Wednesday, May 6, 2015

In Stark Contrast....

I remember this fellow riled up not a few people when he stated that the FSSPX Mass in reparation for a Satanic Black Mass was a greater abomination that the initial sacrilege. He is back with more, this time with comments on Quo primum tempore, St. Pius V's bull promulgating a streamlined set of liturgical books open for use throughout the Latin Church. The specifics of the bull interest us less here than the attitude of interpretation. In stark contrast to Fr. Hunwicke's comments, which read Quo primum tempore as a codification of the passed on tradition, this Fr. Nicholson reads it as the codification of the passed on authority. One thinks of the chapter "Obedience Before Tradition" in Dr. Hull's Banished Heart

Please do not complain in the comment box, which is a great temptation when these casual matters present themselves. Instead, say something insightful!


  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

  2. Replies

    2. Reportedly he is close friends with the ChurchMilitantTV crowd, which makes sense. Fr. Nick's flamboyantly sarcastic delivery is very similar to Michael Voris' tornado screeds. (I admit I do enjoy the daily VorisVids, if only for their entertainment value.) It could also explain why Voris and his homeschool interns complain about the SSPX so frequently.

  3. It might be worthwhile to learn how to pronounce the titles of Church documents before one begins to rant about them. Or he could fulfill Can. 249, but of course it is more difficult to follow the law than it is to point out that other people are wrong about stuff.

  4. Honestly, after he blasted Fr. Gruner and seems to continue to blast "rad trads" and those associated with the SSPX, I have little tolerance for watching any more of his videos or reading his material.

    1. Oh, and sorry if this sounded like complaining!

    2. Attacking Fr. Gruner is utterly ridiculous. Gruner had many ideas and views I disagreed with (I thought him a bit obsessive), but he was a kind and gentle man who wanted to help the church in the way he thought would help it (I just think we was always fighting the wrong battle). There was no malice in him, unlike Fr. Nicholson or many of Gruner's compatriots.

  5. Perhaps I am the only one who has not been "hurt" by this video: what this... eh... priest?... says is just the same thing SSPX &c. folks use to say when somebody complains of the Liturgical aberrations promoted by Pacelli, Sarto, or any other preconciliar Pope - I have suffered it myself, and I'm not the only one here, I suppose. Their opinions about Tradition are almost the same: for this clown... eh, priest, Tradition is what the current Pope says; for SSPXers, Tradition was what the current Pope said until the wicked Council arrived. Their forma mentis is exactly the same!

    Of course, the video is hideous, and after reading his blog entry on the Black Mass and the SSPX, I am tempted to say that this man has no soul at all - of course, I have no right of condemn him, as he does with everyone else!

    K. e.

  6. Why would I ruin my day watching this video?

  7. We have arrived at the abyss in this time of an execrable ecclesiastical epoch for it has always been the sine qua non of Catholicism that one had to maintain the Bonds of unity in Worship, Doctrine, and Authority to exist as a Catholic (Try and find a catechism, encyclical, ecumenical document teaching otherwise) and so it seems to me to be a difficult thing to succor the sspx for the celerity with which it has changed the spiritual weltanschauung of too many soi distant traditionalists is a crisis in and of itself.

    The idea a schism is acceptable is a sign of serious spiritual delusion as it has always been condemned in the most sever manner possible everywhere and at al times. Today? Its cool, baby

    One could look at the sspx and say its praxis is quite similar to that of the schismatic heretics of the east - the so-called orthodox - and that its praxis will eventually (if it already hasn't) anneal into a permanent schism which, ironically, will render all of their sacraments valid.

    I think there is grave danger (pun intended) of us becoming inured to a cavalier attitude about obedience and to think we can just slough it off according to our own perceptions, prejudices preferences,, personal inclinations etc and so it may be the case for those who can not gain access the caves of covadonga (FFSP, ICK, ect) that our way in the Church will be the way of the cross.

    It is not so easy to resist the universal jurisdiction of the Pope as it seems to be thought by many trads.

    We have Matt 16:19, encyclicals, Tradition, ecclesiastical history, Vatican 1 etc etc all heavily weighing n that one has to obey and who is it who has the expertise and foresight to claim that any discipline is evil?

    Not me, that's for sure, for I understand it to be the case that if I decide whether or not to obey a disciplinary decision taken by a Pope then I have just essentially substituted my authority for his; that is I will decide, not the pope which to my, admittedly, below average intelligence, is protestantism in action.

    Who knows why the permissive will of God (if this is happening) is allowing to happen what seems to be happening but it is ineluctably infallible that Jesus is still - and always has been - the Head of the Catholic Church, so, where is Raider Fan to go?

    Were he to leave the Church, some terrifying day, Raider Fan would have to stand before the Judgment Seat of Christ and explain why he thought it was a good idea to support a schism or to leave His Catholic Church.

    Saint Vincent of Lerins taught us that situations like we are experiencing today is the way God tests us to see whether of not we love Him and His grading system for that final has but two grades - Heaven and Hell.

    There are no make-up tests so we better not fail.

    Raider Fan is going nowhere. If the Barque is going down, he is going with it.

    1. The SSPX isn't in schism, IMHO. They may be used to poerating outside the normal structure of the Church, but time and again, the Cardinals heading Ecclesia Dei have stated the matter of the SSPX to be an internal matter of the Catholic Church, unlike the Orthodox. To ignore this is to willfully blind oneself to the complex realities of the situation.

      At the same time, I can't agree with everything the SSPX does, especially with their understanding of the liturgy. The Pope is not the arbiter of the liturgy, only the custodian. He can be lawfully resisted when he tries to impose innovation in the liturgy when there is no good reason for the innovation (the Novus Ordo being the prime example). The SSPX does pick and choose concerning the liturgy, especially concerning the Holy Week rites, I must admit.

    2. Dear Paul. The SSPX choses to obey only those decisions that are consistent with its own will; that it, its praxis is protestant in that it is arrogating authority to itself.

      The problem about your claim in the last paragraph is not even seen by you; who has the authority to decide what is or isn't changeable within the liturgy or who decides whether or not there as a good reason for the change?

      As Dylan oncet sang, It ain't me, babe; no, no, no, it ain't me, babe...

      In his simply great series on the Liturgical Movement, Rad Trad, rightly, lamented the great centralisation - especially that under Pius XII - but there it is in Medator Dei, the Pope does have the authority, not me or thee.

      As for claims of the sspx not being in schism, the latest from the Magisterium - Prefect of the CDF, Mueller - is that the sspx is a schism.

      OK, Rad Trad, thanks for the patience. R.F, is dropping the subject.

    3. I want to point out to RF that some of us consider Mediator Dei to be absolute heresy akin to whatever Honorius was condemned for.

  8. R. F., sorry, but no Pope Pius XII's understanding of the liturgy is just plain wrong, whatever else he wrote correctly. He ABSOLUTELY cannot impose any novelty in the liturgy unless it be genuinely for the good of the Church, and he can be resisted, even if the Pope thinks "I am Tradition" (if Pius IX said that, he was plain wrong, too). As for Cardinal Muller, he doubted the Virgin Birth and other things; it seems to me you also are picking and choosing your authorities as to whether the SSPX is in schism or not. You also haven't addressed the fact that the SSPX is recognized as Catholic by both the Argentinian government and the ecclesiastical authorities there. Even the Rorate Caeli blogspot recognizes the SSPX as Catholic, whatever problems they have with regularization. Cardinal Muller cannot refute the fact that the SSPX are not considered as the Eastern Orthodox!

  9. Dear Paul.

    The SSPX has actualised two material heresies but it is an open question as to whether or not they are formal owing to the low Tradtiion information status of those vagus clerics.

    Heresy # 1 They repudiate this infallible teaching:

    Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both
    episcopal and immediate.

    Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world.

    In this way, by unity with the Roman pontiff in communion and in profession of the same faith , the church of Christ becomes one flock under one supreme shepherd [50] .

    This is the teaching of the catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation.

    The SSPX Schism is stuck on stupid worse, they teach those who succor it that true obedience to God requires disobedience to His Vicar; that is, their excuse for their perfidy is exactly the same as that excuse proffered by Martin Luther.

    Heresy #2

    The SSPX repudiates the two recent Canonisations despite the reality they are infallible and were promulgated using the classic infallible form and content .

    But, Raider Fan has saved the funnest and bestest for last. They beat the synod to the punch for they dispense communion to adulterers.

    Lefevbre, long ago established his own tribunals that, he averred, supplanted the authority/judgements of the Roman Rota and those Tribunals have been granting faux decrees of nullity to their supporters and those men/women then get "re-married" and receive Communion in the SSPX Chapels.

    Forty years ago who could have predicted the spread of such heresies and malign praxis?

    Well any Trad worth his salt for schism is proximate to heresy.

    The truly disturbing thing is that so many so distant traditionalists now publicly defend the schism and the celerity with which this astonishing change in spiritual weltanschauung has occurred makes Raider Fan certain that the SSPX serves Satan, not Tradition.

    Give the ol'serpent his due; he used the Holy Mass to pry the formerly faithful away from the church.

    As to Mediator Dei, it is what it is and one can not escape its ineluctable consequences by having recourse to private judgment for that is the first step on a short road to prot-ville and it undermines whatever future argument we may have against the libs when they refuse the disciplines of the then Trad Pope.

      "Those therefore who after the manner of wicked heretics dare to
      set aside ecclesiastical traditions, and to invent any kind of novelty,
      or to reject any of those things entrusted to the Church, or who
      wrongfully and outrageously devise the destruction of any of those
      traditions enshrined in the Catholic Church, are to be punished thus:
      if they are bishops, we order them to be deposed."

      Third Council of Constantinople: "To [Pope] Honorius the heretic, ANATHEMA"

      (Pope Innocent III, Sermon 4)
      "The pope should not flatter himself about his power, nor should he
      rashly glory in his honor and high estate, because the less he is judged by
      man, the more he is judged by God. Still the less can the Roman Pontiff
      glory, because he can be judged by men, or rather, can be shown to be
      already judged, if for example he should wither away into heresy, because he who
      does not believe is already judged. In such a case it should be said of him:
      'If salt should lose its savor, it is good for nothing but to be cast out and
      trampled under foot by men.'"

    2. When the Mass was changed from Greek to Latin, when the canon was entirely recast early on- accord to Mike Davies' favorite Liturgist - does that mean these early Popes were also heretics and, thus, deposed and no longer Popes?

      The memento was an addition (but not a novelty because it is loved) The Credo was added to the Mass (but that novelty was jake) ) per the request of King Henry II when he came to Rome for his coronation; the list of such additions - and subtractions ,is quite long and well-documented.

      So, can I cite Denzinger's against those popular Popes?

      And, specifically, who was Nicea directing those words towards - existing heretics or some Popes-To-be-born centuries in the future?

      Paul: Raider Fan is in union with his Bishop and Pope whereas the SSPX is not. And as for recognising the Pope as Pope, so do the Jehovah Witnesses who come to my door.

      R.F. is a big fan of those who remain in the Church and try and defend the entreat of Faith wears the SSPX is like the draft dodgers who ran away to Canada during the Vietnam War, donned Army fatigues and gave the POTUS the finger.

      The SSPX fled the field of battle, donned traditional vestments and continuously gives the Popes raspberries.

      Big whoo-de-doo

      Amerio, Mattei, Gherardhini etc are admirable men whereas the sspx clerics are girly-men

      R. F. intended to drop the subject but what is poor RF to do if he is personally addressed about the subject?

      He who hate to deprive you of his knowledge :)

    3. RF,
      I am not involving myself in the SSPX discussion, but rather the idea that obedience to a human authority (like the pope) must always trump everything. The Fathers, Doctors, popes, councils, and theologians of the church throughout the centuries clearly state otherwise.

      "By teaching that superiors should not refuse to be reprehended by inferiors, St. Peter gave posterity an example more rare and holier than that of St. Paul as he taught that in the defense of truth and with charity, inferiors may have the audacity to resist superiors without fear."
      (ST. AUGUSTINE, Epistula 19 ad Hieronymum)

      POPE ADRIAN VI (1522-1523)

      "If by the Roman Church you mean its head or pontiff, it is beyond question that he can error even in matters touching the faith. He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgment or decretal. In truth, many Roman pontiffs were heretics. The last of them was Pope John XXII (1316-1334)."
      (Quaest. in IV Sententiam).
      "After his death [Pope] Honorius was anathematized by the Eastern Church. We must remember that he was accused of heresy, a crime which legitimizes the resistance of inferiors to superiors, together with the rejection of their pernicious doctrines. (Allocution III, Lect. In Conc. VIII, act. VII)

    4. R.F., there are Cardinals "in full Communion with Rome" saying the SSPX isn't in schism. Are you accusing them of aiding the "schism"? And haven't you seen that whenever the Pope does something good (at least according to their minds), they wholeheartedly agree? The main issue is Vatican II and regularization; not "schism"!! I have yet to see you show proof from the SSPX's own words that they are a Church, independent from the Pope. If anything, Bishop Fellay is still giving good faith that he isn't in schism and wanting to regularize into the canonical structures, unlike the Orthodox.

    5. And BTW, calling the SSPX priests "girly men" is quite uncalled-for. Maybe I really ought to call you a rabid anti-SSPXer. I thought at first that I was too harsh, due to LoB's words, but now I'm not so sure.

  10. Thanks, Lord of Bollocks for that. R.F., that is simply false! The SSPX acknowledges Pope Francis as Supreme Pontiff; they have disobeyed the previous Pontiffs, yes, but that doesn't make it a schism. You are really an Ultramontane! You believe everything the Popes say are correct: that is undeniably false. You have a false understanding of obedience, Tradition, and the Magisterium. Your accusations of the SSPX, whatever faults they have, are false, IMHO.

    BTW, I thought you dropped this subject. I guess not; you are absolutely a rabid anti-SSPX, IMHO.

    1. Hey now, don't beat up on RF. He's probably just misinformed. Most ultramontines are that way because they were never taught about the bad popes. Educate, don't attack. :)

      I remember I was once drinking coffee after a Latin Mass and quite lovely looking young lady came up to me to strike up a conversation. After an offhand comment about Pope Formosus she asked me who that was and I proceeded to divulge the entire story. I think I broke her brain. Her face was one of utter horror not over so much that the event happened but that the event COULD happen. She also chided me for daring to find it a bit amusing.

      It made the rest of the conversation quite awkward

    2. Sorry, but I always feel beat up whenever the SSPX is always stated as in schism. I sometime overreact. Again, sorry about that. My views have changed a lot from when I thought the SSPX was absolutely correct, though, so I can't indiscriminately defend them, thanks to this blog and even yours, LoB, even I though I do disagree with other things. I hope R.F. learns here, despite my sometimes bitter tone.


    Argentina formally recognizes SSPX as part of the Catholic Church - at the request of the Archbishop of Buenos Aires (and Pope Francis?)

  12. Gentlemen, I think we've all said enough on this topic and broached good deportment sufficiently for some time. Comments closed!

    The most recent post is more worthy of reading!