Reflecting on Obligations

Admin

Administrator
1592554141877.png


Dear Readers,

Up to the time of this Administration's termination of our association with OLMC under Father Pfeiffer, Cor Mariae's policy was to support fully Fr. Pfeiffer and Father Hewko in their stand to refuse submission to Bishop Williamson as Superior. We pursued this policy relentlessly by seeking out quotes/lectures made by Bishop Williamson that confused many of us, and which cast doubts on the Sacrilegious nature of the Novus Ordae Missae and the placed-on-the-index Maria Val Torta's Poem of the Man God - to name a couple.

Whilst these things still concern us this Administration repents of the influence we may have had on any readers/members to go along with our support for OLMC's principled stand to refuse submission to Bishop Williamson. Through the charity of a visiting resistance priest to our shores we were shown that it is Church law that every priest needs a Bishop otherwise he is a vagus priest; that priests can/do have differences within themselves - even with their Bishop, and that that is nothing new in the history of the Church. During pre-Vat.II years the faithful were blissfully ignorant of such things because, at least publicly, priests all said exactly the same thing whichever parish you went to worldwide! It would never have occurred to anyone that the priests did not believe what they said/taught. The parents did not argue in front of the children. In that sense Vat.II was a good thing because it spewed forth this undercrrent revealing that many priests do not even have the faith.

I believe at least that unless OLMC priests were made fully aware of the research we had done on Cor Mariae at that time they may not have taken the public stand Fr. Hewko eventually did against B. Williamson, and which he maintains even more fervently to this day. It is my hope that my confession will help persuade him to remove that which keeps him separated from working in harmony with the loose federation of priests headed by Bishop Williamson. He needs a Bishop in order to obviate the danger of being head of a sect as is Fr. Pfeiffer who also refuses to accept a Bishop.

Furthermore, I regret any influence this Administration may have had on OLSC Melbourne faithful resulting in our combined opposition to Bishop Williamson, and what I consider to be at least MY self-righteous judgment against the priests who needed him as their Bishop. I repeat that priests can have differences within themselves and even with their Bishop, but that is nothing new in the history of the Church.

The loose federation of priests served by Bishop Williamson such as:
are all composed of priests-
  • who are ordained in the old right;
  • who refuse to say sacreligious Novus Ordo MIssae (NO Masses)
  • who refuse to say the Indult Mass
  • who refuse to work with the priestly fraternities of the neo-SSPX and the FSSP
  • who courageously preach against the heresies of Vat.II and the abomination that is the Conciliar counterfeit anti-Catholic Newchurch.
Internal disagreements/objections to the private opinions of individual priests and Bishop Williamson himself within the loose federation are normal. However, like uncut diamonds the rough edges tend to rub off as they unflinchingly remain faithful to their vow against modernism and serve us The Faithful and confused flock.

As a lowly member of the laity/pewsitter I speak as one of the sheep. Priests alone have been given the commission to teach.
It is my intention from now on to attend Masses offered ONLY by the aforesaid loose federation of priests where possible for me to attend. The only exception for me personally to cease attending is that if any priest/Bishop endeavours to impose on me his personal opinions regarding doctrine/NewMass/conciliar newchurch/sedevacantism/sede-whatever variations etc. etc.
When a priest speaks with the voice of the Shepherd the sheep hear his voice.

May God bless and keep each and every one of them. Amen

Kathleen Donelly

..
 
Last edited:
Through the charity of a visiting resistance priest to our shores we were shown that it is Church law that every priest needs a Bishop otherwise he is a vagus priest; that priests can/do have differences within themselves - even with their Bishop, and that that is nothing new in the history of the Church.

Dear Admin, the comment you posted illustrates some of the problems we are facing after Vatican 2.

In the excerpted quote above, there is an appeal to Church law to show why every Priest needs a Bishop. However, do you not think that if Church law is applicable to Priests, it should also be applicable to the Bishops and the faithful? If every Priest needs a Bishop, shouldn't every Bishop need a Pope? And if Priests can become vagus, aren't the Bishops also becoming vagus?

The situation us Catholics have to face after Vatican 2 is that each Bishop and Priest in Tradition is creating their own path under the mantle of preserving Tradition. And we also have similar problems in the Novus Ordo. Whether it is obedience, validity, lineage etc., instead of being united, we find more reasons to remain divided.
 

Admin

Administrator
My first reaction to your post cosmos2000 is that if these things are a problem to you, and only you, then 'they 'illustrate some of the problems we are facing after Vatican 2'. Every single soul counts.

I believe that SOME bishops operate under the mantle of tradition. Archbishop Lefebvre remained faithful to tradition full stop! Vat II spawned a new church with a new mass, priesthood, new Sacraments, new liturgy, new Code of Canon Law.


1592724025010.png

1592753658632.png

NB : "The New Ordo has been promulgated to REPLACE the old [...]


Paul VI finally divulged the above explanation six years from the day
of its imposition (April 3, 1969) in an allocution delivered on May 24, 1976.


If a Catholic Pope, Cardinal, Bishop, Priest or layman/woman remain faithful to the perennial teachings of the Church prior to Vat.II, - her liturgy, her doctrines, the impossibility of salvation without Our Lady's intercession etc. etc. - then he/she is faithful to tradition. The laity can easily see when any of the forenamed deviate from these things, making it perfectly clear such a cleric is a wolf in sheep's clothing - therefore not worthy of any more consideration than is Lucifer himself.

Your reference to the Pope suggests that you may be sedevacantist(?). Every Catholic needs the Pope. If the Pope teaches heresy (as is our current situation) then he is not to be obeyed. No Pope can order us to sin!

..
 
Last edited:
My first reaction to your post cosmos2000 is that if these things are a problem to you, and only you, then 'they 'illustrate some of the problems we are facing after Vatican 2'. Every single soul counts.

I believe that SOME bishops operate under the mantle of tradition. Archbishop Lefebvre remained faithful to tradition full stop! Vat II spawned a new church with a new mass, priesthood, new Sacraments, new liturgy, new Code of Canon Law.


View attachment 3294

View attachment 3298

NB : "The New Ordo has been promulgated to REPLACE the old [...]


Paul VI finally divulged the above explanation six years from the day
of its imposition (April 3, 1969) in an allocution delivered on May 24, 1976.


If a Catholic Pope, Cardinal, Bishop, Priest or layman/woman remain faithful to the perennial teachings of the Church prior to Vat.II, - her liturgy, her doctrines, the impossibility of salvation without Our Lady's intercession etc. etc. - then he/she is faithful to tradition. The laity can easily see when any of the forenamed deviate from these things, making it perfectly clear such a cleric is a wolf in sheep's clothing - therefore not worthy of any more consideration than is Lucifer himself.

Your reference to the Pope suggests that you may be sedevacantist(?). Every Catholic needs the Pope. If the Pope teaches heresy (as is our current situation) then he is not to be obeyed. No Pope can order us to sin!

..
Dear Admin, As much as Vatican II, its new mass, etc. does weaken the faith, the comment was written with regards to your appealing to Church law. Take for example, the annulment of Catholic marriages - does that fall under the mantle of Church Tradition or under Church Law?

Your comment states that based on Church law, every Priest needs a Bishop. Wouldn't the same Church law also apply to Bishops, that is, every Bishop needs a Pope?
 

Admin

Administrator
I am not sure what you mean about marriages. I understand it as divine law that the Sacrament of Marriage is indissoluble. What God has joined together let no man put asunder.

It seems logical to me that if a priest does not accept a Bishop as his superior that the same rule would apply to a Bishop if he refused to accept the Pope as his superior.
 
Last edited:
I am not sure what you mean about marriages. I understand it as divine law that the Sacrament of Marriage is indissoluble. What God has joined together let no man put asunder.

It seems logical to me that if a priest does not accept a Bishop as his superior that the same rule would apply to a Bishop if he refused to accept the Pope as his superior.
Dear Admin, Yes, the sacrament of Marriage is indissoluble. But it is Church law that decides cases of annulment (e.g. Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon).

The crisis of the Church after Vatican 2 has led Priests and Bishops of Tradition to invoke supplied jurisdiction, an ecclesiastical law, to minister to the faithful.

In normal times, Priests and Bishops of the Catholic Church abide by ecclesiastical law. However these are not normal times. Hence every Priest and Bishop of Tradition can become a vagus Priest and vagus Bishop, creating their own path under the mantle of preserving Tradition.
 

Admin

Administrator
In normal times, Priests and Bishops of the Catholic Church abide by ecclesiastical law. However these are not normal times. Hence every Priest and Bishop of Tradition can become a vagus Priest and vagus Bishop, creating their own path under the mantle of preserving Tradition.
Every priest CAN become a vagus priest - of course! But every priest has not become so - for example the priests with B. Williamson/other similar Bishops as their superior(s).

I agree that these are not normal times - so to speak. One wonders though if any times are normal(?) We have been provided with the weapons to deal with Vat II council which spawned a new church with a new mass, priesthood, new Sacraments, new liturgy, new Code of Canon Law.
One keeps the apostolic faith by following Bishops who remain loyal to the perennial teachings of Mother Church - thus subject to the Pope as was Archbishop Lefebvre when he said:

Do you agree with the great encyclicals of all the popes who preceded you? Do you agree with Quanta Cura of Pius IX, Immortale Dei and Libertas of Leo XIII, Pascendi Gregis of Pius X, Quas Primas of Pius XI, Humani Generis of Pius XII? Are you in full communion with these Popes and their teachings? Do you still accept the entire Anti-Modernist Oath? Are you in favor of the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ?" (Archbishop Lefebvre, Interview with Fideliter Magazine, 1988).

See also:
Mind of a Faithful Servant of God
The Church resides in those faithful to tradition

..
 
Last edited:

Admin

Administrator
Catholics who comprise the resistance movement in sections of Australia have to choose between going for long periods without the Sacraments (6 months or more) even though priests with BW are available to us and who have BW as their Superior. Would any reader condemn a penitent for receiving the Sacraments from such a priest rather than live in a state of mortal sin indefinitely? I suppose said penitent could make an act of perfect contrition and depend on extra graces coming through Our Lady even if the former commits another mortal sin or two. Or a baby could remain unbaptised indefinitely and an older child unconfirmed when all you have to do is trust Our Lady. "Make sure though that you never, never trust a true priest if he is under B. Williamson. Trust MY Immaculate Heart instead and I will look after you".

I would fear more for the state of my smug and complacant soul than to think for one moment that Our Lady would look after me in preference to receiving her Divine Son in Holy Mass, and being forgiven in the Sacrament of Penance let alone risking the souls of my unbaptised baby and unconfirmed son. I, or my children, could drop dead in the meantime, but that wouldn't matter - Our Lady will look after me.

I cannot think of anyone who would knowingly go down that track. Neither can I think of anyone who would Unknowingly go down that track.

This Administration’s loudest critics of anyone who would receive the Sacraments from such a priest have had constant access to the Sacraments provided by priests who encourage them to avoid priests under Bishop Williamson. Let that sink in. It is how many of us in Australia fell into the trap of being so-called ‘home-aloners’ or coming under the sole dominion of a singular priest with no Superior.

The priest can be a drunkard, a womaniser even a heretic but if ordained in the old rite he can administer the Sacraments. He never loses the indelible mark of his Baptism so that he is a Catholic ; and he never loses the indelible mark of his priesthood with the power to forgive sins and give Holy Communion. For the rest he has to answer to God for his own sins whether they be of a doctrinal nature or moral one. But one thing is for sure - I have no right to judge him. Worse - to disguise my self-righteousness with the cloak of humility and charity by using our Lady as a shield would be despicable.

We have an obligation to know and obey the teachings of the Church under pain of serious sin.

How can anyone judge B.Williamson and his priests if they falter on doctrine or anything else when we are not privvy to their community life where they keep pulling each other up if or when they falter? Or when they get depressed and need the encouragement of their brother priests? Or when they get tarred with the same brush as paedophile/homosexual priests-who-were-never-true-priests-in-the-first-place.

It is one of the problems of our times that the flock is now subject mainly to the opinions of this priest or that, of this Bishop or that. When we know the Faith ourselves we simply ignore opinions regardless of anyone who spouts them.

I have to know my own faith, and a priest or Bishop cannot make me do anything wrong full stop. Like me, if he does something wrong, he has to answer to God for it, but it can never justify my refusing the vital Sacraments I need in order to save my soul.

..
 
Last edited:
Catholics who comprise the resistance movement in sections of Australia have to choose between going for long periods without the Sacraments (6 months or more) even though priests with BW are available to us and who have BW as their Superior. Would any reader condemn a penitent for receiving the Sacraments from such a priest rather than live in a state of mortal sin indefinitely?
Undoubtedly the resistance movement in Australia is facing a most difficult situation. Perhaps Bp. Williamson foresaw that this situation would arise. Hence in his 2015 CT/NY conference he answers the faithful to "do whatever you need to nourish your faith" regarding attending the Novus Ordo mass along with SSPX masses. Thus he paved the path for Traditional Catholics to seek various pastures that would have been frowned upon in the Old SSPX.


How can anyone judge B.Williamson and his priests if they falter on doctrine or anything else when we are not privvy to their community life where they keep pulling each other up if or when they falter? Or when they get depressed and need the encouragement of their brother priests? Or when they get tarred with the same brush as paedophile/homosexual priests-who-were-never-true-priests-in-the-first-place.
..
Faithfulness to Catholic doctrine was advocated by Archbishop Lefebvre. It was doctrinal reasons that led to the 2012 Resistance movement, and also doctrinal reasons that led to judging Bp. Williamson and Priests who submit to him.
 

Admin

Administrator
Undoubtedly the resistance movement in Australia is facing a most difficult situation. Perhaps Bp. Williamson foresaw that this situation would arise. Hence in his 2015 CT/NY conference he answers the faithful to "do whatever you need to nourish your faith" regarding attending the Novus Ordo mass along with SSPX masses. Thus he paved the path for Traditional Catholics to seek various pastures that would have been frowned upon in the Old SSPX.
Yes. 'Paving the way for Traditional Catholics to seek various pastures ....' opens up the whole can of worms which the laity, and probably the priests also, are painfully unequipped/trained to deal with. That is due to the brakes put on by VatII council. Fifty years wasted where more should have been demanded of us, priests and laity, to follow the example of the saints to become perfect as our Heavenly Father is perfect.
We have stagnated and in our stagnation we have turned back to where the conciliar new church is leading us. Back to Egypt like our forebears who complained to Moses:

And the children of Israel said to them: Would to God we had died by the hand of the Lord in the land of Egypt,
when we sat over the fleshpots, and ate bread to the full: Why have you brought us into this desert, that you
might destroy all the multitude with famine? (Ex. 16:3).......
......And the Lord said to Moses: Behold I will rain bread from heaven for you; let the people go forth, and gather
what is sufficient for every day: that I may prove them whether they will walk in my law, or not.

Faithfulness to Catholic doctrine was advocated by Archbishop Lefebvre. It was doctrinal reasons that led to the 2012 Resistance movement, and also doctrinal reasons that led to judging Bp. Williamson and Priests who submit to him.
As one who went down the path of 'judging Bp Williamson and the Priests who submit to him' we ended up drifting into the situation of being 'home-aloners' where we went for long periods without the Sacraments. We put all our trust in Our Lady and the example of the Chinese faithful who went for years where no priest whatever was available.

At the same time we were recovering from our separation from from OLMC . We were regularly provided with the Sacraments from Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Hewko at that time and received excellent teaching in doctrine. I, personally, owe them a great deal for the great efforts they put in to serving us and learning the machinations(?) of the faith. It was a time of real growth.

Then crunch-time came when:
9. Choosing to remain faithful to its Mission Statement (the Melbourne faithful) were not prepared to refuse the
Sacraments if or when offered to them by a true resistance non-sedevacantist priest saying the traditional Mass.*
Having just learned, after a year, what Father’s agenda was, (Melb. faithful) realised that any priest who demanded to be de facto pastor over a de facto ‘parish’; who had no Superior; who was under no authority thus answerable to no-one above him - that such a set-up was not Catholic.​
10. Parish Priest’s first commandment to us (as his) parishioners when asked: [.....] What is required of us as a parish under your headship? He replied:​
i) that to miss Mass on one of his visits [we] would be under the obligation to attend as if it was a Sunday. Translated,​
this means that [we] would be committing a mortal sin if [we] did not attend his Mass (and as it turned out - ONLY
his Mass).​
ii) He added that as a member of his parish praying together was fine, but if not a member of his parish [we] would​
be protestant.**
Melbourne faithful members met regularly to pray fifteen decades of the Rosary. In their daily lives they say the Rosary, offer Spiritual Communions, say the Stations of the Cross, make sacrifices, refuse to attend the only indult Mass available - yet they would be protestant unless they became members of Father's parish. (Source)

*What Father had made clear to us was that if any other true-to-ABL resistance priest offered us the Sacraments he, Fr. Father, would refuse to give us the sacraments. He did not say this at a Conference to give time to ask questions. To prove his point that he would not take questions he arbitrarily cancelled the next scheduled Mass. He had delivered an ultimatum.

**At that time The Catacombs forum, themselves under the singular authority of Fr. Pfeiffer/OLMC priests, condemned us also as will be readily seen HERE. Father Hewko has since left OLMC and taken The Catacombs under his wing minus Fr. Pfeiffer.

The above gives a rough background to the direction taken that led the Melbourne faithful into the situation of going for long periods without the Sacraments because we took +Lefebvre seriously. Speaking for myself, I still do. But after a period of l2 months, it gradually became evident that this was an extremely dangerous situation. And one that the Archbishop would not approve of.

I have endeavoured to outline it in the above post.

Due to the fact that this forum has contributed to keeping the priesthood divided, it is incumbent upon me to state publicly that I will no longer refuse to receive the Sacraments from a true faithful-to-tradition priest with BW as his superior if such priest offers to provide them.
*Even the just man sins 7 times a day, and most of us are oceans away from the state-of-grace enjoyed by the just man. Better to look at the plank in my own eye before removing the beam in the eyes of of my brother.

You refer to my saying:
How can anyone judge B.Williamson and his priests if they falter on doctrine or anything else when we are not privvy to their community life where they keep pulling each other up if or when they falter? Or when they get depressed and need the encouragement of their brother priests? Or when they get tarred with the same brush as paedophile/homosexual priests-who-were-never-true-priests-in-the-first-place.
Thoughts to ponder:
When the priests confer with their Bishop and fellow priests they go through a time where they can and do accuse, disagree, correct each other.
Advice can be given and taken on board, or rejected outright. Is it better for the faithful to have the Bishop admit publicly that what he said was wrong? Might it do more harm than good? Did I gave advice publicly when I should have given it privately according to her needs. A priest once told a lady that the new mass was a sacrilege and she fell apart.*** Weak souls, strong souls, devious souls are all in the mix and public conferences are full of such attendees. AND the priests have to compete on a daily basis with a hierarchy that seems hell-bent on destroying the faith and wiping it off the planet. AND none of the above even begins to deal with the new Pentecost where homosexuality is being sanctified. Struggling priests like those in the resistance movement get tarred with the same feathers...God help them!

Am I always right when I teach my children? Is my example perfect? Am I without sin? Have I never compromised on doctrine?

*** Taken from another website:​
I have a friend who is trying to pull herself away from the N.O.M., to which she is attached emotionally and socially. She has been​
to many TLM's, which she recognizes from experience as a distinctly different category of Mass, but she's stuck on the "valid" label
for the N.O.M. She acknowledges that the N.O.M. leaves her spiritually empty. She's a convert and a sedeplenist, so I don't​
want to scare her off with reading that will alarm her or cause her doubts about the faith. It can be an online publication,​
a printed book, or lectures/sermons, but I do want to give her substance and not mere polemics.​

Am I always right when I teach my children? Is my example perfect? Am I without sin? Have I never compromised on doctrine?

This forum was the primary source for publishing long lists of of Bishop Williamson's quotes that WE deemed undoctrinal. We did the research ourselves and broadcast that list, privately and publicly in defence of our decision to refuse receiving the Sacraments from priests who accepted him as their Superior. Our refusal to receive the Sacraments was based on the (what I now believe to be self-righteous) judgment that his priests had the obligation to correct their Bishop publicly on matters of doctrine - that unless they did that they were as wrong as he was. We stuck to the teaching of Archbishop Lefebvre that doctrine was to be our guideline when, now - for the first time, we, the unprepared/inexerienced laity had to choose between priests. The priests/bishops no longer spoke with the one voice as in pre-VatII days, but began to give opinions, opinions, opinions......



1592993188090.png


..​
 
Last edited:

MaryM

Well-Known Member


Dear Readers,

Up to the time of this Administration's termination of our association with OLMC under Father Pfeiffer, Cor Mariae's policy was to support fully Fr. Pfeiffer and Father Hewko in their stand to refuse submission to Bishop Williamson as Superior. We pursued this policy relentlessly by seeking out quotes/lectures made by Bishop Williamson that confused many of us, and which cast doubts on the Sacrilegious nature of the Novus Ordae Missae and the placed-on-the-index Maria Val Torta's Poem of the Man God - to name a couple.

Whilst these things still concern us this Administration repents of the influence we may have had on any readers/members to go along with our support for OLMC's principled stand to refuse submission to Bishop Williamson. Through the charity of a visiting resistance priest to our shores we were shown that it is Church law that every priest needs a Bishop otherwise he is a vagus priest; that priests can/do have differences within themselves - even with their Bishop, and that that is nothing new in the history of the Church. During pre-Vat.II years the faithful were blissfully ignorant of such things because, at least publicly, priests all said exactly the same thing whichever parish you went to worldwide! It would never have occurred to anyone that the priests did not believe what they said/taught. The parents did not argue in front of the children. In that sense Vat.II was a good thing because it spewed forth this undercrrent revealing that many priests do not even have the faith.

I believe at least that unless OLMC priests were made fully aware of the research we had done on Cor Mariae at that time they may not have taken the public stand Fr. Hewko eventually did against B. Williamson, and which he maintains even more fervently to this day. It is my hope that my confession will help persuade him to remove that which keeps him separated from working in harmony with the loose federation of priests headed by Bishop Williamson. He needs a Bishop in order to obviate the danger of being head of a sect as is Fr. Pfeiffer who also refuses to accept a Bishop.

Furthermore, I regret any influence this Administration may have had on OLSC Melbourne faithful resulting in our combined opposition to Bishop Williamson, and what I consider to be at least MY self-righteous judgment against the priests who needed him as their Bishop. I repeat that priests can have differences within themselves and even with their Bishop, but that is nothing new in the history of the Church.

The loose federation of priests served by Bishop Williamson such as:
are all composed of priests-
  • who are ordained in the old right;
  • who refuse to say sacreligious Novus Ordo MIssae (NO Masses)
  • who refuse to say the Indult Mass
  • who refuse to work with the priestly fraternities of the neo-SSPX and the FSSP
  • who courageously preach against the heresies of Vat.II and the abomination that is the Conciliar counterfeit anti-Catholic Newchurch.
Internal disagreements/objections to the private opinions of individual priests and Bishop Williamson himself within the loose federation are normal. However, like uncut diamonds the rough edges tend to rub off as they unflinchingly remain faithful to their vow against modernism and serve us The Faithful and confused flock.

As a lowly member of the laity/pewsitter I speak as one of the sheep. Priests alone have been given the commission to teach.
It is my intention from now on to attend Masses offered ONLY by the aforesaid loose federation of priests where possible for me to attend. The only exception for me personally to cease attending is that if any priest/Bishop endeavours to impose on me his personal opinions regarding doctrine/NewMass/conciliar newchurch/sedevacantism/sede-whatever variations etc. etc.
When a priest speaks with the voice of the Shepherd the sheep hear his voice.

May God bless and keep each and every one of them. Amen

Kathleen Donelly

..
Excellently written.
It may be well to also mention the bishops in the loosely associated bishops and priests with b. Williamson:
- b. Zendejas
- b. Dom Thomas Aquinas
- b. Faure
 

MaryM

Well-Known Member
Dear Admin, Yes, the sacrament of Marriage is indissoluble. But it is Church law that decides cases of annulment (e.g. Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon).

The crisis of the Church after Vatican 2 has led Priests and Bishops of Tradition to invoke supplied jurisdiction, an ecclesiastical law, to minister to the faithful.

In normal times, Priests and Bishops of the Catholic Church abide by ecclesiastical law. However these are not normal times. Hence every Priest and Bishop of Tradition can become a vagus Priest and vagus Bishop, creating their own path under the mantle of preserving Tradition.
I encourage you to be careful using the "crisis in the Church" as justification for anything. It is a slippery slope which has brought Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Hewko to where they are today.
 

MaryM

Well-Known Member
Due to the fact that this forum has contributed to keeping the priesthood divided, it is incumbent upon me to state publicly that I will no longer refuse to receive the Sacraments from a true faithful-to-tradition priest with BW as his superior if such priest offers to provide them.




I encourage you to also consider priests under valid and legitimate bishops who do not work under b. Williamson, if there are any in Australia.

ROME will lose the Faith. This includes some "traditional" priests who do not follow basic canon law, like submitting to a superior. Once they go down that path, all sorts of other errors creep in.
 

Admin

Administrator
In the above post under 'Thoughts to ponder' reference was made to a Novus Ordo attendee being stuck on the question of its validity rather than its morality.

THE GREAT SACRILEGE (pgs. 22 -23)

[….] is, though the prayers of these liturgies are doctrinally pure and unquestionably Catholic, their emphasis and mentality and mode of expression are not so intimately related to, or so interdependent with, the decrees of the Council of Trent as are the prayers of the Mass of the Latin Rite.

From all the above, it is quite clear that Pope Paul VI's imposition of the “New Mass” is in no sense of the word an act of his infallible teaching authority. It must be assessed as a pastoral act, one which pertains to the discipline and practice of the Roman Rite. Once this point is clearly understood, we are free to draw the following conclusions:

1. In issuing the “Novus Ordo,” Pope Paul was using his legitimate authority. But, we are permitted to discuss whether he was abusing his authority in doing so. Moreover we are compelled to do so in view of what the “New Mass” is!

2. Since there is no question of papal infallibility involved, it is not at all out of order to question either the morality, the liceity, the validity, the orthodoxy, the nature, the purpose (given or real), the wisdom, or any other aspect of the “New Mass.”

All the foregoing has been thought necessary because of the aura of untouchability which surrounds the subject of the “New Mass.” Not a little of this mentality was deliberately created, as I will have occasion to point out again further on. For the present, if we are agreed that the subject is permissible and open to discussion, we will begin.

Necessarily, all the aspects listed above will receive consideration in the following pages; not specifically, however, but by way of inclusion. The main emphasis here will be on the morality of that Act by which Pope Paul introduced and imposed his “Mass,” a subject which, strangely, seems to have been raised by only a few lay people. Almost all discussion, sparse as it has been in view of the seriousness of the subject, has centered around either the legality of this Act or the validity of the Consecration of the wine, due to the obvious mistranslation of the Consecration Form. I am forced to say, however, that their discussion has taken too much attention from the larger and more obvious question, namely, how the “New Mass” contradicts the will of God. The explanation for this gross oversight, the almost entire failure to examine the “New Mass” and the morality of its imposition, is the legalism to which Catholics of the Latin Rite are so prone, and for which our enemies have often justly found fault with us. Thus, those who have accepted the “New Mass,” whether gladly or reluctantly, have done so under the mistaken notion that its introduction was legal, or at least apparently so, and therefore, its acceptance was both permissible and necessary. Most of those who have made an effort to resist the final and complete imposition of the “New Mass” have directed their fire against the technical flaws in its makeup (real as they are) and at the illegal mode of its imposition, rather than at the morality of the Pope's Act, as we shall do here.

..
 
Last edited:
I encourage you to be careful using the "crisis in the Church" as justification for anything. It is a slippery slope which has brought Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Hewko to where they are today.
The "crisis in the Church" is used by all traditional groups to justify their positions. If Rome comes back to the faith (e.g. pre-Vatican 2 days), do you think this or future "crisis" will go away? Modernism is unstoppable. Popes after Pope Pius X could not stop this monstrosity. We need to pray and fast for Heaven to intervene.
 

Admin

Administrator
Who are the superiors of Bishop Williamson, Faure, Dom Thomas Aquinas and Zendejas?
As you will see here Cor Mariae has chosen Archbishop Lefebvre as our Patron because he continues to teach the the traditional faith full stop.
There is only one Catholic Faith - that which continues to....


“...... agree with the great encyclicals of all the popes who preceded you? Do you agree with Quanta Cura of Pius IX, Immortale Dei and Libertas of Leo XIII, Pascendi Gregis of Pius X, Quas Primas of Pius XI, Humani Generis of Pius XII? Are you in full communion with these Popes and their teachings? Do you still accept the entire Anti-Modernist Oath? Are you in favor of the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ? (Archbishop Lefebvre, Interview with Fideliter Magazine, 1988)

The Archbishop made something else quite clear:

Don't say, 'We follow Mgr. Lefebvre,' no! Why Mgr. Lefebvre? He's no saint! But you follow Jesus Christ and the
Tradition of the Church. You remain Catholic! What more do you want? No other thing!
I refuse to say, "I am the chief of the people who follow tradition." No, no, no, no! I am a Catholic bishop, no more,
and I continue my work to preach Catholic doctrine. I do my work to prepare Catholic priests, and through them,
the Catholic faithful, and no other thing. No! Don't say "the doctrine of Mgr. Lefebvre." I have no doctrine. I have
no new teaching. My teaching is that of the Church, the teaching of the Catholic Church and the catechism of the
Council of Trent. That is very important - to remain in the true way - and not to give the impression that you have
founded a new Church. That is what the Modernists are doing - they build a new church. We don't build a new
church; we follow the Catholic Church of always. (Interview with Archbishop Lefebvre : Given on April 27, 1986 at St. Michael's Mission, Atlanta, GA)
Archbishop Lefebvre's Superior was the Pope whom he disobeyed when he consecrated four Bishops. After that event he had no ecclesiastical jurisdiction nor did the four bishops he consecrated. He relied on Supplied Jurisdiction as did the early years of the SSPX up til the SSPX began its gradualist merger with conciliar Rome where now it receives jurisdiction with regard to Confession and Marriage.

So the four Bishops are in the same position as Archbishop Lefebvre. Their superior is the Pope himself whom they continue to disobey until Rome converts.

We are not going to enter into a debate on Supplied Jurisdiction here because as you say Cosmos the Modernists will never give up. They are presently debating, arguing semantically about this subject already, thus trying to destroy the whole edifice that the good Archbishop fought valiantly to preserve. The one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church is alive and well. God has provided us with all that is necessary if we simply stick to the Catechism of our childhood and adhere to the magnificent faith of our Fathers.

..
 
Last edited:
Top