Author: Catholic Candle

The Fake Resistance Bishops Refer to Godless and Heretical Russia as “Holy Russia”

Posted on by Catholic Candle

 

In the past, Bishop Williamson contradicted the Catholic Dogma, No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church, by promoting the Vatican II error that non-Catholics can save their souls, but with more difficulty.[1]

 

The heresy of salvation outside the Catholic Church leads Bishop Williamson (as it would anyone else), to:

 

➢  neglect and discourage attempts to convert non-Catholics;[2]

➢  encourage praying with schismatics[3] and heretics,[4] including in the man-centered, sacrilegious services of the new conciliar religion;[5]

➢  teach the Vatican II heresy that Anglican heretics have the truth and truly worship God,[6] even though (as the Catholic Church teaches) only the Catholic Church has and does these.[7]

 

Recently, the four Fake Resistance bishops jointly and publicly extended Bishop Williamson’s ecumenism further, by referring to godless and heretical Russia as “Holy Russia”.[8]

 

Here are the words of the four Fake Resistance bishops,[9] in May 2017:

 

We beg of you to obtain from your Divine Son, the graces necessary for the Holy Father and the bishops to fulfil without further delay the long-standing command of Heaven, by consecrating with the bishops of the entire world, Holy Russia to your Immaculate Heart, as was requested and in the manner requested by you, on behalf of the Most Holy Trinity so long ago, and which has yet to be accomplished.[10]

 

Let us look at present-day Russia, which the Fake Resistance bishops now call “Holy Russia”:

 

➢  Less than one percent of Russians claim to be Catholic.  This includes all liberal Catholics and non-practicing Catholics.[11] 

But there is no holiness outside the Catholic Church, or in any false religion.[12]   

 

Yet the four Fake Resistance bishops publicly and falsely call Russia (which

is an almost entirely non-Catholic country), “Holy Russia”.[13]

 

 

➢  Seventy-one percent of Russians claim to belong to the heretical Russian Orthodox sect,[14] which is worse than the heathens, because (as St. Thomas Aquinas explains) heretics corrupt the faith, whereas the heathens have never professed the true faith or pretended to profess it.[15] 

Yet all four Fake Resistance bishops publicly call this heretical country “Holy

Russia”.[16]

 

 

➢  Even these Russian Orthodox heretics think so little about religious matters that only six percent of those heretics attend any kind of “religious” services weekly.[17] 

 

Yet all four Fake Resistance bishops publicly label as “Holy Russia”[18] this

country which is too unconcerned about supernatural matters to even

practice its own heresies.

 

 

➢  A quarter of all Russians do not believe in God.[19]

 

Yet all four Fake Resistance bishops publicly call this godless country “Holy

Russia”.[20]

 

 

➢  Among those Russians who claim to believe in God, so few think about God that only one person in six prays daily in any way, even heretical prayers or even prayers to a false god.[21]

 

Yet all four Fake Resistance bishops publicly call this prayer-less country

“Holy Russia”.[22]

 

 

➢  Clearly, Russia is a godless and heretical country.

 

Yet all four Fake Resistance bishops publicly call it “Holy Russia”.[23]

 

 

➢  Our Lady of Fatima declared that, in the future, after the pope and bishops consecrate Russia to her Immaculate Heart, then – but only then – Russia will be converted.

 

Yet all four Fake Resistance bishops treat Russia as already converted, by publicly calling this godless, heretical, unconverted country by the name “Holy Russia”.[24]

 

 

The phrase “Holy Russia” is not a Catholic concept.  For example, it is not mentioned in the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia.  The phrase “Holy Russia” is a false and misleading propaganda tool of the heretical Russian Orthodox sect.  As one secular encyclopedia explained concerning the phrase “Holy Russia”:

 

This religious concept developed through the ages in close connection with Orthodox Russian Christianity.[25]

 

When using this phrase “Holy Russia”, the Fake Resistance bishops are not following Catholic Tradition.  They are following the lead of the enemies of Our Lord, viz., the heretical Russian Orthodox sect.  As explained by Hilarion, the leader of the heretical Russian Orthodox sect in New York:

 

As sons and daughters of the Russian Orthodox Church, we are all citizens of Holy Russia.  When we speak of Holy Russia, we are not talking about the Russian Federation or any civil society on earth; rather, it is a way of life that has been passed down to us through the centuries ….  There is no achievement in simply calling oneself “Russian:” in order to be a genuine Russian, one must first become Orthodox and live a life in the [heretical, Russian Orthodox] Church, as did our forebears, the founders of Holy Russia![26]

 

 

Conclusion

 

The Fake Resistance bishops extend their past ecumenism by promoting godless, heretical, unconverted Russia as “Holy Russia”.

 

The Fake Resistance bishops continually lead their blind followers further away from the pure Catholic Faith!  Increasingly, they promote any heretical belief and any evil worship that their unthinking followers feel will help them.[27]

 

Let us pray for these poor, blind souls.


[2]           Read Bishop Williamson’s own words downplaying efforts to save souls, quoted from his own source, here: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/priests/williamson-faithful-catholics-have-a-missionary-spirit-bishop-williamson-tries-to-destroy-this-spirit.html

[3]           Bishop Williamson promotes attending the mass of sedevacantists.  Read his words cited to his own sources, here: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/priests/williamson-approves-sedevecantist-masses.html

[4]           Bishop Williamson promotes attending the mass of feeneyites.  See, e.g., Bishop Williamson’s confirmation conference at the feeneyite chapel of Fr. Galvin Bitzer in Louisville, is found at this link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZlQ5BSgs9E 

[5]           Read Bishop Williamson’s own words, quoted from his own source, promoting the idea of even traditional Catholics should attend the new mass if they think it will help them.  https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/priests/williamson-traditional-new-mass.html

 

[7]           Read the Doctors and Fathers of the Catholic Church, quoted here: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/faith/nothing-good-conciliar-church.html

 

[8]           August 5, 2017, Eleison Comments #525.

[9]           Bishops Williamson, Zendejas, Aquinas and Faure.

[10]         August 5, 2017, Eleison Comments #525 (emphasis added).

[11]         Religious Belief and National Belonging in Central and Eastern Europe, Pew Research Center, Study released May 10, 2017, p.5.

[12]         Read the Doctors and Fathers of the Catholic Church, quoted here: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/faith/nothing-good-conciliar-church.html

 

[13]         August 5, 2017, Eleison Comments #525.

[14]         Religious Belief and National Belonging in Central and Eastern Europe, Pew Research Center, Study released May 10, 2017, p.5.

 

[15]         Here is how St. Thomas Aquinas explains this truth:

 

[T]he unbelief of heretics, who confess their belief in the Gospel, and resist that faith by corrupting it, is a more grievous sin than that of the Jews, who have never accepted the Gospel faith.  Since, however, they accepted the figure of that faith in the Old Law, which they corrupt by their false interpretations, their unbelief is a more grievous sin than that of the heathens, because the latter have not accepted the Gospel faith in any way at all.

 

Summa, IIa IIae, Q.10, a.6 respondeo.

[16]         August 5, 2017, Eleison Comments #525.

[17]         Religious Belief and National Belonging in Central and Eastern Europe, Pew Research Center, Study released May 10, 2017, p.11.

[18]         August 5, 2017, Eleison Comments #525.

[19]         Religious Belief and National Belonging in Central and Eastern Europe, Pew Research Center, Study released May 10, 2017, p.23.

[20]         August 5, 2017, Eleison Comments #525.

[21]         Religious Belief and National Belonging in Central and Eastern Europe, Pew Research Center, Study released May 10, 2017, p.26.

[22]         August 5, 2017, Eleison Comments #525.

[23]         August 5, 2017, Eleison Comments #525.

[24]         August 5, 2017, Eleison Comments #525.

[26]         2013 declaration of Hilarion, (so-called) “Metropolitan” of Eastern America & New York, First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, available at this link: http://www.synod.com/synod/eng2013/20130619_enmhappeal1025.html

 (emphasis added; bracketed words added to show context).


[27]         Here is Bishop Williamson’s liberal, subjectivist principle: “Do whatever you need to nourish your Faith.”  Read this quotation, citation, and analysis here: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/priests/williamson-approves-sedevecantist-masses.html (emphasis added).

Reasons Not to Celebrate Halloween

Posted on by Catholic Candle

 

Halloween is un-Catholic, which is why so many traditional Catholic priests have taught over the years, that Catholics should not observe this holiday.

 

Halloween, which the pagans call Samhein, is an ancient pagan feast still celebrated on October 31st, by witches and other pagans, and which pagans usually describe as being the most important feast of their (false) religions.  See, e.g., http://www.bustle.com/articles/7929-im-wiccan-and-this-is-what-halloween-means-to-me & http://www.witchway.net/halloween.html 

 

Besides the opposition “on its face”, between Catholicism and paganism, there are many other ways that Halloween is the opposite of Catholic:

 

➢  The vigil of All Saints Day is a day of penance: a traditional fast day.  Halloween is the opposite: it is portrayed as a day of gorging, of candy and of eating in between meals (mortally sinful on a fast day).

 

➢  The Catholic Church takes witches, spells and demons very seriously and requires Her children to stay far away from them.  Halloween is the opposite: it makes witches, spells and demons seem approachable, fun, familiar and harmless.

 

➢  The days which Catholics celebrate are about life and salvation.  For example, Christmas is about our Lord’s birth in His humanity.  Even Good Friday is about our Lord’s life-giving sacrifice on the Cross, out of love for us, to open the gates of heaven.  (This life-giving sacrifice of love, which makes salvation possible, is why the Church calls this day Good Friday.)  In complete contrast to Catholic celebrations, Halloween is largely about death and destruction.

 

➢  Catholicism takes death very seriously.  The Church urges us to solemnly meditate on death and prepare for it.  Many saints kept a skull in their bedrooms, to ever remind them they were on earth to prepare for death.  Halloween is the opposite: it is a time of smiling skeletons, tombstones with funny epitaphs, and a light-hearted treatment of death without any of its eternal consequences.

 

➢  Catholicism takes sin very seriously.  The Church admonishes us to have a horror for sin and to consider it as the only true evil and unmitigated disaster.  Halloween is the opposite: it is a light-hearted treatment of sin, e.g., with costumed attackers randomly committing unprovoked mayhem, with lots of blood and gore, all without the consequences of reality.

 

➢  Catholicism values beauty and order.  Halloween is the opposite.  Halloween glorifies ugliness and disorder, e.g., grotesque, painted-on scars “decorating” ugly and horrifying monsters.

 

➢  Catholicism values peace.  Halloween is the opposite, exalting sudden and unprovoked violence, all without the consequences of reality. 

 

➢  The Catholic Church forbids séances and all attempts to conjure the dead.  Witches and other pagans believe that the feast of Samhein is when the boundary between the worlds of the living and dead is blurred, and when the ghosts of the dead can return to earth.  Id.  This pagan belief is honored by Halloween’s ubiquitous ghost decorations and costumes.

 

➢  The customary greeting of children seeking candy, is “trick or treat”.  Think about this.  However unthinkingly this phrase is uttered, it is in the form of a threat, viz., if you don’t give me candy, I will do something you won’t like!

 

➢  Spiders are among the most common Halloween decorations.  Spiders are prominent pagan symbols and are considered as guides in the occult.  See, e.g., http://www.druidry.org/library/animals/spiders-spiritual-guides & http://www.whats-your-sign.com/spider-symbol-meaning.html

 

All of the above considerations leave entirely aside Halloween’s worldliness, consumerism, immodest costumes, etc.

 

Because Halloween is in many ways the opposite of Catholic, it is no surprise that Halloween is ever-more popular, as society sinks ever-further from true Catholicism.  http://source.southuniversity.edu/halloween-is-big-business-27678.aspx & http://betweenthenumbers.net/2012/10/ghoulishly-good-news-for-the-halloween-economy/

 

Someone could reply that Halloween is “all just in fun” and is not meant to be serious.  We reply: if a Catholic is willing to participate in un-Catholic things which are “all in fun”, where will he draw the line?  If the practice of getting candy involved stamping on a crucifix “in fun”, would that be OK?  How can we ever re-conquer society for Christ the King, if we take part in anti-Catholicism “in fun”?

 

So, what should a Catholic do?  Do not take part in Halloween!  Instead, celebrate All Saints Day even more than before!  If there are “trick or treaters” where you live, we suggest you hang a sign on your door on Halloween, which says:

 

 

Dear Neighborhood Children:

 

Our family is Roman Catholic and so does not observe the pagan festival of Halloween.  Therefore, we do not give out candy today.

 

However, tomorrow (November 1st) is the great Feast of All Saints and we would be very glad to see you then and give you candy, if you wish to come.  Please come between 1pm and 8pm.

 

No costume is necessary.  However, if you decide to dress up as a saint, we will gladly be even more generous with candy, to reward your efforts.

 

Wishing you all the best!

 

Your neighbors,

[your name here]

Fr. Pfluger says modesty depends on the local culture

Posted on by Catholic Candle


In an interview posted 12-31-14, Fr. Niklaus Pfluger (Bishop Fellay’s First Assistant) says it is merely our “tradition” (with a small “t”) that women wear dresses/skirts, not pants.  He asserts that the “tradition” is the opposite in (pagan) India.  Fr. Pfluger says we should expand our horizons and should see that different countries have different “traditions” which are “precious and justified”, even when they are opposites.  Here are Fr. Pfluger’s words:

it is tempting to confuse the true dimension of Tradition with traditions, that is to say, with the way they behaved in the last two centuries in matters of Church and religion.  Travel at low cost, globalism and multiculturalism, as many elements of opening and expanding horizons.  Traditions can be so different, precious and justified, without falling under the natural law.  What is considered normal here is considered unthinkable elsewhere and vice versa.  I returned from India a few weeks ago and I immediately think of the "Dhoti", the traditional dress of men and of the "Sari" for women; in simple terms, men wear the dress and women, the pants.


Quoted from interview to an SSPX magazine in Germany, Der Gerade Weg.  http://dergeradeweg.com/2014/12/31/glaubige-eiferer-vs-eifrige-glaubige/  English translation: http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Father-Pfluger-Interview

 

This is the new SSPX: softening moral standards and making them relative to local pagan culture (Hindu, in the case of India).  Likewise, it follows from Fr. Pfluger’s statements that the more deeply Western countries are immersed in neo-pagan “traditions” such as women wearing trousers, the more justified Catholic women are here in following along.

 

That is not the counter-cultural way that Catholic Tradition used to talk!  Here is the SSPX’s Angelus Magazine, publishing what the Dominican Sisters taught on modesty in 1992:

 

There are degrees of sin, of mortal sin, of every kind of sin.  But let me tell you now, that we are not allowed to commit any sin!  Not even the smallest sin!  A sin is a sin.  A mortal sin is a moral sin.  But the importance of the sin is different according to several things: 1) the seriousness of the matter, the conscience we have of the seriousness of the matter, 3) the importance of the person offended.  …etc.

 

In itself, a sin against the spirit will always be more serious than a sin against the flesh because the spirit is above the flesh…a sin against the spirit is a revolt of our mind against God’s thought, and it is the worst kind of sin.  So you are not at all allowed to wear mini skirts because wearing pants is worse!

 

Angelus, November 1992, p.29, ellipses in original.

 

Here are the Sisters of the Society of St. Pius X, in their modesty pamphlet entitled The Marylike Standards of Modesty in Dress:

 

What about pants?

 

God made men and women different; He gave them their own roles to play in the divine plan.  Pants are appropriate apparel for a man’s nature and figure; whereas dresses and skirts are fitting attire for a woman, since they help her maintain her identity and dignity.  On the other hand, when a woman wears men’s clothing, the respect due to her God-given nature is lowered.

 

Girls, dress like true women and daughters of the Virgin Mary.  Be courageous enough to get rid of all your pants and shorts.  Show that you are proud to be what God has made you!  This is your glory before Him and before others.

 

 

Here is the SSPX as late as 2013:

 

For the ladies, to dress like a man (such as wearing pants) is improper and contradicts a woman’s God-given femininity. That this is not merely an “old fuddy duddy’s” quibble, should be evident when we realize that the proponents of unisex clothing have also been the same “gender theory” people behind the promotion of sins against nature.

 

It is interesting to note that the “Lion of Campos”, Bishop de Castro Mayer, once famously remarked in a pastoral letter that he would prefer a woman to wear a mini-skirt rather than pants. For while the mini-skirt was immodest, it was at least feminine, while pants contradicted a woman’s nature (thus the former attacked the senses, while the latter warped the intellect).

 

Therefore, so-called “woman’s pants” (usually worn out of pleasure or commodity) are not the proper garb of a Catholic (or Marian-like) girl or lady, either in the parish, domestic or social life.

 

http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/how-catholics-ought-dress-2203

 

We don’t quote from Bishop Richard Williamson’s well-known 1991-92 condemnations of the practice of women wearing trousers, although those condemnations serve as one part of the explanation why he does not “fit in” with the SSPX’s new direction.

 

The point of this article is to mark the on-going slippage in the SSPX.  Thus, we leave aside many other well-known 20th Century Catholic condemnations of the practice of women wearing trousers, such as Cardinal Siri’s 5-page condemnation on June 12, 1960 and Padre Pio’s many condemnations of this practice.

 

Lastly, Fr. Pfluger appears to be uninformed about a sari being trousers.  But regardless of what a sari is, Fr. Pfluger uses the sari to promote the idea that it depends on local “culture” whether a woman should wear trousers.

 

Fr. Cooper says being faithful to Our Lord means faithfulness to Bishop Fellay

Posted on by Catholic Candle

 

Fr. Daniel Cooper, an SSPX priest in the U. S. district, wrote in a July 2015 letter to SSPX faithful at the Arcadia, California SSPX chapel:  “To break with Bishop Fellay is tantamount to breaking with the Roman Church.”  Page 2.

 

Fr. Cooper’s un-Catholic assertion promotes blind obedience, and is false for two reasons:

 

➢  Fr. Cooper misleads the faithful, because they have no obligation to follow Bishop Fellay unless they choose to do so.  The faithful have not promised to obey him, and they can cease following him without sin, even if  Bishop Fellay were leading well (which he is not).

 

➢  The SSPX priests and religious have promised to obey their SSPX superiors but even these priests and religious have the duty to “break” with Bishop Fellay when he leads them into errors against the Faith (as he is).  The Catholic Church is not the Church of blind obedience and hero-worship! 

 

 

Further Discussion of Above Reasons

 

First Reason: Laymen have no duty at all, to follow Bishop Fellay

 

Laymen (to whom Fr. Cooper is writing), are not “members” of the SSPX and have not promised to obey Bishop Fellay.  Laymen have no duty to follow him, as Archbishop Lefebvre explained:

 

[I]t must be borne in mind that an authority which is supplied [to the SSPX] does not have the same characteristics as authority which exists ordinarily in the Church.  It is exercised case-by-case, and is thus not habitual: in other words the people who benefit from it can always withdraw from it, and the supplied authority has no power to make them return.[1] 

 

Bishop Tissier echoes his founder and refutes the SSPX’s new idea[2] that all Traditional Catholics owe Bishop Fellay obedience.  In a 1991 article available on SSPX.org, with a forward written by Fr. Peter Scott, Bishop Tissier explained to the faithful: “your submission and your dependence with respect to the clergy must be as voluntary as the clergy have less right to demand it.”[3] 

 

As Bishop Tissier also explained, the SSPX “cannot demand to exercise [authority over particular laymen as] a strict right”.  Id.   This is because “the clergy cannot, strictly speaking, require this dependence since it [i.e., the SSPX clergy] has no ordinary jurisdiction over the faithful.”  Id.  

 

Bishop Tissier told the faithful:

 

It is you who have to appeal to this supplied jurisdiction [of traditional priests and bishops].  I therefore say that the sense of the Church, the sensus fidei, must persuade faithful laymen and laywomen to willingly submit their apostolic activities to the traditional clergy.  Id.  (Emphasis added.)

 

Thus, Fr. Cooper is wrong that somehow Bishop Fellay or any other SSPX leader can exercise authority over any faithful, except to the extent that such persons voluntarily accept such authority, and voluntarily decide to follow such direction, and for as long as they voluntarily accept that direction, or authority.

 

So when Fr. Cooper makes loyalty to Bishop Fellay the test for being Catholic, he misleads the faithful.  The truth is that the faithful are free to “break” with Bishop Fellay if they choose to do so, but of course, they are never free to “break” with the Catholic Church.

 

 

Second Reason: Following Bishop Fellay into Error is not True Obedience

The virtue of obedience is a subordinate virtue under the Cardinal Virtue of Justice.  Summa, IIa IIae, Q.104. a2.  Faith and Charity are superior.  Summa, IIa IIae, Q.4 a.7 sed cont. & ad 3; IIa IIae, Q.23 a.6. 

St. Thomas teaches that “sometimes the things commanded by a superior are against God. Therefore superiors are not to be obeyed in all things.”  Summa, IIa IIae, Q.104, a.5, ad 3.  “[A]nyone obeying [a superior’s sinful command] would sin as acting against a divine command.” Summa, IIa IIae, Q.33, a.7, ad.5 (“…ipse peccaret praecipiens, et ei obediens, quasi contra praeceptum Domini agens…”).  

 

Thus, even SSPX priests and religious (who have promised to obey Bishop Fellay as Superior General), have the duty to stand against his liberalism and his betrayal of the Catholic Faith.  Such stand against Bishop Fellay’s liberalism is standing for the Catholic Church.

Promoting Blind Obedience as a means to Promote Liberalism, is Not New

 

The priests of the “new” SSPX truly deserve their nick-name “Fellay-ites”, because they reverse course, following Bishop Fellay wherever he leads.  By contrast, the priests of the “old” SSPX never deserved the name “Lefebvrists” (given to the SSPX by the conciliar church), because the SSPX did not follow Archbishop Lefebvre blindly, wherever he led.  In the “old” SSPX, no one was ever told that “to break with Archbishop Lefebvre is tantamount to breaking with the Roman Church.”

 

Fr. Cooper is not the first one to promote blind obedience in the new SSPX.  It is now common SSPX “doctrine”.  See, e.g., this analysis here: http://www.therecusant.com/bpf-jurisdiction-abuse  See also, Fr. Karl Stehlin’s rebuke of the Capuchins of Morgan, France, for (supposed) “disobedience” to Bishop Fellay.  https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/priests/2014-04-11-fr-stehlin-ltr.html 

Fr. Stehlin’s own blind obedience was rewarded by Bishop Fellay promoting him in August 2014, to becoming District Superior of the SSPX Asian District. 

 

The current SSPX demand of blind obedience is a faint echo of this same demonic tactic used by the conciliar revolutionaries after Vatican II.  Such conciliar blind obedience was the long-planned Masonic strategy for Revolution in the Catholic Church, as stated below:

 

In a hundred years time… bishops and priests will think they are marching behind the banner of the keys of Peter, when in fact they will be following our flag… The reforms will have to be brought about in the name of obedience.

1818 Alta Vendita Permanent Instructions, ordered published by Pope Pius IX and Pope Leo XIII (emphasis added).

 

Perhaps Bishop Fellay and the new SSPX don’t realize under which banner they have begun marching, as they use obedience to squelch resistance to their new liberalism.


[1]           Archbishop Lefebvre, on February 20, 1990, quoted in the Traditional Dominican’s publication, Sel de la Terre.  http://www.therecusant.com/bpf-jurisdiction-abuse

[2]           See the analysis here: http://www.therecusant.com/bpf-jurisdiction-abuse

The Great Spiritual Peril of Small Compromises

Posted on by Catholic Candle

 

One of the most effective tools in the devil’s toolbox is the small compromise.  Not just any type of compromise, but the smallest of compromises – one that can be rationalized as insignificant, unimportant, and certainly nothing to worry about.  It allows one to take comfort in the fact that others are also compromising in the same situation.  There is comfort in numbers.

 

The devil has been using the smallest compromises since the beginning of time.  How could it be wrong just to eat that certain apple?  They are grown to be eaten; nothing to worry about.  I remember in the 1960s when some of the Church hierarchy was preparing the faithful to accept Vatican II, and they began with small compromises.  They eliminated the Last Gospel and the prayers after a Low Mass, for the conversion of Russia.  These changes were considered inconsequential.  And besides, (so the rationalizing would go), shortening the Mass would allow more people to have more time and to come more often. 

 

Another example, is changing the Canon by adding St. Joseph’s name.  Who wouldn’t want to honor good St. Joseph?  But small compromises always lead to large compromises, as shown by the slide after VC II. 

 

It is easy to see how the many small compromises over the years have brought the SSPX priests and laymen to a point of being willing to accept very BIG compromises, such as:

 

1.    Accepting a “priest” ordained with the questionable Novus Ordo rite of ordination, and “bishops” from the questionable consecration rite.  This is a huge compromise because it ignores the positive doubts in these bastard rites, flowing from a Council responsible for the conciliar destruction of the priesthood and the true Mass.  Such compromise is breathtaking, to say the least!

 

2.    Having accepted these doubtful sacraments, the SSPX and Bishop Fellay then use more small compromises to further “soften up” the priests and laymen for the next big compromise.  Bishop Fellay is an expert at metering out liberalism at an “acceptable level”.  He appears successful because only a few people are leaving the SSPX.  All those who stay rationalize that the small compromises over the years, are insignificant and unimportant.  (Big mistake!)  The SSPX priests and laymen have come to the point where they are now ready to compromise their salvation by accepting subordination to the practical control of Modernist Rome.  They say it is far too early to leave because they see no change in their parish “community”.[1]

 

3.    A recent outrageous compromise was Bishop Fellay and the Society participating with Modernist Rome, in the so-called “Year of Mercy” celebrating 50 years of VC II!  That’s on a par with his assuring Rome that “We accept 95% of Vatican II.”  

 

Do you compromising priests or laymen still believe it is far too early to leave?  If so, is there anything faith-destroying enough to spur you into leaving the Society’s “safe cocoon” (which is really just collective compromise).

 

One thing we can be sure of is that the saints knew very well the dangers of small compromises leading to big compromises and eternal damnation.  And they acted accordingly.

 

A sure sign that the devil’s best tool (viz., the small compromise) works, is that priests and laymen still in the SSPX know deep down that something is wrong, but yet take no action as they wait for “instruction.”  (See below.)  As Dom Gueranger declared:

When the shepherd turns into a wolf, the first duty of the flock is to defend itself ….  The true children of Holy Church [in times of crisis…] are not the cowardly souls who, under the specious pretext of submission to the powers that be [i.e., those in charge,] delay their opposition to the enemy in the hope of receiving instructions ….

 

However, before one compromises, he really does get his conscience’s warning (i.e., instructions) to leave, for the sake of his soul (since God never tempts anyone beyond his strength).  But one can’t hear these inspirations of God, while the devil is shouting in his ear to stay, as did 99% of Catholics after Vatican II.

 

Compromising fence-sitters:  Have you ever stopped to realize how successful the devil and the Masons have been since VC II, in their efforts to destroy the Catholic Church?  Christ the King needs uncompromising front-line fighters for tradition.

Can He count on you?

 

 

 

 


[1]  The term parish “community” is a Novus Ordo term recently adopted by the SSPX.

Bishop Fellay and Fr. Daniel Cooper

Posted on by Catholic Candle

Pope Benedict & the Traditional Mass (Bishop Fellay vs. Archbishop Lefebvre)

 

In his 6-27-15 interview, Bishop Fellay insists on Pope Benedict’s sincere attachment to, and promotion of, the Traditional Liturgy:

 

[I]t is important to insist upon Benedict XVI’s interest for the liturgy in general.  He truly wished to put the entire traditional liturgy, not only the Mass, at the disposition of the priests and the faithful.

 

Quoted from: https://fsspx.news/en/content/23861

 

Archbishop Lefebvre better understood the tactics of this same conciliar revolutionary:

 

They [then-Cardinal Ratzinger and the rest of the hierarchy] do not grant anything out of appreciation for the Traditional Liturgy, but simply to trick those to whom they give it and to diminish our resistance; to insert a wedge in the Traditional block so as to destroy it!

 

September 9, 1988 conference in Écône, (published in Fideliter 66, November-December 1988); English translation from June 2015 Recusant, p.7.

 

 

Fr. Daniel Cooper is Silent on Vatican II

 

Fr. Daniel Cooper, SSPX pastor in Arcadia, California, wrote in a July 2015 letter to parishioners:

 

A concerned parishioner said to me, “What’s wrong with the priests of the SSPX?  They never speak against Vatican II.  Now all we get is the gospel.” This is so typical.  She is complaining because the priests of the SSPX are doing their duty, spreading the message of the gospel.  But she wants them to be attacking Vatican II from the pulpit.  Very rarely is there a good reason to do this.

 

Page 2; emphasis added.

 

By avoiding mention of the principal errors of our time, Fr. Cooper fits in well with the SSPX’s new direction and will fit in well when the SSPX becomes a “recognized” (indult) group.

Bishop Fellay’s Strange Theory about the Role of the Baptismal Character

Posted on by Catholic Candle

 

Catholic catechisms and St. Thomas teach that a baptismal character (which is an indelible mark) does two things: 1) it marks us as belonging to Christ; and 2) it enables us to receive other sacraments.  Summa, IIIa, Q.63.

 

Not feeling himself limited to Catholic Doctrine, Bishop Fellay expounds the strange theory that the baptismal character also causes us to recognize the goodness of the traditional Mass.  Bishop Fellay says that, when we attend the traditional Mass, there is a “click” [his word], which is our baptismal character causing us to recognize that this Mass is pleasing to God and is truly Catholic.  Bishop Fellay then says “most of the time there is absolutely no ‘click’ with the new mass.”  Quoted from Bishop Fellay’s October 19, 2012 conference, sold by Angelus Press, disc 1, about minute 76 (emphasis added.)

 

Recently, Bishop Fellay reiterated his novel theory:

 

[Y]oung [conciliar] priests identify with this [Traditional] liturgy, precisely because it is timeless.  The Church lives in eternity.  The liturgy does also too [sic], which is why it is always young.  Close to God, it is outside of time.  So it is no surprise that the baptismal character makes this harmony resound even in souls that have never known the liturgy.

 

June 27 2015 interview found at https://fsspx.news/en/content/23861 (emphasis added).

 

There are two problems with Bishop Fellay’s “click” theory:

 

a)    Bishop Fellay’s statements are not the traditional Catholic teaching about the role of the baptismal character.  Catholics are led to recognize what is good and evil through grace, virtue and especially the gifts of the Holy Ghost, not by the “clicking” of our baptismal character.

 

b)    Bishop Fellay’s comments are soft on the new mass, because his comments indirectly say that at least occasionally our God-given sacramental character (which supposedly helps us to discern what is good) will give a “click” in recognition that the new mass is good!

 

One supposes that Bishop Fellay would say that this (purported) “click” occurs when the new mass is used under the “best”, strictest conditions. But if the new mass is good under strict conditions, then the new mass is good in itself!

Bishop Fellay Promotes a Hybrid Mass

Posted on by Catholic Candle

 

In an interview conducted at the end of June 2015, Bishop Fellay said that blending the Traditional Catholic Mass with the new mass, is an idea which makes him “glad”.  http://sspx.org/en/fellay_interview_tradition_schneider_sarah_Francis

 

In particular, Bishop Fellay declared his support for the idea of “introducing the Traditional Offertory into the new mass”.  Id. 

 

Bishop Fellay is advocating sacrilege, which is an “irreverent treatment of the sacred”.  Summa, IIa IIae, Q.99, a.1.  The Traditional Mass is entirely sacred, including its Offertory.  The new mass is evil, is a danger to the Faith and is a work of the devil and the modernist enemies of the Church.  Combining the Traditional Mass’s sacred Offertory with the evil new mass is as irreverent to the sacred Offertory, as would be mixing consecrated holy oils, with dung.  (In fact, because the new mass is evil while dung is merely repulsive (not evil), what Bishop Fellay is glad about, is worse.)

 

The sacrilege Bishop Fellay is supporting is a mortal sin worse than murder (because sacrilege is a grave sin directly against God, whereas murder is a grave sin directed against man).  Summa, IIa IIae, Q.99, a.2, sed contra; IIa IIae, Q.13, a.3, ad 1. 

 

In the same interview, Bishop Fellay says that this mixing of the sacred and the evil would be “a great step forward” because it would help conciliar Catholics.  But this is like the liberal view that it would be good to combine the Kingship of Christ and the Kingship of Satan on the same banner, in order to “gradually bring around” those who now support the Kingship of Satan. 

 

The truth is, the end does not justify the means!  Uncompromising Catholics do not approve sacrilege even if the goal is to help “bring around” the conciliar Catholics (and even if this means would achieve such an end).

 

Bishop Fellay might think that he can avoid the wrath of God for promoting the hybrid mass, because he plans to prevent the SSPX from using it and he speculates that no traditional priests would ever be so weak so as to rationalize their own use of the hybrid mass (in place of the Traditional Mass).  But whatever Bishop Fellay’s suppositions are, he still is promoting the irreverent treatment of the sacred Offertory, by mixing it with evil (the new mass).

 

Bishop Fellay is not culpable for the Vatican’s creation of the new mass in the 1960s, just as (in the above example), Bishop Fellay is not responsible for the banners of Satan already in use.  But Bishop Fellay is responsible for scandalizing the faithful, by promoting the creation of this hybrid mass; and he is also responsible for lending his influence, as Rome decides whether to blend the sacred and the evil masses.  This is like (in the above example) Bishop Fellay would be responsible for supporting the proposal of a hybrid banner, including both Our Lord and Satan. 

 

Our Lord warned us: “I would thou wert cold, or hot.”  Apoc. 3:15.  By Bishop Fellay promoting the blending of the good and the evil masses, he seeks to achieve the “lukewarm” by blending the hot and cold.  Such persons, our Lord declares, He “will begin to vomit” out of His Mouth.  Apoc. 3:16.

 

 

It is Not New for Bishop Fellay to Seek Convergence between the Traditional Mass and the New Mass

 

This is not the first time Bishop Fellay has proposed a way to bring the sacred Traditional Mass nearer to the new mass.  For example, Peter J. Elliott, the local ordinary of a diocese in Australia, reported that he had lunch with Bishop Fellay, during which Bishop Fellay and his SSPX priests proposed that the Traditional Mass “be said or sung in the vernacular”.  http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2014/02/reform-of-reform-not-impossible.html#.VZ1o_F9Viko

 

 

Bishop Fellay has been Soft on the New Mass for a Long Time

 

Bishop Fellay’s lack of abhorrence for the new mass is not new: 

 

➢  Bishop Fellay attended a new mass and praised it afterwards, to a Cardinal.  http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/cardinal-if-lefebrve-had-seen-proper-mass-he-may-not-have-split/  Accord: http://www.sspx.org/superior_generals_news/what_bishop_fellay_really_said_to_cardinal_canizares_about_the_new_mass_1-21-2013.htm

 

➢  On a visit to Rome with Bishop Fellay, his two Assistants attended the new mass celebrated by Pope Francis.  http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/05/rorate-exclusive-pope-francis-received.html

 

➢  Bishop Fellay laughed and smiled while recounting his liturgical experimentation as a teenager (creating new “eucharistic prayers” for the new mass used by his conciliar high school), as shown in this video interview, beginning at about minute five: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XhhM8WXjFA

 

➢  Bishop Fellay stated that the new mass is “legitimately promulgated” (although nothing can be “legitimately promulgated” which is not legitimate).  See, Bishop Fellay’s 4-15-12 Doctrinal Preamble.

 

➢  Bishop Fellay asserts the strange novelty that our Baptism Character sometimes approves of the new mass.  See, Bishop Fellay’s October 19, 2012 conference, disc 1, about minute 76 (discs sold by Angelus Press); https://www.scribd.com/doc/180007280/Analysis-of-Fr-Themann-conference-pdf (pages 31-32).

 

➢  Bishop Fellay says that “what needs to be corrected” in the new mass are things like the vernacular translation.  https://fsspx.news/en/content/23740