3 Peas in a Pod: Mundabor, Father "Z" & Neo-SSPX
Pseudo-Trads say "Rome not evil!" Really??
I am no longer surprised by what comes out of the mouth's of some of these pseudo traditionalist apologists, priests and groups anymore. However, I find this latest blog just another disturbing, delusional piece as to why we say you ought be avoiding such persons/groups. Let us take a look at this latest blog covering the "New Mess" and highlight the errors.
First the blog itself:
You really should (I mean, I cannot force you to; but I encourage you to see this as a must) head to father Z and read the beautiful exchange he had with a SSPX priest about not only the Mass, but the V II Sacraments in general.(Now I will patiently wait a couple of minutes until you have read all of it…)
I allow myself to notice the following:
- The SSPX speaks, very boldly, for the entire Society. And says, very boldly, that strange “attending the new Mass is a sin” talk is not the SSPX line, and would have caused a frightful shampoo even in the “old bad days”, when certain elements were still around.
2. The Novus Ordo mass is certainly valid, and it is certainly not a sin to attend it; but the entire “Spirit of V II” that goes with it – and which influences both the way the Mass is celebrated, and the way the priest steers his congregation – is such that it puts souls in danger, as (this is mine), they get exposed to a Kindergarten Mass together with Worse Than Kindergarten Theology, and the results are in front of all of us. Yours truly feels, in a word, vindicated from the accusation of “not caring enough for truth” raining on him every time he says to his readers that whilst it is much preferable to attend a TLM if they can, the NO Mass is certainly valid and they are not exempted from mass obligation merely because the priest is an idiot of dubious virility.
3. The SSPX recognises all of the other Sacraments, too. This means – shocking! – that they even recognise absolutions given by Jesuits!
All of the above must, as always, be read with a brain. It does not mean that the SSPX recognises the validity of a NO mass in which such abuses take place, that it is legitimate to doubt that the mass is valid. But your garden variety NO Mass is valid.
You will, however, notice this: that a conservative V II priest and a SSPX priest are, undoubtedly, both united on the same side; and whilst they might differ on a couple of issues, they recognise this reality in the same way as they recognise the distance separating both of them from heterodox or utterly heretical priests, bishops and cardinals.
The NO is not invalid, nor is it evil. But when the Church goes back to sanity, the NO will most certainly go.
M
https://mundabor.wordpress.com/2015/12/13/the-sspx-the-confessional-and-the-new-mass/
Points to note and/or Error:
1) beautiful exchange: Neo-SSPX no longer takes a stand against the pseudo traditionalists like Father Z and/or Mundabor types any longer. Yet Archbishop Lefebvre (founder of SSPX) was adamantly against these types. The reason being is the Neo-SSPX is no different now for they are poisoned too.
2) “attending the new Mass is a sin” talk is not the SSPX line"- This, of course, is an error coming from the Neo-SSPX which is now changed under the pseudo traditionalist leadership of Bishop Fellay and gang. The New Mass is illicit and schismatic. It is illicit because it is the modernists new faith on display made up by heretics. It is schismatic per the Council of Trent (can. 7 sess. 13). We are in a silent/pastoral schism since Vatican II which has been teaching the Novus Ordo Religion (under the guise of Catholicity) since Vatican II and has been deceiving these pseudo traditionalist types. It is most definitely sin to attend the New Mass in full knowledge that what you are attending is modernist/protestant and not Catholic (which it is)
3) were elements within the SSPX that were pushing a Rome=evil agenda: Did you mean Archbishop Lefebvre who called Rome "modernist" and said the snakes (antichrists) were in Rome? The Neo-SSPX is under new leadership which has watered down its take on the crisis which is why Catholics ought not be attending their chapels (generally speaking). ROME IS MODERNIST. VATICAN II is self condemned by our Faith itself and objectively speaking Rome has been evil for quite sometime. Archbishop Lefebvre summed it up, 'Rome has lost the Faith. Rome is in apostasy. We can no longer trust this lot!” I am not speaking empty words! That is the truth! Rome is in apostasy! One can no longer have any confidence in these people! They have left the Church! They have left the Church! They have left the Church! It is certain! Certain! Certain! Certain! ”
4) which is also not the SSPX position and sounds very Protestant to me.....it’s not Satan’s HQ, nor will it ever be.: Or maybe you are the Protestant? That statement is the official position of the SSPX but not the Neo-SSPX under the liberal Bishop Fellay. Do these quotes sound familiar?
"Rome will lose the Faith and become the seat of the Antichrist" Our Lady of LaSalette
“The apostasy of the city of Rome from the vicar of Christ and its destruction by Antichrist may be thoughts very new to many Catholics, that I think it well to recite the text of theologians of greatest repute. First Malvenda, who writes expressly on the subject, states as the opinion of Ribera, Gaspar Melus, Biegas, Suarrez, Bellarmine and Bosius that Rome shall apostatize from the Faith, drive away the Vicar of Christ and return to its ancient paganism. ...Then the Church shall be scattered, driven into the wilderness, and shall be for a time, as it was in the beginning, invisible; hidden in catacombs, in dens, in mountains, in lurking places; for a time it shall be swept, as it were from the face of the earth. Such is the universal testimony of the Fathers of the early Church.”- Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, The Present Crisis of the Holy See, 1861, London: Burns and Lambert, pp. 88-90)
“If there should ever come a day – We say this as a matter of pure hypothesis – when the physical reality of Rome were to crumble; if ever this Vatican Basilica, the symbol of the one, invincible, and victorious Catholic Church, were to bury beneath its ruins the historical treasures and the sacred tombs it enshrines, even then the Church would not, by that fact, be overthrown or undermined; the promise of Christ to Peter would always remain true, the Papacy would continue unchanged, as well as the one, indestructible Church founded on the Pope alive at that time.”
“Thus it is: Rome the Eternal in the supernatural and Christian sense, is superior to the Rome of history. Her supernatural and eternal truth are superior to and independent of the historic City.”3rd Secret Of Fatima implying "headquarters" (Papacy) will eventually be elsewhere:
“In Portugal, the dogma of the Faith will always be preserved…
Apologetics on this mass apostasy of Vatican II
4) and it is certainly not a sin to attend it; but the entire “Spirit of V II” that goes with it: What is with these pseudo traditionalists and the whole "spirit of Vatican II" routine? If the spirit behind something is bad it means the doctrine following it will be bad it thus means the liturgy "will be bad" as well aka "illicit". THE NEW MASS is objectively speaking EVIL and is to be avoided. The priests offering the New Mass in the very least are compromisers of the Faith and thus to be avoided. However the majority are simply following the New Religion of Vatican II and thus are following and teaching heresy therefore they are to be avoided.
5) and they are not exempted from mass obligation merely because the priest is an idiot of dubious virility. This is completely idiotic. There is nothing in Catholic teaching which allows for a Catholic to be attending something "not Catholic"!. Vatican II and the New Mass are both objectively speaking not Catholic and therefore must be avoided. YOU ARE DISPENSED FROM THE SUNDAY OBLIGATION IF THERE IS NOTHING CATHOLIC BY YOU. Attending the New Mass is not an option. You cannot fulfill your Sunday obligation in the Conciliar Church (objectively speaking). Fr. Hesse Doctorate of canon Law and Thomistic Theology explains 13 min mark:
6) You will, however, notice this: that a conservative V II priest and a SSPX priest are, undoubtedly, both united on the same side: Because they are both poisoned (cloaked modernist/liberals)
7) whilst they might differ on a couple of issues, they recognise this reality in the same way as they recognise the distance separating both of them from heterodox or utterly heretical priests, bishops and cardinals. Is this the same Father Z who accepts Vatican II and is in the heretical diocese? The same Neo-SSPX who also now accepts the Council and wants to make an agreement with Modernist Rome? Vatican II is the pastoral implementation of the Novus Ordo Religion; it is modernist and not Catholic. When will these pseudo traditionalists wake up?
8) The NO is not invalid, nor is it evil. But when the Church goes back to sanity, the NO will most certainly go: A clarification needs to be made. The N.O. CAN be invalid but as stated is not, however, it is illicit and schismatic and is to be avoided. He states it is not evil but when the Church returns to Her sanity it will most certainly go?? What pseudo trad vomit this is!! If it is not evil (illicit) then why does it need to go? The pseudo trads are unable to make key theological distinctions. I am getting confused by just trying to hear him out. Goodness gracious....
Mundabor, Father Z and Neo-SSPX are 3 peas in a pod and are all pseudo traditionalists. Archbishop Lefebvre was indeed against all these three who in reality represent the same side of the coin in the end (that the council can be accepted)....
Keep spreading blogs and information my friends TradCatKnight gained 3.2 million views alone yesterday, Ave Maria!
Our Declaration of Faith
This Reform, since it has issued from Liberalism and from Modernism, is entirely corrupt;
it comes from heresy and results in heresy, even if all its acts are
not formally heretical. It is thus impossible for any faithful Catholic
who is aware of these things to adopt this Reform, or to submit to it in
any way at all. To ensure our salvation, the only attitude of fidelity
to the Church and to Catholic doctrine, is a categorical refusal to
accept the Reform.
