What Mass does MHFM accept?

We accept the Mass of Pope St. Pius V; we don’t approve of the invalid Novus Ordo, of course, and we don’t approve of the use of the 1962 Missal, the Mass of John XXIII – which is the same as the Mass of St. Pius V but with St. Joseph’s name illegally added to the Canon (as well as some other minor changes). We acknowledge that the 1962 Missal is valid, since the addition of St. Joseph to the Canon has no bearing on validity, only legality. We also believe that in this time of crisis one can attend a Mass celebrated by a validly ordained priest who uses the 1962 Missal, as long as the person does not agree with or support the priest. Here is an interesting quote relating to this issue:

“In order to further the liturgical reform that Hebblethwaite [John XXIII’s biographer] claimed John ‘favored,’ the Pope ‘added to the Roman Canon the name of St. Joseph – beati Joseph, eiusdem Virginis Sponsi – a pious ruse to show that the text was not immutable [unchangeable],’ according to Hebblethwaite.” (Mark Fellows, Fatima in Twilight, p. 177)

In other words, according to John XXIII’s biographer, the whole reason for John XXIII to add St. Joseph’s name to the Canon was to show the Canon was not unchangeable and to pave the way for what later came with Antipope Paul VI – the New Mass.

Council of Florence on Circumcision; and Man becoming God?

Paul, the statement from the Council of Florence (Denz. 712) condemns all who “observe circumcision,” whether or not they place hope in it for salvation.  Those who get the foreskin of their children cut solely for health reasons are not “observing circumcision” (the ritual of the Old Law), but are simply having a medical procedure performed for health reasons.  Therefore, the phrase “observe circumcision” presupposes that one is doing it to fulfill the Old Law.  If one is not doing it to fulfill the Old Law then he is not actually “observing circumcision.”

Regarding your second question, I’m familiar with the quotes that people bring forward.  In fact, I recently read a large book (over 300 pages) by a man who purports to be a “traditional Catholic” and the whole point of the book was to prove that all the baptized are Jesus.  But it is heresy to say that any man becomes God.  Otherwise there would be more than one God.  Some of the fathers of the Church said this about baptized Catholics when speaking in exaggerated and wrong terms about the truth that a justified man partakes of the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4); but they never should have said that man becomes God.  They simply should have repeated what 2 Peter 1:4 says: that a justified man partakes of the divine nature.

(more…)