Well, I took your suggestion and went to your linked article. I suppose I should not have been surprised to see this, given your elastic term “crypto-Lefebvrianism.”

You write: “Bishop Fellay has made reference to bishops who act in this fashion, who are in agreement with the SSPX, but more or less camouflage their intentions in order not to be removed from influence (1:14:00-1:16:30).”

Ah, so even bishops, the very successors of the Apostles, are infected by the dread disease, hiding their evil thoughts from the higher authorities. You should sniff out these traitorous prelates and turn them into the Vatican. The way you did your own superior.

You article demonstrates quite well who are the “ideological Christians” in this affair. On with the purge!

– See more at: http://airmaria.com/2014/06/27/more-crypto-lefebvrism-from-rorate-caeli/comment-page-1/#comment-206939

You write: “Bishop Fellay has made reference to bishops who act in this fashion, who are in agreement with the SSPX, but more or less camouflage their intentions in order not to be removed from influence (1:14:00-1:16:30).”

Ah, so even bishops, the very successors of the Apostles, are infected by the dread disease, hiding their evil thoughts from the higher authorities. You should sniff out these traitorous prelates and turn them into the Vatican. The way you did your own superior.

You article demonstrates quite well who are the “ideological Christians” in this affair. On with the purge!

I haven’t been to this blog for quite awhile. I see that you have avoided my principal points. I make it a practice not to continue dialogue with people who do this. I have limited time, and this is one way to conserve it.

Chris Ferrara

Chris,

Crypto-Lefebvrianism is basic agreement with the SSPX without actually entering into the irregularity. It includes all the hoping around and double talk, like the statement: “no crypto-Lefebvrist would deny the liceity of the New Mass.” I hear them do it all the time. And as you and I both know, Bishop Fellay does not bother to talk about liceity. He just says the new Mass is evil.

Well, Pope Benedict talked about the Ordinary Form, so I guess it’s really not so impossible.

I don’t know why you are ranting about what goes on in the parishes. All I want is to be left alone by your crowd so we can go back to doing what we have always done, which would include the celebration of the EF, just without all the baggage that the ideology brings. You may not agree with me, but I know you know what I am talking about.

Did you know that in America we have for years (long before SP) celebrated the Mass ad orientem and often Latin? And always using Gregorian chant with Communion kneeling and on the tongue? No you did not. Nor do you care to, because that doesn’t fit your narrative.

You and your friends really don’t know what is happening in our Institute. You accepted the narrative against the Commissioner because it suites your agenda. You don’t know us, and if the TLM were not at issue, you wouldn’t give us the time of day.

This is not about your care for us and our well-being. It is about your house of cards.

Your entire argument concerning the licitness of the Ordinary Form founders for the simple reason that there is no one “Ordinary Form,” but rather aplenitude of options which make it impossible to speak of “the” Ordinary Form.

On the other hand, if by Ordinary Form you mean the Latin Typical Edition of the Mass of Paul VI celebrated in Latin with a high altar, Gregorian Chant, and no communion in the hand or altar girls, a la the Brompton Oratory, no “crypto-Lefebvrist” would deny validity or legitimacy.

As for “the” Ordinary Form as celebrated in the typical parish today–a spectacle replete with novelties and abuses the Popes before Vatican II would have viewed with utter horror–who wouldn’t question legitimacy in innumerable cases, even though bare validity remains?

Do you think God is pleased by altar tables, altar girls, communion in the hand, lay ministers distributing the sacred species and spilling or dropping them on the floor where they are trampled under foot? Do you think that God is please by a liturgy whose invention and imposition Msgr. Gamber—writing with the full approval of the future Pope Benedict XVI—called “the real destruction of the Roman Rite”?

God, then, is pleased with the “real destruction of the Roman Rite”? Is that the story you’re going with? Is that what a Catholic is now required to believe, contrary to all evidence of liturgical ruin and loss of faith? What is this if not an ideological demand that requires suspension of the use of reason?

Talk about using the Mass as an ideological banner! The ideologues are those who oppress good priests because of a “traditionalist drift” toward sound liturgy at the same time the rest of the Church is wracked by widening apostasy, “the collapse of the liturgy” (the last Pope’s own words) and unspeakable clerical scandals involving sins that cry out to God for vengeance.

May God help the FFI prevail against the brutal repression you helped provoke against an order of orthodox priests and religious, founded by a holy man both of whose parents are Servants of God. You should be ashamed of yourself.