Friday, July 19, 2019

The New Franciscans of the Immaculata

(London) On July 5, 2019, the southern English city of Portsmouth was without its knowledge,
 for a brief but important moment, something of the center of the Catholic world. The coastal city is the birthplace of Charles Dickens and was the starting point of the Allied landing in Normandy. It has also been the seat of a bishop since 1882, after over 300 years of prohibition,
the Catholic hierarchy could be rebuilt in England.

Since 2012, appointed by Pope Benedict XVI, Msgr. Philip Anthony Egan heads the diocese with around 250,000 Catholics (eight percent of the population). Bishop Egan consecrated four Franciscans to priests in the Cathedral of St. John the Evangelist last July 5 - in the traditional rite.

The brothers of St. Francis of Assisi are former Franciscans of the Immaculata, who were incardinated by Bishop Egan into his diocese of Portsmouth.

The four candidates

The Order of the Franciscans of the Immaculata, founded by Fr. Stefano Maria Manelli, has been suffering a great ordeal since the summer of 2013. The still young order, which looked back to the original charism of the order’s founder, was followed by Pope Benedict XVI. in the Motu proprio Summorum pontificum, and was transformed from a New Mass-religious order to an Old Rite order, since he was committed in his charism to tradition. But he remained subordinate, a complete exception, in the  Roman Congregation of Religious. In pastoral care the Order was bi-ritual, in-house old-ritual. The canonical community, first established in 1990, grew rapidly and received considerable appointments from Europe as well. Towards the end of the pontificate of Benedict XVI, it seemed that the Franciscans of the Immaculata could even become a role model for other new rite-religious orders. It was especially the  young members of other orders were interested in their way.


A few months after the papal change, however, came the turn. The protective hand of Benedict XVI. was replaced by the punitive hand of Francis. In July 2013, the Order's leadership was deposed by the Order's Congregation and the Order was placed under the administration of a Commissar without any reason. This raged in the Order and smashed much of what had been built. With the decree of the Commissar by Rome, the Order had been forbidden to perform the traditional Rite. This left no doubt against whom and what the hard measure was directed. All relevant decisions were declared null and void. Each priest had to apply individually for a special permit if he wanted to continue to celebrate in the traditional Rite. Monasteries were abolished, the internal seminary was closed  and pilgrimage sites and churches entrusted to it were removed from the Order.


Against the founders of the Order and Superior General until the Commissar  came, a slander campaign was carried out, which was also carried out in court. The Commissar embarrassingly failed and reinforced the impression of arbitrary and ideologically motivated persecution. Not only the vocations collapsed, even the friars themselves were urged to leave the Order because the original religious charisma was eliminated. At this point all the harshness became apparent, some even reveal the persecutor’s ugliness. The friars, who reconstituted the Order as an Old Rite order and thereby wanted to submit to the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei (now a division of the Congregation of the Faith), this was denied. The friars, who wanted to leave the Order and ask for release from their vows to found a new order, were forbidden to do so. The then Commissar even threatened Italian bishops who would allow Franciscans of Immaculata in their dioceses admission. The bishop of Albenga-Imperia, who had promoted the Order particularly, gave him three settlements there,
entrusted pilgrimage churches and dared to defend the Order against unjustified persecution, was made emeritus by Pope Francis.

The same happened to a Filipino bishop, who received the former Franciscan Immaculata in his diocese and helped to found a new order there.


Others found refuge in England, which was previously tolerated by Rome, because they live their charism without a stir. Bishop Egan granted a new home to one of the Order's brilliant heads, Father Serafino M. Lanzetta. In 2015, he entrusted him with the parish of St. Mary in Gosport and appointed him pastor. P. Lanzetta made the New-Parish a bi-ritual one. The change that became possible coincided with the death of the first Roman Commissar, Capuchin Fidenzio Volpi.

Fr. Lanzetta enabled the other brothers of his order to settle in Gosport. Thus the exile of the
seminarians, who were in the middle of their studies, came to an end when the storm broke over the Order. A few days ago they were consecrated by Bishop Egan, according to their sensitivity, in the traditional form of the Roman Rite.


In the diocese of Portsmouth the former Franciscans of Immaculata can live. Their community is called the Family of the Immaculate Virgin and Saint Francis. It already has nine priests, brothers and seminarians. So far, two other priests have worked together with Fr. Lanzetta in Gosport, who are now strengthened by the four new priests Fra Philemon, Fra Rosario, Fra Faustinus and Fra Michael. Thus, the number of Mass sites reached can be expanded. Wherever the priests of the new community come, they also bring the traditional Rite and tradition.


In recent years Bishop Egan has been particularly sensitive to the priests and the faithful who are associated with the traditional Rite. In September 2018, he established a personal parish of the traditional Rite in Reading, which he entrusted to the FSPC. In March 2019, he paid a visit to St. Michael's School in Burghclere, which is located in his diocese and run by the Society of Saint Pius X  (FSSPX).


In Gosport, a seed has become a small plant.


Text: Giuseppe Nardi
Image: MiL / MyAlbum / Saint Marys
Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.com
AMDG

89 comments:

Tom said...

The Franciscans of the Immaculata, as well as all other priestly organizations in "full communion" with Modernist Rome (like the FSSP), still remain faithful to the heretical teachings of the Second Vatican Council––the very source of the problems that the Church is now undergoing.

Yes, they are all likely to be holy and conservative men, but unlike the old man, Eleazar, who gave up his life rather than "pretend" to eat the pork, they either embrace Vatican II or lack the courage to deny it.

The only way the Catholic hierarchy will be successfully re-built is when enough faithful Catholics openly reject all of the false teachings of Vatican II, including religious liberty, ecumenism and collegialism. the episcopal conferences must be eliminated. The only priestly orders that faithfully uphold all of the true teachings of the Catholic Church today are the Society of St Pius X (FSSPX) and those few organizations associated with the Society.

Anonymous said...

More bait for Bergoglio and his henchmen to make mincemeat of. Poor men, they still can't see the wood for the trees. Bishop Egan is of the same school and of the same conciliar purple cloth that makes up the false church of darkness. It is a façade. Their days too are n....⏳

M. Prodigal said...

Tom, that is your opinion about the SSPX being the only ones to uphold all the true teachins of the Church.

It is a time to navigate the evil waters; one day we will again have a holy pontiff and all will be known about the wickedness of this age. We must stand fast and survive this time as best as we can.

BrotherBeowulf said...

God Bless the friars and the bishop who took them in. The Old Mass is the start of the Restoration of All Things in Christ.

Pray your Rosary and don your Scapular, remembering the Old Prophecy to St Dominic and Carmelite Brother Angelus. This prophecy must be seen in light of Sr. Lucia’s 1957 declaration that the Blessed Mother told her in 1917 that the Scapular sand the Rosary are mankind’s “last remedy.”

Immaculate Heart, pray for us!

Tancred said...

SSPX and Francis are friendly for some reason.

Tom said...

Respectfully, M. Prodigal, that is a fact, not my opinion. I stand to be corrected if you can bring to my attention even one teaching of the Church that was extant prior to Vatican II that has been abandoned or denied by the Society; or on the other hand, identify even one priestly organization (other than the SSPX and the handful of other related priestly communities, mostly French, that are associated with the SSPX) that can legitimately make such a claim.

From what I have witnessed and read, many of the traditional priests are indeed holy men who belong to priestly organizations that believe they are doing the right thing. But their beliefs or feelings should not be the test. The only question that must be answered is whether they support and follow the true teachings of the Church. Other than the SSPX, all other organizations seem to have decided that they have a better way than simply adhering to the teachings of the Church that were practiced prior to the Council.

Some of these organizations deny that Pope Francis is a legitimate pope. Others deny the liturgical changes in the TLM that occurred around the time of the Council (St Joseph's inclusion in the Roman Canon), or even others deny the legitimacy of the earlier Liturgical and Easter "reforms" of Pope Pius XII. All of these are well-meaning I'm sure, but that also is not the test.

I just this morning received my copy of the Catholic Family News, and the front page story is one by Matt Gaspers that is worth reading. He actually makes my point. The article is a critique of the recently published "Declaration of Truths" wherein he points out that the authors fail to criticize the very root of the problems today––Vatican II. It seems to me that as long as we traditional Catholics are willing to ignore the 500 pound Vatican II gorilla, the faithful of the Church will not find their way back to solid ground.

gm said...

@Tancred This is good news. Thanks for the update. I have been following them on the ave maria app, but I didn't realize that these former FI's started a new traditional Franciscan order. I pray for their success, and like the FSSP, SSPX, and other trad orders, they are providing clarity in a time of confusion and leading many souls to Christ.

Tancred said...

Who ignores Vatican II? Even FSSP clergy will criticize it and there are numerous critiques available
from Roberto de Matteo to Guinmaeres or Romano Amerio.

Tancred said...

All that Archbishop Lefebvre wanted was to be left alone to do the kind of work enjoined in by these Friars. It’s vital work and mightily opposed by the envious elder brothers of the 1968 generation who thought they’d destroyed what these Friars and Lefebvre have been fighting for.

John F. Kennedy said...

"schismatic Lefebvre"?

So Catholics who state that they believe all that the Catholic Church taught before V2 are "cultists"?

I thought you are part of the crowd that states that V2 didn't change anything the Church taught? If that's the case Then there shouldn't be any problem with the SSPX. You seem to be part of a cult.

Tom said...

Tancred;
Yes, I wouldn't doubt that some FSSP priest have privately found fault with many of the Council teachings. But any FSSP priest who publicly criticizes Vatican II or the CCC are in violation of their promise to the Holy Father to not only faithfully follow the teachings of the Council, but to work a better comprehension and application of Vatican II.

Moreover, as the current pope has already demonstrated don numerous occasions, he can require the FSSP (and every other traditional priestly organizations in full communion with the Holy See) to abandon the TLM and celebrate only the Novus Ordo Mass with the stroke of a pen. The SSPX is completely insulated from any such action.

As for Professor DeMatteo, I absolutely agree that he has severely criticized much of Vatican II––and he has done so quite elegantly.

The following two articles regarding the FSSP and the SSPX are worth reading if you haven't seen them before.
https://tinyurl.com/y3vpt7yp
https://tinyurl.com/y2vzcksa

Peter W said...

Lefebvre & Co represent Ancien Regime, exotic boutique Catholicism. It's all about Nostalgia for a notional world that no longer exists in reality.
They're clinging to a corpse.

John F. Kennedy said...

I hardly think Christ and his Church is a "corpse"

gm said...

@Peter W. Lol,emoting again; triggered by orthodoxy and tradition.

Peter W said...

Christendom came to an abrupt during the Enlightenment when thinking people began to spot the flawed first premises of a tired old corrupted form of Scholasticism.
Haven't you heard?

Tancred said...

More self-deification from folderol reification.

Tancred said...

I’ve seen FSSP clergy challenge V2. What honest man wouldn’t?

Tancred said...

Doesn’t the Council insist that we’re adults who are able to challenge and criticize? When the Church’s immutable and timeless teachings are questioned and criticized, all is well, but when one turns the guns of dialectic against the ambiguous documents of Vatican II, suddenly the merciful despots insist they have gone too far and must be reigned in by “legitimate” authority. For we laymen, it’s not such a problem, but for those who teach at “Catholic” schools, it can be the end of a career...

Peter Watson said...

The Church is the living People of God not a lump of inert iron. Only God is immutable. Doctrines shift, morph, develop and take on different expressions through time.

The is a difference between a core doctrine and the particular theological language that is use to describe it. Trads make the mistake almost always of collapsing them into one reality and that is usually in the Tridentine apophatic or anathema statements. Most of these are founded on philosophical or theological premises that can be shot to pieces. Read the debates of in the historical accounts of the sessions of the Council of Trent.

There is need to say once again that the constant teaching of the Popes since Vatican II is that all of the central or doctrinal core of Catholicism is contained, preserved and passed on in the Magisterium of the Vatican II. Those who keep trotting out the mantra that Vat II was just an take it or leave it 'pastoral Council' are dissemblers and relativists who are boxed in by their own ideology and above all by their fears.

Tancred said...

Even if they’re cohabiting, being gay like you and don’t believe in real presence? Eff off, Nancy.

Anonymous said...

Dear Peter
Your views suggest that you haven't yet met Christ. He is most of all to be found in the liturgies of the Church. The liturgy itself is a public demonstration of love for and humble submission to Gods Glory and in particular to Christ's Passion and Resurrection. You seem to discard the very pearl that, when you are properly disposed, will set you free. I am a Vat 11 baby that has experienced enormous spiritual growth and good fruits by an encounter with Tradition and therefore with Christ's living and spectacular Body. Lift your gaze from your books to the Liturgy of the Church and you won't be disappointed in what you find there. May the Lord be Praised, Magnified and Glorified. God bless. M

gm said...

@Peter Watson Your whole line of argument was made by 99% of the English bishops who advised Henry the VIII. They posited that, while the core Apostles Creed did not change, doctrines on divorce and the understanding of the Eucharist can and do change. St. Thomas More, refuted that this was not what had been given to the Apostles from the mouth of Our Lord and passed down immutibley through their successors. More noted that this position of changing doctrines placed them outside the fold of Holy Mother Church. Our Lord is calling all out of the heracy of modernism and many are responding to the beautiful Catholic teachings explicated by the traditional orders. What will your response be...Hegel or The Logos Incarnate?

Tancred said...

Anyone who would unsarcastically invoke the “Enlightenment” can’t be very enlightened.

Constantine said...

@ Peter Watson: I am always perplexed by you. Who is, and how can you identify "the living People of God"? Only God knows who is His People, because only God can read their sincerity to know they are in Mortal Sin or not. Only God knows who lives in Him. We know only through His Church only what outwardly qualities may indicate the person's holiness. We can have an opinion, but nothing definitive.

susan said...

Hey Faybriel....."Christ, the same yesterday, today and forever".

You remain an idiot...yesterday today and apparently forever.

mike said...

PW,
I would like to know who you consider as Catholics? Is any of those not in a state of grace Catholics?

Peter Watson said...

Among the marks of the Catholic people are the reception of and adherence to the voice of the Tradition contained, preserved and passed on in the entire Magisterium of Vatican II (all of its documents, not the cherry picked few). As I have repeated time and again, even in this thread, this is the teaching of all the Popes since Vatican II including the conservative JP II and Benedict XVI.

Yeehaw, semper idem stulta per omnia saecula saeculorum.

Aqua said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Peter Watson said...

The 2800 bishops at Vatican II were, would you believe, all born, educated, seminary trained, ordained priests and bishops well before 1962. The engaged in one of the most extensive consultation processes in Church history to make sure that the Council documents represented the Sensus Fidelium just as Pius XII had done before proclaiming the Assumption of our Lady.

The documents of Vatican II are sound teaching for the whole Church. This nonsense about it being solely a 'pastoral' Council was shovelled out early on in the piece by people who were ideologically shipwrecked on the shoals of Counter Reformation theology and the lamentations of the royalists at the mass rejection of the European monarchies.

To be a Catholic means to receive Vatican II in toto not just in small packages. There's plenty for everyone if people are prepared to look.

Aqua said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Peter W said...

Just for starters, I think you have a chronology problem, Waterperson. The origins of the Eucharist are in Jesus' final Passover Meal, the Last Supper and not Melchizedek.
As for the rest of what I wrote, read it again carefully. Vatican II contains the Magisterium of all preceding Councils. Only God is immutable and the 'Immemorial' goes back as far as the sixteenth century AD.

Aqua said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Peter W said...

The 2800 bishops of Vatican II put into effect the teachings and changes of Vatican II. The Council was theirs, the documents were/are theirs and they knew exactly what they were doing when they presided over the post Conciliar transition. Those who reject Vatican II and its changes, reject the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. Not to do so entails schism. Lefebvre made that choice and took the consequences and died outside the Church.

Aqua said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Aqua said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Aqua said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
PW said...

"Pastoral is not Dogmatic"
then what's this:

DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH
LUMEN GENTIUM
SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI
ON NOVEMBER 21, 1964

The authority of a Council is not circumscribed by the teaching of a previous Council. The 1570 version of Mass is the Vetus Ordo and in no way blocked Vatican II from authorising a new form of the Latin Rite and it's still developing.
The Church is not a bee trapped in amber.

Constantine said...

Please inform us what this "Dogmatic Connstitution" NEW thing it Teaches? It repeats old dogmas, and SUGGESTS pastoral ways it may be taken. But nothing new is binding, until all questions about its continuity with the past are resolved. This came about because of inability of the Council Fathers to come to a unanimous agreement. But it is already obsolete. More work needs to be done. But it prophectically backs Tradionalists against the crumbling Vatican establishment. By using "subsists in" it prophecises that the Truth IS inside the Church, but not all groups in the Church possesses the Truth, (i.e. such as the Jesuits).

JBQ said...

@gm: Your comment gave me a bit more understanding of the turmoil with Henry VIII and its parallel today. @Susan: Women always have a way of saying things that men try to say. @PW: My friend Malachi Martin went into Vatican II with 2800 bishops with wholehearted support. After five years, he realized the hidden agenda and "jumped ship". Paul VI was the one who spoke of the "smoke of Satan".

Tancred said...

Suennens explained how the evil Council fathers sold all the poison to the conservatives. He told them that they would tell them it was “Pastoral” before the vote but “Dogmatic” when they wanted to impose things the council never called for or was less than absolute about. Evil men like Bernardin, McCarrick, Mahony and Weakland could return to their Diocèse and act like renaissance despots on behalf of the revolution all in the name of the Superdogmas of the Supercouncil.

Tancred said...

I think it’s funny how the leftists are so ultramontane now that they control the Vatican. It wasn’t always so.

PW said...

The AltRight schism is deepening.

Constantine said...

The "Traditionalists" are not "AltRight". They have always existed and fought the Left since the time of the Enlightenment. The politically permitted "Right-wing" is a straw man made up to caricature the real Right.The straw man is the Republican party. Home of Zionist naziism, and Freemason hebrews.

PW said...

And paranoid too.

Tancred said...

“Alt-Right” Duganist types attempted to make alignments with Catholic traditionalists around the time of Summorum Pontificum. It’s mostly a journalistic boogieman.

True to his vanity, Gaybrielle pretends to knowledge he doesn’t actually possess.

Catholic Mission said...

Tom,
There is a Vatican Council II Cushingite and Vatican Council II Feeneyite.
Vatican Council II Feeneyite is Traditional and supports Feeneyite EENS. But it would be anti semitic for the Jewish Left. So Bishop Egan, Fr. Lanzetta, the FIUV and Latin Mass societies and the Franciscans do not affirm or even discuss it.
Even when it is mentioned or discussed on the media ( except on The Eponymous Flower) thereare threats and opposition.
So those who have courage or whatever it takes, will not criticize Vatican Council II without specifying the difference between the two interpetations of the Council, one rational and other irrational.-Lionel
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2019/07/vatican-council-ii-feeneyite-supports.html

Catholic Mission said...


Tom said...
Respectfully, M. Prodigal, that is a fact, not my opinion. I stand to be corrected if you can bring to my attention even one teaching of the Church that was extant prior to Vatican II that has been abandoned or denied by the Society;
1. Extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
The SSPX interprets the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance as personally known non Catholics saved outside the Church. So they become practical exceptions to EENS. This is irrational, non traditional and heretical. It is also a rupture with the popes before Pius XII. For centuries they mentioned BOD, BOB and I.I . But did not assume that these were objective cases.
2. The ecclesiology of the Church in the past was ecclesiocentrics. Since the dogma EENS wa not obsolete or rejected. It was not Christology without the necessity of membership in the Church. Today for the SSPX and the Vatican, the ecclesiology of the Church is Christocentric without an ecclesiocentrism.
3. So there is a New Theology, New Ecclesiology etc at the Latin Mass of the SSPX which is also there are at the Novus Ordo Mass.
4. In catechesis over the centuries it was taught that every one needed to enter the Church for salvation but at catechesis of the SSPX and the mainstream Catholic parishes, it is taught that every one needs to enter the Church except for cases of the BOD, BOB and I.I and of course, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II.

___________________________

I just this morning received my copy of the Catholic Family News, and the front page story is one by Matt Gaspers that is worth reading.
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2019/07/the-issue-is-vatican-council-ii.html
-Lionel

Catholic Mission said...

John F. Kennedy said...
"schismatic Lefebvre"?
So Catholics who state that they believe all that the Catholic Church taught before V2 are "cultists"?
Lionel: They do not interpret Vatican Council II with Feeneyism which is in harmony with all that the Catholic Church before Vatican Council II.So they open themself to criticism.
For the liberals those who do not accept Vatican Council II ( Cushingite), which is heretical and irrational, are schismatics.
_____________________________

I thought you are part of the crowd that states that V2 didn't change anything the Church taught? If that's the case Then there shouldn't be any problem with the SSPX. You seem to be part of a cult.
Lionel: Vatican Council II ( Cushingite) is a rupture with Tradition (Syllabus of Errors, Athanasius Creed etc). Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) 'didn't change anything.
-Lionel

Catholic Mission said...

Tom
As for Professor DeMatteo, I absolutely agree that he has severely criticized much of Vatican II––and he has done so quite elegantly.

The following two articles regarding the FSSP and the SSPX are worth reading if you haven't seen them before.
https://tinyurl.com/y3vpt7yp
https://tinyurl.com/y2vzcksa

Lionel:
Roberto dei Mattei and Chris Ferrara did not interpret Vatican Council II rationally and so they misled Catholics.In ignorance they read Vatican Council II superficially.

Then they interpreted it as a rupture with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).The popes from Paul VI did the same.
Mattei and Ferrara would superficially read LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc as referring to known non Catholics saved outside the Catholic Church.
In our human reality there are no such known cases.Vatican Council II could only refer to a hypothetical case, a theoretical and speculative person.
So they made a mistake.
Now after 50 years and being informed often, they need to admit their mistake.-Lionel Andrades
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2019/07/roberto-dei-mattei-and-chris-ferrara.html

JULY 17, 2019
Mattei and Ferrara read Vatican Council II superficially and wrote books misleading Catholics ( Graphics)
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2019/07/mattei-and-ferrara-read-vatican-council.html



https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2019/07/what-has-happened-to-reported-on-going.html

Catholic Mission said...

Peter Watson
There is need to say once again that the constant teaching of the Popes since Vatican II is that all of the central or doctrinal core of Catholicism is contained, preserved and passed on in the Magisterium of the Vatican II. Those who keep trotting out the mantra that Vat II was just an take it or leave it 'pastoral Council' are dissemblers and relativists who are boxed in by their own ideology and above all by their fears.
Lionel:
Vatican II can be interpreted with an irrational premise or without it and the conclusion is different. Why should Catholics not affirm Vatican Council II without the irrational premise which also affirms Tradition?
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2019/07/mattei-and-ferrara-read-vatican-council.html
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2019/07/theologically-cmtv-is-still-teaching.html
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2019/07/church-militant-tv-still-does-not.html

Catholic Mission said...

Peter Watson said...
Among the marks of the Catholic people are the reception of and adherence to the voice of the Tradition contained, preserved and passed on in the entire Magisterium of Vatican II (all of its documents, not the cherry picked few). As I have repeated time and again, even in this thread, this is the teaching of all the Popes since Vatican II including the conservative JP II and Benedict XVI.

Lionel: Vatican Council ( Feeneyite) is traditional and Vatican Council II ( Cushingite) is a rupture with Tradition.We have a choice. We are not obligated to interpret the irrational interpretation of the Council even though this has been the wrong choice of the popes since Paul VI.

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2019/07/the-popes-before-pius-xii-knew-that.html
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2019/07/catechesis-for-catholic-proclamation.html
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2019/07/bishop-steven-lopes-does-not-interpret.html
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/05/left-and-right-schism.html

Anonymous said...

The establishment of a new traditionalist Order is a terrific gesture of defiance to Francis and his slugs like the Cardinal Prefect for religious, and others in the Francis camp.
I have always said that the best thing faithful Catholics could do in the face of Francis and his heresy and opposition to Catholic tradition is to ignore him....and to do exactly the opposite according to Catholic tradition. This will infuriate him and he will retaliate....but faithful Catholics should just ignore him. He goes after a traditional Order one place....then re-group somewhere else and ignore him. He whines and moans about Muslims and migrants....do the opposite and ignore him (like they are doing in much of Europe).
This is a defiant spit in the face to Francis, and he and his people should get used to it. I hope there very soon is a general uprising against him and his agenda. And it looks very much that that is not an impossibility.

Damian Malliapalli

Catholic Mission said...

Acqua
I accept everything in Vatican II that does not change anything that is defined dogmatically by our Church Fathers.
Lionel:
We cannot accept Vatican Council II interpreted with Cushingism. This is a big NO, NO.
It is only when we switch to Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) the Council changes before our very eyes.
Try and see.

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/02/this-would-be-new-way-for-charismatic.html
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/02/would-icrs-focolares-neo-cathecumenal.html
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/02/so-fault-does-not-lie-with-vatican.html

Catholic Mission said...

Anonymous:
...but faithful Catholics should just ignore him.

Lionel:
No. We should insist that he interprets Vatican Council II with Feeneyism.We should insist that Rome come back to the Faith, with Feeneyite philosophy and theology and reject the present irrational Cushngite version.
Once he accepts Vatican Council II( Feeneyite) things will fall in place.
Then he automatically comes back to the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church.
There can only be an ecumenism of return.
Upon Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS), which is not contradicted by Vatican Council II(Feeneyite) is based the Social Reign of Christ the King etc.

Anonymous said...

Why doesnt the Novus Ordo allow a pre-June 1968 Bishop to ordain priests in the Traditional Rite?
-Andrew

M. Prodigal said...

This is good news about the new priestly friars but I have to wonder how long it will be before the eye of 'sauron' in the Vatican notices and decides to squash the efforts. Recall the bishop in Italy that had sheltered a number of the holy FFI friars....he got removed and the effort was disbanded. Bishop Philip Egan is a brave man to be willing to face the ire of the modernist, corrupt Vatican that hates holiness with a passion.

Tancred said...

Sorry, accidentally deleted your comment.

PW said...

That's perfectly ok.

Tancred said...

I think Francis is running out of political elan.

Peter Watson said...

I think Francis is making good use of the time he has to restore equilibrium to the Church. One of the avenues of reform is to replace the episcopal clones of JP II and Benedict XVI wo were promoted as a result of the patronage of manipulators like Francis George (RIP); Burke, Law, Pell, Ouellet & Co who engaged in branch stacking for decades.

Any attempts at achieving the restoration of trust in bishops will only be even marginally successful when that lot and their acolytes are put out to pasture or sent on the Missions to Chad, Afghanistan, Tibet etc.

mike said...

peter watson do you know what Tridentine apophatic theology is or where it came from? I have never heard it used apothatic I mean in the same breath with tridentine. Do you know what tridentine theology is? I suggest you read the council of trent on the sacraments. Then you may achieve a sound basis for your comments

PW said...

It was explained above, Mike 'retired and worn out.' Take another look when you perk up Mike.
BTW, I have studied the entire body of Tridentine teaching/dogmatic anathemas. Ottaviani and the Holy Office tried to impose that kind of scholastic deductive methodology at the very first session of Vatican II. He was mortified on that very point. Read O'Malley's splendid histories, "What happened at Vatican I" and
"What happened at Vatican II."
He doesn't push a line. He's an historian.

Constantine said...

No one doubts the far left jp2,the "democracy"footkisser and slighter less left-leaning B16 the Americanist footkisser, and their disciples should be removed and replaced with true traditionalists who are ready to die for martyrdom. My question for "Peter Watson": once you thonk all the institutions are under your ideological control, are you willing and ready to put the traditionalists ready for martyrdom in jail,, deprive them of any jobs, deprive them of any medical or health or pension benefits perhaps, deprive them of the right to teach their children, or even have these traditionalists executed?

PW said...

Constantine, do you live in Byzantium or Bagdad?
BTW, the Trads aren't facing martyrdom as far as I can see so much as auto-destruct via schism and fratricide.

Constantine said...

You, dear Watson, did not answer the question. Perhaps you picked it up from your friend Jorge Bergoglio. But my question involves a logical connection between speech and action. "Freedom of Expression" presupposes logically the right to act upon the words. One cannot separate action from expression. It is clear in your mind that we are mad. So my question is very logical. Already people in Europe have a "Right to Die", and many US policies limit or extend the right to ship medical supplies to countries politically anathema. Protective services are often known to deprive parents in Germany and the US, if the children are home-schooled, and are arrested if the parents are detemined opposed to the child's underage abortion or gender expression, or even use stricter punishment than current standards expect. We also know people lose their jobs if they are not politically correct. In NYC, it is illegal to not offer an apartment for rent to released convicted felons, or drug users, even if there are children and elderly. In NYC, no Right to Life organization can advertise itself as offering an alternative to abortion, without being labelled as legal "fraud". Just some of many examples of your creeping benevolence.

Tancred said...

I didn’t know something was “tired and worn out” just because some people in the sixties, many of them deviants and Sex predators as it turns out, decided it was so.

PW said...

Click on "mike" to access the 'tired and worn out' but I had no idea that he is a deviant, sex predator.

Tancred said...

I’m talking about the birds with whom you cling together.

PW said...

The tired old lying ploy in order to dismiss. Very sloppy thinking when reasoned argument fails which was very early in this tread. This is a major predictable flaw in the way Trads are faced with positions, backed with verifiable data. More often than not, they resort to baseless vilification at worst, flimsy assertion at best. You should be able to do better than this.

Constantine said...

Come now, Peter, you are now insulting what you yourself say is our "free conscience". Vatican II says we have a right from political or social pressure that tries to impose itself on our "free consciences". It even human goes further and insists even just our opinions, even opinions not der ived from "free conscience", however mistaken they may seem to you are sacred, and thanks to Lumen Gentium, erven inspired by God. And now you come down to the level of insulting what you are supposed to defend as sacred? What hypocracy!!!

Peter W said...

Constantine, It's not 'hypocracy' (sic) at all. I'm being consistent in what I have argued about standard Church doctrine on the freedom of conscience and its primacy as well as being just as consistent pointing out the use of argumenta ad hominem, ad baculum etc are irrational, last resort tactics of those who opted for those who are out of their depth.

You should know too, that your free, conscientious choices are leading you not with certainty into the Catholic Church but into a state of schism. You need to be very clear about this and its consequences down the line.

Tancred said...

You’re the sloppy one clinging to an outmoded ecclesiology from the cultural revolution that only elderly academics, pederastic clergy, evil politicians, a few degenerate pop stars pay homage to.

Tancred said...

Kennedy divorcees, married bishops and sad thwarted clergy exercising their “consciences” putting their passions before God’s law.

PW said...

Classic reaction, not response so now you have clearly demonstrated in spectacular fashion exactly what I wrote to Constantine about the intellectually bankrupt Trads. There is not one recognised theologian or philosopher among the slim catalog of your heroes who would cut the mustard among peers.
Well done again, Tancred.

Tancred said...

By cutting the mustard, you mean intimidating and destroying people who identify problem creatures like Paul Shanley and Bishop Cawcutt?

PW said...

No, I mean people who are capable of offering anything that would amount to a professional and credible defence of the Trad position that the magisterium of Vatican II can be treated as optional or that the so called 'dogmas' of Trent are immutable and valid for all time. Pius V, 1570 Mass is a case in point but a minor one. Ratzinger did a splendid critique back in 1963 and afterwards.

But your real issues, I think, are not really these so much as your high sense of moral outrage at the corruption of Church 'leaders' who have broken faith with and betrayed the trust of their people and in the process, have disgraced Jesus Christ.

Constantine said...

If it is a choice made out if free conscience, it can never lead to schism. Because "Free Conscience" is a correct and well-informed conscience. It isnot an opinion, as your your opinions are

Constantine said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Constantine said...

The disgrace and corruption we are outraged about is not the cause, but the consequence of loss of the True Faith. Traditionalist resistance to incompetent and heretical Popes such as JP2 (the mentally deficient) and Francis (the Theological Heretic), the weak-willed Benedict XVI, and the arrogant Socialist activist Paul 6 are reactions that started BEFORE the CORRUPTION became visible. Once the Vatican II faith is embraced, the moral corruption seeps in. You, dear "Peter" have it all reversed. You think corruption came in and that is the simple problem. But the Church had countless corrupt Popes and clergy. None of them put the Faith in danger. The corruption was contained within the sinner...; Until now, when it was declared by making their corruption accepted through pastoral "accompaniment" and "acceptance". Also by a Council by appearance, was made declare that morality can exist outside Catholic Doctrine. That a Muslim with Polygamy can go to heaven; That a Protestant with teachings accepting of Abortion or Divorce or Contraception or Homosexuality can go to heaven; that Hillel in his Teachings can despise and insult a Hebrew woman for having burned a dinner, and be thrown out of the house for it; You, "peter" do not see the inter-connection between Church Doctrine and Moral and Natural Law. They are inseparable.

PW said...

Constantine 5:25,
Luther followed his conscience and that led to schism as did Marcel Lefebvre and many others.
What following one's conscience means is that a person makes an congruent choice for a good according to their lights even if it is 'objectively' wrong. This is the teaching of St Thomas Aquinas:
"Every judgment of conscience is obligatory, be it right or wrong, be it about things evil in themselves or morally indifferent, in such wise that he who acts against his conscience always does moral evil." [III Quodlibet, 27]. His discussion on whether one is bound to do what an erring conscience calls for in the Summa Theologica I-II, q 19, art 5 is rather involved, but, finally, the answer is in the affirmative: every conscience binds, even one which is objectively erring.'

Tancred said...

An example of good conscience is the Saint Louis Jesuits.

Bad conscience: Léonard Feeney, Charles Coughlin, Josef Tiso.

Good Conscience: Bros Barrigan, James Shanon, George Tyrell, Lord Acton and Baron von Hugel.

Check!

PW said...

Constantine, good moral doctrine is the preserve of many religions other than the Catholic Church.
The most basic one is the most common. It's often called the Golden Rule and has many variations in hundreds of societies and religious traditions. The Jewish rabbis even trimmed back the Ten Commandments to the Noahide or universal Laws that they believed were appropriated moral principles for those unwilling or incapable of observing the Torah.
BTW, you are confusing Hillel with Shammai as you are with many other things.

Tancred said...

Who cares about other religions?

Get lost you heretical bawd.

PW said...

Get help.

Tancred said...

Physician, heal thyself.

Tancred said...

“Abhor all heretics…heed not their fair speaking or their mock humility; for they are serpents, a `brood of vipers.’ Remember that, when Judas said `Hail Rabbi,’ the salutation was an act of betrayal. Do not be deceived by the kiss but beware of the venom. Abhor such men, therefore, and shun the blasphemers of the Holy Spirit, for whom there is no pardon. For what fellowship have you with men without hope. Let us confidently say to God regarding all heretics, `Did I not hate, O Lord, those who hated Thee, and did I not pine away because of Your enemies?’ For there is an enmity that is laudable, as it is written, `I will put enmity between you and the woman, between your seed and her seed.’ Friendship with the serpent produces enmity with God, and death. Let us shun those from whom God turns away.”

PW said...

Get lots of help.

Tancred said...

You need Jesus.

PW said...

Don't we all.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...