|
|
Post by therecusant on Jul 29, 2019 23:04:50 GMT
Oh dearie me. Dearie, dearie me.
I somehow received this email. As did my wife, which I find curious in itself as not many people, especially in America, will have her email address. In fact, come to think of it, I received this into my personal email address, not the Recusant Hotmail address - it's almost as though the authors have been given OLMC's bulk mailing email list.
I also detect Fr. Pfeiffer's style. Could I be mistaken? So while it is ostensibly written by two of his faithful, I cannot help wondering how much Fr. Pfeiffer told them what to say. It may just have occurred to him that a few people have decided, for whatever reason, not to listen to him any more, or that others are disinclined or tend to look askance at what he has to say on the question; and that if that were so, people would be more likely to pay attention if his arguments came from the mouth of someone else. Could that be so, or am I mistaken? Are the authors of this mass-mailing really the authors of the content, are they the authors of the ideas and arguments it contains? Or are they just mouthpieces of someone else, the real author? It seems to me not outside the realms of possibility.
I haven't time or patience to go through this blow-by-blow. Here's what I'll note.
1. No Archbishop Lefebvre. They quote Fr. Peter Scott on obedience. But not the Archbishop. Curious.
2. The timeline is all wrong. Were they there, did these people writing this witness what happened or why? Here's what I'm talking about:
The "pain" and "trouble" didn't begin with Fr. Hewko's departure. It began well before and culminated in Fr. Hewko's departure. Fr. Hewko's departure was the fruit, the result, not the cause of the "pain" and "trouble". It began with Moran's reappearance and Fr. Pfeiffer trying to sell him to everyone everywhere he went. It began in 2018.
This is quite near the start. So right from the word go, the author(s) show that they don't have even a basic understanding of what happened or why. So why do they think they're qualified to mass-mail everyone telling us all how it is, as though they know better..?
3. "...Fr. Hewko continues to speak to the faithful the erroneous belief that Fr. Poisson's
ordination is doubtful..." Curiously enough, however, Fr. Pfeiffer regarded Fr. Poisson's ordination as doubtful too, not so very long ago. One is simply not allowed to conditionally ordain without any justification at all, there must be at least some doubt. And it has to be a real doubt, not a whimsy, otherwise you'd have millions of conditional baptisms going on all the time, married couples constantly unsure of whether they're married or not... there must be some doubt in order to justify conditional ordination.
4. All this guff about various Popes, "Is Benedict XVI Pope, is Francis..?" and so forth is really nothing more than smoke. It is a hit-and-run debating tactic. It's irrelevant and the fact that I for one have never heard this argument before from anyone in the SSPX or Resistance perhaps because it is not something Fr. Pfeiffer or anyone connected with him would ever have said before.
5. In fact, I strongly suspect that the whole argument about Fr. Poisson and validity is a distraction. It does, sadly, appear strongly to suggest that Fr. Pfeiffer is putting the cart before the horse and allowing his position to be led by circumstance and expediency, which is a little alarming and I hope is not the case (if it is, this will not be the last example we have to witness)… the real issue is with Fr. Hewko and not Fr. Poisson. You left us. How could you.
The real problem, as I see it, is this. What does it mean to be in charge? It means to have responsibility. What does "responsible" mean? It means answerable. And what does that mean? It means you are answerable for what happens. The other way of putting it is to say that you are to blame whatever happens. To hold authority means to be prepared to accept the blame for whatever happens, even if it results from the actions of someone under you, and not directly your own actions. Ask anyone in the army what happens when a section of eight men dress onto the firing point of a rifle range and the RCO discovers that one of them has forgotten to bring his hearing defence with him. Who gets into trouble? Not the man who forgot his hearing defence - he may get a telling off later back in barracks. The man who gets into trouble is the corporal in charge of the section. He ought to have done a kit check of all his men before they set out for the range. Accepting rank means being prepared to take the blame for something someone else beneath you did. If you don't have broad enough shoulders for that, then don't accept the responsibility. The measure of any leader is how he treats his subordinates. A weak leader will always tend to be one who blames his subordinates.
In other words, if the author(s) are so concerned and troubled by Fr Hewko leaving, they would do far better to talk to the boss. He is the cause, and the solution lies with him too, and only with him. Taking out one's authority and brandishing it in people's faces as a means to get them to bend to your will is all very well, but it seems to me that anyone who is in charge during a time when everything goes horribly pear-shaped and everyone leaves, cannot then blame his subordinates - if you are in charge, then you are to blame. But who was in charge of OLMC in 2018? And yet I see not the slightest sign that the one who was in charge this whole time has learnt anything at all from the affair. He continues to blame everyone else, but will not accept any responsibility himself. Too-clever-by-half propaganda tactics like getting faithful to bulk-mail your own arguments, but privately, so that no public response can be made and so that if Fr. Hewko responds to it, it won't go very far because he doesn't know who you sent it to - all that just reeks of manipulation and a certain lack of honest, open, straightforward dealing which has been the characteristic of the Resistance, at least the bits I've seen. If you have something to say, say it, and say it openly and publicly. Or don't say it. Let the accused know who his accuser is and allow him to respond. Those of you reading this who know what I'm talking about will recognise what I'm trying to say. At any rate, I don't think this attempt has been very successful.
|
|
|
|
Post by therecusant on Jul 29, 2019 23:13:50 GMT
Let me just add, by the way, having met Fr. Poisson, that he seems to me to be a really excellent priest. The tragedy in all this is that he has been well and truly let down. First of all he is told that he has to be conditionally ordained by a man who may or may not be a bishop, but who most certainly is a liar and a fantasist, a man who is described in various police reports as a serial fraudster. Then, having made him submit to that conditional ordination, his boss spends all his energy trying to convince the whole world that conditional ordination was never necessary (so why did you make him submit to one, then?).
And in the meantime, we have sedevacantists telling us that no new rite sacrament is ever valid, we have the SSPX telling us that it's both valid and licit, legitimately promulgated if you please, and never doing conditional ordinations any more... are we now the only ones left saying what they all used to say once? That even if it *can* be valid (and is more than likely not in many cases), that there is at least some doubt concerning the new rites as a whole, that they are offensive t o God and that they were designed to erode the intention of the clergy who administer them? I am sure there are many priests in the conciliar church who are genuine priests, though there may well be many others who aren't. I personally am morally certain that Fr. Poisson is a genuinely validly ordained priest. But that doesn't change the fact that the "pars tutior," (as Fr. Pfeiffer himself once explained it), the safer course of action is conditional ordination. And it doesn't change the fact that that is what he did, a year ago. Those are his actions. They speak louder than his words which are currently trying to convince us of the contrary. It isn't working. |
|
|
|
Post by therecusant on Jul 29, 2019 23:41:08 GMT
Summation: Fr Pfeiffer is now just like BW when BW compromised on grace in the new mass; Fr Pfeiffer is compromising on novus ordo sacraments. Both dragged the priests associated with them and their faithful into compromising with the conciliar swamp.
I can recall clearly what Fr Pfeiffer taught us about BW's grace in the new mass. The same logic applies here => Stay away from anyone who compromises with the Faith.
Enough said.
I'm not sure this is entirely fair.
Fr. Pfeiffer appears to have been led by practical expedience/necessity and is, as it were, simply defending his own interests. Bishop Williamson, from what I can see, has no personal interest in selling the new sacraments to the faithful and has nothing to gain personally by doing so, he does it with almost an apostolic zeal which is quite disturbing to behold, because he genuinely believes what he is saying (something which his followers, when one speaks to them, seem reluctant to accept).
Fr. Pfeiffer's change is regarding the question of validity/doubt of the new sacraments. Bishop Williamson's novelty concerns grace, whether the new sacraments can do you good, are pleasing to God and used by Him (hint: his answer is yes to all three). Whether they are good is far more important than whether they are or can be valid.
Fr. Pfeiffer's change concerns a question of practice, what one ought to do on certain relatively rare occasions. Bishop Williamson's is not so much practice, it's more purely doctrinal, and thus more harmful.
...I agree there is a similarity. They have both departed from Archbishop Lefebvre, and in both cases no good will come of it. And I'm not trying to defend Fr. Pfeiffer against all comers. But I think we want to avoid the risk of exaggerating. It's bad enough as it is.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2019 2:56:42 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2019 14:27:10 GMT
Indeed Fr. Pfeiffer needs to explain the mess for conditionally ordaining Fr. Poisson with Ambrose. At the same time passing over it expediently just to say he is valid by the rite without any prudential case by case investigation is not acceptable to protect the sacraments. This would deviate from Archbishop Lefebvre and his SSPX position.
Also to be fair to Fr. Poisson, wasn't he ordained in the old rite FSSP and not the new rite? If so, it would be valid by the old rite itself and then becomes necessary to look at the ordaining bishop, whether Bishop Timlin was validity consecrated in the new rite of 1976. Seems simple if someone had the words used in the form of 1976 and match it to what the Church recognizes as valid in the old rite.
Deeper than that however, is the burning question which includes all of us each day, and one that the great Archbishop Lefebvre had to deal with in his time, is the pope valid in his ordination and consecration in the new rite to be the pope? I think the letter in the opening post is trying to address this too. Here's the dilemma. If we Catholics all say we legally pray in our masses, benedictions, and private prayers for the present pope and local bishops, then we acknowledge before God and the world the pope is the pope and the diocesan bishops are diocesan bishops both valid and legal leading the Church. Albeit two churches with conciliarism. Then how can we catholics say the new rite is not valid in other cases? We cannot have it both ways. This is a fair question.
How did Archbishop Lefebvre deal with the new rite pope question after Vatican II before his death in 1991? There was essentially two popes he had to deal with in the new rite: John Paul I (1978 - 1978) and John Paul II (1978 - 2005). Did the Archbishop reject these popes validity in the new rite of that time? No. Neither is their a Cart Blanc for every bishop consecrated; especially in 2019. The vigilance is to know what yearly changes, if any, have been made to the new rite Form, Matter and Intention. I would agree it would be easier to put a blanket statement over this whole crisis, but it is not fair how Christ is leading His Church in our time. Has the Church been defeated?
Prudence shows that the ordaining and consecration form in the new rite does need to be monitored and investigation. A case by case investigation the SSPX would say. I believe the SSPX has kept an up to date archive on any and all changes relating to the new rite form.
Does anyone else have such an archive?
I write this so we do not fight with one another and play into the devil's trap. Prudence is necessary, yes, but uneducated doubts are not, nor an easy utopia.
We have to be careful not to become a hidden sedevacantist saying nothing is valid, or all is doubtful in our words, and yet pray in our masses to God differently.
Signed,
(Janice's husband)
|
|
|
|
Post by Fidelis on Jul 30, 2019 14:53:52 GMT
Pope John Paul I and Pope John Paul II were both ordained Bishops in 1958 before the new rites of Episcopal ordination. So they were definite Bishops.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2019 15:14:23 GMT
Dear Admin,
While we revealed our names openly in the letter, it saddened us to know that facts about lives were also broadcast publicly. Who revealed this information and how many other such personal details about us were revealed, we do not know, nor do we know the motive or intent behind such revelations.
It reminds us of many such incidents on other Catholic forums, which helped to sidetrack the conversation from the topic of discussion. One recent incident which was really saddening and thoroughly un-Catholic was unearthing of the death certificate of an individual’s son (Pablo’s son). Such investigations are generally not edifying. This also means that we need to pray more for each other. We will pray for you and the benefactors of this forum.
Let us return to the topic of discussion: Fr. Hewko, Fr. Poisson, Bp. Timlin and the Pope.
Pax Christi
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2019 15:16:36 GMT
Dear Sean and Susan, please allow me to address a few words directly to you both, bearing in mind we have never had the pleasure of meeting. I have been told you are recent converts from the Novus Ordo, seeking Tradition. What a great grace you have received, no doubt from the very hands of Our Blessed Mother, who loves you dearly. Please know she never disappoints and I trust she will continue to guide you to the Truth, despite the many roadblocks you will encounter. I am embarrassed and ashamed that OLMC and Fr Pfeiffer have been an obstacle towards this goal, especially for souls such as yourselves who have not had the opportunity to 'live and breathe Archbishop Lefebvre' as others have, being members entrenched in the Society of St Pius X for many years, if not their entire lives. I'm not saying, of course, that you cannot now fully understand this great theologian, Archbishop Lefebvre. Thank God he left his writings which are very clear and easily digested, even by the laity. His book titled 'Open Letter to Confused Catholics' was, I believe, written just for the laity. Read it, please. And then read it again. My message to you today is this: Archbishop Lefebvre has been recycled and rewritten by many to suit their new paths. They use direct quotes, purposely excluding others, in order to reinterpret his complete message. Beware, dear souls, as this is not from God. This will not please Our Lady and she will not be a part of manipulative, deceptive behavior which leads souls away from the truth. It seems the good souls from the Novus Ordo who are seeking tradition are the real victims in all of this. Archbishop Lefebvre is most likely newer to you and you are unable to red flag any twisting of his teachings. My next suggestion would be to listen to at least some of Fr Hewko's sermons. Your common sense alone will allow you to understand that he is in alignment with his founder, Archbishop Lefebvre. OLMC and Fr Pfeiffer know well that he is doing nothing different than what he has always done....teaching the Faith and navigating through this apostasy as clearly directed by the great theologian Archbishop Lefebvre. He hasn't changed. He will be an excellent guide for you both. He has not abandoned his founder and is truly one of the last great priests of the SSPX. My final and most important suggestion to you is the Rosary novena. It is simple and powerful. Beg Our Lady the grace to see and to accomplish God's will in all of this. Again, for those who are sincerely seeking and yearning for the truth, she never disappoints!
Dear bethcline, Thank you for the welcome. The Blessed Mother brought us to Tradition and the Truth and to OLMC (Fr. Pfeiffer, Fr. Hewko) and our constant prayer to her is to keep us in the Truth and with her Son. We have attended masses with both Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Hewko and hold them both in high regard. Thus when Fr. Hewko left OLMC, we were saddened, but respected his decision.
However, in his departure letter from OLMC as well as other sermons he claims the dubiousness of New Rite ordinations and Episcopal consecrations. This poses a difficulty and hence we sought clarification, because the position he holds must mean he offers mass in union with a doubtful Pope. (Cardinal Ratzinger consecrated as a New Rite Bishop and Pope Francis as you know is ordained in the New Rite as a Priest and Bishop).
We continue to pray the Rosary and for our Priests, and pray that Holy Mother Church returns to Tradition.
Pax Christi
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2019 15:19:00 GMT
Oh dearie me. Dearie, dearie me.
I somehow received this email. As did my wife, which I find curious in itself as not many people, especially in America, will have her email address. In fact, come to think of it, I received this into my personal email address, not the Recusant Hotmail address - it's almost as though the authors have been given OLMC's bulk mailing email list.
I also detect Fr. Pfeiffer's style. Could I be mistaken? So while it is ostensibly written by two of his faithful, I cannot help wondering how much Fr. Pfeiffer told them what to say. It may just have occurred to him that a few people have decided, for whatever reason, not to listen to him any more, or that others are disinclined or tend to look askance at what he has to say on the question; and that if that were so, people would be more likely to pay attention if his arguments came from the mouth of someone else. Could that be so, or am I mistaken? Are the authors of this mass-mailing really the authors of the content, are they the authors of the ideas and arguments it contains? Or are they just mouthpieces of someone else, the real author? It seems to me not outside the realms of possibility.
I haven't time or patience to go through this blow-by-blow. Here's what I'll note.
1. No Archbishop Lefebvre. They quote Fr. Peter Scott on obedience. But not the Archbishop. Curious.
2. The timeline is all wrong. Were they there, did these people writing this witness what happened or why? Here's what I'm talking about:
The "pain" and "trouble" didn't begin with Fr. Hewko's departure. It began well before and culminated in Fr. Hewko's departure. Fr. Hewko's departure was the fruit, the result, not the cause of the "pain" and "trouble". It began with Moran's reappearance and Fr. Pfeiffer trying to sell him to everyone everywhere he went. It began in 2018.
This is quite near the start. So right from the word go, the author(s) show that they don't have even a basic understanding of what happened or why. So why do they think they're qualified to mass-mail everyone telling us all how it is, as though they know better..?
3. "...Fr. Hewko continues to speak to the faithful the erroneous belief that Fr. Poisson's
ordination is doubtful..." Curiously enough, however, Fr. Pfeiffer regarded Fr. Poisson's ordination as doubtful too, not so very long ago. One is simply not allowed to conditionally ordain without any justification at all, there must be at least some doubt. And it has to be a real doubt, not a whimsy, otherwise you'd have millions of conditional baptisms going on all the time, married couples constantly unsure of whether they're married or not... there must be some doubt in order to justify conditional ordination.
4. All this guff about various Popes, "Is Benedict XVI Pope, is Francis..?" and so forth is really nothing more than smoke. It is a hit-and-run debating tactic. It's irrelevant and the fact that I for one have never heard this argument before from anyone in the SSPX or Resistance perhaps because it is not something Fr. Pfeiffer or anyone connected with him would ever have said before.
5. In fact, I strongly suspect that the whole argument about Fr. Poisson and validity is a distraction. It does, sadly, appear strongly to suggest that Fr. Pfeiffer is putting the cart before the horse and allowing his position to be led by circumstance and expediency, which is a little alarming and I hope is not the case (if it is, this will not be the last example we have to witness)… the real issue is with Fr. Hewko and not Fr. Poisson. You left us. How could you.
The real problem, as I see it, is this. What does it mean to be in charge? It means to have responsibility. What does "responsible" mean? It means answerable. And what does that mean? It means you are answerable for what happens. The other way of putting it is to say that you are to blame whatever happens. To hold authority means to be prepared to accept the blame for whatever happens, even if it results from the actions of someone under you, and not directly your own actions. Ask anyone in the army what happens when a section of eight men dress onto the firing point of a rifle range and the RCO discovers that one of them has forgotten to bring his hearing defence with him. Who gets into trouble? Not the man who forgot his hearing defence - he may get a telling off later back in barracks. The man who gets into trouble is the corporal in charge of the section. He ought to have done a kit check of all his men before they set out for the range. Accepting rank means being prepared to take the blame for something someone else beneath you did. If you don't have broad enough shoulders for that, then don't accept the responsibility. The measure of any leader is how he treats his subordinates. A weak leader will always tend to be one who blames his subordinates.
In other words, if the author(s) are so concerned and troubled by Fr Hewko leaving, they would do far better to talk to the boss. He is the cause, and the solution lies with him too, and only with him. Taking out one's authority and brandishing it in people's faces as a means to get them to bend to your will is all very well, but it seems to me that anyone who is in charge during a time when everything goes horribly pear-shaped and everyone leaves, cannot then blame his subordinates - if you are in charge, then you are to blame. But who was in charge of OLMC in 2018? And yet I see not the slightest sign that the one who was in charge this whole time has learnt anything at all from the affair. He continues to blame everyone else, but will not accept any responsibility himself. Too-clever-by-half propaganda tactics like getting faithful to bulk-mail your own arguments, but privately, so that no public response can be made and so that if Fr. Hewko responds to it, it won't go very far because he doesn't know who you sent it to - all that just reeks of manipulation and a certain lack of honest, open, straightforward dealing which has been the characteristic of the Resistance, at least the bits I've seen. If you have something to say, say it, and say it openly and publicly. Or don't say it. Let the accused know who his accuser is and allow him to respond. Those of you reading this who know what I'm talking about will recognise what I'm trying to say. At any rate, I don't think this attempt has been very successful.
Dear therecusant:
It is unfortunate that you have dismissed our questions as smoke. Perhaps you have not or you do not want to consider that the next generation of Catholics (all of us, including our children, grand children, great-grandchildren, etc) will be living in a time where all the Priests, Bishops and Popes will have received their sacraments in the New Rite. What will happen to the Resistance, SSPX, SSPX-variants and Sedevacantists, God alone knows.
We are now living in an era where Cardinal Ratzinger (New Rite consecrated Bishop) was the Pope and Pope Francis who was ordained in the New Rite as Priest and Bishop is the Pope. Unless Our Lord and Our Lady intervene, this will become the norm. Thus the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass which we all revere, will be offered by the Priest in union with the (New Rite consecrated) Bishop of Rome.
That being said, Fr. Hewko holds the position of the objective dubiousness of the New Rite ordinations and Episcopal consecrations. This must mean that he is offering Mass in union with a doubtful Pope. How do you and/or Fr. Hewko explain this? If Fr. Hewko is not offering Mass to a doubtful Pope then how does he hold the position of the objective dubiousness of New Rite ordinations and Episcopal consecrations? Who are the Apostolic Successors according to you and/or Fr. Hewko? As a Catholic, does this not bother you? Or is this an irrelevant question?
Pax Christi
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 30, 2019 15:32:45 GMT
Dear Admin, While we revealed our names openly in the letter, it saddened us to know that facts about lives were also broadcast publicly. Who revealed this information and how many other such personal details about us were revealed, we do not know, nor do we know the motive or intent behind such revelations. It reminds us of many such incidents on other Catholic forums, which helped to sidetrack the conversation from the topic of discussion. One recent incident which was really saddening and thoroughly un-Catholic was unearthing of the death certificate of an individual’s son (Pablo’s son). Such investigations are generally not edifying. This also means that we need to pray more for each other. We will pray for you and the benefactors of this forum. Let us return to the topic of discussion: Fr. Hewko, Fr. Poisson, Bp. Timlin and the Pope. Pax Christi Dear Susan and Sean,
As far as I am aware, there were only two facts about the authors of this letter discussed here:
- Their general geographical location relative to Fr. Hewko; that is being within driving distance, which could, depending on one's understanding and preference, cover a radius of well over a hundred or more miles in any given direction and was in no way a precise revelation of anyone's identity or location.
- Apparently the rumors of a Novus Ordo background was brought up. This is not a revelation of personal information either as most of us here spent varying amounts of time in the Novus Ordo.
If I missed something else, please let me know and it will immediately be addressed.
As for the referencing of these facts, it seems clear that they were discussed in an attempt to give context to the motives of publishing such a letter and the contents thereof.
However, these issues do not come even remotely close to the malice that would be employed in accessing someone's death certificate and using it for ill purposes. I had not heard that this was done and am sorry for the pain it would have obviously caused Mr. Hernandez. He will continue to be in my prayers.
I hope this helps.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 30, 2019 17:51:29 GMT
Dear therecusant:
It is unfortunate that you have dismissed our questions as smoke. Perhaps you have not or you do not want to consider that the next generation of Catholics (all of us, including our children, grand children, great-grandchildren, etc) will be living in a time where all the Priests, Bishops and Popes will have received their sacraments in the New Rite. What will happen to the Resistance, SSPX, SSPX-variants and Sedevacantists, God alone knows.
We are now living in an era where Cardinal Ratzinger (New Rite consecrated Bishop) was the Pope and Pope Francis who was ordained in the New Rite as Priest and Bishop is the Pope. Unless Our Lord and Our Lady intervene, this will become the norm. Thus the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass which we all revere, will be offered by the Priest in union with the (New Rite consecrated) Bishop of Rome.
That being said, Fr. Hewko holds the position of the objective dubiousness of the New Rite ordinations and Episcopal consecrations. This must mean that he is offering Mass in union with a doubtful Pope. How do you and/or Fr. Hewko explain this? If Fr. Hewko is not offering Mass to a doubtful Pope then how does he hold the position of the objective dubiousness of New Rite ordinations and Episcopal consecrations? Who are the Apostolic Successors according to you and/or Fr. Hewko? As a Catholic, does this not bother you? Or is this an irrelevant question?
Pax Christi
I realize, Susan and Sean, that your comments are addressed to The Recusant. But kindly allow me a brief answer to one of the points you've made.
I'm not sure if you intended this but the bolded words above come across as downright defeatist. As if the dark powers that influenced Vatican II and it's subsequent changes are an insurmountable problem to the Blessed Trinity? That we are doomed to the swamp of the Conciliar Church, that Our sweet Mother will not have Her Victory?
If you really believe that within a certain span of years, all the priests and bishops will be New Rite, then it would make sense to question Fr. Hewko on his "obstinacy" in not accepting the New Rite, echoing as he does, what Archbishop Lefebvre also said, that the New Rite Sacraments are all doubtful.
But we know that it is neither true nor possible that we will have only New Rite priests and bishops.
There will always be a few true Traditional priests. Always. The gates of Hell will not prevail against the True Church, with its True Sacraments, its with its True Teachings, etc.. Neither will the madness of this 'Cult of Man' ever succeed in completely demolishing the True Priesthood either, though it has thrown its full weight against it in an effort to do so, to obliterate the True Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
But while the situation looks so very bleak, we know that Our Lady's triumph is near. We are not even to the point of shedding our blood. If we cannot hold fast now and remain unwavering, remain faithful, how will we fare when the really tough times are upon us?
Let us as baptized members of One Mystical Body, members of the True Catholic Faith, not become derailed and distracted from the fight for the Faith by debating on the madness of the schismatic Conciliar Church. Fr. Pfeiffer was right when he always preached that "Vatican II is right out of Hell". Logically it follows that anything spawned from it, is too, right out of Hell.
|
|
|
|
Post by tradcatfam on Jul 30, 2019 19:35:32 GMT
Dear therecusant:
It is unfortunate that you have dismissed our questions as smoke. Perhaps you have not or you do not want to consider that the next generation of Catholics (all of us, including our children, grand children, great-grandchildren, etc) will be living in a time where all the Priests, Bishops and Popes will have received their sacraments in the New Rite. What will happen to the Resistance, SSPX, SSPX-variants and Sedevacantists, God alone knows.
We are now living in an era where Cardinal Ratzinger (New Rite consecrated Bishop) was the Pope and Pope Francis who was ordained in the New Rite as Priest and Bishop is the Pope. Unless Our Lord and Our Lady intervene, this will become the norm. Thus the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass which we all revere, will be offered by the Priest in union with the (New Rite consecrated) Bishop of Rome.
That being said, Fr. Hewko holds the position of the objective dubiousness of the New Rite ordinations and Episcopal consecrations. This must mean that he is offering Mass in union with a doubtful Pope. How do you and/or Fr. Hewko explain this? If Fr. Hewko is not offering Mass to a doubtful Pope then how does he hold the position of the objective dubiousness of New Rite ordinations and Episcopal consecrations? Who are the Apostolic Successors according to you and/or Fr. Hewko? As a Catholic, does this not bother you? Or is this an irrelevant question?
Pax Christi
I realize, Susan and Sean, that your comments are addressed to The Recusant. But kindly allow me a brief answer to one of the points you've made.
I'm not sure if you intended this but the bolded words above come across as downright defeatist. As if the dark powers that influenced Vatican II and it's subsequent changes are an insurmountable problem to the Blessed Trinity? That we are doomed to the swamp of the Conciliar Church, that Our sweet Mother will not have Her Victory?
If you really believe that within a certain span of years, all the priests and bishops will be New Rite, then it would make sense to question Fr. Hewko on his "obstinacy" in not accepting the New Rite, echoing as he does, what Archbishop Lefebvre also said, that the New Rite Sacraments are all doubtful.
But we know that it is neither true nor possible that we will have only New Rite priests and bishops.
There will always be a few true Traditional priests. Always. The gates of Hell will not prevail against the True Church, with its True Sacraments, its with its True Teachings, etc.. Neither will the madness of this 'Cult of Man' ever succeed in completely demolishing the True Priesthood either, though it has thrown its full weight against it in an effort to do so, to obliterate the True Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
But while the situation looks so very bleak, we know that Our Lady's triumph is near. We are not even to the point of shedding our blood. If we cannot hold fast now and remain unwavering, remain faithful, how will we fare when the really tough times are upon us?
Let us as baptized members of One Mystical Body, members of the True Catholic Faith, not become derailed and distracted from the fight for the Faith by debating on the madness of the schismatic Conciliar Church. Fr. Pfeiffer was right when he always preached that "Vatican II is right out of Hell". Logically it follows that anything spawned from it, is too, right out of Hell.
[br I don’t see how this could come across as defeatist... our current pope is ordained and consecrated in the new right. The reason it has never been an argument before now is because it was not an issue for ABP Lefevre since JPII was the pope. Benedict was the first pope that was consecrated as a new bishop and now Francis is new rite priest and bishop. This does not amount to a hit and run argument or smoke for that matter. We don’t know when Our Lady will triumph but for right now we do what we can. Obviously the gates of hell won’t prevail and that’s not what was said. |
|
|
|
Post by tradcatfam on Jul 30, 2019 20:09:31 GMT
Indeed Fr. Pfeiffer needs to explain the mess for conditionally ordaining Fr. Poisson with Ambrose. At the same time passing over it expediently just to say he is valid by the rite without any prudential case by case investigation is not acceptable to protect the sacraments. This would deviate from Archbishop Lefebvre and his SSPX position.
Also to be fair to Fr. Poisson, wasn't he ordained in the old rite FSSP and not the new rite? If so, it would be valid by the old rite itself and then becomes necessary to look at the ordaining bishop, whether Bishop Timlin was validity consecrated in the new rite of 1976. Seems simple if someone had the words used in the form of 1976 and match it to what the Church recognizes as valid in the old rite.
Deeper than that however, is the burning question which includes all of us each day, and one that the great Archbishop Lefebvre had to deal with in his time, is the pope valid in his ordination and consecration in the new rite to be the pope? I think the letter in the opening post is trying to address this too. Here's the dilemma. If we Catholics all say we legally pray in our masses, benedictions, and private prayers for the present pope and local bishops, then we acknowledge before God and the world the pope is the pope and the diocesan bishops are diocesan bishops both valid and legal leading the Church. Albeit two churches with conciliarism. Then how can we catholics say the new rite is not valid in other cases? We cannot have it both ways. This is a fair question.
How did Archbishop Lefebvre deal with the new rite pope question after Vatican II before his death in 1991? There was essentially two popes he had to deal with in the new rite: John Paul I (1978 - 1978) and John Paul II (1978 - 2005). Did the Archbishop reject these popes validity in the new rite of that time? No. Neither is their a Cart Blanc for every bishop consecrated; especially in 2019. The vigilance is to know what yearly changes, if any, have been made to the new rite Form, Matter and Intention. I would agree it would be easier to put a blanket statement over this whole crisis, but it is not fair how Christ is leading His Church in our time. Has the Church been defeated?
Prudence shows that the ordaining and consecration form in the new rite does need to be monitored and investigation. A case by case investigation the SSPX would say. I believe the SSPX has kept an up to date archive on any and all changes relating to the new rite form.
Does anyone else have such an archive?
I write this so we do not fight with one another and play into the devil's trap. Prudence is necessary, yes, but uneducated doubts are not, nor an easy utopia.
We have to be careful not to become a hidden sedevacantist saying nothing is valid, or all is doubtful in our words, and yet pray in our masses to God differently.
Signed,
(Janice's husband)
Yes to all of this. Has anyone actually called to speak with any of these priests? Because right now I have seen outright misinformation on here. I’m not sure whether they are lies on purpose or just someone being misinformed. For instance Father Poisson was never ordained in the new rite, he was ordained in the old right by Bishop Timlin via FSSP. It is being put out he is doubtful because bishop Timlin is a doubtful bishop because of his consecration in the new rite. If that’s the reason for doubt then the next logical conclusion is that we have a doubtful pope. All of the priests being talked about on here are more than willing to answer any questions and take calls. Why not just go straight to the source? Go to OLMC’s website and get the number and call, go to Father Hewko’s page and get his information to call. Call these priests and ask them to clarify because it is our souls and they are to be taking care of them. They are priests but they are also men. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2019 20:24:08 GMT
Can someone honestly answer this question in bold?
If traditional Catholics like yourselves say you legitimately pray in your masses, benedictions, and private prayers for the present pope Francis and for your local diocesan bishops, then do you not acknowledge before God and the world the pope and the diocesan bishops are both valid and licit from the new rite leading the Church? Albeit two churches with conciliarism.
Then how do you traditional catholics say with a blanket answer the new rite is not valid or licit for all the rest? You cannot have it both ways.
Granted the Archbishop dealt with two popes who were consecrated in 1958, but the question wasn't black and white for him at that time either. Look at all those bishops and cardinals who were consecrated in the new rite and VOTED for these popes. Was it a valid and legitimate election for the pope? See how this turns into practical sedevacantism?
Back to the real question written in bold.
Signed (Janice's husband)
|
|
|
|
Post by tradcatfam on Jul 30, 2019 20:36:43 GMT
Disingenuity #1:
Fr. Pfeiffer, as the superior and rector of OLMC when Fr. Poisson first arrived there in March of 2018, kept Fr. Poisson off the Mass circuits because there was a doubt on Fr. Poisson's Novus Ordo ordination.
So much did Fr. Pfeiffer espouse this view that Fr. Poisson's first Novus Ordo ordination was doubtful that he had him conditionally reordained by a 'bishop' - though an extremely doubtful one [that is another long story already addressed at length].
This problem was not created by Fr. Hewko. But perhaps these facts have been memory-holed by OLMC et al.
This is my response to the above—
This is incorrect. Father Poisson never had a Novus Ordo ordination. He was ordained in the old right. The doubt is being cast because Father Hewko is is saying Bishop Timlins consecration as Bishop is doubtful. The problem that is then created is this - if we are supposed to doubt a priest ordained in the old right just because he was consecrated by a new rite bishop what are we then supposed to do with a pope that is both new right priest and bishop since sedevecantism is an error? |
|
