Vatican II Sect celebrates Protestant Reformation

Vatican releases Postage Stamp honoring Martin Luther

Today is Reformation Day. In Germany, that’s a quasi-holiday. What makes it worse this year is that it’s the 500th anniversary. That’s right: It was on Oct. 31, 1517 that a priest named Martin Luther nailed 95 theses to the door of All Saints’ Church in Wittenberg, Germany. The errors of Luther were solemnly condemned by Pope Leo X in the bull Exsurge Domine in 1520, and Luther’s excommunication followed a few months later.

In 1545, the Church convened the all-important Council of Trent, which ushered in the Catholic Counter-Reformation, and also led to the publication of the Roman Catechism, also known as the Catechism of the Council of Trent. Important saints during this troublesome period include Pope St. Pius V, St. Charles Borromeo, St. Thomas More, St. John Fisher, St. Robert Bellarmine, and St. Francis de Sales. The Protestant Revolution has caused unspeakable damage to souls since its inception and is the philosophical and theological forerunner of such errors as Naturalism, Liberalism, Modernism, and even Communism, as wonderfully explained by Bp. Donald Sanborn in his History of Christendom video series.

The Novus Ordo Sect, of course, sees cause to celebrate the Protestant Revolt, and so they have now issued a postage stamp commemorating the arch-heretic Martin Luther by placing him at the foot of the Crucified Christ, together with his protégé Philipp Melancthon. This abominable blasphemy looks like this (source: Rorate Caeli):

click image to enlarge

“Pope” Francis’ affection for Lutheranism — in addition to all sorts of other heresies and errors — is well known.

In January of this year, the Vatican issued a document which called Luther a “witness to the Gospel”. In our extensive post on this curious news item, we applied the much-touted “hermeneutic of continuity” to the document by replacing every reference to Martin Luther in Pope Leo X’s bull Exsurge Domine with the phrase “witness to the Gospel”. The results tell an interesting story:

You may recall that a year ago, Francis traveled to Lund, Sweden, to begin the 500th anniversary celebrations for the Reformation. Predictably, that turned out to be a theological disaster and a half, which you can review in our coverage here.

We also remember Francis’ delight at being given an oversize edition of Luther’s 95 Theses, and we shan’t forget his display of a chocolate statue of Luther at the Vatican audience hall. Francis topped it all off by telling his hapless followers that “it is not right to convince others of our faith” — unless, of course, it’s about recycling, climate change, racism, etc., but that’s another topic. If you haven’t seen the pictures, check them out:

Oh, and remember too that as far as ecumenism goes, “Cardinal” Kurt Koch recently had to admit that the various parties cannot even agree on so much as the point of it all.

Whoever still thinks that this apostate establishment in the Vatican is the Roman Catholic Church founded by Jesus Christ, is out of his mind:

Indeed one simple way to keep men professing Catholic truth is to maintain their communion with and obedience to the Roman Pontiff. For it is impossible for a man ever to reject any portion of the Catholic faith without abandoning the authority of the Roman Church. In this authority, the unalterable teaching office of this faith lives on. It was set up by the divine Redeemer and, consequently, the tradition from the Apostles has always been preserved. So it has been a common characteristic both of the ancient heretics and of the more recent Protestants — whose disunity in all their other tenets is so great — to attack the authority of the Apostolic See. But never at any time were they able by any artifice or exertion to make this See tolerate even a single one of their errors.

(Pope Pius IX, Encyclical Nostis et Nobiscum, n 17)

So, dear Novus Ordos and Semi-Traditionalists, who like to accuse us sedevacantists of Protestantism: Who is the Protestant here?

Share this content now:

127 Responses to “Vatican releases Postage Stamp honoring Martin Luther”

  1. BurningEagle

    “Whoever still thinks that this apostate establishment in the Vatican is the Roman Catholic Church founded by Jesus Christ, is out of his mind.”
    By this statement, which I believe is fairly accurate with respect to anyone who might call himself a Catholic, it should be apparent that sedevacantists will be getting fewer and fewer converts from the Novus Ordo. There may be a few souls out there who have been under the spell of the Remnant, and the like, but for the most part, the contrast is becoming sharp enough that nobody will have an excuse for remaining in communion with that Whore of Babylon (or Jorge of Babylon, if you prefer). By continuing the convenience of going to their local churches and identifying with these heretics, a Catholic (if there are any more in the Novus Ordo who still have the faith) is dulling his faculties to the point where nothing will matter. He will become a good humanist and abandon the Catholic faith, if that hasn’t occurred already.

    Martin Luther was one of the most vile creatures to ever have breathed air. And yet the usurpers of the Vatican are giddy over him. The disguise is off. The Novus Ordo Church is not Catholic. Nevertheless, the laity of the Novus Ordo continue to identify with the apostate church, because the vast majority of them REALLY DO NOT CARE. Novus Ordites were either raised with indifferentism from their indifferent parents, or they have acquired that trait on their own. So this latest scandal involving a Vatican Stamp with Luther and Melancthon will not even raise an eyebrow with most of them.

    We all should be grateful to Almighty God for giving us the grace to have been preserved from this horrible state. May this latest atrocity be the occasion for others to abandon the Cult of Man and return to the practice of the Catholic faith. I don’t think it will be many, but I hope I am wrong.

      • BurningEagle

        There was another question you asked, which came to my email address, but which I cannot find on this blog: Where do I go to church, and do I frequent the Sacraments?

        I attend Mass at a chapel where a sedevacantist cleric, offers the traditional Latin Mass of the Roman Rite. I avail myself of all the sacraments frequently. I have not been part of any Novus Ordo rite or ceremony since 1981, Deo Gratias. But why do you ask?

  2. jay

    Yes , Bergoglio will be honoring Vladimir Lenin, Dzerzhinsky , and Stalin soon because their anti Christ methods produced so many Martyrs . Even the most ardent Vatican II adherent must be able to see that this sect is not Catholicism, but a new religion that is not of Christ, but I could be wrong . Maybe if Bergoglio dressed up with horns and a red suit carrying a pitch fork to preform his next worship service they may get it. or maybe not.

  3. Herman_U_Tick

    It’s Halloween today. This is all a bad dream. I’m going to wake up tomorrow and
    find out that none of this really happened, right?

  4. BurningEagle

    I hate to say it, but these youths are quite a bit late in their protests. The Brussels Cathedral has been practicing Protestantism for well over 40 years. The New Mass was written by Protestants. The Novus Ordo has had various and sundry concordats with Lutherans and the like. Wojtyla had the blasphemous Assisi gatherings, and also promoted the New Code, giving communion to Protestants. They are at least 40 years too late with their protests.

    Why expect non-Catholics at the Brussels cathedral, or any other Novus Ordo church for that matter, to start acting like Catholics? Do they expect pigs to fly? It would have been better for them to just go directly to the police station and ask to be incarcerated.

    That Cathedral is desecrated, and gets re-desecrated every time a non-Catholic ceremony is performed therein. To start protesting in 2017 makes no sense. Novus Ordo people love what is going on. We cannot wake them up, because they are not sleeping. They don’t care if the current religion in the building does not jive with the past. They are non-Catholics. Did these youths think they were going to get the building back for themselves?

    This kind of protest is stupid. It would have been better for them to stand at the entrances to the building, and peacefully hand out a pamphlet containing juicy quotes from Martin Luther, and explanations pointing out the evil doctrines of the Novus Ordo already condemned by the Church.

    • Lee

      I would rather see a huge organized group of Catholics by the thousands stand in front of St. Peters with signs saying Francis I and Benedict XVI are imposters to the papacy and Vatican Council II created a new non-catholic religion which we reject

      • BurningEagle

        Please include the other imposters too: John XXIII, Paul VI, JP1, JP2. But yes, that would be an interesting site. It would not solve any problems, but it might get one or two converts.

          • BurningEagle

            What good would it do? The time to have started the protests would have been in the sixties or the 70’s. Why not get a bunch of kids to protest the Anglican occupancy of originally Catholic buildings in England?

            The celebration of the Protestant reformation pales in comparison to the things that have taken place. For example, where was the outrage over John Paul II preaching a sermon at a Lutheran Church where he said the miracles of Christ do not prove His Divinity, and that St. John the Baptist had doubts about the Messianic dignity of Our Lord?
            Another example: Where was the outrage over the new Code of Canon Law allowing for non-Catholics to receive communion (844; 3,4)?
            (with “saint” John Paul II one can right a book of examples).

    • Paul Bays

      “Novus Ordo people love what is going on” wrong BurningEagle, but you seem to enjoy your position of “I told you so”, very arrogant. Many of what you call “Novus Ordo Catholics” have been very confused by what has been happening, out of the belief that the gates of Hell will not prevail and that Christ will not allow his church too go astray. only since Pope Francis has it become more and more clear to the NO catholics that still have any faith that something is really really wrong. The situation is this, St Paul said we must “work out your salvation with fear and trembling” so don’t be quite so cock-sure you’ve got it all right, for one thing you demonstrate a distinct lack of charity towards your fellow “Novus Ordo Catholics”, calling them stupid is not wise, maybe you are the stupid one. So you have left the visible and Physical bark of St Peter to attach to a group of Sedevacantist, who have used their intellect to deduce and declare that chair of St Peter has actually empty since Vatican 2 despite all the Popes that have sat physically on it since Vatican 2. You might be right that they are not valid Popes but that STILL doesn’t mean that God has not willed this to happen to his church and that chair of St Peter occupied by Francis is still the one True church, are you saying the God has abandoned the Novus Ordo flock. Before the dawn of internet my Grandparents in Oreland fasted 12 before Mass and walked miles to get to church, Vatican 2 came along and they obediently continued be faithful Catholics ( how could they know anything was corrupt as you claim). If anything would turn people away from Sedevacantism it would be the arrogant tone of persons who have the “I told you so ” attitude.

      • BurningEagle

        Thank you for your advice.

        Some clarifications: I do not refer to Novus Ordites as Novus Ordo Catholics. The Novus Ordo is not Catholic. I did not call the youths stupid, but rather “This kind of protest is stupid,” a subtle distinction.
        I would suggest studying some pre-vatican II catechisms, as well as the Enchiridion Symborlorum of Denzinger.

        I am lucky in that my father knew the faith well enough to know what was going on since the death of Pius XII was not right. I was fortunate to have gotten some good education, and was afforded the opportunity to get some L’Osservatore Romano newspapers to keep-up with the current events in the early ’80’s. So, what Jorge is doing now, is the logical flower of what John XXIII, Paul VI, and John Paul II put into place. It is nothing new.

        I am sorry to have offended you.

      • Lee

        Paul you said “You might be right that they are not valid Popes but that STILL doesn’t mean that God has not willed this to happen to his church and that God has willed for the chair of St Peter to be occupied by Francis and it is still the one True church.”

        It’s not maybe or maybe not he’s the pope and it still might be the Catholic Church. He either is or it isn’t a true pope and either is or is not head of the Catholic Church based on FACTS as to what he teaches as the Head of the Catholic Church. Francis I teaches heresy so much so that he doesn’t even care whether he does or not. Proof here It’s impossible for a true pope to teach heresy and still remain the Head of the Catholic Church.

        What turns people away from sedevacantism is the reality of it. The truth and it’s consequences.

        • Paul Bays

          Thanks Lee, I will certainly keep studying about Sedevacantism, as you say if it is the Truth, then 99.99 of people who call themselves Catholics have been fooled…Why do you think God would do that to people who have sincerely followed the faith?

          • Novus Ordo Watch

            Please find the answer in 2 Thess 2, and also in these words of Fr. Frederick Faber:

            “We must remember that if all the manifestly good men were on one side and all the manifestly bad men on the other, there would be no danger of anyone, least of all the elect, being deceived by lying wonders. It is the good men, good once, we must hope good still, who are to do the work of Anti-Christ and so sadly to crucify the Lord afresh…. Bear in mind this feature of the last days, that this deceitfulness arises from good men being on the wrong side.”

            Ultimately, the question, “why would God…?” cannot be used as an objection because “my thoughts are not your thoughts: nor your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are exalted above the earth, so are my ways exalted above your ways, and my thoughts above your thoughts” (Isaias 55:8-9).

          • Lee

            Jesus says to follow the narrow gate and that few find it. I believe that sedevacantism is a narrow gate for many but the Catholic Church still will be around until the consummation of the world regardless. At least we have Pope Pius XII and the popes before to go by. Their encyclicals are powerful.

          • Paul Bays

            Lee you believe Sedevacantism is the narrow gate, I am not saying you are wrong, and if you have really found the narrow gate I am really happy for you. Some have us have just discovered in the last weeks this „gate“ but before entering it’s better to be 100% convinced as this is our eternal souls we are talking about. One thing I have noticed which causes me to reflect is the nasty and uncharitable way some of the Sedevacantists act towards Novus Ordo Catholics. I sense from some of them no compassion, no joy, just very judgemental to those „ignorant NO Catholics“. Would you not expect to find serene joy?

          • Lee

            I appreciate your sincerity. I totally understand what you’re saying. I grew up a Novus Ordo Catholic up until my college years (before the popularity of social media) and all my local Catholic friends were as ignorant as I was. As time passed I became interested because in my area there are a lot of protestants who challenged me and I realized I needed to study my stuff a little better. Once I did, it floored me as to what I wasn’t being taught and I became hooked. Unfortunately many of my close friends didn’t care or if they did it wouldn’t last. None of them prayed daily (they told me this), none of them believed in the teachings of the church (at that time some things were novus ordo teachings but many were traditional Catholic teachings) or knew or cared to know (they told me this). In fact they didn’t believed they didn’t have to believe in them to be saved. All they cared about was the things of this world. To some degree I understood but I didn’t understand after we had talked why those things were more important than their eternal salvation and their life as a Catholic. To them (many of them) just believed they would make it to purgatory or would make a last minute conversion because God is so merciful (He is indeed) but they were presumptuous. So I guess you can say their indifference created a reaction in me to be the opposite because it bothered me. Eventually our friendships faded away and I haven’t spoken with them not because I don’t want to, but because they don’t want to. I’m a sedevacantist now and I’ve seen and met many trads over the years which at first I admired but as time has gone by, I realize that many of them act as protestant as the protestants I knew (scurry around the real issues, change the argument etc.) or as indifferent as the Novus ordo friends I knew. However not all sedevacantist are like this. Some of them are the most refreshing of people and the greatest friends you’ll ever meet. It’s just finding them is the hard part. I wish you the best and I hope for now that you stick with the comparisons between the Novus ordo church’s teachings vs. the pre-Vatican II Catholic teachings. That should give you peace once you see how they are drastically different Churchs.

          • BurningEagle

            Look at the numbers that fell to the Orthodox Schism. Look at the numbers that succumbed to the Arian Heresy. Look at the numbers that went along with the Anglican (Episcopalian) heresy. The answer is not in the numbers who follow, but in what is being followed. The Catholic Religion from Pius XII back to Pope St. Peter is essentially the same. The “Cult of Man” (to quote Montini, aka Paul VI) is essentially different in its dogmas, its worship, and its morals.
            I choose to stay with the deposit of the faith which the popes and councils have consistently guarded and protected, clearly and precisely taught and promulgated. That deposit did not include beach balls on the altar, tango dances in the sanctuary, topless females reading the epistles, communion to non Catholics, gays, and those in false marriages, rejection of the Council of Trent, etc.
            It is precisely that the Catholic Church has so well defined the faith (infallibly) for 2000 years that we have indisputable proof that what has been proposed to us by the usurpers in Rome is NOT the Catholic religion.
            St. Paul predicted a revolt or an “apostasia.” I believe we are living in it. Our Lady at LaSalette said that Rome would be the seat of the AntiChrist. This prophesy came true in October of 1958, and continues to today.

            What one finds in the Novus Ordo churches would be totally foreign and disgusting to a Catholic from St. Pius X’s reign.

          • Paul Bays

            Burning Eagle Thankyou for your comments, I will continue studying the writings here suggested, at this point in time, I can fully agree that what is happening in the Vatican and the Catholic Churches ( I know you don’t accept they are Catholic) is now so blatantly wrong there must be an explanation, if Sedevacantism is the answer, that would explain a lot of the confusion in the church. Thankyou for your comments , i do hope and pray that God brings us closer to him each day God bless

          • BurningEagle

            The main points with all of this is: People are finally seeing Jorge Bergoglio for what he is, but they either don’t see, or what is worse, they refuse to consider, what his predecessors were. It is true that Jorge is the best advertisement that the sedevacantist position has; but a very close second was JP2. That guy did so many outrageous things that it would take a book to catalog all of them. And now he is a “saint” for all to imitate! Therefore the problem is not just Jorge, but rather it is the infiltration of the Vatican by the enemies of the Church, and the replacement of Catholicism with humanism and Modernism. (This infiltration is why St. Pius X had the Sodalitium Pianum, a spy ring, to detect and report on the secret machinations of the Modernists in the hierarchy. It is why Cardinal de Lai said at the election of Pope Benedict XV “humanly speaking the Church is finished,” because he knew that what was needed was a continuation of the policies of St. Pius X, and that Benedict XV would not follow such a rigorous policy.) In other words, the problem is not with Jorge, but with the whole Novus Ordo religion – doctrine and dogmas, morals and discipline, and worship. It is great that members of the Novus Ordo are seeing a problem. What is very alarming is that most of them do not see a problem with the pre-Jorge Novus Ordo church/religion.
            Secondly, serious pre-vatican II examinations of conscience in various devotional and prayer books maintained it was a Catholic’s duty to study and learn the faith. Therefore, we sedevacantists, having been battling this new religion for well over 45 years (in my case, for 36 years) get a little edgy with folks who have not yet learned and studied the Catholic Faith (from well accepted and long used Catechisms, Denzinger’s Enchiridion, and other sources, etc.) There is no reason why a Novus Ordite should not study from pre-Vatican II sources. Isn’t there a supposed to be a “hermeneutic of continuity?”
            What was true for Catholics in 1913 should be true for Catholics today, because only to the Catholic Church was given the deposit of revelation to guard, teach, and promulgate. It does not evolve (Read the anti-Modernist Oath from St. Pius X). Revelation ended with the death of St. John the Evangelist. The mind of the church has always been to preserve what has been handed down. Therefore we get a bit ticked off when folks want to argue, but yet do not even know the basics of the faith.
            It is due to the indifference of Catholics in the past that we now have people so ignorant of the faith that the ONLY thing they know is “follow the pope.” They know nothing about the rest of the faith. There may have been very pious and devoted people in the 1940’s and 1950’s, but quite often they did not take their duty to learn their faith seriously.

            Keep researching, Paul. I would suggest using this website as part of your research. Look up what John XXIII said and did. Look up what Paul VI said and did (his comments at the United Nations were outrageous). Look up what JP2 said and did. You can find good information under the Novus Ordo Watch section called False Popes.

            Don’t let the negative or uncharitable comments from me or others (whether real or perceived) deter you from researching what was known as the Catholic Faith up until 1958, and contrast it to what is now taught by the Novus Ordo as the Catholic faith today. It will be eye-opening, I assure you.

          • anna mack

            It’s probably because most Catholics don’t sincerely follow the Faith. Following the Faith is jolly hard work and most people are not interested in hard work. NOW has referred you to the whole “operation of error” thing but, like most R&Rers, I don’t think that you’re really interested in any unpleasant truths.

          • Paul Bays

            Anna Mack „i don’t think that you‘re really interested in any unpleasant truths“ one thing I have noticed about some of you Sedevacantists is your incredible and serious lack of charity towards Novus Ordo Catholics,(I know you don’t even call us Catholics right? We are just scum of the earth) who have come to realize there is something terribly wrong with the Church and to Quote St Paul are working out their salvation „with fear and trembling „ Now a. Unpleasant Truth for you to answer, why are you so viciously uncharitable? And what is an R&R? If anything makes me question and puts me off Sedevacsntism it’s the blatant display of arrogance and blatant lack of charity from some of the posts

          • anna mack

            “Viciously uncharitable”? Don’t you think that’s a somewhat hysterical reaction to a rather mild comment?

            The reason I wrote that is because I think that the R&R position is the worst of all worlds. At least the NOites who are fully behind Bergoglio believe that they are obeying their “pope” – at least that is an actual Catholic reaction to what is going on (so long as you don’t know anything about Catholicism, which the NO has done its best to make sure is the case with most of its members). The R&R position of “well, he’s the Pope but we’re not going to take notice of anything he says because he’s wrong” could, on the other hand, not be less Catholic – it is a protestant position.

            The application of just the smallest bit of logic shows that Bergoglio cannot be a true Pope. If he were, then we would be obliged to obey him and follow him into sin. That would be the Holy Ghost not merely withdrawing his grace from those who “do not love the truth” but actively working to send souls to Hell. Do you really believe that God would do this?

            I’m sorry if you think it uncharitable, but R&Rers remind me very much of High Anglicans – you like the bells and smells, and you like the nice vestments, but your “church” is nothing more than a social club. Accepting the sedevacantist position would deprive you of that society.

          • Paul Bays

            „viciously uncharitable“ is the correct term to describe your comments

          • anna mack

            Ah, I see that you’ve edited your post and added some bile since I initially replied.

            In answer to your comments, yes we sedevacantists are a “small group” (but the Church isn’t a social club, so I don’t see what that’s got to do with anything) but, no, I’m not lonely and I’m certainly not in despair (but thank you for your concern). You don’t have a loving Pope either – even if Bergoglio were the Pope, it’s pretty clear that he hates Catholics and all things Catholic (no loving going on there!). R&R stands for “recognise and resist” (that’s your position). Believe me, I am in “fear and trembling” of the Lord, but I feel no need constantly to tell people that (the Bible is full of good quotes – might you not give us another?). It doesn’t matter how long it takes to wake up to the truth, so long as we do.

            Finally, perhaps you’re right – I do tend towards a little uncharitability when it comes to dealing with over-emotional men (whom, I must admit, I find rather odd). I shall consider confessing my fault the very next time I go to Mass (a traditional Mass, after fasting from midnight onwards, by the way – we are not all hypocrites 🙂 ).

          • Paul Bays

            There you go again judging people you don’t even know, do i sense also a bitter man hater as well, a person who „calmly“ arrogantly judges and is dismissive of others, I would say that shows a person with a very cold heart

          • anna mack

            Even if I were a man-hater, it really wouldn’t apply in your case, would it? Nevertheless, I appreciate that you are a fragile flower and apologise if I have upset you. Really very unchristian of me. Confession will definitely be required, I see. Mea culpa, &c…

          • Paul Bays

            There you go again…judging people you don’t even know. You don’t even offer a sincere apology, without adding insults. What is the purpose in doing so? “Viciously uncharitable” was definitely the correct term and your diatribe in the messages that follow just confirms it. Keep searching for the Truth, like the rest of us, God bless you all the very best to you, Paul

          • anna mack

            Don’t worry, I’ve no doubt that I will at least spend serious time in Purgatory for my regrettable tendency towards sarcasm. God bless you, too 😉

          • Sede for Christ

            If I may interject: I think the problem is the majority of people (a generalization and I’ll leave it at that) simply do not make distinctions. I agree that most sedevacantists and most of those who call themselves Catholics or even Traditional Catholics do not in fact behave like they are worthy of such a name (I’m speaking of virtue/morals and nothing else here). I agree we can all work on that.

            That being said, the way people act has absolutely nothing got to do with the truth or falsity of the position that they hold. That’s called anecdotal and inductive reasoning. It ultimately relies on an emotional response to an intellectual argument. I personally detest in a reasonable way of course, what many priests and bishops and lay people do and how they treat and have treated me and others. But that is not an argument against the position.

            An example would be racism: racism (properly so-called, not simply pointing out un-pc facts) ultimately relies on inductive reasoning to reach a conclusion, which does not therefore follow: that persons of a certain race or bad/evil/to be avoided. Yes, there may be a great many people of a particular race who act a certain way, good or bad. But the conclusion that follows is not that all people of that race are that way therefore.

            So while I sympathize with your concern, it is ultimately of no importance. You or anyone else has their own soul to save first. What other horrible people do or how they treat you is of no consequence to such, or it at least shouldn’t be. I have been tempted many times (emphasis on tempted) to leave the Catholic Faith altogether, because I have had to deal with so many nasty and really bad people in the Church, and I include here my time with the Novus Ordo and SSPX and everything in-between. Most especially the clergy in these places, and I still have to put up with it as a sede. But I realized immediately that another person’s virtue or lack thereof is not going to make me leave the Church and abandon the only means of salvation, that irregardless btw of the debate going on here concerning the papacy.

            So I would encourage you to ignore the so-called “haters”. Whether they are or not is proof once again that human beings are sick creatures, destined, if left to themselves, to become debauched individuals. All the more reason for us to behave ourselves and better our own spiritual life. Hope this is helpful

          • anna mack

            Gosh, I really feel that my wickedness has been rather exaggerated. I do think a degree of robustness is required of Christians in these dark times (darker even than my reprobate soul, I fear).

      • corvinus ✓ᴰᵉᵖˡᵒʳᵃᵇˡᵉ

        but to Quote St Paul we are working out our salvation „with fear and trembling”

        Kinda hard to do that if you don’t have valid sacraments, Mr. Bays.

    • J Nelson

      It is illogical to say that young people in their early 20s or younger are 40 years late with their protests. I say good for them, and I hope they will persist in their search for the truth about what happened so many decades before they were born.

      • BurningEagle

        What is so different now, as opposed to a year ago? What did they wish to accomplish? Do they yearn for the good ol’ days of The Rat? Do they seek to go back to the days of Wojtyla (JP2)?

        The Brussels Cathedral has had the Novus Ordo (Protestant) Mass since 1969. They have had the New Code since about 1983. The Novus Ordo have been dialoging with the Lutherans since Vatican II, and have even signed joint declarations with them on “justification.” JP2 called Martin Luther a profoundly religious man and a great reformer. What is so different now that prompted the protests?

        However, if they are in search for the truth, as you say, I too hope that they honestly persist in that search. However, in my opinion, their protest was as pointless as doing the same thing at Westminster Cathedral (also once Catholic).

    • Clare Forkin

      There’s one striking feature that Bergoglio and Luther have in common – both detest Catholicism and are doing their utmost to destroy the Papacy!

    • corvinus ✓ᴰᵉᵖˡᵒʳᵃᵇˡᵉ

      It wasn’t just Luther. There were many, many people who approved of what he was doing and kept printing his stuff and passing it around. Then there were the princes who kept sheltering him.

  5. bartmaeus

    Arius must be jealous. His schismatic expedition got off the ground in 318, which makes next year the 17th centenary of the Arian schism. And not a peep out of the Vatican! Not even a postage stamp, or a chocolate statue of the wretch! There’s no justice in this world for schismatic heretics. There probably will not be such a “commemoration” like the present one till 2022, the year of the hijra, when the mixed-up demagogue Mohammed began his venture. Big celebrations, then, I bet, in the state where the bones of Peter lie spinning in their grave.

  6. Paul Bays

    A question for the Sedevacantists. I have found this website and I find it very interesting and I am learning more about Sedevacantism each day, who can deny that Pope Francis is acting as a Heretic, I have questions I can see that you are sincerely presenting your arguments but I am duty bound to critically analyse your claims. When Christ was being mocked at his passion and they put the cross of thorns on his head and the world mocked him, and his apostles all deserted him, was Christ still the King? yes , was he still the Son of God? yes, but he was mocked by the world and did God allow this? Yes he did, he even wanted it. This torturous death of his only Son was the will of God.

    Is the One True Faith, the One true Church being mocked by the world at the moment, Yes clearly, even by Francis who is sitting on the chair of St Peter? Yes clearly. Does God want this? Whether as a real Pope or Anti Pope, Francis is physically sitting on the chair of St Peter making a mockery of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. So my question is that the physical chair of St Peter that Pope Francis sits on, the same one all the Popes before Vatican 2 sat on? Yes. if it is then he sits on the chair of St Peter, of the church of the One True Faith. Does God want that? no you say. Did God want his only Son to be persecuted, tortured, mocked yes he did, yes you say. So How do you know that God does not want the same for his One True Church? The deposit of the Faith cannot be changed, St Paul said work out your salvation with fear and trembling. these Popes since Vatican 2 may or may not be Popes or anti Popes, but the chair of St Peter is the same one the other Popes in history have sat on. So how do you know this is not the church God founded on the Rock of St Peter. Remember I am not talking about the untouchable deposit of Faith, that has and always will remain the Truth, I am talking about the Church, the one True faith is being pushed into the background, we have to work out our salvation but I am not sure you are correct to say Vatican 2 is another Church.

    • Novus Ordo Watch

      The answer to the challenge you present is as follows. First, we must draw distinctions. Does God want what it happening in the Vatican today? Yes and no. Yes, in the sense that He permits it; no, in the sense that He does not actively desire it because He cannot positively desire blasphemy, heresy, or any other sin. God wants what is happening today in the same sense that He wants the Antichrist to appear and the “operation of error” to deceive souls (see 2 Thess 2).

      But this does not mean that Francis is Pope, or that the Novus Ordo Sect is the Catholic Church. The answer to that issue is found in applying Catholic teaching to the empirical facts. We cannot replace that by simply appealing to our own ideas about what we suppose God would or wouldn’t desire or permit. Sitting physically in the Vatican isn’t what makes you Pope. There has been an Antipope in Rome before, while the true Pope was in Avignon, France.

      St. Peter wasn’t Pope yet when he denied Christ (he became Pope only after the Resurrection, according to Vatican I). I would very much like to encourage you to listen to the lecture “The Papacy and the Passion of the Church” by Mario Derksen (or read the transcript), here:
      Alternate link here:

      I would very much like to know what your thoughts are after you have heard this powerful presentation. God bless.

      • Paul Bays

        I have listened to the lecture and will listen to it again as there is much information. I would share these thoughts with you now as I believe you are sincere in your search and convinced you are right, therefore it our duties as Catholics who care for each others souls to help each other with fear and trembling to work out our salvation.
        1. If we compare the passion of Christ to the mystical Passion of the church. Christ was mocked when they put a crown of thorns on his head and mocked him as the king. The Novus Ordo Mass has become a mockery in many respects, is it inconceivable for you to believe that this Mass is nevertheless perhaps as a real”mystical crown of thorns over the head of Christ” nevertheless the real presence of Christ still exists under this crown during this Mass?
        2. If you are wrong about Sedevacantism would you be humble enough to admit your error, or do you identify as Sedevacantist more than yo do identify as Catholic.
        3. The comment at 45 minutes concerning the Jews loosing the priestly glory lost his authority
        4. Listen carefully to the section 46:44 ( i have not included the whole quote) but Mr Derksen says “that the idea of the passion of the church should consist of the hierarchy misleading the faithful….with each individual believer having to work out their own salvation…. is absurd”. Mr Derkesen is incorrect, St Paul has warned each of us to Phillipians 2 :12 “Therefore dear friends work out your salvation with fear and trembling” we have to work it out, get to the Truth.
        5. your comments section on your website the “Now what” you mention the particular difficulty concerning attending the Sacraments. Supposing you are wrong about the vatican 2 perhaps the whole Vatican 2 is the passion of the Mystical Body of Christ being mocked, should we not be mocked as Christ was mocked, or do we deny that this is the church. The church we go to is old the latin Mass was said in it long ago, not it is Novus Ordo. Is that not still a catholic church? Should you not be there praying in the pews each Sunday as God though his passion, as God is mocked. Shouldn’t you be in that church as well like we are trying to get the respect back and asking for the reintroduction of the Latin Mass which is far more respectful? Or at least that the Mass is done with reverence and respect?

        I appreciate and admire your honest sincere intellectual approach to this issue and I will continue to study your comments . I have spokenly positively about you in comments on onepeterfive and another person has referred to this link which I will read true or false popes. I will continue to search for the Truth and I thank you for your fellowship and support along the way. May God in his mercy and Kindness bring us each day closer to him, and let us hope we are humble enough to accept his ways are not our ways. God bless Paul

          • Lee

            Remember Pope Pius XII approved of the restored Ordo for Holy Week in 1955. So are you saying the changes that were approved were evil back in 1955? Bishops and priests (who do not use the restored ordo of 1955 and I’ve talked to them personally) give every excuse in the book to try to justify why they use the pre-55 missal. It was transitional, Bugnini, it lead to the novus ordo, it shortened the amount of prayers said etc. etc. etc. Those same clergy are okay with evening masses, 3 hr fast, and more which were also changed in the 1950’s around the same time. Could not one make the argument that those allowances by a true pope were a modernization or lead to it. For example: Novus Ordos have Saturday night evening masses to fulfill the Sunday obligation and have reduced the fast to 1 hr. before communion? So it’s not up to a bishop, priest, or layman to disregard something that was approved for the whole Church unless he can prove the changes themselves were evil or harmful. To say it lead to something evil implies that it began as something evil. Also it’s condemned by the Church to go back to an earlier practice. In this case some sede bishops and priests are doing just that. The earlier practices themselves are not evil, but nevertheless are not approved for Catholics to return back to when the Church approves of something else to be done. So I believe Steve Speray has a great point when he says that he doubts that those sede priest and bishops are not Catholic who refuse to use 1955 missal. If you disagree let him know on his website, but his writings are good and easy to understand and he is a good opponent against Salza and Siscoe. That was my original point. He’s debunked many of their articles. Also N.O.W. refers to his website occasionally. Does that mean you are going to stop coming on this website because of that?

          • Sede for Christ

            Wow, someone got triggered. First, no one actually says that the ’55 changes were evil in themselves but by circumstance, just like the canonical rule requiring a papal mandate for episcopal consecration, if applied today, would also be evil. If you would have read Fr. Cekada’s articles on that, you would have seen that is the argument. Plus, the change was temporary and transitional, meaning it was meant to be changed to something else in the near future (meaning the new mass).

            Second, the 3hr fast, saturday night masses, etc have nothing got to do with this. It’s apples and oranges.

            Yes, the Church condemns going back to an earlier practice to disregard the CURRENT practice, there is no pope or hierarchy, so we are in a different situation. The principle that we simply ‘follow the last pope’ is disingenuous, because the all sede clergy are canonically illegal strictly speaking.

            Steven Speray was told by the SGG clergy to fly a kite because of his crazy ideas about certain things (what they are, I don’t know) according to Fr. Cekada. So now he is embittered at them, so he decides to pontificate about theology of which he has no credentials whatsoever and presumes to oblige everyone to accept his dishonest scholarship. Wonderful! That’s all we need is more laymen ‘theologians’ telling us what to think.

            NOW links to all kinds of websites (including the vatican, sspx/R&R etc.) not necessarily endorsements are they. And where did I say I wouldn’t come on to NOW or even Steven’s blog? I didn’t. I really don’t care what NOW endorses that they link to. But they also link to Bp. Sanborn and Fr. Cekada articles. And I’m not the one that said the other side isn’t catholic. Psychological projection much?

            Mr. Speray does a good job with most things. So do the Diamond brothers. Not exactly an argument. And I actually did disagree with him, of course with no luck and no substantial argument from him, but what do you expect from bitter people. If you would have looked up the article, you would have seen back and forth almost 5 times. Have a good day.

          • Lee

            Actually you got triggered when I mentioned his name and suggested his website and I just simply defended him. What are you talking about that “Steven Speray was told by the SGG clergy to fly a kite because of his crazy ideas about certain things (what they are, I don’t know) according to Fr. Cekada.”??? He is not associated at all with Cekada as far as I know.

            If you really read Speray’s piece, you’ll see that the 55 changes have not become evil by circumstance. That’s a mere opinion which has been shown to be false. And if you read Cekada’s argument you’ll see how he wrote that the 55 missal has false principles and practices and promotes the dangerous error that Paul VI’s “reform” was merely one more step in the organic development of the Catholic liturgy. That means he’s saying it was inherently evil. It’s clear but he’s not being honest about this fact. You must read closely which you apparently haven’t done because Speray makes that perfectly clear in the article and comments from people like you (which to my apologies I see where you replied now).

            Also, his books have been endorsed by other bishops such as the late Bp McKenna. At least he made an effort to get his stuff looked at. Give ’em’ that credit. You seem to have a problem with laypeople pointing out facts about Church teaching and correcting another group going astray. As far as credentials, many heretics have doctorates. Take for example the signatures of the Correctio Filialis. Some of them consider themselves theologians and professors but in reality who cares when we know they live in a dream world. Speray didn’t even mention Cekada in the article. He is clearly right about the situation! You have been fooled by Cekada and yes I’ve read Cekada’s article a couple times and I don’t agree with that particular issue of his.

          • BurningEagle

            The architects of the New Mass had to start somewhere. The liturgy of Montini did not just happen. The machinations of Modernists started with changes that were in and of themselves (per se) not evil, but were done in view of introducing things to come later. It is no wonder the Holy Week ceremonies of the Novus Ordo are essentially vernacular translations of the new holy week of Pope Pius XII. The architects introduced “We believe” instead of “I believe,” facing the people for an oration, a sort of church membership renewal ceremony on Holy Saturday, and other strange things. Bugnini and his crew have admitted that they started their changes with the 1955 Holy week.
            We all have come to the realization that a terrible coup happened in October of 1958, with the suspicious death of Pius XII, the even more suspicious deaths and incapacitation of some cardinals, and the suspicious “election” of an enemy of Catholicsm as “pope.” Since 1958 we have not been able to ask Rome for clarification on anything, because Rome is in the hands of the Church’s enemies. We live in an age of epikeia, waiting for restoration of Catholic dogma, morals, disciplines and worship with a real pope.
            Without recourse to an authority, and in light of what we have seen as the fruits of the reforms, as well as the candid admissions of Annibale Bugnini, it is very reasonable to go back to the pre-reformed Liturgy which was used for centuries.

            Nobody is implying the New Holy week of Pius XII, or his New Psalter, is crippled, incomplete, or subject to civil authority (God forbid!), or contrary to principles of the natural law. And indeed, all Catholics were bound to embrace those changes with filial piety during Pius XII’s reign. They are, per se, Catholic. They do not, per se, lead to error, heresy, or any other evil. At the time, they could not be referenced to the unheard of abominations which were to come in the future.
            However, now, in retrospect, we know why those changes were made, and we can see their connection to what has come about. And that connection is not mere conjecture, but based on the testimony of the authors, and the blatantly obvious continued use of those changes in the Novus Ordo by her enemies, who have taken the initiative to distort or replace nearly every other aspect of the Liturgy other than the New Holy Week.
            Therefore, per accidens, the New Holy week is something many sedevacantists reject. The same argument can be made for the abolishment of the March 19th feast of St. Joseph, Patron of the Universal Church, for the new feast of St. Joseph the worker on “May Day” by Pius XII.
            It is quite reasonable to go back to the liturgical practices which were despised by the so called “liturgical movement” in the 1940’s, 1950’s and 1960’s. That “movement” was bursting at the seams with Modernists, antiquarianists, or archaeologists, and other subversives. Sedevacantists who devote their energies to attacking those who use the pre-1955 liturgy are directing their energies in the wrong direction.

          • Sede for Christ

            Exactly, thank you. Said it very well. Why this doesn’t make any sense to people is beyond me. Personally I suspect something like bitterness or bad will. Also, it seems kinda awkard on the one hand to have to admit that the liturgical revolution started before 1958 and then to claim to use it to fight the modernists. But that must be because I am a heretic, right?lol

          • Sede for Christ

            First Paragraph: yes, he was with Fr. Cekada’s group, I asked Fr. Cekada directly. I actually go to primary sources to seek info, I don’t just guess or claim to know. Steven mentioned Fr. Cekada in the comments to me and others as the arguments he was countering.

            Again, I said that Steven speray was good on everything except this, so I did give him credit; care to give Fr. Cekada credit on the work he does?. So who endorses his books etc. is a non-issue. Bp. McKenna used the pre’55 missal btw. The problem is not whether you or me or anyone else believes the ’55 changes should be used or not. That’s not what I ever said; the problem is calling people non-catholics because they simply reject ’55 missal changes based the principle of epikeya, which is perfectly acceptable and admitted by all who reject the ’55 missal changes. You don’t see any of us calling the CMRI non-catholics, do you? Didn’t think so.

            In other words, it can be a legitimate issue to debate about. Steven Speray doesn’t seem to think so. This is the same thing the SSPV does with regard to the Thuc consecrations. You can certainly claim that Arch. Thuc was imprudent at times to say the least. It doesn’t therefore follow that his ordained successors are non-catholics or invalid, as the SSPV supposedly believes. Same with the ’55 missal changes, we can have a discussion and legitimate disagreement about whether we should ‘obey the last pope’ or use epikeya. We cannot therefore declare the other side heretics because they disagree with a position we hold. That’s the point.

          • Lee

            Sure Fr. Cekada puts out good work on many different topics, but like you as much as you don’t recommend Speray’s website I don’t recommend Fr. Cekada or his bishops and you know who I’m talking about. Visiting a church a couple times doesn’t make you associated with it necessarily. Speray said to me (a primary source) that he visited his Church a couple times but that was a long time ago. By the way Fr. Cekada was asked over the phone if Pope Pius XII would be happy with him for not using his restored liturgy and his answer was “I got to go, talk to you another time.” Speray was the primary source.

            Bishop McKenna used the Traditional Dominican Missal. I don’t know if it was Pre-55 or not.

            I’ve already spoke my peace regarding the arguments and I know as a Catholic one must obey one’s lawful pastors. If you want to debate with God about it one day then that is your choice.

          • anna mack

            It is also worth considering that, although a true Pope, Pius XII was a weak Pope, who had clearly been ground down by WWII and was, at the time of the reforms, an ill man. Do you think that the ultimate results of “his” reforms would have pleased him? If a true Pope had followed him, would the reforms have stood?

            I think that Fr Cekada’s reasoning on this makes a lot of sense, but so does your position of unthinking obedience. Sede for Christ is right – the supporters of neither side of the argument have any business calling the other non-Catholic.

          • Sede for Christ

            That’s exactly right. Epikeya is basically what would the legislator do now in these circumstances which he most obviously didn’t foresee. I mean, disagreement is legitimate, but calling each other non-Catholics is unacceptable. And consider that only one side is doing this (thankfully not everyone though) the side that claims the moral high ground of obedience.

          • BurningEagle

            Although Catholic, the pontificates of Benedict XV, Pius XI, and Pius XII were soft, and in many people’s opinion, disasterous. That is why Cardinal de Lai is quoted as saying “humanly speaking, the church is finished,” at the election of Benedict XV. The program of St. Pius X needed to continue, but it was not. It is practically a miracle that St. Pius X got canonized. He was not well liked, especially by those who were of modernist tendancies.

          • Lee

            It’s not unthinking but rather thinking obedience because my obedience are to changes of a true pope (the same one Fr. Cekada believes in and the same one which he could not answer over the phone when asked if Pope Pius XII would be happy with him over this) which were not evil at the time they were installed and I follow them in same way as the time they were installed. Epikeya is an exuse that came from the SSPX (Fr. Didier Bonneterre’s book) and of course former SSPX Fr. Cekada, even though he rightly so is against them now has the same spirit as he did then in resisting his own pope, even though he says in his videos that when he grew up they were taught that “when the pope spoke, by God we listened.” Whatever.

          • Sede for Christ

            Epikeya was made up by the SSPX? The sspx never mentions epikeya. It’s a true principle in moral/dogmatic theology and canon law. Pls know what what ur talking about before you spout non-sense.

          • Novus Ordo Watch

            I would like to remind everyone that this is a combox, not a general discussion forum. The post you are commenting on is about the Vatican stamp honoring Martin Luther.

            A general heads-up: All combox threads will now close 30 days after a post has been published.

          • Lee

            I didn’t say it was made up by the SSPX. I said it came from that book by Didier Bonneterre an SSPX priest who wrote a book about the Liturgical Movement many years ago and he applied the principle the same way as Fr. Cekada does and the same way you do apparently. Pls read my comments and make rational sense of them before you spew out your nonsense you punk

          • Lee

            Have you read his Fr. Bonneterre’s book? The SSPX idea is resistance to a pope. That is what you are doing regardless of the endless excuses. Now after reading your post on his blog I see why you quit responding.

          • Sede for Christ

            Yes, I have. No, resistance to the pope. Not using epikeya as the Church always has. I quit responding because his problem, as is yours, is a problem of the will, not the intellect.

          • Lee

            Your problem is both the intellect and the will because the book shares the same ideas as Cekada. I’m not saying Cekada borrowed his ideas first because It’s very possible that they had the same ideas when they were in the SSPX together but that is where it stems from.

          • Sede for Christ

            Look up epikeya for crying out loud. It’s a true principle. And stop just repeating the same thing when you clearly don’t have a clue.

          • Lee

            I have for many years, and I agree with you about how it’s a true principle but you cannot not just apply it because you want to. Who gives Fr. Cekada the authority to do that? Earlier you said, “all sede clergy are canonically illegal strictly speaking.” Okay so why are we arguing about this?

          • Sede for Christ

            You do not need authority. Just the principles and a little common sense. all sede clergy are canonically illegal strictly speaking means that we use epikeya daily to just be Catholics. If we didn’t we end up as home aloners.

          • Lee

            I agree with you on all that except in this case. We don’t know what Pius XII would think now. It’s just an opinion because that’s what we think he would think now based on the aftermath. John XXIII and Paul VI wasted no time with changing the entire religion. Pope Pius XII could think of many things he could have done then if we are alive today. I knew a sede bishop who thought Pope Pius XII lost his pontificate because of these changes and more and believed he was pope after 1952. Where does it stop?

          • anna mack

            Don’t know why you’re coming back at me. I refer you to my earlier reply – I don’t have a problem with your stance, I just take a different one.

          • corvinus ✓ᴰᵉᵖˡᵒʳᵃᵇˡᵉ

            We can use our God-given judgment to dump the revised Holy Week rites as evil based upon subsequent history, and the fact that we haven’t had a Pope since 1958. Pius XII clearly didn’t know that Bugnini was going to totally trash the Mass. If he did, he would never allow him to have any input on liturgy at all, let alone approve of his changes. And any subsequent real Pope would almost certainly have condemned any and all of Bugnini’s changes.

            In contrast, by bringing this up, you are demanding approval of the Novus Ordo Missae in a back-door manner.

          • Lee

            You proved my point. By dumping the holy week as evil, you’re saying that a true pope approved of an evil. That is the problem. Total SSPX mentality in a sede form

          • Lee

            The liturgy cannot be tainted according to Pius XII. You guys keep saying that it was tainted by Pope Pius XII. Epikeya is only used when absolutely necessary. In this case it isn’t because back then it was fine and if you use it today as you did then it’s also fine. Even though you all won’t come out and admit it you’re really saying that those who use it are not Catholic because you believe it was evil. You are not Catholic if you reject Pope Pius XII. Sorry

          • Sede for Christ

            Again, a law of the Church can become evil through circumstance. If you deny that, you are a home aloner. That’s what they believe. This has nothing to do with Pius XII, it has to do with Epikeya. You don’t get to reject epikeya because you decide to.

          • Lee

            I agree with you from the first sentence. All you can do is give me opinions that it became harmful and therefore apply epikeya.

          • Lee

            I have many times. Why don’t you read Fr. Kevin Vaillancourts “Which Rite is Right” or from the Reign of Mary’s (I’ll have to find the addition) “Can one reject the Pope Pius XII changes of Holy week, by Fr. F. Radecki

          • Lee

            I went back after all that was said and clicked on your twitter link and Speray says he’s not too sure he would call a priest catholic who rejects the 1955 missal. He’s not saying he’s certain like you were accusing him of. HUGE difference. Plus I just went back to read Cekada’s article and he states that the 55 missal has “false principles and practices.” There it is. You don’t have to go any further. It’s contrary to the Catholic teaching on the liturgy. One can’t apply epieikeia to the 1955 missal
            because IT’S NOT NECESSARY as the law says it must be. You have two problems. First, Cekada states the 55 missal has false principles and practices which is impossible for a Catholic liturgy and your application of epikeya

          • Sede for Christ

            Doubting whether someone is catholic is equivalent to denying. Just like with heresy. Why don’t you talk to Fr. Cekada. I have and was satisfied, and he answered the questions, anyway. This debate could go on forever. Bye

          • Novus Ordo Watch

            Folks, I suggest you end it here. This has nothing to do with the post on the Luther stamp. If I have to close the combox on this post early, I will. It’s not that I want to stifle debate on this, it’s just that I do not have the time to moderate a forum.

            Let me just point out that doubt is not the same as denial. Doubt means a suspension of judgment, i.e. neither affirming nor denying. Doubting DOGMA is *morally* equivalent to denying it, but only because there is an obligation to not simply not deny dogma but also not doubt it, either. The moral obligation is to affirm dogma, hence the denial as well as the doubt is heretical.

          • anna mack

            To be fair, NOW, there really isn’t anything to say about the stamp – it’s the NO doing what the NO does. They like Luther. We know that. End of conversation. Like I said, nothing to say about the stamp :-/

          • corvinus ✓ᴰᵉᵖˡᵒʳᵃᵇˡᵉ

            No, I’m saying that the revised Holy Week rites may not be evil in and of themselves — which would be why Pius XII approved them — but subsequent history has revealed that the MOTIVE behind the revisions was purely evil, and if Pius XII had known, he would never have approved them.
            You’re just trying to get us to accept the Novus Ordo, and using this as a wedge issue. You might as well fess up and stop being dishonest.

          • Lee

            Your motive behind your comment is really evil and it’s a shame you are the way you are about this issue.

          • anna mack

            I don’t think that’s quite fair. Lee is perfectly justified in wanting to obey Pius XII. I happen to agree with Fr Cekada’s thesis on this, because it just makes sense in the light of Pius XII’s weakness, but we absolutely cannot say that it is *wrong* to follow a true Pope’s instruction. That puts us on a par with the SSPXers.

          • corvinus ✓ᴰᵉᵖˡᵒʳᵃᵇˡᵉ

            I never said that. While I personally would refuse to use Bugnini’s rite if I were a priest, I would not condemn those who do. The problem is that he and others of his ilk are hinting that WE are heretics because we apply epikeia in saying that perhaps 1) it’s okay to not use Bugnini’s Holy Week rite, and 2) Pius XII would not have approved it if he had known Bugnini’s motives, which are blatantly obvious to us now, fifty years later.

          • Lee

            Which was Pope? Pius XII or Bugnini? Who had the final say? Again they weren’t evil at the time and the changes in and of themselves (as you all half admit) are not evil. You guys create excuses for yourself the same way the SPPX does with their positions. You ought to be called SedeXXers.

          • corvinus ✓ᴰᵉᵖˡᵒʳᵃᵇˡᵉ

            Hey bub, you might try actually reading what I said on this thread again. Do it very slowly and carefully so your pea-sized brain has a chance to absorb it. Thank you.

          • corvinus ✓ᴰᵉᵖˡᵒʳᵃᵇˡᵉ

            Also, you might want to read up on the concept of “epikeia”. It does exist, you know, even if it’s repulsive to your hyperbureaucratic mind.

          • 2c3n1 .

            Begging the forgiveness of NOW, I’m going to interject here even though this is not really the place.

            Please read carefully…No one says you’re heretics for using epikeia. The argument is that you’re saying nothing is wrong with 55 missal while at the same time claiming it has false principles, practices, etc which means there really was something wrong with it. Even Anna Mack is accusing Pope Pius XII of being weak. How is that so if there is nothing really wrong with the 55 missal? Since the
            Church has defined that the liturgy is untainted, etc. and the Second Mark of the Church is holiness, for one to say the Church approved a missal that’s flawed appears to be heretical. See the difference? Motives are irrelevant.

            Also, you don’t know if Pope Pius XII didn’t see Bugnini’s motives. Perhaps he did and went along with the changes because the Pope wanted those particular changes, which again, are not harmful or tainted in anyway. They don’t nor could have flawed principles as Cekada stated. You’re speculating about everything and then applying epikeia to it when it really is not necessary. What is blatantly clear is that you, Cekada, etc. just don’t like the changes and are making up a dishonest excuse to do away with it.

            Epikeia is a real thing, and it’s only repulsive when applied unlawfully as it is with the 55 missal.

          • anna mack

            But surely liturgy is not dogma (it can, after all, be changed). In my heart of hearts, I do think that the 1955 changes were wrong but I respect the viewpoint of those who don’t, as Pius XII did officially sign off on them. There were some very dubious things going on in the Church at that time, and I don’t think that anyone can deny that Pius XII was not equipped to deal with them.

          • 2c3n1 .

            Yes, the liturgy can change and has changed many times over the 2000 history of the Church. Again, the liturgy which is universal discipline is infallible. Regardless whether you think it’s wrong, does not grant a right to use epikeia. It must be a necessary factor.

          • corvinus ✓ᴰᵉᵖˡᵒʳᵃᵇˡᵉ

            So the fact that the revised rite was written by Annibale Bugnini, who would later be responsible for completely mutilating our Mass and damning possibly literally billions of souls to hell, is a “dishonest excuse” to use epikeia, and it’s “repulsive” that we are doing so.

            Yeah, it’s clear whose side you’re on: the same one as Thomas Cranmer, Bugnini’s spiritual father. “No one says you’re heretics for using epikeia”… quit lying. That’s exactly what you’re doing, with the fangs coming out at the end.

          • 2c3n1 .

            The New Mass is not the 1955 missal. Yes, it’s repulsive to use epikeia on a good liturgy. I’m on the side of Pope Pius XII and I wasn’t lying. Where has anyone called you a heretic for using epikeia? You’re denying the holiness of the Church and your comment proves the real reason you don’t like the 55 missal…Bugnini…who’s irrelevant to the issue since a true pope approved the liturgy even if the devil himself drew it up. You are on the side of the SSPX who picks and chooses what will be accepted or rejected from the Catholic Church. Your comment is antiCatholic and uncharitable.

          • corvinus ✓ᴰᵉᵖˡᵒʳᵃᵇˡᵉ

            Well, it’s clear that while you would make an excellently insufferable bureaucrat, your ability to use logic and reason is somewhat lacking.

            And yes, you called me a heretic. Again. (Where, you ask? The whole thing about me “picking and choosing what’s Catholic like the SSPX”.)

            I suspect you think papal infallibility extends further than it does. But can Popes make mistakes and do something that is harmful? Most certainly. Otherwise, the Church wouldn’t be crawling with Modernist bishops and cardinals like Roncalli, Montini, and Wojtyla, or even Rampolla and Gibbons earlier. ALL OF WHOM were given their offices by valid Popes.

            One important reason for epikeia is to account for these situations where the Pope himself is making a mistake due to insufficient information (or, say, a bishop is being a blatant heretic). Would Pius XII have kept Montini around in powerful positions if he had known he would wreck the Church, instead of shutting him up in a monastery? Would Pius XII have approved Bugnini’s changes if he had known what he would do later?

            And your refusal to consider that is the crux of the problem here.

          • 2c3n1 .

            Yes, you pick and choose and you still can’t make proper distinctions. I’ve made myself perfectly clear where you are wrong and how but apparently you don’t want to see it.

            The Church has told us that infallibility extends to the universal laws and the liturgy. No, popes can’t make mistakes on the liturgy! Popes can mistakes about who they put in charge. Again, you don’t make proper distinctions.

            What is clear is that Pope Pius XII approved the 1955 missal no matter how much you want to say it was a mistake and he didn’t see the motives which are irrelevant.

            The crux of the problem is that you’re applying epikeia unlawfully and the best that you can do is go on and on about Bugnini and his motives.

          • anna mack

            Again with the “uncharitability”. The NOite’s default answer to every argument that doesn’t please him. Next you’ll be telling us that all we need is love. Calling people who want to abide by the pre-modernist teachings of the Church heretics (and, yes, that is what you’ve been doing) is not very…hmm…what’s the word? Charitable?

          • 2c3n1 .

            Oh, so now Pope Pius XII is a modernist and you don’t want to follow his liturgy? I see now.

          • Lee

            So pre-modernist teaching to you means Pope Pius XII was a modernist and therefore not a true pope (that’s what you’re implying). Do you really mean that?

          • Lee

            You remind me of the Dimond brothers. No wonder people won’t convert to the
            Catholic Church which is now without a pope. It’s because people like you scare them off as soon as they don’t agree with you.

        • Novus Ordo Watch

          Hello Paul,

          Here are my answers:

          1. It is certainly a mystical crown of thorns on the head of Christ, but the real issue is whether this can be done by the true Catholic Church, and the answer is clearly NO. Whether the Real Presence exists in the New Mass, ever, is actually not that important. Either way you cannot assist at it, and either way it is not a Roman Catholic Mass.

          2. Yes, of course I would admit the error if it were an error. I came to embrace Sedevacantism only after I had tried other alternatives and found them to be erroneous.

          4. You are misquoting the speaker. That’s simply not what he said. Please listen to the audio again, or read the transcript.

          5. No, I should not be in a church where God is mocked in the liturgy, because that church is not the Catholic Church. Nor should I be in a church where the priest professes communion with a false hierarchy, the very hierarchy that has imposed and uses the liturgy in which God is mocked, because it cannot be the Catholic Church.

          You said: >>> At the moment it would appear Sedevacantists are outside the visible Bark of St Peter, that concerns me, perhaps the mystical body of Christ is going through its mystical passion and indeed could be being mocked since Vatican 2, I wonder if in taking your stance, you are acting like St Peter, who with full sincerity and love for Jesus cut of the ear of ear of the soldier with his sword , but Jesus turned to St Peter and said ” would you deny the will of my Father”are you denying the will of the father for the mystical body of Christ? <<<

          No, we are not outside the visible Barque of St. Peter. We ARE outside the barque of Judas, however, as we ought to be. All your thoughts and your argumentation here presuppose, falsely, that the Vatican II Church is the Catholic Church. If you apply Catholic doctrine, however, to the facts about the Vatican II Church, the only possible conclusion is that that entity is NOT the Mystical Body of Christ, and therefore no Catholic can be a part of it.

          Thank you for your sincerity of will. I know you are striving to please Christ, as am I. God bless you, and let us pray for each other.

  7. B. Smalley

    I just finished reading THE GODMOTHER: Madre Pascalina. This great lady, who was Eugenio Pacelli’s personal secretary for more than 40 years, understood exactly what was happening to the Church. She saw the ultimate Protestant Revolt in the making.

  8. jay

    Even those who the Holy Spirit has yet given the “eyes” to see the false church and her ministers. Have to see how the secular world has fallen even farther into the abyss since Roncalli usurp the throne. The very idea that people believe that killing of the most innocent should be debated on whether it is an act of murder or not, is part of the fruits of Modernism and the VII council, The fact that many Vatican II sect members belong to a political party that endorses abortion and homosexual lifestyle give witness that they belong to a non Catholic sect. The Council’s false charity that has robbed many who might have turned from their false religions and embraced Christ’s Bride is a burden that those who follow the VII sect will have to carry. The clouded and ambiguous language of the Council and the Vat II anti Popes has confused and brought division to their followers to the point that they have run blindly away from the sect but as of yet have not come back to the Church Christ founded . The Sects members are blinded by the shiny appearance of the “bricks and mortar” but don’t realize yet that they are filled with dead men’s bones and corruption .

    • BurningEagle

      The “faux pas” thing is in line with Novus Ordo. But as Catholics, JP2’s kissing the koran is a blasphemous mortal sin against the first commandment of God. Thank God that Deb knows better now.
      It just goes to show you how corroding the Novus Ordo religion is. The more one is in-tune with it, the more bland and featureless everything becomes, to the point that nothing matters, and nothing is important. Most of them are spiritually neutered. “We’re all Chrissstians, and we all are going to heaven, and we must all be nice to one another, and be good humanists.”
      Agnosicism is a main component of Modernism. Novus Ordites have cornered the market on Modernism.

  9. BurningEagle

    You are hitting on the point that gets me a bit nervous: Jorge is not the problem.
    Its Jorge’s religion. Why didn’t all these Novus Ordites get upset with the pre-Jorge Novus Ordo Church? There were many just as outrageous things (especially with JP2). I fear that most of the NO folks who are upset with Jorge would love to go back to the days of “saint” John Paul II.

    The fact that Jorge is allowing divorced and remarried people and homosexuals to receive communion is no worse than JP2’s New Code of Cannon Law. There was no outrage for his heretical sermon on December 11, 1983 in a Lutheran Church. Amoris Laetitia is no worse than the New Mass of Paul VI. Where was the outrage at his preposterous address at the UN. Amoris Laetitia is no worse than the trashing the rite of ordination of priests and the rite of consecration of bishops.

    The condemned ecumenism of all of these “popes” as well as the 180 degree turn around with regard to freedom of religion and freedom of conscience (Pacem in Terris of John XXIII) is as nothing to most Novus Ordites. It is as if Mortalium Animos of Pius XI and Quanta Cura of Pius IX were never written.

    I have Novus Ordo relatives. They don’t give a hill of beans about anything. They go to their local church or meeting hall or whatever you call their hell-hole, because it is a social club. They think God doesn’t care. What is important is that everyone be nice to each other. None of us can ever know with certainty anything about God. But what we all must do is love one another, and be nice. That is their religion in a nutshell. Christ went through his passion and death so that we would learn to be nice to each other. That’s it! All of the church councils, all the papal pronouncements, all the “anathema sit” canons are all fluff.

    St Paul reminds us to HATE that which is evil and cling to the good.

    So sedevacantists sometimes get their back up when Novus Ordites try to disparage the “traditional” Catholic faith. We must all guard ourselves against this tendancy to bitter zeal, and yet we must not loose our hatred for the false religions. We should all give the benefit of the doubt to folks who are seeking the truth. But once someone starts attacking the Catholic religion (all or part of it) we certainly can let fly some nasty invectives. St. Thomas More, and St. Jerome are two people who come to mind. If you read up on some of their correspondences with the enemies of our religion, you will find some “very descriptive” insulting language.

    I agree that we all need to be more inviting to those who are seeking the truth. But sometimes the language of those who may be seeking the truth is encumbered with words and phrases which makes one think otherwise. When that happens with us who have been fighting for over 35 years, we very easily assume our helmet, sword, and shield, and begin another battle.

    • Deb

      Look, I agree there are people out there who do know all the facts and have known them for a long time, and still stubbornly, even seemingly pertinaciously, refuse to tell the truth about the Novus Ordo Sect. I have absolutely no problem with going into full battle mode with the molesting agents of sin who present themselves as prelates but have every intention to corrupt.

      When the Boston scandals broke, I went from thinking ‘What happened to my family was isolated’ to ‘How can this widespread scandal happen in God’s Church?’ I found a website that did lots of research on true and false apparitions, and learned a great deal about the fraud in Medjugorje and Garabandal. I found another website that was really good at documenting just how bad the scandals were, worldwide. At the time I read Malachi Martin’s books and learned something of Church recent history. Now, I’ve since come to believe he is not trustworthy, at least in some ways, but I had never heard of, say, Teilhard de Chardin or liberation theology before reading The Jesuits. After Martin, I read some writings of Michael D. O’Brien. Both O’Brien and Martin put forth the idea that it was bad people around the pope, and as I said before, that idea kept me around a while longer. And no, it wasn’t just the realization that Jorge was teaching heresy. I had come here to NOW and read their info on the other popes.

      When you hear time and again that JP2 was so conservative and prolife and devoted to Mary, yadayadayada, and Paul VI was so prescient in Humanae Vitae, and Benedict is so conservative and will be a bulldog when it comes to defending the faith – when you hear these things and don’t have the other side of the story, what is on NOW can be a little hard to believe at first. For the average catholic who doesn’t hear every sermon a pope gives, who aside from trying to follow the 10 Commandments and receive the sacraments doesn’t do much to grow in the faith, no, they will not really get the difference between “subsist” and “is”. But they will get that they’ve been taught communion for those in mortal sin is wrong. The modernists knew what they were doing by attacking the more obscure things (for the average Joe Catholic) than going right for the obvious.

      I don’t know how to get them to care. Lack of knowledge is definitely part of it. I cared because my family got torn apart by a priest molester and the bishop who covered for him. That’s where my journey here really started, not just with Jorge. I wish we could get more people to believe that the rite of consecration has been tampered with, and that the result has been invalid priests and therefore invalid Masses. If semitrads could believe that, they would care more. But they won’t believe it.

      • BurningEagle

        Good response, Deb. I am encouraged that cases like yours are out there.
        I am glad you have gotten to where you are.
        In my experience, whether I have been speaking with whole-hearted NO relatives and acquaintances, S?PX relatives or friends, or other R&R types, none of them have even tried to learn the faith. They do not want to be bothered with inconvenient truths which will cause them to modify their routines. And some of the theories and excuses put forth have been astounding. Most say (it is a cop out) they are too stupid to learn the faith, but then they argue for their positions with vehemence, even though they have admitted they are too stupid to learn the faith.

        It stands to reason that if you believe God cares about what religion one follows, then it is of utmost importance to find His religion, and continuously learn as much as one can about His religion, and put it all into practice: the doctrines, the morals, the discipline, and the worship. The “average Joe Catholic” has not been doing that since way, way before Vatican II. I would submit to you that what is going on now is God’s way of correcting that problem. If the Church is going to be resurrected more glorious than ever, Her members are going to have to know and practice their faith better than ever before. That may be the greater good that will be drawn out of this horrendous evil we are living in.

        Nevertheless, since Novus Ordites believe they are Catholic, and since they are at least supposed to believe in the “hermeneutic of continuity” to use the words of The Rat, they should be studying the pre-1958 faith assiduously. And so should R&R’s and sedevacantists. But, unfortunately, very few really want to learn their religion (both Trads and Novus Ordites). The sinful, lackadaisical, apathy towards learning the faith keeps many culpably ignorant. The ignorance makes many gullible to the lies. The lies lead to destruction.

        Gotta go. 1st Friday. “What’s that?” said the Novus Ordite.

  10. anna mack

    Deb, that is a very fair point. It’s kind like BurningEagle said, though – it just becomes impossible to debate with people who have absolutely no intention of really looking for the truth – basically, because they don’t really want to find it. They know the NO’s wrong but committing to traditional Catholicism causes a lot of inconveniences in one’s life. Being an R&Rer, on the other hand, is so much easier – bells and smells, nice churches, no two hour drive to Mass, no restriction on one’s actions, but very much hedging one’s bets on the afterlife. It is the worst kind of hypocrisy. I’m afraid that what little patience I have is saved for the out-and-out NOites who really don’t know any better.

    Unless we were born pre-1958, we’ve all been NO at some point. I abandoned it years ago because it just felt *wrong* (although, in my ignorance, I didn’t quite know why) but didn’t discover sedevacantism until much more recently (the “why” then became very clear). That said, I’ve never believed that islam was an acceptable thing for a Catholic to go anywhere near – some things are just blindingly obvious, with or without instruction.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.