THE BURDEN

By: Fr. James F. Wathen, OSJ The Great
Sacrilege

Chapter 6 Burden of Priests

"And Elias coming to all the people, said: How long do you halt Between
two sides? If the Lord be God, follow him; but if Baal, then follow him."
3 Kings 18:21

Anyone should be able to perceive that the days of the "New Mass" are numbered. It is only a matter of time before the Church will reject this indigestible "Meal," and return to the "Sacred Banquet in which Christ is consumed, the memory of His Passion is celebrated, the soul is filled with grace and given a pledge of future glory."64 O Sacrum Convivium, Magnificat Antiphon from the Second Vespers of the Feast of Corpus Christi. Roman Breviary.

The restoration will come, but this says nothing of the fate of present-day conformists, those middle-of-the-roaders, who refuse to see that they are exactly where their seducers have planned for them to be. The abandonment of the True Mass is an act of highest infidelity; participation in the "New Mass" (in any form, in any language) is complicity in the Great Sacrilege. Those who either "say" it or attend it are helping to prolong its life, are effectively denying their Faith, and are exposing themselves and those in their charge to its satanic influence.

All must admit that insofar as they have accepted the "New Mass," they have allowed themselves to be "processed" into identifying the True Faith with the humanistic pantheism of the Revolution. While granting almost divine honors to Pope Paul VI, we came to regard the Holy Mass as nothing more than a human fabrication, a mere Masonic exercise. Thinking our superiors would never dream of doing in its regard anything but what was good, necessary, and permissible, we stood by and watched them make a Joke of it, to the delight of those who hate it more than we love it. Thus, we ourselves have now grown used to their impious familiarity, their priggish presumptuousness, and their rough-shod iconoclasm. This could only mean that we must have lost something of our former reverence and devotion for the True Mass. We accepted as true what they taught us, that the Mass is no more than, and whatever, and only, what they made it, and no more than the enemies of Christ and of His ineffable Sacrifice always said it was. Before anything else, therefore, we must recall ourselves to our former awareness, meditate on its infinite grandeur and utter irreplaceability, and pray for the grace to esteem and honor it worthily. Only if we do this shall we be able to rise to the occasion of our present crisis and assume that burden which our noble Faith imposes upon us.

We can and we must pray that Pope Paul will himself retract his "wishes" and himself put an end to the present malaise. However, it would be unrealistic to expect him to, and we certainly may not wait for such a conversion. It would be utter folly to expect our bishops will begin to act like successors of the Apostles. This is no place to speak of them at length. As a group, they obviously do not know their theology. If they do, they give no promise of letting anyone else find out about it. Since at least the Second Vatican Council, they have, with only a few exceptions, shown themselves shallow, craven, irrelevant, and totally incapable of reading their times. For years now, we have waited for them to stand up to the Pope as St. Paul would, (Gal. 2:11), and as we have a right to expect them to. Amid the confusion and deterioration of the Faith and the runaway liberalization of all discipline which has emanated from the Vatican, their dominant concern seems to have been survival - and let the devil take the hindmost!

A. PRIESTS

Moreover, I maintain and profess, without doubting, all the other teachings handed down, defined, and declared in the Sacred Canons by the Ecumenical Councils, especially by the Most Holy Council of Trent and by the (First) Ecumenical Vatican Council, particularly that of the Primacy and the Infallible Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff; and at the same time I condemn, reject, and abominate all opinions to the contrary and all heresies whatever which the Church condemns rejects, and anathematizes.

I, N…, promise, vow, and swear that, with God's help, I shall most constantly hold and profess this true Catholic faith, outside which no one can be saved and which I now freely profess and truly hold. With the help of God, I shall profess it whole and unblemished to my dying breath; and, to the best of my ability, I shall see to it that my subjects and those entrusted to me by virtue of my office hold it, teach it, and preach it. So help me God and His holy Gospels. (Appendix III).

The foregoing comes from the Oath known as "The Profession of Faith," which all priests are required by the Code of Canon Law to take both before and after their Ordination. Who would not say that it is highly providential that this Oath makes specific mention of the decrees of the Council of Trent (which defined the doctrines of the Mass) and the First Vatican Council (which defined the doctrine of Papal Infallibility)?

The "Profession" concerns Catholic doctrinal belief. It is made regardless of all earthly authority. It is made directly to God, before the Tabernacle of the King of kings. Nothing could possibly happen to make its tenets untrue, hence, to dispense any priest who pronounces it, be he Pope or simple curate. It seems that most priests have been so affected by the "spirit of renewal" (read: "Revolution"), that they feel no obligation at all to this commitment. In a way, therefore, they are no different from some of their confreres who have abandoned their priestly ministry altogether; that is, they do what they are allowed to do instead of what they promised.

The Oath is unconditional. The Church is "in command." No one has to take it; but one must take it if he is going to enter the priesthood or, having entered, ascend to a higher office and dignity. The Code of Canon Law requires that it be taken before the reception of the subdiaconate. After ordination it must be reiterated before faculties are granted for preaching, teaching, or hearing confessions. It is required again when one receives a pastorate or professorship in a Catholic college or seminary where one intends to teach philosophy or theology. It must be renewed by a bishop-elect and a cardinal-elect and by him who accedes to the papal throne.

Since those who have a higher rank in the Church must have taken this Oath more frequently, it must be a graver thing for prelates to violate it than for those "down in the ranks." One feels inclined to say that the former are more strongly bound by it for that reason, if such were possible.

One thing is certain, the Oath is absolute; it is strictly worded-clearly, and uncompromisingly. There can be no excuse for a cleric not knowing what it says or what it means. There is nothing in it which suggests its terms are alterable or dispensable. No reason-even a direct command from the Supreme Pontiff-is conceived for its future retraction.

No great imagination is required to appreciate how much strength the Church has derived from such a commitment on the part of each of its priests, when each of them adhered to this Oath literally and fearlessly. No wonder the Revolutionists who now infest the Church had to begin the process of emasculating and eventually discarding the Oath. You may remember a few years ago they began by abbreviating its companion, The Oath Against Modernism. You can be sure it was only the first shot! And no wonder that, while the cry of obedience to the Pope is being dinned into our ears, mention of this Oath is regarded as a most impolite digression.

Every priest takes the Oath individually. What a grand and bold affirmation it is, and how gladly and proudly we uttered it! In that day, we were ready for the sword or the lions! (Bring them on!) The faithful are bound to wonder whether their priests would (or should I say, could) bring themselves to repeat the ceremony now, in view of recent events, using the very same words they used in the adventurous days of their subdiaconate. Would they, or do they now, have some reservations? Would they now, at least internally, attach certain conditions?

Most priests, if they were honest (in a simple, child-like way-not in an "adult" way), would admit they have excused themselves from the literal terms of their priestly Oath. This is a nice way of saying they have perjured themselves through their acceptance of the "New Mass," whose very existence is a clear and inarguable violation of the Canons of the Council of Trent. To have accepted the "faith" represented by the "Novus Ordo" is to have abandoned that of Trent and to have apostatized from it. And every time they follow the "New Order," they are renewing that original forswearal (a less abrasive word than "lie").

Such priests exist, therefore, in a condition very similar to those who live in adulterous marriages, only worse. Adulterers live in sin and compound their guilt with every act of intercourse. Those priests, however, add the dimension of sacrilege to their perjury when they parody the Mass.

Well did the prophet Ezechiel say of them:

"Her priests have despised my law, and have defiled my sanctuaries, they have put no difference between holy and profane; nor have distinguished between the polluted and the clean; and they have turned away their eyes from my Sabbaths, and I was profound in the midst of them."
Ezechiel 22:26

Therefore, the dilemma for priests nowadays is more compelling than they wish to admit: Either they must acknowledge they do not believe any longer the tenets of the Council of Trent and do subscribe to the "New Religion" with its worship of man, or they are falsely performing the rites of the "New Religion," while secretly holding to the "Old Faith." In their present predicament, they will have to decide which is the greater sin, as well as which sin they choose to be damned for, I really should say "sins," because, as you can see, their acts have many dimensions.

For the present, it looks as it most of them will continue to convince themselves that the "New Mass" is the "Old Mass," that the "New Religion" is the True Religion, that there is no essential difference between what was and what is. All the while they will keep their eyes peeled for a "break" in the situation, keep a careful count of the months before their retirement, when they will say the "Tridentine Mass" privately, just to be on the safe side! They will also keep up a lively interest in the question of whether Pope Paul VI will retire: there is some hope in that quarter!

During the interim, they will keep telling themselves they are doing the prudent thing, rendering the greatest service to the people, maintaining the peace, keeping things going, saying their prayers, trying to make the "New Liturgy" as respectable looking as possible! They will scrupulously avoid consulting their theology texts and the "pre-Conciliar" papal writings. The Council made all those obsolete, you understand. They will find themselves treating as some kind of malevolent strangers those few daring, single-minded people (for it takes daring), who accost them with bland and blunt questions, which need highly-technical theological training to understand the answers to. You know: "But, Father, how can you justify…?"; "But it says right here in this book…!" etc. Having become accessory to the negation of all traditional belief and authority, they will perforce run to hide behind the skirts of their "Revolutionary 'mother church,'" which can dispense them from anything and everything.

They do not want to see it or to be reminded of it, but the fact remains: these "middle-of-the-road" padres, these many-hued ministers of the "New Establishment," have become a new-born generation of T. S. Elliot's "hollow men," "men of straw." They are the compliant "yes men" which the Revolution produces and finds so useful. And they work so hard, preoccupying their minds, drowning out their consciences. Watching them, one cannot help recalling Orwell's work-horses in Animal Farm. As Father Fahey wrote: "Profanation of the Blessed Eucharist has, on many occasions at least, been part of the preparation of apostate Catholics to be fitting instruments of revolution…"65 65. The Kingship of Christ and Organized Naturalism. Rev. Denis Fahey, C.S.Sp. Regina Publications. Dublin. p. unknown.

They pretend such great independence and voluntariness and such strong belief, all as if nothing untoward were happening in the whole wide world. On "safe" subjects, they are veritable titans of Orthodoxy and principle. (Grrrr!).

They are such dutiful and honorable and obedient men, not because they are servants of Christ, but because they are insecure, nervous, and unhappy. They used to be leaders, men of discipline, a force to be reckoned with. (The atheist Nietsche warned his followers to keep a safe distance from them.) Now they are has-beens, relics, cast-offs. They are without purpose, without dedication; there is a thorn in their side, a pebble in their shoe, and a scar across their eyes. All their answers are circuitous; they wish to change the subject. "But if the salt lose its savour, wherewith shall it be salted? It is good for nothing anymore but to be cast out, and to be trodden on by men." (Mt. 5:13).

If they were honest, they would at least consider seriously the contentions made in these pages; they should have made them long before now. There is no excuse for this. Either such men should never have been ordained, or they are using their priesthood as a benefice. However, the reason these priests have not given the matter any thought is that those of their confreres who are customarily more alert to matters theological, and their bishops, have played the coward and not dared to raise the question for them to consider. A perusal of periodicals written for priests during the past few years is a perfect example. The "New Mass" is usually treated in the "question-and-answer" columns. I need not describe the pettifoggery one encounters there.

The conclusions I have come to here do, of course, seem extreme. The reason, however, is not that my conclusions are inaccurate, but because most priests have ceased to mean what they say. Is it too much to expect that they give sound reasons why they consider themselves no longer bound by their priestly oaths. Do not the people have a right to some sort of explanation? Since when is any Catholic-priest or layman-not supposed to have a good reason for everything he does? Indeed, here is the momentous glaring discrepancy in the whole "renewal" argument and effort: there are no adequate reasons for any of it! None of all its adherents seem to be able to deal with these questions according to the rules of honest argumentation. Their pusillanimous invocation of the Pope is well calculated to make our Religion what our worst enemies have always said it was, even though our enemies knew better. Their efforts to justify the insufferable "new Mass" amount to one argument: "The Pope said to!" And this is the Faith without which there can be no salvation. Imagine!

All priests cardinals not excluded must return to the True Mass immediately. This obviously involves two steps - if they do not do the second, they still must do the first: (1) They must stop "saying" the "New Mass." They must completely separate themselves from it and the churches where it is "said"-or separate the "New Mass" from the churches in their care. They must desist doing anything to compromise themselves in this regard. To "say" the "New Mass" is an act of sacrilege and desecration. (2) They must begin to say the True Mass with total disregard for any earthly consequences, whenever and wherever this can be done, but only in accord with the Code of Canon Law. How they manage it is their affair; they are of age, strong, brave, and consecrated men. They will be surprised at how God will provide for them. Even should they have to suffer great hardships, these will serve as partial reparation for their previous disloyalty and infidelity, as well as the first installments on that great expiation which the whole Church must in time surely make for the Great Sacrilege. Let them be reminded that Pope St. Pius V, in Quo Primum, envisioned that penalties might someday be threatened those who adhered to his command. No matter what sufferings their act costs them, none are so cruel as those the Revolution has in store for them once it is through with them! They must proceed to offer the True Mass for as many of the faithful as they can get to attend it, as often as is possible and canonically permissible. They will find in this apostolate enough. (Editor's emphasis throughout)

I need to add that a priest does not have to agree with all my contentions concerning the "New Mass" to be bound to the "Traditional Mass;" he is so bound by his Oath, independently of all other considerations.

Let priests take their example from those six thousand priests of Spain who, in a body, swore they would never accept the "New Mass." 66 66. Itineraires, March, 1970. Many questions suggest themselves by this heroic act, none of which, by the way, clerical periodicals have dared to raise. The only question I have is, "Where are the Americans?"MORE...

The True Church and the Conciliar Church Compared

By: Dr. J. P. Hubert

Many people who seriously consider the difficulties which have befallen the Catholic Church[1] find it virtually impossible to believe that there has been a complete break with Traditional Roman Catholicism.[2] This reluctance exists despite copious warnings from Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition that a universal Apostasy involving the Church will definitely occur at some point.[3]

It is understandable that those Catholics who prior to 1968 were accustomed to the presence of outstanding Popes and those who recognize the proper implications of papal infallibility would experience a marked visceral discomfort at the thought of the Roman Catholic Church apostatizing from the One True Faith. No doubt it is emotionally wrenching and intellectually stultifying to even consider such a thing.

It is well known however, that our ability to think rationally can be negatively impacted by our emotional state. It is much more comfortable to assume that all is well, that what seems to be true is not actually the case.[4] We tend to resist the uncomfortable feeling which results from having to accept that the usual state of affairs is no longer operative. Like the doctor facing a major complication of complex surgery, we hope and pray against all odds that our worst fears will not be realized. We cling to any sign that would prevent us from admitting what we suspect is true. Our responsibility however is to seek the truth. As Traditional Roman Catholic Christians we are united to the Being whose very nature and essence is Truth itself—Jesus Christ. Lies on the other hand are of the Devil--who has been nothing but a deceiver from the very beginning.

No hardship must be allowed to deter us from seeking the truth which our Lord Jesus Christ has taught will make us free. If the conciliar church now stands where the Roman Catholic Church once did and if it is a counterfeit--an absolute abomination, we must be capable of discerning it and be committed to acting/behaving accordingly. The question which must be asked cannot be avoided:

Is the conciliar church a false sect a schismatic pseudo-religion worse than anything the Protestant “reformers” ever conceived? Is the conciliar church an anti-Christic abomination which seeks to destroy the True Roman Catholic Church of Jesus Christ?

After almost 50 years of disastrous changes to the Traditional Roman Catholic Church, the conciliar church of the Novus Ordo has destroyed the visible confines of the True Roman Catholic Church. It is no longer recognizable as a corporeal entity. Nor is it any longer One, Holy, Catholic or Apostolic the formula which all pre-Vatican II Catholics recognized as the “4” marks of the True Church. The conclusion which must be drawn to a high degree of moral certainty is that the conciliar Novus Ordo church[5] represents a schismatic facade which has--through internal revolution--taken over the visible Roman Catholic Church of Christ. It has retained some of the superficial attributes of the True Church but its very nature is that of an apostate entity. The more detailed the analysis one conducts--of the circumstances prior to John XXIII’s calling of the second Vatican Council and the Council itself including its aftermath--the more not less obvious it becomes that a complete rupture has occurred with the True Church of Jesus Christ. Further investigation and analysis of the conciliar church instead of answering legitimate questions and objections, only serves to highlight the degree of perfidy involved by the revolutionaries in foisting the conciliar nightmare on unsuspecting Catholics.

There exists a small remnant of Traditional Roman Catholics who continue to resist the conciliar church and who endeavor to embrace the entire deposit of Catholic faith as handed down by the Apostles, the martyrs, the Church Fathers and the saints. This remnant tries valiantly without any organized structure or kind of visible support or hierarchy to uphold the entirety of Divine Revelation which it has inherited. It is currently under great duress. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass the very life-blood of the Roman Catholic Faith has been virtually unavailable for over 40 years. The other sacraments have been attenuated at best and at worst, destroyed beyond recognition.

The Traditional Catholic has no earthly person to whom he/she may appeal for help. Despite the conciliar church teaching that all religions are to be respected, the Vatican has ignored or calumniated against those Traditional Catholics who have asked that the hierarchy defend the conciliar changes against the charges of heresy and apostasy. It has refused to provide the Traditional Latin Mass of Pope St. Pius V which was to be available in perpetuity by order of Quo Primum tempore. No high ranking Bishop, arch-Bishop or Cardinal ordained or consecrated before 1969[6] has challenged the conciliar church hierarchy as they were sworn to. No Pope since John XXIII has taken the oath against Modernism. Why not? The most likely explanation is that they fully embrace Modernism since they all have vowed to proceed with the further implementing of Vatican II.

The True Church held that the philosophy of the angelic doctor St. Thomas Aquinas was the philosophy of the Catholic Church. The conciliar church has rejected St. Thomas and embraced a slew of diverse modern philosophies. In authentic Thomistic fashion, what we must be concerned with is not what “seems” to be true, but what “is” true. While it may seem to be inconceivable that a revolution has taken place in the Roman Catholic[7] Church the facts prove otherwise.[8] Sadly, the evidence demonstrates that the conciliar church is a counterfeit apostate abomination steeped in neo-Modernism.[9] Some ask why it isn’t possible that the conciliar church represents simply an updated version of the True Church. The simplest way to answer is that the two are virtually the inverse of each other. The “first principles” of being especially the law of non-contradiction would have to be repealed in order for the two not to be incompatible. That presumably is the reason why the neo-Modernist revolutionaries who foisted their creation on the True Church found it necessary to reject St. Thomas and to replace him with a hodge-podge of modern anti-philosophies. They are anti-philosophies because rather than representing a complete philosophy or explanation of life they instead are nothing but disjointed mutually exclusive concepts which destroy rather than unify the True Church of Jesus Christ.

Moreover, if one attempts to harmonize the conciliar teachings with Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition one finds nothing but contradictions. Yet, the same comparison made between the teachings of the True Church and Sacred Scripture are harmonious. Furthermore, there is no ambivalence in papal writings prior to 1958. There is virtually nothing but ambivalence in those written after 1958. If it were true as is alleged that conciliar church teaching represents nothing but an update or renewal of the teachings of the True Church and Sacred Scripture why should they be contradictory?

Lastly, prior to 1958 every Roman Catholic who came of age knew exactly what was expected of him/her, what the Church taught was right and what was wrong. The only question each individual had to face was to what degree it would be possible to keep the entirety of the faith. Since 1958, there has been no agreement over what the conciliar church teaches, what is morally permissible and what is not and what is expected of its members. The question of how well a person can discipline oneself in order to remain true to the faith is no longer relevant as discipline in general is nowhere to be found. There is just as much variation among conciliar "Catholic's" with regard to moral behavior and belief as there is in secular society.[10] Prior to 1958 all Roman Catholics knew what was moral and what was not. Even though some members fell short of the mark all agreed that the Church had the right to set and enforce moral norms. Any failure to meet those norms was the result of the individual's lack of attaining the requisite perfection required, the solution to which was frequent penance and the attaining of sanctifying grace through an increased devotion to Jesus Christ not the abrogation of the norms themselves.

To be continued...

NOTES:

1. A virtual implosion from “within” affecting all areas which are measurable.
2. An actual rupture or separation where the conciliar or Novus Ordo church represents a schismatic sect that has apostatized from the True Church of Jesus Christ.
3. The references are too numerous to detail but include Matt. 24: 4-5, Luke 18:8, 2 Thess. 2: 3-4.
4. Or to accept what on meticulous analysis is incontestable to a high degree of moral certainty.
5. In other words the conciliar church including the Novus Ordo Missae represents a revolution, a complete overthrowing and replacement of the True Roman Catholic Church of Christ. This is something that is demanded by the facts themselves when comparing the True Church to the Novus Ordo church on the basis of first principles and logic.
6. The sacrament of Holy Orders was altered in 1969 which also affected the consecration of Bishops.
7. A revolution which has put in its place a counterfeit entity termed the conciliar or “Novus Ordo” church,
8. There have been a plethora of negative fruits in the wake of the council.
9. This is true globally in terms of Creed, Code and Cult.
10. After the Council the "golden-rule" ethic was replaced with rank Utilitarianism. Since then, a general confusion exists about what is right and what is wrong, the expected result of the abandoning of the natural law among secularists.

The HOLY MASS: From Holy Sacrifice to "Happy Meal"

From Novus Ordo Watch:

"The Holy Mass is the central act of Catholic worship. As such, it is not surprising that the liturgical actions, gestures, and prayers must reflect the true Catholic Faith to a tee. In all its details, the Catholic Mass reflects what Catholics believe, and vice versa: What Catholics believe is reflected in the Holy Mass. It therefore follows that if someone were to change the liturgical actions or prayers of the Holy Mass, this would necessarily change or impact the belief of Catholics. A common Catholic adage is that the law of prayer is the law of belief: "Lex orandi, lex credendi." Therefore, whenever changes were made to the Catholic Mass, these changes were minor and never substantial, and complete orthodoxy was always ensured so that the faithful would always have pure and sound doctrine in this principal act of worship to the Most Holy Trinity...

...The Catholic Church teaches clearly that she is infallible/indefectible and spotless in the promulgation of her sacramental rites and sacred laws imposed upon all. It is not possible for the Catholic Church to promulgate a sacramental rite that is invalid, impious, harmful to souls, or evil...

...the Blessed Lord Jesus Christ Himself established the Catholic Church, and promised that the gates of hell would never prevail against her. If this Church could promulgate sacramental rites that are harmful to souls and even invalid, the gates of hell would definitely have prevailed." MORE...

THE "NEW MASS"

By: Fr. James F. Wathen, O.S.J., The Great Sacrilege

K. The Language of the "New Mass"

"...With regard to the "New Mass" the basic error of most people has been to read traditional meanings and intentions into its language. I cannot emphasize strongly enough what a mistaken approach this is. It is like attempting to prove the personal orthodoxy of Pope Paul VI by referring to certain utterances of his which contain mention of this or that Catholic doctrine. I trust I have made it clear that the question of the legality and validity of this accursed Sham can be decided only through study of those decrees of the Church which are completely reliable and unquestionably binding. How few people realize that the very soul of the Revolution is deception and its total objective is influence. The Revolution does not care what people believe. It is totally pragmatic. Sufficient to the Revolution if its program is working, if the masses are permitting themselves to be herded, if they are accepting the trends of thought being served to them, if the desired effect is being achieved from whatever cause.

The Revolution has no sympathy for the discontent or the internal revulsion of individuals. It is sufficient if the majority outwardly conforms, thus contributing to the illusion which it is creating for the masses. Individuals who cannot or will not conform must somehow be removed from the others, as they threaten to dispel the illusion for others.

Nor does the Revolution use words as ordinary human beings do. This most people are very slow to learn. Its use of words is as peculiarly its own as is that of the True Church when those that speak for Catholicism conform their teaching to its divinely-inspired traditions. Language is a means for the furtherance of the Revolutionary program. It is used as a tool, or better, as a weapon, since the program is a phase, and language a tactic in the struggle for influencing people, not for communicating truth. The Revolution is altogether indifferent to objective truth; it does not define words and, by this very fact, reveals itself as diametrically opposed to such stringency of thought.

The "New Mass" is one of the productions of the Revolution, one of its tools of subversion, and the language of the "New Mass" is in the genre of the Revolution. Those who mean to assess the "New Mass" should not expect to find in it that clarity of thought and intention which one expects in the articulations of the Sacred Magisterium of the Church. They should not expect to find clear-cut affirmations or negations. They will find truth suggested - as well as many shades of its opposite. The only consistency they will find is the effort to confuse and to mislead, a refusal to debate fairly, but no legally admissible evidence of the conspiracy that is afoot. For this reason, the authors of the "New Mass" cannot be convicted of heresy. An ordinary heretic boldly teaches his false belief, firmly denies traditional dogma, and, sometimes, is willing to die in defense of his contentions. The Revolutionary will seem to believe whatever it serves his immediate purpose to believe, will take any shape which pragmatic need dictates.

For this reason also, the effort to decide the validity of the "New Mass" (or, I suspect, of any of the other new Sacramental rites) through analysis of its language is doomed to failure, for all the good it would do. The celebrant of the True Mass must intend to do what the Church intends. But how will you ever be able to guess the true intention of the Church when the formulation of its rites is now in the hands of men whose purpose is deliberately devious and indefinable, whose use of words and whose every act is compulsively nebulous and evasive? How will you ever prove the intentions of their ritual formulations when their own thinking is fluid, and basically nihilistic? Their intention is directly related to the condition of those whom their use of language is meant to influence. Their language does not have objective intention, but dialectic direction; their words are chosen always with a view to inching the thought of the masses into the direction of the Revolutionary negations; away, therefore, from objective truth and toward Communism; away from supernatural verities, dogmas, and laws, and toward dialectical materialism, naturalism, cynicism, narcissism, and nihilism. This intention is behind the insatiable need to change the rites of the Church, to change the nomenclature, to change all the prayers, to abolish all the traditions, to ban the merely customary-without regard to any objective benefit or principle.

In their desire for some kind of definiteness and stability, people will concede almost anything if they think doctrine not in jeopardy, on the promise that the next change will be the last. Whereas, the Revolution, being indifferent to truth or human feeling (but keenly aware of the usefulness of both), will promise anything, give every impression of sincerity, create as convincing a rationale as possible, and seem to compromise on its every chosen direction. Any change is progress, so long as no stage is final. Exploiting the poor memory, the ignorance, the guilelessness, and the indifference of those who will sacrifice anything to be free of further annoyance (who will surrender every principle in order not to be thought odd by the majority, i.e., the masses), the Revolution is certain that as soon as one change has been accepted, no matter how resentfully, it is time to agitate for another, being sure to ignore and put to silence all reminders of previous promises. With each change, its uncomprehending subjects stand at an ever greater distance from their point of departure, and remember it ever more vaguely, and think it ever less necessary. For a few moments' peace (which is never permitted, of course), they will allow themselves to be treated like curs.

With regard to the True Mass, once Catholics - Pope, clergy, and people - surrendered to the Revolutionary principle that the Mass needed to be adapted to modern times, and once the solemn noli tangere ("do not touch") of St. Pius V had been violated, the entire Liturgy and the whole body of the Church (whose heart and heart-beat the Liturgy is) became paralyzed and easy prey for the "arrangers." Since then, we have been surrendering on every front, on every point of doctrine and morality, even on the most basic principles of human life. The wall was breached; ever since, all has been inconsistency, disorder, foolishness, and subterfuge.

And, as the months pass, the erosion of the Faith continues. The Hierarchy and the faithful, who vainly look to the Church for leadership, clear-sightedness, and direction, are now together in a state of heedless, mindless falling away. Only those who have clung to Catholic principles and kept themselves aloof from the wearing propagandization can even perceive the decline. Indeed, the sun has lost its light! (Apoc. 9:2; Is. 13: 10; Ez. 32:7)."

NOTE:

The amazing thing is that the late Fr. Wathen wrote his book in 1971 and it is even more accurate now than it was then in its description of the revolutionary nature of the New Theology which produced the "New Mass."

I strongly recommend reading the entire book which can be done free of charge on-line by proceeding HERE...

--Dr. J. P. Hubert

THE "NEW MASS": The Dishonoring of Mary

"...I cannot emphasize strongly enough that the ultimate purpose of all the sacrileges, the trickery, the lawlessness, the discord, and the scandal in religion, as well as of the overthrow of governments, the terrorism, the cruelties, the imprisonments, the murders, and the ruin of souls in the social realm, which are the stock and trade of the Revolution - the ultimate purpose of them all, I say, is the everlasting blasphemy of the sweet Name of Jesus, the God-Man. For the doctrine which inspires in Revolutionaries the most unmitigated hatred and provokes all their audacious perversities is that of His sacred divinity. Once you become aware of this fact, you will be able to comprehend the (poorly) disguised intentions of the 'New Mass,' (Novus Ordo Missae) and, to be sure, of the whole drive for 'renewal' (Vatican II) in the Church.

Now, according to the logic of the Revolution, Mary must at every opportunity be slighted and ignored, and if possible, reviled. It goes without saying that the Revolutionaries cannot endure her presence she being the Immaculate One and they being interiorly depraved. It would suit the purpose of the Revolution if we would do either one of two things: on the one hand, forget all about Mary - cease to pray to her or sing her praises; or, on the other, give her divine worship. Either error will deflect from the glory which she shares with and the love she inspires for her divine Son and will serve well enough. It is a lamentable fact that many will tolerate greater insolence towards Her Son than towards her. They will rise to her defense with admirable courage; whereas they will participate with docility and in some cases with enthusiasm in the unspeakable Insult to Her Son which is the 'New Mass.' Nothing could displease her more. Her place at Mass has been usurped and her fervent votaries should have noticed it (not that she would ever attend the Spectacle). But if anyone has, through the centuries always been thought to 'preside' at the Eucharistic Sacrifice of Her Son, it is she, just as she did on Calvary."

--Fr. James F. Wathen, O.S.J. The Great Sacrilege MORE...

Formation of a New World Order and the Anti-Christic Cabal--Continued

By: Dr. J. P. Hubert

It is difficult to imagine how the neo-Modernists who gained control of the Second Vatican Council were able to persuade Traditionalist Prelates that the Roman Catholic Church should be accommodated to the modern world. The very idea should have made them shudder. After all, the Church Fathers and many orthodox members of the Roman hierarchy throughout the centuries were well aware from Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition that a world-wide apostasy would eventually occur, (2 Thess. 2: 3, Luke 18: 8). Even worse, they were warned by the previous generation of orthodox popes including St. Pius X and Leo XIII about the dangers of Modernism which Pius X labeled the synthesis of all heresies.

Moreover, there was the relatively recent history of the Protestant schism and the Catholic Counter-Reformation which should have served as a potent reminder of how dangerous even a small bit of heresy can be. Yet, the entire episcopacy after only a paltry protestation acquiesced to the wishes of John XXIII and Paul VI without anyone of them demanding that either the Council Fathers defend their conciliar creation or that John XXIII/Paul VI defend it against obvious heresy. If not then, why not when Paul VI first began to experiment with the Mass? So why did they fail? It remains inexplicable.

To this writer, the fact that the revolution was accomplished so easily proves its demonic origin. The shear scope of the kind of coordination required to destroy almost 2000 years of orthodox teaching and the Traditional Latin Mass makes one pause in wonder yet trepidation. That is why it seems necessary to hypothesize that the death of Pope Pius XII marked the rupture, separation line or division between the Traditional Roman Catholic Church of Jesus Christ and the seemingly counterfeit conciliar church currently occupying the Vatican. From 1958 on, anything truly Catholic has been degraded or destroyed (veneration of the Virgin Mary and the Saints, the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, preaching about the devil, Hell and Purgatory, any sense of the sacred in the "new Mass" etc.).

On the assumption that the New World Order (NWO) is becoming realized through a coalescing of the conciliar church with the ruling global secular power structure,
reason alone would dictate that traditional Catholics must be on the lookout for increasing signs of anti-Christic activity. If the active building of the NWO is really occurring, there should be more and more not less evidence of it--discoverable by empirical means.

Given the power of modern computer software, the internet, mass communication etc., Traditional Catholics who are aware that increasing evidence of a growing NWO/Anti-Christic Cabal--must usher in the final eschatological sequence—clearly have the tools to detect this activity. For example, there should be enhanced cooperation between the conciliar church and the world-wide secular power structure, synergistic activities between the conciliar church and the United Nations, the World Bank, WTO, and IMF etc. The increasing concentration of the world's wealth and natural resources into the hands of fewer and fewer people is clearly useful to the further building of the NWO. Globalization in the economic, trade, manufacturing realms all contribute to the further construction of the NWO.

Apropos the above, Benedict XVI recently wrote an encyclical which comes dangerously close to placing the conciliar church completely at the behest and service of the NWO. His most recent encyclical, Caritas in Veritate, although it can certainly be interpreted in a variety of ways is as ambiguous as all the other conciliar documents. However, Benedict’s new statement on the need for a global economic entity to come into being in order to properly disperse the earth’s resources is worrisome. Given the conciliar heterodoxy in general, such an entity would not likely be infused with Traditional Catholic principles and could thus serve as one more building block for the anti-Christic NWO. For a different view which suggests that Benedict's recommendations are compatible with Catholic Distributism see THIS...

The post-Vatican II initiative to develop a kind of least common denominator generic Christianity through the replacement of the Tridentine Latin Mass of St. Pius V with the ecumenical Novus Ordo service, has gone a long way toward creating a heterodox world-wide religion. More astoundingly, heterodox conciliar theologians have taught that non-Christians and non-Theists can be saved without converting to Catholicism simply by allegedly having the “seeds” of the Word within them. This of course is pure heresy in light of over 1900 years of Roman Catholic Church teaching. Note also that Benedict XVI has allowed non-Catholics to receive communion in very public settings. More amazingly, John Paul II had public worship services which even included non-Theists (Animist’s and other pagan entities).

It is especially noteworthy that the conciliar popes have been extremely complimentary of Islam as well despite the obvious differences between it and Traditional Roman Catholicism (Islam denies the Trinity, the virginal conception through the power of the Holy Ghost and birth of Christ, as well as His divinity)[If General Revelation was complete with the death of the last Apostle as is taught in traditional Roman Catholicism, what could possibly explain the existence of Islam based as it is on the alleged direct reception by the prophet Mohamed of the word of God from the Angel Gabriel]? If the goal is to create a one-world religion, the “papering over” of these differences would be extremely helpful.

Similarly, the conciliar church has failed to teach clearly and unabashedly that modern Judaism is a false religion and that individual Jews must convert to Roman Catholicism in order to be saved. The conciliar legitimization of Judaism and other non-mono-Theistic religions by recent popes also contributes to the one world counterfeit religion which is predicted in Sacred Scripture.

The recent SSPX Bishop Williamson affair demonstrates the degree to which the conciliar church has become overly concerned with worldly matters. Rather than chastise the so-called “catholic” theologians and prelates for their obviously dissident speeches, writings and comments, the Vatican has done nothing for 50 years to those who are guilty of obvious heresy and apostasy many of whom have destroyed the faith of tens of thousands if not more. The only individuals or groups which the conciliar Vatican seems to be willing to criticize are those who attempt to profess and follow Traditional orthodox Catholicism.

A recent example is the attempted disciplinary action of Bishop Williamson who made what was clearly a secular comment--albeit inartfully--having nothing to do with Catholic teaching per se. This demonstrates the degree to which the conciliar church has become totally infused with the spirit of the age through the kind of “political correctness” which has come to define the secular worldview. The fact that Bishop Williamson is a member of the SSPX which is critical of the Novus Ordo Missae and the novel teachings of the conciliar church cannot go unnoticed. Would that someone like Hans Kung, Karl Rahner or Ives Congar--neo-modernists all--been subjected to the kind of derision reserved for Bishop Williamson.

John Paul II and Benedict XVI have anthropomorphized the conciliar church by constantly referring to the inherent dignity of man without stressing the Traditional Roman Catholic teaching that any dignity that man has is derivative not original--arising as it does from the fact that man is created in the image of the triune God (Imago-Dei). Modern philosophy which has completely overtaken the conciliar church virtually deifies man and deprecates the divine. By their constant anthropomorphizing, the conciliar popes have contributed to the modern denial of transcendence in general and the existence of an all-powerful and immutable God in particular. This tendency contributes to the anti-Christic NWO—the growing “cult of man” that is such an integral part of the apostate one-world government/religious complex.

No human being can know the future absent special divine revelation. However, all well instructed Christians are aware of those things which must transpire near the end of the age prior to the second coming of Christ in glory, e.g. (Matt. 24: 4-44). We have been instructed to test everything retaining what is good (1 Thess. 5: 21) and we are to evaluate the metaphorical tree (the Church) by its fruits. A good tree can not bear bad fruit. A bad tree can not produce good fruit. By their fruits we shall know them Christ said (Matt. 7: 15-16). He has told us that we must watch and be ready for we do not know the exact time of his appearing even though we may know the season (1 Thess. 5: 1, 4) Christ also taught that there will be birth pains prior to the Great Tribulation (Matt. 24: 4-8) and that a universal apostasy (Matt. 24: 5, 10-11, 1 Tim. 4: 1-2, Luke 18:8) and the appearance of an actual human Antichrist must precede His Parousia (2 Thess 2: 3-4, 9).

As I have written in another post, all of the signs which must precede the appearance of the Antichrist seem to be present HERE.... Obviously, our current period in time may not be the birth pains referred to in Sacred Scripture and the post-Vatican II period the universal Apostasy; perhaps the global natural disasters (earthquakes, famines, pestilences etc.) are not yet severe enough to represent the prelude to the Great Tribulation. Only God knows. It would be extremely foolish to dismiss the possibility however since our present circumstances seem to be inexplicable if this is not the beginning of the eschatological sequence. Our best course as always is to keep the orthodox faith of the Apostles and Church Fathers (2 Thess. 2: 15, 1 Tim. 4: 16; 6: 12,14-15) while we remain alert, sober and watchful (Matt. 24: 36,42,44; 25: 13, Luke 21: 36)--being prepared to sacrifice even our lives should that be required of us (Luke 21: 16).