Enough is enough

[iwonder]

lilder:

I am growing weary of the poltitically correctnes of my parish. The problem I have is that there are so many people giving homilies. We have two priests (had three a few weeks ago) and 4 deacons, plus a deacon we share with two other parishes. Some more liberal than others. How would you handle this situation? Discuss my concerns with each priest or deacon spereatly? Or just speak with the Pastor himself?

Looking for a little direction,
Lilder

The way I would handle this situation is offer gratitude for God that you are blessed to have so many preists and deacons. We have only one priest and no deacon, and our priest has to cover the entire county by himself. And you are complaining? I know parishes who have NO priests. And you are complaining?

 

[OutinChgoburbs]

This is an old thread, but OK then…

…The music in our parish is good except for the “Kumbaya Chorus” at one Mass, and during said group’s “performances” on major feasts, in conjunction with the well-trained organist, schola and cantor. For this reason, I am really tickled when a solemnity pops up mid-week. It means all the prayers without music, and no interference from the Kumbaya folk.
…Our priest is very orthodox in his sticking to GIRM, Eucharistic prayers, etc. He does like to throw the congregation a change-up in which selection of a prayer he makes, but every time they try to catch him, there it is in black and white.
…There is, however, what my husband refers to as “the Eucharistic Herd” which processes up the aisle in the Entrance Procession. These are all Eucharistic Ministers. I don’t know if pastoral council decided we needed that many, but we don’t.

 

[twiztedseraph]

Im pretty happy with my Mass. The hymns are pretty good and traditional usually. However we do have a guitarist now, but the music is quite low key and respectful so I don’t mind. Everything is done almost completely perfectly except for a few things.
“For us MEN and our salvation.” In the nicene creed Men is ommitted.
We hold hands during the Our Father but its my understanding that, that practise is merely discouraged not banned and I do feel it adds to the atmosphere of unity.
The only major thing I’m concerned about is the fact that after the prayers of the faithful are the notices thus the Holy Mass is interupted, my priest’s reasoning is however should we do it at the end of mass most people wouldn’t hear.

Grace and Peace in Abundance!

 

[InnocentIII]

twiztedseraph:

The only major thing I’m concerned about is the fact that after the prayers of the faithful are the notices thus the Holy Mass is interupted, my priest’s reasoning is however should we do it at the end of mass most people wouldn’t hear.

Grace and Peace in Abundance!

Our priest has a strict rule that the time after communions should be one of reflection and prayer. So notices are given before the homily and the second collection is at the same time as the first (at the offertory). It has certainly helped to promote greater reverence.

 

[USMC]

The solution!

I never witness any abuses at Mass. I travel often and attend Mass at many different Churches throughout the country, and I NEVER witness ANY abuses - not even small ones. Everything is done reverently and perfectly according to the rubrix. We never have inapropriate music or an abuse of “extra-ordinary ministers”. In fact, I never see extra-ordinary ministers. In addition to the reverence of the service, the homilies almost always very good.

How is it that my family never witnesses any abuses at any Church we attend anywhere in the Country? Simple. We attend the Traditional Latin Mass exclusively. If you are tired of abuses, the TLM is the solution.

 

[pnewton]

USMC:

The solution!

I never witness any abuses at Mass. I travel often and attend Mass at many different Churches throughout the country, and I NEVER witness ANY abuses - not even small ones. Everything is done reverently and perfectly according to the rubrix. We never have inapropriate music or an abuse of “extra-ordinary ministers”. In fact, I never see extra-ordinary ministers. In addition to the reverence of the service, the homilies almost always very good.

How is it that my family never witnesses any abuses at any Church we attend anywhere in the Country? Simple. We attend the Traditional Latin Mass exclusively.

With the exception that I have seen appropriate and allowed use of laity to help distribute communion, I can say the same thing, only I have never attended anything but the standard Mass. I am happy for those that like the TLM, though and will decline trying to recruit them.

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

Of course I’m happy with it - I’ve switched to a traditional, orthodox parish just 12 minutes from my home…



Prior to that I wasn’t moved or couldn’t say I was comfortable. I seemed to move around a lot looking for something and I finally found it at this parish.

 

[Petertherock]

Well, I feel fortunate to say I have been happy with the mass at my parish. I suppose our Monsignor could have less politically correct homilies but the only real complaint I have with our Monsignor is he writes all his homilies out and reads them like he is reading a book. I actually like our deacon’s homilys better.

But other than minor abuses like people holding hands during the Our Father or using the Orans position during the Our Father which I don’t find that bad it’s not bad. It’s not like Jesus is going to send people to Hell for holding hands during the Our Father or giving people hugs and handshakes during the sign of Peace.

The only real complaint I have about my Parish is not having confession when the Monsignor is away. The Monsignor has always been good about hearing my confession during the week but I think having confession is just as important if not more important than having a mass. I think that would be a great homily topic to explain the common mortal sins that a lot of people commit and to explain that going to confession is the only way to recieve communion worthily. I also think they should have confession before each of the weekend masses, or at least before the first weekend masses. Usually confessions at my parish are at 4pm and mass is at 4:30pm. Mass on Sunday is at 8:30am and 10am. They should have another confession at least at 8am on Sunday.

I just think confession is as important as recieving the Eucharist and a lot of Catholics aren’t aware of this.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

My local parish does things that make my skin crawl, so I drive to another parish for Mass that does thing right and does Gregorian chant for parts of the Mass to boot! I’m almost afraid to go to my local parish for RCIA considering how bad their liturgy is, I can only IMAGINE how bad their theology would be!

 

[JKirkLVNV]

USMC:

The solution!

I never witness any abuses at Mass. I travel often and attend Mass at many different Churches throughout the country, and I NEVER witness ANY abuses - not even small ones. Everything is done reverently and perfectly according to the rubrix. We never have inapropriate music or an abuse of “extra-ordinary ministers”. In fact, I never see extra-ordinary ministers. In addition to the reverence of the service, the homilies almost always very good.

How is it that my family never witnesses any abuses at any Church we attend anywhere in the Country? Simple. We attend the Traditional Latin Mass exclusively. If you are tired of abuses, the TLM is the solution.

LOL!!! Then things have indeed changed and my friends who were raised with that missal no longer need complain about a mumbled Mass or a Mass offered at break-neck speed so the priest can get out of there or a Mass in which most of the congregation are busy saying the Rosary and not paying any attention to the Mass at all. Both missals are subject to abuse and it is fantasy to say that one is abuse-proof (though both should be). Come to my parish in which the Mass of Paul VI is offered with reverence. That’s as much a “solution” as the TLM.

 

[USMC]

JKirkLVNV:

LOL!!! Then things have indeed changed and my friends who were raised with that missal no longer need complain about a mumbled Mass or a Mass offered at break-neck speed so the priest can get out of there or a Mass in which most of the congregation are busy saying the Rosary and not paying any attention to the Mass at all. Both missals are subject to abuse and it is fantasy to say that one is abuse-proof (though both should be). Come to my parish in which the Mass of Paul VI is offered with reverence. That’s as much a “solution” as the TLM.

If there were really so many abuses with the TLM, then why aren’t there any today?

Is the Old Mass abuse proof? Of course not, but the fact is, there are virtually NO ABUSES today at Traditional Masses. That is a fact. To deny that is to deny reality.

Regarding priests saying mass at “break-neck speed”. I seriously doubt it. This allegation was written in a book several years ago by someone trying to claim that the “abuses” today are nothing new. I have never met anyone who claimed to witness abuses before 1962. I am not saying it never happened, but there is no question, abuses used to be the exception, rather than the rule.

Regarding people “saying the Rosay and not paying attention” to the Mass. Why would you make that claim? Try attending a Traditional Mass and see if the people look “lost”. What you will find is people praying along with the priest, in reverent silence, and well aware of what is happening.

Regarding coming to your parish where the Mass of Paul VI is offered. Is the Mass of Paul VI really offered at your Church? You be the judge: In the Mass published by Paul VI, the consecration of the wine to the precious blood said “for you and for many”, which are the words our Lord used, and thus the words that have always been used by the Church. Does your Mass use the words “for you and for many” at the consecration, like the Mass of Paul VI did? Answer: No. Your Mass says, “for you and for all”, a phrase that was explicitly rejected by the Church in the Catechism of Trent; and one that, given the explanation of the Catechism of Trent, implicitly teaches heresy, since that phrace “for many” refers, not to those for whom our Lord died, but only for those who will be saved; viz, the fruit of His sacrifice.

So, the Mass you attend has the wrong words of consecration. Words that were explicitly rejected by the Church. That is not the Mass published by Paul VI, but rather the Mass published by ICEL, who has been in a stand off with Rome for a number of years due to its poor translations of the liturgy.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

USMC:

If there were really so many abuses with the TLM, then why aren’t there any today?

Is the Old Mass abuse proof? Of course not, but the fact is, there are virtually NO ABUSES today at Traditional Masses. That is a fact. To deny that is to deny reality.

Regarding priests saying mass at “break-neck speed”. I seriously doubt it. This allegation was written in a book several years ago by someone trying to claim that the “abuses” today are nothing new. I have never met anyone who claimed to witness abuses before 1962. I am not saying it never happened, but there is no question, abuses used to be the exception, rather than the rule.

Regarding people “saying the Rosay and not paying attention” to the Mass. Why would you make that claim? Try attending a Traditional Mass and see if the people look “lost”. What you will find is people praying along with the priest, in reverent silence, and well aware of what is happening.

Regarding coming to your parish where the Mass of Paul VI is offered. Is the Mass of Paul VI really offered at your Church? You be the judge: In the Mass published by Paul VI, the consecration of the wine to the precious blood said “for you and for many”, which are the words our Lord used, and thus the words that have always been used by the Church. Does your Mass use the words “for you and for many” at the consecration, like the Mass of Paul VI did? Answer: No. Your Mass says, “for you and for all”, a phrase that was explicitly rejected by the Church in the Catechism of Trent; and one that, given the explanation of the Catechism of Trent, implicitly teaches heresy, since that phrace “for many” refers, not to those for whom our Lord died, but only for those who will be saved; viz, the fruit of His sacrifice.

So, the Mass you attend has the wrong words of consecration. Words that were explicitly rejected by the Church. That is not the Mass published by Paul VI, but rather the Mass published by ICEL, who has been in a stand off with Rome for a number of years due to its poor translations of the liturgy.

Ah, since you deny the validity of the Mass, may I assume that you attended a Mass not approved by the local ordinary? Perhaps an SSPX? It’s not permitted to either the clergy or the people of an Indult Mass to criticize the normative Mass. You flirt with heresy and schism, if you are not already outright schismatic. Why? ICEL notwithstanding, the texts in use are approved by the Holy See, which means by the Holy Father. Do you suggest that he has lead, or permitted to be lead, the Church of Jesus Christ, into error on this most crucial of issues, the validity of the Sacrifice?

Abuses are not inherent in the Mass of Paul VI offered in English per se, any more so than in the TLM. There may be priests who cannot manage to do things by the book, or who cannot manage to keep from stamping their own egos all over the Mass, but that is not a flaw in the Mass itself or of the Mass offered in the vernacular. As for “multis,” there is some discussion as to its percise meaning. I leave that to the Holy See.

I merely repeat the claims of some of those who grew up with the TLM, I make no new ones. You’re relatively new to the forums. Do a search of the posts. You’ll find many who like the TLM, many who like the Mass of Paul VI, and many who like both. You’ll also find some older Catholics who will make the observations that I simply repeated. You’ve never met anyone who claimed to witness abuses before 1962? Then you’ve not read enough posts. I freely admit, there are also those who will state that there was never an abuse. I assume it depends on locale, bishop, and priest. Therefore, I don’t make sweeping statements…unless someone makes one first. My priest confects the sacrifice as truly as yours, which you will admit, unless you are schismatic.

 

[USMC]

JKirkLVNV:

Ah, since you deny the validity of the Mass

When did I deny the validity of the Mass? What is said is that the incorrect translation, which says “for all” rather than “for many”, implies heresy. Why did I say that? Because the Church has taught that the phrase “for many” refers to the “fruit” of Our Lord’s Sacrifice, that is to say, to those who will be saved. So to say “for all” in that place implies universal salvation. (see below.)

may I assume that you attended a Mass not approved by the local ordinary?

You can assume that if you like, but you would be incorrect. I attend a Mass that is approved.

Abuses are not inherent in the Mass of Paul VI offered in English per se, any more so than in the TLM. There may be priests who cannot manage to do things by the book, or who cannot manage to keep from stamping their own egos all over the Mass, but that is not a flaw in the Mass itself or of the Mass offered in the vernacular. As for “multis,” there is some discussion as to its percise meaning. I leave that to the Holy See.

The precise meaning of “multis” is “many”. We don’t need the Holy See to again tell us what we already know. The Church has existed for nearly 2000 years, and has always known what the word “multis” means. It is not a great mystery, unless, of course, someone is trying to make a word (“multis”) mean what it has never meant (“all”).

I don’t make sweeping statements…unless someone makes one first. My priest confects the sacrifice as truly as yours, which you will admit, unless you are schismatic.

If a person denies the validity of a Mass, they may be in error, or they may not, but that does not make them “schismatic”. A schismatic is someone who does not recognize the Pope as the head of the Church and belongs to a different Church. A heretic is someone who denies a dogma of the faith. Someone who believes what the Church has taught infallibly is neither; and the Church taught infallibly at the Council of Florence that the word “for many” is to be used in the consecration… not “for all”. It further taught that if a word was changed, and if the new word did not mean the same thing as the changed word, then consecration would not take place. If you do not believe that you are a heretic, since that is an infallible teaching of the Church. Every Catholic, including (especially) the Bishops are required to believe what the Church teaches infallibly.

Here are quotes from the Council of Florence and the Catechism of Trent. I want you to keep in mind when you are reading these words that you do not believe them. These are official teachings of the Church and you reject them You reject an infallible statement from the Concil of Florence, and you also reject the clear words of the authoritative Catechism of Trent.

The Council of Florence: “The words of Consecration, which are the FORM of this Sacrament, are these: FOR THIS IS MY BODY. And: FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD, OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL TESTAMENT: THE MYSTERY OF FAITH, WHICH SHALL BE SHED FOR YOU AND FOR MANY UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS. Now if one were to remove, or change anything in the FORM of the consecration of the Body and Blood, and in that very change of words the [new] wording would fail to mean the same thing, he would not consecrate the sacrament.” (Pope St. Pius V, De Defectibus, chapter 5, Part 1)

The “Mystery of faith” has been removed and “for many” has been changed to “for all”. Since the Holy Ghost taught us, through the Church, that this would invalidate the Mass, it is not being “schismatic” for someone believe it and therefore to question the validity of a Mass that has done both, since the Church has taught infallibly that “removing” a word, or “chaning” a word would invalidate the Mass. We are bound to believe what the Church teaches infallibly.

see continuation on next post.

 

[USMC]

continuation of last post

Catechism of Trent: * “With regard lo the consecration of the wine… the priest… ought of necessity to be well acquainted with, and well understand its form. We are then firmly to believe that it consists in the following words: This is the chalice of my blood, of the new and eternal testament, the mystery of faith, which shall be shed for you and for many, to the remission of sins. Of these words the greater part are taken from Scripture; but some have been preserved in the Church from Apostolic tradition.

“… The additional words for you and for many, are taken, some from Matthew, some from Luke, but were joined together by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Spirit of God. They serve to declare the fruit and advantage of His Passion. For if we look to its value, we must confess that the Redeemer shed His blood for the salvation of all; but if we look to the fruit which mankind have received from it, we shall easily find that it pertains not unto all, but to many of the human race. When therefore ('our Lord) said: For you, He meant either those who were present, or those chosen from among the Jewish people, such as were, with the exception of Judas, the disciples with whom He was speaking. When He added, And for many, He wished to be understood to mean the remainder of the elect from among the Jews or Gentiles.

"With reason, therefore, were the words for all not used, as in this place the fruits of the Passion are alone spoken of, and to the elect only did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation. And this is the purport of the Apostle when he says: Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many; and also of the words of our Lord in John: I pray for them; I pray not for the world, but for them whom thou hast given me, because they are thine.”*

What has caused you to reject these teachings of the Church, which have always been believed? What is the name for a person who rejects an infallible teaching of the Church?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

USMC:

continuation of last post

Catechism of Trent: “With regard lo the consecration of the wine… the priest… ought of necessity to be well acquainted with, and well understand its form. We are then firmly to believe that it consists in the following words: This is the chalice of my blood, of the new and eternal testament, the mystery of faith, which shall be shed for you and for many, to the remission of sins. Of these words the greater part are taken from Scripture; but some have been preserved in the Church from Apostolic tradition.

“… The additional words for you and for many, are taken, some from Matthew, some from Luke, but were joined together by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Spirit of God. They serve to declare the fruit and advantage of His Passion. For if we look to its value, we must confess that the Redeemer shed His blood for the salvation of all; but if we look to the fruit which mankind have received from it, we shall easily find that it pertains not unto all, but to many of the human race. When therefore ('our Lord) said: For you, He meant either those who were present, or those chosen from among the Jewish people, such as were, with the exception of Judas, the disciples with whom He was speaking. When He added, And for many, He wished to be understood to mean the remainder of the elect from among the Jews or Gentiles.

"With reason, therefore, were the words for all not used, as in this place the fruits of the Passion are alone spoken of, and to the elect only did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation. And this is the purport of the Apostle when he says: Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many; and also of the words of our Lord in John: I pray for them; I pray not for the world, but for them whom thou hast given me, because they are thine.”

What has caused you to reject these teachings of the Church, which have always been believed? What is the name for a person who rejects an infallible teaching of the Church?

I don’t reject anything the Church has said. I said I leave the translation of “multis” to the Holy See. I’ve never denied the validity of the TLM/Indult (not even of an SSPX Mass, which is illicit, but not invalid). Now I ask you this: Do you believe that the English Masses offered under the Missal of Paul VI (the NO Mass) and permitted by the Holy See (whether they liked them or not is another argument altogether) are valid or not? If they aren’t, then the Popes since Paul VI have allowed the Church to be lead into error, if they didn’t actively lead Her there themselves, Christ has failed in His Promise to Peter, and Catholic Truth is void. Why? Because this is the act of our redemption, the most important thing DONE by the Church. In good faith, 1-2 genereations of Catholics in the English-speaking world have lived and died under this Mass, under the leadership of the Vicars of Christ that permitted it (Paul the VI apparently complained, EVEN AS HE SIGNED the legislation permitting the changes to the Mass,“But where is the mystery?”, but he signed it anyway). If the Sacrifice wasn’t confected, then millions have died in a lie. If what YOU say is true, then the Popes have lead the Church into error. I do not believe this and I do not know any traditional Catholics who do, either (as being different from being “rad trads” of the SSPX or even more fringe groups). I don’t believe it because I don’t believe Christ would fail in His Promise. That’s why I asked if you went to a Mass that was approved by the ordinary of the diocese where you lived (as opposed to the illicitly ordained bishops Levebre foirsted on the stage). Priests of the FSSP and the diocesans celebrating the Indult are not permitted, nor are their people, to deny the validity of the NO Mass. They don’t have to like it, they simply cannot deny it’s validity. Why? Because to deny the validity of the Mass is HERESY.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

USMC:

Here are quotes from the Council of Florence and the Catechism of Trent. I want you to keep in mind when you are reading these words that you do not believe them. These are official teachings of the Church and you reject them You reject an infallible statement from the Concil of Florence, and you also reject the clear words of the authoritative Catechism of Trent.

.

Never presume to tell me what I believe or what I reject. If you want to ask what I believe or reject, you’re welcome to do so. Here’s preciesly what YOU said:

“You be the judge: In the Mass published by Paul VI, the consecration of the wine to the precious blood said “for you and for many”, which are the words our Lord used, and thus the words that have always been used by the Church. Does your Mass use the words “for you and for many” at the consecration, like the Mass of Paul VI did? Answer: No”

I assumed by your remarks of this nature that you deny the validity of the Mass published by Paul VI, to use your precise words. I’m more than happy to be wrong about that.

 

[USMC]

I have a lot to say about your previous post. Actually, I have so much to say, that I am not sure where to begin, or how long it will take. In the mean time, read the following link, which is an article written at the time the New Mass was published.

the-pope.com/qtv.html

 

[JKirkLVNV]

USMC:

I have a lot to say about your previous post. Actually, I have so much to say, that I am not sure where to begin, or how long it will take. In the mean time, read the following link, which is an article written at the time the New Mass was published.

the-pope.com/qtv.html

Please don’t trouble yourself. Now I understand. The sub-site you sent me to didn’t have a link to its main site, so I typed it in without the /gtv.html, in order to get there.

You sent me to a rad trad site, one I’ve seen and read before. The author questions the validity of the papacies after Pius XII, among many other things that would mislead the faithful of the Catholic Church. It would take an enormous amount of space to recount all of the site’s schismatic points. They’ve been dealt with in other threads. If this or any of the other rad trad “authorities” advised me that it was a sunny day, I’d pack an umbrella.

I don’t know how far into their beliefs you’ve bought, but I hope not far. You still have not answered the question. I’ll ask it with greater clarity, I hope. Do you attend an Indult Mass, celebrated with the knowledge and approbation of the local ordinary appointed by the Pope and in submission to him? If so, then neither you nor your priest nor your fellow congregants are supposed to cast aspersions on or question the validity of the normative Mass. That’s a condition of the Indult. If you do attend the Indult, please supply the name of your diocese. The ordinary needs to be told that there is a possibility that some of his flock are being lead astray. If you attend, assist, or communicate at any kind of Mass, other than the aforementioned, then I urge you to try and find a properly allowed Indult Mass. Any other group, operating without the assent of the local bishop, is schismatic, according to Ecclesia Dei. God bless you.

 

[USMC]

JKirkLVNV:

Please don’t trouble yourself. Now I understand. The sub-site you sent me to didn’t have a link to its main site, so I typed it in without the /gtv.html, in order to get there.

You sent me to a rad trad site, one I’ve seen and read before. The author questions the validity of the papacies after Pius XII, among many other things that would mislead the faithful of the Catholic Church. It would take an enormous amount of space to recount all of the site’s schismatic points. They’ve been dealt with in other threads. If this or any of the other rad trad “authorities” advised me that it was a sunny day, I’d pack an umbrella.

The article I linked to was not written by a “rad trad” website, and my linking to the article is not a sweeping endorsement of every site that also links to it. I simply searched for that particular article, and linked to the one I found. It is foolish to diregard it simply because a particular website has also linked to it.

I don’t know how far into their beliefs you’ve bought, but I hope not far. You still have not answered the question. I’ll ask it with greater clarity, I hope. Do you attend an Indult Mass, celebrated with the knowledge and approbation of the local ordinary appointed by the Pope and in submission to him? If so, then neither you nor your priest nor your fellow congregants are supposed to cast aspersions on or question the validity of the normative Mass. That’s a condition of the Indult. If you do attend the Indult, please supply the name of your diocese. The ordinary needs to be told that there is a possibility that some of his flock are being lead astray. If you attend, assist, or communicate at any kind of Mass, other than the aforementioned, then I urge you to try and find a properly allowed Indult Mass. Any other group, operating without the assent of the local bishop, is schismatic, according to Ecclesia Dei. God bless you.

I will answer your questions when I have time to give you a good reply. There is so much good information in your previous post (two posts ago) that I want to take time to answer thoroughly. I can’t let this great opportunity pass by without giving a good response.

I also find it very funny that you would be so concerned that a layman who attends an Indult Mass (which is what I attend) would question the validity of the new Mass, when so many Priest, Bishops and even Cardinals blantanly deny basic Church dogma’s and moral teachings.

And I would welcome the opportunity to meet with my Bishop and tell him my concerns about the New Mass. There is actually nothing I would more prefer to do. I have already met with his “spiritual adviser”, who I was told was a “great theologian” and who is actually a total heretic. I met with him for over and hour and we had, basically, a friendly debate. He was the most liberal modernist I have ever even heard of. He explicitly told me that he teaches the teenagers at his Church that Jesus was a “party animal”. He also tried to convince me that Jesus was a sinner by quoting the verse that says “He (Jesus) was like us in every way”. When I finished the verse by saying: “He was like us in every way except sin”, he disregarded it and moved on. He was also in favor of abortion, and defended it. This priest was so bad it was unbelievable. And he is the “spiritual adviser” to our local Bishop. What does that say about our local Bishop?

I will respond to your earlier post when I have some free time.

 

[pnewton]

USMC:

The article I linked to was not written by a “rad trad” website, and my linking to the article is not a sweeping endorsement of every site that also links to it.

From the site, “Since legitimate questions have been raised as to the reliability, orthodoxy, sanity, or even Papal claims regarding certain recent and current leaders of the Vatican establishment, precedence is given to the clear teachings of those reliable Popes from Pius XII on back to Peter himself.”

You may think it a legitimate, but I totally disregard any sedvacantist. Period. The only sanity I question is those like this webmaster and authors like Patrick Omlor. At least the webmaster understand the importance of completely undermining the pontiff if he is to claim the current Mass as invalid, so he is at least more logical than Omlor.