Traditionalists, Tradition, And Private Judgement

TCR News ^ | Stephen Hand

[Catholicguy]

<> LMAO Look at this. The Geat UR (BTW, I call you out of the land or UR into Catholicism)is citing a faux priest and his own schismatic SSPX outfit knows Morrison is a fake.

LMAO Yet, the great UR (don't look behind the curtain) is daily judging the Pope a heretic and an Ecuemnical Council invalid ect ect. LMAO This is too funny<>

Fr. M.E. MORRISON and "TRADITIO" Furthermore, I e-mailed to the List on June 18, 1999: "Unfortunately, Fr. Morrison of TRADITIO is no more a Catholic priest than was Rasputin. His claim to be a Traditional Catholic priest, even a Traditional Roman Catholic priest, is just that - a claim. He will not reveal his pedigree." Refer to: http://www.tboyle.net/Catholicism/Cath_Links_Priest_Groups.html The SSPX@onelist.com Moderator, Mr Jim Vogel replied: "Correct, Mr Loughnan. Father Morrison is an Old Catholic priest. My source for this information is Fr. Peter Scott, who received this information from a traditional priest of the diocese of San Francisco, whom he visited there, and, who told what is commonly known locally. Fr. Morrison's chapel there on the wharf pretends to be Roman Catholic, but is in fact Old Catholic, and orthodox Roman Catholics refuse to attend. His refusal to identify his bishop is typical of the Old Catholics, who are ashamed of their origin, and try to pretend that they are Catholic. It is a shameful abuse of the priesthood, which the anonymity of the Internet makes possible." Perhaps Mr Taouk might explain why Fr. Morrison (whom he recommends), an Old Catholic, does not list in his "Directory" any Old Catholic priests, who say a Latin Tridentine Mass? One such person is Fr. Chris Vaillancourt. (37)

[Catholicguy]

<> I had to ping you to this one...funny as hell...the great "experts" are promoting the website of a fake priest their own SSPX calls a fake priest, yet, they think themselves competent to judge a Pope, Ecumenical council ect...it is too damn funny

Oh yeah, they also, especially UR, constantly tell others "you are in over your head.".

POT. KETTLE. BLACK

[Catholicguy]

<> The SSPX....ECONE....PRESERVING TRADITION....<>

THE STRANGE CASE OF CANON REVAZ, THE SSPX AND THE THUCites

One final example of "Flat-earthism": Mr Terrence Boyle has provided a wonderful service to the Church and to those who are interested in Church history. On one particular web-page he outlines the history of the THUCite line - truly a multitude of "bishops" - a veritable diabolic "legion"! He traces the commencement of the line to Econe (41): "The second complex lineage case is that of Archbishop Ngo Dinh Thuc Pierre Martin, a brother of Ngo Dinh Diem Jean Baptiste, the first President of the Republic of Viet Nam, who was murdered in November 1963.

"In the mid-1970s, the lonely, depressed and impoverished Msgr. Ngo was befriended by Rev. Maurice Revaz, a Swiss priest who, at that time, was teaching canon law at the traditionalist seminary of the Sacerdotal Society of St. Pius X that Archbishop-Bishop Emeritus Marcel Lefebvre has established in Econe, Switzerland."

"Throughout the 1970s many traditionalist clergy and laity in Europe and America were expressing impatience over Msgr. Lefebvre's then reluctance to consecrate traditionalist bishops."

"Canon Revaz, for his part, had even become convinced that the real Pope Paul VI was being held prisoner in a Vatican dungeon, with an imposter playing his role as Pope."

"Around 1976 Canon Revaz heard there was a lay group near Seville, Spain, that was also convinced that Paul VI was a prisoner in the Vatican. He began corresponding with its two leaders, Clemente Dominguez Gomez and Manuel Alonso Corral, who both for several years had been saying that they were receiving visions of Our Lord and Our Lady."

"Canon Revaz, after a trip to Rome and an unsuccessful attempt to find, and liberate, the imprisoned Pope Paul VI, left the Econe seminary permanently, and went to Spain along with two companions, an Irish woman visionary who claimed to be receiving visions from the incarcerated Pope, and a German nun, Sr. Cherubina, who for some time had been working at the SSPX seminary."

"Canon Revaz had gotten to know Msgr. Ngo, both from making many visits to Rome, where the exiled Archbishop had been living since 1963, and from a trip that Msgr. Ngo had once made to the seminary in Econe. Revaz convinced the Archbishop to go to Spain and to consecrate priests and bishops for the Dominguez/Alonso group."

"There are reports, from sources very hostile to Msgr. Ngo, that Canon Revaz and his companions persuaded Msgr. Ngo to perform the ordinations and consecrations by convincing him that a bi-locating Pope Paul VI (the real, imprisoned, one, not the imposter) had appeared in Spain and approved the idea."

"At any event, within days of the ordinations and the consecrations that Msgr. Ngo performed in Spain, the Vatican announced publicly that Archbishop Ngo had been automatically excommunicated for attempting to consecrate bishops without a Papal mandate. Msgr. Ngo, however, quickly expressed regret for his actions in Spain and sought forgiveness from the Vatican. The excommunication was then lifted."

"The Dominguez/Alonso group, however, went on without him. Its newly made bishops within weeks started ordaining priests and consecrating bishops and, at the death of Paul VI in 1978, they declared themselves the Holy Palmarian Church (the 'Iglesia Una, Santa, Catholica, Apostolica y Palmariana'). And, right after the lifting of his excommunication, Archbishop Ngo was again back to consecrating independent bishops. This time, the consecrations were for a wide variety of groups, including sedevacantists loosely grouped under the name Tridentine Latin Rite Church."

"Finally, some years before his death, Msgr. Ngo agreed also to perform a number of consecrations for a wide assortment of splinter groups, some of them not even Roman Catholic. Excommunicated a second time for these later consecrations, Msgr. Ngo moved to Rochester, NY, where for a few years he lived with an independent bishop (who had been consecrated by one of the bishops whom Msgr. Ngo had earlier consecrated for the Tridentine Latin Rite Church). While he was living in upstate New York, Msgr. Ngo was invited to New York City to attend a conference of exiled Vietnamese. While there, he was persuaded to join (some say, was kidnapped by) some emigre Vietnamese who were living in a monastery in Missouri and loyal to the Vatican. Shortly after arriving there, Msgr. Ngo died. Upon his death, the Vatican released a statement saying that he had recently asked for, and had received, John Paul II's forgiveness."

"Msgr. Ngo's lineage includes the broadest conceivable spectrum of theologies likely ever to be held by men all claiming to possess valid 'Catholic' priestly and episcopal orders derived from a single prelate alive in their lifetimes. The spectrum ranges from the head of a French Satanist sect all the way to the strictest of Traditional Roman Catholics. Needless to say, there are critics of both the liceity and validity of the various 'Thuc lineage' episcopal consecrations. This web address contains an (42) essay denying validity." ( http://www.tboyle.net/Catholicism/Thuc_Consecrations.html )

END QUOTE FROM TERRY BOYLE

As could be expected, Canon Revas was consecrated a bishop of the Holy Palmarian Church, and the much vaunted writer of The Ottaviani Intervention, Fr. Michel Louis Gurard des Lauriers, O.P., was also consecrated a bishop by the senile Archbishop Ngo-Dinh-Thuc; furthermore, upon the death of Pope Paul VI, Clemente Dominguez Gomez had himself proclaimed Pope Gregory XVII.

CONCLUSION

"What is to be learned from all this? It appears to me that 'traditionalism' takes on the appearances of Catholicism - it has all of the bells and smells that we knew and appreciated as being ostensibly Catholic. But the practical infidelity of the 'traditionalists' to the Holy See portrays a basic unbelief in Christ's promises; in effect they say that Christ's words should have been amended to something like this: 'And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it - that is, not until the days of Vatican Council II, when the gates of hell shall so prevail. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven - save and except that subsequent to Vatican Council II all such power shall be invested in Marcel Lefebvre and his successors. In the event, however, of a believer or group of believers not adhering to the above named Marcel Lefebvre or his successors, then the believer may select an alternative 'Independent' bishop or priest of the believer's choice in which to vest the above mentioned authority."

One could go on and on! We can only pray that the truth of the situation penetrate the souls of all who are no longer in full communion with the See of Peter, and that it is sooner rather than later.

F. John Loughnan jloughnan@hotmail.com July 30, 1999

[NYer]

I can't help but think that there is indeed a desire to separate from communion with the Pope and those in communion with him based on my observation of how the N.O. and those who attend it are denigrated by some traditionalists.

Yes! And there is an apt term for those who separate themselves from the Pope. COWARDS . These individuals lack the courage to stand up for what they know to be true, using actual documentation from Vatican II. That would entail too much work! It's far easier (oh, I know ultima ratio will jump on that phrase) to join a schismatic group and defend them. Just one more spear driven into our Lord. Christ, knowing full well that Peter would deny him 3 times, entrusted the church into his hands, promising: "I am with you all days, even unto the end of time." The schismatics lay claim to that heritage and enshrine their liturgy in a museum. Ironically, even they can't agree on the proper missal ... the one prior to, or after, Pope John XXIII made changes to the text.

[Telit Likitis]

At least with access to his web site you can get an idea of where he's coming from without relying on a single reference by CG.

[ultima ratio]

Now we're COWARDS. We're also "sons of Satan" and "sissies." And, of course, as always, "schismatic." Any more such intelligent arguments?

Here is an intersting quote from Christopher Ferrara in my most recent copy of The Remnant: "It is precisely the growing momentum in favor of the traditionalist position that has provoked the neo-Catholic establishment to descend to character assassination--the last resort of the man without an argument."

Or woman without an argument, I might add. Here's another Ferrara beaut: "The neo-Catholic defense of novelty in the Church has forced neo-Catholic commentators into the position of condemning views that are nothing but defenses of prior papal teachings." The truth of this is undeniable, even by you.

[ultima ratio]

Since you mention Vatican II, try this on for size:

"The driving force behind their tirades against Traditionalism is Vatican II. This non-infallible, non-dogmatic, pastoral council--a council which, when compared to the rest of our dogmatic history, stands in the precarious position of being forced to issue a disclaimer about the binding authority of its novel formulations, and which, by the stroke of a papal pen in the future could be summarily overturned--is nevertheless, THE defining moment in 2000 years of Catholicism for these people. Even though the most recent statistics show the dismal failure of the Council's innovations to help the Church (since all major categories of religious life have drastically declined: priests, nuns, brothers, seminaries, Catholic schools, catechetical training, etc), still, the neo-coservatives and liberals hold on to this illusive dream for a 'springtime' in a Church that, as measured by our latest sex scandal, is falling apart at the seams."

--Robert Sungenis.

The problem, of course, is that you and others who share your perspective, are terrified at the very thought that maybe, just maybe, connecting the dots leads to--the Vatican itself. Sungenis again:

"That picture is just too horrifying for them to accept. When the truth gets THAT close, the 'Catholic way of thinking' takes over and dictates to them that the Vatican simply cannot be implicated in such things. Even if it is known that the Vatican is knee-deep in these capitulations [to outrages bordering on heresy], the neo-conservatives tell us we must accept these decisions as docile sheep being led to the slaughter. Even though four Vatican cardinals, elevated by the Pope and placed by him at the heads of the highest commissions on ecumenism, have taught precisely the same message...that Jews are not required to be baptized for salvation since they have their own salvific covenant with God, still the neo-conservatives will not allow themselves to admit to their readers that the heresies in the "Reflections" document emanate from the top."

--Robert Sungenis

[ultima ratio]

Compare being called a liar or a wilful distorter--common among arguers who get carried away--with "sons of Satan" "sissies" "cowards"--which are pure vitriol.

[Zviadist]

Mr. Hand who is something of a crackpot.

Something of a crackpot? The guy is an absolute head-case. In need of serious therapy. I am shocked that the neo-caths take him seriously. But then again, I guess they have to scrape the bottom of the intellectual barrel to justify their bizarre positions...

[Scupoli]

Well that was nasty. But I've come to expect little more from some of you. No where have I ever 'separated' myself from the Pope. I have pointed out that it is not unlawful to question the Pope, contrary to modernist heresy. If I am a coward, then I stand in good company. Read on to see what other cowards in our history had to say on this matter.

Limits on Papal Authority

ST. VINCENT OF LERINS (CA. 400-CA. 450)

"What then should a Catholic do if some part of the Church were to separate itself from communion with the universal Faith? What other choice can he make but to prefer to the gangrenous and corrupted member the whole of the body that is sound. And if some new contagion were to try to poison no longer a small part of the Church, but all of the Church at the same time, then he will take the greatest care to attach himself to antiquity which, obviously, can no longer be seduced by any lying novelty." (Commonitorium)

POPE ST. GREGORY I, "THE GREAT" (590-604)

The Eucharistic Canon remained unchanged from Apostolic times to the present day, with the exception of one short clause inserted by St. Gregory the Great. The phrase Pope Gregory added was "diesque nostros in tua pace disponas" [may you order our days in Thy peace] to the Hanc Igitur of the Canon. The Romans were outraged at this act and threatened to kill the pope because he had dared to touch the Sacred Liturgy. The Mass was affirmed to be complete and unchangeable. Since that time no pope has dared to change the Ordo of the Traditional Latin Mass, until in 1962 Pope John XXIII added "beati Ioseph, eiusdem Virginis Sponsi" [of blessed Joseph, Spouse of the same Virgin] to the Communicantes of the Canon.

POPE INNOCENT III (CA. 1160-1216)

"The pope should not flatter himself about his power, nor should he rashly glory in his honour and high estate, because the less he is judged by man, the more he is judged by God. Still the less can the Roman Pontiff glory, because he can be judged by men, or rather, can be shown to be already judged, if for example he should wither away into heresy, because he who does not believe is already judged. In such a case it should be said of him: 'If salt should lose its savour, it is good for nothing but to be cast out and trampled under foot by men.'" (Sermo 4)

ST. THOMAS AQUINAS, O.P. (1225-1274)

"Hold firmly that your faith is identical with that of the ancients. Deny this, and you dissolve the unity of the Church."

"There being an imminent danger for the Faith, prelates must be questioned, even publicly, by their subjects. Thus, St. Paul, who was a subject of St. Peter, questioned him publicly on account of an imminent danger of scandal in a matter of Faith. And, as the Glossa of St. Augustine puts it (Ad Galatas 2.14), 'St. Peter himself gave the example to those who govern so that if sometime they stray from the right way, they will not reject a correction as unworthy even if it comes from their subjects....'

"Some say that fraternal correction does not extend to the prelates either because man should not raise his voice against heaven, or because the prelates are easily scandalized if corrected by their subjects. However, this does not happen, since when they sin, the prelates do not represent heaven, and, therefore, must be corrected. And those who correct them charitably do not raise their voices against them, but in their favour, since the admonishment is for their own sake .... For this reason, according to other [authors], the precept of fraternal correction extends also to the prelates, so that they may be corrected by their subjects." (IV Sententiarum, D. 19, Q. 2, A. 2)

ST. CATHERINE OF SIENA (1347-1380)

Alas, Most Holy Father! At times, obedience to you leads to eternal damnation. (To Pope Gregory IX, 1376.)

JUAN CARDINAL DE TORQUEMADA O.P. (1388-1468)

"Although it clearly follows from the circumstances that the Pope can err at times, and command things which must not be done, that we are not to be simply obedient to him in all things, that does not show that he must not be obeyed by all when his commands are good. To know in what cases he is to be obeyed and in what not,... it is said in the Acts of the Apostles: 'One ought to obey God rather than man'; therefore, were the Pope to command anything against Holy Scripture, or the articles of faith, or the truth of the Sacraments, or the commands of the natural or divine law, he ought not to be obeyed, but in such commands, to be passed over despiciendus)...." (Summa de Ecclesia [1489], founded upon the doctrine formulated by the Council of Florence and later re-asserted by Pope Eugenius IV and Pope Pius IV)

ST. GIACOMO TOMMASO DE VIO GAETANI O.P. (1469-1534)

"Where the Pope is, there is also the Church" holds true only when the Pope acts and behaves as the Pope, because Peter "is subject to the duties of the Office"; otherwise, "neither is the Church in him, nor is he in the Church." (Apud St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, IIa IIae, Q. 39, Art. 1, ad 6)

POPE ADRIAN VI (1522-1523)

"If by the Roman Church you mean its head or pontiff, it is beyond question that he can error even in matters touching the faith. He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgement or decretal. In truth, many Roman pontiffs were heretics. The last of them was Pope John XXII (1316-1334)."

ST. ROBERT BELLARMINE, S.J. (1542-1621)

"Just as it is lawful to resist the pope that attacks the body, it is also lawful to resist the one who attacks the souls or who disturbs civil order, or, above all, who attempts to destroy the Church. I say that it is lawful to resist him by not doing what he orders and preventing his will from being executed." (De Romano Pontifice, Lib. II, Ch. 29)

FRANCISCO SUAREZ, S.J. (1548-1617)

"If [the pope] gives an order contrary to right customs, he should not be obeyed; if he attempts to do something manifestly opposed to justice and the common good, it will be lawful to resist him; if he attacks by force, by force he can be repelled, with a moderation appropriate to a just defence." (De Fide, Disp. X, Sec. VI, N. 16)

VENERABLE POPE PIUS IX (1846-1878)

"If a future pope teaches anything contrary to the Catholic Faith, do not follow him."

FIRST ECUMENICAL COUNCIL OF THE VATICAN (1869-1870)

"For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by His revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by His assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or Deposit of Faith transmitted by the Apostles."

------------------------------------

Are the two of you "more Catholic" than these Popes and Saints?

[ultima ratio]

Regarding the changes in the old Missal prior to the Novus Ordo. It has always been acknowledged popes had the right to make minor changes. These have always been doctrinally insignificant, most often barely noticeable--ever since the fifth century. For instance, some kneeling might be authorized instead of standing, or a sign of the cross would be added or removed. In '65, for instance, John XXIII added St. Joseph's name to the Hanc Igitur, a very insignificant shift.

What Bugnini did was not this. He re-wrote the Mass in terms of Protestant theological principles, along the lines of the Lutheran Lord's Supper worship service. He changed the Mass radically, destroying its sacrificial structure and eliminating any reference to expiation for sins. He broke with the old Mass in a fundamental way and in a way that had already been condemned by Trent. Not only this, but modernists sought to ban the saying of the old Mass--not legally, since it was never officially abrogated--but unofficially, by punishing priests who dared to keep to the old liturgy. And the people recognized this assault on Tradition. The Church has never recovered from this blow to its integrity and has been in crisis ever since. Mass attendance by the faithful plummeted from 80%+ before the New Mass to somewhere around 25% in just a few years. It is now around 17% and falling.

So don't give me this stuff about missals before the Novus Ordo. There never was a break in Tradition up till that point. With the Novus Ordo you had the beginning of a new religion, complete with a new way of worshiping.

[ultima ratio]

Yada yada yada. How often must we go around in these circles? Nobody denies the Pope should be obeyed--when he is not asking us to deny the faith. But he is asking us to believe this One-World faith he's concocting is Catholicism--it's not. I don't think Pope's should be pouring libations in a Togo forest or praying with guys who worship the Great Thumb.

[Catholicguy]

<>sandyeggo, for some words speak louder than actions. They want to permit themselves the freedom to sever the Unity of the Catholic Church that Jesus estanlished while at the same time denying others the use of combative rhetoric in defense of Unity. They roar when they attack then mewl when counter-attacked

Don't let those clowns bamboozle you. They appeal to a Universal, Objective, Moral Code only when it suits their polemical interests - you know, just the way liberals, and homosexuals do

I noticed "Epicene" as in "Ecclesiastically Epicence" wasn't mentioned...I feel slighted<>

[Catholicguy]

<> Nah, we cite the Pope and an Ecumenical Council. It is you and your ilk who appeal to the Abbe de Nantes, FR. Gruener (both suspended priests) and Sungenis (one who uses Nazi propaganda pamphlets to attack Jews) and John Vennari and Michael Matt (both signatories to a public statemnt refusing obedience to the Pope)and Lefebvre (an excommunicated Bishop) ect ect.

We don't scrape the bottom of the barrel..no need to. We already have the sweet cream of the infallible Magisterium.

But, the Barrel isn't that bad a metaphor...at least it recognises, unconsciously, we are contained within an organised, solid, unified Body.

You schismatics are running all over the schismatic swamp, uncontained, putrifying, and evaporating<>

[Zviadist]

Mr Jim Vogel replied: "Correct, Mr Loughnan. Father Morrison is an Old Catholic priest. My source for this information is Fr. Peter Scott, who received this information from a traditional priest of the diocese of San Francisco

So your source is a friend of a friend of a friend of a friend of someone who knows a diocesan priest in San Francisco? Sorry if I am not overwhelmed.

Father Morrison knows a hell of a lot more about the Faith than protestant neo-caths like you.

[american colleen]

'And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it - that is, not until the days of Vatican Council II, when the gates of hell shall so prevail. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven - save and except that subsequent to Vatican Council II all such power shall be invested in Marcel Lefebvre and his successors. In the event, however, of a believer or group of believers not adhering to the above named Marcel Lefebvre or his successors, then the believer may select an alternative 'Independent' bishop or priest of the believer's choice in which to vest the above mentioned authority."

BUMP!
Clowns to the left of me! Jokers to the right! Here I am, stuck in the middle with you!