'I love it,' the popular preacher, also calling Novus Ordo Watch 'awesome.' Although Relyea rejects certain conclusions, few have the integrity to speak like this about those with whom they disagree.
I respect Fr. Relyea as he tends to discuss tough issues the bogus ordo supper club is terrified of even mentioning. I am, however, fully committed to Sedevacantism as it is, in my lay opinion, the group that is without a doubt the most faithful to the Traditional Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church as it existed before the abomination of V-II. Fr. Cekada's outstanding book Work of Human Hands is the best resource for studying this important topic, and I cannot recommend it highly enough.
It's the charity towards all that The WM Review consistently and without fail practices that makes it so powerful. No unforced errors. This is the way to educate and persuade. Keep it up, gentlemen, and thank you for extolling the richness and fullness of our Catholic faith.
I've listened to many of Fr Relyea's sermons and initially thought he was sedevacantist. When I discovered he was not I thought to myself he's only a hairs breadth away from being so. His recommendation for the WM review and NO Watch Watch will bring more people to see the truth and hear the truth stated with objectivity.
That's all that's required. If one is predisposed to accepting the truth whatever it may be they'll reach the right conclusion. Didn't Jesus tell us that His sheep recognise His voice?
Indeed. I don't think it's worth pointing out points of disagreement here; they're obvious, everyone knows them. Better simply to be gracious and grateful.
Speaking of The Liturgical Year, I was shocked when I read recently Gueranger explaining the Mass of the early Christians. I looked at my son and said, this sounds like the NO Mass. Do you have an article that can explain the argument that defending the new mass as just returning to what the early Christians did? Thank you .
The Liturgical Year is a set I recommend as a “must have”. I do have this set you listed and I also have a paper back set from Loreto Publishing. I take one to Mass and keep one at home!
Some might remember that I was formerly a longtime dogmatic anti-sedevacantist, fitting perfectly the author’s indictment contained in the article’s penultimate paragraph. There were a number of converging factors which led me to reappraise the issue, and arrive at my current sede-doubtist position (ie., I’m not sure the sedevacantists are correct, but I cannot see how they can be wrong). Prominent among these converging factors were the doctrinal “building blocks” supplied by the many articles at WM Review, which calmly supplied for the many defects I THOUGHT existed in the sedevacantists thesis: It destroys visibility; it destroys apostolicity; it destroys indefectibility; it violates Vatican II’s “perpetual successors”; a universally recognized papal claimant is dogmatic fact; it is always schismatic to refuse to recognize the legitimacy of a papal claimant; etc. Against all these objections, WM Review supplied well-researched rebuttals, and when I was left with nothing but tattered arguments, my position began to seem dishonest.
The knockout punch was the WM Review’s Mr. McCusker’s LSN series on the argument from public heresy.
Is a Fatima Priest a Fatima first, Catholic second? The hardcore Fatima folks have the theatre of the 'consecration of Russia' as their top dogma upon which a man in a white cassock is the vodka in the martini - a consecration which has been done ad nauseum and ignoring the plain meaning of the prophecies. Is it Fatima first?
Hello, Katherine. Thanks. Concerning the Montini rites of disordination, for a while I held to the valid but schismatic line that was taught by the late Fr Hesse. This opinon was bolstered (sans the schismatic bit) by the SSPX study and conclusion. I have re-read Fr Cekada's response to the SSPX's defence of the validity. The SSPX defence ignores the elephant in the room - the misapplication of a liturgical rite labeled 'Eastern' with regard to the N.O. Episcopal Consecration. So, it seems they are doubtful, which is saddening.
Fr Cekada introduced his article with the following quotes.
"Once there are no more valid priests they’ll permit the Latin Mass." Rev. Carl Pulvermacher, OFMCap, Former Editor, The Angelus.
"Keep the shell, but empty it of its substance." V.I. Lenin
It can depend on the priest. Tell your Pastor you will seek the advise/conditional from a sedevacantist priest if he dismisses your concerns. That might motivate him. You need to be a friend to your own soul if your Pastor's concern is to be a friend to the Novus Ordo. The fact is the Novus Ordo is not Catholicism and the new sacraments are a Protestant impostion. Historically, the Church as a matter of course, gave conditional baptism to converts; "Tradition" has no excuse other than a modernist mindset to refuse a genuine concern.
I respect Fr. Relyea as he tends to discuss tough issues the bogus ordo supper club is terrified of even mentioning. I am, however, fully committed to Sedevacantism as it is, in my lay opinion, the group that is without a doubt the most faithful to the Traditional Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church as it existed before the abomination of V-II. Fr. Cekada's outstanding book Work of Human Hands is the best resource for studying this important topic, and I cannot recommend it highly enough.
It's the charity towards all that The WM Review consistently and without fail practices that makes it so powerful. No unforced errors. This is the way to educate and persuade. Keep it up, gentlemen, and thank you for extolling the richness and fullness of our Catholic faith.
Many thanks Alan!
I've listened to many of Fr Relyea's sermons and initially thought he was sedevacantist. When I discovered he was not I thought to myself he's only a hairs breadth away from being so. His recommendation for the WM review and NO Watch Watch will bring more people to see the truth and hear the truth stated with objectivity.
That's all that's required. If one is predisposed to accepting the truth whatever it may be they'll reach the right conclusion. Didn't Jesus tell us that His sheep recognise His voice?
Indeed. I don't think it's worth pointing out points of disagreement here; they're obvious, everyone knows them. Better simply to be gracious and grateful.
Fr Relyea also put in a nice plug for your recommended reading list as being gold. Speaking of that list, could you add this link to your list as a source for The Liturgical Year (Complete Set) by Dom Prosper Guéranger? https://store.latinmasshelper.com/collections/all-products/products/the-liturgical-year-complete-set-by-dom-prosper-gueranger
Absolutely. Glad to see a nice bound edition is back on the market. Thanks.
Speaking of The Liturgical Year, I was shocked when I read recently Gueranger explaining the Mass of the early Christians. I looked at my son and said, this sounds like the NO Mass. Do you have an article that can explain the argument that defending the new mass as just returning to what the early Christians did? Thank you .
Yes:
https://www.wmreview.org/p/theology-history-i
Most helpful!! Thank you!
The Liturgical Year is a set I recommend as a “must have”. I do have this set you listed and I also have a paper back set from Loreto Publishing. I take one to Mass and keep one at home!
Fr Isaac Mary Relyea is not an easy priest to impress. Your praise is well earned.
Some might remember that I was formerly a longtime dogmatic anti-sedevacantist, fitting perfectly the author’s indictment contained in the article’s penultimate paragraph. There were a number of converging factors which led me to reappraise the issue, and arrive at my current sede-doubtist position (ie., I’m not sure the sedevacantists are correct, but I cannot see how they can be wrong). Prominent among these converging factors were the doctrinal “building blocks” supplied by the many articles at WM Review, which calmly supplied for the many defects I THOUGHT existed in the sedevacantists thesis: It destroys visibility; it destroys apostolicity; it destroys indefectibility; it violates Vatican II’s “perpetual successors”; a universally recognized papal claimant is dogmatic fact; it is always schismatic to refuse to recognize the legitimacy of a papal claimant; etc. Against all these objections, WM Review supplied well-researched rebuttals, and when I was left with nothing but tattered arguments, my position began to seem dishonest.
The knockout punch was the WM Review’s Mr. McCusker’s LSN series on the argument from public heresy.
Is a Fatima Priest a Fatima first, Catholic second? The hardcore Fatima folks have the theatre of the 'consecration of Russia' as their top dogma upon which a man in a white cassock is the vodka in the martini - a consecration which has been done ad nauseum and ignoring the plain meaning of the prophecies. Is it Fatima first?
Hello, Katherine. Thanks. Concerning the Montini rites of disordination, for a while I held to the valid but schismatic line that was taught by the late Fr Hesse. This opinon was bolstered (sans the schismatic bit) by the SSPX study and conclusion. I have re-read Fr Cekada's response to the SSPX's defence of the validity. The SSPX defence ignores the elephant in the room - the misapplication of a liturgical rite labeled 'Eastern' with regard to the N.O. Episcopal Consecration. So, it seems they are doubtful, which is saddening.
Fr Cekada introduced his article with the following quotes.
"Once there are no more valid priests they’ll permit the Latin Mass." Rev. Carl Pulvermacher, OFMCap, Former Editor, The Angelus.
"Keep the shell, but empty it of its substance." V.I. Lenin
Did you redo any of your sacraments if so which order did you find? Thank you for the response as well☺️
The SSPX have, so far, kept their Holy Orders valid. As for whether or not that will continue it is a 'watch this space.'
I attend the SSPX, they discourage conditional baptism and confirmation if done in the NO unless you have legit proof they were done wrong.
It can depend on the priest. Tell your Pastor you will seek the advise/conditional from a sedevacantist priest if he dismisses your concerns. That might motivate him. You need to be a friend to your own soul if your Pastor's concern is to be a friend to the Novus Ordo. The fact is the Novus Ordo is not Catholicism and the new sacraments are a Protestant impostion. Historically, the Church as a matter of course, gave conditional baptism to converts; "Tradition" has no excuse other than a modernist mindset to refuse a genuine concern.
I too like the huge resources at truecatholicfaith dot com. Thanks so much.