Friday, February 9, 2018

Wandering this wicked wasteland

As an Irish-Algonquin Catholic, ABS is descended from men who were accustomed to the existential necessity of being situationally aware and his progenitors knew who were their friends they could trust and be at ease with and who were their enemies they had to be circumspect and cautious around but be ready to fight tooth and nail at the drop of a hat.

ABS wanders this wicked wasteland during this most execrable epoch of epicene ecclesiastics well aware that he can expect no support from the Pope, Prelature, and Priesthood.


He is on his own and he knows without the least bit of doubt that the only one he can trust is Jesus Christ and even though nearly every one of you miserable ecumenical clowns in The One True Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church no longer holds nor teaches the Faith once delivered, ABS does.

Bring it on, ya miserable sons-of-bitches. 

ABS stands with Jesus Christ and you can't make him comply with or agree with even the slightest thing that is not fully in line with the Commandments of Jesus Christ and Catholic Tradition.




ABS ain't going anywhere and he sure as hell is not going to throw in with the SSPX who are essentially no different than the draft dodgers of the Vietnam War era who fled to Canada, donned fatigues, and demonstrated against the USA.

The SSPX are the ecclesiastical equivalent of the draft dodgers. They fled the field of battle and donned Fiddlebacks and they have created their own petit ecclesia and, unlike the draft dodgers who were granted amnesty and returned to the USA, the SSPX were similarly granted amnesty but refused to return and reassemble on the field of battle inside The One True Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church where Tradition and Modernism are at war.

C'est la vie; Vatican 1 trailed the Old Catholics schism in its wake and Vatican II trailed the SSPX schism in its wake.

When ABS assists at the Lil' Licit Liturgy - the one in which the Offertory was assassinated and replaced with the corpse of the meal prayer of the Messias-Deniers, among the other evil and destructive actions of the revolutionaries - he is an outsider amongst a crowd of rank strangers who do not hold the Faith once delivered:



52 comments:

  1. Who is in schism with who? If not for the SSPX, the TLM would have been dead and completely buried. They may have their problems, but again, who is in schism with the true teachings of Jesus Christ and His Church? The Popes after Vatican II have strayed from the one truth, some more than others, but all would be in 'schism' with regards to some truth compared to the Popes before Vatican II.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The SSPX, and a few others, ARE the real Church, the remnant. How can that be? Multi sent vocati, vero electi...many are called but (VERY) few are chosen. Even Pope Benedict warned that few means very few will remain truly Catholic. Suggest you head for the SSPX lifeboat immediately.

      Delete
    2. Dear Mr. Nelson. Please cite for all, Catholic Tradition teaching that a schism is permissible for _____________ Fill in the blank.

      You canot because schism is Protestant tradition and it has never - as in never ever- been permitted in Catholic Tradition and so it is clear to those who are not suffering a delusion that actions contrary to Catholic Tradition can not be part of Catholic Tradition.

      Catholic Tradition has always taught there is no justification for schism but far too many soi disant Trads have proudly adopted the protestant tradition during this time of diabolical disorientation.

      Delete
    3. Can you describe what is not illicit or schismatic with regard to a Mass (N.O.) formed with significant input from protestants and known Freemasons? Let me know, when you have an answer.

      Delete
    4. Dear John. The Lil' Licit Liturgy is valid and licit despite its obvious limitations.

      Delete
  2. The SSPX didn’t leave the battle field. They are still fighting at this moment, just not following the orders of a traitorous commander. Their faithful resistance to illegitimate orders has brought about the Fraternity of St. Peter, Pope Benedict’s Moto Proprio freeing the entire Church to utilize the Traditional Mass, and will likely be seen as the pivotal movement preserving the Faith through the greatest crisis in the history of the Church.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Mr. Eddy. Yes, they absolutely bravely run oft during their time of trial.

      That is why they were excommunicated - for creating a schism.

      Delete
    2. "That is why they were excommunicated - for creating a schism."

      Um, no. But that's the diagnosis one gets when seeking treatment from an amateur Brain surgeon who, reading this article, seems intent on tooting is holy horn.

      Look to your own "trial," ABM. Humility is what will get you through the temptation to feel you are better than others for choosing that which Providence has provided for you.

      Delete
    3. Dear PM
      APOSTOLIC LETTER
      "ECCLESIA DEI"
      OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF
      JOHN PAUL II
      GIVEN MOTU PROPRIO

      1. With great affliction the Church has learned of the unlawful episcopal ordination conferred on 30 June last by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, which has frustrated all the efforts made during the previous years to ensure the full communion with the Church of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X founded by the same Mons. Lefebvre. These efforts, especially intense during recent months, in which the Apostolic See has shown comprehension to the limits of the possible, were all to no avail.(1)

      2. This affliction was particularly felt by the Successor Peter to whom in the first place pertains the guardianship of the unity of the Church,(2) even though the number of persons directly involved in these events might be few. For every person is loved by God on his own account and has been redeemed by the blood of Christ shed on the Cross for the salvation of all.

      The particular circumstances, both objective and subjective in which Archbishop Lefebvre acted, provide everyone with an occasion for profound reflection and for a renewed pledge of fidelity to Christ and to his Church.

      3. In itself, this act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act.(3) In performing such an act, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning sent to them by the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops on 17 June last, Mons. Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law.(4)

      4. The root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of Tradition. Incomplete, because it does not take sufficiently into account the living character of Tradition, which, as the Second Vatican Council clearly taught, "comes from the apostles and progresses in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. There is a growth in insight into the realities and words that are being passed on. This comes about in various ways. It comes through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts. It comes from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which they experience. And it comes from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth".(5)

      Delete
  3. Dear Messers Nelson and Eddy. If you succor the SSPX you are also likely Mons Lefebvre supporters who think he was another Saint Athanasius.

    Read the history of Saint Athanasius. He was never disobedient. Never. He even obeyed unjust commands and decisions.

    The SSPX is an annealed schism and it is never going to end.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He's not another Saint Athanasius. He's one-of-a-kind saint-in-waiting Marcel Lefebvre.

      Delete
    2. Schism and disobedience are not identical. Disobedience is saying no to a command and schism is saying you have no right to command me and I do not recognise your authority to do so. The SSPX are disobedient to commands and in my opinion justly so but they are not in schism because the have never refused obedience to legitimate commands, that is commands consonant with the Faith of our Fathers. Obedience has limits.

      Delete
    3. Dear Mr. Brady. Many refuse to see the plain and simple truth that the SSPX is an annealed and permanent schism and those who succor it are different from the schismatics of the East who also think communion with crummy Popes is not a part of catholicism how?

      The SSPX will do what a Pope asks if they agree with it and they will not do what he requests if they disagree with it.

      That is, they think themselves the ultimate authority and they are now raising a third generation of youth who are taught that entering into Communion with the Catholic Church is a danger to their Faith and eternal souls.

      It is impossible that this will end well.

      In fact, it has already ended. The SSPX has its own permanent vagus Bishop acting within the legitimate jurisdiction of Bishops even though such actions are expressly condemned by Trent.

      The SSPX is its own petit ecclesia.

      Delete
    4. It appears the crisis in the Church has passed you by. Again you make claims but offer no evidence. Your understanding of the jurisdiction of bishops is also faulty. The bishops of the SSPX have no jurisdiction and are viewed as auxiliaries with the sole job of ordaining and confirming. If you are insistent that the SSPX are in schism you are claiming an authority that you don't possess (I assume you are a layman) as the curial authorities in the Vatican, plus the present pontiff and his predecessor hold that the society is not in schism.

      Delete
    5. Dear Gerald. You are blinded by ideology which is exposed when you first say the SSPX are only disobedient and not schismatic when the plain and simple truth is they were excommunicated for their schism.

      Those deluded by ideology refuse to confirm facts - that is what you are doing.

      Delete
    6. The Archbishop wss not disobedient. He had something called Faith (and was considered to be one of the top theologians by Pius XII). He did what other Bishops failed at what tgey were charged to do: defend his flock from evil. He taught nothing different from the Faith handed down to him (Faith of the Fathers). He was extremely obedient, he only made the decision to ordain Bishops after repeatedly being lied to be Roman officials about their conditions of granting him a Traditional Bishop. He could see they (Rome) intended to destroy Tradition, as the Freemasons were in control. Maybe get up out of your chair, pick up a few books, get a hold of some Truth.

      Delete
    7. ABS, you are speaking out of turn which would indicate you have established your own petite ecclesia of one wherein you declare where those with the given authority have not.

      Looks like you've victimized yourself here and are doubling down on your error to cover the reality that you don't the case upon which you seek to declare definitive judgment.

      Delete
    8. ABS, no soldier is required to follow an unlawful order. No catholic should follow an abuse of a thorium in following an order that is harmful to the faith, or waters it down. Vatican 2 documents actually state that Latin and Gregorian chant is to be maintained. On so many levels the SSPX is actually more faithful to the letter of V II, than your typical Novus Ordo parish.

      Delete
    9. Gerald May, Pope Benedict has made it clear it was not disciplinary (disobedience) that keeps SSPX outside the fold. It's doctrinal.

      " In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church."
      --Benedict XVI

      Read here:
      http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica.html

      Delete
  4. To fearlessly preserve the Faith is no where comparable to being "draft dodgers." To blindly accept and follow orders that are explicitly and obviously in direct contradiction to Tradition is not only naive, but dangerously obstinate and dismissive of the God-given faculties of reason and logic. Any Catholic that would defend the Faith - tooth and nail - deserves our support not our contempt.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Fitr4Life. There is nothing courageous about creating a schism.

      Mons Lefebvre signed every single document of Vatican Two.

      Mons Lefebvre is considered the priest who preserved Tradition.

      Therefore, Vatican Two is Tradition.

      Delete
    2. Nonsense. Mon Lefebvre signed the pastoral mush he was clearly uncomfortable with, in the hope that better, more faithful minds would faithfully interpret this non-dogmatic council. That didn't work out too well. Then, when Paul VI dumped the Mass for the Bugnini-Protestant amalgam, well, he acted according to conscience. He embraced tradition as St Athanasius and St Vincent of Lerins both exhorted. Canonically irregular ? -Perhaps. Schism ? No.

      Delete
    3. Dear Don. Mons Lefebvre signed every single document of Vatican Two and then spent many years denying he did win all of the documents. When it was proved he did sin them he simply sloughed that off.

      The SSPX considers some of the V2 documents heretical - such as D.H. - but Mons Lefebvre signed them so was he a heretic when he signed them?

      How can he be considered a Saint when what he did was so reminiscent of what John Kerry did - He was for it before he was against it

      Please post for al to see where either St. Vincent of St Athanasius either excused or promoted a schism

      Delete
  5. ... and you're an Amateur Brain Surgeon. Annealed delusion that's never going to end.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Someday when you've no decent Mass left and no truth to be found other than that preserved by the SSPX, you'll eat crow. Your slanderous screed is contemptible.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Elizanna. You prolly have not be told that Tradition teaches tha the Masses of the SSPX are criminal and sacrilegious:

      AD APOSTOLORUM PRINCIPIS

      40. And when We later addressed to you the letter Ad Sinarum gentem, We again referred to this teaching in these words: The power of jurisdiction which is conferred directly by divine right on the Supreme Pontiff comes to bishops by that same right, but only through the successor of Peter, to whom not only the faithful but also all bishops are bound to be constantly subject and to adhere both by the reverence of obedience and by the bond of unity."

      Acts requiring the power of Holy Orders which are performed by ecclesiastics of this kind, though they are valid as long as the consecration conferred on them was valid, are yet gravely illicit, that is, criminal and sacrilegious.



      Delete
    2. Referencing Ad Apostolorum Principis is rather ironic given the Vatican's current ostpolitik.

      Delete
    3. Dear Mr. Brady. That's it?

      That is your response to the fact that what the SSPX has been doing is illicit, criminal, and sacrilegious?

      Those who succor the SSPX schism only support Tradition when it does not hurt the cause of the schism. If Tradition teaches what As Apostolorum Principis teaches, they it is simply sloughed-off because - "Look a squirrel"

      Delete
  7. You can always count on some jackass to come out of the woodwork to tell us all how the SSPX are "the real problem"....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Amen to that. ABS - a thief breaks into the local rectory and kidnaps the priest. On Sunday the thief dresses in vestments and simulates a Mass, but everybody knows there is something wrong (form, matter, intent maybe?) The priest escapes the kidnapping and shows up to offer the true Mass in some local hotel ballroom. So what Mass do you go to next Sunday? (V2 condenced in 60 words)

      Delete
    2. Apples and oranges. Cannot be compared with SSPX case.

      But say your story did happen, the Mass held in the church gets ecclesia supplet, because the people did not know the guy was not a priest.

      Whereas Mass in the hotel would have to touch base with the bishop first before it could be repeated.

      Delete
  8. Fled the Battle? Archbishop Lefebvre thankfully met the heretics occupying Rome head on, unlike the spineless prelates who knew something was wrong and kept their mouths shut. If anything, Rome is in schism, nothing coming out of there is Catholic. I hope you have an excuse for such mindless, baseless blabbering.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The SSPX is more like the 101st at Bastogne than any "draft dodgers"....if you have the Latin Mass today, you have Archbishop Lefebvre to thank.

      Delete
    2. Edison Frisbee,

      Not true.

      The "Old Catholic" church has been "preserving" the Mass in Latin since just after Vatican I and still they lose.

      As Pope Benedict said, it's not disobedience that's keeping SSPX outside of the fold. It's doctrine.

      "The fact that the Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical status in the Church is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons. As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church." - Pope Benedict XVI

      http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica.html

      Delete
  9. Canon 188.4 of Pio Benedictine Canon Law 1917 is clear.
    It is not us who have schismed, but the V2 heretics and all related to them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Kurgan. When Pope Saint John Paul II excommunicated Lefebvre and the lads for schism it is prolly your opinion it didnt count, right?

      Delete
  10. Only, the bishops were unjustly excommunicated, not the priests or faithful. Lefevre initially had full canonical regularization. St. JP II, told Lefevre that he could ordain auxiliary bishops for the traditional order, but then the pope never gave his approval, hoping to wait out the elderly archbishop till his death. This created a crisis situation with tradition being eliminated. Being a Vatican 2 church father, he knew under canon law he had the right to ordain a bishop. The injustice of this was partially rectified when pope Benedict lifted the excommunications for the living SSPX bishops.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Right. Still, what good was the lifting of excommunication of the four bishops if SSPX liturgy and sacraments remain illicit?

      "In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church." - Pope Benedict XVI

      http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica.html

      Delete
  11. Obviously anything worth doing will not be done by ABS.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Right. When all else fails, you attack ad hominem. Brilliant.

      Delete
  12. Thanks for letting me know where you stand on the SSPX issue. I won't be visiting this blog anymore.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Mons Lefebvre tried to justify his perfidy and schism in the same way as Martin Luther did and he used nearly the same words:

    Martin Luther, "These [church laws] hold good only so long as they are not injurious to Christianity and the laws of God. Therefore, if the Pope deserves punishment, these laws cease to bind us, since Christendom would suffer."

    According to Marcel Lefebvre, "In the Church there is no law or jurisdiction which can impose on a Christian a diminution of his faith. All the faithful can and should resist whatever interferes with their faith.... If they are forced with an order putting their faith in danger of corruption, there is an overriding duty to disobey."

    ... According to Martin Luther, "The Church of Rome, formerly the most holy of all churches, has become . . . the very kingdom of sin, death and hell; so that not even the Antichrist, if he were to come, could desire any addition to its wickedness."

    According to Marcel Lefebvre, in his Aug. 29, 1987. letter to the four bishops-to-be, "The See of Peter and posts of authority in Rome being occupied by Antichrists, the destruction of the Kingdom of Our Lord is being rapidly carried out even within His Mystical Body here below."

    ReplyDelete
  14. Dear Mr. Brady. Sorry, you were lied to by Lefebvre and his minions.

    The SSPX is a petit ecclesia that DOES claim jurisdiction - universal at that

    SUPPLIED JURISDICTION

    – Canon law provides for certain cases where the Church makes up for the priest’s lack of jurisdiction: “the Church supplies jurisdiction not as a personal benefit, but for the bonum animarum commune [the common good of souls]” (Cappello, 1, n. 252). The Church expressly supplies jurisdiction in three cases: the danger of death (can. 882), common error (can. 209) and positive probable doubt whether of law or of fact (can. 209) (cf. Noldin, III, n. 346-347; Cappello, I, n. 254-258).

    – Owing to the fact that the hierarchy (cf. can. 108 § 3) has in large part distanced itself from the Catholic faith, generally speaking the faithful are unable to receive spiritual aid from it without endangering their faith. There can be no doubt, therefore, that the Church generously extends to the faithful what she grants in danger of death and in other cases of emergency, and that for this reason, owing to the analogia iuris [analogy of law] (can. 20) and the æquitas canonica [canonical equity], she makes up for the lack of jurisdiction of faithful priests (cf. can. 209, 2261...) when they are unjustly deprived of the jurisdiction they would have in normal times either by right (e.g. novus ordo, can. 967 § 2), or by delegation.

    – Characteristics of this supplied jurisdiction.

    ( 1) It has more of a personal than a territorial character; (2) it is not habitual but is exercised “per modum actus” [on a temporary basis] (cf. Cappello, I, n. 252); (3) it depends on the needs of the faithful, taking into account the law of necessity (cf. Conférence aux Cercles de la Tradition, Paris, 10 March 1991); but (4) it exists even in cases where there is in fact no strict necessity; for there is a presumption of common danger and therefore an analogy with can. 21, permitted by can. 20, and as there will generally exist a probable doubt regarding faith, jurisdiction will be supplied in accordance with can. 209.

    – Those who possess supplied jurisdiction.

    These include all bishops and all priests faithful to tradition (even the excommunicated, cf. can. 2261, when that term is used as an argument “ad hominem”), for the licit or valid exercise of acts of the episcopal or sacerdotal ministry.

    – Hierarchy in supplied jurisdiction.

    Absolutely speaking, with regard to the faithful, simple priests have no less supplied power than a prior or district superior. But as a matter of practicality, in order to preserve the hierarchical dimension that belongs to the spirit of the Church and to assign more serious cases to superior authority, certain powers are reserved to the higher ranks as they are in the normal hierarchy, in accordance with the following rules:

    * Priors and priests in charge of chapels are equivalent to private priests, such as military chaplains.

    * District Superiors, seminaries and independent houses as well as the Superior General and his assistants, although in theory they only have jurisdiction over their subjects (priests, seminarians, brothers, oblates and members of their household), are equivalent to military Ordinaries, with regard to the faithful whose priests have the care of souls (sic).

    * The bishops of the Society, though deprived of any territorial jurisdiction, nevertheless possess the suppletory jurisdiction necessary to exercise the powers attached to the episcopal order and certain acts of ordinary episcopal jurisdiction.

    ReplyDelete
  15. SSPX supplied jurisdiction is like me giving myself a driver's license when I don't know how to follow traffic rules. My supplied jurisdiction is by my own authority. Who cares if I mow down a few people?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Marie. Thank you for your timely and astute observations here.

      Delete
  16. prof. basto said...

    It seems that the stumbling blocks were two:

    FIRST - The Archbishop first asked for the consacration of one bishop, and, after getting the promise of one such consecration to be held in an unspecified date, he changed his mind and started to demand a plurality of bishops.

    SECOND - The Archbishop dictated that he would only wait for pontifical mandate until June 30th, and that, if by that date no mandate had arrived, he would consacrate his four chosen ones without papal approval. Thus, the Archbishop effectively presented an ultimatum to the Supreme Pontiff. The Holy See, on the other hand, informed that it could issue pontifical mandate for the consecration of ONE bishop of its choice by August 15th. But the Archbishop chose not to wait for the August 15th promise, and instead went ahead with his June 30th plan. The Archbishop then began to adopt inflamatory language, made his ultimatum public, and even made, still in mid June, a public announcement of the four priests he would consecrate on the 30th of the month.

    The Holy See, confronted with such an act of defiance, expressed in rude letters, a public ultimatum to consacrate without pontifical mandate and a public press conference in June to present the candidates not chosen by the Pope, and also confronted with the Archbishop's lack of good faith regarding the execution of the Protocol, could not just bend over and accept his demands; blind acceptance is what the Archbishop expected, because, as he wrote, he percieved that the Holy See was anxious for an agreement. But, in raising the level of his demands after agreeing to a previous agreement, the Archbishop probably lost the Holy See's confidence, and, what is more, the Holy Apostolic See could not simply yeald to a rude letter, a public ultimatum and an unilateral presentation of the future bishops to the press. Were the Church of Rome to give in to such demands, presented in such a way, and it would have lost all authority.

    And that's why agreement never came. For me, personnally, the Archbishop did several things wrongly, and one of his principal errors was not trusting, and not waiting for, the John Paul II/Ratzinger promise of one pontifical mandate by mid August.

    05 July, 2008 05:19

    ReplyDelete
  17. What doe The Washington Post know that the victims of the schism's propaganda don't know?

    That Pope Saint John Paul II agreed to let Lefebvre have a Bishop on August 15th - A SPECIFIC DATE LESS THAN TWO MONTHS AFTDER HE THREATENED TO CONSECRATE A BISHOP EVEN TTHOUG HE KNEW SUCH AN ACT WAS SCHISMATIC

    POPE CALLS FOR UNITY IN CHURCH




    Washington Post, June 25, 1988

    VATICAN CITY -- Pope John Paul II has issued a plea for unity within the Roman Catholic Church as Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre's continued defiance threatened a schism with the Vatican.

    Lefebvre on Tuesday reaffirmed his decision to elevate four priests among his traditionalist followers to bishop's rank in a June 30 ceremony.
    Creating bishops without papal permission is against church law.


    The 82-year-old Frenchman has rebelled for two decades against the reforms enacted by the Vatican after the Second Vatican Council of 1962-65, which simplified and modernized the Roman Catholic liturgy.

    John Paul has given Lefebvre permission to consecrate only one bishop Aug. 15. The Vatican has also formally warned Lefebvre that he would be automatically excommunicated if he goes ahead with his consecration plan.

    ReplyDelete