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 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.
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 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.
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.