“Cardinal Lienart is known to us as having been directly involved in the coup d’état on Oct. 13 1962, perpetrated at the initial session of Vatican II, to allow the Rhine countries (aka the liberal alliance) to dominate the run of the Council. This Cardinal asked Canon Descomets to hear his deathbed confession. The moribund Cardinal asked his confessor that his reputation be justly tarnished by making public his true hidden life, and so asked to bypass the seal of confession. But, careful to avoid a Church scandal, careful for his position and the privilege of keeping the old Mass, the Canon preferred to state a plain message:
‘You know, on his death bed, Cardinal Lienart said that, for him, humanly speaking, the Church was lost.’
The Canon also revealed the objectives of the Cardinal and his friends:
The first objective was to produce a rupture with the Mass which, without being truly invalid in its new form, could become so by defect of intention of the celebrant. The objective was easy to reach in that they had planned the dissolution of the priestly studies. Before long, the priests would finally cease to believe in the propitiatory value of the Holy Sacrifice, seeing in it only a ‘memorial’ or a ‘sacred meal.’
The second objective was to produce the rupture of the apostolic succession by modifying the rite of the Episcopal consecration. The power of jurisdiction was to be kept integral so as to keep the Church structure but not so with the power of Orders. So they produced the same maneuver as for the celebration of the Mass. [In fact, latest studies on the rite of the Episcopacy indicate beyond doubt the certain validity of the rite, which existed in the first centuries of the Church) - Ed: i.e. the second objective failed.
The third objective was to obtain the corruption of the entire body of the Bishops. Forced by conformism, by peer pressure, by political pressure, to accomplish acts contrary to their conscience, they would be deprived of God’s grace…their ministry would be sterile before long.
Let us not forget that this satanic plan had been concocted by authentic theologians, who knew exactly the vital strength of the Catholic Church. It is on Oct. 11, 1962 that John XXIII pronounced the opening discourse of the Council. But it was on Oct. 13 that Cardinal Lienart provoked the incident which led the Council into the path of rupture with Tradition. Oct. 13 is obviously the anniversary date of the great miracle of Fatima and of the fall of the sun – rather symbolic!” (Ed: the above extract taken from the bulletin of an SSPX USA church – thanks to Torkay for sending it).
Click here to read more about Vatican II
Now for some news- not unconnected with the above revelations. Roman Catholic Faithful (RCF), led by Stephen Brady, is, or rather was, an American lay group, so militant that they made the Catholic Truth team seem positively tame. Tame and, of course, therefore, likeable. Yip, they were that militant. Unlike Catholic Truth, RCF didn’t wait for information to be handed to them on a plate, they put adverts on their website, for information about this or that bishop; this or that priest… All to uncover the extent of the homosexual lifestyle within the USA Church. It was really thanks to the work of RCF, that much of the child abuse in the States came to light.
Now, however, they’re shutting up shop. Click here to read the letter explaining why, from Stephen Brady. Then click on ‘comments’ to tell us what you think. Has Stephen Brady reached the only possible conclusion for a Catholic living through this crisis in the Church?
Tags: cardinal lienart, roman catholic faithful, stephen brady, vatican II
-
Objectives 1 and 3 are clearly having great success throughout the Church, most especially 3, as we can see from the state of the episcopacy in Scotland, and in the USA. That this success is constantly praised as a “new springtime” is either the result of a culture of lies within the hierarchy, or a culture of self-deception, or both. But that should be no surprise: the culture of worldliness, which is what characterizes the post-Conciliar clergy, is precisely a culture of lies and self-deception.
So which is it, you worldly bishops: you just can’t admit that a deliberate rupture with Tradition was successfully carried out by the enemies of the Church, or are you collaborative parts and parcels of that plan?
___________________As for Mr. Brady’s article, on further reflection I think he is guilty of a very basic mistake: he despairs for the future of the Church. That is, he denies God’s presence in His mystical body! His human facts are accurate: the Church is corrupt to a degree never before seen in her history. But his attitude about it is all wrong. In fact, I believe it is a sin.
-
Torkay
I agree with what you say. I think Brady is right in much of what he says, but I get the feeling he is throwing in the towel. He says, quite rightly, that only the Mother of God can save the Church and the World. True. However, that doesn’t mean we sit around twiddling our thumbs, waiting for the triumph of the Immaculate Heart.
What we need to do is to make more people aware of this terrible crisis. Think of all those souls going along with the Novus Ordo claptrap and thinking that just because their priest,bishop, or even the pope does or says something then it must be ok. No, the more people who are aware of what is going on the better. The more people who practise the Fatima Message, the more likely it is for the Consecration to happen. If organisations like RCF and CT give up the fight, then the liberals have free reign.
I really hope Mr Brady thinks again. The situation is not hopeless. There may only be a small remnant of people left to fight for the Faith, but what an awesome responsibility those people have.
-
Petrus
Perpetua once sent me an analogy about this crisis that was very apt: she said that the SSPX was a lifeboat that has pulled up alongside the sinking ship of Rome, trying to rescue people jumping into the water and floundering around.
I sent Brady’s article to a friend of mine, who in turn sent it to a young NO priest he respects. The priest commented that Brady’s article was “hysterical” and further, that the “main body” of the Church today is Vatican II influenced, and that for some reason, that is the “correct” way it should be, because, in his words, “to stray from the main body of the Catholic Church either to the right or the left would be to abandon the body of Christ that Christ Himself prayed would be unified.” So in his mind, Pius X would be “straying to the right”.
To which I saith: please ask your priest how cleaving faithfully to Tradition can be described as “straying to the right,” and please also ask him how the rupture from Tradition which characterizes Rome can NOT be described as “abandoning the body of Christ.”
-
PS – if the priest answers that question honestly, he’d probably lose his job!
-
Torkay,
That priest should be reminded that before Vatican II the Church was full of “right wingers” for about 2,000 years!
It is amazing about Cardinal Lienart, though, being a high ranking freemason. Even Obama is only a 29th degree mason!
-
I have found this on: http://www.stbenedictchapel.org/
Sunday, February 7, 2010 Sexagesima Sunday
“Card. Li�nart is known to us as having been directly involved in the coup d’�tat (on Oct. 13 of 1962!) perpetrated at the initial of Vatican II to allow the Rhine countries to dominate the run of the Council. The friend of a friend of Canon Descornets spent his days in the confessional, when he was asked by Card. Li�nart to hear his confession being already on his death bed. Late in life, the moribund asked him that his reputation be tarnished by making public his true hidden life� The canon had been asked to bypass the seal of confession for this purpose. But, careful to avoid a Church scandal, careful for his position and the privilege of keeping the old mass, the canon preferred to state a plain message: “You know, on his death bed, Cardinal Li�nart said that, for him, humanly speaking, the Church was lost.”
The Canon revealed also the objectives of the cardinal and his friends.
- The first objective was to produce a rupture with the mass which, without being truly invalid in its new form, could become so by defect of intention of the celebrant. The objective was easy to reach that they had planned the dissolution of the priestly studies. Before long, the priests would finally cease to believe in the propitiatory value of the Holy Sacrifice, seeing in it only a “memorial” or a “sacred meal.”
- The second objective was to produce the rupture of the apostolic succession by modifying the rite of the Episcopal consecration. The power of jurisdiction was to be kept integral so as to keep the Church structure but not so with the power of Orders. So they observed the same maneuver as for the celebration of the mass. [In fact, latest studies on the rite of the Episcopacy indicate beyond doubt the certain validity of the rite, which existed in the first centuries of the Church, see 2 articles in past Angelus].
- The third objective was to obtain the corruption of the entire body of the Bishops. Forced by conformism, by peer pressure, by political pressure, to accomplish acts contrary to their conscience, they would be deprived of God’s grace� their ministry would be sterile before long.”
I notice the source of Cardinal Lienart’s deathbed confession is ” The friend of a friend of Canon Descornets “.
-
Tomas,
I notice in your version the confessor is “Canon Descomets” conceivably that could be “Canon de Scomets” or “Canon des Comets” . I have searched for these names on the internet with and without “Achille Lienart” and cannot find anything for any of these names.
In the version of the story I found the confessor was “The friend of a friend of Canon Descornets”, again note on the website of an SSPX Parish in America.
Canon Descornets does appear in a French version of the story
http://tychique.net/pdf/Courrier_N_307.pdf
but in this version it is the Canon himself who hears Cardinal Lienart’s deathbed confession.
” ….le cardinal Liénart manda ce chanoine [Descornets] pour se confesser avant de
comparaître devant le souverain Juge, et d’éviter les flammes éternelles de l’enfer, qu’il avait de bonnes raisons de redouter”Trans: Card. Lienart instructed the Canon to hear his confession before he was to appear before his Judge and Maker in order to avoid the eternal flames of Hell, which he had good reason to fear.
—–
I am troubled by the three different versions of the identity of the confessor.
I have also seen articles using this story to cast doubt on the validity of Cardinal Lienart’s ordination of Archbishop Lefebrve to the priesthood on the grounds that Lienart was a Mason.
This makes me doubt this story.
-
Benet,
I don’t know if you realise that you’ve copied all the stuff that was in the thread article about Cardinal Lienart?
That is a good point about the ordination of Archbishop Lefebvre.
I’m glad to have read that, because I did wonder about this story.
-
I forgot to say that I notice that in the other link on the thread article, to the tradition website, they only mention Lienart in passing, so I don’t think his supposed deathbed confession is likely to be an authentic story. But the rest of their article on Vatican II was bad enough and shows that the Church has all but been destroyed, in human terms, since Vatican II.
-
Benet
I couldn’t find anything about Canon Descomets on the internet either. I assumed the awkward English, which I corrected in a couple of places, was due to the fact that our SSPX pastor is French – but notice that, both in your version, the French version, and the one I posted, it is still Canon Descomets (whoever that is) that is hearing the confession (“The canon had been asked to bypass the seal of confession for this purpose.”)
I was about to ask you if you were willing to email the chapel to see where they got this article, when I noticed that the pastor of that chapel is the same priest as ours!!! (Louisville Kentucky is about 90 minutes SW of here) So I will email Father and ask him myself.
No clue about the validity of Archbishop Lefebvre’s ordination – anyone care to comment on that?
-
I trust that there is still hope for the Church, our Lord told us so. Yet, I think it will be a supernatural event such as the chastisement that restores the Church. I recognize that we are already in the midst of a spiritual chastisement, but I am referring to the chastisement prophesized by Our Lady of Fatima and numerous saints that refers to the annihilation of many nations, concluding with the end of all Godless inhabitants on Earth(era of peace).
I congratulate and commend Steven Brady for his move towards tradition and his work in restoring the Church, but as Torkay states, it is wrong to fall into despair. Mr. Brady also states that he attends the NO so that he can satisfy his Sunday obligation, because he does not have access to a TLM. I CONCUR WITH ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE’S ASSERTION THAT THE NEW MASS CANNOT BE THE OBJECT OF A SUNDAY OBLIGATION.
May I assist at a sacrilegious Mass which is nevertheless valid, in the absence of any other, in order to satisfy my Sunday obligation?
The answer is simple: these Masses cannot be the object of an obligation; we must moreover apply to them the rules of moral theology and canon law as regards the participation or the attendance at an action which endangers the faith or may be sacrilegious. The New Mass, even when said with piety and respect for the liturgical rules, is subject to the same reservations since it is impregnated with the spirit of Protestantism. It bears within it a poison harmful to the faith.
-
Tomas,
To clarify:
1. the version I posted has ” The friend of a friend of Canon Descornets”
2. The original French version on the Le Courrier de Tychique
“chanoine Descornets.”
and 3. yours has Canon Descometsall quite different you will agree.
I copied the most of the text on St Benedict’s Parish website because I saw that the info was on the home page and may well be replaced by next week’s announcements.
I note that the author/website owner of Le Courrier de Tychique describes himself as:
“Max Barret, une figure historique de la FSSPX et grand ami de Mgr Lefebvre (Photo ci-dessus),
Max Barret est un ancien chauffeur de Mgr Lefebvre, il fut le directeur du pèlerinage de Lourdes jusqu’à ce qu’il en soit démis en 2007.” -
Benet
I agree those versions are different, my point was that in all 3, it is the Canon who is hearing the deathbed confession.
Meanwhile, I’ve just emailed Father to ask the source of the article. It may be a few days before I get a reply, but will let you know.
Miley
Do you know anything about Archbishop Lefebvre’s ordination at the hands of a Freemason?
-
Rebel,
I think the book review of Ralph McInery’s book on the Tradition in Action website was published years before the story of the deathbed confession of Cardinal Lienart.
The Lienart confession story was published on Le Courrier de Tychique on “Dimanche 25 octobre 2009
XXIième Dimanche après la Pentecôte
Fête du Christ-Roi”so I am not surprised that the Tradition in Action book review does not mention it.
-
Tomas,
Here is an article by Hutton Gibson commenting on Bishop Williamson’s comment on this deathbed confession.
http://www.huttongibson.com/index-detail.php?Achille-Lienart-s-Deathbed-Confession-22
-
Tomas,
Rather for the argument that Lienart was never a Bishop and therefore could not ordain priests see the final two paragraphs here:
http://www.huttongibson.com/index-detail.php?More-on-Achille-Lienart-s-Deathbed-Confession-27
-
Torkay
I have read that before, many years ago. I recall that it would not prevent Archbishop Lefebvre’s ordination from being valid. Very interesting!
-
Benet
Just wanted to point out that your site is sedevacantist, so I wouldn’t rely on it for any trustworthy information (his interjections in the Lienart deathbed story are dripping with sarcasm).
Did +Lefebvre himself ever have anything to say about the man who ordained him?
-
Miles,
The article to which you link:
THE VALIDITY OF HOLY ORDERS
By Fr. Douglas Laudenschlager
Originally published in the February 1978 issue of The Angelusis very interesting.
However it does not address the question that Hutton Gibson poses. This article says that a Bishop who is a Freemason can ordain to the priesthood.
However Mr Gibson questions whether Fr Lienart, who had been a Mason for 18 years by the time he was consecrated as a Bishop could have the intention of “receiving” the consecration as Bishop. This would fit in with the idea that Lienart wished to invalidate the Apostolic succession by pretending to be a Bishop.
Tomas,
I did not quote from Mr Gibson’s site for the reasons you mention.
Like son, like Father – I’m afraid.
-
Benet
I’m afraid I’m not understanding the difference between what Miley’s article describes and what the erroneous Mr. Gibson questions. The article clearly states that “interior” intention during the performance of any sacrament does not matter, as long as the person conforms to the ritual. Therefore, Lienart’s interior intentions, which were subversive, do not matter, neither during his own consecration nor during his consecration of others.
However, Miley has opened another can of worms with this article (way to go, Miley!). In my opinion, the article invalidates – you should pardon the expression – the first objective of the conspirators:
The first objective was to produce a rupture with the Mass which, without being truly invalid in its new form, could become so by defect of intention of the celebrant.
But since the interior intention of the celebrant does not matter, as the article demonstrates, then this objective is futile unless the renegade priest changes the ritual itself! In other words, there is no interior defect of intention, including lack of belief in the sacrifice, such as that which the conspirators wanted to effect!
This not only casts a new light on objective #1, but also, unless I’m mistaken, on claims made repeatedly on this blog that the NO may be invalid due to the priest’s improper intention….i.e. celebrating a meal rather than performing the sacrifice…
It also casts a new light on those “authentic theologians” cited above, whose subversive plan, it seems, was based on some deeply flawed assumptions.
And finally, notice that Miley’s article accepts as its starting point that Lienart was indeed a Freemason, which lends a certain generalized weight to the lead article above.
And now, I wish someone would intervene, because I’m getting a little dizzy trying to grasp all this.
-
Tomas,
The key part of the Angelus article is:
“The central question, then, will be: How are we to recognize the presence of this internal intention required in the minister for the valid confection of a sacrament?
Pope Leo XIII answers clearly and with solemn authority:
Concerning the mind or intention, inasmuch as it is in itself something internal, the Church does not pass judgment; but in so far as it is externally manifested, she is bound to judge of it. Now, if in order to effect and confer a Sacrament a person has seriously and correctly used the due matter and form, he is for that very reason presumed to have intended to do what the Church does. It is on this principle that the doctrine is solidly founded which holds as a true Sacrament that which is conferred by the ministry of a heretic or of a non-baptized person, as long as it is conferred in the Catholic rite.
St. Thomas Aquinas, the Prince of Theologians, says the same thing (III, Q. 64, A. 8 ad 2):
In the words uttered by (the minister), the intention of the Church is expressed; and this suffices for the validity of the sacrament, EXCEPT THE CONTRARY BE EXPRESSED EXTERIORLY on the part of the minister [emphasis given by author].
Therefore, in the conferral of the sacrament of holy orders (or of any other) as long as the ordaining bishop, be he Catholic or apostate, observes externally the rite prescribed for the sacrament, he MUST be presumed to have the right intention, and the sacrament MUST be accepted as valid.”
One example was a Bishop who declared before Ordinations that he would not Ordain any candidate under 21 years old. Some of the Ordinands were under 21 and despite appearing to be validly ordained according to matter and form they were not as the Bishop had expressly declared he was not ordaining them.
If I find the reference to the source I’ll add it later.
So I would hazard that if a priest says he does not believe in Transubstantiation it would make sense to conclude he has no intention at Mass of doing what the Church intends him to do: therefore invalid through expressed lack of intention.
In other words the interior intention of the consecrating Bishop is important for the validity of ordination BUT unless the Bishop expressly declares he does not have the intention to ordain we cannot know. Therefore the Church makes the assumption that if a Bishop follows the correct form and order of ordination he ordains.
-
Torkay
I too did not understand the difference between the article I linked and the questions of Mr. Gibson.
Also, I had the same reflection on as you when I read the article concerning no longer being able to question validity. However, Archbishop Lefebvre has always stated that most NO masses are valid, but that a valid Mass can still very well be sacrilegious.
ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE – from the text, the Mass of All Time- “ Even though the validity of the Mass cannot be called into question, it is a corrupted Mass. Because it no longer affirms the specifically Catholic truths of the Mass for the sake of pleasing the Protestants, little by little faiths in these truths also disappears. That is why it is impossible for me to say that this reform is only bad in a purely accidental, extrinsic way. Being drafted with the aid of Protestants, there is an ecumenical influence on the reformation of the Mass that imparts a Protestant savor. Little by little the notion of sacrifice has disappeared. The changes that have been made in the Mass make it dangerous, corrupted. This reformation, deriving from Liberalism and Modernism, is entirely corrupted; it derives from heresy and results in heresy, even if all its acts are not formally heretical. It is therefore impossible for any faithful Catholic to espouse this reformation or to submit to it in any way whatsoever.”
-
Sorry for the typo- should read: I had the same reflection as you.
-
Benet
Got a reply from Father about the source of this anecdote, but I’m afraid it’s not going to help much:
“What I have is only a short insert from Eleison comments CXXI (Oct. 31 2009) Valid Bishops? And this is taken from the French Original : Le courrier de Tychique (n. 307).”
I believe that is the same link you posted above – same journal, at any rate, not sure if it’s the same issue.
_____________________As to the validity issue, I took it another way: I took it to mean that even if a priest says he does not believe in Transubstantiation, yet performs the Consecration properly as if he does, then it is valid. But don’t ask me if my interpretation makes any sense!
_____________________Miley
It would appear that Objective #1 has been achieved anyway, validity or not, due to the deliberately defective theology of the NO.
-
ELEISON COMMENTS CXXI (Oct. 31, 2009) : VALID BISHOPS ?
Remarkable confirmation of the Society of St. Pius X’s balanced position on the validity of the Newchurch sacraments appeared last week in the bulletin of a fighting Gaul, “Courrier de Tychique”. From a “reliable source” it appears there that Freemasonry, ancient enemy of the Church, planned for the Conciliar Revolution to invalidate the Catholic sacraments, not by alteration of their Form, rendering them automatically invalid, but rather by an ambiguity of their Rite as a whole, undermining in the long run the Minister’s necessary sacramental Intention.The “reliable source” is a Frenchman who heard directly from a venerable old priest some of what Cardinal Lienart on his deathbed confessed to the priest. No doubt fearing Hell, the Cardinal begged the priest to reveal it to the world, and thus released him from the Confessional seal. The priest was thenceforth discreet in public, but in private he was more forthcoming as to what the Cardinal revealed to him of Freemasonry’s three-point plan for the destruction of the Church. Whether or not he entered Freemasonry at the precocious age of 17, the Cardinal rendered it supreme service when only two days after the opening of Vatican II he wrenched the Council off course by demanding irregularly that the carefully prepared Traditional documents be rejected altogether.
According to the Cardinal, Freemasonry’s first objective at the Council was to break the Mass by so altering the rite as to undermine in the long run the celebrant’s Intention: “to do what the Church does”. Gradually the Rite was to induce priests and laity alike to take the Mass rather for a “memorial” or “sacred meal” than for a propitiatory sacrifice. The second objective was to break the Apostolic Succession by a new Rite of Consecration that would eventually undermine the bishops’ power of Orders, both by a new Form not automatically invalidating but ambiguous enough to sow doubt, and above all by a new Rite which as a whole would eventually dissolve the consecrating bishop’s sacramental Intention. This would have the advantage of breaking the Apostolic Succession so gently that nobody would even notice. Is this not exactly what many believing Catholics are now afraid of ?
Howsoever it may be with the “reliable source”, in any case today’s Newchurch Rites of Mass and Episcopal Consecration correspond exactly to the Masonic plan as unveiled by the Cardinal. Ever since these new Rites were introduced in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, many serious Catholics have refused to believe that they could be used validly. Alas, they are not automatically invalid (how much simpler if they were !). They are worse! Their sacramental Form is Catholic enough to persuade many a celebrant that they can be validly used, but they are designed as a whole to be so ambiguous and so suggestive of a non-Catholic interpretation as to invalidate the sacrament over time by corrupting the Intention of any celebrant either too “obedient” or insufficiently watching and praying.
Rites thus valid enough to get themselves accepted by nearly all Catholics in the short term, but ambiguous enough to invalidate the sacraments in the long term, constitute a trap satanically subtle. To avoid it, Catholics must on the one hand shun all contact with these Rites, but on the other hand they must not discredit their sound Catholic instincts by exaggerated theological accusations which depart from sound Catholic doctrine. It is not always an easy balance to keep.
Kyrie eleison.
London, England
**from a Dinoscopus e-mail dated 31st October 2009
-
Benet
You are officially the new blog detective! Is there a link to this?
I suppose the next question is, what is the new Rite of Episcopal Consecration? I think there have been a couple of Angelus articles on this recently, not sure. Maybe we can get Dan Graham to do one of his comparisons, Editor?
-
“It would appear that Objective #1 has been achieved anyway, validity or not, due to the deliberately defective theology of the NO.”
Torkay- I agree!
“According to the Cardinal, Freemasonry’s first objective at the Council was to break the Mass by so altering the rite as to undermine in the long run the celebrant’s Intention: “to do what the Church does”. Gradually the Rite was to induce priests and laity alike to take the Mass rather for a “memorial” or “sacred meal” than for a propitiatory sacrifice. The second objective was to break the Apostolic Succession by a new Rite of Consecration that would eventually undermine the bishops’ power of Orders, both by a new Form not automatically invalidating but ambiguous enough to sow doubt, and above all by a new Rite which as a whole would eventually dissolve the consecrating bishop’s sacramental Intention.”
Good work, Benet.
It’s difficult to fathom how anyone would yearn to be involved with the “New Church” after reading this! Yet, there will still be those who persist on adding funds to the Novus Ordo plate and attending the NOM. Many NO Catholics are intransigent and it doesn’t matter how much verification is provided, they prefer to keep their heads in the sand! I believe that it is a grace from God to perceive and accept the truth.
-
Tomas and Miles,
The Kyrie Eleison columns of Bishop Williamson are no longer published on the Dinoscopus blog but are sent by e-mail to those who ask to subscribe. That’s why I am unable to provide a link.
-
The original French version gives this as a second reason for Objective 1. It is not mentioned by Bishop Williamson or in the English versions.
“A cela s’ajoutent les péchés de la chair que les prêtres coupables ne confessaient pas,
célébrant ainsi une liturgie sans intention de consacrer… pour ne pas aggraver leur cas. Il y a quelques années l’archiprêtre
Pierrot (prêtre tradi décédé du diocèse de Bordeaux) raconta à mon lecteur cette anecdote. Ayant pris un auto-stoppeur qui lui
semblait avoir « une gueule de curé » celui-ci lui fit cette curieuse confidence : « Je sors d’une retraite ! Ça m’a fait du bien ! Il
y avait 38 ans que je ne m’étais pas confessé. » Aussi célébrait-il … sans intention de consacrer !”(a rough translation)
(perhaps due to the changes in education in the seminaries)
To this are added the sins of the flesh that guilty priests would no longer confess also celebrating Mass without having any intention of consecrating….in order not to aggravate their sinfulness. Some years ago the Archpriest Pierrot (a traditional Priest of the Diocese of Bordeau now dead) told this story.He stopped for a hitch-hiker who seemed to him to have the “look of a priest about him” and the hitchhiker, who was indeed a priest confided in him,:
“I have just come from a Retreat and it did me some good. You know its 38 years since I last confesed my sins.”
Also the hitch-hiking priest said he had been celebrating Mass all those years without intending to consecrate.
-
Benet
As we say in the USA – WOW!!!
-
Speaking of Bishop Williamson, this is one of my favorite videos, ever!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3L2bf18Hatg
Bishop Williamson describing the Modernists -
Miles,
Brilliant video! Thanks for posting it!
-
You’re welcome, Grignion.
-
Miley
I had no idea Bishop Williamson was such a wit!
-
Yes Torkay, he is a talented wit, just like you!
-
An Irish “Jesuit Theologian” laments how the fruit of Vatican II has not been realised:
http://www.amdg.ie/2010/02/09/jesuit-theologians-response-to-murphy-report/
“However a large majority of practicing Catholics have not ‘received’ this teaching [Humanae Vitae] as true, they do not find it persuasive. Theologians have pointed to an overly physicalist notion of natural law underlying the teaching, as well as an overly static notion of what tradition entails, tendencies which continue to be the case with regard to the many other neuralgic areas of sexual teaching which Maureen Gaffney identifies (such as premarital sex, remarriage, homosexuality, the role of women in ministry and mandatory clerical celibacy).
snip
By way of exception in Ireland a bishop like Willie Walsh has over and again voiced his concern about a raft of Church sexual and gender teaching, echoing the questioning he has heard from good, committed Catholics of his Diocese. This, you would imagine, is what a bishop ought to do. But, at best, there has been a deafening silence from his fellow bishops, who in this respect seem to view their role more as vicars of the Pope than, as Vat II would have it, vicars of Christ. (5)”
With plenty of genuflections towards Karl Rahner and sparkling quotes from Prof Nicholas Lash.
-
Ah, the old “living Tradition” scam, coupled with the old “good, committed Catholics” scam. But should we dare ask the question: are Catholics who contracept “practicing Catholics”? As well as the other inconvenient question: are “theologians” who trash Church teaching really theologians?
-
Let’s re-name these dissenting clowns: egologians, or most probably, homologians.
-
Tomas, I love the “egologians”! It took me a while to understand it, but it is a great coinage! Also, “homologians”!
Comments are now closed.
40 comments