“To tell Catholics to stay home and to not attend Mass on Sunday – and to refuse to fulfill their Sunday obligation to assist at the sacrifice of the Mass is beyond imagining.. To call the Mass an offense against God? (That’s not what the SSPX said) Are you serious? To encourage people to commit mortal sin by refusing to fulfill their Sunday obligation. But it’s good that this Video is out there now because finally the mask can be taken off of this renegade outfit” (He later quotes Pope Benedict XVI on canonical status).
First let’s define the word ‘renegade’. Being a renegade is to be one who deserts and betrays an organization, country, or set or principals. What Michael Voris fails to recognize is the very fact that the Pope – that being Pope Paul VI – had no authority or any right to construct a new rite, not to mention that Six protestant ministers and the archbishop and masonic Bugini were behind it (and yes Michael Voris – as well as Father Paul Nicholson have previously admitted this within an episode of ‘One true faith’); henceforth being a man made and innovative liturgy.
“We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren: that is the Protestants.” – Archbishop Bugini
This is blasphemy and heresy. I cover more upon the Novus Ordo Link. If what the Society of Saint Pius X is saying is supposedly ‘schismatic’, then Michael Voris would have to admit that he rejects ‘Summa Ecclesia’ of Cardinal Torquemada – in whom was the theologian for Pope Eugene the 4th – in which insisted that if a Pope were to change the rites of the Church; he would be anathema. After Pope Eugene the 4th read this book, he later titled Cardinal Torquemada a “defender of the faith” at the infallible Council of Florence. Talk about “disobedience to the Pope” as Michael portraits the Society, not to mention that Pope Innocent III stated that if a future Pope were to change the sacraments of the Church he were to be resisted. Pope Saint Pius V later goes on to repeat the anathema in Quo Primum and the Council of Trent. So if anybody is a renegade, Mr.Voris, it’s the modernists that made the new rite of Mass, not fellow Catholics who defend Tradition rather than innovation such as communion in the hand and altar girls.
Second Council of Nicea: “ Let everything that conflicts with ecclesiastical Tradition and teaching, and that has been innovated and done contrary to the examples outlined by the saints and hereafter at any time be done in such a fashion, be anathema.
To say that the Society of Saint Pius X encourages that we must not attend Mass is not only absurd, it is calumny. The Society insists we avoid non Catholic worship just like any other Catholic would since not only is it heretical, it does not in any way, shape, or form fulfil ones Sunday obligation. This does not exclude the Eastern Rites (not schismatic orthodox) if attending the ancient Roman Rite is impossible. The new code of canon law states in Can. 1248 the following:
“A person who assists at a Mass celebrated anywhere in a Catholic rite either on the feast day itself or in the evening of the preceding day satisfies the obligation of participating in the Mass.”
Being that the Novus Ordo isn’t a official Catholic rite, this is impossible. Hence, Michael Voris’ argument, in which borderline dogmatizes that one must attend the Novus Ordo, is invalid. Continuing…
Second argument: “The real problems, as the Pope himself says, are with the Second Vatican Council… Doctrinal issues which placed them outside the Church.”
Is that so, Mr.Voris? So you’re telling us that one must accept heresy to be in communion with the Church? That being religious liberty, innovative liturgies, Catholics worshiping the false god ‘Allah’ etc.? I guess 2000 years of Tradition and anathemas no longer apply.
Third argument: “The cheer leaders of the SSPX (he’s obviously referring to me, those at The Remnant, Harvesting the Fruit, Catholic Family news etc.) will have you believe that various prelates support them without any issue or doubt. Really? Do they really expect these prelates would accept the notion that you must stay at home on Sunday – and refuse to go to Mass and just say a private Rosary and that’s good enough for your Sunday obligation because the Mass you would be attending is the new Mass? Do you really think the prelates your saying “yay they support us” would accept that idea? We should ask them that; shouldn’t we? Would they say that the New Mass is an offense against God? Really? A Bishop, a bishop of the Catholic Church would say that?”
As a consequence of the innovative ‘spirit of Vatican II’ and ‘The Church of Nice’ as you prefer to identify them, absolutely not since they prefer liberalism in the first place, henceforth your vortex videos exposing them for their true colors in which I credit you for. But since you brought up the question upon if a Bishop of the Church would actually say something so absurd, have you considered reflecting upon your own position in which you quote bishops to expose them for either heresy or luke warmness? What about Cardinal Kasper – the Pope’s “theologian” – in whom insisted that the miracles in the Bible are not historical fact… something that is pure rationalist and blasphemous within its nature? Something condemned by the Church?
Fourth Argument: They obey him (The Pope) until you don’t want to obey him…”
False. They disobey the Pope when he insists that we must accept something that contradicts the faith, henceforth the recognize and resist position in which you previously supported.
Fifth argument: “They decry the Mass, they encourage people to Mortal sin, they defy the Pope, they refuse him obedience due to him by his office – if that doesn’t constitute a schism; pray tell what does?”
Lets be honest here; this statement is plain silly. The Society of Saint Pius X does quite the contrary. The Society insists one avoid the new Mass to AVOID sin within itself since non Catholic worship is sinful within its nature, therefore lacking virtue. Refusing to include the Pope within the canon would be an act of Schism as we see with the schismatic orthodox churches in which Michael Celuarius initiated in the 11th century, not resisting the Pope in matters of his personal disobedience to his own office, something even Cardinal Burke supported in regards to Pope Francis and the extraordinary synod.