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...
NOTES:
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.
Saturday, September 5, 2009
Fr. Lawrence Brey on the New "Mass"
From The Robber Church by Patrick Henry Omler HERE...
EPILOGUE:
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
EPILOGUE:
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"
from THE GREAT SACRILEGE
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...
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...
NOTES:
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.
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...
NOTES:
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)
NOTE:
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
...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)
NOTE:
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
Saturday, August 29, 2009
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...
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...
Friday, August 28, 2009
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.
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 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...
Thursday, August 27, 2009
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
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
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
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...
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...
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
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).
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).
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Absolutely Null and Utterly Void: The 1968 Rite of Episcopal Consecration
Editor's NOTE:
Needless to say, the topic addressed in this piece is of monumental importance--the proper sacramental form for the consecration of Bishops in the Roman Catholic Church.
Their are many opinions on this subject among self-professed Traditional Catholics. Cekada concludes that the 1968 Pauline rite of Episcopal Consecration is invalid meaning that the sacramental orders of any Bishop consecrated and any Priest ordained by such a "bishop" are invalid.
Mr. Hutton Gibson has an extensive section on his website which addresses this issue as well. For further details proceed HERE...
I continue to study this problem very carefully and I have not yet made a final decision about validity of Episcopal Consecration since 1968. It seems absolutely vital that each person perform their proper due diligence as the implications are truly profound and frightening.
--Dr. J. P. Hubert
Absolutely Null and Utterly Void: The 1968 Rite of Episcopal Consecration
By: Rev. Anthony Cekada
www.traditionalmass.org
“Once there are no more valid priests they’ll
permit the Latin Mass.”
— Rev. Carl Pulvermacher OFMCap
Former Editor, The Angelus
“Keep the shell, but empty it of its substance.”
— V.I. Lenin
IN THE 1960’S Catholics who were upset by the post-Vatican II liturgical changes had already begun to worry whether sacraments conferred with the reformed rites were valid. A defining moment in the United States came in 1967 when Patrick Henry Omlor published the first edition of his study, Questioning the Validity of Masses using the All-English Canon, a work that, even before the promulgation of the Novus Ordo in 1969, galvanized the then-tiny traditionalist resistance. As the modernist “reformers” overhauled the other sacramental rites — Confirmation, Penance and Extreme Unction — traditionalists questioned the validity of these sacraments as well, and sought out priests who offered the traditional Mass and used the old
rites.
Holy Orders was the one sacrament that traditionalists did not seem to worry about. Sure, there were no vocations. But since few laymen had ever even seen an ordination — still less knew what made an ordination valid — how or whether the liturgical changes affected the validity of Holy Orders was a topic that went unexamined...
XI. Summary
WE HAVE COVERED a vast amount of material in the foregoing sections, so we will now offer the beleaguered eader a summary.
A. General Principles
(1) Each sacrament has a form (essential formula) that produces its sacramental effect. When a substantial change of meaning is introduced into the sacramental
form through the corruption or omission of essential words, the sacrament becomes invalid (=does not “work,” or produce the sacramental effect).
(2) Sacramental forms approved for use in the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church are sometimes different in wording from the Latin Rite forms. Nevertheless, they are the same in substance, and are valid.
(3) Pius XII declared that the form for Holy Orders (i.e., for diaconate, priesthood and episcopacy) must univocally (=unambiguously) signify the sacramental effects — the power of Order and the grace of the Holy Ghost.
(4) For conferring the episcopacy, Pius XII designated as the sacramental form a sentence in the traditional Rite of Episcopal Consecration that unequivocally expresses the power of the order that a bishop receives and the grace of the Holy Ghost.
B. Application to the New Form
(1) The new form for episcopal consecration that Paul VI promulgated does not seem to specify the power of the Order supposedly being conferred. Can it confer the episcopacy? To answer this question, we apply the foregoing principles.
(2) The short Paul VI form for episcopal consecration is not identical to the lengthy Eastern Rite forms, and unlike them, does not mention sacramental powers proper to a bishop alone (e.g., ordaining). The Eastern Rite prayers that the surrounding Paul VI consecration Preface most closely resembles are nonsacramental prayers for the installations of the Maronite and Syrian Patriarchs, who are already bishops when appointed. In sum, one may not argue that the Paul VI form is “in use in two certainly valid Eastern Rites” and therefore valid.
(3) Various ancient texts (Hippolytus, the Apostolic Constitutions, the Testament of Our Lord) which share some common elements with the Paul VI consecration Preface have been “reconstructed,” are of doubtful provenance, may not represent actual liturgical use, etc. There is no evidence that they were “accepted and used by the Church as such.” Thus they provide no reliable evidence to support for the validity of the Paul
VI form.
(4) The key problem in the new form revolves around the term governing Spirit (Spiritus principalis in Latin). Before and after the promulgation of the 1968 Rite of Episcopal Consecration the meaning of this expression provoked concerns about whether it sufficiently signified the sacrament.
(5) Dom Bernard Botte, the principal creator of the new rite, maintained that, for the 3rd-century Christian, governing Spirit connoted the episcopacy, because bishops have “the spirit of authority” as “rulers of the Church.” Spiritus principalis means “the gift of a Spirit proper to a leader.”
(6) This explanation is false and disingenuous. Reference to dictionaries, a Scripture commentary, the Fathers of the Church, a dogmatic treatise, and Eastern
Rite non-sacramental investiture ceremonies reveals that, among a dozen different and sometimes contradictory meanings, governing Spirit does not specifically signify either the episcopacy in general or the fullness of Holy Orders that the bishop possesses.
(7) Before the controversy over it arose, Dom Botte himself even said that he didn’t see how omitting the expression governing Spirit would change the validity
of the rite of consecration.
(8) The new form fails to meet two criteria for the form for Holy Orders laid down by Pius XII. (a) Because the term governing Spirit is capable of signifying many different things and persons, it does not univocally signify the sacramental effect. (b) It lacks any term that even equivocally connotes the power of Order that a bishop possess — the “fullness of the priesthood of Christ in the episcopal office and order,” or “the fullness or totality of the priestly ministry.”
(9) For these reasons, the new form constitutes a substantial change in the meaning of the sacramental form for conferring the episcopacy.
(10) A substantial change in the meaning of a sacramental form, as we have already demonstrated, renders a sacrament invalid.
C. Conclusion: An Invalid Sacrament
Accordingly, for all the foregoing reasons, an episcopal consecration conferred with the sacramental form promulgated by Paul VI in 1968 is invalid.
Proceed HERE for entire article...
—
Needless to say, the topic addressed in this piece is of monumental importance--the proper sacramental form for the consecration of Bishops in the Roman Catholic Church.
Their are many opinions on this subject among self-professed Traditional Catholics. Cekada concludes that the 1968 Pauline rite of Episcopal Consecration is invalid meaning that the sacramental orders of any Bishop consecrated and any Priest ordained by such a "bishop" are invalid.
Mr. Hutton Gibson has an extensive section on his website which addresses this issue as well. For further details proceed HERE...
I continue to study this problem very carefully and I have not yet made a final decision about validity of Episcopal Consecration since 1968. It seems absolutely vital that each person perform their proper due diligence as the implications are truly profound and frightening.
--Dr. J. P. Hubert
Absolutely Null and Utterly Void: The 1968 Rite of Episcopal Consecration
By: Rev. Anthony Cekada
www.traditionalmass.org
“Once there are no more valid priests they’ll
permit the Latin Mass.”
— Rev. Carl Pulvermacher OFMCap
Former Editor, The Angelus
“Keep the shell, but empty it of its substance.”
— V.I. Lenin
IN THE 1960’S Catholics who were upset by the post-Vatican II liturgical changes had already begun to worry whether sacraments conferred with the reformed rites were valid. A defining moment in the United States came in 1967 when Patrick Henry Omlor published the first edition of his study, Questioning the Validity of Masses using the All-English Canon, a work that, even before the promulgation of the Novus Ordo in 1969, galvanized the then-tiny traditionalist resistance. As the modernist “reformers” overhauled the other sacramental rites — Confirmation, Penance and Extreme Unction — traditionalists questioned the validity of these sacraments as well, and sought out priests who offered the traditional Mass and used the old
rites.
Holy Orders was the one sacrament that traditionalists did not seem to worry about. Sure, there were no vocations. But since few laymen had ever even seen an ordination — still less knew what made an ordination valid — how or whether the liturgical changes affected the validity of Holy Orders was a topic that went unexamined...
XI. Summary
WE HAVE COVERED a vast amount of material in the foregoing sections, so we will now offer the beleaguered eader a summary.
A. General Principles
(1) Each sacrament has a form (essential formula) that produces its sacramental effect. When a substantial change of meaning is introduced into the sacramental
form through the corruption or omission of essential words, the sacrament becomes invalid (=does not “work,” or produce the sacramental effect).
(2) Sacramental forms approved for use in the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church are sometimes different in wording from the Latin Rite forms. Nevertheless, they are the same in substance, and are valid.
(3) Pius XII declared that the form for Holy Orders (i.e., for diaconate, priesthood and episcopacy) must univocally (=unambiguously) signify the sacramental effects — the power of Order and the grace of the Holy Ghost.
(4) For conferring the episcopacy, Pius XII designated as the sacramental form a sentence in the traditional Rite of Episcopal Consecration that unequivocally expresses the power of the order that a bishop receives and the grace of the Holy Ghost.
B. Application to the New Form
(1) The new form for episcopal consecration that Paul VI promulgated does not seem to specify the power of the Order supposedly being conferred. Can it confer the episcopacy? To answer this question, we apply the foregoing principles.
(2) The short Paul VI form for episcopal consecration is not identical to the lengthy Eastern Rite forms, and unlike them, does not mention sacramental powers proper to a bishop alone (e.g., ordaining). The Eastern Rite prayers that the surrounding Paul VI consecration Preface most closely resembles are nonsacramental prayers for the installations of the Maronite and Syrian Patriarchs, who are already bishops when appointed. In sum, one may not argue that the Paul VI form is “in use in two certainly valid Eastern Rites” and therefore valid.
(3) Various ancient texts (Hippolytus, the Apostolic Constitutions, the Testament of Our Lord) which share some common elements with the Paul VI consecration Preface have been “reconstructed,” are of doubtful provenance, may not represent actual liturgical use, etc. There is no evidence that they were “accepted and used by the Church as such.” Thus they provide no reliable evidence to support for the validity of the Paul
VI form.
(4) The key problem in the new form revolves around the term governing Spirit (Spiritus principalis in Latin). Before and after the promulgation of the 1968 Rite of Episcopal Consecration the meaning of this expression provoked concerns about whether it sufficiently signified the sacrament.
(5) Dom Bernard Botte, the principal creator of the new rite, maintained that, for the 3rd-century Christian, governing Spirit connoted the episcopacy, because bishops have “the spirit of authority” as “rulers of the Church.” Spiritus principalis means “the gift of a Spirit proper to a leader.”
(6) This explanation is false and disingenuous. Reference to dictionaries, a Scripture commentary, the Fathers of the Church, a dogmatic treatise, and Eastern
Rite non-sacramental investiture ceremonies reveals that, among a dozen different and sometimes contradictory meanings, governing Spirit does not specifically signify either the episcopacy in general or the fullness of Holy Orders that the bishop possesses.
(7) Before the controversy over it arose, Dom Botte himself even said that he didn’t see how omitting the expression governing Spirit would change the validity
of the rite of consecration.
(8) The new form fails to meet two criteria for the form for Holy Orders laid down by Pius XII. (a) Because the term governing Spirit is capable of signifying many different things and persons, it does not univocally signify the sacramental effect. (b) It lacks any term that even equivocally connotes the power of Order that a bishop possess — the “fullness of the priesthood of Christ in the episcopal office and order,” or “the fullness or totality of the priestly ministry.”
(9) For these reasons, the new form constitutes a substantial change in the meaning of the sacramental form for conferring the episcopacy.
(10) A substantial change in the meaning of a sacramental form, as we have already demonstrated, renders a sacrament invalid.
C. Conclusion: An Invalid Sacrament
Accordingly, for all the foregoing reasons, an episcopal consecration conferred with the sacramental form promulgated by Paul VI in 1968 is invalid.
Proceed HERE for entire article...
—
What to Expect of "Pope" BENEDICT XVI
Editor's NOTE:
I found this piece fascinating in that it was purportedly written at the time of Benedict XVI's papal election and some of the predictions have already come true e.g Benedict's Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum (no longer need special indult [permission from Bishop] in order to provide a Latin Mass) which replaced the motu proprio Ecclesia Dei of 1988 and the ongoing normalization discussions with the SSPX including the recent reversal of the prior excommunications of certain SSPX clerics.
--Dr. J. P. Hubert
A Message from Novus Ordo Watch HERE... about what we believe will happen during the time Fr. Joseph Ratzinger is in the Vatican
May 20, 2005 AD
Ember Friday in Pentecost
Dear Reader:
The recent election of Fr. Joseph Ratzinger as "Pope" Benedict XVI, the new head of the Concilar Church, marks the beginning of a new era. After almost 40 years since the end of the Second Vatican Council, and over 46 years since the selection of Cardinal Angelo Roncalli as John XXIII, in order to finish its triumph over the Catholic Church, the Conciliar Novus Ordo Church must now move into its final stages to complete its work of inquity, that is, the setting up of a universal one-world religion, under the pretext of human dignity, that has abandoned all that is distinctively Roman Catholic.
Catholic traditionalists have hitherto been the last great resistance against the New Church's complete destruction of Catholicism. In order to succeed fully in implementing the New Religion, therefore, the Novus Ordo Church must once and for all break down the traditional Catholic resistance. In what follows we propose what we believe Benedict XVI has planned to bring about the demise of Traditional Catholicism. (Editor's emphasis) We put these considerations before you today, before the plan is carried out, that you may know to beware of the great dangers ahead and identify them as such as they come to pass.
(1) Benedict XVI will seek to destroy the traditional Catholic resistance not by attacking it, but by neutralizing it: he will seek to undermine its reason for being.
(2) As time goes on, Benedixt XVI will bend over backwards to appear conservative, even traditional; he will do everything in his power to reconcile with and fully regularize the Society of St. Pius X and similar traditionalist groups. He will allow all Novus Ordo priests to say the traditional Mass and perhaps even command that the traditional Mass be said on a regular basis in every Novus Ordo parish. (This reintroduction of the traditional Mass in regular parish life will be absolutely essential.) He will lure good-willed but confused and battle-weary traditionalists by letting them voice their concerns concerning Vatican II and the New Mass and fully accept their reservations concerning these. He may even reform the New Mass into a more conservative liturgy. He will say that it is time to come to the aid and comfort of the one faction in the Church still marginalized and neglected for so long, namely, the traditionalists. He will pretend to have an open mind and heart for them and do everything in his power to regularize their status, with the ultimate goal of having all traditionalists be part of the New Church, under the tacit banner, however, of "unity in diversity."
(3) After having regularized and fully accepted the formerly traditionalist priestly societies, and perhaps even erected Apostolic Administrations for them, Benedict XVI might even go so far as to ordain priests for those traditionalist groups. This will anger the ultra-modernists but at the same time be a great defeat for traditional Catholicism, for the ordinations will not be valid. They will not be valid because Benedict XVI is not a bishop. Joseph Ratzinger, Benedict's real name, was ordained a priest in 1951, but his consecration as "bishop" occurred in 1977 and took place in the new rite of consecration promulgated by Paul VI (in 1968), a rite that is clearly invalid because the words of episcopal consecration were changed so much that they no longer express that what is taking place is the consecration of a Catholic bishop. Against this, Pope Leo XIII has taught clearly and infallibly that a form that does not signify the grace it confers is unable to confect a sacrament: "That 'form' consequently cannot be considered apt or sufficient for the Sacrament which omits what it ought essentially to signify" (Bull Apostolicae Curae, 1896). Therefore, any and all ordinations "conferred" by Benedict XVI are invalid. [Read a full theological study demonstrating the invalidity of the new rite here: PDF file] Hence it will not matter how many "traditional priests" he will seem to ordain, for all the "Masses" they will ever say will be invalid. Yet none of the former traditionalists then reconciled to Rome will dare speak against this, for they will necessarily recognize Benedict as the Bishop of Rome, and it is absurd, of course, to acknowledge someone as the Bishop of Rome while at the same time maintaining that he is not a bishop. All this will happen while the last few surviving bishops appointed by Pope Pius XII are dying.
(4) Benedict XVI will seem conservative and traditional not only in words but also in deeds. He will move to excommunicate the more obvious ultra-modernists in the Novus Ordo Church. He will strike down the left-wing dissidents against his Novus Ordo magisterium. He will not tolerate openly homosexual organizations that claim to be Catholic, such as "Dignity USA." He will perhaps provoke a schism with "Cardinal" Roger Mahony of Los Angeles to further make people believe that he, Benedict, is an orthodox anti-modernist, the "great Pope" to "save the Church," and that Mahony and his ilk are liberals and modernists. He will be uncompromisingly against abortion and euthanasia--and the death penalty.
(5) Benedict XVI will be very successful in this endeavor. He will be successful mainly because many traditionalists are tired of fighting. They are worn out from the battle. They will welcome the illusion of a "traditional Pope" who will finally "restore the Church." Benedict will take advantage of this unique moment.
(6) But all of this will be facade. It will serve only one purpose: to lure the faithful Catholic remnant into the New Church and invalidate the last valid Latin-rite sacraments, all while the last Catholic bishops are dying. This tactic will reveal itself as extremely cunning and successful, for there is no better way to destroy traditionalism than by apparently acceding to its every demand. Thus they will succeed in deceiving everybody, except for the elect, which is impossible (see Matthew 24:24). The few faithful Catholic souls who will then still have refused to join the New Church will be easy to deal with, for their number will be small. They will be marginalized, ostracized, and persecuted in ways without precedent. They will be derogated as "extreme right-wing lunatics" and "rabid fundamentalists" who are "very uncharitable" and "can never be pleased." They will be denounced as enemies of the Catholic Church, even though they are but the enemies of the New Vatican II Church. They will be put on a par with the followers of the David Koresh cult. They will be denounced as left-overs from the Inquisition and witch-burning times. They will be denounced as antisemitic. Quite possibly, even publications formerly known as traditionalist will join in the bashing. Once this has succeeded, everything will be in place; the last stage of the Great Persecution of the Holy Catholic Church will have begun.
Pray hard, therefore, for the Novus Ordo hierarchy will move swiftly to smash that last outpost of Catholicism, that last bastion they so far still haven't been able to demolish. "They [the faithful] must pray above all for the Church of Darkness to leave Rome," counseled the visionary Ven. Anne Catherine Emmerich on August 25, 1820 (qtd. in Yves Dupont, Catholic Prophecy, TAN Books, p.64). So do not be surprised if this comes to pass. We are telling you beforehand. (News stories confirming these predictions will be marked "SWTYS" -- "See, we told you so.") The remaining true Catholics, however, will be consoled by the fact that "Catholics who remain faithful to Tradition, even if they are reduced to a handful, are the true Church of Jesus Christ" (St. Athanasius), and that Our Lady of Fatima promised that "in the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph."
Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.
St. Pius X, pray for us.
Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us.
I found this piece fascinating in that it was purportedly written at the time of Benedict XVI's papal election and some of the predictions have already come true e.g Benedict's Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum (no longer need special indult [permission from Bishop] in order to provide a Latin Mass) which replaced the motu proprio Ecclesia Dei of 1988 and the ongoing normalization discussions with the SSPX including the recent reversal of the prior excommunications of certain SSPX clerics.
--Dr. J. P. Hubert
A Message from Novus Ordo Watch HERE... about what we believe will happen during the time Fr. Joseph Ratzinger is in the Vatican
May 20, 2005 AD
Ember Friday in Pentecost
Dear Reader:
The recent election of Fr. Joseph Ratzinger as "Pope" Benedict XVI, the new head of the Concilar Church, marks the beginning of a new era. After almost 40 years since the end of the Second Vatican Council, and over 46 years since the selection of Cardinal Angelo Roncalli as John XXIII, in order to finish its triumph over the Catholic Church, the Conciliar Novus Ordo Church must now move into its final stages to complete its work of inquity, that is, the setting up of a universal one-world religion, under the pretext of human dignity, that has abandoned all that is distinctively Roman Catholic.
Catholic traditionalists have hitherto been the last great resistance against the New Church's complete destruction of Catholicism. In order to succeed fully in implementing the New Religion, therefore, the Novus Ordo Church must once and for all break down the traditional Catholic resistance. In what follows we propose what we believe Benedict XVI has planned to bring about the demise of Traditional Catholicism. (Editor's emphasis) We put these considerations before you today, before the plan is carried out, that you may know to beware of the great dangers ahead and identify them as such as they come to pass.
(1) Benedict XVI will seek to destroy the traditional Catholic resistance not by attacking it, but by neutralizing it: he will seek to undermine its reason for being.
(2) As time goes on, Benedixt XVI will bend over backwards to appear conservative, even traditional; he will do everything in his power to reconcile with and fully regularize the Society of St. Pius X and similar traditionalist groups. He will allow all Novus Ordo priests to say the traditional Mass and perhaps even command that the traditional Mass be said on a regular basis in every Novus Ordo parish. (This reintroduction of the traditional Mass in regular parish life will be absolutely essential.) He will lure good-willed but confused and battle-weary traditionalists by letting them voice their concerns concerning Vatican II and the New Mass and fully accept their reservations concerning these. He may even reform the New Mass into a more conservative liturgy. He will say that it is time to come to the aid and comfort of the one faction in the Church still marginalized and neglected for so long, namely, the traditionalists. He will pretend to have an open mind and heart for them and do everything in his power to regularize their status, with the ultimate goal of having all traditionalists be part of the New Church, under the tacit banner, however, of "unity in diversity."
(3) After having regularized and fully accepted the formerly traditionalist priestly societies, and perhaps even erected Apostolic Administrations for them, Benedict XVI might even go so far as to ordain priests for those traditionalist groups. This will anger the ultra-modernists but at the same time be a great defeat for traditional Catholicism, for the ordinations will not be valid. They will not be valid because Benedict XVI is not a bishop. Joseph Ratzinger, Benedict's real name, was ordained a priest in 1951, but his consecration as "bishop" occurred in 1977 and took place in the new rite of consecration promulgated by Paul VI (in 1968), a rite that is clearly invalid because the words of episcopal consecration were changed so much that they no longer express that what is taking place is the consecration of a Catholic bishop. Against this, Pope Leo XIII has taught clearly and infallibly that a form that does not signify the grace it confers is unable to confect a sacrament: "That 'form' consequently cannot be considered apt or sufficient for the Sacrament which omits what it ought essentially to signify" (Bull Apostolicae Curae, 1896). Therefore, any and all ordinations "conferred" by Benedict XVI are invalid. [Read a full theological study demonstrating the invalidity of the new rite here: PDF file] Hence it will not matter how many "traditional priests" he will seem to ordain, for all the "Masses" they will ever say will be invalid. Yet none of the former traditionalists then reconciled to Rome will dare speak against this, for they will necessarily recognize Benedict as the Bishop of Rome, and it is absurd, of course, to acknowledge someone as the Bishop of Rome while at the same time maintaining that he is not a bishop. All this will happen while the last few surviving bishops appointed by Pope Pius XII are dying.
(4) Benedict XVI will seem conservative and traditional not only in words but also in deeds. He will move to excommunicate the more obvious ultra-modernists in the Novus Ordo Church. He will strike down the left-wing dissidents against his Novus Ordo magisterium. He will not tolerate openly homosexual organizations that claim to be Catholic, such as "Dignity USA." He will perhaps provoke a schism with "Cardinal" Roger Mahony of Los Angeles to further make people believe that he, Benedict, is an orthodox anti-modernist, the "great Pope" to "save the Church," and that Mahony and his ilk are liberals and modernists. He will be uncompromisingly against abortion and euthanasia--and the death penalty.
(5) Benedict XVI will be very successful in this endeavor. He will be successful mainly because many traditionalists are tired of fighting. They are worn out from the battle. They will welcome the illusion of a "traditional Pope" who will finally "restore the Church." Benedict will take advantage of this unique moment.
(6) But all of this will be facade. It will serve only one purpose: to lure the faithful Catholic remnant into the New Church and invalidate the last valid Latin-rite sacraments, all while the last Catholic bishops are dying. This tactic will reveal itself as extremely cunning and successful, for there is no better way to destroy traditionalism than by apparently acceding to its every demand. Thus they will succeed in deceiving everybody, except for the elect, which is impossible (see Matthew 24:24). The few faithful Catholic souls who will then still have refused to join the New Church will be easy to deal with, for their number will be small. They will be marginalized, ostracized, and persecuted in ways without precedent. They will be derogated as "extreme right-wing lunatics" and "rabid fundamentalists" who are "very uncharitable" and "can never be pleased." They will be denounced as enemies of the Catholic Church, even though they are but the enemies of the New Vatican II Church. They will be put on a par with the followers of the David Koresh cult. They will be denounced as left-overs from the Inquisition and witch-burning times. They will be denounced as antisemitic. Quite possibly, even publications formerly known as traditionalist will join in the bashing. Once this has succeeded, everything will be in place; the last stage of the Great Persecution of the Holy Catholic Church will have begun.
Pray hard, therefore, for the Novus Ordo hierarchy will move swiftly to smash that last outpost of Catholicism, that last bastion they so far still haven't been able to demolish. "They [the faithful] must pray above all for the Church of Darkness to leave Rome," counseled the visionary Ven. Anne Catherine Emmerich on August 25, 1820 (qtd. in Yves Dupont, Catholic Prophecy, TAN Books, p.64). So do not be surprised if this comes to pass. We are telling you beforehand. (News stories confirming these predictions will be marked "SWTYS" -- "See, we told you so.") The remaining true Catholics, however, will be consoled by the fact that "Catholics who remain faithful to Tradition, even if they are reduced to a handful, are the true Church of Jesus Christ" (St. Athanasius), and that Our Lady of Fatima promised that "in the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph."
Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.
St. Pius X, pray for us.
Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
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.