Wednesday, April 25, 2012


This is the ecclesiology that LCWR and progressive Catholics espouse, meaning that the whole Church acts as consecrating priests, no real distinction between ordained or unordained, male or female. Please note also that the masculine pronouns for God and even "the Christ" are never used, especially in the "Through HIM...!:
As we all know, since the Second Vatican Council grave division (smoke of Satan) has entered into the Church. It is as grave as the time of the Great Schism and the Protestant Reformation. However, at least the Orthodox and the Protestants became separate entities; they were not hypocritical about their intentions. Nor has the SSPX. They've all set themselves aside or have allowed themselves to be put aside, separated from the true Church and her pope in Rome.

Not so with those who want to reform the Church into a post-Christian community similar to the Unitarians and the Episcopalians. They want to remain within to destroy and recreate and new "church" in the image of their pseudo-post-Christian ideologies.

For me personally the surest way to avoid schism, or the SSPX approach to reform or the progressive sneaky approach to reform is to be a papist. In fact the late Father Daniel Munn, pastor of St.Ignatios of Antioch Melkite Catholic Church in Augusta and parochial vicar of The Church of the Most Holy Trinity (Latin Rite) in Augusta always drove a Saturn that had this bumper sticker: "PAPIST!" He was a former married Episcopal priest who was ordained a married Catholic priest under Pope John Paul II's "Pastoral Provision."

So you guys out there that have leanings toward the SSPX or an ultra liberal counterpart please reconsider that and remain a papist. You might not like all things coming from Rome but at least when we are united to Rome we are in full communion with the true Church, the Holy Roman Catholic Church, not in some kind of loose less than full communion with the true Church. Who wants a Mr. Pibb when you can have Dr. Pepper? Who wants R C Cola when you can have the real thing?


Joseph Johnson said...

Just a few observations about the "externals" of the depicted "Mass:"

1. Is that a throw rug they are using for an altar cloth?

2. That looks like a Baptist church (the glossy white paint and stained wood top railings).

3. There's not much diversity in the the "clergy" and those in attendance. Where are the teenage girls and younger women? The youngest looking woman in the picture is the "deaconess" in the green stole on the left. They all look older and most have that shorter hair style usually associated with unhabited nuns and women with masculine tendencies.

4. Is that a chalice veil covering a collection basket in front of the altar?

5. Do you think these "prysts," (as in womynprysts) would ever consider "celebrating" the "Mass" ad orientem?

6. They sure do like wide overlay stoles, don't they! Where are the fiddlebacks? I don't even see traditional Gothic chasubles. Just as some priests have not worn the Roman chasuble because of its association with the "pre-Conciliar Church," I think the overlay stole should fall into disuse because of its association with "womynprysts" and their sympathizers!

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

What is sad about this Joseph, is that this sort of thing was promoted as the wave of the future back in the 1970's when I was in the seminary. Our seminary never allowed "women priests" to do what you see in this video but our seminary would have promoted this exact type of liturgy as what Vatican II envision or enabled; that women would be ordained priests in the future, "sexist" language would be removed (this was big in my seminary) and everyone in the congregation would be invited to say the words of the Eucharistic prayer as a sign of the priesthood of all believers. This is truly the recreation of the Church that would separate us further from the Orthodox Churches and evangelical Protestants while bringing us closer to liberal Protestantism which of course today is as good a dead.

Anonymous said...

My greatest joy comes from reflecting on being a Catholic and a Papist.

Anonymous said...

Hey Anonymous are you going to reconsider now the validity of the Luminous Mysteries? ..;-) wink, wink...just pokin' at ya'


Gene said...

Fr. judged my would-be post yesterday regarding these women to be...well, lacking in taste. LOL! May I simply suggest that they are nature's way of saying, "Do Not Touch."

Anonymous said...

There is no temptation for me from SSPX at this point as they are not in union with the Church and therefore has no more validity for me than an Episcopal service. I may grit my teeth at the sloppy Liturgy and licenses taken with the Mass at my parish, but when I step up to communion I am in the presence of God. That's why I go.

These discussions always remind me of the irony in the story about how David was chosen to lead Israel. Although Samuel was told not to consider the externals, David was a good looking, attractive, athletic, and vigourous young man. There is a message in there, I think.


Gene said...

RCG, So, what is the message?

Hammer of Fascists said...

SL and others--

In current circumstances I generally agree with Fr. McD, but I do think that there is a danger here for the unwary: that papism, as Fr. McD defines it, uncritically applied, may extend the mantle of papal infallibility to official papal actions and writings that may genuinely be debated and critiqued by orthodox Catholics. Marc uses as an example the promulgation of the NO Mass. I do think it possible--even necessary, in light of Sacred Tradition--to accept the validity of the NO Mass and the authoritative legitimacy of its promulgation by Paul VI while at the same time stating that the promulgation was a bad idea. And yes, I would argue that the same goes for the Luminous Mysteries. To hold such things as unquestionable (subjection of intellect and will, etc.) extends papal infallibility further than it has ever claimed to extend.

Popes do more, officially, than just proclaim infallible teachings. While all of their official actions must be accepted as authoritative, it has never been part of the Catholic faith that we accept them all as infallible, and respectful criticism--loyal opposition, in the words of English constitutional law--is not merely permitted but proper. I have often criticized popes and bishops for not publicly excommunicating pro-abort politicians, and I think many here would agree with me; how is criticizing them for action, as opposed to omission, any different?

Nevertheless, since the popes in recent decades have been more faithful to the Magisterium than the bishops as a whole, adherence the papacy is a good approach for now. (The tip-off is the leftists' attempt to downplay the papacy as well as their occasional bilious rants against the popes; if they're against the papacy, being for it is the smart move.) Nevertheless, I can theorize a future generation in the Church when we get popes more like the Borgias and bishops who are en masse more like Athanasius and Augustine, in which case the shoe would be on the other foot.

Templar said...

Anon 5 has saved me a lot of typing.

To which I'd just like to add, the SSPX are not in Schism, the SSPX have never been in Schism. Their Bishoops had been under ex-communication, since lifted, and they are no in "irreuglar Communion" although their is no such legal status in Canon Law. It's a made up as you go designation, by the Pope none the less, which is a real big reason against be blindly loyal to any one MAN, even the Vicar of Christ, when he is not declaring infalliability. And I'll go one further, the SSPX have been more loyal, and more faithful to the Faith, and the Popes under which they have served, then said Popes have been to them, or The Faith.

Anonymous said...


The message is that we looked for a new form of worship to lead people to God that was more open minded, rejected the traditional stereotypes saying to ourselves that God does not see or judge by that standard. Then we discover that the form that meets all the requirements best is one we had tried so hard to avoid.