Collegial Papacy Undermining Primacy of Pope

Guest Article By David Martin

In the wake of all the turmoil and confusion that has plagued the papacy since Benedict XVI resigned in February 2013, a Vatican Archbishop has inadvertently shed light on the situation, saying there was already a plan in the works to expand the Petrine ministry to something new.

In a revealing speech at a May 20 book launch in Rome, Archbishop Georg Gänswein who serves as prefect of the Pontifical Household reflected on what he saw as a new development of the papacy, and offered comments on Benedict’s resignation. "Before and after his resignation, Pope Benedict has viewed his task as participation in the papal ministry," Gänswein said.

News media quoted the archbishop as saying that Benedict never abandoned the Petrine ministry, but has now "built a personal office with a collegial and synodal dimension, almost a communal ministry." Gänswein explained the reformed papacy, saying there are "not two popes but de facto an expanded ministry, with an active member and a contemplative member."

Obviously this was never Pope Benedict's idea of the papacy before his election, nor did he ever show signs of wanting to abdicate the Papal Throne. Credible reports in the past year in fact indicate that Benedict XVI was coerced into resigning, and it appears his persecutors pressured him into accepting this idea of an "expanded" papacy, which now provides him with a skillful means of smoothing over what otherwise could be a very humiliating situation when asked why he fled the cross.

The scenario was already foreshadowed in the Holy Father's inaugural speech of April 24, 2005, when he said: "Pray for me, that I may not flee for fear of the wolves." Apparently not enough prayers were offered for the Holy Father, because Benedict XVI did flee for fear of the wolves.

We know from Cardinal Danneels of Brussels that he was part of a radical "mafia" reformist group opposed to Benedict XVI. Danneels, known for his support of abortion, LGBT rights, gay-marriage, and pornography said in a taped interview last September that he and several cardinals were part of this "mafia" club which bore the name of St. Gallen. He said the group was calling for drastic changes in the Church, to make it "much more modern," and that the plan all along was to have Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio [Francis] head it. http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/cardinal-danneels-part-of-mafia-club-opposed-to-benedict-xvi/#ixzz4ArrcdGGE

This infamous clique which is documented in Austen Ivereigh's biography of Pope Francis, The Great Reformer, comprised the key members of the Vatican "gay-lobby" which held the reigns and created so much chaos at the October 2014-2015 Synods on the Family. According to some reports, lobby members threatened Pope Benedict with extortion prior to his resignation.

Benedict now denies this conspiracy, because it's too embarrassing to speak of and he feels it will scandalize the Church, but clearly there was this plan in the works to "expand" the papacy to communal dimensions. Unfortunately, Gänswein sidesteps the conspiratorial element of the plan by presenting it as Benedict's design, and this unfortunately maximizes its credibility before the Church.  

With a "two-headed" papacy established, it opens the door to a four-headed papacy, and then a collegial papacy where the enemies of the Church can collectively be "pope." What we are seeing is the plan of the Freemasons to undermine the Primacy of Peter, a thread that started at Vatican II. There is no such thing as an "expanded" or "collegial" papacy with a "synodal dimension." Such a thing has never existed in the 2000-year history of the Church, nor is there any "God of surprises" who will come along to start such a heresy.

There have been anti-popes of the past when more than one claimant contended over the Chair of Peter, yes, but there was never a mutual consensus to a collegial papacy. There can only be one human representative of the Petrine Office, because Christ has only one Vicar upon earth, not two. (Matthew 16:18)  What we have today is a "pope of surprises" who has opened the door to this ecclesial twilight zone, but if Francis be the pope, what is Benedict XVI? Consider Pope Benedict's answer.

"Here, allow me to go back once again to 19 April 2005. The real gravity of the decision was also due to the fact that from that moment on I was engaged always and forever by the Lord. Always – anyone who accepts the Petrine ministry no longer has any privacy. He belongs always and completely to everyone, to the whole Church. In a manner of speaking, the private dimension of his life is completely eliminated." ... "The 'always' is also a "forever" – there can no longer be a return to the private sphere. My decision to resign the active exercise of the ministry does not revoke this." (Pope Benedict XVI at the General Audience of February 27, 2013, on the eve of his resignation)

According to Benedict XVI, he is still pope. And whereas he assumes a "contemplative" and not "active" role in the Petrine ministry, he has not renounced his Petrine character, nor is that character diminished. He is still pope, wholly and entirely. Yet, there can only be one pope. So what is Francis? Has God through some mysterious decree deigned to momentarily sanction a two-headed pope in order to prevent the reign of an anti-pope?

In hindsight we can understand why lighting struck twice on the dome of St. Peter's Basilica just hours after Benedict XVI announced his resignation on February 10, 2013. Was God angry or what? Should the Lord be happy that His Palace on earth is being turned into a sodomite merry-go-round in the name of mercy? Benedict's resignation opened a can of toxic worms, so what can he do now to repair this?

There is one thing that Pope Benedict can do to repair for the damage. He can disclose the Third Secret of Fatima in its entirety and admit openly, as he admitted privately in summer 2000, that the Secret was never released in June 2000. According to Fr. Ingo Dollinger, who was a personal acquaintance of the late St. Padre Pio, Cardinal Ratzinger [now Benedict XVI] told him in summer 2000 that the Third Secret mentioned "a bad council and a bad Mass."

The Vatican press office now denies this, but this only testifies to the truth of the Fatima Secret that the "father of liars" would reign in the Eternal City. The Blessed Virgin herself stated in her Secret at La Salette: "Rome will lose the Faith and become the seat of Antichrist." (1846)

It behooves Benedict XVI to release the Third Secret in full, for this will alert the Church Militant to what it's truly up against. It will serve as a spiritual call to arms, whereby remiss Catholics can finally take the golden calf of Vatican II by the horns, and reject without scruple the idol of change that has meddled in the Church's affairs since the late-sixties. The pope has push-button power to blow-up the conciliar idol. Let us pray that he use it.

https://cruxnow.com/vatican/2016/06/04/communal-papacy-may-baby-step-toward-democracy/

Image Source: Photo Copyrighted by A Catholic Life Blog, 2016

Read more >>

The Canonization of Pope John XXIII: It's Implication on Vatican II

The Hijacking of St. John XXIII’s Ecumenical Council   

This is a Guest Post By David Martin

When the announcement was made on September 30, 2013, that Pope John XXIII was going to be canonized, glaring eyebrows went up in the Traditionalist camp. After all, saints are usually martyr figures that are persecuted for their uncompromising fidelity to the Faith, and Pope John is generally regarded as the flaming modernist who compromised the Church by convoking the Second Vatican Council on October 11, 1962.

There is no disputing the disaster wrought by Vatican II and how it set into motion an insidious departure from tradition that has left the Holy City “half in ruins.” Even as we report on the canonization of John XXIII, the gale force of “his” conciliar tempest continues to uproot the Faith, blow apart revered Catholic practices, topple the Church's edifice, and spread doctrinal debris throughout the Church. So why the tribute? Should his “aggiornamento” be rewarded this way?
  
Pope John deserves tribute, but it’s important that people see his canonization in the right light and that they have the inside scoop on his true intentions for Vatican II, otherwise it will appear that heresy and modernism are being glorified. For he is known as the founding father of Vatican II, which is why modernists are now beaming over the prospect of his canonization, because their hope is to see Vatican II “canonized.” But the good Lord has His own reasons for glorifying His servant John, as we will see shortly.

Good Intentions

The fact is that Vatican II was started with the best of resolves. Pope John’s purpose for convening the Council was not to change the Church but to restate Holy Tradition, evidenced in his opening speech on October 11, 1962: “The major interest of the Ecumenical Council is this: that the sacred heritage of Christian truth be safeguarded and expounded with greater efficacy.”
(John XXIII)

Without diluting the Faith, the pope was simply trying to adopt a more effective means of projecting the orthodox Faith to the modern world. His “update” did not include the watering down of doctrine or the alteration of liturgy, but consisted in utilizing the media and state-of-the-art technology to better project the light of tradition to a spiritually darkened world.

After all, there were dangers threatening the Faith at that time, especially the evils of evolution and abortion. Apostasy was forthcoming and man was already on the eve of forgetting his Maker, so the pope was making a special effort to dispel the ensuing darkness and uphold the orthodox Faith “with greater efficacy.”

To this end he and his best men worked arduously for almost three years to draft up the outline for the Second Vatican Council, known as the 72 schemas or schemata. According to the most conservative thinkers of Rome, the preparatory schemata were orthodox and worthy of use, but modernists were enraged that the Holy Father had put together the preparatory outline without conferring with them beforehand. Hence a decision was made before the Council to block Pope John’s plan for Vatican II.

Council Hijacked

According to Michael Davies and many others, a number of "suspect theologians" hijacked the opening session of the Council by seizing control of its drafting commissions, thus enabling them to scrap Pope John's plan and draft a new agenda of their own. A key instigator of the pack was Fr. Edward Schillebeeckx of the Netherlands, a known heretic who denied the historicity of the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, and the Eucharist (Transubstantiation), and who had drafted and disseminated a 480-page critique aimed at rallying the progressive “Rhine bishops” to reject the original plan for Vatican II. The design of these progressivists was to revive Luther’s Reformation under the pretext of a renewal, something that Schillebeeckx openly confessed to.

Pope Benedict himself pointed out in 2013 how a “virtual council” had risen up to usurp the “real Council” at Vatican II, and lamented how “it created so many disasters, so many problems, so much suffering: seminaries closed, convents closed, banal liturgy.” (Benedict XVI, addressing the parish churches of Rome, February 14, 2013) This echoes the words of Paul VI who stated that the good efforts at Vatican II were hampered by “the devil” who came along “to suffocate the fruits of the Ecumenical Council.” (June 29, 1972) Hence it is worth recounting the opening session so that we have a clearer perspective of what really took place at the Second Vatican Council.

At the center of the coup to overthrow the Council were Cardinals Alfrink, Frings, and Lienart      of the Rhine Alliance. A crucial vote was to be taken to determine the members of the conciliar drafting commissions when Cardinal Lienart, a 30th degree Freemason, seized the microphone during a speech and demanded that the slate of 168 candidates be discarded and that a new slate of candidates be drawn up. His uncanny gesture was heeded by the Council and the election was postponed. Lienart’s action deflected the course of the Council and made history, and was hailed a victory in the press. The date was October 13, 1962, the 45th Anniversary of Our Lady’s last apparition at Fatima. (Fr. Ralph Wiltgen, the Rhine Flows into the Tiber)

In his February 14, 2013, address to the clergy of Rome, Pope Benedict brilliantly recounts this incident at Vatican II: “On the programme for this first day were the elections of the Commissions, and lists of names had been prepared, in what was intended to be an impartial manner, and these lists were put to the vote. But right away the Fathers said: 'No, we do not simply want to vote for pre-prepared lists. We are the subject.' Then, it was necessary to postpone the elections, because the Fathers themselves…wanted to prepare the lists themselves. And so it was. Cardinal Liénart of Lille and Cardinal Frings of Cologne had said publicly: no, not this way. We want to make our own lists and elect our own candidates."

The above statement is of no small significance. Herein Benedict confesses that Lienart and his clique rejected the list of candidates that John XXIII had rightfully approved in an “impartial manner,” so that they in turn could create their own list and elect their own candidates in a partial manner. And that’s exactly what they did!

When the "election" resumed, a number of radical theologians were then appointed to chair the commissions, including Hans Kung, Karl Rahner, de Lubac, Schillebeeckx and others whose writings had been blacklisted under Pius XII. The liberals now occupied nearly 60% of the seats, giving them the needed power to steer the Council in their direction. Thereupon they proceeded to trash the pope’s carefully prepared agenda that had taken nearly three years to formulate.

Through deceitful promises and skillful use of the media, the Council approved their plan for a new Mass on December 7, 1962, known as the “Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy,” and this became the hub of the liturgical reform that was to set the Church on a new revolutionary course of change. The Constitution was principally the work of the infamous Annibale Bugnini whom the pope had earlier removed from two posts because of sinister activity. It in fact was the outgrowth of the one preparatory schema, drafted by Bugnini, which Vatican liberals had spared because of its designs for a new Mass. Note that Bugnini, and not the pope, was the author of the New Mass.

What is mind boggling is the dictatorial force wherewith the conciliar elite took the law into their own hands and were able to junk Pope John’s outline for Vatican II without a rebuttal. With the procedural rules laid down by the pope a mere one-third vote was needed to get the schemata passed, which in fact did pass by a 40% vote. But the Rhine fathers stirred up a ruckus and insisted that this minority vote not be honored in favor of the 60% vote against the schemata, even telling the pope, “This is inadmissible!” They abhorred the orthodoxy of the preparatory outline with its strict formulations and resented the idea of having it imposed upon them by a pope who “clung to the old absolute traditions.”

The pope, fearing a tumult, backed down and consented to let the Rhine fathers have their way against game rules. Though he had planned it differently, his strength failed him at this point, thus allowing the pirates of reform to wrest the Council from his hands. Hence the most meticulous and painstaking preparation ever undertaken for any council of Church history was suddenly dumped to the glee of this Council confederacy. Only the liturgical schema remained.

We gather that Cardinal Tisserant, the key draftsman of the 1962 Moscow-Vatican Treaty who presided at the opening session, was at the center of this coup to usurp the Vatican Council. According to Jean Guitton, the famous French academic, Tisserant had showed him a painting of himself and six others, and told him, “This picture is historic, or rather, symbolic. It shows the meeting we had before the opening of the Council when we decided to block the first session
by refusing to accept the tyrannical rules laid down by John XXIII.” (Vatican II in the Dock, 2003)

This story of what happened at Vatican II is well documented and has been told in great depth by the most qualified witnesses, including Father Ralph Wiltgen, Monsignor Bandas, Michael Davies, Cardinal Heenan and many others. Archbishop Lefebvre who was on the Central Preparatory Committee for checking and overseeing all the Council documents had this to say:

“From the very first days, the Council was besieged by the progressive forces. We experienced it, felt it…We had the impression that something abnormal was happening and this impression was rapidly confirmed; fifteen days after the opening session not one of the seventy-two schemas remained. All had been sent back, rejected, thrown into the waste-paper basket…The immense work that had been found accomplished was scrapped and the assembly found itself empty-handed, with nothing ready. What chairman of a board meeting, however small the company, would agree to carry on without an agenda and without documents? Yet that is how the Council commenced.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Open Letter to Confused Catholics, 1986)

And this is how the modern reform was born. Pope John’s agenda for Vatican II would never resurrect from that point, but would remain buried even to this day. The rebellious “virtual council” would now proceed to put together the Vatican II we know today, including its sixteen documents and its reform of liturgy. The documents would contain elements of orthodoxy here and there, but this would only be done for cosmetic purposes. Under the pretext of a “restoration” or “reform,” the documents would apologize for tradition and attempt to unite the Catholic Church with other world religions on secular terms. That is to say, the documents themselves, and not any misinterpretation thereof, would generate the problems ahead since they would largely be penned by Peter’s enemies, and not his friends. “By their fruits you shall know them.” (Mt. 7:20)

Pope John XXIII’s reluctance in releasing the Third Secret of Fatima in 1960 undoubtedly caused him unspeakable sorrow for the rest of his life, for he was now witnessing the tragic fulfillment of the Fatima Secret. The very forces of hell marched into Rome to take the Holy City captive, which was accomplished through the conciliar apparatus provided them by the rebellious Rhine fathers and their periti. This is not to say that the gates of hell had fully prevailed against the Church, but that we had arrived at that point in history when the Church would be handed over to the Gentiles, at which time “they shall tread the holy city under foot two and forty months.” (Apocalypse 11:2)

It is said that the pope was struck to the heart, and in great pain, so that the cancer he had earlier contracted was greatly augmented now, leaving him only eight months to live. On his deathbed he cried out: “Stop the Council, Stop the Council,” but his “trusty” aides made sure that this didn’t circulate to the other cardinals. The Council was already too well advanced, the liberals had put too much stock in their revolution, so they weren’t about to give up their fun at this point.

Fissure Created

Pope John certainly made some mistakes, he wasn’t perfect. Perhaps the biggest mistake he made was to convoke the Second Vatican Council, since it provided an opening for the hidden enemy to infiltrate the Church. According to Pope Paul VI, the Council of Vatican II was that “fissure” through which “the smoke of satan entered into the temple of God.” (June 29, 1972) Even the future Pope Paul was alarmed when he learned in January 1959 that Pope John had announced the upcoming Council, to which he responded: “This holy old boy doesn’t realize what a hornet’s nest he’s stirring up!” Clearly he didn’t realize it.

Nay, the calling of Vatican II wasn’t too smart, but was a huge blunder which showed poor judgment and terrible foresight. We might even say the pope was playing Russian roulette with the Church, literally. Were not the representatives of the Soviet Union present at Vatican II with a plan to get their clenched fist agenda implemented in a spiritual way with “human rights” and the “empowerment of the laity?” Maybe Pope John should have heeded those prophets that had been forecasting disaster. Popes Pius X, XI, and XII had all refrained from calling a council, fearing it would hatch the very problems we have today. But the pope somehow believed it was now time for a Council.

However we have to remember that saints are not canonized for their smarts, talents, or administrative skills, but for their charity. And this, Pope John was loaded with. He was big hearted and wanted to extend the benevolence of God to all, and somehow was convinced that a united effort at the Vatican Council would avert the impending doom that hung over the world. Unfortunately his “virtuous fault” of refusing to see the evil in his fellow man blinded him to the reality of infiltrated Judases, and allowed these enemies to countermand and overrun him.

Pope John has sometimes been criticized for quietly lifting the ban on some of these suspect theologians whose activities were formerly restricted by Pius XII, but conservatives have faltered in not recognizing his good intentions. The traditional Monsignor Rudolph Bandas who was one of the brilliant and outstanding periti at Vatican II understood clearly how John XXIII was being overrun and abused, and had this to say: “No doubt good Pope John thought that these suspect theologians would rectify their ideas and perform a genuine service to the Church. But exactly the opposite happened. Supported by certain Rhine Council fathers, and often acting in a manner positively boorish, they turned around and exclaimed: ‘Behold, we are named experts, our ideas stand approved.”’

Pope John’s vision of Vatican II was truly noble and well intending, though he was naïve. This excerpt from his opening speech nicely reflects his pastoral spirit: “The great desire, therefore, of the Catholic Church in raising aloft at this Council the torch of truth, is to show herself to the world as the loving mother of all mankind; gentle, patient, and full of tenderness and sympathy for her separated children.”

Unfortunately this kind of talk made Vatican II progressives sick. The good pope didn’t realize he was going to get clobbered for this. The fact is that Pope John XXIII was viciously stabbed in the back by those he trusted. When they wanted their way with him they would crouch and kiss his ring, and in the next hour or minute they were plotting on how they would take Vatican II away from him.

For instance Monsignor Bugnini, a notorious Freemason and sweet-talker, assured the pope that he was most committed to fostering a deepened love and appreciation for the liturgy. So the pope blindly entrusted to him the task of heading the new Preparatory Commission on the Liturgy that was established on June 6, 1960, believing that a deepened love for the old Mass would result from this. But what he failed to realize is that Bugnini and his cohorts were secretly at work drafting up a new Mass for the Church which they were determined to get passed at Vatican II.

And it did pass with flying colors! The Bugnini Schema superseded all the other schemas and became the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy on December 7, 1962. (Later called Sacrosanctum Concilium) This was the document that directly led to the implementation of the New Mass in the vernacular. Yet the pope in 1960 had no idea what Bugnini and his men were cooking up for the Council. The conservative Cardinal Heenan of Westminster even says in his autobiography that “Pope John did not suspect what was being planned by the liturgical experts.”

If it wasn’t bad enough that the good pope had to endure spiritual martyrdom from the devil and his agents, let us take a look at his actual death on June 3, 1963. The unofficial word is that Pope John XXIII was murdered. For when he began crying out from his deathbed to “Stop the Council,” his death suddenly ensued. Though he was ill with terminal cancer, he wasn’t supposed to die quite so soon. As they saw it, it was urgent that his outcry be silenced, so they gave him a little extra sedative to calm his nerves. We have to remember that euthanasia didn’t start with Obamacare, but existed in the hospitals even back then.

Needless to say, John XXIII was persecuted and laid low. The allegations from the Sedevacantist camp that he was a Freemason display ignorance and have contributed to his martyrdom of spirit. It was the Freemasons that generated the revolt at Vatican II, but a key part of their plan was to hide and shift the blame onto the pope in order to sell their revolution and smear the pope’s reputation. Pseudo traditionalists by their detraction have effectively and unknowingly assisted the Masonic plan to discredit the papacy in these latter times.

The Pope’s own Words

If nothing else convinces us of Pope John’s innocence, we turn to his own words: “I repeat once more that what matters most in this life is: our blessed Jesus Christ, his holy Church, his Gospel, and in the Gospel above all else the Our Father according to the mind and heart of Jesus, and the truth and goodness of his Gospel, goodness, which must be meek and kind, hardworking and patient, unconquerable and victorious.”

This angelic philosophy echoes what the saints of history have said concerning our purpose in life. Sanctity means being Christ centered with a burning aspiration to bring all men to the love and knowledge of God. With this very aspiration the pope in his opening speech at Vatican II expressed the intentions of the Council: “Its intention is to give to the world the whole of that doctrine which, notwithstanding every difficulty and contradiction, has become the common heritage of mankind—to transmit it in all its purity, undiluted, undistorted. It is a treasure of incalculable worth, not indeed coveted by all, but available to all men of good will.”

Are these the words of a Freemason, a Judas, a progressivist? Or are these rather the words of a  saint? Would that the pope and bishops of today would speak this way! The Church’s mission for 2000 years has been precisely to bring this deposit of Faith to mankind so that, if it were possible, the entire earth would be enkindled with its flame. The Traditional Roman Faith is that sacred legacy which God originally intended as “the common heritage of mankind,” though the Reformation did much to destroy this ecclesial unity, as did its reemergence at Vatican II.

What is needed today is a true renewal of Catholic tradition, so that the Mystical Body can once again be whole as in former times, with unity and soundness. What is needed is what John XXIII originally prescribed in his opening speech at Vatican II: “…that this doctrine shall be more widely known, more deeply understood, and more penetrating in its effects on men’s moral lives. What is needed is that this certain and immutable doctrine, to which the faithful owe obedience, be studied afresh.”

As John XXIII is raised to the altars of Holy Mother the Church this April 27, 2014, let us be encouraged to assume a new perspective of holy pontiff whereby we cease from blaming him for all the problems that have ravaged the Church since Vatican II. He made some mistakes which he had to pay dearly for. May he now be rewarded for all the good he proposed and all the evil he endured.

And especially, may we be resolved to assist him and his Maker in the cause of restoring the Holy Roman Catholic Church to its former glory. St. John XXIII, pray for us!

Read more >>

Multiple Canons: A Serious Consequence of Vatican II

 

The Roman Canon had been untouched since the 7th Century

For those unfamiliar with the Traditionalist movement (and even those who think they know Traditional Catholics), the common accusation applied to the Traditionalist is being a man too attached to earthly traditions.  The Traditionalist is a modern day Pharisee.  He cares for beautiful vestments, golden chalices, and ritual but he cares little (or at least less) for his neighbor and for the poor.  He is viewed as an enemy of the authentic teachings of Christ and is personified in the story of the rich man (cf. Matthew 19:16-26 ) and in the parable of the two men who enter the temple to pray (cf.  Luke 18:9-14).

Yet, this straw man depiction of the Traditionalist is entirely off point.  The Traditionalist’s end goal is not found in ornate vestments or mysterious rituals.  The Traditionalist is concerned with giving to God the utmost glory and the first of all things (cf  Matthew 6:33).  And as such, our Lord is deserving of the most ornate of vestments and the most opulent of chalices.  It is not the Traditionalist – no! – it is the Lord to whom the honor is given.

Even those familiar with the Traditional Movement, but those who are not traditionalists, will at least know of the Traditionalist’s arguments against the changes in the Liturgy.  They will have heard the Traditionalist lament the omission of kneeling in the Nicene Creed; the change of “pro multis” to “for all”; and the changes in the Rites of Confirmation, Ordination, and the Eucharist.

Yet few people realize – and few Traditionalists lament as loudly as they do the aforementioned issues – the grave consequences of introducing multiple canons into the Holy Liturgy.  

Since all time the Roman Canon had be recited by the priest silently.  The priest – in imitation of Moses – ascends to a place where the Faithful cannot venture. It is in this holy place – at the altar of God – where the priest confects the Holy Eucharist and offers to the Eternal Father the Precious Blood of His Divine and Only Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the 2^nd Person of the Blessed Trinity.  This is a task of the priest alone to accomplish – the people present can offer nothing other than marvel at the mystery.

Silence is not a foreign concept to Catholics.  Catholics should be familiar with the story of ­­Elijah who heard God in the small whisper:

And he said to him: Go forth, and stand upon the mount before the Lord: and behold the Lord passeth, and a great and strong wind before the Lord over throwing the mountains, and breaking the rocks in pieces: the Lord is not in the wind, and after the wind an earthquake: the Lord is not in the earthquake.  And after the earthquake a fire: the Lord is not in the fire, and after the fire a whistling of a gentle air.And when Elias heard it, he covered his face with his mantle, and coming forth stood in the entering in of the cave, and behold a voice unto him, saying: What dost thou here, Elias? And he answered.  (1 Kings 19:11-13)

Yet the Novus Ordo brought about four Eucharistic Prayers recited in the vernacular and recited loudly.  Gone was the sense of mystery.  Gone was the priest entering the holy place to pray for the people.  The Novus Ordo Liturgy has succumbed to the vision of Martin Luther - the priest is no longer seen as an alter Christus.   

The Canon is an ancient prayer.  It is for Catholics the prayer of utmost importance in the Liturgy since it is by the prayers of the Canon that the greatest miracle in the world takes place on the altar. 

Since the seventh century [the Traditional] Canon has remained unchanged. It is to St. Gregory I (590-604) the great organiser of all the Roman Liturgy, that tradition ascribes its final revision and arrangement.  (Catholic Encyclopedia)

 

In the Ambrosian Rite, during the Canon the priest will stretch out his arms in the shape of a Cross

Yet, despite the sacredness of the Canon, the aftermath of the Second Vatican Council saw the elimination of one unified Canon and the creation of multiple canons.  In fact, even in our world today, priests freely use their own ad lib words during the Canon and potentially (if not always) invalidate the Sacrifice of the Mass upon the altar.  This is for the Traditionalist a grave and utmost serious situation.

In the 1970 and 1975 Latin editions of the Roman Missal, there are four Eucharistic Prayers (these may be augmented in the third editio typica which is due out this fall). In more recent American editions of the Roman Missal, in addition to the four already mentioned, there are five others included in the appendix: two for Reconciliation and three for Masses with children. Thus for the last twenty-five years, the Roman rite has had the experience of many Eucharistic Prayers. 

This was not always so, however. For some 1600 years previously, the Roman rite knew only one Eucharistic Prayer: the Roman canon. 

In the average parish today, Eucharistic Prayer II is the one most frequently used, even on Sunday. Eucharistic Prayer III is also used quite often, especially on Sundays and feast days. The fourth Eucharistic prayer is hardly ever used; in part because it is long, in part because in some places in the U.S. it has been unofficially banned because of its frequent use of the word "man". The first Eucharistic Prayer, the Roman canon, which had been used exclusively in the Roman rite for well over a millennium and a half, nowadays is used almost never. As an Italian liturgical scholar puts it: "its use today is so minimal as to be statistically irrelevant".

This is a radical change in the Roman liturgy. Why aren't more people aware of the enormity of this change? Perhaps since the canon used to be said silently, its contents and merits were known to priests, to be sure, but not to most of the laity. Hence when the Eucharistic Prayer began to be said aloud in the vernacular, with four to choose from -- and the Roman canon chosen rarely, if ever -- the average layman did not realize that 1600 years of tradition had suddenly vanished like a lost civilization, leaving few traces behind, and those of interest only to archaeologists and tourists. 

(Source: From One Eucharistic Prayer to Many: How it Happened and Why by Father Cassian Folsom, O.S.B) 

What serious theological implications does this have for a Catholic?

In the Eucharistic Prayers, moreover, the repeated petitions to God that He accept the Sacrifice have also been suppressed; thus, there is no longer any clear distinction between Divine and human sacrifice.

…

In Eucharistic Prayer IV the Church--as One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic--is abased by eliminating the Roman Canon's petition for all orthodox believers who keep the Catholic and Apostolic faith. These are now merely all who seek you with a sincere heart. The Memento of the Dead in the Canon, moreover, is offered not as before for those who are gone before us with the sign of faith, but merely for those who have died in the peace of Christ. To this group--with further detriment to the notion of the Church's unity and visibility--Eucharistic Prayer IV adds the great crowd of "all the dead whose faith is known to You alone." None of the three new Eucharistic Prayers, moreover, alludes to a suffering state for those who have died; none allows the priest to make special Mementos for the dead. All this necessarily undermines faith in the propitiatory and redemptive nature of the sacrifice.

…

In the Preface for Eucharistic Prayer II--and this is unprecedented--the various angelic hierarchies have disappeared. Also suppressed, in the third prayer of the old Canon, is the memory of the holy Pontiffs and Martyrs on whom the Church in Rome was founded; without a doubt, these were the saints who handed down the apostolic tradition finally completed under Pope St. Gregory as the Roman Mass.

…

Chapter VII The Alienation of the Orthodox  

The Apostolic Constitution explicitly mentions the riches of piety and doctrine the Novus Ordo supposedly borrows from the Eastern Churches. But the result is so removed from, and indeed opposed to the spirit of the Eastern liturgies that it can only leave the faithful in those rites revolted and horrified. What do these ecumenical borrowings amount to? Basically, to introducing multiple texts for the Eucharistic Prayer (the anaphora)--none of which approaches their Eastern counterparts' complexity or beauty--and to permitting Communion Under Both Species and the use of deacons. Against this, the New Order of Mass appears to have been deliberately shorn of every element where the Roman liturgy came closest to the Eastern Rites. [53] At the same time, by abandoning its unmistakable and immemorial Roman character, the Novus Ordo cast off what was spiritually precious of its own. In place of this are elements which bring the new rite closer to certain Protestant liturgies, not even those closest to Catholicism. At the same time, these new elements degrade the Roman liturgy and further alienate it from the East, as did the reforms which preceded the Novus Ordo. In compensation, the new liturgy will delight all those groups hovering on the verge of apostasy who, during a spiritual crisis without precedent, now wreak havoc in the Church by poisoning Her organism and by undermining Her unity in doctrine, worship, morals and discipline.

Taken from The Ottaviani Intervention by Cardinal Ottaviani

And so the Traditional must fight on – not concerned at the slanders used against him.  Men may accuse him of “intolerance,” “lack of charity,” or “exaggerated concern with the externals,” but the Traditionalist will fight on so that in all the Masses of the world the Holy Eucharist may be lawfully confected and offered to the Eternal Father in the most fitting, righteous, and worthy manner possible.

In the bull Quo Primum Pope St. Pius V declared: "By this present Constitution, which will be valid henceforth, now, and forever, We order and enjoin that nothing must be added to Our recently published Missal, nothing omitted from it, nor anything whatsoever be changed within it." And he concluded: "No one whosoever is permitted to alter this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, precept, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition. Should anyone dare to contravene it, let him know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul."

Read more >>

Is the Traditional Latin Mass Right for All Parishes?

We all too often hear the argument that the Novus Ordo Mass is needed in our world to make the Mass accessible to the common man.  The Novus Ordo is seen as a bridge by some in the Traditional Community.  Their argument is namely that a person should experience the Novus Ordo in totality before ever experiencing the Traditional Mass.

Have you heard of these arguments? Have you believed them?  Do you still believe them?

I say that the Traditional Latin Mass is needed everywhere - in all parishes at all times. 

That's bold.  That implies that the Novus Ordo isn't needed as a bridge and that a Jew or Muslim or pagan could outright convert to the Catholic Faith by means of a Mass said in an unfamiliar language with "strange" rituals and ancient practices.  How can this be?  The liberals gasp.

We first need to consider the effect of the Vatican II changes on the Liturgy and on the life of the Church.  When we live in the midst of a problem, the problem does not usually seems as horrid as it is for someone who considers it over a larger content.  By this same principle, it is said that a frog will immediately jump out of a pot that is boiling.  But if you put the frog into a pot of cold water and slowly increase the temperature to boiling then the frog will allow itself to boil alive.  In much the same way, those of us born into the disorder of the past 50 years can no longer understand the full and egregious impact of many of the changes.

 The First Mass said in the New World (St. Augustine, FL)

In the Winter 2011 edition of The Latin Mass Magazine, Mr. Nicholas Postage in "A Moribund Mass and the Catholic Counterculture" does a excellent job of illustrating the problems inherent in the main stream Church - errors that directly affect the assertion that the Novus Ordo is needed as a bridge.

I quote from Mr. Postgate:

The place: your typical American parish, not yet blessed by the application of Summorum Pontificum. The time: Any Sunday of the year (chances are it’s a “Sunday of Ordinary Time,” which befits a form of liturgy so ordinary. The music: smiling ditties of indescribable triteness. The congregation consists of children who have not been catechized, are bored to death, and would rather be texting or playing video games; young adults who are fornicating or masturbating in their spare time, as this is the gospel they receive in their schools, and no one even thinks of impeding their vices or correcting their errors; married couples who, with a few happy exceptions, contracept their marital vocation out of existence; older folks who, under the lifelong influence of the capitalist secularism that animates contemporary America, attend church because it’s a good habit, like brushing one’s teeth or wearing clean clothes. Hardly anyone is morally prepared for prayer, and hardly anyone actually prays. The sign of this is, of course, the unstoppable chitchat that pervades the church before the “gathering hymn” fills the electrified air and resumes right after the “scattering hymn” is over and the altar girls are on their way out. In between was the obligatory reception of a wafer in the hands, for some strange reason that no one can quite explain, except that it’s got something to do with belonging.

The Priest who heads, or shall we say, presides over the congregation is not better than his flock; in fact, he is worse. He does no mental prayer or lection divina; perhaps he does not pray or study in any serious way at all—which is obvious from the shallow and vaguely relevant homilies he gives. His life is busy but superficial. He runs a strong risk of being immoral in some egregious manner, whether through rampant gossip, entertainment-saturated indolence, self-indulgence at the table, or worse forms of intemperance. In short, the people are lost, confused, surrendered to the all-pervasive secularism, and so is their Priest, except that he can hide it better. Nay, he has often gone one step further: invoking Vatican II, he magically makes lack of faith, lack of doctrine, lack of morals sound like a pious accommodation to the contemporary world.

Does this sound like your parish?  Perhaps it does in some respects and it is for that reason that you feel the Traditional Mass might be too "much" for your fellow parishners.  Let's continue reading from Mr. Postgate's article:

The Novus Ordo liturgy is practically empty of spiritual content. No wonder the Church has not been able to stand against the onslaught of a militantly secularist anti-culture. Her highest and most precious resource in the spiritual combat was stripped away. The shift from the Missal of 1962 to the Missal of 1970 was like going from a cannon to a butter knife, from marching trumpets to party favors.   

Bringing the liturgy closer in its externals to modern life meant bringing it closer to the meaninglessness and profanity of modern life. Thinking they were doing people a favor, the woolly shepherds of the Church ironically gave her sheep and goats an excuse to give up going to Mass altogether, because the new Mass, having become an echo of the vulgar world, was truly no longer relevant: it could offer nothing, give nothing to us that we did not already have to satiety. The only thing that can possibly be relevant is that which is totally and intrinsically irrelevant to the grinding routine of modern life. The old liturgy carried on in baffling and mysterious isolation, as though it did not pay attention at all to the world’s going to hell in a customized handbasket. And this was wise, profoundly wise. Many Catholics of the last forty years who stopped attending Mass, or never started going in the first place, would have attended the old liturgy, if only because it breathes a spirit of peace and timelessness so utterly and refreshingly contrary to the spirit of modernity.

That is the sort of thing that attracted many Catholic converts, for instance, Thomas Merton, when you look at their conversion stories. To abandon this “irrelevance” was, in fact, to make the Mass finally truly irrelevant, in the sense that it no longer answered a deep, wordless need to meet the divine, the sacred, the presence of God’s kingdom in mystery. The reformed liturgy in sterilized English with third-rate folk music managed to announce, in spite of itself, that the Catholic Church has nothing to offer that cannot very easily be found elsewhere, in more potent form.

Interested in the latest popular music? Look elsewhere. Interested in feeling the feeling of togetherness? Look elsewhere. This kind of self-indulgent collectivism flourishes more outside church doors than within them—which would make the official clerical attempt to imitate it laughable, if it were not sacrilegious.

Catholic identity is still dying.  We are not proud of our heritage.  Do we forget that it was the Latin Mass that converted millions of the pagans of Germany in the time of St. Boniface or the pagans of North America in the 1500s?  It was the Latin Mass with all of its ritual, beauty, and mystery that spread the reign of Christ and won untold numbers of converts and saints.  It was that Mass that we need - a Rite of Mass capable of saving our modern world from its abass of moral decay.  It is the Traditional Mass that is the antidote to the problem! 

As Mr. Postgate concludes:

Some “conservative” Bishops might think that, confronted with such a dire situation, the last thing they should care about is restoring sacred music, chant, Latin, and such things to the Church’s worship. “Don’t we have more important, more urgent things to worry about?” they mutter with a worried frown. But this is to miss the whole point. The main reason Catholic identity is now so weak is that, forty years ago, we began experimenting and tinkering with God’s sacred mysteries, and now nothing seems holy, nothing permanent, nothing worth reverencing, nothing worth genuflecting before. If each and every local church does not make the solemn, sacred, self-effacing worship of God its absolute pastoral priority, one by one they will go extinct, drowning in an ocean of mediocrity, relativism, irrelevance—in a word, a total lack of Catholic identity, which comes to us from above, through the Sacred Liturgy. The Church will survive and thrive only where her Shepherds have the wisdom to seek first the Kingdom of God, letting all other things be given afterwards.

As well put by Mr. Mark Riddle in his just published article Does the Latin Mass 'Work' Everywhere?:

What does that tell us, then, about the argument for using an inculturated new liturgy to achieve the conversion of modern men who are not in any meaningful way part of the classical Western tradition?

Ultimately, it tells us that the argument is false. But beyond that, it tells us that if we truly wish to convert the world (and we do), and to truly civilize and Christianize modern pagans (whether those who have never received the Gospel or those who comprise a post-Christian pagan West) there is only one solution: to do the same things as were done by our forefathers when they set out to convert the world. A liturgy which is conformed to man, which seeks to adapt itself to the spirit of the age, will simply not work.

To answer my acquaintance, novelty will never convert the world. Only when men once again are presented with the integrity of the Catholic Faith, expressed fully in the Church’s immemorial liturgy, will we be able to civilize modern paganism. Only when modern man once again says, Introibo ad altare Dei, ad Deum qui laetificat juventutem meum, will we be on the road to restoring all things in Christ. There simply is no other way.

Read more...

Read more >>

Traditionalism Vs. Modernism

Traditionalism Vs. Modernism.  Article by by Fr. Peter Carota

Anyone serious about discovering what the problem in the Catholic Church is today has to try to understand Modernism. It is very complex and difficult to understand. But I am going to try to delve into it a bit and continue to try to make it sensible to the average Traditional Catholic. I will not do this is one writing and it will not be easy to explain.

One definition of Catholic Modernism is the attempt to re-interpret the teachings of the catholic church by taking into account new philosophical and scientific thought and concepts. It has a lot to do with Darwin’s evolution and the evolution of truth. There by making ancient beliefs looked down upon and archaic (including catholic beliefs).

St. Pope Pius X promulgated his papal encyclical letter Pascendi dominici gregis directed against the heresy of Modernism on September 8, 1907.

Pope St. Pius the X then on September 1 1910 required that every bishop, priest, religious superior, seminarian and professors of Theology and Philosophy swear the oath against modernism.

The swearing of this oath was ended by the Pope Paul VI and the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith (CDF) in July 1967. Why was it abolished? To think that in the time of Pope St. Pius X in 1910, he found this oath necessary, and then all of a sudden in 1967 it is longer needed is preposterous. More than ever it was needed when all things were being re-evaluated and revolutionized.

A few things that are contained in the oath are:

“I profess that God, the origin and end of all things, can be known with certainty by the natural light of reason from the created world……”

“I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport…”.

“I reject the method of judging and interpreting Sacred Scripture which, departing from the tradition of the Church, the analogy of faith, and the norms of the Apostolic See…”
“I declare that I am completely opposed to the error of the modernist who hold that there is nothing divine in sacred tradition….”

“I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the belief of the Fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the apostles. The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way….”

One definition of “Catholic Modernism is the attempt to re-interpret the teachings of the catholic church by taking into account new philosophical and scientific thought and concepts.”

The Modernist and the Humanist worked hand in hand. As in the French Revolution, secularism was promoted and set religious teaching were seen as detriments to the advancement of science and human endeavors.

When Vatican II idealistically wanted to dialogue with “modern man” and be open to the world of science, sociology, psychology, and anthropology, much naiveté about the perfection of science and social sciences was accepted. When religious orders became involved in psychological experimentation much harm was done and many orders ceased from existing.

Another example of the church’s naiveté to modern social studies was the theory that sex abusers, once they had been in therapy, were able to go back to parishes and not repeat this crime. But over and over again the so called “healed abuser” continued to abuse in these other parishes.

So as you can see, tradition lovers have nothing in common with those who always want “the new”. Society and the Church have not evolved. We are still made up of sinners who want to promote their new agenda. Man is still the same, before and today. We need God’s grace to live a loving selfless life. More education is good, but it has not made the world a safer place to live in.

As we walk down the modernist world in the church and in society, things only get worse. More drugs, divorce, sexually transmitted disease, murders and theft.

As we walk up the Traditional path to heaven, there are happier families, a deeper experience of God, true intellectual development, and charity.

When will the modernist admit that all that is new is not always better and that Tradition has so much to teach us. It is like the youth that think they know everything and do not need parents and older people. What an illusion.

There is nothing wrong with good science and social science as long as it goes on proven facts, not theories. We can learn from un-bias studies. But Divine Tradition from heaven is by far more accurate and helpful for us to be happy healthy people. Thank God we are Traditional.

Read more >>

Conciliar Canonization of John XXIII and John Paul II?

The following is taken from Traditional Catholic Remnant.

So it has been recently confirmed that two of the revolutionary Vatican II popes – John XXIII and John Paul II – will be “canonized” by Francis I this December. This news, especially the “canonization” of JPII, comes as no surprise, given the “saint factory” the conciliar church is. Of course two of the worst men to sit in the Chair of Peter are going to be given an honorary “seal of approval” by their modernist successors.

John XXIII reigned from 1958 to 1963. The first of the revolutionary popes, John XXIII was the one who called for a Second Vatican Council, which began in 1962. He died before its completion. There are rumors that he shouted on his deathbed “Stop the Council! Stop the Council!”. This theory leads some Traditionalists to believe that he wasn’t all that bad compared to his successors. However, while I would certainly hope that John XXIII repented of his wicked ways, this claim has never been proven. Thus, our opinion of him should remain that he was a horrible leader for the Church, and was likely a Masonic infiltrator. His successor, Paul VI (who is expected to be “beatified” by the conciliar church soon), who was even more diabolical than his predecessor, was likely an infiltrator as well.

John Paul II reigned from 1978 to 2005, making his reigns one of the longest in Church history. It was also one of the worst, and perhaps THE worst behind only Paul VI. His papacy included a covering up of a plethora of sex abuse cases, two blasphemous inter-religious meetings at Assisi, a phony so-called “third secret” of Fatima released in 2000, and of course, the “excommunication” of Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX. Despite his shameful reign, he’s on the way to “sainthood” nevertheless.

Given that Francis is simply another John XXIII or JPII himself, it’s not surprising that he’s cleared these two liberals to be “canonized”. And Paul VI will likely be next. These modernists need to be excommunicated, not “canonized”! How about Canonizing Archbishop Lefebvre instead? But no, instead he’s considered “excommunicated” while these conciliarists are on the way to so-called “sainthood”.

And while these two are on the way to “sainthood”, Popes who are TRULY worthy of Canonization – such as Pope Pius IX and Pope Leo XIII – are ignored. Of course, these Popes had the true Catholic Faith, their Doctrine was undeniably Catholic and contrary to what these conciliarists teach. So to Canonize them would be contrary to their own beliefs, thus why they’re likely being snubbed.

What did Archbishop Lefebvre have to say about these conciliar Popes?

“We must not be afraid to affirm that the current Roman authorities, since John XXIII and Paul VI, have made themselves active collaborators of international Jewish Freemasonry and of world socialism. John Paul II is above all a communist-loving politician at the service of a world communism retaining a hint of religion. He openly attacks all of the anti-communist governments and does not bring, by his travels, any Catholic revival.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, “Marcel Lefebvre: The Biography” by Bishop Tissier, pp. 602-603)

The Archbishop’s words, as usual, are spot-on. Let us not be deceived by these conciliar popes, who are simply wolves in sheep’s clothing. I will conclude with the words of a Pope who was truly worthy of Canonization, the great Pope St. Pius X:

“They [modernists] want to be treated with oil, soap and caresses. But they should be beaten with fists. In a duel, you don’t count or measure the blows, you strike as you can.”

Read more >>

1967 Letter from Father DePauw, President of the Catholic Traditionalist Movement, to Pope Paul VI on the Aftermath of the Crisis of Vatican II

Be Thou Peter!

Fr. Gommar A. DePauw, J.C.D,
President of the Catholic Traditionalist Movement

This letter was originally sent to Pope Paul VI as a private communication between a priest and the Supreme Pontiff who, two years earlier, had blessed and commissioned him as leader of the Catholic Traditionalist Movement (C.T.M.). ...

TIA reproduces here important excerpts of this letter, which was sent to Pope Paul VI on August 15, 1967, by Father Gommar A. DePauw, J.C.D, President of the Catholic Traditionalist Movement.  Father DePauw died on the morning of May 6, 2005.  His biography is available here.

The subtitles were added by TIA’s website desk

Your Holiness:

I still vividly remember that December 1, 1965 evening when Your Holiness personally blessed me and my work with the traditionalist Catholics who selected me to be their spokesman ….

I equally remember how Your Holiness literally begged me to urge the Catholics I was to lead in their fight for “TRUTH and TRADITION,” not to lose faith in the Church. And Your Holiness justified that request by stating: “Once the dust stirred up by the recent Ecumenical Council will have settled down, the Church will come out of all this with renewed strength and vigor.”

May I humbly submit that during this past year and a half I have labored as hard as any human individual could to do precisely what Your Holiness asked me to do: to keep the faith in our Church alive among those Catholics who had justifiedly become alarmed to the point of publicly asking themselves and others: “What, in the name of God, is happening to our Catholic Church?!” And may I add that one of the principal aspects of my efforts to keep that faith in our Church alive has consistently been the stressing of belief in the divine foundation of the Roman Papacy and respectful loyalty to its present incumbent, Your Holiness, Paul VI.

Already then, December 1, 1965, Your Holiness asked me to realize that our Church was going through “one of the gravest crises in her history.” If such a description of our Church’s condition was true then, how much more can the same be said of our Church today! To say that it has gone from bad to worse would be the understatement of the century.

Today's condition of the Catholic Church is beyond the point of doctrinal heresy, factual schism, and even apostasy. It is in a state of chaos and utter collapse resulting from the systematic destruction of first our liturgical and other traditions, and now our very beliefs and morals ….

In open violation of all past and present liturgical directives, the Roman Catholic Liturgy, once the envy of all other religions, has for all practical purposes been destroyed. And it gives us very little personal satisfaction to know that all those responsible for this destruction were in advance irrevocably anathematized by the still valid solemn decree of the Council of Trent: “If anyone says that the Mass ought to be celebrated in the vernacular only, let him be cursed.”(Canons of the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, n. 9.)

Coercive changes have subrogated our traditional practices with the “litniks”of our Church Establishment daily intensifying their attempts to subjugate the “people of God” to becoming “Protestant” Catholics.

Our churches are no longer Catholic in appearance, atmosphere, or aim. Tables looking like butcher blocks or ironing boards have replaced our altars in perfect harmony with the 16th century Protestant Reformation directives bent on destroying the belief in the dogma of Transubstantiation and the sacrificial nature of the Mass and replacing it with a symbolical trans-signification-communal meal.

Our Holy Mass has disappeared an in its place our people are offered a holy mess of vernacularized vacuum stripped of the surety, serenity, uniformity, and dignity of our traditional Latin liturgy.

Hymns associated with the anti-Catholic rebellions of Luther, Calvin and Wesley have unceremoniously uprooted our cherished Catholic hymns to our God and the Blessed Mother, while our uniquely Catholic Gregorian and polyphonic music has been discarded for sounds and instruments sometimes borrowed from the decadent milieu of young human animals.

Communion rails are ripped out and Holy Communion is refused to the “people of God” unless they stand (not kneel) to receive Him at the mention of Whose name all knees should bend, if one is still to trust the text of the “unrevised” New Testament we were given at one time in our Catholic institutions.

The Most Blessed Sacrament, to be reserved in “the central place of honor” according to the legitimate liturgical directives, is relegated to an obscure shoe box-type niche, playing much less than second fiddle to the throne-type chair of the presiding clerical Buddha set up in dead center of a religious flavored discotheque-barn, from which the traditional statues and Stations of the Cross have been shipped to the nearest auction gallery or antiques shop.

A steadily increasing number of once unsuspecting Catholics are suddenly realizing that, as we predicted more than two years ago, they are gradually, first with subtle and then with increasing bold changes in the liturgy, being ushered into a humanistic rite of a universal brotherhood meal expressive of the existentialist pantheistic concepts of an illuminated “one-world-religion” preparing the way for a Communist controlled “one-world-government.”

The aggiornamento changed dogmatic and moral precepts

But, not only our liturgical traditions have been destroyed. The very beliefs and morals of our Catholic heritage are now up for grabs in our so-called “Church of the Aggiornamento.” Steadily, day in and day out since Vatican II, silt has subversively been shunted in to the minds of the Roman Catholics in America.

Our “Catholic” universities, seminaries, and colleges are bluntly rejecting the religious character that justifies their existence, and their teachers of the “new theology” are calling into question, if not outright rejecting, every tenet of our doctrinal heritage ….

Sunday after Sunday our traditional dogmas and moral precepts are denigrated with pseudo-modern preachments of Socialism or worse emanating from our pulpits occupied by “new breed” clergymen, whose pathological obsession with sex has brought them to the low point of not only advocating the end of clerical celibacy, but even of condoning Fornication, homosexuality, trial marriages, artificial birth control, divorce, and abortion.

Our Church Establishment's press and radio and television presentations are totally captured by the same heretical forces. And our once respected nuns not only have become nonentity “nones” with absurdity of demeanor and dress, but are sabotaging the religious instruction of our youngsters and children by replacing our traditional catechisms with brain-washing religion (?) books subtly poisoning the minds of our coming generations into gradual acceptance of first a unitarian, then a pantheistic, and finally an atheistic philosophy of life.

While some of our American Cardinals and Bishops are way in front of these apostatic hordes of religious rioters, the rest of our Hierarchy are burying their heads in the sand, rocking their consciences to sleep with the proverbial “Everything will be O.K.!” or trying to compensate for the trust and respect they no longer command among their own Catholic people by hob-nobbing with those outside-the-fold merely to produce nothing but a superficial inter-faith harmony built on the swift sand of doctrinal compromise and false hopes.

Your Holiness, we traditionalist Catholics see the evil visibly extant and reject any portion of that evil!

Rejection of the Conciliar Church

Your Holiness …. taking a closer look at the “Conciliar” church forced upon us in the name of Vatican II, and simply judging the tree by its fruits, we are tempted to agree with one of your own immediate collaborators in Rome who has been quoted as characterizing the recent Vatican Council as “a sinister farce acted out by a number of good-for-nothings, some of whom, despite the gold crosses on their chests, don't even believe in the Holy Trinity or the Virgin.”

Your Holiness, we were, we are, and we intend to remain members of the CATHOLIC Church, and we refuse to become absorbed into any new CONCILIAR church! WE CONDEMN AND REJECT THE CONCILIAR CHURCH!

In spite of all the gigantic and expensive promotional techniques used to “sell” it, the “Conciliar” church fails to fascinate the public, and refuses to spiritually refresh the individual. Instead it is repugnant to the point of rejection so tragically evident in the all-time low of our conversion rate and religious vocations, and the pathetic trek of our most loyal and devout Catholics transferring the almost snuffed out candle of traditional Catholic beliefs and practices from our desecrated churches to the underground sanctuary of their hearts and homes.

Responsibility of Paul VI

Your Holiness, if no IMMEDIATE ACTION is taken by YOU, the public reality of the Catholic religion will phase out very soon. Already the memory of a “real” Mass is fading away from the minds of our younger generation, while their elders are growing indifferent or bitter over a Church which, if all her former beliefs and practices were so irrelevant as to be replaced so quickly and drastically, they prefer to forget as the biggest hoax ever on record.

Your Holiness, take one last, hard look at the dying embers of your Church and ours! And decide, bluntly and honestly, whether you wish to be a POPE, Vicar of Jesus Christ, Supreme Pontiff of the one true Church, or to perpetuate your current image of the BISHOP of Rome, the first among equals, with a place of HONOR but without authority within the ranks of a so-called “college” of Bishops …..

We of the C.T.M. still refuse to join the increasing number of Catholics all over the world who accuse you of being part of the team out to destroy the Church we once knew, and of being less interested in remaining the Supreme Pontiff of Christ's one true Church than in becoming the Chief-Chaplain of a new one-world religion in the service of a one-world government.

We of the C.T.M. still have pent up in the reserve of our hearts the enthusiastic loyalty we, traditionalist Catholics, exclusively set apart for our Supreme Pontiff. And we would like nothing better than to forget the past four years and shower our loyalty on a Paul VI turned into a new Saint Pius X who had the courage to face the reality of enemies within our own ranks and the integrity to condemn them. The first four years of your pontificate, Your Holiness, have been disappointing to the most loyal of your sons and daughters. But, late as it is, you still have the opportunity to once more be capable instead of culpable.

Practical suggestions

May we, the traditionalist Catholics whose unworthy spokesman I am, help Your Holiness out of the impasse your enemies cornered you into, by humbly submitting to you the following requests:

Vatican II must be annulled.

Publicly announce via all available international public media that you are again exercising the prerogatives of the Supreme Pontiff of Christ's One True Church, and that the interregnum of Vatican II is over ….

[The Vatican II turned out to be a horrible mistake.] Maybe it was precisely the fear of this horrendous possibility that caused the Holy Ghost to have Pope John declare from the very start that Vatican II, unlike all previous Ecumenical Councils, was not a DOCTRINAL Council but simply a PASTORAL one, thus leaving the door open for any future Pope to eradicate it from the records.

Your Holiness, when honest people commit a blunder they admit it and try to undo it as quickly as possible. Vatican II has so far produced nothing but confusion and disunity among the people of God's Church. It takes humility and courage to admit that even a Pope, outside the realm of his infallible ex cathedra definitions, can commit a blunder. But it is this kind of humility that endears a truly great leader to his subjects. Even so, you know better than all of us together that to lose face is nothing compared to losing souls.

Rescind that falsely interpreted and abused “Collegiality” decree IMMEDIATELY and PERMANENTLY. The burden of the Papacy cannot be shared and was never intended to be. To Peter and to him alone were given the keys of the Kingdom. Peter and Peter ALONE was appointed to strengthen the faith of “his brethren,” the first bishops who governed the primitive Church not just WITH but UNDER Peter. Stop wearing that Bishop's mitre and place the papal tiara back on your anointed head where it was placed the day you accepted to serve as Christ's Vicar and Supreme Pontiff. You accepted the job; you have tasted the privileges – now, taste the responsibilities; they are the two sides of the same coin. Give us another opportunity to let the world know once again that: “HABEMUS PAPAM!” We have a Pope!

Stop accepting decisions made by your alleged “advisors.” Stand on your own two feet! These advisors have led you and the Church into the abyss of their anti-Christ activity. They have forced you into a world position of being apparently at ease in such impossible situations as your praying at the pantheistic monstrosity of the United Nations’ “meditation room,” your denying to the favorite visionary child of Fatima the favor granted to publicly known, unrepentant examples of degraded womanhood, your hobnobbing and exchanging symbols of religious authority with leaders of what still are heretical or schismatic sects, and above all, your lending respectability to the leaders of international Communism, which is still out to destroy our Church and all other religious bodies for that matter.

Stop listening to the politically attuned and diabolical-oriented “advisors” who have infiltrated the highest echelons of our Church, exactly as Our Lady foretold in her last message of Fatima which has been unjustifiedly withheld from our Catholic people for seven years now ….

Listen instead to the genuine Roman Catholic, the traditionalist “man and woman in the pew” who want their Pope to act like a Pope; the same Catholic who continues to kneel when receiving his living God in Holy Communion; who still prays the Rosary to his Mother in Heaven; who still genuflects at the words “And the Word was made flesh by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary: and was made man”; who still reads the Last Gospel of St. John in his or her worn-out missal; who still says the Leonine prayers after Mass for the conversion of Russia; who still abstains from meat on Fridays; who still goes to church on Sundays instead of Saturdays; in one word, the traditionalist Catholics who refuse to turn their backs on the Son of God for any son of man, despite the red or purple he proudly preens ….

Your Holiness! In the name of Jesus Christ, your and our Lord and Saviour, have the courage to disperse the false shepherds and listen to your own conscience! Prove once again to friend and foe alike that the gates of Hell did indeed not prevail. Stir the embers of a dying Church and, with gallant despair, make her once more a House of Refuge in lieu of a house of refuse. Bind instead of grind the gnawing wounds of Christ's Mystical Body ….

Your Holiness! If we do not receive a satisfactory answer from Your Holiness or at least are given an opportunity to discuss our requests and proposals with Your Holiness personally - within the next month, we shall consider our requests denied and our proposals rejected, and draw the sad and tragic conclusion that Our Mother the Church has temporarily abandoned the best ones of her children.

I pray to God and to His blessed Mother whose Assumption we commemorate today – and millions all over the world are joining me in this prayer – that such a dark and tragic day will never come. But, if we have no other choice, we will jealously protect the small but still burning candle of our traditional Catholic Faith, and patiently carry on our spiritual “Resistance” movement without the hoped-for papal approval ….

Holy Father! Do no reject the best and most loyal ones of your sons and daughters! But, even if Paul VI would close his soul and heart to us – Quod Deus avertat! – we will not reject the Papacy!

Abandoned by you, we would sorrowfully pray and wait for the day a new successor of St. Peter would open his arms again to those of his children whose only crime it was to live up to the admonition of your patron saint: “Even if an angel from Heaven should preach a gospel to you other than that which we have preached to you, let him be cursed.” (Gal 1: 8), or of those other early Church leaders who taught us: “We ought to obey God rather than men.” (Acts 5: 29) ….

Prayerfully expecting Your Holiness' fatherly reply to this final anguished cry of today's “Suffering Church,” I beg to remain.

Your loyal and devoted son in Jesus Christ,

Fr. Gommar A. DePauw

Read more >>

Hymn to False God Sung at Assisi III

Inside the basilica of Saint Francis: a native African medicine man and pagan "priest" sang a hymn to the deity of Olokun, today October 27, 2011, during the Third Assisi Interreligious Conference of Prayer and Pilgrimage for World Peace.

http://gloria.tv/?media=209137

Please join me in making reparation for this offense against our Lord Jesus Christ and His holy house that was consecrated to His worship alone.  For more on the blasphemy in Assisi, see my post on the Scandal of Assisi III.

Now is a good time to read a good article from the Remnant on this topic:

Tomorrow the Pope will be in Assisi for another interreligious gathering of “believers” in that holy city to “pray for peace” to their assorted deities, spirits, demiurges or whatever.  The Vatican promises that the event “will show that anyone and everyone can and should be a pilgrim seeking truth.”

Earlier hopes that the Pope had cancelled his appearance at this ludicrous gathering were dashed by the announcement on October 19 that he will address the “believers” (and a few atheists) in the Basilica of Saint Mary of the Angels, “where there will be a moment of commemoration of earlier meetings and further reflection on the topic of the day.”

Few Catholics remember how utterly unthinkable such an event would have been to any Pope before Vatican II. It is easy to forget what the Church was like before the Council and the descent of the Great Nebulosity that has rendered obscure so much of what was once clear—necessitating something called the Hermeneutic of Continuity, which itself seems part of the Great Nebulosity. Memory returns, however, upon reading landmark encyclicals by pre-conciliar Popes.

The pre-conciliar encyclical most pertinent to the upcoming carnival of religions at Assisi—the third such farce since 1986—is Mortalium Animos (1928) by Pius XI.  Warning of the danger to the Faith posted by the Protestant-born “ecumenical movement,” the Pope expressed his stern disapproval of Protestants who “go so far as to wish the Pontiff Himself to preside over their motley, so to say, assemblies.” Among these people, the Pope observed, are many “who loudly preach fraternal communion in Christ Jesus, yet you will find none at all to whom it ever occurs to submit to and obey the Vicar of Jesus Christ either in His capacity as a teacher or as a governor.”

And this, mind you, is how the Pope characterized proposed gatherings limited to professing Christians of various denominations. Had Pius XI foreseen—in some vision or nightmare—that his proximate successors would routinely preside over, not only “motley assemblies” of Protestants, but pan-religious motley assemblies of everyone from Animists to Zoroastrians, he might well have required immediate medical attention to prevent his heart from stopping.

Today, still in the very midst of the Great Nebulosity, we traditional Catholics are expected to rejoice over the news that there will be no “prayer in common” by the members of the motley assembly, but rather that, as The New York Times (running an AP story) reports, “they will go to pray privately, separately in rooms of an Assisi convent.”

Continue Reading

Read more >>

The Scandal of Assisi III: "The Church is shaken to its very foundations"

This Thursday the Vatican will again participate in the infamous and sacrilegeous gathering in Assisi.  This is the third time in the past 25 years when the Holy Father has fallen to pressures from Modernists to pray on the same level as pagans, infidels, and those who deny and persecute our Lord and Christians.

This event must be condemned for four reasons:

• Because it offends God in His first commandment.
• Because it denies the unity of the Church and Her mission of saving souls.
• Because it can only lead the faithful into confusion and indifferentism.
• Because it deceives the unfortunate unfaithful and members of other religions.

Referring to the 1986 meeting in Assisi, Archbishop Lefebvre remarked:

It is demonic. It is an insult to our Lord Jesus Christ. Who will they pray to? What god will they pray to for peace? What peace can they ask for if they are not praying to the only true God? They will not be praying to our Lord Jesus Christ. The Jews do not want him, the Muslims and Buddhists do not want Him neither. Lots of Protestants do not believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ. What god will they pray to? God was made flesh and came and lived amongst us to save us. We have no right to pray to anyone else. If we put Jesus Christ aside, we are not praying to the true God. It is an indescribably impious act against our Lord Jesus Christ. (Spiritual Conferences, 117B, Jan. 28)

His Excellency Archbishop Lefebvre later said, "He who now sits upon the Throne of Peter mocks publicly the first article of the Creed and the first Commandment of the Decalogue. The scandal given to Catholic souls cannot be measured. The Church is shaken to its very foundations."

This Thursday Assisi III commences and with it all SSPX priorities throughout the world will be saying a Mass of reparation on that day.  All matters will be Votive Masses for the Propagation of the Faith: Missa 'Deus Misereatur.'  Many Saturday Masses at SSPX chapels will also be said with the intention of making reparation to God for such a sacrilege.

As I have posted about many times, there is no salvation outside of the Church.  There is only one name under Heaven by which men can be saved and that is the name of our Lord Jesus Christ (cf. Acts 4:12).  So, please join me in saying rosaries in reparation for this most diabolical action initiated by the modernists.  Pray that our Holy Father will not pray with the pagans and infidels but preach and seek their salvation.

If you are unfamiliar with the Assisi issues, please see the SSPX page with several articles, links, and a video on the topic.  I conclude with the inspired words of Pope Pius XI in MORTALIUM ANIMOS:

10. So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics: for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it. To the one true Church of Christ, we say, which is visible to all, and which is to remain, according to the will of its Author, exactly the same as He instituted it. During the lapse of centuries, the mystical Spouse of Christ has never been contaminated, nor can she ever in the future be contaminated, as Cyprian bears witness: "The Bride of Christ cannot be made false to her Spouse: she is incorrupt and modest. She knows but one dwelling, she guards the sanctity of the nuptial chamber chastely and modestly."[20] The same holy Martyr with good reason marveled exceedingly that anyone could believe that "this unity in the Church which arises from a divine foundation, and which is knit together by heavenly sacraments, could be rent and torn asunder by the force of contrary wills."[21] For since the mystical body of Christ, in the same manner as His physical body, is one,[22] compacted and fitly joined together,[23] it were foolish and out of place to say that the mystical body is made up of members which are disunited and scattered abroad: whosoever therefore is not united with the body is no member of it, neither is he in communion with Christ its head.[24]   Pope +Pius XI

Read more >>