Saturday, September 5, 2009

The Conciliar Church and the Kennedy Funeral

By: Dr. J. P. Hubert

Subsequent to the death of Senator Edward M. Kennedy, many Traditional Catholic commentators have opined about the unsightly scene in Boston’s Mission Church where Cardinal Archbishop Sean O’Malley officiated at the late Senator’s funeral Mass. Others complained about the highly visible presence of retired Cardinal Theodore Mc Carrick of Washington D. C. who led the grave-side ceremony at Arlington National Cemetery. The obvious question was; would their presence not be taken as Catholic Church approval of the Senator’s many anti-Catholic views.

The basis of much criticism had to do with the fact that Senator Kennedy was a notorious dissenter from Traditional Roman Catholic teaching in the areas of the sanctity of human life specifically; his staunch support for abortion on demand, partial birth abortion, public financing of abortion for the poor, destructive embryo research (DER) including embryonic stem cell research and human cloning for biomedical research purposes (CBR). Others forcefully objected to his support for legalized sodomy, same-sex “marriage”, Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS) and Euthanasia among other things. In all these areas of public policy, the senator very publicly opposed the perennial teaching of the Catholic Church.

It is noteworthy that no public evidence appears to exist that the Vatican or the U.S. Catholic hierarchy ever confronted Senator Kennedy about his anti-Catholic beliefs and actions which over multiple decades served as a source of great scandal for the Catholic faithful and ridicule for the institutional Church world-wide.[1] It is certainly possible that the responsible Catholic prelature tried to correct the senator privately. If they did, their attempts had no effect on his public advocacy for initiatives which were totally incompatible with Traditional Catholicism. One can only hope that the responsible hierarchy did everything humanly possible to impress upon the Senator just how incompatible with the faith and egregious were his anti-Catholic public utterances and activities.

In any case, since his funeral, not one comment has been issued in way of clarification--by responsible Catholic Church officials either in Rome or the United States--that many of Senator Kennedy’s most publicly held views were incompatible with the orthodox Catholic faith. That being the case, it is understandable why faithful Catholics would be concerned. In light however of the almost complete conciliar church rejection of Traditional Catholic moral teaching, it is not surprising perhaps that Senator Kennedy retained his long held heterodox views. Had the hierarchy--as they were required to do in defense of the faith--ever demanded that the Senator publicly recant those views or face excommunication, he would have been forced to side with either the Church or his secular political party. It is tragic for him and the world that neither the Vatican nor his local Ordinary did so--not to mention the horrendous degree of malfeasance it represents for the responsible church officials involved.

In a certain way, Senator Kennedy was allowed to live a life of sinful rebellion from the full deposit of Catholic truth because of the irresponsibility of those high ranking Roman Catholic clergy whose very job it was to protect him from thinking that his professed beliefs and actions were acceptable.[2] Knowing that for over 40 years the Traditional Roman Catholic Church has been absent from the scene allows us to conclude tragically, that Senator Kennedy simply reflected the confusion and lack of holiness that has characterized the conciliar church in general--a situation which has been appropriately referred to as a diabolical disorientation.

Moreover, it seems intuitively obvious that in light of this extremely public case of denial of the True Faith and so many others in which no disciplinary actions have been taken, the conciliar church could not possibly be the Traditional Roman Catholic Church of Jesus Christ. It is simply unimaginable that a Pope Pius V or Pope Pius X who famously protected the sheep from ravenous wolves would have allowed such a grievous case of public heresy/apostasy to go unanswered by the Vatican. One is left to conclude that the conciliar church which allowed Senator Kennedy to remain a Roman "Catholic" in good standing without issuing a formal reprimand and who provided the very highest Catholic Church honor[3] in Christian burial was fundamentally in agreement with him.

For more on Senator Kennedy and the meaning of his death for Catholics, see THIS..., THIS... and THIS...


1. All that exist are the statements from Kennedy’s parish priest Fr. Hession and Cardinal Archbishop Sean O’Malley that the Senator most assuredly attained salvation. One is left to presume that he made a sincere and complete sacramental confession which included fully repenting of his life-long anti-Catholic views and actions.
2. That is not to say that he bore no personal responsibility for them because as an adult Catholic he was responsible for knowing what the Church teaches.
3. A formal Catholic "Mass" with the Cardinal Archbishop of Boston in attendance who stated that despite no public recantation of his heretical/sinful views and actions, Senator Kennedy had achieved salvation.

Fr. Lawrence Brey on the New "Mass"

From The Robber Church by Patrick Henry Omler HERE...


The author of this book has invited me to add a few words by way of "Epilogue" to this new, enlarged third edition...God alone knows precisely whether we are now entering those times spoken of by Abbe Charles Arminjon in 1881, citing the prophecy of Daniel:

"Daniel, speaking of the signs which will announce the end of the justice of God and the fall of kingdoms,...tells us: 'You will recognize the great calamities are near, when you will see the abomination of desolation in the holy place and when the perpetual sacrifice will cease.' At the time of the final desolation, there will be a certain period when the unbloody sacrifice will no longer be celebrated over the entire extension of the earth. Then there will no longer be a mediator between the justice of God and man. The crimes and blasphemy will no longer have a counterbalance; this will be the moment when the skies will be filled like a tent which no longer has a traveler to shelter."--From Conference Eight.

Although it is true that God alone knows it is also true that He has given each of us an intellect with which to reason. And not one scintilla of evidence or proof of the validity of the changed, mutilated "form" has been thus far advanced to oppose and counterbalance the mountain of still unrefuted evidence that it is invalid. Finally in all honesty, since the "new words" are so patently contrary to the words of Christ as found in Scripture, in 2000 years of liturgical usage and in the solemnly defined Form; and since the "new words" likewise delete a profound mystery (the Mystical Body) so intimately bound up with and expressed in the essence of the Eucharistic Sacrifice--how could they conceivably constitute the valid Form, and how, indeed, could the Innovators and their accomplices escape "the wrath of Almighty God, and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul," invoked by St. Pius V on anyone who would ever have the audacity to change the Roman Missal or the Holy Mass, let alone tamper with its very heart and essence, the Canon and Consecration? (Editor's emphasis)

"Take away the Mass: take away the Church" (tolle missam, tolle ecclesiam) has ever been the program of the Ancient Enemy. As more and more clearly we recognize that the Mass is the heart at which Christ's present-day crucifiers aim, we should likewise realize that the Heart of the solution is Mary. In the midst of the present almost universal apostasy foretold by Pope St. Pius X, the key to our perseverance in the days ahead is the Ever Virgin Mary and in our living in absolute consecration to her Immaculate Heart. Thus, finally, my supplication is to her, our "sole refuge" and our last and "final weapon!" REGNET JESUS PER REGNUM MARIAE!

Rev. Lawrence S. Brey
February 19, 1969
Ash Wednesday

Fr. Wathen on "Authentic Tradition"


By: Fr. James F. Wathen OSJ

F. The "Authentic Tradition"

By now you should be getting a clear idea of the strategy with which the Catholic faithful were connived into accepting the legality of the "New Mass". We have seen how infallible the dogmatic content and how sacrosanct the rituals of the True Mass were seen to be in the days of the Council of Trent, (and ever since, save for the past decade or so). The "reformers," under the (at least visible) leadership of Pope Paul VI, have tried to throw the cloak of Tradition and of the Council of Trent over what they attempt to describe as a "new arrangement of the Mass." (Appendix II). While we "dumb sheep" have been thinking they meant only to make minor changes in the Mass, they have been replacing it, parts at a time, numbing our reactions with their incessant blathering about the divine urgency and auspiciousness of it all! Over a period of time, they have introduced something altogether different from the True Mass. And, even while they were making a mockery of the traditions and the laws of the Church with regard to the Sacred Liturgy, they have been vesting themselves with the legitimate authority to do so through constant, mendacious references to those traditions and laws. Therefore, now that they have installed their irreverent Imitation, they are able to claim immunity for themselves and their Imposture which adhered to what they have (they hope) gotten rid of. They now claim for their Mass that infallibility of doctrine, that venerability, that historicity of origin, and that holiness of essence, which two thousand years of Catholicism could not preserve for the True Mass against the likes of them.

Their most consistent argument has been that "one Pope can countermand the decrees of a former one." They who began their insidious maneuver against every tradition, and particularly the traditions canonized by the Council of Trent, with their complaint of the "legalism" of these traditions, are now the most "legalistic" of all, to the point of sheerest despotism. They thought that, if they could justify what they meant to do, if they could make it look legal, they would be clear so no one could accuse them. What is this but more phariseism-using the law contrary to everything the law means and is meant to do? And, the most incredible aspect of it all-almost nobody seems to have perceived it, even now: IT IS SINFUL! IT IS A SACRILEGE!

In his Apostolic Constitution, Missale Romanum, Pope Paul speaks in the same vein as in the allocution I have quoted, laboring as always to wreathe with the aura of authenticity and of Tradition his "Novus Ordo" and his Act of imposing it. We find therein the following passage:

"One ought not to think, however, that this revision of the Roman Missal has been improvident. The progress that the liturgical sciences have accomplished in the last four centuries has, without a doubt, prepared the way. After the Council of Trent, the study "of ancient manuscripts of the Vatican library and of others gathered elsewhere," as our predecessor St. Pius V indicated in the Apostolic Constitution Quo Primum, has greatly helped for the revision of the Roman Missal. Since then, however, more ancient liturgical sources have been discovered and published and at the same time liturgical formulas of the Oriental Church have become better known. Many wish that the riches, both Doctrinal and spiritual, might not be hidden in the darkness of the libraries, but on the Contrary might be brought into the light to illumine and nourish the spirits and souls of Christians." (Appendix II. Par. 4).

I hate to be such a "spoil-sport," but you might as well know now as later, there are not any "more ancient liturgical sources" which will justify the "New Mass," as the arguments which follow will show. As you known, the evolutionists solve all their problems by losing their hypnotized little proselytes in the foggy, distant eons. Here we are being taken into the "darkness of the libraries," where only our guides can see. Such talk is only more of the same hyper-intellectualist eyewash of which we simpletons must stand in awe. You will just have to face the fact that there is no tradition whatsoever for the Thing known as the "new Mass," any fledgling student of the Liturgy can tell you as much. For example:

1. There is no tradition allowing those not in Orders to perform special liturgical roles. In the ancient Church, even he who locked and unlocked the church building and rang the bell had to have received the Order of Porter. The Lector was allowed to chant the "Lessons;" later on, the Subdeacon of the Mass was allowed to sing the Epistle, while the Deacon sang the Gospel. There is absolutely no tradition permitting women to speak in church; they could make only those responses assigned to the congregation. This practice was specifically noted by St. Paul in his First Letter to the Corinthians. (1 Corinthians 14:34). Those who say the contrary are ready to contend even with him!

2. There is no tradition of complete optionalism in liturgical matters. From the very first, under the general supervision of the Apostles, custom governed everything in each church. (1 Corinthians 11; 14: 34-35). The constant tradition moved in the direction of ever greater uniformity, of ever more detailed rubrics; of taking the power to decide even the smallest things out of the hands, first of the local presbyter, then of the local ordinary (bishop or abbot), then of concentrating it in the hands of the Pope personally.. (Encyclical Letter Mediator Dei of Pope Pius XII November 20, 1947. Par. 58). Those who say that every celebrant should be free to devise the liturgy of the day seem woefully ignorant of the fact that ours is called the "Roman Rite" because the people took pride that it derived from the practices of the Community in Rome, where the Pope himself legislated and celebrated "the Mysteries." Practically the only optionalism there ever was had to do with the selection of readings. In the early days, the lessons were consecutive readings from the Old Testament and the Gospels and Epistles. The bishop would often have the ministers read particular passages as the subject of his homily.

3. With regard to preaching, the tradition moved from the simple explanation of the Scriptures (homilies) and catechetical instruction (catechesis) to the sermon, the panegyric, and the elaborate discourse. Some of the greatest orators of history have been Catholic bishops and priests. The idea of a mere unprepared "talk," much less a "dialogue" or a little chit-chat, is so foreign to Catholic (or any religious) tradition as to be ludicrous. I might add, throughout the history of sacred oratory even Orthodoxy was insufficient; that was taken for granted. Not only did the preacher have to be able to speak well, but he was expected to expound ably, persuasively, and with edification. (One shudders to think what might have happened to a priest who babbled in the presence of St. Paul the way some of ours do today!).

4. There is no tradition which allows those of other "faiths," those who may or may not believe in Christ as the Eternal High Priest and the Divine Victim of the Holy Sacrifice, to participate in the Liturgy. The further back you go in history, the stricter you find the rules to have been. The ancient practice was to require all who did not have the Faith, all who were not baptized into the True Faith, to leave before the reed. Only catechumens were allowed to stay till then; unbelievers wee not allowed at all. Nor were those who had committed grave public sins, or who had incurred censures, nor those obliged to do pubic penance. (This is one practice which might very well be restored.)

5. There is no tradition for presuming "good will" on the part of unbelievers. There is a very constant tradition for praying for them that they might be delivered from their spiritual blindness. There is also a very constant tradition for trying to convert them. There is also a very constant tradition recognizing that Judaism is Talmudism, and that Talmudism is essentially anti-Christian.

6. There is no tradition for permitting any kind of sound which some quasi-educated artiste might find "music to his ears." In this respect, the tradition definitely moved toward the development of Gregorian Chant, which became the recognized perfect accompaniment for sung Latin. If we wanted to be "purist" about it, we would remember that, due to an ingrained sobriety, the Roman Rite would prefer no accompanying instrument at all; the organ would be permitted only because many cannot sing on key.

7. There is no tradition of casualness in the Liturgy of any Catholic Rite. In fact there is no tradition of casualness in the religious ritual of any group in the world, no matter how pagan, how primitive, or how polytheistic. Reverential fear is the most elemental attitude of anything which purports to be worship. That attitude which dares to treat with God familiarly, as an equal, as Someone Who is even approachable, derives from the tradition of anti-religious Rationalism. Its origins are and always have been anti-Christian, anti-religious. To the very contrary, the most constant tradition of the Church has always moved in the direction of ever greater formality, born of tremulous awe. Indeed, the essential meaning of ritual includes sobriety, reverence, carefulness, fidelity to prescribed procedures and laws (which are nothing but hallowed customs made obligatory), a sense of unworthiness in the presence of the Almighty, a sense of wonder at being allowed to come into His Sanctuary, to speak to Him, to touch Him. One of the unique contributions of Christianity to worship in general is the addition of a most restrained "gaiety" to this reverential fear, plus a serene confidence of divine benevolence.

The reason why contemporary heretics presume to abandon these modes is that they have lost all awareness of and respect for Tradition, as they have lost all fear of God, and they think it a sign of maturity, progress, and freedom to have done so. The truth is, they don't even know what ritual is! They are possessed with the spirit of Revolution, which has proved to be more than they can handle.

8. There is no tradition in the Church for adaptation of the divine rites to the times. Those who argue this do not know what they are talking about. Besides, what has been called "adaptation" in the "modern Church" is addle-brained. What is being attempted is the creation of a religion out of the so-called modern spirit, which, in the first place, is not modern, and in the second, is not at all Christian. It is rationalistic, naturalistic, and Revolutionary. The "modern" spirit cannot possibly be adopted by Catholicism nor interpreted into its Liturgy, any more than could Judaism or Greek mythology or Hindu polytheism. (Editor's emphasis throughout) Bad enough that we must listen to such drivel; we must even endure the clumsy, abortive effort-and call it "mass"!

You can see from these very few examples that there is neither consistency nor Tradition in the so-called reform. One could go on and on in this vein, but the above should be sufficient.MORE...

Tuesday, September 1, 2009

The Novus Ordo Church and Sincere Belief in “Feelings”

By: Dr. J. P. Hubert

One of the more remarkable characteristics of the conciliar (Novus Ordo) church is its lack of defined creedal elements. Unlike the True (Traditional) Church of Jesus Christ which had very precisely articulated doctrines and dogmas to which every member in good standing was to give complete assent of their intellect and will, the revolutionary post-Vatican II “church” has virtually no doctrines which must be believed.[1] It seems that any sincerely held albeit temporary sentiment is acceptable to the conciliar hierarchy, no matter how preposterous it may be when compared to Traditional orthodox Roman Catholic teaching. The Novus Ordo church is one which like modern philosophy in general is characterized by “feelings” which by their very nature are fleeting. That being the case there is no role for dogma/doctrine.

The sad reality is that there are no uniquely Catholic doctrines which every conciliar “Catholic” is required to embrace. Some readers find that statement inferiorating but when the conciliar Vatican fails to properly discipline “Catholic” theologians such as Hans Kung, Raymond Brown, Karl Rahner etc. for holding and promulgating doctrinal views[2] which are completely contradictory--to what has always and everywhere been believed[3] by the True Church--the conclusion is unavoidable.

The Novus Ordo (conciliar) church instead seems to be oriented toward providing a “communal experience” devoid of strict doctrinal belief where people gather together to help each other successfully negotiate the challenges of life. It appears designed to help people "feel" better here and now, not prepare for the afterlife. Rather than preaching a profound conversion through which the person becomes truly transformed in Christ, the conciliar church more or less accepts the sinful condition of modern man as inevitable/unchangeable thus emptying the Gospel of its power. Hence it does not preach the need for repentance of sin and conversion to the True Church of Christ.

The Novus Ordo Missae is not oriented to proper worship of God either but in a sort of perverse sense elevates the importance of man while deprecating that of God. The entire focus is horizontal in orientation from person to person rather than vertical from person to God. Those who remember attending the pre-Vatican II Tridentine Latin Mass of St. Pius V are well aware of this radical difference in dimension and orientation. In that regard the Novus Ordo is best described as having a complete absence of sacrality. There is simply no sense of the sacred in the “New Mass” no matter what language it is performed in.

Even if it were possible to demonstrate to their satisfaction that there is a deposit of Divinely Revealed truth which characterizes the Roman Catholic faith, would those who embrace the conciliar church be willing to subject themselves to its demands in faithful obedience?[4] If one may judge from anecdotal evidence, it would seem not. Moreover, the revolutionary changes in “Catholic” morality alone should be enough to establish that the conciliar church preaches another gospel since Christ’s test is that we shall “know them by their fruits.”[5]

Perhaps the best proof that the conciliar church preaches another gospel is the fact that of those doctrines and dogmas which have not been completely abrogated in the wake of Vatican II, there has been no attempt on the part of the hierarchy to enforce them. In fact the very opposite is true. Traditional doctrines/dogmas are ignored while those prelates who espouse heterodox notions have been elevated to a position of prominence in the conciliar church. This must be intentional. It simply could not be by accident.

To be continued...


1. Many of the Traditional Doctrines and Dogmas remain “on the books” but are completely ignored.
2. E.g. rejecting the divinity of Christ, His bodily resurrection from the dead, the virginal conception and birth of Christ etc. The list of other high ranking prelates and Theologians who promulgate these ideas is too extensive to outline.
3. As articulated in the Vincentian Canon.
4. Would those who currently benefit emotionally, financially, politically, socially etc. from their membership in the conciliar church be willing for the sake of the truth to reject it as an imposter if evidence clearly demands it? Obviously such a decision is extremely difficult for anyone to make but if Christ is the Truth and we have Faith in Christ, would we not be required to do so?
5. Members of the conciliar church hierarchy and those self-professed and famous members of the laity almost to a fault either embrace moral doctrines which contradict established Traditional Catholic teaching or fail to repudiate them. Sociological studies document that conciliar "Catholics" have the same incidence of morally illicit behaviors as do those of the secular population in terms of e.g. divorce, abortion, contraception, adultery, fornication, sodomy etc.

Monday, August 31, 2009

St. Paul on Ungodliness and the Wrath of God

Romans 1

...16I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 17For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: "The righteous will live by faith."

God's Wrath Against Mankind

18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.
32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

Romans 2

God's Righteous Judgment

1You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2Now we know that God's judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgment? 4Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you toward repentance?

5But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God's wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed. 6God "will give to each person according to what he has done." 7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. 9There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 11For God does not show favoritism.

12All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) 16This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares. (Editor's emphasis throughout)


It is absolutely incredible the degree to which the portions of Romans 1 and 2 in bold face above apply precisely to the age in which we currently live. This is true even to the extent that Romans 19 and 20 is more applicable now than at any other time in the past 2000 years. For example, scientific (Metaphysical) naturalism teaches that the material realm constitutes reality in its entirety and that it is uncreated--ridiculous philosophical errors and not scientific claims at all strictly speaking.

The great evangelist teaches as a part of Divine Revelation--what is knowable on the basis of reason as well--that God is immutable and original, everything else being derivative. In verses 19 and 20, we see St. Paul laying down as part of Divine Revelation the great Design (Teleological) argument for the existence of God. St. Paul's teachings are so necessary for this age in which radicalSkepticism and moral anarchy abound.

--Dr. J. P. Hubert

What/Where is the Roman Catholic Church?

In light of Traditional Catholic dogma/doctrine, how should the Second Vatican Council be viewed ? Is it consistent with Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and prior Magisterial teaching?

What explains the tremendous amount of "bad fruit" which has been forthcoming since the close of the Council in 1965? “By their fruits you shall know them” (Matt. 7:16)

This site explores these questions and more in an attempt to place the Second Vatican Council in proper perspective.