|
Post by tradcatfam on Jul 30, 2019 20:40:36 GMT
Contact one of the priests of OLmC or Father Hewko and ask this question. This is definitely a question for a priest.
|
|
|
Post by tradcatfam on Jul 30, 2019 21:10:48 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)
Yes. I’d definitely call one of the priests on this. Also there was a very good talk that was recently put out by Father Pfeiffer. I’ll try and find a link. The priests that are being discussed here are all more than happy to field phone calls. Better to ask the priests.
|
|
|
Post by tradcatfam on Jul 30, 2019 21:13:05 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)
I think he answers this question quite clearly in this video. Here is the link I was talking about. But again, cal these priests. They want to save souls.
|
|
|
Post by bethcline on Jul 30, 2019 21:28:40 GMT
Honestly, I have found many of these posts to be very helpful. We are sharing information, debating, helping each other work through situations, figuring many things out, in a charitable way. It is clear some know far more than others...let us learn from them. If there is a mistake made, someone will eventually correct them. We are human and make mistakes, God alone knows our intentions. I see an absolutely appropriate and meaningful conversation about an email that was sent out to so many people it is safe to assume that discussing it openly and honestly is healthy, not detrimental. Please don't mock all of this by claiming we are all trying to be theologians and we grab our pitch forks. I, for one, totally agree with profound conversations that help souls work through the many difficulties of this apostasy. God bless this well-run forum! And a sincere, immense thank you to all of you who have contributed to this! Please continue!
If it calms your worries, please know we did ask Steven Kidalwi to speak personally with Fr Hewko regarding his insistence that Fr Hewko was now teaching ABL incorrectly. We truly hope he does. There is much Steven may learn from this holy priest.
Sean and Susan, from the depths of my heart, I was saddened and surprised at your reaction. Please forgive me for any harm I have caused you and know my intent was only to help walk you through some things. That being said, please know this; to have compared my mentioning the fact that your past included time in the Novus Ordo to possibly the most heart wrenching situation in Pablo's life (the death of his son), I must admit was at first a bit shocking. I had to read it twice. It lends me to thinking perhaps you are either highly sensitive and tend to over exaggerate situations or you know well the tactics of manipulating situations in order to gain sympathy for yourselves while strongly suggesting evil intent on the part of others. Either way, please pray about this and if they are mere weaknesses, keep them in check. If they are tactics, please know it is wrong to manipulate others.
Also, consider this....God's ways are not our ways. We only view this crisis as we are able to view it...through human eyes. Our Faith reminds us that God knows the future, He has His plan, He alone allows or does not allow, and His victory is certain. After reading your concerns, it struck me that you are seeking a mere human solution, and a very incorrect one in that. You are predicting the future and coming up with a 'what-if' and 'what- happens-when' scenario and then reaching an erroneous conclusion that therefore we must concede to the conciliar church. By, perhaps with good intentions, seeking a human solution, you have agreed to accept error. It makes sense to you, perhaps, because you want to know and understand what the solution is and you want to know right now. Honestly, I think not knowing and understanding completely what is ahead, is part of our immense suffering during this crisis. It is terrifying. Take this heavy burden off of your shoulders and give it to God alone. Tell Him you don't understand but you trust that He does and that you want His will to be accomplished in all of us so that He will be more glorified and honored in the end. Beg Our Lady the grace to stand firm against this conciliar church that does not come from God. Take your worries to the foot of the cross and tell Dear God all of your concerns and then beg Him to strengthen you. Admit to Him that you are a mere human and cannot expect to understand His ways. The solution belongs to God. Trust in Him completely.
Now is the time to strengthen ourselves, not weaken by conceding! It may get far worse than this....now is not the hour to digress but to stand firm.
Let us beg God to have the Faith of the martyrs, which, as Fr Hewko said well, and I'm only paraphrasing, had the common thread of ZERO COMPROMISE. Please God, grant it to us all!
|
|
|
Post by S.A.G. on Jul 30, 2019 22:18:01 GMT
This is getting more and more ridiculous for many reasons which are basic and show the lack of knowledge of the faith. For one: That is wrong. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is the re-enactment of the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the Cross, not any Pope. The Mass is not said in union with the Pope. With the new mass there's no union anyway. So where do you get that? The Pope is to be prayed for in the Mass but that's it.
Ya know, there's a reason Fr. Hewko did the Catechism series, because he knows how many don't know it! I suggest people who haven't read it in a while, or perhaps never, pick it up and learn it! This is what 7 year olds learn for First Holy Communion.
As for the Pope and what's valid and what's not, well who here is an authority? You can have an opinion but the jury is still out on that big issue. There have been books written and people are still discussing but ya know what,? God in His infinite wisdom will cut through the mustard and there isn't anyone on the face of the earth now that knows what God makes of it all. As He already told us, His ways are not our ways and the scribes and pharisees way back could never figure out His way. When He said "Eat of My Flesh, and drink of My Blood" no one on the face of the earth could figure it out. So let God settle things in His good time. Right now I think He's sitting looking and seeing people talking and acting silly.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 30, 2019 22:43:51 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?
Firstly, I see where I may have been confusing. I have several times posted on this site in the past that Fr. Poisson was ordained in the Old Rite but by a New Rite bishop. Fr. Hewko speaks of this clearly as well in his Statement of February 13, 2019. I see I took it for granted that these facts were well known. When I have spoken of Fr. Poisson's Novus Ordo ordination, I lumped his Novus Ordo seminary formation and ordination by a Novus Ordo bishop broadly into the Novus Ordo 'structure'.
Secondly, we see once again the 'myth' that it is Father Hewko who is creating/casting doubt onto Fr. Poisson's ordination being spread in the above post. No one who supports OLMC has yet acknowledged that the FACT is that that it was Fr. Pfeiffer who first announced the doubt abut Fr. Poisson's ordination in March of 2018 and kept him off circuit for several months. If Fr. Poisson's ordination was free of doubt, it was a great sacrilege to bring Moran in for a reordination [one cannot say enough how dubious that 'reordination was at Moran's hands]. The FACTS point clearly to the superior of OLMC making the executive decision that Fr. Poisson's first ordination was in doubt.
All this has been said many times here but I have no problem repeating these FACTS over and over if it is needed. However, I am at the point that I will 'strike through' any further posts that propagate the myth that Fr. Hewko created doubt about Fr. Poisson's ordination, beginning with his Statement of February 13th. The FACTS are otherwise and I will not allow this confusion to be spread here.
Thirdly, lets discuss this casting of doubt on new Rite Orders that is now all of a sudden 'creating a problem' linked to sedevacantism. Both the letter of Susan and Sean's and now tradcatfam are repeating that this 'creation of a problem' is somehow Fr. Hewko's doing. Really? Did Fr. Pfeiffer have this same conflict and crisis on his hands when he too declared Fr. Poisson's first ordination doubtful? Did Fr. Pfeiffer 'create a problem' with concern that the pope was not valid when he declared Fr. Poisson needed to be reordained?
To lump this onto Fr. Hewko is really .... something. The Recusant made a great point yesterday: this whole thing is less about Fr. Poisson than it is about attacking Fr. Hewko. There is zero that Fr. Hewko is being accused of that cannot be redirected right back to OLMC. And the polemics are nothing but that, absurd polemics.
Let me be very clear. The Catacombs does not condone nor support sedevacantism. This has been the case since day one of the forum [see the Welcome at the top of the page]. There is also a whole section of resources here showing its falseness. We all know too that for all his priesthood, Fr. Hewko has consistently condemned sedevacantism. This is something he has repeated ad nauseam for years!
To somehow twist the FACTS into something they are not is disingenuous. We all know that when Fr. Pfeiffer declared that Fr. Poisson needed to be reordained, he was following the example of Archbishop Lefebvre. We know that when Fr. Hewko has said that Fr. Poisson needs to be reordained, he is also following the example of Archbishop Lefebvre. One of these priests changed. And it wasn't Fr. Hewko.
|
|
|
Post by S.A.G. on Jul 30, 2019 23:15:21 GMT
Okay, enough dancing around here. From pg 1 of this thread just answer the question Ecclesia Militans asked:
Will the authors of this letter PLEASE tell us why Fr. Pfeiffer had Fr. Poisson conditionally ordained if there is no positive doubt about Fr. Poisson's ordination by a Novus Ordo bishop? They skipped over the fact of the conditional ordination as if it never happened.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 30, 2019 23:39:57 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)
Welcome Janice's husband!
Kindly permit me to address some of what you have written here.
We all know that there is a difference between valid and licit. There are not synonymous. The Orthodox are valid but not licit. And as Fr. Carl Pulvermacher points out, validity does not equal 'grace-giving'. Archbishop Lefebvre spoke repeatedly about the doubtfulness of all the Novus Ordo sacraments. [You can find a partial list of his great words here and here.]
With respect to your comment that 'uneducated doubts are not necessary'. Strictly speaking, of course that's true. But if you are referring to anything coming from the Novus Ordo, I must confess that I absolutely have to double-down on my stance that Vatican II and everything born of it is thoroughly corrupted, because of its man-centeredness. This alone, this turning away from the very First Commandment, causes everything associated with it to be in doubt. This is confirmed by much better heads than mine. I am merely echoing what other great prelates [Archbishop Lefebvre and Bp. Castro de Mayer] and other great priests have said. But let me be clear, doubtfulness does NOT EQUAL invalidity. It means simply what it says, there is a doubt [in this instance, a doubt as to validity of the Novus Ordo/New Rite Sacraments].
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2019 1:11:08 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.
Dear Admin, we agree that the gates of Hell can never prevail against the Catholic Church. And we also agree that there will be Traditional Priests and Traditional Bishops who will offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Who these future Traditional Priests and Bishops will be, we do not know. What we do know is that for since 2005 (for 14 years), Catholics have had two Popes consecrated in the New Rite. And for those Priests (like Fr. Hewko) who hold the position of the objective dubiousness of the New Rite ordinations and Episcopal consecrations, they must have offered the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in union with doubtful Popes for the past 14 years.
Fr. Hewko is a good Priest, and we hold him in high regard, and hence our concerns. We continue to pray the Rosary for our Priests, Bishops and Catholics, and pray that Holy Mother Church returns to Tradition.
Pax Christi
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2019 1:15:18 GMT
Honestly, I have found many of these posts to be very helpful. We are sharing information, debating, helping each other work through situations, figuring many things out, in a charitable way. It is clear some know far more than others...let us learn from them. If there is a mistake made, someone will eventually correct them. We are human and make mistakes, God alone knows our intentions. I see an absolutely appropriate and meaningful conversation about an email that was sent out to so many people it is safe to assume that discussing it openly and honestly is healthy, not detrimental. Please don't mock all of this by claiming we are all trying to be theologians and we grab our pitch forks. I, for one, totally agree with profound conversations that help souls work through the many difficulties of this apostasy. God bless this well-run forum! And a sincere, immense thank you to all of you who have contributed to this! Please continue! If it calms your worries, please know we did ask Steven Kidalwi to speak personally with Fr Hewko regarding his insistence that Fr Hewko was now teaching ABL incorrectly. We truly hope he does. There is much Steven may learn from this holy priest. Sean and Susan, from the depths of my heart, I was saddened and surprised at your reaction. Please forgive me for any harm I have caused you and know my intent was only to help walk you through some things. That being said, please know this; to have compared my mentioning the fact that your past included time in the Novus Ordo to possibly the most heart wrenching situation in Pablo's life (the death of his son), I must admit was at first a bit shocking. I had to read it twice. It lends me to thinking perhaps you are either highly sensitive and tend to over exaggerate situations or you know well the tactics of manipulating situations in order to gain sympathy for yourselves while strongly suggesting evil intent on the part of others. Either way, please pray about this and if they are mere weaknesses, keep them in check. If they are tactics, please know it is wrong to manipulate others. Also, consider this....God's ways are not our ways. We only view this crisis as we are able to view it...through human eyes. Our Faith reminds us that God knows the future, He has His plan, He alone allows or does not allow, and His victory is certain. After reading your concerns, it struck me that you are seeking a mere human solution, and a very incorrect one in that. You are predicting the future and coming up with a 'what-if' and 'what- happens-when' scenario and then reaching an erroneous conclusion that therefore we must concede to the conciliar church. By, perhaps with good intentions, seeking a human solution, you have agreed to accept error. It makes sense to you, perhaps, because you want to know and understand what the solution is and you want to know right now. Honestly, I think not knowing and understanding completely what is ahead, is part of our immense suffering during this crisis. It is terrifying. Take this heavy burden off of your shoulders and give it to God alone. Tell Him you don't understand but you trust that He does and that you want His will to be accomplished in all of us so that He will be more glorified and honored in the end. Beg Our Lady the grace to stand firm against this conciliar church that does not come from God. Take your worries to the foot of the cross and tell Dear God all of your concerns and then beg Him to strengthen you. Admit to Him that you are a mere human and cannot expect to understand His ways. The solution belongs to God. Trust in Him completely. Now is the time to strengthen ourselves, not weaken by conceding! It may get far worse than this....now is not the hour to digress but to stand firm. Let us beg God to have the Faith of the martyrs, which, as Fr Hewko said well, and I'm only paraphrasing, had the common thread of ZERO COMPROMISE. Please God, grant it to us all!
Dear bethcline,
We posted the letter on Fr. Hewko, Fr. Poisson, Bishop Timlin and the Pope to discuss the position taken by Fr. Hewko and seek clarifications.
It came as a surprise to us that the discussions turned to our coming from the Novus Ordo and other details, and thus our response to the Admin. We also found it surprising that you found our reaction to be sensitive. Not at all. If we had that view, our names would not have been included in the post. The Admin and other benefactors on this forum most certainly know who we are. Our comment to the Admin was that who we are (or anyone else is) or where we reside (or where anyone else resides) should not have any bearing on the discussion. By all means we can all have a conversation on who eats fish on Fridays on a separate thread, but that is not the topic of discussion on this thread.
Your recent comment suggests that we are looking for human solutions, because we are predicting the future and coming up with what-if and what-happens-when scenarios. However, the current reality for Catholics is that: a) Other than a handful of Traditional Bishops, most of the Bishops in the Catholic Church have been ordained in the New Rite. b) Since 2005, we have had two Popes who have been ordained as Bishops in the New Rite c) Only the Bishop of Rome can become Pope d) Fr. Hewko holds the position of the objective dubiousness of the New Rite ordinations and Episcopal consecrations. Thus he must hold the position that the Pope is a dubious Pope and not a true Pope and thus traditional Priests who hold the position of Fr. Hewko have been offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in union with doubtful Popes for the past 14 years.
Fr. Hewko is a good Priest, and we hold him in high regard, and hence our concerns. This is the reality we are dealing with and hence the questions in our original letter.
Pax Christi
|
|
|
Post by S.A.G. on Jul 31, 2019 1:44:46 GMT
You're going in circles because you refuse to get to the root of the issue. You will help yourself if you scratch beneath the surface of where you're comfortable which is by avoiding
the first question to you. You've been asked this question several times.
Will the authors of this letter PLEASE tell us why Fr. Pfeiffer had Fr. Poisson conditionally ordained if there is no positive doubt about Fr. Poisson's ordination by a Novus Ordo bishop? They skipped over the fact of the conditional ordination as if it never happened.
We get to ask questions too ya know. Please answer.
|
|
|
Post by Fidelis on Jul 31, 2019 1:45:21 GMT
The Mass is NOT said in union with the Pope, the Church only PRAYS for the Pope and the Bishop of the local Diocese.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2019 2:02:41 GMT
Until "fr." Poisson publicly renounces his involvement with a heretic, he must be presumed a heretic.
As for b. Timlin, birds of a feather flock together.
As for fr. Hewko, God help him.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 31, 2019 2:05:03 GMT
"Fr." Poison's conditional ordination by a heretic supersedes his ordination by the FSSP, just as Moran's "consecration" by the group in Colorado superseded everything before. Unless "fr." Poisson publicly renounces his involvement with a heretic, he is a heretic. As for b. Timlin, birds of a feather flock together. As for fr. Hewko, God help him. There is no declaring people heretics before the Church does here on The Catacombs , MM.
|
|
|
Post by S.A.G. on Jul 31, 2019 2:06:45 GMT
If you have such high regard for him did you call him with these questions privately since you live in the same country, before blasting them all over with this letter to people you don't even know?
If you have such high regard for him why did you not publish his response even though you had it within the first day the first emails were sent out? But instead continued to send out these questions to even more people over a couple of days. Where's the follow up email to all the souls you sent the questions to with his response?
If you have such high regard for him why do you selectively ask Fr. Hewko these questions and not Fr. Pfeiffer publicly when they were both in agreement that a re-ordination was necessary, for those first few months after Fr. Poisson's arrival culminating in a re-ordination by Moran?
|
|