Many of us - on all sides of the TLM issue - wonder how it could be that the TLM was banned in the 1970s, particularly since Pope Paul VI is a Saint. Well, one explanation, given in the 70s itself - Mrs. Veronica Lueken wrote to the Pope to reverse himself on the TLM - is that Pope St. Paul VI, after making some mistakes himself, was PERSECUTED from within the Vatican itself, by such bad men as Cardinal Casaroli, Cardinal Villot and Cardinal Benelli - the latter of these almost becoming Pope in 1978, which would have been an ABSOLUTE CATASTROPHE, but Heaven thankfully intervened, by the Prayers of Mother Mary, and the Faithful, and Pope St. John Paul II became Supreme Pontiff instead, thus temporarily saving the Catholic Church. The explanation given at Bayside, New York was also confirmed on Another Continent - by certain Swiss Exorcisms in the 1970s, which likewise confirmed Pope Paul VI was Persecuted in the Vatican, and is a Future Saint, which has now prophetically proven true - and that the TLM WAS THE PREFERRED MASS OF ALMIGHTY GOD! But - contra the error of some Radical Traditionalists including Fr. Wathen and some in the SSPX - but not Archbishop Lefebvre himself in the beginning - these Two Supernatural Phenomena/Witnesses (as Scripture says, "Every word must be confired by the Testimony of Two or Three Witnesses") AGREED that (1) Pope Paul VI is a true Pope (contra the Sedevacantists) and (2) is not an Utter Villain (contra some in the SSPX) BUT (3) THE TLM ABSOLUTELY IS THE PREFERRED MASS, and is NOT BANNED, which was Strong for the 70s, but Pope Benedict XVI would later confirm, with SP in 2007! Archbishop Lefebvre himself, in the 1970s gave a "40 KM" Rule - that we should go to the TLM if we have one within 40 KM, but if we do not, it's good to go to the NOM, especially to fulfil one's Sunday Obligation. Some say he later hardened his position in the 80s, as will be discussed in the next post, but a 1983 letter of his to Indult Traditionalist Michael Davies confirms this was his position. So, what do you think? Is Pope Paul VI a Saint? Was Archbishop Lefebvre a Good Man? Is the TLM an objectively PREFERED MASS of Heaven (gives More Glory to God, gains more Graces for us)? Thoughts on the 40 Km thing? And on possible Persecution of Pope Paul VI, from BAD MEN like Casaroli, Villot and Benelli? Is there more information on any of that I'm not aware of? Thanks and God Bless.
Article from my site correcting an extremism in the SSPX Position, though it should be said, happily, that many SSPX Priests no longer believe it (but once did): " [Editor’s Note: I wrote this article after seeing some SSPXers claim going to the NOM is a sin. It isn’t, as we will shortly demonstrate]. "The Major Mistake the SSPX is making – (which “encourages Atheism” per Lefebvre) In the course of 50 years, the SSPX has done much good. I’ve defended them before. But in the wake of increasing extremism of saying that the Ordinary Form (or New Mass) is like a “Black Mass” and must be avoided in all circumstances, do you know that some, including SSPX Priests and Laity, are promoting a heretical opinion (contradicts the Council of Trent) that, even according to Archbishop Lefebvre himself, “encourages Atheism”. Hardline rad-trads encouraging Atheism? Yes. Read it below: “Should all the world’s churches be emptied? I do not feel brave enough to say such a thing. I don’t want to encourage atheism."[10.]” Here, Archbishop Lefebvre [+ABL] precisely expresses the Truth that telling Roman Catholics to empty all Diocesan Churches encourages only Atheism. A 2nd time: “if one does not have the choice and if the priest celebrating Mass according to the Novus Ordo is faithful and worthy, one should not abstain from going to Mass.”[44]” Beautiful and brilliantly said, Archbishop Lefebvre. This expresses precisely the Indult Traditionalist teaching (which Fr. Chad Ripperger has admirably explained here) and which this author holds. [whether Archbishop Lefebvre changed his position later on or not is a matter of dispute, but it is ultimately irrelevant. If he did, this original position was correct, and the later one, an extremist error. As we will see next, Pope Ven. Pius XII, Pope Pius VI, Van Noort and all Pre-Vatican II Catholic Theologians, and the Council of Trent also, all teach this. On 9 May 1980, +ABL still told Michael Davies: “Those who feel themselves obliged in conscience to assist at the New Mass on Sunday can fulfil their Sunday obligation.” And on 5 May 1988, after the “Promise always to be faithful to the Catholic Church and the Roman Pontiff, its Supreme Pastor, Vicar of Christ .. we declare that we recognize the validity of the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments celebrated with the intention of doing what the Church does, and according to the rites indicated in the typical editions of the Roman Missal and the Rituals of the Sacraments promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John Paul II.” +ABL wavered a little, but clearly rejected what more extreme “trads” like Fr. Lauriers and Fr. James Wathen held, as we move on to next] Theological Proof: He who says the Church can give evil makes Her a Monster, not a Mother: Proof I: From Pre-Vatican II Theology: “The principle, set forth in classic dogmatic theology texts such as Salaverri, Zubizarreta, Herrmann, Schultes and Iragui (see Appendix 2), is explained as follows by Van Noort: “The Church’s infallibility extends to….ecclesiastical laws passed for the universal Church for the direction of Christian worship and Christian living….But the Church is infallible in issuing a doctrinal decree as intimated above – and to such an extent that it can never sanction a universal law which would be at odds with faith or morality or would be by its very nature conducive to the injury of souls…."
Fr. Peter Scott, SSPX, is an example of a Priest who no longer holds going to the NOM is not a MORTAL sin (as Fr. Wathen idiotically held) BUT does say that it IS allegedly a VENIAL SIN (which means we should not do it, just as we should not tell even a small lie, even on Sunday - which is absurd). This in part because of slightly better Theology than Fr. Wathen (Church cannot give Evil, even Venial Evil, even though it is also true, if Bayside is to be believed, New Mass did not come ENTIRELY FREELY from the Church, but at least in part FROM SOME BAD MEN OTHER THAN THE POPE in the Vatican (Bad Cardinals Our Lady of Akita also spoke of, though Pope Paul VI did approve it, which means it can't be even a venial sin, though some abuses can be venial or perhaps even, in extreme cases (e.g. Communion in the Hand with GREAT IRREVERENCE a mortal sin, but only as an abuse, not per se) and also in part because of pushback from Normal Catholics, who can't believe and don't accept and pushed back on the absurdity that going to Mass is a mortal sin. "" Fr. Peter Scott, SSPX, an apparently more “moderate” (but not Indult) “trad” Priest, holds what could be called neo-or-semi-Wathenism, namely that receiving Holy Communion, one of the greatest of all good works, in the New Mass is allegedly “at least a venial sin”. Why do you call good evil, Fr. Scott? Let’s quote the misguided priest: “To assist at the New Mass, for a person who is aware of the objective sacrilege involved, is consequently at least a venial sin. It is opportunism. Consequently, it is not permissible for a traditional Catholic, who understands that the New Mass is insulting to Our Divine Savior, to assist at the New Mass, and this even if there is no danger of scandal to others or of the perversion of one’s own Faith (as in an older person, for example), and even if it is the only Mass available. [Answered by Fr. Peter R. Scott]” Pathetic Rubbish. While Wathen himself was in mortal sin for his heresy, I’d like to believe Fr. Peter Scott, not in full visible communion with the Church, is only in venial sin for his error. Nevertheless, it’s a very serious sin on his Part, which gravely offends Our Eucharistic Lord Jesus Christ. Let us consult the Catechism (of Trent): “It cannot be doubted that by the Eucharist are remitted and pardoned lighter sins, commonly called venial.” I mentioned this in a 1P5 article on Daily/Frequent Communion here: A Catholic reader told me, that Holy Communion remits venial sins, “was one of the best kept secrets in Catholicism”. He did not know it. Notice that Fr. Scott, apart from foolishly calling a good work a venial sin, also does not seem to know that Holy Communion, when received devoutly by a Catholic in the State of Grace, not only increases the State of Grace but also necessarily remits venial sins, as Saint Thomas also teaches. Fr. Scott’s absurd opinion that it is a venial sin, while also contrary to the Holiness and Indefectibility of the Church (as per the sources given earlier; the Church cannot give evil, even “venial” evil) is thus also defeated like this: even if it were a venial sin, misguided Priest, the Holy Communion itself would in fact remit that and all other venial sins! Holy Communion in the NOM is not a venial sin and he who obstinately insists on claiming it is will have to face Divine Judgment and perhaps hear the Lord say something like this: “I taught in My Gospel that he who does not eat My Flesh and drink My Blood has no good hope of Eternal Life. How dare you confuse My 1.3 BN faithful by teaching them it is a sin to receive Me in Holy Communion? Why did you hate Me so much, as to deprive them of the fruits of My Eucharistic Body and Blood?”. How can a Society of 700 Priests deprive 1.3 BN Catholics of Holy Communion by such extremism? 700 Priests can minister at most to 700,000 to maybe 1.4-1.5 MN Catholics, assuming 1-2000 Catholics per Priest. No, Diocesan TLMs are the Solution. As is the SSPX formally renouncing Fr.Scott’s error, and becoming Indult Traditionalist. I commend the SSPX for offering the TLM, but not for saying the NOM is sinful. And I know there are literally 100s of Millions of Catholics, now discovering the TLM, who hold the same position, which the FSSP also has always most faithfully preserved. Fr. Ripperger, formerly with them, is correct, but Fr. Scott mistaken. Fr. Scott also departs from the earlier position of Archbishop Lefebvre, and “encourages Atheism” according to that statement of +ABL himself. To say one must not go to Mass encourages Atheism. And in reality, telling others not to go to Mass, even the NOM on Sunday, is an objective mortal sin. The reason is that it violates the Sunday obligation, which binds all Catholics unless Bishops dispense."
And, to conclude, here are 1970s Swiss Exorcisms mentioned in the OP: "https://reasonstobechristian.com/f/...abl?blogcategory=1.9+FSSP/SSPX/Sede-Vacantism. Now, here is a supernatural phenomenon, a Swiss Exorcism many Priests swore is authentic, which, like the other Supernatural Proof of Eucharistic Miracles, confirms the Indult Traditionalist teaching (which was also independently theologically proven) that the TLM is objectively preferred by Heaven, but the NOM is still a Valid, Grace-Giving Mass, a Holy Sacrifice. Note that in the Bible the demons were compelled to confess the Truth that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and in Church History, they were compelled to confess the Truth that Our Lady’s Prayers, and the Holy Rosary, is All-Powerful with God. The 1st Truth above is denied by Jews/Muslims, the 2ndby Protestants. The 3rd Truth, that the NOM is Valid and Grace-Giving, is denied by Wathenite Heretics. “These people act through obedience and believe that it comes from the Pope, because they do not know that there is a double and that there are some cardinals who are disloyal to the Pope. They go along under the banner of obedience. I want to say that if these Christians should happen to get hold of tracts coming from other genuinely privileged souls, or from priests, which warn them that they have no right and should not, and if they receive the interior light - which, when received certainly comes from On High - and if, in spite of everything, they do the opposite, saying to themselves: “It's all the same whether I receive Communion in the mouth or in the hand - it is of no importance”, then the situation is different. Then, naturally, it is a sin. That is what else we must tell you. It depends always on each individual case. The same thing applies to the Holy Mass. The Mass of Saint Pius V is considered by Those up there (he points upward), by Heaven, to be the preferred Mass. But many priests should be told that they have no right to trouble (or upset) people by saying: “If there is no Mass of Saint Pius V, do not go at all... say a Mass[53] for yourselves [i.e. just read your Missal] at home on your own”. This attitude is not good. In spite of everything, such a priest is not a good pastor (shepherd). For we have already said it on a previous occasion: It is a huge loss of graces, it is true, but the New Mass to the degree in which it is celebrated in all good faith and through obedience to the bishop, still brings nevertheless, many graces. Even if it does not have the plenitude of graces of the Mass of Saint Pius V, it brings some graces all the same. If people stay at home and believe that they only have to open up their missals, thus believing themselves to be better and superior to the rest, this is not good.” We conclude by quoting none other than the Saintly Patron of the Society of St. Pius X himself, noting that modern dissidents would do well to heed the voice of that Saintly Pontiff: “Do not allow yourselves to be deceived by the cunning statements of those who persistently claim to wish to be with the Church, to love the Church, to fight so that people do not leave Her . . . but judge them by their works. If they despise the shepherds of the Church and even the Pope, if they attempt all means of evading their authority in order to elude their directives and judgments . . . then about which Church do these men mean to speak? Certainly not about that established on the foundations of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the cornerstone. [Eph 2:20]” (Pope St. Pius X, May 10, 1909) The Eucharist Miracle in Argentina from Dowym:“This was evidenced by intact white blood cells being found in the tissue. This showed the heart sample was pulsating as elsewise the white blood cells would have disintegrated roughly 15 minutes outside of a living body. Interesting fact: The Archbishop who commissioned the research was none other than the now Pope Francis!”"
I do not believe that Veronica Lueken was in communication with Heaven. But, she did have an extraordinary gift. She had the gift of being able to accurately “read the room” so to say. When Archbishop Lefebvre hadn’t even begun to figure out his position - Veronica was already giving out what basically became the obedient traditionalist position. When sedevacantism had yet to make itself obvious in America - Veronica was already warning Catholics to believe that the papacy would be maintained in Rome. When the sex abuse scandal was little more than a few unconnected cases - Veronica was announcing to the world this widespread abomination within the clergy. But all these things don’t make her a saint, rather, I see her as a skilled psychic medium (and some have suggested that she was a fortune teller before the days of the apparitions). Of course, she made some serious blunders. Firstly, she was always predicting her “chastisement” as something imminent, and she finally settled in the date as before 2000, which eventually made her prophecies obsolete. Veronica also made the mistake of saying children conceived by IVF are “soulless its”, which has also aged terribly. She also had the issue, in the later years, of mixing up her words when in the “ecstatic trance”. For instance, the famous incident of her “Jesus” having to correct himself about Lot’s wife turning into a pillar, and the time her “Mary” accidentally said that Purgatory was eternal. Perhaps if she’d been a bit more gentle on the prophecies, and if she’d stopped the apparitions before she got older, she’d have been “successful”. Veronica wasn’t a visionary, but she was able to solve the crisis in the Church long before any of the famous faces that are better known. And I think for that she should be remembered.
It is very good to recall that Bayside is condemned by the Church. https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/declaration-concerning-the-bayside-movement-11313 DECLARATION CONCERNING THE "BAYSIDE MOVEMENT" November 4, 1986 Letter of Bishop Francis Mugavero of Brooklyn In recent months, doubts have been raised by members of the so-called "Bayside Movement" concerning the official position of the Diocese of Brooklyn on the alleged "apparitions" of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and other heavenly beings, to a woman by the name of Vernica Lueken. Moreover, erroneous claims have been made by a number of followers of Mrs. Lueken concerning the legitimacy of their position, in order to justify their activities on behalf of the "Movement." These have taken the form of statements in their publications that "since Articles 1399 and 2218 of (the 1917 Code of) Canon Law were abrogated by Pope Paul VI in 1966, no ecclesiastical permission is required, neither can anyone incure censure, for the publication or dissemination of information dealing with revelations, visions or miracles, provided these do not endanger Faith or morals." As a result of the above-mentioned doubts and claims, a number of Christ's faithful continue to attend the regularly-scheduled "vigils" held at Flushing Meadow Park, and to disseminate or receive propaganda literature on this matter. I, the undersigned Diocesan Bishop of Brooklyn, in my role as the legitimate shepherd of this particular Church, wish to confirm the constant position of the Diocese of Brooklyn that a thorough investigation revealed that the alleged "visions of Bayside" completely lacked authenticity. Moreover, in view of the confusion created by published reports of messages and other literature by this "Movement," I consider it my obligation to offer Christ's faithful pastoral guidance, lest their faith be endangered by "messages" and "teachings" relayed by "visionaries," which are contrary to the Faith of our Catholic Church. Therefore, in consultation with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, I hereby declare that: 1. No credibility can be given to the so-called "apparitions" reported by Veronica Lueken and her followers. 2. The "messages" and other related propaganda contain statements which, among other things, are contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church, undermine the legitimate authority of bishops and councils and instill doubts in the minds of the faithful, for example, by claiming that, for years, an "imposter (sic) Pope" governed the Catholic Church in place of Paul VI. 3. Those who persistently maintain that "no ecclesiastical permission is required for the publication or dissemination" of information concerning "revelations, visions or miracles," are erroneously interpreting the directives of the Holy See when they attempt to justify the publication of the propaganda literature on the "Bayside Messages." In view of my declaration concerning the authenticity of the "visions of Bayside," the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has confirmed that the principles governing the publication of such religious material still maintain authoritative moral value prohibiting the endangering of faith and good morals (Cf. Response of SCDF of June 14, 1966, in AAS 58, 1186). As a result, those publishing or disseminating this propaganda literature are acting against the judgment of legitimate Church authority. 4. Because of my concern for their spiritual welfare, members of Christ's faithful are hereby directed to refrain from participating in the "vigils" and from disseminating any propaganda related to the "Bayside apparitions." They are also discouraged from reading any such literature. 5. Anyone promoting this devotion in any way, be it by participating in the "vigils," organizing pilgrimages, publishing or disseminating the literature related to it, is contributing to the confusion which is being created in the faith of God's people, as well as encouraging them to act against the determinations made by the legitimate pastor of this particular Church (c.212, para. 1). It remains my constant hope that all the faithful spend their time and energies in promoting devotion to our Blessed Lady, in the many forms which have been approved by the Catholic Church. +Bishop Francis Mugavero Bishop of Brooklyn
