The Brood Of Latin-Massists: A Cursory Glance
Preamble:
 |
| The Latin-Massists blush at scenes like those in these pictures and reduce the question to a "bad-dad" theology... They reject the "ordinary" law of worship prescribed by their "Popes" and have had an "extraordinary" law of worship granted them to flatter their nostalgia while being coreligionists in the new order religion... They have a "living magisterium" but appeal to "tradition" to justify their resistance... |
Few days ago a fellow left a comment on my video post on Facebook. He finds himself confused as he notices a difference, obvious difference, between what the contents of my posts uphold and that upheld by those usually called "Latin-Massists". Below is a screenshot of the comment.
 |
| The "other priests" here referred to are those of the brood of Latin-Massists that have invaded Nigeria over the years... You can be sure that the majority of them are products of the 1968 revised Rite of Episcopal consecration and Priestly ordination, thus nothing more than lay-robed men... a couple of them have secured to themselves valid Orders with little or no training; others, being desperate, have only secured to themselves doubtful Orders from doubtful Bishops... |
| This post is an attempt to get to the cause of the said confusion and to correct the misrepresentation of what I stand for as insinuated in the comment. |
The Latin-Massist Clan
Basically two groups of people make up the brood of Latin-Massists. On the one hand we have the Neo-trads, Ultra-conservatives, who tread what I call the "Extraordinary Highway". On the other hand we have the "Recognize and Resisters" treading the "Sifters Highway".
In the eighteenth chapter of "My Treasured Mistake" I recount, how in the course of my adventure to discern the Catholic response to the Vatican II question, I encountered the brood of Latin-Massists and found them wanting.
On The Neo-trads
I wrote thus concerning my intellectual encounter with the Neo-trads:
The second highway goes by the name “Extraordinary Highway.” According to those on this way, the Catholic response to Vatican II of course is obedience: Rome has said it, so be it. While they accept the New Mass – the Ecumenical (Mess) Service – as genuinely Catholic (the so-called ordinary form of the Roman Rite!), they see themselves filled with a nostalgia for the Old Mass. Having the indulgence from the modernist hierarchy to assuage this nostalgia by retaining what is called the “Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite” (a revised Rite of the Old Mass bearing every evidence of the filthy fingers of the Modernist liturgical heretics), they are at peace. To them the question as to whether Vatican II taught heresies, or whether the “priest” using the “Extraordinary Form,” is not a priest but a robed layman, is of no consequence; they have a set of rites that is more pleasing to them, that saves the day. Theirs is that odious phenomenon rightly tagged “Latin Mass-ism.”
Those on this way are the Ultra-conservatives, neo-Traditionalists, who are so deplorably affected by the Modernist poison as to be ready to sacrifice Catholic doctrine on the altar of their preference and permit themselves to be so blind so as to be coreligionists with the Modernists. They accept Vatican II and all of the official aggiornamento/update made in its consequence. Under this alliance, they have also right granted them by the Modernist hierarchy to operate seminaries and institutes according to more or less pre-Vatican II lines. But they are bound to accept the revised rites for Episcopal consecration, thus parading ornate vestments and beautiful ceremonies, that placate their fancy, but are not only objectively empty, having no sacramental grace, but as well sacrilegious and constitute a pernicious worship. Their response is not Catholic: it is not Catholic to be ready to sacrifice divine doctrine on the altar of one’s preference; neither is it Catholic to equally estimate a God-centered worship and a Man-centered worship, and allowing one’s preference for the man-centered worship as legitimate. Preference for impiety (due to ill-formed judgement) can never be given a right to exist under any pretense by a Catholic. It is odious to an informed Catholic common sense.
On the Recognize and Resisters
In my intellectual encounter with those on the "Sifters Highway":
... It was, at first, consoling to hear those on this path admit that Vatican II indeed introduced novelties at variance with consistent Church teachings, novelties once condemned as either heretical or pernicious errors injurious to the faith or of several other theological qualifications. They admit that the liturgical changes made after Vatican II are the flowering of its heresies and that these changes are poisonous to the faith of each Catholic. So far so good!
Now concerning what ought to be the Catholic response to Vatican II, I was told we must resist the substantial changes both in doctrine and praxis made by Vatican II’s aggiornamento and hold on to the traditional, age-old teaching. Concerning the authorities behind the aggiornamento, they insist we must give them due recognition as legitimately Catholic, but we must ignore them when they impose anything in line with Vatican II’s aggiornamento or anything that smacks of Modernism. In other words, we must recognize the authorities responsible for these substantial changes and those enforcing the changes today as legitimate and genuine Roman Catholic authorities having the Infallible Spirit of the Eternal Truth for a principle, but resist and ignore them. On hearing this, I knew at once that those on this way lack the not-so-common virtue of consistency in logic and operate on an assumption at loggerheads with the first principle of reason, the law of contradiction: how could an authority responsible for heresies and novelties injurious to the faith be at the same time legitimately and genuinely Catholic? How could a Catholic faithful ignore a legitimate and genuine Catholic authority without being guilty of schism? These questions reveal the depressing drama of the “Recognize and Resist-ers,” in whose pseudo-traditionalism I saw nothing but a handy tool in the attempt of the enemies of the Papacy to destroy it by devaluing it. They work for the destruction of the Papacy by promoting that monstrosity called a “heretical pope” akin to saying a “square circle.” Under this agenda, their attitude is best summed in the famous epithet: “The Pope speaks, you decide” – sift what (you feel/think) is traditional (or Catholic), resist what is modernist, and life goes on. These Recognize and Resist-ers would have me, or anyone unfortunate enough to give them a hearing, admit the possibility that a Pope can promulgate false doctrines and enact universal disciplines which are evil. But such an admission is itself a heresy against the teaching that the Catholic Church is infallible in these matters!
They would have me or anyone unfortunate enough to give them a hearing to conceive the idea that, in following the universal teachings of the Church or her universal disciplines, one could be led astray and go to hell. But if this were possible, one would have to conclude that the Roman Catholic Church is not the true Church, but a human institution like any other false church! While I recognized their zeal as such, I was obliged to reject their un-Catholic response to Vatican II which is essentially Protestant: the response of private judgment. In it, the doctrines, decrees, and universal disciplines of what they recognize as the Church are subjected to their private scrutiny. Their response at best ruins the indefectibility of the Catholic Church by identifying the doctrinal and disciplinary defection of Vatican II and its subsequent reforms with the Catholic Church. In sum, their response labors under the spirit of schism and their guiding principle of sifting the magisterium is nothing but heretical. To that extent, I could not join their bandwagon.
Recognizing The Seat of The Pope.
The correspondent leaves a supposition that I do not recognize the "seat of the Pope". In another comment he posed a direct question as shown in the screenshot below:
 |
| How my senses (external and internal) revolt as they are subjected to the violence of having to read the words "the Holy Father...(Pope Francis)! Why so? Because those words do not describe a reality: they are forced to pronounce something contrary to fact... |
| Of course to infer from my posts that I do not recognize the "Seat of the Pope" would be a gross misrepresentation of fact: it is my recognition of that seat and my unflinching Faith that it is repulsive to any stain of heresy that defines my identity. |
Put differently, because I am convinced that the strength and the solidity of the whole Church rests on the institution, perpetuity and nature of the Sacred Apostolic Primacy (as taught by the only Vatican Council the Church has had), I hold that the Seat of Blessed Peter untouched by any stain of heresy including the synthesis of all heresies (modernism) is totally vacant by Divine Law. Yes, in the Pope, when we have a Pope, Christ lives in the infallibility of His teaching authority. When we do not have a Pope the infallible doctrine handed down from apostolic times till the last Pope remain the rule for the faithful in all things concerning faith and morals.
"Pope Francis" : a Case Study.
In my quick reply to his direct question I wrote thus:
The Catholic Church is presently totally POPE-LESS (without a Pope).
Note these points:
1. A manifest heretic is not a member of the Catholic Church.
~~But Bergoglio is a manifest Modernist heretic.
===>>> Therefore Bergoglio is not a member of the Catholic Church.
2. One who is not a member of the Catholic Church cannot be the head of the Catholic Church.
~~~ but Bergoglio is not a member of the Catholic Church since he is a manifest Modernist heretic.
===>>> Therefore Bergoglio is not the (Visible) Head of the Catholic Church, a Pope.
I do recognize him for who/what he is: a Modernist papal impostor.
And I do recognize him for who/what HE IS NOT: a Pope.
Yes. Fully conscious of the honor due to divine prerogatives of Blessed Peter to which Christianity owes its preservation, and unmistaken about my obligations to the Apostolic See, I do not devalue it as to concede Papal honor to a Modernist papal intruder and impostor. It is that simple and gives no room for confusion.
Padre Pio: His Canonization.
There is no doubts that Padre Pio, an Italian priest, was known for his piety and charity, as well as the gift of the stigmata. He died in 1968 -just few weeks to make ten years of the reign of the Modernist papal impostors. The Modernist Papal impostor, "John Paul II" the great Apostate, pretended to both "Beatify" and "Canonize" Padre Pio.
Now, Canonization belongs to the exercise of Papal infallibility in matters of Faith and morals. But, Bishop Karol Józef Wojtyła, being an Apostate apostle and therefore not a member of the Catholic Church could not have been the Head of the Catholic Church as to enjoy and exercise Papal prerogatives. Thus, Catholics with informed Catholic common sense, while they genuinely admire the piety of Padre Pio and hold him in high esteem for his charity and doctrinal rectitude, refrain from addressing him as "St. Padre Pio" since a Modernist papal impostor who has not the Catholic faith cannot tell Catholics who to venerate as a Saint, nor has the cause for his sainthood been declared open or concluded by a Pope truly so. Yes. The Church has not infallibly granted him the title "Saint".
Summing Up:
To anyone with an informed Catholic common sense, it is easy to see that the Latin-Massist Clan is indeed a bane to the Catholic cause in the face of the apparent Modernist revolution in permanence. Stuck in the rut of their abominable theology, they insist that Sedevacantists are not Catholics and are deceived by the devil.
But when you consider that the divine prerogatives of Blessed Peter and his legitimate successors in the Primacy have always been the object of attacks by the enemies of the cause of Christ at the service of the father of lies, it becomes easy to discern the truth of the matter as to who is deceived by the devil:
- The Latin-Massists constituting a handy tool in the attempt of the enemies of the Papacy to destroy it by devaluing it; They who work for the destruction of the Papacy by either promoting that monstrosity called a “heretical pope” akin to saying a “square circle" or by keeping a blind eye and deaf ear to principles of Catholic theology as to promote their "bad-dad theology"
- Or the Sedevacantists, who defend the divine prerogatives of the Papacy in all details, and refuse to compromise in so much as an "iota"?
Comments
Post a Comment