1949 Holy Office Letter : the mistake was placed in Vatican Council in so many passages
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/02/cdf-notification-on-dupuis-repeats.html
-Lionel
Vatican Council II is no more an issue.We have found the factual error in the Council and it is linked to the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston: SSPX - Vatican talks
Deletehttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/02/vatican-council-ii-is-no-more-issuewe.html
Doesn't seem that way to me. Seems to me like pressure also: see the emphasis: "And then what!? Obviously and urgently, the SSPX MUST regularize NOW!"
ReplyDeleteIf SSPX regularizes now, the SSPX will be truly 'A Remnant' as 90% flee for the hills... of course, that's actually what VC2 wants, but who knew the Remnant was workin' for VC2? Not that they don't constantly tell you that at the end of every article and video...
We'll see if he grants the SSPX their right to criticize a certain highly problematic document.
DeleteWhat about a certain highly problematic person too, while they are about it ?
DeleteI know, funny, right? But he's been pretty colegial with his critics so far, at least publicly, while he lets the religious media machine continue to grind them to bits, making it hard for them to ply their lay apostolates as Catholic journalists.
DeletePope Bergoglio may have phoned the dying Palmaro, but to my knowledge, Palmaro was never restored to his position at Radio Maria.
It's a reflection on the very poorly catechised state of the faithful during the last 50 years of grey, that you Jo above consider the sspx, who, clergy and congregation, are more faithful and catholic than 99% of Catholics, consider to be in near schism, and yet nutjobs like the Kiko and Carmen clown show , aka the neo cathecuminajl way, whose mass can only be described as flamboyant blasphemy, are not considered by the vast majority of arm raising sign of peacing neocatholic sheeple to be schismatic or heretical.
ReplyDeleteThat Mass clip at the top of the post, with priests and nuns dancing somewhere in Italy is a joke. But we only have John Paul II to blame for this garbage....not Francis this time.
ReplyDeleteBefore John Paul II, this nonsense never went on at Mass....not that I know of. I'm not old enough to know what went on in the Church immediatly before John Paul II, but I've never seen such lunacy or such a circus documented under Paul VI...ever.
John Paul II encouraged this crap with his "World Youth Day" mass gatherings....believing that;s what young Catholics want. And it spread around the world.
There's even a new "Order" of sisters in the USA founded recently which has on their website a photo of the community dancing and jumping, arms waving wildly in the air. Do you think any young traditional girl with a vocation would think about joining a group like that? Then there's another new group of nuns in Pennsylvania, who though they wear a beautiful, traditional habit, still bring out the guitars for liturgical services (not Mass, but rather at Eucharistic adoration, etc.). THeir Mass is rather traditional, but their extra-curricular liturgical events are a circus...like World Youth Day.
I think if I were Greek Orthodox, and visited this Catholic Church in Italy, and saw those Franciscan friars and priests dancing like that, I would think that A), they were crazy, and B) that the Catholic Church is a farce. It looks ridiculous, not to mention a complete act of disrespect before the Blessed Sacrament. But then again, I am sure they don't really believe in that either.
God Bless the SSPX, and all their priests and seminarians in their fine vestments and lace surplices and beautiful Masses. Do not join the Vatican II Church. Keep the Faith and do not surrender.
Damian Malliapalli
Sure, these kinds of things were all the rage in the 60s.
DeleteMy parents told me about a all girl rock band composed of Nuns called "The God Squad" in late 60's.They were wearing skirts above the knee on their LP cover that were sold on tables outside church after "Mass".
DeleteSupping with the Devil and Long Spoons app[ears appropriate here. Not to mention FFI! The German/European Episcopacy in virtual/de facto schism. Diocese in England are decimating parishes and opting for "lay participation" to survive. Franciscus and his cohorts - trustworthy? Anti-SSPX promotion is ill-founded.
ReplyDeleteWhat an extraordinary display of vulgarity in a sacred place! Who WERE these people? Actors and
ReplyDeleteactresses dressed up as monks and nuns? Someone, please illuminate my mind as to where and what and why such a thing could have taken place?
Eirene, the clip does not show the congregation- it was probably one of these 'youth' Masses. I do hope their antics were before or after and certainly not during the Holy Mass.
ReplyDeleteSomeone who mocks millenial Catholic liturgical practices and the sacred artifact used in God's worship is clearly a total alien to the Church of Christ. The mockery smacks of the hatred the Devil and Its minions have for beauty, reverence, majesty and devotion. To caricature it as effeminacy the way "Joseph" does above is sacriligeous, slanderous, and more telling about this hater of Catholicism than it tells us about those he criticizes. The enemies of the Faith know well the role beauty and reverence play in the spreading of Christ's Gospel and the fitting worship owed Almighty God---and they hate it and mock in the name of a ridiculous, false "primitivism" they claim is evangelical but is in fact a reflection of the state of their own souls. Erasmus
ReplyDeleteGlad to realize that it was a joke (a bad one) by Matt, but a little more care should be taken not to confuse people further. I consider myself 'up' on things, but I really couldn't tell it was sarcasm. Levity has it's place in these terrible times, but let's not get too cute.
ReplyDeleteI come to this site daily for factual information on whats happening in the Church from the point of view of Traditional Catholicism. It disappoints me when such jokes are made. I first believed this, were it not for the comments I would not have known it was a bad joke. I must now be careful on what I read on eponymousFlower.blog. I have a good sense of humor and I don't like these type of stupid jokes. Defend such jokes all you want but I still don't like them.
ReplyDeleteI do make satirical pages from time to time, but this wasn't one of them. At the best, it's a worthwhile exercise in deflating the cognitive dissonance which reigns here and there.
DeleteI agree, I think, with the basic premise at the Remnant, that it's ridiculous for the SSPX to hurry to reconcile with Rome lest Rome cast them into schism again, given the obviously schismatic and frankly heretical behavior going unpunished throughout the Church.
Be vigilant none the less, we're not perfect.
MM & Remnant is one of the biggest backers of SSPX regularization. They can't have it both ways--though that's the way they prefer to have most things.
DeleteOf course they'd love the sspx to be domesticated, and continue to divest itself of some of its justifiable antagonism to false religions like Judaism, for example.
DeleteI agree with you. I enjoy humor and love to laugh, but most satire or parody is not funny to me and throws me off sometimes because our times are insane and who can tell what is parody and what is not. Why now of all times, parody and satire? Why is there so much of it? It's a bit maddening.
DeleteRemnant is always publishing things that taken either way--sort of like transgenderism and VC2.
ReplyDeleteWho is really to blame for every malady infecting the Church today? It was Pope Pius XI for not Consecrating Russia as requested by the Blessed Virgin Mary. Can you imagine a Pope who could be so bold? I can't.
ReplyDeleteI think for anyone to blame the terrible evil in the Church on the POpe, Pius XI (who was a great Pope by the way), for not consecrating Russia is respectfully.... a violation of valid judgement. What in the world does Russia have to do with all the disaster that has come into the Church especially since Vatican II....and even more so since the election of Pope Bergoglio?
ReplyDeleteI personally believe that the consecration of Russia must have already happened, and probably done by JPII, because the Soviet Union and Communism has fallen and is dead in Russia and all the countries that it once dominated in Europe. The Russian Orthodox Church is operating freely again, and there is growing talk of Putin and others in Russian authority restoring the Romanov Dynasty and the Czars in Russia....to be somewhat more than just figureheads like the British monarchy.
I believe that the Blessed Virgin Mary was speaking directly about the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia which overthrew the Czar one month after the Virgin's appearance in Cova D'Ivrea (Fatima), Portugal. She was speaking of the danger of Russia as the Soviet threat...a threat which indeed was a grave menace to the world for 74 years...but is not collapsed and destroyed.
I believe that if the consecration had still never happened.....the Soviet Union would still be here....and worse than ever.
Damian Malliapalli
The October Revolution had a lot to do with Vatican II.
DeleteIf you think the Consecration has been done, I'd have to say Our Lady made six visits and performed a miracle unprecedented in history for nothing.
DeleteIt seems to me that the reign of Pius XI was a sort of a "before" and "after" story. Before he was told that the Consecration could, & should, be done, he was wonderful. After 1931, not so much.
ReplyDeleteI ask this in sincerity not sarcasm.
DeleteWhere is the solid proof he was told about this 'consecration to Russia' before 1931?
Six days after Pius XI signed the Lateran Treaty, Our Lady of the Rosary appeared to Sister Lucia at Tuy, Spain. At midnight Our Lady gave Lucia the famous vision of the Trinity and then made the request for the Consecration of Russia.
DeleteWhen Pius XI signed the Lateran Treaty, he transferred the Papal States over to Italy. The Vatican received a large sum of money as a consequence. That is how the Vatican Bank got its start.
If you are interested in the significance of a Consecration, the Fatima Crusader covers it in great detail. I'll try and add the link. (Issue 63)
http://www.fatimacrusader.com/cr63/cr63pg03.asp
I know about the Lateran Treaty.
DeleteNot being rude,can you please answer my original question?
Where is the solid proof Pius XI was told about and subsequently rejected the "consecration of Russia"?
I didn't realize Pius XI had refused to publish the secret, either.
Delete1917- Our Lady of the Rosary revealed that WWII would begin during the reign of Pius XI.
Delete1929- Our Lady tells Lucia, "The time has come to Consecrate Russia".
1938- WWII begins.
I found that the exact date of the Portuguese Bishops request to Pius XI for the Consecration is unknown. Are we to believe that the Virgin Mary promised the Consecration would bring peace, announced the request in 1929 and didn't give Pius XI the chance to act on the request before the start of the war? There's your proof.
You're confusing apples & oranges.
DeleteI simply asked where is the solid proof he (Pius XI) was told about & denied doing the consecration?
You should provide some solid evidence before accusing the man of such great disobedience.
Just recently discovered Sister Lucia finally,for the first time, wrote down many of these predictions in 1942.
DeleteWe're talking 11-16 year's after said events had already happened.
http://www.fatima.org/essentials/opposed/cvrup3.asp Early in 1935 Sr. Lucie urged her confessor to "make the Holy Father comply with His (Our Lord's) wishes"
DeleteIt is quite shocking about the warning given by The Remnant News paper to SSPX about the so called full communion with Vatican .Traditional Catholics doubt now of the sudden turn of Remanant of pro Vatican . What is happening?
ReplyDeleteThe Remnant used to be a very solid, traditionalist Catholic newspaper which condemned Vatican II, etc. If now it's changed direction and become, like EWTN etc., cheerleaders for Vatican II, the laughable "reform of the Reform", and Pope Bergoglio...then I suggest we all sit back and wait for the Remnant to fold. I bet then suffer huge decline in suffort and subscriptions if this is the case.
ReplyDeleteDamian Malliapalli
But it is not the case, Damian. I have no special interest in defending The Remnant, to which I do subscribe, but in justice that there is no other Catholic publication (with the possible exception of Catholic Family News) that exposes Bergoglio for what he is and defends both Catholic orthodoxy and tradition like The Remnant. There is always on this site an undercurrent of anti-Remnant sentiment which I do not begin to understand---except in the context of the notorious disunity among Traditionalists which at times seem to hate each other more than they do the tireless enemies of our holy religion. What strange times we live in! And, no, I am not Michael Matt under a pseudonym or connected to the newspaper in any way except as a subscriber. RC
ReplyDeleteThere's a very long list of journalists, most of whom aren't traditionalist btw, who have been critical of Pope Bergoglio, whose work appears in a wide variety of publications not including the usual traditionalist, professional mourners for the death of Catholicism publications.
DeleteI've explained MMs unjust hostility to Bishop Williamson, his infatuation with leftist economics, his judaizing, and other issues I have with the general tone of his editorials. Why is that so hard to understand?
I have only been visiting the site for a few months now, but it is helping me to get through this awful papacy. I see the Remnant criticisms and it makes no sense to me. Why do traditionalists devour each other.
DeleteYour animus towards The Remnant is petty and irrational---that is why it is so hard to understand. There is nothing leftist or judaizing in it---and Bishop Williamson, his many talents notwithstanding, does deserve criticism for his arrogance and quirkiness. I am certain there is more to that animus than meets the eye. E Beltran
DeleteWhy not try to address what I've actually said, as opposed to ill-advisedly stringing together some unfavorably adjectives?
DeleteBishop Willliamson is a great and very liberal man. I mean that in the tradition of all great men of the last two centuries, of Boussuet, Dom Gueranger, Manning, Abbot Marmion, and the like.
The Remnant's treatment of him was disgusting and cowardly.
Distributism is Socialism, and anyone who'd tolerate John Medaille in their publication must have some serious issues in that regard, indeed.
Delete@Kathleen..Our priest says if all traditional orders and groups would use the pre-1950 holy week,holy mass,and after midnight holy communion fast,it would be a great start for unity among traditional Roman Catholics.
DeleteIf you're at all interested in knowing . . . the Catholic Dogma . . . that we *must believe* to get to Heaven, and which you have *never* seen . . .
ReplyDeleteI list it on my website > www.Gods-Catholic-Dogma.com
The Catholic God knows . . . what we think and believe . . .
Catholic writing of Romans 1:21 >
"They ... became vain in their thoughts, and their foolish heart was darkened."
Catholic Faith (pre-fulfillment) writing of Deuteronomy 31:21 >
"For I know their thoughts, and what they are about to do this day."
Catholic Faith (pre-fulfillment) writing of Job 21:27 >
"Surely I know your thoughts, and your unjust judgments against Me."
The group that calls itself "islam" ... is not a religion. Fully proven by the fact that the "koran" says the *opposite* of the Old Testament Prophets > Section 113.1 of the site.
For me, the fact people at the Remnant give Mark Shea the time of day, let alone videotape an extended gentleman's "debate" with said "apologist" and post it on the internet, is enough to completely discredit them. I cannot take them at all seriously ever again, I'm afraid.
ReplyDeleteIt beggars belief, but then again, they have a lot of the same ideological roots, so all is well.
DeleteHas anyone ever tried to watch a Remnant video? Those guys have found a thousand ways to say the same thing. And more boring they could not be.
ReplyDeleteTruly one of the most horrifically boring experiences of my life.
DeleteOne man's trash is another man's treasure I guess. We don't find them boring, we find them consoling. It is wonderful to hear someone say what we say. But we live in LiberalLand, where we encounter faithful Catholics only at the Traditional Latin Mass we have recently discovered. None of our family attends Mass anymore, and most Catholics we know are just fine with FrancisChurch, so the Remnant is welcome relief to us. But whatever, if you don't like them, don't watch them.
DeleteAfter a year or so,you will see what other's are talking about.
DeleteYou're new to the traditional world and it's understandable why you like them.We aren't being rude I promise.You will grow in wisdom and knowledge the longer you stay in the traditional world.
Your grasp of English is very good but you don't get the subtleties. The Remnant is NOT telling the SSPX to fold. the piece is sarcasm.
ReplyDeleteDistributism is not socialism. That is a ridiculous misrepresentation. In fact, it is the opposite as socialism is statist and distributism, which more than any other economic system mirrors the social teaching of the Church before Vatican II, puts emphasis on the smallest unit of government being preferable to the larger, on private property more evenly distributed (as opposed to crony capitalism which IS a kind of abusive private socialism for the benefit of the George Soros of this world), and on the small family business. I would hesitate before calling Chesterton or Belloc or Brownson---all firm distributists---socialists; they would laugh at such ignorance. Distributism rejects the horrors of collectivism (socialism) and the cold, Protestant individualism of laissez-faire, crony capitalism. Erasmus
ReplyDeleteHave you ever actually read Servile State, or listened closely to the exponents of Distributism? They talk a lot about state control of large corporations, and "redistributing" wealth.
DeleteThe possible reason behind this observed behavior with the white men may have always exceptions and how which they respond can always change and vary in degrees.
ReplyDeleteIn this culture women had no real power or treatments for their particular
destiny. "Love to start with sight" features a nice ring
to it, however it could in the same way simply be a raging hormonal reaction.