Skip to main content

The Band Keeps On Playing - Beatification of Pope Paul VI

+
JMJ

In the background, while one hand attempts to destroy the Catholic Morality, the other attempts to uplift a hero of the 'reform'.

P^3

Courtesy of DICI



Communiqué of the General House of the Society of Saint Pius X on the Beatification of Pope Paul VI

17-10-2014  
Filed under From RomeNews
On October 19, 2014, at the close of the Extraordinary Synod on the family, Pope Francis will go forward with the beatification of Pope Paul VI. The Society of Saint Pius X wishes to express serious reservations concerning beatifications and canonizations of recent popes, whose rushed proceedings dispense with the wisdom of the Church’s centuries-old rules.
It is true that Paul VI was responsible for the encyclical Humanae Vitae[1], which letter instructed and consoled the Catholic family at a time when the most basic principles of marriage were under bitter attack. So they are again, and in a scandalous fashion, by certain members of the present Synod.
But Paul VI is also the Pope who saw Vatican II to its conclusion, thereby introducing in the Church a doctrinal liberalism manifested especially in errors such as religious liberty, collegiality, and ecumenism. The result was an upheaval which he himself admitted on December 7, 1968, in the following words: “The Church is now confronted with uncertainty, self-criticism, one might almost say self-destruction. As if the Church were doing violence to Herself.” The following year he conceded: “In many areas the Council has not yet put us at peace; it has rather stirred up trouble and difficulties which are useless for reinforcing the Kingdom of God in the Church and in souls.” He went so far as to give this dire warning on July 29, 1972: “The smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God through some crack: doubt, incertitude, dissension, worry, discontent, and conflict are plain to see…” But he was merely stating a fact, while failing to take those measures capable of stopping the self-destruction.
Paul VI is the Pope who imposed a liturgical reform of the rites of Mass the other sacraments for reasons inspired by ecumenism. Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci denounced this new Mass because it departed “significantly, on the whole and in its details, from Catholic theology of the holy Mass as formulated during the 22nd session of the Council of Trent.”[2] Along the same lines Archbishop Lefebvre said that the new Mass was “infused with a protestant spirit” which is a “poison inimical to the Faith.”[3]
Under his pontificate many priests and religious were persecuted, and even condemned, for their fidelity to the Tridentine Mass. The Priestly Society of Saint Pius X remembers with great sorrow the condemnation of 1976 whereby Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre found himself suspens a divinis because of his attachment to that Mass and his categorical refusal of the reforms. Only in 2007, with the issuance of Pope Benedict XVI’s motu proprio, was it finally admitted that the Tridentine Mass had never been abrogated.
Following in the footsteps of its founder, the Society of Saint Pius X declares yet again its attachment to the Church’s two thousand-year-old Tradition, convinced that such fidelity, far from vain nostalgia, in fact provides an apt remedy to the Church’s self-destruction.
Given at Menzingen October 17, 2014

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Doctrinal Preamble April 15, 2012 vs Protocol 1988

+ JMJ Reproduced below are the Doctrinal Preamble of Bishop Fellay (2012) and Protocol of Archbishop Lefebvre (1988) for comparison. Perhaps when I have time I will add detailed commentary.  Now, given that Archbishop Lefebvre stated that there was nothing wrong with the 1988 text of the protocol, comparing it with that of Bishop Fellay ... where's the problem? Are as  Kaesekopf of Suscipedomine wrote : ...can someone explain why trads would reject this? Or rather, why a sedeplenist trad (who accepts the validity of the NO) would reject this?  Update: To make a comparison easier,  I have inserted the comparable elements of the Protocol developed by Archbishop Lefebvre with that of Bishop Fellay.  I have also included my own commentary in blue . Last thought, when I first read the preamble I thought ... ok so what's the problem?  Now I that I've read it again ... I still ask: What's the problem?  It was based on the Protocol signed by Ar...

Fr. Burfitt on Fr. Pfeiffer's Attempted Consecration

 + JMJ   Amidst the shadows cast by the publication of Traditionis Custodes, I am working on a map of the 'resistance' splinters to put their reaction in contrast with that of the SSPX.  In the midst of this, I just came across Fr. Burfitt letter on the attempted consecration. Breaking it down (see below)  items 2 and 3 are key.  Just as the consecrating bishop is 'doubtful', even if he hadn't muffed the first attempt, Fr. Pfeiffer remain doubtful and therefore this impacts those men is attempts to 'ordain'. There were rumours that Fr. Pfeiffer was seeking episcopal consecration for years as he cast about for various bishops (also doubtful) to help him achieve this goal. I wonder how he convinced the 'doubtful' bishop to provide (twice) the doubtful consecration. What a mess!  This creates a danger to the souls of his followers and wonder where it will end. Will he go full sede and have himself 'elected' pontiff as others have done before him...

Lamentabili Sane #8 and Bishop Richard Williamson

"They are free from all blame who treat lightly the condemnations passed by the Sacred Congregation of the Index or by the Roman Congregations." -  LAMENTABILI SANE The above quotation is the 8th modernist thesis condemned in Lamentabili Sane by Pope St. Pius X. As a traditionalist, I obviously believe that the decrees of Lamentabili Sane are as valid today as they were almost a hundred years ago. Before anyone accuses me of contravening this article by my support of the SSPX, I would like to know what condemnation of what congregation is being 'treated lightly' by the SSPX. In this case, I mean what doctrinal position that the SSPX holds has been explicitly condemned by a congregation.

How many more must die for the throne? or How to combat FUD!

 + JMJ How many more must die for the throne? (Movie Quote: Prince Caspian) The Spread of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt I've seen a lot of FUD spreading across the intergnat on various stats etc.   So let's put this in context ... especially the perspective of those people in positions of authority who need to make decisions to protect the lives of their citizens. Yep, this is going to be that type of post.  Like it or not the leaders of our governments have their authority from God.  So, as Catholics should know, you need to have a very good reason to deliberately disobey the orders of their superiors. This is basic St. Thomas Aquinas ... so don't blame me for discussing things from a Catholic perspective. The leaders of our countries have taken action to protect the vulnerable of our countries.   As much as the young and not-so-young may whine and complain - I have to ask how many more of our elderly have to die? What the armchair virologists and ec...