50 Years Later and We Still Seem to Have Forgotten the Warnings about the New Priesthood Issued by Archbishop Lefebvre in 1971.
From A Bishop Speaks (Kansas City, MO: Angelus Press, 2007), pp 97-98.
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Rome, March 13, 1971: The Fruits of the New Mass
"There are thus three realities needful for the reality of the Mass, 1) The Priest-Sacerdotes...having a sacerdotal character. 2) The real and substantial presence of the Victim, who is Christ. 3) The sacerdotal action of the sacrificial oblation which is realized essentially in the Consecration.
Let us not forget that it is precisely these three fundamental truths that are denied by the Protestants and Modernists. Let us not forget that it is to manifest their refusal to believe in these dogmas that their Masses have been transformed into services, into a eucharistic meal or gathering, where a much greater place is given to readings from the Bible, to the word, to the detriment of the offering and the liturgy of the sacrifice....Everything laid down in this new order clearly reflects this new conception, which is nearer the Protestant conception than the Catholic. The statements of the Protestants who contributed to the reform illustrate the truth of this naively and sadly: 'Protestants can no longer find anything to prevent their celebrating the Novus Ordo.' We may therefore quite legitimately ask ourselves whether, as the Catholic belief in the essential truths of the Mass insensibly disappears, the validity of the Mass is also disappearing. The intention of the celebrant will have a bearing on the new conception of the Mass which, before long, will be no other than the Protestant. THE MASS WILL NO LONGER BE VALID [emphasis mine]."
Dr. Chojnowski: I have always questioned how you can get "priests" who study --- and accept -- modern philosophy (e.g. Cartesian, Kantian, phenomenology) --- and still get valid sacraments and orthodox doctrine out through this strainer. You know of course that for modern philosophy, beginning with Descartes, the object of thought is no longer the things in themselves, but rather, ideas. Phenomenology, which "brackets" [existence] --- that is the "problem" as to whether the things that "appear to us" in consciousness actually exist or not, and instead, simply analyses the ideas as "meaning structures" which are simply "present in consciousness." How do you get the Consecration that brings about the Real Presence out of that? You can't and you don't. That is why they need a new doctrine called "transignification" in which the "meaning" of the "bread" and "wine" is changed in meaning for the congregation --- now it means "communal sharing" or "sharing in Christ's joy and love" --- and when the congregation is finished with its moment of sharing the "meaning" of the bread and wine can return to is brute "foodstuff" status of meaning and be shipped down the drain. It's nice clean "meaning" and not that "earthy" actual "Body and Blood of Christ" that we celebrate in NewChurch.
How do you get 50 years of this chugging through the veins of NewBishops, trained in phenomenology, Marxism, and existentialism, and still get a true Catholic and Realist intention? You can't and you don't want to. That is the whole point. But, of course, that is why you must change the form of the episcopal and priestly rites of ordination. Otherwise, Martin Heidegger might have to hit you upside your Lebenswelt.
I understand the philosophical dangers you are pointing out, but there's one key objection to your line of argument.ReplyDelete
Most men who are becoming priests are not indoctrinated with Kantianism or deconstructionism or phenomenology, etc.; they are not so sophisticated. They might get a smattering of philosophy in seminary, but if they are even remotely normal people (and at least in the USA most of the seminarians I've met have come across as "ordinary folks" - many of them grew up on farms or working regular 9-5 jobs), they will be moderate realists. In other words, as Newman said, to think rightly is to think like Aristotle, and most people do think like Aristotle unless they have been thorough indoctrinated otherwise.
Put differently: a layman's grasp of substance and accident -- what something is and how it looks/smells/tastes etc. -- is something everyone has and easily retains, whereas a complicated Heideggerian reinterpretation is an acquired taste, and most people don't ever acquire it.
Dear Dr. Kwasniewski,Delete
Good to hear from you. Just a few things here: As you know, to have the validity of any sacrament you need proper form, matter, intention, and minister. What are the odds, after 50+ years of domination of the Conciliar Church by Modernists/Existentialists/Marxists heresiarchs, that you have a hierarchy that intends to do what the Church always did. I would maintain that "what the Church always did" was PRECISELY what was rejected in the Vatican II and post-Vatican II era. That is why the traditional Mass had to be banned and eliminated because it "reeked" of Transubstantiation and Sacrifice. I included the statement from 1971 of Archbishop Lefebvre to make it clear that this was obvious 50 years ago to those who were attentive to what was going on. Also, 50 years of the New Mass is going to destroy the intention of the priest, since the New Mass is Cranmer's Mass , which was meant to replace the Catholic Mass. As the Ottaviani Intervention states, it has no intention to express the Catholic doctrine of the Mass as expressed by the Council of Trent. Also, read Fr. Cekada's very important studies of the 1968 New Consecration Rite of Bishops.
Seeing the theological reasons for the invalidity of certain sacraments or for believing the Vatican II papal claimants have been antipopes is a big and challenging step for most people to make, but I believe it becomes easier and the reasons why and how and by whom become much clearer when we look to the historical causes of the long-prophesied Great Apostasy and Eclipse of the Church. “Felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas,” says Virgil. "Happy he who was able to know the causes of things." I think the most thorough research and best explanation of the historical causes of the 60 year long crisis in the Church is in this 4 part interview: youtube.com/channel/UCmJLcKSyO3CBtxJwddm0Ymg (the short 3 min. 41 sec. segment there is itself enough to astound and disturb anyone, Catholic or not). How many people know that Pius XII read the Third Secret on May 13, 1957, and then secluded himself for close to two weeks, weeping bitter tears? There is also the shorter informative documentary, "Papal Imposters" on youtube.Delete
The episcopal consecration rite is the most obvious in its invalidity of proper form as laid down by the authority of Pius XII in 1957, the year before he died (or was murdered):ReplyDelete
Traditional Roman Catholic form, per Pope Pius XII (1947):
“Comple in Sacerdote tuo ministerii tui summam, et ornamentis totius glorificationis instructum coelestis unguenti rore sanctifica.“
[Translation:] “Perfect in Thy priest the fullness of thy ministry and, clothing him in all the ornaments of spiritual glorification, sanctify him with the Heavenly anointing.”
Modernist Novus Ordo form, per Antipope Paul VI (1968):
“Et nunc effunde super hunc Electum eam virtutem, quae a te est, Spiritum principalem, quem dedisti dilecto Filio Tuo Iesu Christo, quem Ipse donavit sanctis Apostolis, qui constituerunt Ecclesiam per singula loca, ut sanctuarium tuum, in gloriam et laudem indeficientem nominis tui.“
[Translation:] “So now pour out upon this chosen one that power which is from you, the governing Spirit whom you gave to your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, the Spirit given by him to the holy apostles, who founded the Church in every place to be your temple for the unceasing glory and praise of your name.”
Correction: It was 1947 when Pius XII issued Sacramentum Ordinis, in which he states what is necessary for valid priestly ordination and episcopal consecration.ReplyDelete
Every time I think of or read the words "Spiritum principalem" from the new rite I can't help but think of the spirit whom Our Lord called "the prince of this world." And I'm sure "governing Spirit" is a term referring to Lucifer in certain Masonic writings. It only makes sense coming from Paul VI, who called the Masonic United Nations "the last hope for mankind."Delete
Peter Kwasniewski says "priests are not indoctrinated with Kantianism or deconstructionism" as if someone must study systems in-depth to accept the teachings of a system. You can accept a system without knowing it by name. Many people are Utilitarians without ever having heard that word (e.g. "dropping the bomb on Japan was ok because it saved lives"). Catholics for hundreds of years have been taught Aequiprobabilism in the confessional, without ever having read St. Alphonsus's Moral Theology & without ever having heard that word. Priests won't openly support sodomy in marriage or coitus interruptus by teaching this in catechism class to adults, but in the confessional priests do appeal to Liguori & Jone's Moral Theology (without telling the laity they're doing this) and approve of sin one-on-one due to the circumstances. Most Catholics have stocks, insurance, credit cards, home loans, and car loans and accept interest on loans as just fine, when making money on interest is always a mortal sin. Most Catholics chant the Dies Irae and admire the Sibylline Oracles in the Sistine Chapel without ever having read the works of Pico and understanding the Renaissance ecumenism & paganism that led to this. The Latin Mass is no assurance of right intention because there were ecumenists and pagan magicians long before Vatican II who wanted valid sacraments and the Latin Mass for other purposes and intentions. Pico was the real father of Vatican II and the changing of beliefs really ramped up with Leo X and Alexander VI.Delete
A question for you James. Is not all money in the United Stated based on usury? It is all printed by the federal reserve and loaned on interest to the government then circulated through society. Would not accepting any of this money be a mortal sin according to you? The only way to really avoid it would be to live completely off the land-hunting and gathering. Of course that land couldn't be bought with money though.Delete
I am being facetious, but have been pondering how to avoid usury.