In this time of uncertainty and chaos, there is a persistent debate within the faithful remnant of the One True Church. That is ---which liturgy should we go with--- the one we had from, basically, the 400’s through 1955, or that which came before 1961/2. There is some uncertainty, both as to whether John 23 was a valid pope or not, and whether the changes he made to the liturgy was something a valid pope could do nor not. Bishop Sandborn has said something to the effect that a valid pope can create a liturgy from scratch if he so desired and we would be obliged to follow it. So, the question is not whether a valid pope can change the liturgy or not, nor if we should obey him or not, but during this almost 70 year interregnum, with all the hindsight we have now, whether Catholic Priests can, in good conscience, offer the same liturgy, standardized in the most solemn way by Pope Saint Pius V, we have had for the vast majority of our history.
I hope this is clear to any sedevacantist who believes that the changes under the name of Pope Pius XII were in themselves an incentive to impiety or worse. There is no legitimate reason we should doubt any part of the papacy of Pope Pius XII. As far as I know (I have researched the topic myself and found nothing), he never bound on the Church any heresy or discipline which was harmful to souls. He was a suffering pope. As an apologist against the Feeneyites, he is a pope I admire very much as I have become quite familiar with his writings against that position.
The way I would explain to any sedevacantist who believes Pius XII’s liturgy was an incentive to impiety or worse, is as follows:
Suppose we had no liturgy, liturgical calendar, octaves or anything in the history of the Church which we could compare it to apart from what Pope Pius XII established in 1955. By itself, there is nothing wrong with it at all. Most of it is beautiful and any part of it which might rub some the wrong way (more lay involvement, dialogue Mass, Priest facing the people at times, part of the liturgy offered in the vernacular, Eucharistic fast, evening Masses, changing how Masses are ranked, eliminating octaves and vigils) has nothing harmful in it at all objectively speaking. It is a great treasure. The greatest treasure on earth.
The purported problem lies with an objective look at how the liturgy formed during persecutions in the early centuries of the Church, organically developed until the time of Pope Saint Gregory the Great in comparison with the Pian changes. No discussion can be had apart from the core foundation that Pope Pius XII was a valid pope and that the changes he mandated were not in themselves harmful in any way.
The great pioneers of our movement, our traditional heroes in a certain sense, in which Father DePauw was certainly a key figure, included Father Martin Stepanich and “The Nine” which shortly after became “The 12” (Fathers Colins, Ahearn and McMahon) all (with the exception of Father DePauw) went with the pre-55 liturgy. This, by itself, should speak loudly to us, at least in regard to the plausibility of their position.
In my opinion, at the very least, priests on this side of the issue should not be condemned for their position, nor characterized as certainly erring, even if in good faith. But what is worse, and certainly unacceptable, is believing, and stating publicly, that they do this “merely because they prefer it." That is a reprehensible statement. The idea that they would risk their souls (that is what a priest does if he disobeys a pope) over a mere preference is a shallow and unfounded proposition at best.
From the Mouth of the Solid, Sound and Reputable Mario Derksen
To get to the meat of this subject I should like to quote Mario Derksen’s public comments on this very issue:
It may be fairly well known that not all sedevacantists are in agreement with each other regarding the use of the revisions of Pope Pius XII made to the Holy Week liturgy in 1955. Every year when Holy Week rolls around, you will find that some sedevacantist chapels use the revised liturgy of 1955 in obedience to the liturgical law that was on the books when Pius XII died in 1958. Whereas other sedevacantists use the pre-1955 Holy Week Rites, convinced that in our current circumstances, Pius XII himself would want us to revert back to the earlier form. In the present podcast, we are not trying to address that dispute, much less settle it. [Note from J.G. - Mario is not shy when it comes to defending the truth on any issue pertaining to our Catholic Faith. Why not settle it if it is obvious, and easily proved that the pre-55 priests cannot, with a properly formed conscience, expect a pleasant Judgement, due to their “disobedience to the Pope”? Could it be because it cannot be easily settled?] Instead, we want to focus on and refute the position of Father Mawdsley. To do that, we need to call to mind some facts which no one can, and no one does dispute.
First, the Catholic Church teaches that it is impossible for a true pope to approve a liturgical rite for the universal church that is “in itself” evil, sacrilegious, heretical, impious or harmful to souls.
Secondly, in 1955, Pope Pius XII did in fact approve the revised Holy Week liturgy and made it mandatory to be used starting in 1956 in every church in the world that uses the Roman Rite.
Third, beginning in 1956, every Roman Rite Church did in fact use the new Holy Week liturgy for the short remainder of Pius XII’s pontificate. Meaning also in 1957 and 58. Not everyone agreed with the revisions. Not everyone thought they were a good idea, but everyone complied, at least as far as I know. In other words, both versions of Holy Week, the one from 1955 and the pre-55 one were in fact used by the entire church at their respective times.
Fourth, it follows that neither liturgy can possibly be in itself evil, sacrilegious, heretical, impious or harmful. Now notice that the qualification “in itself” is very import here because it is possible that an approved liturgical rite should become dangerous or harmful by circumstance. Even God’s own written word for example if it is not read and understood according to the mind of Holy Mother Church. That is why for example Saint Peter wrote about the divinely inspired epistles of Saint Paul that in them “are certain things hard to be understood which the unlearned and unstable wrest as they do also other scriptures to their own destruction." That’s found in 2 Peter 3:16.
Likewise, it is possible that given certain circumstances, a papally approved or mandated liturgical change be imprudent. For example, when in 1910, Pope Saint Pius X decreed that Holy Communion could now be received by children as young as the age of reason as long as they were properly catechized and properly disposed. This was considered an unwise move by some who thought that it would lead to many unworthy Communions. Before that time, children were not allowed to receive the Blessed Sacrament until they were at least 12 years old.
But regardless of what one personally thinks about a liturgical or sacramental decision by a reigning pope, one must obey it. Which is why everyone complied and used Pius XII Holy Week reforms beginning in 1956.
Even the sedevacantsts who don’t use the Holy Week changes today and instead revert back to the pre-1955 liturgy only do so in the absence of a pope who could settle the dispute here and now and that is the essential difference between the sedevacantist position and that of Father Mawdsley. Mawdsley tells his audience that the decrees of a reigning pope can and ought to be rejected by the faithful if they believe they go against tradition as recognize and resisters like to put it. Now, if Mawdsley thinks he can find that idea in any magisterial document from before Vatican II or even just any approved pre-Vatican II theological manual, I would encourage him to start digging. Meanwhile, what we do find in the Pope’s magisterium is very much the opposite.
All right. So, hopefully I’ve clarified this difference sufficiently so no one can say that some sedevacantists are doing the same thing Father Mawdsley is doing.
No, they’re not. Sedevacantists disagree with each other on what the right thing to do is while the shepherd is struck while there is no pope to consult for guidance. Father Mawdsley, on the other hand, wants you to rebel against the known will of a presently reigning pope because he’s not following tradition. So that is the essential difference.
Inevitably someone will argue now well if that’s what you believe then why don’t you embrace the new mass and other liturgical changes of Paul 6? (Notice he did not mention John 23 – J.G.) The short answer is that these changes can be shown to be in themselves evil, sacrilegious, heretical, impious and or harmful thereby proving that they could not have come from a true pope but must have come from an impostor, from a false pope.
Father Martin Stepanich
All that has been stated thus far in the article should be enough for all to agree that it is at least plausible, that our good Catholic Priests, loyal to the Magisterium, can in good conscience, offer the liturgy in place for almost the entire history of the Catholic Church. But we will follow up and conclude now, with what one of the greatest heroes of our movement, Father Martin Stepanich, the only traditional priest that existed since I became sedevacantist (2004) who had a doctorate in pre-Vatican II theology, had to say on this very topic.
FATHER MARTIN
STEPANICH’S QUARTERLY NEWSLETTER
For July, August, and September 2010
The time for writing this trimestral newsletter approached just as we were finishing up a string of high-ranking octaves on the truly traditional liturgical calendar – that is, the Ascension octave (May 13-20), the Pentecost octave (May 23-30), the Corpus Christ octave (June 3-10), and the Sacred Heart octave (June 11- 18).
What is beyond belief is the fact that three of those rightly untouchable octaves – Ascension, Corpus Christi, Sacred Heart – were declared suppressed by the tradition-breaking and plainly modernist-flavored decree of March 23, 1955, issued strangely in the name of reputedly fully traditional Pope Pius XII. Just try and figure that one out!
At the time — 1955 — we did not have the faintest idea that hidden hardcore modernists held important positions of power and influence on the Vatican staff of none other than Pope Pius XII. It took many years for us to wake up to the fact that those hidden Modernists definitely played a decisive role in the suppression of nearly all of the long-time traditional octaves, as well as in bringing about other tradition-breaking changes in the Liturgy and in the Catholic way of life and thinking.
What does that say of the greatly admired and supposedly firmly traditional Pius XII? It hurts just to think about it.
While we are at it, let us say an extra word or two about the great Corpus Christi octave, which we again observed with special attention and devotion this year, early in June. Just as we did in days of old, long before the modernist infiltration of the Vatican, we truly and fully traditional priests and religious again prayed the traditional Corpus Christi office and offered the traditional Corpus Christi Mass every single day during that highly privileged octave, with feast of Saints having to give way to the Corpus Christi Office and Mass.
One extra special feature of the Corpus Christi octave from time immemorial was the practice, at the principal Masses in cathedral and parish churches and monastery chapels, of exposing the Blessed Sacrament in the Monstrance and setting it above the Tabernacle, there to let it stay all during the Masses of the octave. The Modernists surely wanted to put a stop to that. But Pius XII? Is that what he wanted?
Is it any wonder that it has been
said that the turning point for the eventual Modernist complete take-over of
the Vatican was the reign of Pope Pius XII?
FATHER
MARTIN STEPANICH’S QUARTERLY NEWSLETTER
For April, May, and June of 2011
One significant thing about Easter, and the Easter Season, is the fact that a mere one-day commemoration of the Resurrection of Our Lord would never have been enough for the Number One Feast of the Liturgical Year. As Our Lord Himself devoted 40 days to manifesting the reality of His Resurrection to His joyful Mother and to His Apostles, so as to confirm them ever more and more in the faith, so does His Church also devote that same amount of time to celebrating Easter, so as to confirm all of us in our belief in Our Lord’s Resurrection, as well as in all the other unchangeable truths of our Catholic Faith.
That 40-day period begins with the Octave of Easter, and that Octave sets an example for many other feasts of the Church year that from time immemorial deserved to continue to be commemorated and celebrated for eight full days. Octaves of certain feasts have always been an integral part of the Church’s traditional observance of those feasts. To abolish those octaves, as had been done by tradition-breaking modernists, beginning already during the reign of Pope Pius XII, is wholly contrary to the traditional mind of the Church and can therefore be quite confusing to the faith of true tradition-minded Catholics.
The first feast to be celebrated with an octave after Easter is the Feast of the Solemnity of Saint Joseph, which has traditionally been observed on the third Wednesday after Easter. The traditional Church’s purpose for adding a second Feast of Saint Joseph to the liturgical calendar was to make more solemn a Feast that could not be given enough solemnity on March 19, which always comes up in Lent. And not only was the second Feast of Saint Joseph solemnized, but a solemn Octave – Deo Gratias! - was added to it.
The hardcore Modernists who became firmly fixed in the Vatican of Pope Pius XII (believe it or not!) somehow managed to have the traditional Feast of the Solemnity of Saint Joseph abolished altogether and replaced by a secular-slanted and secular flavored Feast of Saint Joseph the Worker. Though that was all done by them supposedly in the name of Pius XII, it was very plainly in accord with the anti-traditional Modernist mind, but not in accord with the traditional mind of the Church.
One very prominent Octave of a major Feast of Our Lord during the Easter Season that the modernists succeeded in wiping out, already during the reign of Pius XII (again, believe it or not!), was the Octave of the Ascension of the Lord, thereby downgrading and minimizing the importance of that supremely important Feast. Miraculously though, the solemn top-ranking Octave of Pentecost escaped suppression by the Modernists! How did they miss that one?
Especially outstanding among the Feasts of Our Lord during the Church Year is the sublime Feast of Corpus Christi, which so glorifies the Blessed Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist. And magnificent was the way the 13th century Saint Thomas Aquinas, in obedience to the command of Pope Urban IV, composed the full text of the Corpus Christi Mass and Divine Office. While doing so, the Angelic Doctor, who so richly deserves to be acclaimed also as the Doctor of the Holy Eucharist, composed a number of Eucharistic hymns that have through the centuries become very familiar to truly traditional Catholics.
Among those Eucharistic hymns are, for example, the never to be forgotten O Salutaris and Tantum Ergo that have long been traditionally sung during Benediction with the Blessed Sacrament. Then, too, there is the well known Adoro Te Devote hymn (Devoutly I adore Thee) and the incomparable Corpus Christi sequence, Lauda Sion Salvatorem, which follows the Epistle of the Corpus Christi Mass. All praise and all thanksgiving to Saint Thomas Aquinas for all his inspired Eucharistic hymns!
All the liturgical changing in the 1950s, all the rearranging and suppressing of the Church’s traditional liturgical set-up, not just for Corpus Christi, but for other liturgical feasts, was naturally bound to cause, and definitely did cause, much confusion and consternation and division among traditional Catholics.
The first fact that all took into consideration was the fact that the liturgical changes of the 1950s were legislated with the name of Pope Pius XII attached to the pertinent decrees. And the reaction of all of us at that time was to accept the liturgical changes in obedience to the Holy Father. Normally, that would have been enough.
However, that did not tell us the full story of the 1950s liturgical changes. It did not give us the complete picture of all that was involved in bringing about those changes.
So, we have to realize that there was a second fact that stood out and it was the abrupt and drastic break from long-standing and even centuries-old traditions that the liturgical changes of the 1950s brought about. We old-timers who were for a long time well acquainted with the pre-1950s traditions and practices saw right away that the new 1950s liturgical changes were plainly tradition-braking changes.
Those who were not yet born in the 1950s, or who were at that time still quite young, were not particularly upset by the sharp break from the traditions that they never knew personally. For them, the liturgical changes were made by Rome and that was all there was to it. Some even strangely imagined that those changes were themselves “traditional,” even though they were plainly being introduced as something new.
Here we need to realize that Modernists have precisely the same mistaken notion of what tradition is. For them, any new idea or practice of their own that they introduce goes by the name of “tradition,” no matter what long-standing genuine Catholic tradition they thereby terminate and replace. Actually, Modernist “tradition” is nothing but an evolutionary, and therefore unstable and changeable, type of “tradition” that is not really tradition at all, but just a Modernist innovation.
The third fact that we dare not ignore, while considering the liturgical changes made under Pius XII in the 1950s, is the presence of hardcore Modernists on that Pope’s Vatican staff. It took us old-timers some years before we became fully aware of their presence in the Vatican. We knew their names very well, but without for a longtime knowing that they were Modernists. But Pius XII, didn’t he know? How did the Modernists manage to establish themselves in his office?
Conclusion (Still Fr. Stepanich)
Let us now take an extra look at
the contradictory and confusing picture of things that the foregoing three
facts put before us. First, a reputed strongly traditional Pope
introduces supposedly but not really traditional liturgical changes; secondly,
those supposedly traditional liturgical changes are in reality, and as plainly
as could be, tradition-breaking liturgical changes; thirdly, anti-traditional
hardcore Modernists work with a reputed strongly traditional Pope to issue
traditional-breaking liturgical changes.
How can such a mixture of contradiction possibly make sense? To get away from and stay away from all that, isn’t it best simply to stay with what was always surely traditional and surely free of all Modernist error? Of course it is! (All emphasis in the original)
In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity!
Omnia pro Jesu per Mariam.
Thank you John Gregory for mentioning Father Stepanich in the post. Father Stepanich was one of the few Franciscans who refused Vatican II. In fact when I was still a baby in 2006 having been born in Illinois, my mom and baby me came passing by Father. He said that I will become a traditionalist when I grow up. In Sept. 2006 me and mom returned back to Cebu, the Philippines.
ReplyDeleteThank you for that information! Incredibly interesting. Father helped me very much when I was looking into the una cum heretic and feeneyism issue. He tried to engage "fr" Grunner on the issue of sedevacantism several times to no avail. The pian changes just came my way without me asking about it.
ReplyDeleteJohn Gregory
I don't have access to Mass, but I agree that a true Pope cannot impose evil, impious, or heretical rites. Therefore, we can safely follow the Holy Week rite of Pius XII since he was a true Pope. But we must avoid the rites imposed by the false popes of the V2 sect because they are very evil !
ReplyDeleteWell stated Simon. May God bless you my friend!
DeleteThank you for clarifying many things. To my mind, the only thing that matters is coming to the 1958 consensus, because nothing else matters. God bless!
ReplyDelete+JMJ+
You are very welcome cairsahr_stjoseph. Getting a valid pope would help!!! Until then there may even be a small percentage who are not 100% sure it has conclusively proved that john 23 was definitely not pope but are willing to accept that he wasn't when definitive proof is provided. There pretty much already consensus I believe. I don't believe he was pope. Regardless he certainly paved the way for what Paul the sick did and what came after.
DeleteThere is the one sentence in Pacem in Terris that is used to prove he made a heretical statement. Was it pertinacious? He certainly did not seem to like the third secret or Pius X. Alot of circumstantial things which certainly put him in a negative light, including the election itself. We basically, please correct me if I am wrong, have the one line in Pacem, but he died soon, did he establish pertinacity? Was what he did with liturgy definitively something a valid pope could not do? What Paul 6 did definitely is. The unity we want in the matter you mentioned and all other matters will come when we get a valid pope.
Until then, I think the motto I ended the article with is good advice.
In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity!
He is certainly doubtful and should be considered and treated as such. Again I do not believe he was a valid pope. But it is not as certain definitively undeniable on the surface as Paul 6, Jp 2 and all that came after. There is some disagreement on it. But those open to him possibly being at least a material pope with the ability to make disciplinary decisions at the time are in the vast minority as it were. I think such a consensus is important but not more than getting an actual pope now to definitively settle these disputes.
Even if people just took 1958 a priori it would do, I think
DeleteI forgot to add Roncalli’s ‘outing’ heresy which you mentioned in Pacem in Terris was “the unity of the Church”. I find it interesting that “Babylon” is built from that.
DeleteYou asked about 'pertinacity' regarding J23 in "Pacem in Terris". It does not -establish- pertinacity. But with hindsight we can look back and see the new "Babylon" from there. If one has the Faith he will see this; or just not. I believe it's a choice people have to make so " proof" is secondary if that makes sense. Act of Faith.
DeleteHe definitely seemed to be working from the other side. One of the many things I love about Catholicism is that we deal with facts. Objective truths and moral absolutes. When we are not certain about things we have classifications for the opinions. It was the Church's teaching on contraception and abortion that got me to start taking the Faithe seriously.
DeleteJust to clarify, we would get that consensus on the issue you mention and all issues pertaining to faith and morals currently under dispute, were we to get a valid pope, I would hope. I think whether john 23 was a valid pope or not, or even a material one with disciplinary authority, isn't even on the radar of the vast majority of sedevacantists. We all assume he is not pope. I think 1958 is the key year.
DeleteSome start noticing issues in 1955, some 1962, some November 21, 1964, some 1965, some when more liturgical changes were made in 1967. All certainly by 1969, who care to look, know that the man claiming to reign at that time, could be any number of things, apart from pope.
Introibo,
DeleteI want to thank you for allowing me to post this. You are clearly a man of integrity who only cares for TRUTH.
May God Bless you and
Our Lady keep you,
John
Back in the day, I mean really back, circa 1995 or so I read William D. Gairdner's "The war against the family" and "The whole truth about Fatima" vols 1-2. This is my foundation since then and I wish others had the same. Still I am glad you came to the truth by opposing 'abortion' and all that; that is rather more direct than my process. The thing is, almost no one had my discovery of the truth process so when they are dumb it is not as though I can say "always was like that".
DeletePoint is we know what they need and must deliver when time comes.
John
DeleteThank you for the kind words, my friend!
God Bless
---Introibo
We read in the above blog post a verse cited as 2 Peter 3:16, about how St. Paul's Epistles contain "certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also other Scriptures, to their own destruction."
ReplyDeleteE.g., "The Rapture" comes to mind, doesn't it?
Right. Get out of jail free card. They don't believe our Lady was assumed into heaven but believe they will be. That is why God established the papacy. To avoid all the nutty conclusions protestants invent.
Deletehttps://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f264_Dialogue_164.htm , is an Aug. 10, 2026 post of Dr. Carol Byrne of Great Britain, entitled "Revolutionary Purpose of the 'Mystical Body of Christ' Slogan". On the bottom of that post is a complete hypertext-linked archival list (1 to 164 now) of her "Dialogue Mass" web posts. Installment # 72 of that series (of June 25, 2018) is titled "Abolishing 15 out of 18 Octaves of Feasts", and covers many of the same (and other similar sorts) of issues, that John Gregory deals with above.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.traditioninaction.org/bev/news.htm , has a slew of TIA hypertext links, such as the recent Aug. 14, 2026 "Overview on AI", and the May 30, 2025 "Bergoglio's Last Tango". Lust tango. It's a doozy of a read. AI somehow has certitude that the Argentinian tango promoter was not a nope.
I have been wanting to get her books on the issue for a very long time. She is quite knowledgeable on the subject. It is sad when seemingly obviously good willed people cannot connect the dots and see what Montini gave us could not have come from a valid pope.
DeleteThanks for pointing this out. I have just read the two suggestions you made in the first paragraph. Our Lady in 1917 saw the 50's and 60's and 2026. Our sins deserve this. We no longer deserve a Mass or a pope.
DeleteThe faith of all nations have been anyalated and communism/zionism rule supreme.
Our one and only goal should be to die a happy death. Which means our one and only goal should be to live a holy life.
Saint Joseph, Spouse of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Patron of the Universal Church, terrorize my demons and keep them in Hell where they belong!
John Gregory
The wording of the second paragraph of 3:46 should be: "The Catholic faith IN all nations (except for Portugal; per 1917 OL of Fatima?) HAS largely been annihilated..." - And one might wonder if there are two different people called "John Gregory". One has an orange "Blogger User Profile" icon, while the other one is an Anonymous, except for "the typed John Hancock" of the last line.
Deletehttps://traditioninaction.org/ProgressivistDoc/A_206_Des.html , is an Aug. 29, 2026 post titled "Fr. Gelineau: With the New Mass we Destroyed the Roman Rite". Note well what Fr. G. says about Catholic liturgy of the 1930s to 1950s Pius XII era. Also, if the 10:58PM TIA links cited, don't work, try cutting out the " www. " and simply use https://tradi (etc.), or, use "html" instead of "htm". Whatever works. God Bless.
Hello my friend. There may be more than one John Gregory but I believe I'm the only one of that handle that posts here. Thanks for the proper spelling of annihlated for me. I wish there was a way I could correct that.
DeleteOn my phone I can't post as myself and I have given up trying to do so. On the computer I can, sometimes.
I can't wait to look at the link you shared!
May God bless you and
Our Lady keep you,
John Gregory
Can't open it for the life of me.
DeleteJohn Gregory
Fr Cekada was right when he said "Why cross the bridge if you don't want to get there" When the law becomes harmful it ceases to bind. We know very well that the 1955 changes are steps of which the end result is NO.
ReplyDeleteEven if that were true how you know that wasn't part of the plan all along ?
DeleteJust as if Heaven wished to see where we would land on this.
My mother had dementia. . My father was all lucid until the end (80-since 1942) but Mom went down in her early '50's. I am 47.5 and am sensing cognitive difficulties even now. Please allow me to write this while I still can.
DeleteGod bless
+JMJ+
Father Cekeda has a way with words :) I've always enjoyed his writing. He personally helped me with feeeneyism as well.
DeleteI'm sorry to hear that. Perhaps you can start playing online chess without getting addicted and allow it to take up all your time. Eat less processed foods, perhaps eat less foods period, especially if you are in Ameria, and exercise regularly getting some sun, vitamin d and fresh air each day.
DeleteI have not seen any comment that seemed weird or off base. You are right about Roncalli.
No... my friend! I will be praying for you ❤️
DeleteThank you. Back in high school I WAS in the chess club. My Commodore 64 has chess programs and well I did sometimes use them. Now even more I guess.
DeleteWhy stop at the 1955 Holy Week? Shouldn't we also reject the 3 hour fast for Holy Communion, as that could be seen as leading to the Novus Ordo 1 hour "fast"? How about St Pius X's lowering of the age for receiving Communion or allowing Communion on Good Friday, or even his encouragement of frequent Communion? Those three could have been leading to the common careless routine reception of Communion in the Novus Ordo. While we're at it, why not condemn Pope Pius IX and Leo XIII for allowing hand missals for the laity with the Propers translated into the vernacular? Seems pretty clear that this prepared the way to the lay participation nonsense and vernacular usage of the Novus Ordo!
DeleteSneedevacantist
DeleteI agree that the Pian Holy Week should be used. I think the point here is that some priests feel that the obligation has "ceased to bind" and therefore revert to pre-Pian Holy Week.
At the beginning of the Great Apostasy, there was much confusion and many priests were trying to make sense of things. They (wrongly) tied the Pian changes to what was spawned at Vatican II. They went to an earlier and totally Catholic Rite. Since these changes were close to V2 they rejected them as "leading to" the bad things but not bad in themselves.
Actually, some priests do not stop there. Many reject the Dialogue Mass as well.
John wants us to cut some slack on an issue to the priests who think the Pian Rites "became evil." I believe they are wrong BUT there is no pope to settle the issue and the pre-Pian Rites are equally 100% Catholic.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Thank Introibo. You are correct about my desire. It wastes time and energy and entrenhces us against one another, needlessly, without any good result, when the time spent on that would be better suited for prayer. Can you tell me about the pre-55 clergy who publicly condemn the priests who comply with the latest discipline on the books when the last valid pope died?
DeleteJohn Gregory
Introibo
ReplyDeleteI once had an "attempted possession" experience, which I call "April, 2010" because it was so bizarre it has no other possible title. If you are willing, I will write about this, with the caveat that everything I experienced then is used by me to steer clear of certain things: the whole thing was a lie and it took me a few years to conclude. I've never told this to anyone except my own brother, my first sedevacantist ((1998-98) and well two others.
I could use a little help. These past 20 years I got nothing. So I reached out to Introibo to talk about something. Look: If I am wrong this should not have happened; and yet more than once I tried to quit. I'm really tired.
ReplyDeleteQ. (for Auntie Google): What does cairsahr mean?
ReplyDeleteA. "The term 'cairsahr' is not a standard word in the English language or a widely recognized term. It is highly likely a typographical error or an anagram for one of several words or names."
Well, as it turns out, there is only one such 8 letter anagram, which is "sriracha" = "the glory of the King". So Cairsahr's issue(s) might amount to some sort of "white king versus black king" chessboard type of thing?
Crowns have their compass
Lengths of days their date
Triumphs their tombs
Felicity its fate -
Of more than dust can earth
Make none partaker
But knowledge makes the King
Most like his Maker.
"His Maker" obviously would be "Christ the King", the first J of JMJ. A week ago, on Aug. 24 at 8:44PM, Cairsahr told us all that he could "write poetry" and then added +JMJ+ . Anyway, all this is just "my 2 cents", for whatever it is worth. Maybe it is worth nothing at all. What does amount to something, and which I very much like, is El poni albinegro's red emoji of 1:39 above, in which sentiments I concur.
It should be made clear that I am NOT Cairsahr, hiding behind an "Anonymous" name. I am a regular comment contributor here, and am somewhat concerned (as I'm sure many of you are too) about certain enigmatic vibes given off by Cairsahr's 10:55AM and 4:45PM comments of today. God Bless.
Back in the late 1990’s I read a book concerning “how to write for fantasy genre”. As I then had pretentions for writing I read it; and the guy wrote there are some ‘overused syllables’. One was ‘Caer’ (as in castle) and the other was ‘sar’. Being rather contrary as I sometimes am I frowned and deliberately stuck the two syllables together and changed the spelling because otherwise it looked too close to ‘Caesar’. Now I think this ‘backstory’ is perfectly believable and why not since that was me in 1998. Also, and I just added this at the end, I don’t know what other pretentions I might have but ‘Cairsahr’ is a patriarchal character I envisioned from many many old backgrounds; but there is no better portrayal than, if I may have Introibo’s indulgence to play one clip from YouTube, this guy:
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_ht8ztvAQU
Mel can act, for sure!
DeleteYes. I am concerned as well. He addressed his concerns directly to Intriobo, so I was not sure if we would be crossing a line if anyone else responded.
ReplyDeleteJohn Gregory
No it is fine. I’ve been sitting on things for decades. At some point I had to talk about it. And you are one of the few, like Introibo and Mario, I would trust, even though I kind of made it public here. So be it. I already told Mario a lot but not all.
DeleteIntuoituvely, and this is what some may call ‘Gnostic’ but that is why I never talked about it. When I say “intuitively” I mean “in the light of the Faith” and even though my perspective is “all in Apocalypse” it does not mean I have forgotten 33-1958 AD. But some may not see it that way.
It is possible some others will have experiences parallel to this but if they say nothing it is fine; no one is forcing it.
But in the end, if this has to do with that, I mean end-times, then at some point one has to talk about it.
+JMJ+
Thank you my friend. The times are unprecedented. There is no doubt about that.
DeleteJohn Gregory
It's unfortunate that some Sedevacantists, unintentionally, fall into the very R&R errors that they loudly detest. If our position is that a true Pope cannot promulgate a harmful liturgical change, and Pope Pius XII was a true Pope who signed off on the changes promulgated under his name, then there's no further need for discussion. We should be internally consistent and faithful Catholics obedient to the Holy Father. The absence of a true Pope is NO EXCUSE to not obey Pope Pius XII's liturgical changes nor is it a license to assume that Pope Pius XII would not enforce those changes today because you personally find the changes odious or a forerunner to the Novus Ordo.
ReplyDeleteTo resist some of Pope Pius XII's changes while recognizing him as a true Pope does irreperable harm to the Sedevacantist position. Quite frankly, if this was the universal Sedevacantist position, it would refute Sedevacantism as a whole. If we tolerate this as an "acceptable opinion" solely because some notable Sede clergy espouse it, then I want to see those Sedevacantists publicly apologize to the SSPX and other R&R adherents for denigrating their position on the Crisis and I do not want to hear any further on how R&R is an error or heresy.
Sneedevacantist
DeleteTo be clear, I think those clergy noy using the Pian Rites were (are) wrong. However, this issue was from almost the inception of the Great Apostasy, and we should not impute sins on the clergy that retain the pre-Pian Holy Week.
It is not as clean cut as, e.g., recognizing the post-V2 popes as non-popes. Not saying those clergy are correct, only that they may be in good conscience.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Introibo,
DeleteI hope my post did not imply that I was judging the position of these priests as sinful. I'm judging their internal consistency, not their intentions. My critique is that rejecting the 1955 Holy Week undermines one of the fundamental reasons why Sedevacantism is more logically sound than R&R. The whole idea that the 1955 Holy Week has become harmful in light of the Novus Ordo is speculative nonsense. We both agree on using the 1955 Holy Week, but for those who don't where is the proof that it is harmful today, unlike in 1955? If we adopted this line of thinking consistently, we would also need to get rid of vernacular missals for the laity, communion on Good Friday, 3 hour fast, evening Masses, and other developments post-Trent that could be pointed to as "leading to the Novus Ordo". At that point, we become a pseudo-Magisterium.
As far as the issue not being clean cut, I would argue the opposite. Privately judging the validity of a Pope is more difficult than being faithfully obedient to a Pope that we, without doubt, know to be valid. Regardless of which ones we think to be invalid, we can at least be consistent in obeying the ones we think to be valid.
Saint Pius X, pray for us!
Yes, that is my point. I believe they are in good conscience. The nine went through a great struggle, and I do not believe they came to their conclusion on a whim. They are responsible for many Masses in our country available today.
DeleteIt any of them condemn clergy publicly for obeying a Pope and scandalize the laity in the process they will have to answer.
Sneedevacantist
DeleteA logical and great comment. I agree with you.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Sneedevacantist,
DeleteGod definitely will not vomit you out of his mouth, you are definitely not lukewarm. From where I sit when you say I don't judge the priests who go with as Father Stepanich says, the "truly traditional liturgy" rather than "tradition breaking liturgy" but then paint a picture as being not debatable. It is like you are saying, "I do not judge those priests despite the fact that they are clearly in the wrong".
That puts you in a place where you are more qualified to speak on the issue than they, which of course is incorrect.
That is the needless division I think sedevacantists should avoid rather than judging good qualified priests who are on our side in the mystical body of Christ, and pits everyone with an opinion on the issue against one another.
That is the difference between stating your opinion as an opinion and claiming you are right and they are wrong.
All legitimate SV clergy are on the "right" side. The side of saving souls the best way they no how.
If John XXIII was possibly the true pope, should we not use the 62 missal or do we make the assumption he wasn't and reject his missal as most all sedes do? What are the consequences if wrong even if sincerely?
ReplyDeleteI don’t blame those who do but it is better safe than sorry.
Delete@anon5:58
DeleteIs there anything heretical about the 1962 Missal? No.
However, just as when a sacrament is doubtful it must be considered invalid in practice, I believe we can all say that Roncalli was doubtful (I consider him a non-pope for certain). A doubtful pope's decrees should be considered null and void in the practical order. Hence Roncalli's promulgation of the 1962 Missal should be firmly rejected.
God Bless,
---Introibo
When we have a true Pope this issue will be solved. Introibo, can you explain cessation of law? How does it apply?
ReplyDeleteJohn Gregory,
ReplyDeleteThank you for writing on this topic. I find it very interesting. Pope Pius XII was the last pope before The Great Apostasy took place. He did many wonderful things in his pontificate. There are many points raised in this article that definitely makes a person wonder about so much of this.
There were a lot of changes that Pius XII made in the 1950’s, particularly to Holy Week. Some of these changes were quite good as he was trying to bring things back to the earlier centuries. Still, many people wonder why he made so many changes that appeared to give way to the Novus Ordo.
In the comments section, someone quoted Fr. Cekada about crossing the bridge and not wanting to get to the other side. If a pope is truly the pope, then everything that he promulgates is safe and even in matters of liturgy, nothing erroneous or evil can come from him. Deny this, and you deny the dogma of indefectibility. If every cardinal in the 1950’s was a modernist, freemason, or communist (I’m not implying this was the case, although the church was heavily infiltrated), and Pius XII still approved of Holy Week, then his revisions are perfectly safe because he has the backing of The Holy Ghost. So when Fr. Cekada mentions not wanting to see what is on the other side of the bridge, it doesn’t make sense. When we start to cross the bridge on the traditional Catholic side, we know with full certainty that when we get to the other side that it is still the traditional Catholic side. Certain things may be altered, but it is still the church. We do not go from Traditional Catholic to Novus Ordo from a true pope. If we did, then Pius XII wasn’t a true pope, and I do not think that many people are willing to go that far. In recent times, there have been some people that have rejected Pius XII as a legitimate pope. If we go to that level, then we must be willing to reject everything that Pius XII did, which I mentioned a few weeks ago in a very lengthy comment that I wrote. If we write him off the books completely, this has severe repercussions on so many levels that are very far reaching. I already went into many of these reasons and they just barely scratched the surface, as we could mention so many more. Back on point, what Pius XII did was within his right as the supreme legislator. What is troubling for everyone is that he made a lot of changes in the 1950’s and in the next decade of the 1960’s, the revolution of Vatican II was in full swing. The fact that he made changes in the 50’s does not mean these changes go hand-in-hand with those in the 60’s, though they came close together, because he was a true pope and his teachings were safe. People didn’t like the fact that St. Pius X lowered the age of Holy Communion and revised the breviary, yet he was one of the greatest popes ever. I am not saying that Pius XII was Pius X, but Pius XII was just as much pope as Pius X or any other pope, so he had the power to do what he did.
CONTINUED…
ReplyDeleteFr. Stepanich brings up many changes that Pope Pius XII made and he asks valid questions. Why were so many things changed? He cites the removal of octaves, the change of a St. Joseph Feast to the Feast of St. Joseph the Worker, and other things. He asks how Pius XII could be so unaware of how many modernists were around him. These are fair questions and yes, they are perplexing. I go back to the point that Pius XII did make many changes, but many of them seemed very good, and quite honestly, common sense changes. Changing the Eucharistic fast to 3 hours seemed like a no-brainer, given the changes that were occurring in the world and the amount of people that had to work on Sunday’s or they had to work midnight shifts as essential workers e.g. doctors, nurses, etc. Restoring the Easter Vigil to its proper time in the late evening seems like this should have been done by a previous pope long before Pius XII. I am surprised that it took a pope this long honestly to change that back. Bugnini had no authority to promulgate anything, Pius XII did. It was he that was pope and he that signed off on this. I go back to the example of what if every cardinal was a modernist, freemason, or communist. It wouldn’t matter for it was Pius XII who signed off on these things and his signature is the only one that matters. It is sort of like playing a Euchre hand and the person holding the hand says to his partner (i.e. Pius XII saying to all the cardinals metaphorically), “I am going alone. Put your hand down. I have everything I need to get the march” (all 5 tricks). If diamonds are trump, Pius is holding the Jack of Diamonds, the Jack of Hearts, the Ace of Diamonds, the King of Diamonds, and the Queen of Diamonds. He holds all the power and he needs no one else. It is all on his shoulders and that is an excellent place for it to be, for he holds the keys to the kingdom of Heaven itself. It is reminiscent of Pius IX saying “I Am Tradition.” What he says goes, and that is all there is to it.
Looking at the other side and those unfavorable to the changes, I cannot fault the questions and concerns that they bring up, like Fr. Stepanich. Why so many changes? Why right before the next decade of the 60’s which was so tumultuous? Did Pius XII not see how many enemies truly surrounded him? If he was alive today, would he want to use the Pre-55 Liturgy, after seeing all of the havoc that Vatican II and the Novus Ordo Missae wreaked on the world, or would he still have gone along with his revised rite, which he would have the power to do? I wish I knew the answers to these questions. We all do.
CONTINUED…
ReplyDeleteThe changes that Pius XII made were used by every Roman Rite Church in the last two years of Pius XII’s pontificate and this showed that these changes were fully Catholic. If they were not, there should have been immediate dissent from some of the traditional cardinals and bishops. There was not. Compare this to what happened in the next decade with Vatican II and the Novus Ordo, and there was already a backlash that formed. Cardinal Ottaviani wanted to die before the council ended, so that he could be sure that he died a Catholic. This suggests that what was being implemented by Roncalli and Montini was anything but Catholic. The founding of the Catholic Traditionalist Movement by Fr. DePauw started in 1964, not 1955. If these changes were so radical, he should have immediately resisted what was being done, as should have Ottaviani, and the other traditionalists who were up in arms during Vatican II (though they were in the minority). There is a difference here. Even Roncalli remarked once that he saw what his predecessor did (Pius XII) and then he tried to always do the opposite. If Pius XII was a modernist, Roncalli would never have made a remark such as this, because they would have been on the same side. Pacelli would have been a hero of Roncalli’s, yet he was not. That is a very telling point right there! Pius XII was absolutely disgusted and sickened by Montini’s correspondence he had with the communists. There are more examples that could be cited here, but clearly Pius XII was cut from a different cloth than Roncalli and Montini because while he made changes, the latter two men’s revolution would go to a whole other level.
I would love to have a pope again on the throne one day. He could settle this once and for all after he would burn the documents of Vatican II and ban the Novus Ordo for all time. He could go back and say that he was using Pius XII’s reformed rite because it is Catholic or he could say he was going back and using the Pre-55 rite because it was Catholic (as both rites are), but he preferred this older rite because of “X, Y, & Z” reasons. We need a lawgiver to legislate these matters. We have none.
Oh, if only…..
-TradWarrior
"Oh, if only..." is such a wistful finishing touch to your (as usual, lengthy tri-partite) comment, TradWarrior. Oh, if only... if only you (and others too) could comprehend the deeper meaning that God has skillfully concealed in Judges 15:3-5. "Oh, if only..." "he would burn the documents of Vatican II" as you so look forward to. Although "you can't always get what you want" (lyrical credit here to Mick Jagger) sometimes you gotta be careful what you wish for, as "you just might find" it happening, and possibly in a way you weren't expecting. Burn, baby, burn... How interesting that Cairsahr, in a comment of 8:45AM above, tells us that his name is composed, in no small part, from a word which means "castle", and then he concluded by giving us a YouTube link. To augment that, there is another YouTube vid, entitled "Castle Bravo", by the youtuber "atomcentral" (Nov. 7, 2011, now at over 6 million views and 8 thousand comments) but which is only 1 minute in length. Once God finally intervenes, "Vatican II" will be located at "Ground Zero" of that video. The "Samson Option" indeed. 737373.
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2I66dHbSRA
Well stated my friend. He definitely does not seem to be cut from the same cloth.
DeleteSo much was going on behind the scenes during the reign of Pope Pius XII that none of us know about.
We have to believe he signed off on the countless changes, though Father Stepanich's writing makes one wonder even about that. His signature appeared on the documents, but has any one claimed to have witnessed him doing it. Can we be sure he was in his right mind when he did so.
I remember seeing a picture that has been expunged off the internet of Pius XII with Montini standing behind him. The Pope looked drugged out, eyes wide open looking very serious, behind him Montini had a huge grin, like he was laughing at him. I was going to share the picture with Mario, it disappeared off the face of the earth.
As I said, alot was going on behind the scenes that we do not know about. They didn't want him to release the third secret for one, that is why they ousted sister Lucy and gave us a false replicate.
As early as 1903 they had enough free-masons claiming to be part of the hierarchy to elect one of their own. How were things 52 years later?
These times test our charity and pride. Some go on emotional rants when a debatable issue is brought up. Others are like you, where a rational discussion is possible.
Thank you for all your contributions here my friend!
John Gregory
Speaking of waiting for God's justice anon 7:44 "The waiting is the hardest part ".
DeleteJohn,
DeleteYou ask, speaking of Pius XII:
"His signature appeared on the documents, but has any one claimed to have witnessed him doing it. Can we be sure he was in his right mind when he did so."
Pius XII worked very hard, giving numerous speeches at audiences, writing letters on different subjects, be it science, medicine, youth associations and so on, until the last day of his life. His last encyclical on the persecuted Church behind the Iron Curtain was issued in July of 1958 and he was in the midst of a two-year process of writing an anti-modernist encyclical when he died five months later.
Thanks to his immense body of work up until November 1958, we have a treasure trove of Magisterial teaching on modern problems concerning the Church and society.
It is humanly impossible NOT to be in one's right mind and do what he did.
God Bless,
Joanna
Just to be clear my above comment with my name under it was addressed to Trad Warrior. The next comment without my name after it, was also from me, addressed to anon. Please pray for me and my family Trad Warrior and anon.
DeleteAMDG,
John Gregory
M. Jagger = lewd pelvic gyrations and swagger.
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ef9QnZVpVd8
= "The Rolling Stones - You can't always get what you want" by the youtuber "ABKCOVEVO" (June 6, 2019, now with more than 33 million views and 13 thousand comments. London, 1968). How many of Introibo's blog posts, have garnered over 33 million views and 13 thousand comments? The world pays attention to those who sell their souls to the devil. Obviously. "The world, the flesh and the devil" are our adversaries, for which we have absolutely no "sympathy", in stark contrast to the "Sympathy-for-you-know-who" vividly displayed by the Stones at Altamont in 1969. This comment is intended to augment my other one of 7:44PM, above. Those who might want to know more about Mick Jagger, are invited to read the comment section of the Feb. 23, 2026 post of this blog, from Introibo's "Singing for Satan" series.
Yes, AMDG JG of 1:07, I will do as you request, and invite others to do the same.
This comment also dedicated AMDG, by 737373.
That is very interesting Joanna. I did not know this, which leaves as perplexed as Father Stepanich about the whole ordeal.
DeleteMay God bless you and
Our Lady keep you,
John Gregory
This comment is respectfully dedicated to JG.
Deletehttps://grokipedia.com/page/Ad_multos_annos
"Ad multos annos" to you, John Gregory. The help you provide to Introibo and to all of us here, is much appreciated.
^^^^^^^^
https://www.poemhunter.com/poem/mick-jagger-r-i-p/ , is a "Mick Jagger, R.I.P." poem by John Thorkild Ellison of Edinburgh, of April 27, 2012, and worded:
Where will you be, Sir Michael Jagger,
Deep in the earth, all dust and bones,
You with the ego and testosterone swagger,
[So] Proud to be king of the Rolling Stones?
Where'll you be when your songs are forgotten,
And somebody else is a household name?
Your bones will decay and your flesh go rotten,
This is the end of [all of] your glory and fame.
[Ah,] You never [quite] could get no Satisfaction
With Honky-tonk Women or sweet Lady Jane,
You're now in a place where you feel no pleasure,
Can you now rest reassured of never-ending pain?
^^^^^^^^
The poem title word "R.I.P.", is what might be thought to have, in a best case scenario, a "Roasting In Purgatory" meaning. Or in a worst case scenario, as far as Mick is concerned, a "Relentlessly In Pain" meaning. However that might turn out, as anyone can see by consulting the web version of the poem, I've added some tiny editing touches with brackets = [ ] . I've also taken the quite considerable liberties of chopping out Ellison's final stanza; and also, by substituting my own two poetic final (= punch) lines, in place of his two lyrical lines.
Thank you Anon!
DeleteJohn Gregory
You're welcome, Anon 6:09. Just a little bit more can be noted about Sir Mick. The Oct. 29, 2020 ABKCOVEVO YouTube version of "Sympathy for the Devil" has over 95 million viewers (= worshippers?) and 30 thousand comments. What absolutely definitely looks like a large tattoo of a horned devil, is quite clearly visible on Mick's bare naked chest, in that video.
DeleteBow down before the one you serve.
You're going to get what you deserve.
Google AI had this to say about Mick:
"Mick Jagger was officially named in the honors list and was knighted [and given the title "Sir"] for services to popular music on Dec. 12, 2003, at Buckingham Palace by Prince Charles rather than the Queen. Most users on Quora agree that the constitutional convention prevents the Sovereign from openly blocking a government-vetted honor, making a personal snub during the ceremony [by her deliberate refusal to attend it] her only form of distance... Royal biographers and reports suggest [that] the [now deceased Anglican] Queen felt [that] Jagger was an unsuitable candidate [to be knighted] due to his long history of [ultra] anti-establishment behavior, a past relationship with her sister Princess Margaret, and his [highly] rebellious public persona."
For those of us who have no Mass to attend, the pre vs. post-1955 liturgy is really a non-issue.
ReplyDeleteI agree that we should give each other some slack when it comes to debatable matters. Unfortunately, it seems to me that those who stick to the Pian reforms are the only ones to give the benefit of the doubt to those who will have nothing to do with the post-1955 liturgy. Example? A well-known Traditionalist bishop calling those who go by the Pian changes "not serious Catholics".
Are the Pian liturgical reforms really that rash and radical as we are led to believe by those who oppose them? I don't think so. Pope St. Pius X introduced major changes to the Roman Rite calendar. Pius XII did the same thing. Why on earth is the former Hily Father praised as but the latter dismissed as weak and imprudent, and even singled out as the one who "gave us Vatican 2"! No kidding, this is what I heard preached in a sermon by that very same Traditionalist bishop.
Cairsahr, TradWarrior, Sneedevacantist, thank you for your thoughtful comments. You've said it all.
God Bless,
Joanna
Joanna,
DeleteThank you for the insightful comments and the kind words.
God bless you,
-TradWarrior
I have an issue with anyone who condemns those who go with the pian changes. That is a good point. If it is true that more of a percentage of us who are with what was in place for most of our history condemn those who go with the pian changes than those who condemn us, that would not reflect well on us.
ReplyDeleteI have noticed it being the other way around. But that could be bias. I may just notice it more than those on our side of the issue.
Can you name any other clergy who have publicly condemned or put in a bad light those who go with the pian changes, or is it just the one, which is still too many.
They should be called out and asked to explain themselves.
Lay people who condemn clergy on either side of the issue are out of line and out of their league.
Some easily claim that "the twelve 12", Father Stepanich, and every one else is wrong. I neither claim they or those who share Bishop Pivarunas' opinion are wrong.
Perhaps you are speaking of Bishop Sanborn who forbids his seminarians from going to CMRI Masses when on vacation. It is no bold remark to say he is wrong to do so.
I have always had respect for you Joanna. I hope you still have respect for me. At least enough to pray for me. I really need them.
Very Respectfully
AMDG,
John Gregory
John,
DeleteYes, I meant Bp. Sanborn and I don't know of any other sedevacantist clergymen who voice their opposition in the way he does.
I have always respected you and always will, my friend! You have a healthy and balanced view on the issue that only the Magisterium can solve for good.
It is also thanks to your generous effort that there's a solid blog post every Monday and I can't thank you enough for this! Perhaps it'll sound over-the-top but Introibo's blog and the comment box has been a lifeline to me at times and you're an indispensable part of it.
You're part of my daily prayers, always.
I also humbly ask of your prayers, my friend.
God Bless You,
Joanna
I forgot to thank you for your comment Joanna. I have enjoyed all the comments. I don't want to leave any one out. Trad Warrior is a particularl favorite of mine, and Cairsahr's discussion with me have been informative and enjoyable. Anon's are fun, informative and enjoyable as well.
ReplyDeleteAnd you always have something intelligent to say. I have always been a fan of yours. Thank you for reading and commenting!
John Gregory
John Gregory,
DeleteThank you very much for saying that you enjoy my comments. I guess I will quote Introibo, “Comments like yours keep me writing.”
I will keep you and your family in my prayers.
God bless you,
-TradWarrior
Introibo,
ReplyDeleteIs the appointment of women over orders of priests against Divine Law?
@anon6:09
DeleteYes. The hierarchy is exclusively male by Positive Divine Law, and no woman may be placed over priests.
God Bless.
---Introibo
Well Introibo, since you have so many terms already maybe you can add one more…hybridism. That is sedevacantists who profess to recognize St. Peter to Pius XII as true Popes but resist one or more element of their teachings, ecclesiastical laws, or liturgy. Typically this is Pope Pius XII era stuff, like the rejection of the ‘55 Holy Week or May 1st being the Feast of St. Joseph the Workman. Another big one, and one I think deserves more attention, is voting. I know sedes online and in real life who don’t vote because paranoid conspiracy “it’s all rigged, they are all the same” mindset. What is worse is that they try and accuse those of us who do as either condoning the bad policies that the best candidate available may support of even imparting said candidates personal sins onto us via guilt by association. They clearly reject what Pope Pius XII taught on the subject. With elections coming up that encyclical really needs to be stressed and people need to register…if you think mayor Mamdani is bad just wait till we get Senator El-Sayed.
ReplyDeleteIn case anyone missed it, this is the main point I am trying to make:
ReplyDeleteSneedevacantist,
God definitely will not vomit you out of his mouth, you are definitely not lukewarm. From where I sit when you say I don't judge the priests who go with as Father Stepanich says, the "truly traditional liturgy" rather than "tradition breaking liturgy" but then paint a picture as being not debatable. It is like you are saying, "I do not judge those priests despite the fact that they are clearly in the wrong".
That puts you in a place where you are more qualified to speak on the issue than they, which of course is incorrect.
That is the needless division I think sedevacantists should avoid rather than judging good, qualified priests who are on our side in the mystical body of Christ and pits everyone with an opinion on the issue against one another.
That is the difference between stating your opinion as an opinion and claiming you are right and they are wrong.
All legitimate SV clergy are on the "right" side. The side of saving souls the best way they know how.