Following on from his article comparing the crisis in the Church with the Passion of Christ, Peregrinus now compares it with the eclipse that took place while Our Lord was on the Cross.
My thanks to Mr. Wright for editing and publishing the article.
I remember those words by Mr. Lane: "renewed faith is the answer", or something similar to this phrase, but I don't remember the exact place where he says this. If someone can remind me, it would be much appreciated.
Just as the Apostles were powerless before the storm and the raging sea, we are indeed powerless to provide a solution to this Crisis. They begged Our Lord to intervene, and we must do the same, because only Our Lord can end it, but we can find an explanation for the Crisis, which the WM Review is in fact doing very well, and we can find an answer to the Crisis, which, as Mr. Lane said, is faith - to believe all that the Church teaches, even if there are mysteries in this Crisis that we cannot explain right now. This Faith we must not contradict or change in any way, whether by accepting the Modernist errors, or by adopting novel errors to avoid coming to terms with some unpleasant conclusions or to justify what we would like the situation to be, instead of what the reality is, as some trads have unfortunately done (both in the sedeplenist and sedevacantist camps). We don't need to "reinvent" the Faith, we only need to keep it.
We are not powerless. As St. Teresa of Avila put it, Teresa can do nothing, but with the grace of God, she can do all things.
Of course faith goes first. All credit and honor for our works are to God and received through the mercy of God.
However, even in this situation we can act. Prayer is an act. So is the admirable effort of His Excellency Roy to call together imperfect council. In theory and practice we can do much, since that is what God expects of us.
Still, the results are in His hands. Maybe there will be chastisement, maybe there will be council, maybe we’ll have real Pope or maybe antichrist comes first. Who knows, we can pray and do our part. Have courage, that’s what Our Lord says in Scripture.
To pray, yes (I did say that we must beg Our Lord to intervene), but we are truly powerless to end the Crisis, just as the Apostles were powerless against the storm.
Bp. Roy means well, but his initiative has absolutely no chance. It would not be an imperfect **general** council because it would involve only a tiny portion of the world's bishops, not even a majority among trad bishops, and it would involve only those who have no ordinary jurisdiction, and thus no power to rule over the Church or to impose their will over souls, let alone to elect a Roman Pontiff and oblige Catholics to accept that person. The most they could hope for is to reach a consensus on certain issues, but they could not impose their opinion, and even a consensus seems impossible when you take into account that a large number of Traditionalist bishops want nothing to do with any such initiative.
To quote from Mr. Lane's article linked in the "Read Next" section:
"The very reason I and others like me (the vast bulk of sedevacantists in fact) do not attempt to elect a pope is that we know that those who share our Faith but differ with us on the 'pope question' are our fellow Catholics, so that if we do something rash we should merely make a schism where at present there is only a difference of judgement. We would, in a nutshell, be having our own Council of Pisa and adding to the woes of the Faithful by harming the unity of the Church. That would be the last thing we should do!"
This was written in 2006, and it is the same today.
Well, let's not exaggerate. It's not perfect to be ruled more by fear than love, yet some people are by nature more cautious, often it goes hand-in-hand with seeing things clearer, since you see risks clearer too.
But sure, in the end Charity presseth us on. I would rather say it's a lack of Charity to write out imperfect council due to risks involved, however who hasn't failed in Charity? But it's not a reason to fail today that we failed yesterday.
Those are just the odds: the meeting has a high chance of never happening, a high chance of not producing anything, a high chance of creating a schism if it does attempt to bind Catholics to an election, and 0% chance of solving the Crisis and electing a Roman Pontiff.
I think that's a bit upside-down logic saying it would create schism. Rome has apostasized, newcatholic church has apostasized, we are living in the middle of a massive apostasy. That's the issue, not them who are trying to stay faithful.
Since the fact is we don't have a Pope, but have a false one, who is leading a false religion, it's quite understandable to try to elect a valid Pope. This can be done seriously, it's not anything beyond possible. If that were to happen, it would be a good thing, and God could validate it by infusing Holy Spirit on the pope-elect.
Sure it hasn't been done, I think Catholics are to blame for many things in the end. God will judge them, but we shouldn't let ourselves so easily off the hook.
First of all, it is ridiculous to even consider that a handful of trad bishops without authority can elect the head of the Catholic Church. It's just not a reasonable opinion.
However, if they were to attempt this (quod Deus avertat!), it would not be merely academic. They wouldn't just say: OK, now we have a "Pope", and we can all go back to what we were doing.
They would try, and he would try, to force Catholics to submit to him as Pope. A few would agree, but most would not (not just sedeplenists, but sedevacantists as well), many would even react with mockery to such a sham election ("Pope Michael 2.0"). Then he would perhaps declare them excommunicated or schismatics for refusing submission to the "Pope", and thus the schism would be complete - except that he would be the one who would be a schismatic, for refusing communion with fellow Catholics.
But even if he didn't actually excommunicate anyone or try to force anyone to submit to him, still even the very act of usurping the office of the Supreme Pontiff is a schismatic act.
It would hurt the unity between Traditional Catholics because some would recognize that person as pope and others would not. Human nature being what it is, it would lead to harsh rhetoric, animosity, and ultimately probably both sides accusing each other of being excommunicated and schismatic - similar to the Western Schism.
For the first time in almost seven decades an actual Bishop has proposed a gathering of faithful Bishops for an ‘imperfect’ council – basically a crisis council; and the knee-jerk so many persuaders is that the sky is gonna fall. “For where there are two or three gathered together in My name, there am I in the midst of them (Matthew 18:20) “"There am I in the midst of them": This is understood of such assemblies only as are gathered in the name and authority of Christ; and in unity of the church of Christ. St. Cyprian, De Unitate Ecclesiae.” The naysayers have already decided that the gathering will be against the name and authority of Christ and against the unity of the Church. This notion that Bishops have no right to ‘assemble’ during an historical interregnum is uninspired to say the least.
Hear, hear. It's always easier to say we should wait. Not that easier is always wrong, but it does NOT imply any mistrust of God, on the contrary. If it is of God, He will lead us. I genuinely think His Excellency Roy 100% man of God and this is coming from a man who is very mistrustful in general. He is legit. His logic is simple, straightforward and courageous. Transalpine Redemptorists are also the real deal. All the best for them.
(I still applaud WMReview for their work, they have helped me immensely).
I don't think FSSPX for example are our fellow Catholics. Laypeople attending their Masses, maybe if they act in good conscience AND under invincible ignorance, however one should remember it's only invincible when you can't know after you put serious study into it, as Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange put it.
How many have done that?
Sect is any denomination refusing the entire Doctrine and Authority of The Church. FSSPX differs from Catholic Church on many teachings, especially regarding the infallibility. Obviously they refuse submission to their declared authority. Well I'm sure you know this. But I wanted to elaborate, since earlier I went with WMReview's view that we could access their Sacraments since they act in good conscience and are ultimately Catholic.
Yet in my experience, it became obvious they, meaning the FSSPX clergy, are not acting under invincible ignorance, meaning they ought to know. And they know on some level, they just choose not to know. That can manifest in various ways from plucking ones ears to omission of studying the uncomfortable part of truth. It might diminish responsibility that times are difficult, yet it doesn't change the fact that they have lapsed from full Faith. That makes them a sect.
It's a hard teaching, but it's true. So I don't think there is a necessity to collect all semi-modernist Bishops under one imperfect council, maybe they'll come later back to Catholic Faith when things would get clearer, maybe not.
It would be enough to collect those who stayed faithful. In that sense I applaud His Excellency Roy's efforts and I believe he is doing God's will. Yet the conclusion is out of any mans hands.
this is erroneous on several levels, contrary to both justice and charity, and very dangerous. I will analyze it step by step:
1) The faithful who go to the venues of the SSPX have a variety of opinions on the Crisis (incl. sedevacantism), so it's **impossible** to label them all as something, unless that something is Catholic. Not all of them are even trads. Even the priests have a variety of opinions, and some are actually privately sedevacantist.
2) Even those of the faithful or clergy who do hold the positions of the SSPX cannot be **in justice** accused of heresy. Error, yes, often, but denying an infallible doctrine of the Faith, no. In fact, I have only once read a member of the SSPX say something heretical.
3) Even if we were to suppose that some of them did utter heresy, most of those are merely Catholics in error, and not heretics, because they do not consciously withdraw from the rule of the Magisterium. If they were to publicly say, e.g. "I disagree with the Church's teaching on contraception, divorce and unnatural sins", as many among the N.O. unfortunately do, then that would be formal heresy, a conscious withdrawal from the rule of the Magisterium. But they are as far from such a thing as any sede.
Here is Cardinal Billot in De Ecclesia:
"For, if you understand by the expression material heretic one who, while professing subjection to the Church's Magisterium in matters of faith, nevertheless still denies something defined by the Church because he did not know it was defined, or, by the same token, holds an opinion opposed to Catholic doctrine because he falsely thinks that the Church teaches it, it would be quite absurd to place material heretics outside the body of the true Church; but on this understanding the legitimate use of the expression would be entirely perverted. For a material sin is said to exist only when what belongs to the nature of the sin takes place materially, but without advertence or deliberate will. But the nature of heresy consists in withdrawal from the rule of the ecclesiastical Magisterium and this does not take place in the case, since this is a simple error of fact concerning what the rule dictates. And therefore there is no scope for heresy, even materially."
4) Even if we were to suppose that *some* of them are truly public formal heretics, it would be **against charity** to assume that **all** of the priests and laity connected with the SSPX have both knowledge and wilful malice to willingly withdraw from the rule of the Magisterium.
5) The opinion you expressed is a very dangerous one, because it risks schism - refusing communion with fellow Catholics. We are not talking about openly heretical Modernists here, we are talking about Catholics who profess the Faith to the best of their ability, and make a great effort to live and believe according to what they think are the teachings of the Church, rejecting the N.O. Mass, teachings and rites, enduring persecution and marginalization, with the fervent wish to hold on to the Faith. It would be heartless to consider such men heretics.
Ok I thank you for a serious reply and let me assure you, I've given serious consideration to that line of reasoning and have tried to live according to it, but in the end came to conclusion it doesn't hold water.
And I think it's heartless not to call them out.
I am aware that within FSSPX there are sedevacantists. I even asked this from one Priest, who told of his experiences. I don't think they are doing the right thing AT ALL and in a way are trading truth for things like not being ostracized and losing their parish and any reason our mind puts before us when facing reality we don't like. Obviously there would be consequences for them following truth, and that's what keeps them from doing it publicly. It's wrong.
I'm not speaking for the laity, it would be impossible to put limits to inculpable ignorance as they say in Denzinger. Still, my view of things did shift from "they are acting in good conscience" to "I don't think they are acting in good conscience", meaning the clergy, who really ought to know and COULD know but CHOOSE not to know better.
It's not some esoteric knowledge, just basic Catholic Teaching on infallibility of Ordinary Magisterium. If they can't find that out in decades when I can do it, and trust me I'm not half as smart as many of them, there is definitely some problem with attitude.
I'd just point out that the synodal abomination is not Catholic. Greatest disservice and failure in Charity is not to act according to Truth, but rather follow any schism or heresy, which does separate oneself from the unity of The Church and render one incapable of knowing and loving God in Truth. Both FSSPX (I'm speaking generally) and newcatholic church do this, and hence will have to answer for that before the Throne of God, where their brethren will appear (including me) if they keep doing this.
There's no unity without truth. No Charity without truth. FSSPX has many half-truths and hence very little Charity. That's why they feed the lie, and give false credibility to public enemies of Christ's Kingship. It's the opposite of Charity. Self-love to the exclusion of God and love of neighbor.
I didn't expect I would have to defend the SSPX, but it seems I must, so I will just say that they do not follow any heresy or schism, and if you are accusing them of this, then you are under a grave obligation of identifying exactly which heresy they all profess, and exactly why they are in schism with fellow Catholics (obviously they can't be in schism with the Pope since there is no Pope).
You make many negative judgments here on their collective personal motives and intentions, and that is in itself impermissible.
I wouldn't even accuse all the members of a Protestant sect of such things, let alone fellow Catholics.
So I urge you again, in fraternal charity as your brother in Christ, not to separate yourself from the communion of fellow Catholics, because then it is you who will have to answer for that sin of schism before the Throne of God.
The “darkness” associated with the Crucifixion could not have been caused naturally by a solar eclipse. Passover occurs in conjunction with the first full moon following the vernal equinox. Solar eclipses require a new moon phase.
The “eclipse” of light during the hours of our Lord hanging on the Cross had to be by supernatural events.
God has the power to do what it says occurred, “And it was about the sixth hour, and there was a darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour. And the sun was darkened…”
The eclipse was not a **natural** one, as the testimonies say (also, its length is impossible for a natural eclipse, as I mentioned in the text), but a special sign from God, so which phase the Moon was in is completely irrelevant. To God anything is possible. Just as the current vacancy is not a "natural" vacancy, but an extraordinary period permitted by God.
The glib, sound-byte explanation that “an eclipse occurred” satisfies those satisfied with factoid-reality instead of factual reality. Instead of wonder and awe at the power of God, the popular explanation (dismissal) stokes doubt. The obvious impossibility of an eclipse explained as an eclipse when it was in fact what was recorded — mid-day darkness that lasted hours — doesn’t produce belief in the account so much as skepticism about it since the scientific explanation (eclipse) is impossible. It really does require the gift of faith to come to the realization that “It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man.” (Psalm 118:8)
Some commentaries see the actual darkness from the sixth to the ninth hour as a manifestion of the spiritual darkness of those who cried, ‘Crucify Him' - a complete dearth of faith. This considered, the Novus Ordo ignorantly or willfully cries out the same as they prefer the Concilliar ‘V2 "mercy" Ecumenism/human respect’ rather than Our Lord Jesus Christ - Sun of Justice. It is down to seeking or refusing the True Faith.
My thanks to Mr. Wright for editing and publishing the article.
I remember those words by Mr. Lane: "renewed faith is the answer", or something similar to this phrase, but I don't remember the exact place where he says this. If someone can remind me, it would be much appreciated.
Just as the Apostles were powerless before the storm and the raging sea, we are indeed powerless to provide a solution to this Crisis. They begged Our Lord to intervene, and we must do the same, because only Our Lord can end it, but we can find an explanation for the Crisis, which the WM Review is in fact doing very well, and we can find an answer to the Crisis, which, as Mr. Lane said, is faith - to believe all that the Church teaches, even if there are mysteries in this Crisis that we cannot explain right now. This Faith we must not contradict or change in any way, whether by accepting the Modernist errors, or by adopting novel errors to avoid coming to terms with some unpleasant conclusions or to justify what we would like the situation to be, instead of what the reality is, as some trads have unfortunately done (both in the sedeplenist and sedevacantist camps). We don't need to "reinvent" the Faith, we only need to keep it.
We are not powerless. As St. Teresa of Avila put it, Teresa can do nothing, but with the grace of God, she can do all things.
Of course faith goes first. All credit and honor for our works are to God and received through the mercy of God.
However, even in this situation we can act. Prayer is an act. So is the admirable effort of His Excellency Roy to call together imperfect council. In theory and practice we can do much, since that is what God expects of us.
Still, the results are in His hands. Maybe there will be chastisement, maybe there will be council, maybe we’ll have real Pope or maybe antichrist comes first. Who knows, we can pray and do our part. Have courage, that’s what Our Lord says in Scripture.
To pray, yes (I did say that we must beg Our Lord to intervene), but we are truly powerless to end the Crisis, just as the Apostles were powerless against the storm.
Bp. Roy means well, but his initiative has absolutely no chance. It would not be an imperfect **general** council because it would involve only a tiny portion of the world's bishops, not even a majority among trad bishops, and it would involve only those who have no ordinary jurisdiction, and thus no power to rule over the Church or to impose their will over souls, let alone to elect a Roman Pontiff and oblige Catholics to accept that person. The most they could hope for is to reach a consensus on certain issues, but they could not impose their opinion, and even a consensus seems impossible when you take into account that a large number of Traditionalist bishops want nothing to do with any such initiative.
To quote from Mr. Lane's article linked in the "Read Next" section:
"The very reason I and others like me (the vast bulk of sedevacantists in fact) do not attempt to elect a pope is that we know that those who share our Faith but differ with us on the 'pope question' are our fellow Catholics, so that if we do something rash we should merely make a schism where at present there is only a difference of judgement. We would, in a nutshell, be having our own Council of Pisa and adding to the woes of the Faithful by harming the unity of the Church. That would be the last thing we should do!"
This was written in 2006, and it is the same today.
"Bp. Roy means well, but his initiative has absolutely no chance..." This is a sweepingly faithless statement.
Well, let's not exaggerate. It's not perfect to be ruled more by fear than love, yet some people are by nature more cautious, often it goes hand-in-hand with seeing things clearer, since you see risks clearer too.
But sure, in the end Charity presseth us on. I would rather say it's a lack of Charity to write out imperfect council due to risks involved, however who hasn't failed in Charity? But it's not a reason to fail today that we failed yesterday.
Those are just the odds: the meeting has a high chance of never happening, a high chance of not producing anything, a high chance of creating a schism if it does attempt to bind Catholics to an election, and 0% chance of solving the Crisis and electing a Roman Pontiff.
Don't fool yourself.
I think that's a bit upside-down logic saying it would create schism. Rome has apostasized, newcatholic church has apostasized, we are living in the middle of a massive apostasy. That's the issue, not them who are trying to stay faithful.
Since the fact is we don't have a Pope, but have a false one, who is leading a false religion, it's quite understandable to try to elect a valid Pope. This can be done seriously, it's not anything beyond possible. If that were to happen, it would be a good thing, and God could validate it by infusing Holy Spirit on the pope-elect.
Sure it hasn't been done, I think Catholics are to blame for many things in the end. God will judge them, but we shouldn't let ourselves so easily off the hook.
I don't think you understand what I mean.
First of all, it is ridiculous to even consider that a handful of trad bishops without authority can elect the head of the Catholic Church. It's just not a reasonable opinion.
However, if they were to attempt this (quod Deus avertat!), it would not be merely academic. They wouldn't just say: OK, now we have a "Pope", and we can all go back to what we were doing.
They would try, and he would try, to force Catholics to submit to him as Pope. A few would agree, but most would not (not just sedeplenists, but sedevacantists as well), many would even react with mockery to such a sham election ("Pope Michael 2.0"). Then he would perhaps declare them excommunicated or schismatics for refusing submission to the "Pope", and thus the schism would be complete - except that he would be the one who would be a schismatic, for refusing communion with fellow Catholics.
But even if he didn't actually excommunicate anyone or try to force anyone to submit to him, still even the very act of usurping the office of the Supreme Pontiff is a schismatic act.
It would hurt the unity between Traditional Catholics because some would recognize that person as pope and others would not. Human nature being what it is, it would lead to harsh rhetoric, animosity, and ultimately probably both sides accusing each other of being excommunicated and schismatic - similar to the Western Schism.
For the first time in almost seven decades an actual Bishop has proposed a gathering of faithful Bishops for an ‘imperfect’ council – basically a crisis council; and the knee-jerk so many persuaders is that the sky is gonna fall. “For where there are two or three gathered together in My name, there am I in the midst of them (Matthew 18:20) “"There am I in the midst of them": This is understood of such assemblies only as are gathered in the name and authority of Christ; and in unity of the church of Christ. St. Cyprian, De Unitate Ecclesiae.” The naysayers have already decided that the gathering will be against the name and authority of Christ and against the unity of the Church. This notion that Bishops have no right to ‘assemble’ during an historical interregnum is uninspired to say the least.
Hear, hear. It's always easier to say we should wait. Not that easier is always wrong, but it does NOT imply any mistrust of God, on the contrary. If it is of God, He will lead us. I genuinely think His Excellency Roy 100% man of God and this is coming from a man who is very mistrustful in general. He is legit. His logic is simple, straightforward and courageous. Transalpine Redemptorists are also the real deal. All the best for them.
(I still applaud WMReview for their work, they have helped me immensely).
I don't think FSSPX for example are our fellow Catholics. Laypeople attending their Masses, maybe if they act in good conscience AND under invincible ignorance, however one should remember it's only invincible when you can't know after you put serious study into it, as Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange put it.
How many have done that?
Sect is any denomination refusing the entire Doctrine and Authority of The Church. FSSPX differs from Catholic Church on many teachings, especially regarding the infallibility. Obviously they refuse submission to their declared authority. Well I'm sure you know this. But I wanted to elaborate, since earlier I went with WMReview's view that we could access their Sacraments since they act in good conscience and are ultimately Catholic.
Yet in my experience, it became obvious they, meaning the FSSPX clergy, are not acting under invincible ignorance, meaning they ought to know. And they know on some level, they just choose not to know. That can manifest in various ways from plucking ones ears to omission of studying the uncomfortable part of truth. It might diminish responsibility that times are difficult, yet it doesn't change the fact that they have lapsed from full Faith. That makes them a sect.
It's a hard teaching, but it's true. So I don't think there is a necessity to collect all semi-modernist Bishops under one imperfect council, maybe they'll come later back to Catholic Faith when things would get clearer, maybe not.
It would be enough to collect those who stayed faithful. In that sense I applaud His Excellency Roy's efforts and I believe he is doing God's will. Yet the conclusion is out of any mans hands.
My friend,
this is erroneous on several levels, contrary to both justice and charity, and very dangerous. I will analyze it step by step:
1) The faithful who go to the venues of the SSPX have a variety of opinions on the Crisis (incl. sedevacantism), so it's **impossible** to label them all as something, unless that something is Catholic. Not all of them are even trads. Even the priests have a variety of opinions, and some are actually privately sedevacantist.
2) Even those of the faithful or clergy who do hold the positions of the SSPX cannot be **in justice** accused of heresy. Error, yes, often, but denying an infallible doctrine of the Faith, no. In fact, I have only once read a member of the SSPX say something heretical.
3) Even if we were to suppose that some of them did utter heresy, most of those are merely Catholics in error, and not heretics, because they do not consciously withdraw from the rule of the Magisterium. If they were to publicly say, e.g. "I disagree with the Church's teaching on contraception, divorce and unnatural sins", as many among the N.O. unfortunately do, then that would be formal heresy, a conscious withdrawal from the rule of the Magisterium. But they are as far from such a thing as any sede.
Here is Cardinal Billot in De Ecclesia:
"For, if you understand by the expression material heretic one who, while professing subjection to the Church's Magisterium in matters of faith, nevertheless still denies something defined by the Church because he did not know it was defined, or, by the same token, holds an opinion opposed to Catholic doctrine because he falsely thinks that the Church teaches it, it would be quite absurd to place material heretics outside the body of the true Church; but on this understanding the legitimate use of the expression would be entirely perverted. For a material sin is said to exist only when what belongs to the nature of the sin takes place materially, but without advertence or deliberate will. But the nature of heresy consists in withdrawal from the rule of the ecclesiastical Magisterium and this does not take place in the case, since this is a simple error of fact concerning what the rule dictates. And therefore there is no scope for heresy, even materially."
4) Even if we were to suppose that *some* of them are truly public formal heretics, it would be **against charity** to assume that **all** of the priests and laity connected with the SSPX have both knowledge and wilful malice to willingly withdraw from the rule of the Magisterium.
5) The opinion you expressed is a very dangerous one, because it risks schism - refusing communion with fellow Catholics. We are not talking about openly heretical Modernists here, we are talking about Catholics who profess the Faith to the best of their ability, and make a great effort to live and believe according to what they think are the teachings of the Church, rejecting the N.O. Mass, teachings and rites, enduring persecution and marginalization, with the fervent wish to hold on to the Faith. It would be heartless to consider such men heretics.
Ok I thank you for a serious reply and let me assure you, I've given serious consideration to that line of reasoning and have tried to live according to it, but in the end came to conclusion it doesn't hold water.
And I think it's heartless not to call them out.
I am aware that within FSSPX there are sedevacantists. I even asked this from one Priest, who told of his experiences. I don't think they are doing the right thing AT ALL and in a way are trading truth for things like not being ostracized and losing their parish and any reason our mind puts before us when facing reality we don't like. Obviously there would be consequences for them following truth, and that's what keeps them from doing it publicly. It's wrong.
I'm not speaking for the laity, it would be impossible to put limits to inculpable ignorance as they say in Denzinger. Still, my view of things did shift from "they are acting in good conscience" to "I don't think they are acting in good conscience", meaning the clergy, who really ought to know and COULD know but CHOOSE not to know better.
It's not some esoteric knowledge, just basic Catholic Teaching on infallibility of Ordinary Magisterium. If they can't find that out in decades when I can do it, and trust me I'm not half as smart as many of them, there is definitely some problem with attitude.
I'd just point out that the synodal abomination is not Catholic. Greatest disservice and failure in Charity is not to act according to Truth, but rather follow any schism or heresy, which does separate oneself from the unity of The Church and render one incapable of knowing and loving God in Truth. Both FSSPX (I'm speaking generally) and newcatholic church do this, and hence will have to answer for that before the Throne of God, where their brethren will appear (including me) if they keep doing this.
There's no unity without truth. No Charity without truth. FSSPX has many half-truths and hence very little Charity. That's why they feed the lie, and give false credibility to public enemies of Christ's Kingship. It's the opposite of Charity. Self-love to the exclusion of God and love of neighbor.
I didn't expect I would have to defend the SSPX, but it seems I must, so I will just say that they do not follow any heresy or schism, and if you are accusing them of this, then you are under a grave obligation of identifying exactly which heresy they all profess, and exactly why they are in schism with fellow Catholics (obviously they can't be in schism with the Pope since there is no Pope).
You make many negative judgments here on their collective personal motives and intentions, and that is in itself impermissible.
I wouldn't even accuse all the members of a Protestant sect of such things, let alone fellow Catholics.
So I urge you again, in fraternal charity as your brother in Christ, not to separate yourself from the communion of fellow Catholics, because then it is you who will have to answer for that sin of schism before the Throne of God.
The “darkness” associated with the Crucifixion could not have been caused naturally by a solar eclipse. Passover occurs in conjunction with the first full moon following the vernal equinox. Solar eclipses require a new moon phase.
The “eclipse” of light during the hours of our Lord hanging on the Cross had to be by supernatural events.
God has the power to do what it says occurred, “And it was about the sixth hour, and there was a darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour. And the sun was darkened…”
The eclipse was not a **natural** one, as the testimonies say (also, its length is impossible for a natural eclipse, as I mentioned in the text), but a special sign from God, so which phase the Moon was in is completely irrelevant. To God anything is possible. Just as the current vacancy is not a "natural" vacancy, but an extraordinary period permitted by God.
Well you sure got all of that right.
The glib, sound-byte explanation that “an eclipse occurred” satisfies those satisfied with factoid-reality instead of factual reality. Instead of wonder and awe at the power of God, the popular explanation (dismissal) stokes doubt. The obvious impossibility of an eclipse explained as an eclipse when it was in fact what was recorded — mid-day darkness that lasted hours — doesn’t produce belief in the account so much as skepticism about it since the scientific explanation (eclipse) is impossible. It really does require the gift of faith to come to the realization that “It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man.” (Psalm 118:8)
Some commentaries see the actual darkness from the sixth to the ninth hour as a manifestion of the spiritual darkness of those who cried, ‘Crucify Him' - a complete dearth of faith. This considered, the Novus Ordo ignorantly or willfully cries out the same as they prefer the Concilliar ‘V2 "mercy" Ecumenism/human respect’ rather than Our Lord Jesus Christ - Sun of Justice. It is down to seeking or refusing the True Faith.