Michael Voris has interviewed Pat Archbold about his piece that I commented on here. I have to say that Archbold is completely genuine and motivated by love for the Church. He is clearly moved by deep concern.
Both Archbold and Voris admit that the proposal for Pope Francis to regularize the SSPX without an agreement might be naive, but they believe that there is a greater good to be achieved that is worth the risk, because the marginalization of traditionalists, perceived or real, may end very badly and be irreversible.
It seems to me that a more reasonable path and one that has more promise of success is for men like Archbold and Voris to convince as many traditionalists as possible that the only way forward is to follow the path laid out very charitably and in a fatherly way by Archbishop di Noia in Advent of 2012, when the dialogue was in its last agony.
There is no reason to be pessimistic, but neither is healthy realism to be avoided. Archbold and Voris characterize the post-dialogue statements of the SSPX with words like “strident, “hypercritical,” “disrespectful” and “rude.” In fact, Bishop Fellay has called Vatican II the council of the Masons, Modernists and Jews. He has said that the validity of the novas ordo is irrelevant because it is evil, and he has called Pope Francis a “genuine modernist.” I understand what they are trying to do, but they need realize they have to sell this and it is a hard sell to say the least.
This is the very real risk of regularizing the Society without an agreement: The minute the Holy Father put his seal on the regularization all the usual suspects would be declaring victory, would consider their cause vindicated precisely because of the regularization, and would use the it as a justification to do inside the Church all they have done outside it. I am quite sure that if Archbold and Voris search their hearts they will know this is true. And there would be no “working out the details” afterward, for two reasons: 1) because by their own clear statements the members of the Society have absolutely no intention of modifying their positions, in fact, they are wholly committed to the resistance; 2) because there simply would be no incentive to do so.
In various ways, I have been warning about this eventuality for a long time, long before the talks broke down, when Pope Benedict was not the traditionalist’s golden boy he is now. If you look at the statements of Bishop Fellay over the course of the dialogue with Rome, you can see that his hope was that faith and trust in the postconciliar magisterial would be weakened to the point that the SSPX and its positions would be seen to be correct.
Perhaps his goal has had unintended consequences, further complicated by the new pontificate, but Bishop Fellay has committed himself and the Society to a trajectory that is simply and plainly inconsistent with full ecclesial communion. Whatever other problems we have on the left with the radicals, this is no reason to invite more chaos.
In regard to other related issues, such as “The Wedge” and “The Reform of the Reform” I suggest reading David Armstrong at length here. Particularly pertinent to this discussion is his quotes from Blessed John Henry Newman:
To submit to the Church means this, first you will receive as de fide whatever she proposes de fide . . . You are not called on to believe de fide any thing but what has been promulgated as such — You are not called on to exercise an internal belief of any doctrine which Sacred Congregations, Local Synods, or particular Bishops, or the Pope as a private Doctor, may enunciate. You are not called upon ever to believe or act against the moral law, at the command of any superior.
(The Letters and Diaries of John Henry Newman [LD], XX, 545 [in 1863], edited by Charles Stephen Dessain (London: 1961-1972), in Ian Ker, John Henry Newman: A Biography, Oxford University Press, 1988 [764 pages], 530-531)
I say with Cardinal Bellarmine whether the Pope be infallible or not in any pronouncement, anyhow he is to be obeyed. No good can come from disobedience. His facts and his warnings may be all wrong; his deliberations may have been biassed. He may have been misled. Imperiousness and craft, tyranny and cruelty, may be patent in the conduct of his advisers and instruments. But when he speaks formally and authoritatively he speaks as our Lord would have him speak, and all those imperfections and sins of individuals are overruled for that result which our Lord intends (just as the action of the wicked and of enemies to the Church are overruled) and therefore the Pope’s word stands, and a blessing goes with obedience to it, and no blessing with disobedience. (Letter to Lady Simeon, 10 November 1867; my italics)
Regularizing the SSPX without an agreement will certainly encourage their worst behavior, but re-instating excommunications or adding new ones would just formalize a schism. Simply leaving their status ambiguous is probably the best that can be done for now. Devotees of the EF who are faithful to the Magisterium can have their pastoral needs attended to by loyal priests of (for example) the Society of Saint Peter.
Thank you for this analysis, Father. You are very charitable in your assessment of Pat Archbold in the Voris interview. I think he is very sincere in what he is saying, but that doesn’t mean he is correct.
I took at look at the SSPX website, and it is one criticism of the Church after another. At the top of the website is this: “Evangelli Gaudim: Grief of the Faithful.” It is an analysis of the apostolic exhortation by Fr. Franz Schmidberger. He concludes his scathing analysis with this:
“The papal document Evangelii Gaudium may, like dispersed seeds, contain some good aspects. As a whole, however, the document is nothing but a development of the Second Vatican Council in its most unacceptable statements. We cannot find in it any “new paths for the Church’s journey in years to come” (#1), but another fatal step towards the downfall of the Church, the decomposition of its doctrine, the breakdown of its structure, and even the extinction of its missionary spirit which ironically is evoked over and over again. In this way Evangelii gaudium becomes the Dolor Fidelium, a source of grief and pain for the faithful.”
These hardly seem the words of someone in communion with the Church in any way whatsoever.
There is also a letter from Bishop Fellay, detailing the “woes” of the Church. He writes about his concerns regarding Pope Francis and states:
“We do not conceal from you our fears about the future of the Church, humanly speaking. We firmly believe in the assistance of the Holy Ghost promised to the Bride of Christ, but we know that that does not prevent churchmen from being able, really and truly, to ruin souls by leading them to hell.”
How do you bring people into communion with a Church that they see as teetering on the edge of total disaster? You summed up the situation exactly with this statement:
“The minute the Holy Father put his seal on the regularization all the usual suspects would be declaring victory, would consider their cause vindicated precisely because of the regularization, and would use the it as a justification to do inside the Church all they have done outside it.”
If the SSPX would be regularized as they are now, the revolt in the Church would be unprecedented for the precise reason you state. It is a disaster beyond comprehension.
I again, agree with Kirt. Those who prefer to attend the Extraordinary Form should support the FSSP who are faithful to the Magisterium. Bishop Fellay is hostile to Church authority and does great harm to the poor souls who follow him. I am grateful that Church authority is protecting the faithful. Again, we should pray for the SSPX repentance, reconciliation and obedience to the Holy Father and all the Church teaches. The Church has and continues to be generous in extending a way to reconciliation for the SSPX but they obstinately persist in their refusal to submit. They should take responsibility for their actions which have resulted in their being in schism and stop playing the victim.
CWN – December 23, 2013
The leaders of the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) are in schism, and remain suspended from the sacraments, says the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
In an interview with the Italian daily Corriere della Sera, Archbishop Gerhard Müller said that although Pope Benedict XVI lifted the canonical excommunication of SSPX prelates, they remain suspended from the sacraments because “by their schism they have broken away from communion with the Church.”
Archbishop Müller said that while talks with the SSPX have reach an impasse, the Vatican will not close the door to reconciliation. However, he said, a restoration of full communion would require the SSPX to accept the authority of the Church and of the Pope.
From my perspective, as a supporter of the SSPX, it comes down to a conundrum of either obeying the magisterium of the pre-conciliar Pope as understood by the Church up to that time, or obeying the magisterium of the post-conciliar Popes including where they have deviated from the magisterium of their predecessors.
This is not a choice that any Catholic should have to make.
It is not that the SSPX is making up their own mind of the magisterium, their understanding of the pre-conciliar magisterium is based and consistent with how the Church understood the pertinent doctrines prior to the Council. They are being asked to accept without reservation the documents of the Second Vatican Council and the elements that have grown out of it – in particular the Novus Ordo Missae etc.
To accept this is, from their perspective, the equivalent of denying the pre-conciliar magisterium.
Concerning some of the statements made, particularly about the Novus Ordo Missae being evil. It is important to understand how the term evil is used. The definition used by the SSPX is the absence of a due good. The Novus Ordo Missae has been stripped of many if not all the elements that profess by action and word the truths of the Catholic Faith. As Cardinal Ottaviani stated, they have removed the barriers to heresy.
Concerning the accusation of schism. This is an old and very redundant accusation, to which I would ask when did the schismatic act occur? Was it the consecrations? That doesn’t follow because the mere consecration without papal mandate is not a schismatic act (check out the code of canon law). Was it for saying, sorry we can’t compromise on these points? Nope.
So, as a Catholic, I would ask you to weigh your words and thoughts carefully before you accuse other Catholics of the sin of schism. You may be just repeating what you’ve heard, but I’m afraid you’ve been ill informed.
How one wishes everyone would stop blathering about the Council. There are no anathemas attached to any of its pronouncements. Nor has pope or council since attached any anathema to any particular interpretation of the Council’s (rather opaque) pronouncements. So everyone should be free to interpret the Council’s pronouncements as a consistent gloss (or a consistent development) on the prior doctrine (frankly, since there are no anathemas, you can probably view them as meaning anything you like). If one really believes what we’ve always believed about the authority of the Church and the guaranties of the Holy Spirit, the Council documents *can’t* mean anything else, not anything that’s binding on anyone.
So the SSPX needs to stop insisting the documents mean something heretical (they can’t, and if and to the extent they do they’re not binding) and the Curia needs to stop insisting that the SSPX (and the FFI) adopt some particular interpretation of the Concilar pronouncements (if they wanted that, someone should have attached anathemas to the Council).
It’s an argument over nothing, stoked by idiotic rhetoric by the SSPX and idiotic intransigence by the curia.
(As a side note, the whole issue doesn’t matter a hill of beans in the English-speaking world. The issue is France, where some astonishingly high percentage of weekly Mass attendance is in SSPX chapels. The episcopacy there would never release the data, but the rumors and unofficial numbers are breathtaking: I seem to recall statistics in the 50–70% range.)
P.S. – One should say “binding in a dogmatic sense.” There are non-dogmatic pronouncements, of course, to which one is obligated to give certain degrees of submission.
Well Titus – if the argument was really over nothing then there would be no point of argument.
However it is not over nothing, it is over something.
The something that it is ‘over’ is doctrine and doctrine is worth fighting over because it is supposed to be expressing the truth.
Let’s take one interesting point – the status of protestant ministers.
Is an Anglican ‘Bishop’ a ‘Brother Bishop’ as the Pope noted? Nope. He is just a layman playing priest/bishop.
Where does such ‘thinking’ stem from?
I would say the documents of the Second Vatican Council.
Because before the Second Vatican Council, there would be no confusion as to the state of the laymen (and women) playing priests.
tradical -“From my perspective, as a supporter of the SSPX, it comes down to a conundrum of either obeying the magisterium of the pre-conciliar Pope as understood by the Church up to that time, or obeying the magisterium of the post-conciliar Popes including where they have deviated from the magisterium of their predecessors.This is not a choice that any Catholic should have to make”
It is a choice that no Traditional Catholic has the right to make.
18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church,* and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.* Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
If I understood your point correctly, you are saying we should just obey the current reigning Pontiff no matter what he orders etc.
There are a number of problems with that idea, not the least of which is that if what the Pope orders is detrimental to the faith or even against it, it is a sin to obey.
Considering the condemnations of partaking in the ‘ecumenical gatherings’ and the participation in false worship. The former was condemned by Pope Pius the XI (if memory serves) and the latter is Divine Law.
Let’s take an concrete example:
The Pope participates in Jewish Worship.
This is wrong for a number of reasons, the first of which is that there is only one true religion which offers up true worship. The Catholic Religion. The other religions are false and offer false worship. Knowingly participating in false worship if always sinful.
The second reason more specific to the Jewish religion is that its rites etc are all oriented towards a Messiah who is to come. Whereas the Catholic Dogma is that Jesus Christ is the Messiah. To participate in worship that denies that the Messiah has come (ie Jesus) is to deny the faith.
Now, do I follow the Pope in his participation in Jewish rituals etc?
Do I follow the pre-conciliar Popes in their condemnation of such an action?
The answer is: You cannot follow the Pope in this action, it would be sinful obedience as opposed to true obedience.
I hope this makes the situation clearer.
I’ve been doing more research on the SSPX. While I think one can have a good debate on the implementation of Vatican 2, I believe the SSPX is wrong in its separation from the Church.
I also found that the SSPX has a long history of anti-Senitism and Holocaust denial and other disturbing trends like denouncing parishioners from the pulpit etc. In fact a huge libel lawsuit was launched by a former parishioner in the USA and won against the Society.
I am sure there are many good and sincere people in the SSPX who are rightly scandalized by what may be happening in their Novus Ordo parish, but there are enough troubling things in the SSPX for us to be very wary. This also includes how the Church handles discussions. Yes, talk and welcome them back but also be firm that anti-Semitism, Holocaust denial and cult like intimidation practices are not acceptable or welcome.
Go to an FSSP parish or other traditional community if you want the old Mass. There you can be in full union with the Church, have valid sacraments, live the traditional Faith and be free of hate, anti-Semitism and cult like behaviour.
And for those who say they booted Bishop Williamson for his anti-Semetic comments, please note that he was booted for questioning the Superior NOT his vile comments thus suggesting his anti-Jewish rants were not the problem for the SSPX. And it would seem this is so because he was allowed to print and say these horrible things for decades. The SSPX should be handled like toxic waste.
Actually about 5 or 6 years ago when my son was in junior high and all the neighborhood boys still played together, he was good friends with a Jewish boy in our neighborhood. Our family attended his Bar Mitzvah. Catholics are permitted to attend non-Catholic services.
” I believe the SSPX is wrong in its separation from the Church.”
Are you certain that the SSPX has separated itself from the Church or did the Church separate itself from the SSPX?
Don’t worry I’m not schismatic.
What I am trying to say with the word play is that in the heyday of the 70’s the SSPX maintained the ‘traditional’ way of forming priests – even to the point of implementing the aspects of the council that regards formation of religious vocations (yes at this point I only have Archbishops account of a discussion with the Cardinal in charge of the congregation for religious life ).
The reason for the challenges to the SSPX is because they would not go along with the ‘reforms’ etc and spirit that was embedded in the documents (see link above) as it went against prior magisterial teaching. In fact the impetus for the 1974 declaration was the scandal caused by the apostolic visitors questioning certain dogmas of the faith.
So, the SSPX would not ‘go along’ with what was happening in France and Germany and as a consequence – was attacked as a ‘wild cat’ seminary – when it fact it was correctly founded as a congregation of the Church. There is more but this suffices for now.
“SSPX has a long history of anti-Senitism and Holocaust denial ”
First of all ‘holocaust denial’ is not a dogma of the faith, it is a fact and that some people in the past (maybe even the present) not believe all the aspects of the ‘holocaust’ or shoah is not
Personally, I have been supporting the SSPX for over 30 years, the only questionable conspiracy theory about the ‘jews’ per se that I heard repeatedly was from Bishop Williamson.
As regards to anti-semitism, if putting forth the Church teaching that the Old Covenant (more specifically Old Law) is no longer valid and that the Catholic Church is the only true religion outside of which no one is saved (as the Church understand that dogma) ( http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/2014/01/outside-church-there-is-no-salvation.html )
… well then yes if that is your definition of anti-semitism it would be … however all Catholics by that definition are anti-semites.
Let us keep in mind that the SSPX does not have a monopoly on anti-semites – following what I presume to be your definition.
“free of hate, anti-Semitism and cult like behaviour”
There we go, another launch off into ‘hate’ speech and accusations of a ‘cult’.
Let us understand what motivates the SSPX: The Salvation of Souls.
Are Jews and other unbaptized in needs of salvation? Absolutely! Can they find it because of their false religions? Absolutely not!
Is that hateful or a relation of fact? Is it unrational responses to a person due to their nationality or religion? No.
The Church has always taught that forcing a conversion is not allowed. However that does not permit a Catholic to fall into indifferentism and think that there are multiple ways to get to Heaven.
One either belongs to the Church in re or in voto, in order to be saved. If they neither belong to it in desire (implicit or explicit) nor in fact (baptised Catholics – as opposed to Protestants who are explicitly actual members of the Catholic Church), then they will be damned for eternity.
Lastly, the first anti-semite I met was a relative who does not attend the SSPX at all.
So lay off with the ad-hominem attacks and stick to the real issues.
PS. Andrew, in your ‘research’ where do you obtain your information and what do you consider anti-semitism?
“… he was good friends with a Jewish boy in our neighborhood. Our family attended his Bar Mitzvah. Catholics are permitted to attend non-Catholic services.
Sorry Marian, but your last phrase does not prove anything. Attending are participating are two different things. The fact is that participating in false worship is a sin against the first commandment. I should rephrase it as ‘actively’ participating in false worship.
So if the Bar Mitzvah is part of Jewish worship you were wrong to attend.
If you believe that this is an allowed practice, please find for me a reference that states that communio in sacris is allowed – not just ‘praying’ together.
By whose authority do you pontificate on the “post”- conciliar acts of the Supreme Pontiff. Could you also let me know where I might get one of those crystal ball you constantly peer into? I also have a question that not one traditionalist I have asked has yet to even acknowledge let alone answer. Yes or no, can the Pope permit an invalid or “less” holy Mass?
The words, “then they are damned for all eternity” are considered “out of bounds” on this blog site as of yesterday, are they not?
If this site does not abide by Church teaching – then so be it.
You state, “Are you certain that the SSPX has separated itself from the Church or did the Church separate itself from the SSPX?”. Incredible I thought the ancient and traditional formulation was “Where Peter is there the Church is”, but that crystal ball reveals the formulation should read “where the SSPX are there the Church is”. Isn’t gnostic knowledge fun?
I notice that you do not permit “sedevacantist positions and theories” on your blog. Well, I have had enough SSPX propaganda on my blog. Stop.
“By whose authority do you pontificate on the “post”- conciliar acts of the Supreme Pontiff. …. Yes or no, can the Pope permit an invalid or “less” holy Mass?”
First, do you acknowledge that there was a magisterium prior to the council and that it did teach. Furthermore, that the theologians at that time were in agreement as to the meaning of said magisterial teachings? Because it is in using our reason that we can make a comparison and reach the conclusions concerning the difference in magisterial teachings.
If this were not the case, then why the fuss over the SSPX adhering to prior magisterial teachings as understood and taught before the Council? Unless of course you wish to admit that there was a theological rupture.
As to your question. The infallibility of the Church extends to its discipline and liturgy. However, it is not in the same manner as the extra-ordinary or even ordinary and universal magisterium.
The Church in promulgating its laws and disciplines (liturgy included) cannot issue an explicitly heretical or invalid Mass. However, it can (and has) render the rite in which the valid Sacrifice takes place ambiguous.
As the rite is supposed to express the teachings of the Church concerning the Mystery, as such the Novus Ordo Missae represents an absence of a due good – which is the definition of evil that the SSPX uses. (I assume that you are twitching at this point).
When traditionalist find fault in the rite of the Mass we are simply echoing the synod of bishops who, after witnessing the protoform of the Novus Ordo, rejected is as a Lutheran or protestant liturgy, exact phrase escapes me (http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/reformof.htm) .
Concerning Communion in Sacris – simple moral theology. What was a sin before cannot be made a virtue now.
Let’s “stick to real” issues. Can the Pope permit an invalid or “less” holy Mass?
First answer my question. By whose authority do you pontificate on the acts of the Supreme Pontiff?
I mean I’m assuming that frangelo is Fr. Geiger.
Father, am I issuing propaganda or am I sincerely putting forth what was taught by the Church? If this is propaganda – then there is a real problem.
If not, then please point out where I have been in error.
In any case, I leave it to your discretion Father, after answering “seriously’s” last post I will await an email from you as to whether or not you wish me to continue to respond to the accusations made against traditional Catholics as myself.
No person understands God’s infinite mercy, which means we don’t understand to what great and unending lengths He will go to save souls, beyond what we know to be true…”And He gave His only begotten Son so that we may have life…”
“Give thanks to the Lord, for His love endures forever”!
I’m so tired of reading the legalistic garbage coming from raisin-sized hearts.
That email will not be forthcoming.
Here is Cardinal Manning:
This is why it is the living magisterium and not a non-authoritative contingent argument (personal opinion) about the teaching of “Eternal Rome” or the “perennial magisterium,” that is determinative. Not in every instance is it infallible, but it does not need to be. Sedevacantism is not in possession, or even in question. Faith in the Church is faith in Christ. He will work out the meanderings of history within the Church and not outside it.
And no, Tradical, you may not respond.
I’m not twitching I laughing my heat off. I need one of those crystal balls.
” However, it can (and has) render the rite in which the valid Sacrifice takes place ambiguous”. That crystal ball is awesome! So the selfsame sacrifice of Our Lord on Calvary is clear in one rite and ambiguous in another. Then how do I know it’s Calvary? Unless of course one doesn’t really believe it’s valid and is just trying to hide it behind wordsmithing. So let’s try again without the clarifications not that I didn’t make that clear, can the Pope permit an in valid or “less” holy Mass, yes or no? If you don’t understand the English how about Si, si, No, no.
Tradical is not commenting on this any further. I have had enough.
Seriously, “As the rite is supposed to express the teachings of the Church concerning the Mystery, as such the Novus Ordo Missae represents an absence of a due good – which is the definition of evil that the SSPX uses.” Graciously do you and the sspx assert graciously I deny!
You guys can’t be real. A Catholic has to submit to the magisterium of the SSPX and it’s definitions and understandings? All the pre conciliar theologians were in agreement with the magestetium really, like Rahner, Loisy, Terrel, de Chardin, and others, really? One other question which is really an answer to what you asked me, how do we know where the authentic magisterium is and what it teaches and what the Church teaches and understands, yeh, “Where Peter is there the Church of Christ is”! Not where tradicat or new catholic or fellay or de Mattei or gheridini etc. etc. Where Peter is! He who holds the Faith of Peter holds the Catholic and Apostolic Faith. PUNTO! But crystal ball gazing is way more fun. Tradicat have a fun day.
If you are stll out there – I don’t make decisions on important faith matters based on my own understanding. I always consult a priest as I did before attending the Bar Mitzvah. I did not participate in a way that is not permitted by the Church. Thanks for your concern.
Glad to hear it.
Many dioceses continue to have bishops who persecute and remove priests who choose to celebrate the latin mass. Until the Tridentine Mass, and all liturgical books from before 1969 are regarded as fuilly equal (if not better) than those invented after 1969, there will be no peace. There will be no end to this crisis of faith. The persecution continues, albeit less publicly, less openly, but privately men have to hide many of their traditional beliefs in order to be ordained if they can even endure the demandind innovations foisted upon them in todays “catholic” seminaries.
What Benedict the XVI signed into law on 2007 , regularizing the old liturgical books is ignored by a great many bishops who pay it lipservice only and ensure that “all these dangerous traditional people” are contained in only one or two indult chapels in remote areas of the diocese. In average suburban parishes it is rarely allowed to spread. A few dioceses are exceptions to this statement, but most fit this description accurately.
That my friends is why the SSPX continues to exist. That is why the build a giant beautiful seminary in Virginia and no other dioceses built such a beautiful seminary and are as overflowing with that many vocations in the western world. They exist for a reason, they dont want to be controversial, but somebody must normalize the historic practices of our ancestors and the faithful teachings of the past 2000 years.
You state, “They exist for a reason, they dont want to be controversial, but somebody must normalize the historic practices of our ancestors and the faithful teachings of the past 2000 years”.
Shouldn’t that someone be the Divinely Appointed Hierarchy of the Catholic Church, I.e., the Pope and all the bishops (successors of the Apostle) throughout the world who are united with him rather than some crystal ball gazing groups who like to portray their gnostic history as the authentic history of the world? If however you prefer the gnostics to “normalize” history for you rather than the Divinely established hierarchy of the Church Madame Blavatsky’s meanderings are way more entertaining than the sspx’s.
Take your raisin-hearted blatherings elsewhere.
The Catholic Faith is a gift from God, not preVatican II books, cassocks, berets, chants, not even the TLM…..Faith is a matter of the heart; trusting in God and His plan for us.
Mercy comes from within, and only when mankind realizes that to be our calling will ‘we all live in peace’!
“…and that is why the sspx exists…”
and so does the devil and all his minions.
Very well said, holyveil. Christianity – our relationship with our Lord and Saviour – is a matter of our hearts being right. “The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise.” Outward trappings, no matter how steeped in “tradition” they might be, mean nothing if our heart is not right. I’m afraid that is a lesson many Traditionalists seem to forget.
Then Mary it is up to us all to pray to the Divine Mercy, and Our Mother of Mercy, to send abundant graces to the hearts who are refusing them so far.
This is the Hour of Power…Our Lord will refuse us nothing as long as it is in accordance to His will.
Liturgical. … please excuse the first sentence that I just wrote to you. It lacked a great deal of charity.
I hope you have a blessed Lent.
Divine Mercy is the most important message of our time. We cannot understand anything unless we understand this message. Our Lord told St. Faustina that we are now in the time of Divine Mercy, which is to be followed by judgment:
“You will prepare the world for My final coming. (Diary 429)
Speak to the world about My mercy … It is a sign for the end times. After it will come the Day of Justice. While there is still time, let them have recourse to the fountain of My mercy. (Diary 848)
Tell souls about this great mercy of Mine, because the awful day, the day of My justice, is near. (Diary 965).
I am prolonging the time of mercy for the sake of sinners. But woe to them if they do not recognize this time of My visitation. (Diary 1160)
Before the Day of Justice, I am sending the Day of Mercy. (Diary 1588)
He who refuses to pass through the door of My mercy must pass through the door of My justice. (Diary 1146).”
I truly feel that many who place all importance on “tradition” are completely missing the message of Divine Mercy. That is why nothing makes sense to them. That is why they cannot understand Pope Francis saying “Who am I to judge?” Now is the time to proclaim God’s Love and Mercy, and I believe that, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, that is exactly what the Church has been about beginning with the Second Vatican Council. Trads look at everything and see it through the lens of “judgment.” The Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, sees everything through mercy. Judgment will come, but it is not now. When people say they don’t understand Vatican II or they don’t understand the popes since Vatican II, what they are really saying is they don’t understand Divine Mercy.
Isaiah 1:18 ““Come now, let us reason together, says the LORD: though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall become like wool.” That is the time we live in. Let us pray that all will come to understand this beautiful message.
Mary…I’m going to spend some of Lent reading VII documents. Since it seems to me that St. Faustina “anticipated VII” (as I have read) then the documents must be leading us in that direction in some manner, much to the chagrin of the trads.
All of the post VII popes, most especially JPII and Francis, exude the message of mercy….which is a message missed by many.
Its nice to see someone else posting who is acquainted with Faustina. 🙂
Have a blessed Lent, Mary!
holyveil – I’m giving up TV for Lent and concentrating on my spiritual reading, which I hope to include both the Vatican II documents and the entire diary of St. Faustina (God only knows if I will actually be able to do this). I’ve read some of both the VII docs and the diary, but never all of either. I think it should be very eye-opening.
God bless you, and may you also have a very holy and blessed Lent!
Pingback: Church Militant TV Weighs In | Mary Victrix
Get your hands on a copy of this out of print book on St. Faustina. This book is about 500 pages. (You can purchase it for as little as .50)
Then read the diary. I suggest keeping a small journal while reading…God has an amazing way of allowing certain inspirations to ‘pop’ out at us.
One should ask themselves why the devil is working so very hard to destroy the true messages of the VII documents. I am curious to see if St. Faustina did in fact “anticipate the VII Council”…and if, dare I use this word…ecumenism. ..leads to mercy of our neighbor?? Studying first hand information will bear much fruit, I dare say.
Happy reading, Mary! May you be more united to the hearts of Jesus and Mary on our Lord’s Resurrection! Pax.
holyveil, I have actually downloaded the diary to my ipad which I plan to use. You can get it here
Click to access divine-mercy-in-my-soul.pdf
You and I are completely on the same page as to the animus against Vatican II. I think too that it is all about destroying the message of Divine Mercy.
The Marians of the Immaculate Conception have a free app download. On it you will find some informative books on mercy. There are two, in particular, i’d like to read this Lent(along with my other books):
Rich in Mercy” by the late Holy Father, JPII, and “Divine Mercy, Pope Benedict XVI’s Mandate”
(I believe that is the correct title)
There is one other that may be of great interest: “Divine Mercy: Genesis to Benedict XVI”
Mary, I would enjoy carrying on this conversation with you through email, or Facebook (Unless Fr. Angelo wouldn’t object to opening up a post dedicated to this topic.) My blog is not yet ready for use.
Just a thought: one more exellent little book on mercy: “St. Faustina’s School of Mercy” (which I am reading at the moment). The true definition of mercy is given: based JPII’s “Rich in Mercy”. After reading the definition, (which I always believed to be forgiveness), the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and Mary became alive in a more loving way than ever before.
“God forgive me, a sinner.” has a whole new meaning! It doesn’t mean ‘forgive me’ as much as it means “please restore me back into your grace, the place I should have been.” Divine Mercy is all about trust, and with that comes a spiritual freedom that we were meant to have in this life…not bound up in spiritual legalism, which often leads to pride.
Getting off my soapbox. Would enjoy contuning this discussion; especially in relation to the VII documents! 🙂
God bless us all the Lent!
@ holyveil and Mary
“Nella Chiesa tutta è il tempo della misericordia. Questa è stata un’intuizione del beato Giovanni Paolo II. Lui ha avuto il fiuto che questo era il tempo della misericordia. Pensiamo alla beatificazione e canonizzazione di Suor Faustina Kowalska, poi e ha introdotto la festa della Divina Misericordia.” (Pope Francis meets the roman clergy)
Where are the clergy who actually follow the guidance of the Fathers of Vatican II and have Latin at the center of all Sunday Liturgy?
Their disobedience just not add up.