LifeSiteNews: "Readership Has Plummeted"
LSN was becoming pseudo-Sede under Westen. Couple that with embracing conspiracies, flat-earthers, their anti-vax stance etc. it’s easy to see why he was removed, as well Kokx. They probably need to get rid of a few others too.
Bishop Strickland: In the Battle Between Life and Death, the Time for Compromise is Over
So a priest taking a small piece and giving it as Viaticum to a sick relative wouldn’t receive the sanctifying grace effect?
Bishop Strickland: In the Battle Between Life and Death, the Time for Compromise is Over
If #2 is true then it would mean sacraments in voto extend beyond baptism of blood/desire and perfect contrition and to the Eucharist. In which case why not extend to Holy Orders? And in that case you’re into the same theology as Hans Kung and consequently the validity of Anglican orders.
Cardinal Müller: "A Heretical Pope Would Be Catastrophic"
At least he recognizes that a heretic can be pope.
Bishop Schneider Against Archbishop Viganò – and Vice Versa
Unfortunately he’s probably correct in his assessment.
Bishop Williamson Suffered Brain Hemorrhage, Received Last Rites
I am reading reports that this is from a fake account and that the bishop is still alive. The times don’t tally: the reports says he died around 12pm, yet there was an update to his channel 5 hours ago saying he was unconscious.
Cardinal Who Excommunicated Archbishop Lefebvre Now on Path to 'Beatification'
Thanks, that confirms what I wrote: “… letter of July 1st, to inform Their Excellencies … of the excommunication latæ sententiæ …”,. In other words, confirming the operation of canon 1387.
Cardinal Who Excommunicated Archbishop Lefebvre Now on Path to 'Beatification'
Fake news, he didn’t excommunicate Lefebvre. A latae sententiae penalty means you excommunicated yourself. Gantin merely confirmed that fact.
Bishop Schneider: Catholics Can Attend "Pious" Novus Ordo Eucharists
@K R Ross you made 3 claims in your posts all of which are false. 1) that Lefebvre did not say one could assist at "pious Novus Ordo Masses" – you now accept this as false. 2) that it “was never his position” – you’ve now changed this to his position changed/developed over a period of time, though you can’t produce a single quote of his that proves the case. 3) that the reasons Lefebvre gave for rejecting any assistance were solely doctrinal – if this really was the case Rome would have insisted on a clause in the 1988 protocol with Lefebvre retracting such a stance.
To expand on these:
#1 You don’t get the point. That Lefebvre had the same opinion means that your criticism of Schneider in another post also applies to him, i.e.
Archbishop Lefebvre is wrong: St. Matthew V: 37 "Let your word be Yes for Yes, and No for No; whatever goes beyond this, comes from the evil one." etc. …
(Lefebvre’s changing his opinion, if he really did, is irrelevant and does not change this fact)
#2 Extraordinary claims require extraordinary references. You’re the one making the claim, it is you who needs to prove it. I cannot, nor can anyone, prove a negative all that can be said is that there is no evidence that Lefebvre had this absolute and extreme position (if there was I’m sure it would have surfaced long ago). Moreover, you do him an injustice, he was a skilled diplomat do you think he would have painted himself into such a corner?
The argument ‘attending the NO Mass can cause one to loose the Faith’ can be countered with ‘those who don’t attend Mass regularly lose the Faith’ (Covid showed that), it is no doubt influenced by the character of the individual which is why such an absolute statement is wreckless. Here’s what Lefebvre said when he learnt of no Latin Mass in Madrid:
“If there is no more mass of St Pius V in Madrid, if one is logical with those who are strict on the question of the mass, one would have to tell all people in Madrid that they cannot put in a foot in a church, one has to be logical, one has to be logical.. Do you feel in conscience capable to tell all people in Madrid, the whole city of Madrid, all Catholics : you cannot set foot anymore in a Church ? I do not dare saying that in such an absolute manner, since there are quite a few conditions…”
#3 Lefebvre’s views/comments were well known in Rome. In 1980 Cardinal Seper, who was anxious over some of his comments, was granted an interview with Lefebvre. Lefebvre summarised his opinion to Seper in writing on 9 May 1980:
“Those who feel themselves obliged in conscience to assist at the New Mass on Sunday can fulfil their Sunday obligation. But one cannot accuse a person of a grave fault because he prefers not to assist at Mass on Sunday rather than assist at the New Mass.”
Do you not think, had Rome doubted Lefebvre’s words, they would not have insisted in a clause in the 1988 protocol?
If Lefebvre hardened his stance it was due to the increase in abuses as Michael Davies notes: when Lefebvre stated that: “these New Masses are incapable of fulfilling our Sunday obligation,” he is referring to New Masses which involve “sacrilegious acts which pervert the faith by diminishing it.” The declaration which he made at my [Michael Davies] request makes it quite clear that this was indeed his meaning.
But serveral years ago one of Lefebvre’s own bishops gave exactly the same advice as Bishop Schneider on NO Mass attendance (and not even to fulfill the Sunday obligation, but a weekday Mass). “Do what you need to do to nourish your Faith” was the response (or words to that effect).
Bishop Schneider: Catholics Can Attend "Pious" Novus Ordo Eucharists
The quote of his is taken from the sspx.org website:
What Archbishop Lefebvre said about the New Mass
Bishop Schneider: Catholics Can Attend "Pious" Novus Ordo Eucharists
Archbishop Lefebvre’s advice to his seminarians:
“Make every effort to have the Mass of St. Pius V, but if it is impossible to find one within forty kilometers and if there is a pious priest who says the New Mass in as traditional a way as possible, it is good for you to assist at it to fulfill your Sunday obligation."
The same advice as that of Bishop Schneider.
Is this fake or true? Archbishop Lefebvre: “I agree with your desire to reordain conditionally these …
While the letter is genuine it’s difficult to gauge the context without the letter from Wilson to Lefebvre. But he doesn’t say he ordains conditionally in all cases. His understanding of defect of intention though is wrong, even a heretic can validly baptise.
Bishop Schneider: Catholics Can Attend "Pious" Novus Ordo Eucharists
Yes he did, “ if one does not have the choice and if the priest celebrating Mass according to the Novus Ordo is faithful and worthy, one should not abstain from going to Mass.”
Bishop Schneider: Catholics Can Attend "Pious" Novus Ordo Eucharists
Bp. Schneider is most likely correct. I cannot see any objection. Moreover Abp. Lefebvre allowed his seminarians to attend the NO Mass during their summer break, so I don’t see the issue.
“SSPX Episcopal Consecrations – Ignoring the Past” – Guest article by Joseph Bevan
@K R Ross thanks for the response. Is licity really an issue since in 88 there were only 2 consecrators? With regard to #2 has the society ever expressed doubt about ordinations in the new rite? I don’t think she has - though you may find individual priests who have expressed an opinion. I don’t think that it’s the official line or you’d have to doubt the pope is the pope since there would necessarily be a doubt about whether he’s the bishop of Rome.
“SSPX Episcopal Consecrations – Ignoring the Past” – Guest article by Joseph Bevan
@K R Ross why? What if the pope said “sure, send the bishop-elects to Rome and I’ll consecrate them myself”. What could be the objection?