Today I spoke with an FSSP priest about Summorum Pontificum and referred to this post.He said "It's not Christian to attack episcopate in such a way, it's very demonic. Jesus Christ would never do that, he even died on the cross in full submission to his enemies."
I didn't want to make an argument with him. But what would be your response?
4:57 pm, June 30, 2021
Blogger Vox Cantoris said...
Friend,
I would respond in this way. Feel free to print it out and hand it to the good father along with my email address; voxcantoris@rogers.com
Father, as a priest of the Fraternity of St. Peter, you are compromised. So is your whole Fraternity. You have no bishop, in fact, as so well reported here: French bishop tells faithful protesting departure of FSSP from their diocese that their priests must concelebrate the Novus Ordo | News | LifeSite (lifesitenews.com) you are slaves to the same men who hate you and what you stand for. On one hand, you allegedly carry the doctrine and on the other, you admonish those faithful who suffer and are not as gentle and eloquent as you would wish them to be in the battle. In fact, I would say that you're not even in the battle. I would say that you are more enamoured with smells and bells and are all lace and no grace than engaging in battle to save souls or restore the Church. You see Father, as long as you stick to celebrating the traditional Mass and as long as it doesn't mean anything you're all good. You see, it’s not the Mass they hate, it's what it represents. That is evident in that linked article on the Dijon situation.
Father, as for calling me "demonic" you're being very judgemental and display a complete lack of charity and care for the smelly sheep who have been abused by an evil stepfather.
As for the holy episcopate which you accuse me of demonically insulting in an un-Christian manner, what did our Lord Jesus say to the episcopate of his day? "Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you are like to whited sepulchres, which outwardly appear to men beautiful, but within are full of dead men's bones, and of all filthiness." And then we have this, "You brood of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good? For the mouth speaks what the heart is full of."
As for demonic, Father, shall we talk of the savage beatings and bruising by your Basilian confreres this writer as a 13-year-old boy?
Shall we speak of the priest academic who sodomized one known to me and tried to groom him into a life of sodomy? How many millions of others were there?
What shall we say, dear Father, of the financial corruption and perverts and drug-fueled orgies in the Vatican? Do we dare speak of the cover-up by the criminals in the Church that abused so many?
Shall we speak dear Father of the Church in Canada that took government money to take children from their families against the teachings of the Church and betrayed them with abusive and perverted priests who raped many in our sad history of indigenous residential schools?
Shall we speak of our Bishops who even now, at least here in Canada, take abused taxpayer's money from the Government of Canada in exchange for shutting down our churches and sacraments?
Dear Father, I could go on and on to even now how these dear holy episcopal leaders cannot even let the children have the crumbs of tradition from the Master's Table.
So Father, why did you become a priest and when did you lose your cojones? When did you become brainwashed in a corrupt ultramontane view of the papacy, the priest as all-holy, untouchable and elevated on a pedestal along with a maniacal obedience to evil?
You covered it up Father, You still cover it up. You knew. You all knew. You did nothing! Worse? YOU STILL DO NOTHING!
You see Father, all of the above is because of priests such as you as articulated in the previous sentence.
You see Father, all of the above is because of priests such as you as articulated in the previous sentence.
One more thing, Father FSSP, you are "But a hireling, he who is not the shepherd, one who does not
own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees; and the
wolf catches the sheep and scatters them. The hireling flees because he is a
hireling and does not care about the sheep."
23 comments:
You nailed it Vox. This is a perfect example of how compromised these neo-trad Ecclesia Dei priests are. Been trying to say that all these years when other so-called trads treat them like the be all end all, including Rorate unfortunately. Watch for the FSSP and probably the ICKSP to totally cave into everything bad that's coming, as they have all these years. Disgraceful. At the same time, watch the SSPX grow by leaps and bounds even more!
Beautifully said. Where is a Cure D'Ars when we need him? Instead we get smug and self-righteous bullies.
What has happened to humility and servanthood as qualities for the priesthood?
I have heard it said that when a priest sins, it is counted twice due to his pastoral obligations to his flock. An old adage from years ago.
“The Church will be full of those who accept compromises.” -Our Lady of Akita, 1973
If this does not describe the FSSP then who?
If only we fight as hard against the Lord’s enemies as we do are brothers.
Amen.
I used to attend a local FSSP chapel. Mass was fine. Sermons okay. But I couldn’t handle the snide comments and sniping against the SSPX.
I have never heard anything but kind words from Society priests with regard to their priestly brothers. I cannot say the same about some a fraternity priests. To the priests of the Fraternity I would say...It is NOT A CONTEST! And remember that without charity you have nothing!
We are at war and Francis is the enemy. Pray for him but do not defend him or you defend the works of Satan. And when at war you do not shoot the soldier fighting in the trenches at your side.
Pray for ALL priests. And do so DAILY.
.
If we would have had that attitude during the Crusades, as Father FSSP suggests we should, we'd all be facing Mecca to pray today...
When it was a horror to many to speak of Bergoglio as not being 'pope', I said it on many sites and was rebuked for doing so. It is Vox who let me say it, whether he agreed with me or not. Now it is mainstream in the Catholic media to speak of the questionability of his Bergoglio's pontificate.
The institutional Church has become corrupted thoroughly. Read Ann Barnhardt to get the substantials of that. We also read it here from Vox in his defense against being called 'demoniac'. Here is the truth: We are called to obedience to the fullness of the Catholic Faith. This must be our highest allegiance. The grinning silence of the hapless bishops, their inability to call Truth the Truth is happening before our eyes. We must not stand with those who deny the fullness of our Catholic Faith. I believe the true Church will go underground and right now priests --and some bishops???- will need to face that fact. The evil one now owns Rome. The 'new church' is coming with all the trappings of the real Church masking the false church. the true Mass will be in homes. Priests will be fed by the underground. I am waiting to see when this fact will become mainstream.
I have always appreciated your site, Vox. You are not wrong in what you say. Thanks for being so forthright.
Well said Vox. While the charge of "demonic' did come second hand, let's assume the priest said it for the sake of argument. The rest of the priest's comment definitely rings true.
The FSSP has always been obsequious to the Conciliar Church, and it's really only by the "good graces" (sarc) of that Church that they continue to exist.
Perhaps they're playing the long game, and while they could be guillotined at any time, they are exposing the laity to Tradition and helping it to expand, and their sermons are consistently orthodox. In fact, Tradition is becoming such a threat now to the Conciliar Church that they seem to be acting quite rashly and erratically in their aim to suppress it.
If a new Motu Proprio is issued suppressing Summorum, the FSSP does need to make a decision. Their position may well be worse off that the Ecclesia Dei days.
Well put, Vox, thank you for expressing that so pointedly and so well.
There is a rampant effeminacy as well as gaslighting that has kept Catholics overly docile in the face of mistreatment from the church over time. Because of effeminacy the church has promoted the nonsense that to be forthright and to have zeal is to somehow not be "polite" or "nice". This de-masculinization of the faithful allows them to continue to mistreat the flock and to abuse God and the faith. Catholics are going to have to shake off the psychological propaganda and brainwashing that has led us to be weak and silent in the face of outrage after outrage. Our grandparents would not have questioned their bishops conduct or words, but as you rightly said Vox, we are not those people. They were largely given the faith and the church intact. We have been deprived by the pope and our bishops and too many priests. Not only that, we've been horrendously mistreated in various ways, some indirectly, some directly, as you also were, Vox. Just the fact that we have witnessed so many boys corrupted, so many men who suffered and many who committed suicide after clergy raped or molested or sodomized them, we stayed. When the church did nothing to combat the problem of homosexual clergy, we stayed. With all that has happened, given the culmination of evil that has spiraled since Bergoglio was put in the Chair of Peter, Catholics may be at a breaking point, no longer willing to put up with the abuse from Rome and the cabal. The level of corruption is horrific, and we have all just taken it, because we had to. That's abuse. At some point, a cornered animal turns, and will tear you to pieces if it has to. What else is to be expected after all the abuse we have endured? This is not 1920, and we are not our grandparents or parents. They push us too far. And please don't anybody say those words "meekness", or spout ideas about "suffering" or being "obedient to Peter". Those have become cons to keep people putting up with continued abuse. No more. I love the faith but I'm not co-dependent with it. This has become a sick relationship that must be addressed one way or another.
There will be weaklings, cowards, chronically effeminate, sellouts, traitors, who won't agree with the conviction that if this fight must come, then let it come. So be it. It is not a virtue to be weak. These monsters approve of everything, every sin and blasphemy or sacrilege under the sun except the proper worship of God as God intended. They would deprive the faithful because it puts bile in their mouths that the Mass of the Ages goes on without them, by their choice. What do they believe, that denying the faithful the TLM will be accepted like all the other outrages they have foisted on us? Then they were wrong. This is the line that cannot be crossed. They themselves drew the line. We did not, they did. Let them deal with the fallout, and if there is no fallout, then the shame is on us.
" It is Vox who let me say it, whether he agreed with me or not."
Like Barbara, I have great admiration and affection for that grand ol' Vox! When I first started posting here, there was a mini riot when I mentioned the dreaded word "sedevacantist." Calls to ban me soon followed. Vox has never agreed with me, yet he lets me have my say in peace. His theology might be a bit screwed up ( :) ),but he is fearless and a true Miles Christi. His reward will be great and who knows? - he might yet die a Sedevacantist! :)
Dear Peter,
I do agree with you on many things and on more than one occasion and I always relish your commentary!
David
Christ died on the cross not because he submitted to his enemies, but because he refused to submit to their tyranny. Do not be afraid!
The FSSP compromised with modernist Rome in 1988 and admitted that V2 and the NO are just as Catholic as V1 and the TLM. Why should the FSSP/ICK have any qualms about taking part in an NO worship service? They already offered their pinch of incense in 1988 so what’s the harm of adding in a Novus Ordo here and there? Doctrinally they claim they are two forms of the same expression, no?
PS, if we are at war with someone (Francis) and he is the enemy, don’t you think it would be wise to remove his name from the Sacred Canon of the Mass?
The FSSP priest's blunder is to think that Jesus' every action in every situation is to be imitated. A single example: From Jesus' willingly accepting His death, many draw out the heresy of absolute pacifism, according to which a father sins if he uses force to thwart the murder of his children. On the contrary, it is usually his duty.
If the shepherd is required to be in full submission to his enemies, then that means the shepherd has opened up the gate and allowed the wolves to eat until they are full. After they wake up from their nap, they can eat again as long as they please.
Don’t worry wolves - the sheep will remain where they are ntil you come and eat them. The shepherd will even guide you to those sheep who may be hiding, because that, truly, is godly submission according to the FSSP.
Give up. Give in. Give all to the enemy.
Somehow, I don’t think that was the message Jesus meant to convey when He continually resisted the religious leaders’ many errors to their face and inspired such hatred and fury in them. His whole life was conquest, not submission. Even His death, which he CHOSE, was conquest - ultimate conquest in that He broke the gates of hell and defeated the infernal enemy in eternity.
No, FSSP. Wrong lesson. Look to Lepanto, one of an infinite number of examples of Christian conquest - not submission.
We are a militant Faith, required to conquest evil wherever it may be found and bring with us holiness, justice, righteousness and peace - none of which will remain if we submit to evil, injustice, sin, violence.
I don’t want any of us to die a sedevacantist. Can I please know exactly what prevents us from electing a Pope? If it was the New Order masquerading as the Church, well the mask has fallen. Can’t we now elect a Pope?
https://www.lifesitenews.com/mobile/opinion/the-pachamama-as-a-monstrance-guadalajara-mexico?__twitter_impression=true
There is someone who might already be pope, if we assume that 'munus' and 'ministerium' are two different things. There are two men in Rome, dressed in Rome, signing of with their papal names. If you ask 'what is up with that?' you only get gaslit. Just like how we have to 'trust the science' and just obey scientists we have to 'trust the canon lawyers'. These so-called experts do not make a rational argument for why they are right but only because they say so.
The episcopate has apostasized. We are talking about the greatest crisis in Church history. Over 90% of the bishops not only hold heresies,they deny dogmas and doctrines. They deny the Catholic faith. They are in apostasy. Over 90% of the bishops.
The Catholic Church as an organization is dead. As an institution it is dead. The Church survives as the true Church in the mystical Body of Christ with the few clergy and laity who have kept the faith. The Catholic Church is a remnant of around 10% of clergy and laity.
Dear Melanie,
LOL! I second your hope that we have a true Pope before we die. How do we get a true Pope? I do not know. Who knows for sure? There are various possibilities:
1. There were shinannygans at the Conclave in 1958 - that's for sure. Maybe a true Pope was elected, but imprisoned andsuppressed by the modernists. He might have named a successor before he died and the successor might be alive and imprisoned. All unlikely, but not impossible.
2. Sedeprivationism / Cassiciacum thesis of Bishop des Lauriers: Conciliar "popes" were validly ELECTED by proper authorities, therefore they are "material" Popes, but they are heretics, therefore not valid/ authoritative / "formaliter" Popes, because God does not authorize heretics.
A commenter on this blog put it very well in 2017. I kept his/her comment:
Fri, Jul 21, 2017, 9:24 AM
kcherrytree has left a new comment on the post "Resisting Heresy":
As far as I am aware, Bishop des Lauriers never abandoned this thesis. [Cassiciacum thesis] I think he regretted that it appeared so lenient on JP2, but he was proposing an argument that had to stand or fall on its own merits, regardless of whether it appeared harsh or lenient when it was applied to anyone individual. And, even if the good Bishop wished to abandon it, it would still stand, and he was too fine a Thomist not to realize that this argument rests on the very nature of the papacy and its normal genesis in each and every case. What most people seem to miss about this argument (or thesis) is that it is actually a classically Thomist analysis of what must happen with EVERY pope, namely, that he is first a pope 'materialiter' insofar as he is elected to the position. In other words, papal election, to use our poor human way of speaking, provides God with the matter (a pope-elect) from which, by conferring the power which is proper to a pope, He can make 'formaliter' a real pope. Men (in the current practice, cardinals in conclave) provide the material for a pope, that is a pope-elect, and, once the pope-elect consents to this election, God (by conferring the power of the keys) creates (or provides) the form. In other words, the pope-elect (and so as yet only a pope, so to say, 'materialiter') becomes a real pope in strict sense of the term or 'formaliter'. This process happens with every pope and all popes. In the present situation, however, something is happening or intervening which is making it impossible for God to provide the fullness of papal power and authority: the candidates, one after another, per dint of embracing heresy, are blocking God's action. The Thesis of Bishop des Lauriers sounds new and extraordinary, but in fact it is as old as the Church herself. What is new in our current situation over the last almost sixty years is a series of pope-elects who prefer embracing heresy to submitting to God's wish to have true popes ruling over His Church.
I think that a most excellent comment! In practice, Sedeprivationism and total Sedevacantism come down to the same thing: We do not currently, or since 1958, have not had a valid Pope .
3. Total Sedevacantism: Conciliar "popes" are heretics. Heretics are not Catholics. The Pope MUST be Catholic. We are in an extended interregnum. Not impossible.
4. Divine intervention in a manner not yet known to us.
What WE DO KNOW :
1. An heretic cannot be Pope formaliter.
2. Peter"s Succession will last until the end of time.
Vox,
Was this FSSP priest by chance one of the priests in Ontario?
No idea. The writer did not specify.
Post a Comment