Ho hum.  And if David had not seen Bathsheba bathing, he might not have committed adultery.  Whether an archbishop or a layman, a king or a commoner, most of us do not commit sin without first experiencing temptation.

That’s not what I’m supposed to take away, though, is it?  I’m supposed to believe that because he was tempted, it wasn’t really a sin.

Lefebvre didn’t like what he saw in the Church and so he split.  He was in the same spirit as Arius, Luther, Calvin, and every other schismatic (or heretic) before and since.  It’s a shame he misled so many along the way.

I often wondered why Lefebvre incurred so much attention and excommunication while there were so many “Liberation” theologians around the world who were walking arm-in-arm with anti-Christ Marxists?  Those who were arm-in-arm with Marxists trashed the Catholic traditions and teachings. Yet no excommunications.  I watch Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry publicly promoting sodomy and abortion with no apologies.  Where is the excommunication?  Kathleen Sebilius as governor of Kansas openly supported the late “Baby Killer” George Tiller.  No excommunication??

Pope Benedict XVl has said this before. He said that if the New Order of the Mass was said as Pope Paul Vl intended one would not be able to differentiate between the New Mass and the Old Mass, unles one was very knowledgable on the Liturgy. I have seen videos of the New Mass said according to how Ven. Pope Paul Vl intended, and it looks exactly like a Tridentine Mass. The problem with the Novus Ordo are the vast abuses that crept in. The Novus Ordo Missae today is plagued with cancer sores all over it, they are called Liturgical abuses. Its time all Bishops and Priests obey Rome and heal the Novus Ordo Missae. Its all within their power. If they won’t do it then Rome needs to do it for them.

Also, v 2 brought out the fact that there was a mass exodus of nuns and priests leaving for the secular life and I do really believe it was due to V two
John Carrig

Do you really wonder that, Vance?  If you REALLY mean that the Church should get tough with dissent on both sides, then I’m with you 100%.

If, on the other hand, you mean that what Lefebvre did was OK because some others “got away with” their own dissent ... well, maybe that trick worked with your mom, but the “Johnny did it too!” fallacy does nothing to rehabilitate Lefebvre’s reputation.

To those who comments in favour of Cardinal Canizares, what do you expect him to say that Catholics as a whole have been betrayed by the Vatican II popes. It is amazing what lies transpired from these popes and how different are the observations of these “Yes” man compared what some senior Cardinals stated at the initial time of the Novus Ordo Missae. Pope Paul VI intension is well known in ecclesiastical circles that what he really wanted was a departure from a catholic mass into a protestant service; from a sacrifice to a meal, from an alter of sacrifice to a table for a meal. This is why when Paul VI promulgated the Novus Ordo Missae he ignored all the Traditionalists including those who were protesting in St. Peter’s Square.The only way to restore the mess that these post Vatican II popes made is to restore the liturgy to what it was and it does not have to be in Latin, my English version that I have been using since 1955 is an exact translation from the Latin. I quess while our boys in Rome are playing church by making heretics into saints, the church has to endure its agony.

But he did not and begs the whole question as to why the Missal of 1969 can be celebrated the way that it is normally.

And why is it necessary to re-invent the liturgical wheel by reforming the reform?  There will never be a solution unless the underlying problems are admitted.

It bears noting that, according to the canon law in force at the time, Abp Lefebvre excommunicated HIMSELF, and quite publicly.

Those asking why Rome didn’t excommunicate other dissenters should reflect on whether they engaged in an act that they knew carried a penalty of automatic excommunication, and if so, whether that is publicly known.

Yesterday (before the Inauguration) I realized that I and millions of others have been deceived by the Catholic church into thinking the hierarchy has been on the bandwagon to go against gay marriage, to work against the HHS Mandate, to work for equal treatment of all races, and to restore original holiness to the Mass.  Now I realize that none of this is true.  There is intense behind-the-scenes action by Marxist “Liberation Theologians”, and a real slap in the face is in store for those who, in the goodness of our hearts, innocently think we know what the Church is teaching.  Now I see that all that was just Marxist effrontery displayed to those of us they consider to be too low to know any better (reference: slaves).  Prominent Bishops feign a position while Bishops in the background work for the opposite result.  Guess who’s winning? 

For example, I championed the old mass Credo as meaning “I believe”, but now I see that “We believe” (as Obama so eloquently illustrated today) is indeed what the hierarchy deems is the right way to pray.  (Can we steal from NCRegister posts? Yes, We Can!)  We should be saying that “we”, meaning “everyone praying” all believe in the same thing - in the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit - and those who do not (like atheists or Jews in the pews) vividly signify the ones that we need to trample to preserve the rights of the collective church - “we” means “everyone”.  The spirit of Vatican II has clearly said: “if you don’t like it, get out!”, as it did with SSPX.  There has been no change.  Marxists believe contention - preferably violence - is the only way to change. 

The same goes for allowing gays to marry, which once again, Obama very eloquently defends.  Who are Catholics that we should tell gays (whose “same-sex attractions” have been gloatingly blessed by our hierarchy) that they should not marry?  We should allow them the same freedoms that everyone else is entitled to.  Now I see that the Bishops have been working behind to scenes to make sure they get those equal rights as the Spirit of Vatican II and its Marxists dictate to solidify the destruction of the Faith.   

Did you really think it was just a mistake or some kind of omission that we were not hearing about fights against the HHS Mandate, abortion, equality, the destruction of purity, and gay marriage?  Think again.  There never were any fights - only lame “fronts”.  The new Catholic Church never was against these things at all.  It has always stood for whatever the Democratic Party is politicizing and only fools like me believed anything different. 

Dear clergy and dear believers, how can there be reconciliation when pride, egoism rules the mind ?  I feel that if the essence is not changed, reconciliation can be easy. If one attends the Mass in different Rites, one can see the difference in various rituals For example, take the incencing. The style of handling and shaking the incence container is different in each Rite. There is no harm in such freedom just to satisfy some identity or culture. In this Unity Octave, let us pray that there is real Unity first among all divisions and Rites in the ONE HOLY CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH.

I would like to advise Linda Nelson not to be that pessimistic.  There may be judas among the clergy and the so called believers. But one thing we must admit that the Church has not deviated from the core teachings of Jesus Christ. failures caused by some may be there. In Jawaharlal Nehru who was an atheist and the first Prime Minister of India wrote in his autobiography ” as long as the catholic Church holds on to the old stool, it will flourish”. In matters of morality it holds on.

Angelo, do you have any links for the videos showing a properly said Novus Ordo Mass?

“He elaborated on the idea that if the schismatic archbishop had seen the new Mass celebrated properly and reverently he might not have rejected it.”
—
## That is not credible. (1) The Abp. was never a schismatic; & (2) no *offering* of the Mass in the revised Missal can alter the fact of the “time-bombs” in the texts of V2; (3) what about the very many Masses *not* offered in a reverent way ? (4) The alleged anecdote would require the Abp. to be remarkably stupid; something I find more likely by far in modern cardinals. The cardinal has either misunderstood Bp. Fellay, or been misreported - & the last possibility is only too likely. The failure of the article to avoid missing the point, & to face the problems with the reformed Missal, makes one despair.

  This should surprise no one because of the “liturgists” who not bother to follow what the Vatican Document on this said much less to even bother to read it. It said Latin was to have a place of honor along with Gregorian Chant and Polyphany. It did NOT say that altars were to be turned into plane tables or that the priest should be facing the congregations rather than East. And it did not say that girls can be alter servers much less than Communion is to be given in the hand rather than on the tongue. In April 1970 at my first Communion I received on the tongue but while standing. They recently changed the Altar from a table to an Altar. These are all abuses that have damaged the way we worshiped and also negated the belief in the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Host.

I am blessed to conduct a retreat ministry at my local parish and throughout my Diocese. I am also blessed to have priests at my parish who follow the Holy Father and the Magisterium in matters of faith and morals. Since Vatican II, we have seen what infiltration into the faith by Marxists and ” false Cathoilics” has created. A world where nothing is a sin and God’s law is questioned on a daily basis. Morals and cultures may change, but God’s laws DO NOT!  We need to make a choice. Do we follow the Christ, or man?

I question whether or not the Archbishop actually approved of a completely properly offered Novus Ordo.  There must be more to this statement than just that blanket statement.

The Novus Ordo “in its strictest form” is still the Novus Ordo, isn’t it?  It’s still a new Mass that was created to strip as much Catholicity from the Mass as possible.  That’s a documented fact that that was the intent. 

Perhaps I’m missing something?  Whether or not it’s in Latin, or ad orientem, with or without Gregorian Chant, and absolutely by the rubrics, isn’t it still the Mass that was created to be comfy for Protestants by making it Protestant-like?

Vance, I agree with your comments about how the liberals get away with everything in the church.  However, Bishop Lefebrve did disobey the Holy Father and excommunicated himself.  What is needed is obedience from bishops and priests to the Magisterium.

If article be true, Bp. Fellay is certainly not of one mind with Abp. Lefebvre.

If we are talking about the Roman Canon,Canon I, fine. If we are including the three new “canons” of Masonic Archbishop Annibale Bugnini, there is no way Lefebvre would have accepted such liturgical fabrications. Moreover, he would have rejected (he did reject) the misplacing of the “Mysterium Fidei” from its traditional place in the consecration of the wine. Cardinal Ottaviani called the Novus Ordo Missae a “striking departure” from the sacramental teaching of Trent and, I might add, certainly of St. Pius V’s Quo Primum. The Canon was always considered untouchable, “Canonized,” after the final additions of certain martyrs by Pope Gregory the Great (604). I speak here only of the Canon. John XXIII’s Adding of St. Joseph to the Communicantes was surely prompted by pious motives, but it broke a tradition of nearly 1500 years and opened the door to more changes by another “reforming” pope. The original New Missal of 1969, oddly enough, included the Bull Quo Primum in its preamble. Surely, we have a problem here. Now we need a “reform of the reform.” Wow! It took forty years to figure that out. How sad. The Church lost practically two generations with the Bugnini Mass and its pathetic translations and innovations.

Joanp62, Yes there is a link to the videos I saw where the Mass is said according to the way Ven. Pope Paul Vl intended. One can find them on you tube. Click in “Novus Ordo Mass in Latin”, There is an excellant one that is a Novus Ordo High Mass in Latin. The priest and people all face the same direction. Pope Benedict XVl has repeatedly said the the Altar was never supposed to have been turned around. It was a liturgical fad that kinda stuck. Benedict XVl has said that the Altars will be turned back around gradually. He has said that any priest can say Mass the corect way without interference from their Bishops, that is Mass with Priest and people facing the same direction in the worship of Almighty God, known as “Ad Orientem”. Another thing that I read much about is the fact that Ven. Pope Paul Vl never done away with the Ember Weeks in the Novus Ordo. Bishops just eliminated them. Much of the Missal of Paul Vl has been eliminated by unscrupulous liturgical reformers, or rather liturgical deformers.

One thing I have long wondered about. Those in authority in the Church treat The Society of St. Pius X with a pre-vatican ll rigor. Is the Church ignoring all those modernists who have caused so much damage to the Church. Those modernists are hardly ever dealt with, yet they are the true enemies of Christ’s Church. It was they who have caused mass confusion. Pope Benedict XVl as Cardinal Ratzinger was asked if it was true that there were many Bishops in the US that were not in union with the Holy Father. The answer surprised me! Cardinal Ratzinger answered that there were not many Bishops, only about 30 US Bishops who were not in union with the Pope. Why were these Bishops not dealt with. They could do whatever they wanted and say whatever they wanted without being questioned by Rome’s authority. Yet every word, every move made by the SSPX is being srutinized by Roman authorities who should be the ones under investigation for heresy. Pope Benedict XVl desires very much the reconciliation of the SSPX, I wonder if he does not already plan high positions for them in order to stamp out error.

In all fairness, the media frequently does not give justice to everyone involved.  Therefore, this link will give a better explanation of what was said between Cardinal Canizares, and about the SSPX position, via Bishop Bernard Fellay: 

http://sspx.org/superior_generals_news/what_bishop_fellay_really_said_to_cardinal_canizares_about_the_new_mass_1-21-2013.htm

Listen, the article is not true, and Bishop Fellay is on the same page as the archbishop: there is no ‘split’ from the traditional teaching of the Church, that is what Lefebvre taught, and what Fellay continues to seek, likening it to a man standing out in the rain knocking and knocking on the door, but when it is opened (by modernists), not going in.

That is not what heretics do. They seek to change the traditional teaching of the Church, not cling to it and restore it.

This isn’t over egos or power politics, it’s over theology, specifically the changed teaching on religious liberty, on collegiality, and on ecumenism. The issues of what is a sin, how should the authority of the Church be exercised, and even the liturgy, are subsidiary issues to these three. If you will google ‘Ocariz and Gleize’, you will find a well-written SSPX article that clearly points to the exact words in the text of Vatican II that changed the teaching of the Church, and the world, and all that has come since, but I would like to highlight the catastrophe that the abandonment of the possibility and desireability of the Catholic religious state has been for working people (as if the threat alone had held some predatory power in check), has come from the Council. It has all come from the decaying philosophy liberalism expressed in the most important forum of all, the Church, through that curse Vatican II.

I believe by faith, that Vatican Council ll was something good for the Church. For over 30 years I have been looking for that good. I must admit I have not found it. I see many modernists who did not misinterpret the Council but rather invented their own. In inventing their own they expect everyone to obey all their whims and fancies. Then I see the Traditionalist movement trying their best to fix what the modernists have broken. Becuase of this they are treated with a strict law and order attitude. Does’nt make sense!