The Church Can Not Bless, Condone, or Sanctify Homosexual Relations

Sodom and Gomorrah afire, painting by Jacob de Wet II, 1680

The Church Calls All Men to Salvation

“Woe to you that call evil good, and good evil: that put darkness for light, and light for darkness: that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter” (Isaias 5:20).

In a seeming reversal of its 2021 prohibition against blessing any same sex couples, the Vatican’s December publication of Fiducia supplicans allegedly opened the door for priests to bless same sex couples. Bree A. Dail writes:

The new Prefect of the Doctrine of the Faith states people in “irregular” unions, such as same sex unions, may NOT receive anything resembling liturgical blessings, or blessings of their unions. They may, however, receive spontaneous blessing, limited to “the invocation of a blessing that descends from God upon those who recognizing themselves to be destitute and in need of his help do not claim a legitimation of their own status, but who beg that all that is true, good, and humanly valid in their lives and their relationships be enriched, healed, and elevated by the presence of the Holy Spirit. These forms of blessing express a supplication that God may grant those aids that come from the impulses of his Spirit what classical theology calls ‘actual grace’ —so that human relationships may mature and grow in fidelity to the Gospel, that they may be freed from their imperfections and frailties, and that they may express themselves in the ever-increasing dimension of the divine love.”

Yet, in this latest ordeal, disorder and confusion have been sowed. News headlines announced: “Pope Francis officially approved allowing priests to perform blessings on same-sex couples as long as the ritual does not resemble marriage." Those who had same-sex attraction could previously ask for blessings like anyone else who struggles with any number of sins. What this document has done is change the optics of the Church to apparently soften its stance against “gay marriage.”

While anyone may ask for a blessing, the blessing of two individuals in a known arrangement against the 6th Commandment cannot be permitted. It is as nonsensical as asking a priest to bless the building in which Planned Parenthood was killing children while stating that the blessing was just on the building and not on the evil done there. Or it would be as ludicrous as blessing the members of a KKK chapter while stating that it was just an individual blessing and did not mean anything regarding the activities the men came together to do. The blessing of two people who are regularly and publicly engaging in sodomy can not be blessed without blessing the underlying “union.”

Is the new document scandalous? Will it lead to the loss of souls?  Is it an attempt to normalize things with secular culture? Should it be opposed? Yes, to all of these. But did it change Church teaching? No, since Catholic dogma cannot change.

The 6th Commandment Recap

The sixth Commandment condemns incest (sexual relations with a relative or in-law), fornication (sexual relations with someone of the opposite sex when neither of is in the state of marriage), homosexual relations (sexual activity with someone of the same sex), masturbation (the stimulation of one’s own sexual organs for pleasure), rape, and other similar offenses. Prostitution, artificial insemination, pornography, seducing others, sexually abusing children, dressing immodestly, reading impure literature, listening to impure jokes, songs, or movies, or using artificial contraception are likewise all condemned.

Divine Law, as stated in the Commandments, does not and change not change.  Should anyone try to argue that the Scriptures themselves do not discuss homosexual activity, he should read Leviticus 18:22, which states: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind, because it is an abomination.” 

The Church Does Not Hate Those with Same-Sex Attraction (SSA)

It is often a scapegoat in our culture that the Church hates anyone who has or has ever experienced same-sex attraction. This is false. The Church does not condemn being homosexual since some people may not be able to help their sexual orientation. What the Church forbids is homosexual activity, which is engaging in sexual acts with a person of the same sex. It is technically impossible for two people of the same sex to marry since marriage is between one man and one woman for the purpose of raising children.

Those who do experience SSA should consult the resources of Courage. Courage members are men and women who experience same-sex attractions and who have made a commitment to strive for chastity and to conform their lives to the actual and unchangeable teachings of the Catholic Church.

The Church’s Laws on Marriage

The Church likewise condemns forced marriages against a person’s will, marriages solemnized in front of non-Catholic ministers, and adulterous “second” marriages when a person’s spouse is still living since divorce is not possible.

Canon law does not prohibit Catholics from attending invalid weddings for non-Catholics but Catholics must discern if their attendance at such weddings would be a cause for scandal. And we must also think what we can do - if anything - to help that person know the Catholic Faith. It is clearer that it is not permitted to attend the wedding of a Catholic who marries outside of the Church. Likewise, it would not be appropriate to attend the alleged marriage of any same-sex couple since it is not a valid marriage, and one’s presence will undoubtedly cause scandal by seemingly approving of the event.

Let Us Invoke St. Charles Lwanga and His Companions

St. Charles Lwanga was born in 1865 in Bulimu, Buganda, Uganda. He was a servant of King Mwanga of Uganda. In 1885, he converted to Catholicism, and for that, he was burned to death in 1886 at Namugongo, Uganda, because they refused to give in to the homosexual demands of King Mwanga. Yet, St. Charles did not scream in pain as he burned to death. He even helped arrange the sticks for the fire and said he was pleased to die for the True Faith. 

St. Charles Lwanga is one of 22 people that we remember for dying for their faith in Uganda. May he intercede for all who struggle with SSA, and through his prayers, may all those who foster sin and confusion cease their errors at once.

Read more >>

Can A Valid Novus Ordo Mass Offend God? Are We Obligated to Attend It?

The Angelic Doctor goes on to summarize two ways in which worship directed to the True God is nevertheless evil. As to the first reason, St. Thomas Aquinas illustrates by way of example: “…in this way, at the time of the New Law, the mysteries of Christ being already accomplished, it is pernicious to make use of the ceremonies of the Old Law whereby the mysteries of Christ were foreshadowed as things to come: just as it would be pernicious for anyone to declare that Christ has yet to suffer.” Thus, observing seder meals, religious circumcision, abstaining from pork for religious reasons, etc. would now offend the True God.

As to the second example, the saint continues: “…falsehood in outward worship occurs on the part of the worshiper, and especially in common worship which is offered by ministers impersonating the whole Church. For even as he would be guilty of falsehood who would, in the name of another person, proffer things that are not committed to him, so too does a man incur the guilt of falsehood who, on the part of the Church, gives worship to God contrary to the manner established by the Church or divine authority, and according to ecclesiastical custom.”

Consequently, we can say that even valid worship offered by those who do so in a manner contrary to that established by the Church would offend God. This may be the case of a valid Catholic priest who ad libs the Missal and, while validly confecting the Holy Eucharist, mortally sins by intentionally neglecting the rubrics. This would also be the case of a valid Divine Liturgy offered by schismatic groups like the Orthodox Church. And this would certainly apply to rituals performed by heretical protestant denominations who do not follow the Church’s prescriptions, do not offer any valid Sacraments (exceptions aside ), and who teach a doctrine contrary to that taught by Christ our Lord.

Can A Valid Novus Ordo Mass Offend God?

Taken to the next logical question, we consider if it is possible for a valid Novus Ordo Mass to offend God. 

Even though it is possible for God to work good out of evil and lead to the Truth those in false religions, this does not make the Novus Ordo as praiseworthy or fitting for God. Rather, the defects in the Novus Ordo are not merely external but intrinsic in the prayers created for the New Rite of Mass.

The Holy Mass is the Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross. The purpose of Mass is to be present at the Sacrifice of Christ that is made present again through the priesthood of Jesus Christ.  We worship God at Mass in the manner which He has established for His worship. We are present at Calvary.  Rather than merely remembering the life and death of Christ, we are present at it and partake of its eternal fruits which flow to us from the altar and during the Canon when the priest stands in the place of Christ and offers the Eternal Victim on the Altar to God.  We can further receive grace by partaking of the Holy Eucharist if we are Catholics in the state of grace. This view of the Mass as a propitiatory Sacrifice has been lost in the Novus Ordo and replaced by notions of community, where the priest is a presider, and many Catholics falsely view receiving Holy Communion as the purpose of going to Mass, rather than being present at the august sacrifice of the Eternal Victim.

As Archbishop Lefebvre noted in Chapter 4 of the Open Letter to Confused Catholics, the changes to the Mass in the offertory, the sermon, the canon, and elsewhere mimic the changes sought by Martin Luther! They are in their very core protestant, especially for instance in the newly created prayers of the Offertory which bear no similarity to the Offertory in the Tridentine Mass.

Of course, while any validly ordained priest may consecrate bread and wine using the words of consecration, even while omitting the rest of the Mass (which is done at times in cases of necessity for instance by priests who are imprisoned and can only smuggle in a small piece of bread and a small amount of wine), this is not the same as promoting and saying protestantized prayers. 

Jean Guitton, an intimate friend of Paul VI wrote: “The intention of Pope Paul VI with regard to what is commonly called the [New] Mass, was to reform the Catholic liturgy in such a way that it should almost coincide with the Protestant liturgy. There was with Pope Paul VI an ecumenical intention to remove, or, at least to correct, or, at least to relax, what was too Catholic in the traditional sense in the Mass and, I repeat, to get the Catholic Mass closer to the Calvinist Mass.” And we know that the Calvinists - and any protestants for that matter - do not have a valid rite of Mass and do not confect the Holy Eucharist.

The Faith is not defined by merely external actions. Archbishop Lefebvre rightfully criticized the Novus Ordo – even when accompanied by Latin, ad orientem postures, and the external appearance of piety.  Our Lord Jesus Christ instituted a set of doctrines and established His one True Church as the means of bringing about the conversion of souls and their salvation. He did not institute merely external gestures while telling His disciples to ad lib the rest. And on the opposite extreme, the Lord also did not teach His disciples the precise words for Sacramental validity and tell them that their external postures, garments, and actions were useless since only the internal mattered. Our Faith not only includes heart-felt prayers, works of charity, and pious devotions, but also includes rich liturgical music, elaborate cathedrals, and ornate vestments. Even the presence of Eucharistic miracles in Novus do not mean that the Novus Ordo is pleasing to God.

Are We Obligated to Ever Attend Offensive Worship?

More than mere validity is necessary in the worship of God. If validity was the only basis for whether worship was pleasing to God, Catholics would be able to have their children baptized by an Anglican minister or attend receive the valid Eucharist from schismatic Greek orthodox priests. Yet, we know that attending the worship of any other denomination is a sin against the First Commandment. 

Consequently, we have an obligation to seek out not only valid Masses but those which are offered according to the Church’s immemorial rubrics and customs. We should not feel obligated to attend a Novus Ordo Mass – even on Sundays or Holy Days – since attending them is often a grave danger to our spiritual lives. 

Read more >>

Why Women Cannot be Doctors of the Church

The title of "Doctor of the Church" is bestowed on certain individuals not only for their faith but for their skillful defense of it. The first saints given this title on September 20, 1295, by Boniface XIII included Saint Ambrose, Saint Augustine, Saint Jerome, & Saint Gregory the Great. The next added was St. Thomas Aquinas and since then has grown to include thirty-three saints.

In the post Vatican II Church, the attacks on Traditional Catholic views and beliefs include far more than just the Tridentine Mass. While it is praiseworthy to see more and more people seeking out and supporting the Traditional Latin Mass, it is disheartening to still see many of these groups believing some or many of the novelties that came after Vatican II.

What are these novelties? 

• The Luminous Mysteries of the Rosary are one. They were invented by John Paul II in an attempt to change the Rosary which had been given in its 3 set of mystery format directly from the Blessed Virgin Mary. 
• Other novelties include the drastic change in the canonization process in 1983 that cause reasonably doubt on the infallibly of modern canonizations, especially those of liberal popes like Paul VI who did all he could to abolish the Tridentine Mass.  
• Another such novelty is the 1983 Code of Canon Law which reduced the Eucharistic Fast to only one hour, another change that Traditionalists need to reject.

But one novelty that few Traditionalists seem to care about is the addition of female saints to the list of Doctors of the Church. St. Teresa of Avila, St. Catherine of Siena, St. Thérèse of Lisieux, and St. Hildegard of Bingen were added to this list post Vatican II. And while their writings and work are certainly praiseworthy they cannot be called Doctors of the Church. To do so would be a violation directly against apostolic teaching attested to by St. Paul and recorded in Sacred Scripture.

An explanation on this was some years ago penned by Bishop Richard Williamson on why recent Popes' actions to declare some women saints as Doctors of the Church is to be rejected against Catholic Tradition. I quote:

A few days ago I met in Rome a gracious Roman lady who asked me why in a sermon several years ago I had been opposed to the papal declaration of St. Catherine of Sienna as a Doctor of the Church. The problem, I replied, lies in the confusion of roles. 

Recent Popes have declared three women Saints to be Doctors of the Church: Catherine of Sienna, Theresa of Avila and Therese of Lisieux. Now no Catholic in his right mind would call in question either the orthodoxy or the great usefulness of each of their writings. We have only to thank God for their inspired and intuitive wisdom. Nevertheless for the Pope to declare them Doctors, i.e. teachers, is to encourage Catholic women to set up in public as teachers. St. Thomas Aquinas (IIa IIae, 177, art 2) has three reasons against this. 

Firstly he quotes St. Paul (II Tim II, 12): “I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over the man: but to be in silence.” St. Thomas distinguishes here public from private teaching: in the home a mother must teach her children, in a quasi-domestic setting a woman may well teach, especially girls and little boys. 

Secondly, any woman set up in public view is liable to arouse unclean desire in men.
Thirdly, “women in general are not so perfect in wisdom as to be entrusted with public teaching.”

I hope more Traditionalists will seek to live an authentic Traditional Catholic life which is not focused merely on the exteriors of the Mass but on the Faith itself. And that Traditional Faith is still under assault even from priests in the FSSP, Institute of Christ the King, SSPX, or other Traditional groups. Reject the Luminous Mysteries, reject the modernized fasts enshrined in the 1983 Code of Canon Law, and reject the title of Doctor of the Church being given to female saints. 

Seek to live out the Catholic Faith in the same manner (i.e. the Mass) but also with the same beliefs as our grandfathers and their grandfathers. The Catholic Faith cannot change because God does not change. What was true in the past must be true now. And if St. Paul's teachings were true in the past, they must be true now. We cannot change what is of apostolic origin.

Read more >>

Pope Francis: “Diversity of Religions” is “Willed by God”

Image Copyright Holy See Press Office

Guest Post By David Martin

Pope Francis has incited more controversy by signing a joint statement with the head of Egypt’s al-Azhar Mosque, which states that "diversity of religions" is "willed by God." 

The Pope signed the “Document on Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together,” with Ahmad el-Tayeb, during an interreligious meeting in Abu Dhabi on February 4. The event marked the high point of the pope’s three-day apostolic visit to the United Arab Emirates.

The document calls upon “all persons who have faith in God and faith in human fraternity to unite and work together so that it may serve as a guide for future generations.”

By "human fraternity," the proponents of the document mean fraternity in the flesh. The only true fraternity is to extend the riches of the Catholic Faith to all peoples, outside of which there is no real fraternity. For it is only through conversion to the One True Church that we become brothers and sisters in Christ.

However, the passage inciting controversy reads:

Freedom is a right of every person: each individual enjoys the freedom of belief, thought, expression and action. The pluralism and the diversity of religions, colour, sex, race and language are willed by God in His wisdom, through which He created human beings. This divine wisdom is the source from which the right to freedom of belief and the freedom to be different derives. Therefore, the fact that people are forced to adhere to a certain religion or culture must be rejected, as too the imposition of a cultural way of life that others do not accept.

Since when does God grant anyone the "freedom" to resist the truth and "do whatever thou wilt?" The Church has always admonished mankind "to adhere to a certain religion," i.e. the Catholic Church. This is not an "imposition" but a profession of the absolute truth that must be adhered to if man wishes to be saved. To say that this preaching "must be rejected" is to say that the Church for 2000 years was wrong.

Moreover, saying that “the diversity of religions” is “willed by God” has every appearance of heresy. The mission of the Church from the beginning is to bring the knowledge of God to the world and "teach all nations" (Matt. 28:19), that all peoples might leave their particular idols and creeds and be converted to the Catholic Church. The Church infallibly teaches that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church (extra ecclesiam nulla salus), so unless Francis means that this diversity of religion is permissively willed by God to elicit the Church's response to reach out and convert other religions, he is negating dogma and dignifying the errors of fake religion.

For to say that God willed diversity of religions in the ordained sense is to say that God engendered these religions, which is heresy. And since Francis obviously means that diversity of "color, sex, race and language are willed by God" in the ordained sense (which they are), we can only assume he means "diversity of religions" the same way.

Even if other religions agreed with Catholic teaching they could not coexist with the Catholic Church for the simple reason that Christ did not found them—they’re invalid and operate out of grace. The fact is that every world religion exists in opposition to the Roman Catholic Church, which means the Catholic Church may never unite with them.

Francis has consistently urged the Church to ecumenically unite with other religions, so by “diversity of religions” we can safely infer that he is advocating post-Vatican II ecumenism, which is all about unity with man and not with God. Should the pope be using his position to advance this secular humanism?


Note: Cardinal Müller issues Manifesto of Faith: A quasi correction of Pope Francis’ pontificate

Read more >>

Francis: The Lord's Prayer "Induces Temptation"

Prayer Vigil with Pope Francis ahead of Synod © Mazur/catholicnews.org.uk, October 4, 2014

Guest Post By David Martin

Pope Francis is again advocating that the Our Father be changed. It was reported last month that the pope is expected to approve a change in the translation of the Lord’s Prayer, the famous biblical petition that has been recited by Christians for 2000 years. 

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/dec/11/pope-francis-redo-lords-prayer-translation/

The Italian Episcopal Conference [CEI] has submitted the proposed change to the Vatican for approval, changing the line "lead us not into temptation" to "abandon us not when in temptation," reported the Italian newswire service Ansa and the U.K. Express.

It was in December 2017 that Francis first proposed that the Lord's Prayer be changed, arguing that the translation used for centuries in many parts of the world, including the Italian and English versions, go against the teachings of the Church and Bible.

In the centuries-old recited prayer, followers of the Christian Faith call upon God to "lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil." 

Speaking to Italian broadcasters on December 7, 2017, Francis argued this was incorrect, saying, "It is not a good translation because it speaks of a God who induces temptation." 

"A father doesn’t do that, a father helps you to get up immediately," Francis said in an interview on Italian television. "It's Satan who leads us into temptation, that’s his department."

So Christ taught us to invoke a God who leads us into temptation? To think that the Messiah's instruction to mankind on how to pray—as penned by the Evangelists as the infallible Word of God and as followed for 2000 years by all the Saints and members of Christ—is now incorrect! It appears that it is the pope who is leading us into temptation.

To say that the proposed "reform" of the Our Father warrants respect is to say that Catholics for 2000 years have been misled by the Our Father. Moreover, it instigates doubts about the whole of Sacred Scripture and the age-old direction of the Church. It appears that it is Pope Francis who is leading us into temptation.

Francis purports to criticize the English and Italian translations of the Our Father, when he knows full well that it is the original manuscript he is criticizing. The original text from the Lord's Prayer, as taken from the Latin Vulgate, reads: et ne nos inducas in tentationem, sed libera nos a malo, which translated is: "lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil." (Matthew 6:13). This is also the same in the Greek: καὶ μὴ εἰσενέγκῃς ἡμᾶς εἰς πειρασμόν, ἀλλὰ ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ.

Hence, this is not a translation issue, but a scriptural issue. The English translations of the Our Father as recited today are correct, because they are taken from the Vulgate, which is the official version of Holy Scripture, the source from which all authentic translations must directly or indirectly be taken. 

The pope's initiative is entirely uncalled for. Never in the 2000-year history of the Church has it occurred to any pope or saint that the Lord's Prayer stood in need of change, so why is Francis calling into question something so central to the Faith—the "perfect prayer" given to us by Christ Himself on the Mount—and at a time when the Church is undergoing the worst debacle of its 2000-year history? What is needed today is that rock-solid stability of old to offset the new order of change that has misled the Church since Vatican II, so why is Francis leading us into the temptation of change?

It appears he is upset over the idea of being led away from temptation, since he is led by the temptation of globalism and change. The Bible threatens him to give up his change, so instead of humbly admitting that scripture is correct he judges that it is "incorrect, in the same way he has denied the miracle of the loaves and has judged that evangelization is "solemn nonsense." 

The Church's mission is precisely to evangelize and lead us away from the temptation of this world that we may arrive at the shores of everlasting peace. God in His mercy wants us all to know that this world is not our common home, but rather a quagmire of temptation, and that our true home is in Heaven with God and the Saints who said the un-revised Our Father during their lives. 

Therefore, as children of God who obey the Father's commands, we take the Father's hand and ask Him to lead us not into temptation, but away from all evil, because if we chase after temptation—especially the temptation to change the Bible and the doctrines of the Faith—God will let go of our hand, and in His permissive will He will lead us, not only into temptation, but into the very fires of hell. And by the way, Papa, this condemnation is forever.

Christ warns of the dire consequences of changing but one word of Holy Scripture. He says to St. John in the Apocalypse: "If any man shall add to these things, God shall add unto him the plagues written in this book." (Apoc. 22:18) 

Let us therefore reverence the words of Christ in the Gospel, remembering that all Scripture is "inspired of God." (2 Timothy 3:16) "Neither let us tempt Christ: as some of them tempted, and perished by the serpents." (1 Cor. 10:9)

https://www.foxnews.com/world/pope-francis-wants-to-change-line-of-our-father

Read more >>

Vatican II Engendered Today’s “Religious Liberty”

Guest Post By David Martin

There has been much published this past year in refutation of Pope Francis’ repeated use of distorted or ambiguous wording to advance licentious behavior in the name of “conscience.”

These publications are warranted. For instance, Amoris Laetitia says that those living in adultery may at times continue thus in good conscience: "Conscience can do more than recognize that a given situation does not correspond objectively to the overall demands of the Gospel. It can also recognize with sincerity and honesty what for now is the most generous response which can be given to God, and come to see with a certain moral security that it is what God himself is asking amid the concrete complexity of one’s limits, while yet not fully the objective ideal." (Amoris Laetitia 303)

So according to Amoris Laetitia, conscience can recognize that "the most generous response" we can give to God is to break his commandments. How can this be when Christ said, "If you love me keep my commandments?" (John 14:15) Sin crucifies the Savior, so how can it be a "generous response” to him?

In an adulterous situation with a fornicator, the only thing that conscience recognizes is that he is offending God. The finger of conscience is pointing at him and telling him he must leave his shameful vice if he wishes to be saved, but pride comes along and closes his heart to the voice of conscience. Like a Pharisee, he resists the Holy Spirit and seeks continued escape in his sin, yet Amoris Laetitia says this "is what God himself is asking" of him.

This false understanding of conscience is becoming problematic in a way never before seen in Church history. More and more we see Catholics entertaining a false religious liberty that advocates the selfish rights of man, as if modern man is now a little god who can think for himself without the guidance of a divine chaperone.   

Sadly, the groundwork for this arrogance was laid at the Second Vatican Council fifty-three years ago. Consider the opening paragraph of Dignitatis Humanae, which is the Vatican II document on Religious Liberty:

“A sense of the dignity of the human person has been impressing itself more and more deeply on the consciousness of contemporary man, and the demand is increasingly made that men should act on their own judgment.” [1] 

Again, we read:

“God has regard for the dignity of the human person whom He Himself created and man is to be guided by his own judgment and he is to enjoy freedom.” [11]

Here we see the Council honoring man’s prerogative to be his own guide, which is contrary to the Creator. “For God will not except any man’s person, neither will He stand in awe of any man’s greatness: for He made the little and the great, and he has equally care for all.”   (Wisdom 6:8)

Man’s true dignity consists in his being made to the image of God, but this dignity is preserved by keeping one’s innocence and yielding his judgment up to God, so that he makes God’s judgment his own in matters of faith and morals. What God requires of us is a childlike submission to doctrine and Tradition as taught by the Savior Himself: “Unless you be converted, and become as little children, you shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.” (Matthew 18:3)

According to Vatican II, the Church may not infringe upon one’s personal rights by laying down the law as to what they must do to be saved. It affirms the natural rights of man in matters of religion (Masonic freedoms), which is contrary to the previous papal teachings which deny any such rights. Pope Pius IX in his Encyclical “Quanta Cura”, Leo XIII in his Encyclicals “Libertas Praestantissimum” and “Immortale Dei” and Pius XII in his allocution “Ci Riesce” all affirm that there is no logical or scriptural basis for this humanist notion of human dignity, yet Vatican II seems to assert it as dogma.

However, we have to make a clear distinction between moral conscience and temptation. Conscience will always compel one to fear God and keep his Commandments which are already engraved “in the fleshy tablets of the heart” (2 Cor. 3:3), whereas temptation will always lead one to depart the Commandments and follow his own will or sense of liberty where he doesn’t allow the Divine Monarch to hold the reins in his life. Such liberty offends God and chains us to the shackles of guilt, which is no liberty. (John 8:34) There is no such thing as “my moral conscience told me to sin and be a rebel,” for such is the manifestation of a guilty conscience, not a moral conscience.

It is true that man is given a free will to choose between good and evil, which God does not interfere with, since our eternal friendship with God must be a free will offering which is grounded in charity, and not coercion. However, the abuse of our free will to choose evil is not honored by God nor is it permitted in the Church, nor is it a form of religious liberty.

With every liberal proposal in the Vatican II document(s) there is an apparent conservatism (ambiguous double meaning) to cover its tracks so that, under the pretext of honoring the rights of every human to freely adore his Creator, the document advocates that man has the liberty to follow his own licentious will:

“In all his activity a man is bound to follow his Conscience… It follows that he is not to be forced to act in manner contrary to his conscience. Nor, on the other hand, is he to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience, especially in matters religious. The reason is that the exercise of religion, of its very nature, consists before all else in those internal, voluntary and free acts whereby man sets the course of his life directly to God.” [3]

Here conscience is used interchangeably with self-will so that on the surface it looks very honorable and says the truth that no man or religious authority may infringe on the God-given rights of men to direct themselves to God. But what the document is really saying is that the Church must honor the judgment of man to choose and decide for himself what course he is going to take, even if it means denying Christ. We might almost see the document as a pro-choice document, since what is honored is not the right choice but the “right” or “freedom” to choose, so that whatever choice is made is automatically honored by the Council.

What is absurd is how Vatican II cites our “human dignity” as the justification for this religious liberty. “The declaration of this Vatican Council on the right of man to religious freedom has its foundation in the dignity of the person, whose exigencies have come to be fully known to human reason through centuries of experience.” [9] Since when is man’s ‘dignity’ flaunted before the throne of God?

True religious liberty is that special endowment we all have to freely serve God without the interference of tyrannies or world councils that coerce us into adopting anything contrary to Church tradition. Such was the way of the saints who freely abandoned themselves to God with complete immunity to all things so that they were answerable only to God without respect to persons. (Ephesians 6:6)

The same liberty applies to Christian governments. It is not only the right but duty of government to enforce Christian morality as the law of the land, and to openly advocate it for the good of all, but according to Vatican II our U.S. government does not have that right.

“It follows that a wrong is done when government imposes upon its people, by force or fear or other means, the profession or repudiation of any religion.” [6]

Government indeed cannot force its people to profess a certain denomination, but it most certainly can profess Christianity to be the law of the land where the people at least are required to profess it in action through their compliance. But according to the Council, the U.S. Supreme Court did wrong in 1892 by declaring the United States to be “A Christian nation” in which “Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind.” The U.S. traditionally imposes the rule of Christianity as the law of the land to be obeyed by its citizens, namely, thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not rape, fornicate or abuse little children, etc., yet the Council seems to regard this mandatory compliance as ‘coercion.’ Does government not have a right and duty to enforce law and order?

According to the document, religious zealots and terrorists should be free from such government coercion. “The freedom or immunity from coercion in matters religious which is the endowment of persons as individuals is also to be recognized as their right.” [4] Since when do people have a right to offend? If a person’s religion dictates that he can murder Christians for Allah and crash his jet into the local skyscraper, shall he now be immune from government censure or coercion? God forbid!

The fact that someone has a religious conviction doesn’t make it right. With great liberty and conviction, the Jews condemned Jesus to death, even in the name of “God their father,” but Jesus told them who their father was, the devil, just as the devil is the father of those who suggest we may break the laws of God in view of religious liberty.

Perhaps the most passionate opponent of the Religious Liberty document was Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who warned of its detrimental consequences for the future, citing that it advocated “the right to cause scandal.” He warned that with this document “a civil society endowed with Catholic legislation shall no longer exist” and said it would bring about “the disappearance in the Church of the missionary spirit for the conversion of souls.” (Bernard Tissiers, The Biography of Marcel Lefebvre)

On June 29, 1976, the Archbishop also had this to say: “This right to religious freedom is blasphemous, for it attributes to God purposes that destroy His Majesty, His Glory, His Kingship. This right implies freedom of conscience, freedom of thought, and all the Masonic freedoms.”

According to Lefebvre, the most incriminating evidence against the Religious Liberty of Vatican II was the enthusiastic support it received from the synagogue of satan. Consider the following from the Archbishop:

“This very year [1965], Yves Marsaudon, the Freemason, has published the book L’ oecumenisme vu par un franc-macon de tradition (Ecumenism as Seen by a Traditional Freemason). In it the author expresses the hope of Freemasons that our Council will solemnly proclaim religious liberty… What further evidence do we need?”

If Pope Francis is so impassioned about honoring the rights of man, he should honor our right to resist him, otherwise he discriminates. If adulterers have a right to continue in adultery, then we certainly have a right to censure their adultery, because “men should act on their own judgment” [1] and “man is to be guided by his own judgment.” [11]

With God as our guide we will do just that!

Read more >>

Cardinal Sarah’s Indictment of Communion in the Hand Stands with Tradition

Guest Post by David Martin

Cardinal Robert Sarah who heads the Vatican’s Congregation for Divine Worship has decried Communion in the hand and is summoning the Catholic faithful to return to receiving Communion on the tongue while kneeling.

In the preface to a new book on the subject, Cardinal Sarah warns that lack of reverence for the Blessed Sacrament is the major disorder undermining the Faith today and that Communion in the hand was deliberately sown by the devil for this very end.

“The most insidious diabolical attack consists in trying to extinguish faith in the Eucharist, sowing errors and favoring an unsuitable manner of receiving it," the cardinal wrote. "Truly the war between Michael and his Angels on one side, and Lucifer on the other, continues in the heart of the faithful: Satan’s target is the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Real Presence of Jesus in the consecrated Host."

“Why do we insist on receiving Communion standing and on the hand?,” the cardinal asks. According to Sarah, the manner in which the Holy Eucharist is distributed and received "is an important question on which the Church today must reflect." Cardinal Sarah: Widespread Communion in the hand is part of Satan’s attack on the Eucharist

Sarah hits the nail on the head, since the major crisis facing the Church today is the loss of the awareness of the supernatural presence of Christ in his tabernacle. With the crisis ever intensifying, it somehow has evaded the hierarchy that the crux of the problem has been our denigrating regard for the Holy Eucharist, encouraged most especially by this errant practice of receiving Communion in the hand. This is a Protestant practice that was introduced in the sixties by renegade bishops to detract from Christ’s divinity and foment disbelief in the Real Presence. 

However, the faithful are not empowered to touch the Body of Christ as in the priesthood, which is why Communion in the hand was never *promulgated as a universal practice for the Church. And whereas it is allowed today as common law, lay people are not consecrated to handle the Blessed Sacrament, so that should they do so, a sacrilege is committed.

This in turn brings on spiritual repercussions and draws the plague of the devil upon the church, so that what is nurtured is an adulterated mindset (evidenced by all the profanation and display of indecency in church), as well as heretical notions about the Sacrament and the Holy Sacrifice (i.e. the Eucharist is holy bread, the Mass is a meal, the Mass is a community gathering, etc.) If Catholics today no longer believe that the Eucharist is the Creator Himself in person, it is because of this diabolical practice that has cheapened their religion and nurtured this apostate mentality.

It was for reason that Pope Paul VI in his instruction Memoriale Domini (May 29, 1969), warned that Communion in the hand “carries certain dangers with it… the danger of a loss of reverence for the August Sacrament of the altar, of profanation, of adulterating the true doctrine."
The late Fr. John Hardon, speaking at the Call to Holiness Conference in Detroit, Michigan, on November 1, 1997, told his audience: “Behind Communion in the hand—I wish to repeat and make as plain as I can—is a weakening, a conscious, deliberate weakening of faith in the Real Presence…. Whatever you can do to stop Communion in the hand will be blessed by God.”

Communion in the hand caters to human pride and warps our conception of Jesus Christ. It serves no other purpose than to nourish contempt for Christ in the Eucharist. It promotes personal uncleanness and fosters the general mentality of transgressing into forbidden realms
(touching that which we ought not), which calls to mind the transgression of Eve when she rose up in her pride and partook of the forbidden fruit.

However, the author of both is the devil, who is given great strength to work in the Church through this practice. His objective is to destroy the monarchical concept of the Church so that Christ is now seen as mere man, “symbolized” by bread and wine, and Communion in the hand has been an effective tool in hand to advance this heresy.

Pope Paul VI in his 1969 pastoral letter reaffirmed the Church’s teaching on the reception of Communion, stating, “This method [on the tongue] must be retained.” This was in response to the Dutch bishops who were clamoring for Communion in the hand against his wishes and in defiance of the centuries-old prohibition against it.

The prohibitions against Communion in the hand go back to the early Church. Pope St. Sixtus I (115-125) issued the following decree: "It is prohibited for the faithful to even touch the sacred vessels, or receive in the hand.”

Communion in the hand has in fact received several ecclesiastical condemnations. The Council of Saragossa (380 AD) excommunicated anyone who dared continue receiving Communion in the hand. This was confirmed by the Synod of Toledo (589), known for its staunch defense of Christ’s divinity.

The Sixth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople (680-81) likewise forbade the faithful from taking the Host in their hand, even threatening transgressors with excommunication.

The Synod of Rouen (650) condemned Communion in the hand to halt widespread abuses that occurred through this practice, and as a safeguard against sacrilege. The Council decreed:

“Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layman or laywoman, but only in their mouths.”

The foregoing prohibitions have never been legally overturned. Communion in the hand is simply carried on today as “common law,” and has been a major deterrent in the spiritual advance of the faithful. It is no wonder that St. Basil the Great regarded Communion in the hand as “a grave fault.” (Letter 93)

A grave fault it is that bishops through poor liturgical discipline have allowed the faithful to fall into the lamentable blindness of not acknowledging the physical and supernatural presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Because of Communion in the hand and other like shams, many today do not understand what the Mass is.

During the Consecration of Holy Mass, the Sacrifice of Christ is reenacted through the commemorative formula commanded by Christ to his Apostles—This is My Body, This is My Blood—so that upon consecration, the substance of bread and wine is changed into the very substance of Jesus Christ. It is no longer the substance of bread and wine, but the substance of Christ, only and entirely, without any other substance mingling with it. Only the accidents or physical properties of bread and wine remain.

The acknowledgment of this supernatural Mystery is the first and foremost requirement placed on the faithful to receive Holy Communion, without which one may not receive. To this end, the Church has always taught that communicants not touch the Host, since it is the very substance of the Creator which only the consecrated hands of a priest may touch.

Hence by allowing lay persons to handle the Host, it tends to erase this dogmatic fact from mind and suggests that Holy Communion is just a formality, i.e. a holy meal, a community gathering, in which people can come up in cafeteria fashion to have their “blessed bread.” It promotes all manner of disrespect, e.g. women coming up in promiscuous attire, tattooed, etc.

Gallop surveys indicate that a mere 30 percent of America’s Catholics believe in the True Presence. And whereas Pope Francis may see strict adherence to dogma as “idolatry,” he needs to understand that without preserving dogma through traditional discipline, people will fall into the idolatry of human worship where they turn to each other at Mass instead of to God.

The faithful would do well to consider the conduct of Moses when he approached the burning bush in the mount. The Lord ordered him to put off his sandals because he was on holy ground. And "Moses hid his face: for he durst not look at God." (Exodus 3:6) And to think that this was only a manifestation of God's presence, not an actual physical presence.

With how much greater reverence must we approach the altar where the Creator Himself dwells day and night in full Body and Spirit? Shall we mock Him and do a little dance (guitar Mass), and then stick our dirty hands out and try to make the Lord of Hosts our pet wafer? God forbid!

Thanks to Communion in the hand, members of satanic cults are given easy access to enter the Church and take the Host, so that they bring it back to their covens where it is abused and brutalized in the ritualistic Black Mass to Satan. They defecate on the Host and crush it under their shoes as a mockery to the living God, and we do nothing to stop this? Among themselves satanists declare that Communion in the hand is the greatest thing that ever happened to them, and we assist them with our casual practice?

Mike Warnke, a former satanic high priest who converted to Christianity, warned the U.S. bishops that allowing Communion in the hand was a mistake, pointing out how this allows satanists easy access in procuring the host, which they desecrate in their rituals.

This is confirmed by Fr. Andrew Trapp of South Carolina, who posted a web-story about a former satanist in his prayer group [Nicholas] who revealed to him how they steal consecrated Hosts from Catholic Churches for the purpose of desecrating them in the satanic Black Mass. Satanism & the Eucharist | Saint Factory

It was for reason that Benedict XVI attempted to reverse this practice during his pontificate.
Cardinal Llovera, the former Prefect for the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, said in 2009, “It is the mission of the Congregation for Divine Worship and Sacraments to work to promote Pope Benedict’s emphasis on the traditional practices of liturgy, such as reception of Communion on the tongue while kneeling.”

The pope was clear that he did not want Catholics receiving Communion in the hand, nor did he want them standing to receive, for which reason the faithful at his Masses were required to kneel and receive on the tongue.

The centuries-old ordinance allowing only the consecrated hands of a priest to handle the Body of Christ also rules out lay “Eucharistic Ministers.” The Council of Trent puts to shame today’s burlesque practice of allowing lay people to distribute Communion.

“To priests alone has been given power to consecrate and administer to the faithful, the Holy Eucharist.” (The Council of Trent)

Pope John Paul II, lenient as he was in enforcing the rule, made it clear that the Sacred Host is not something that lay persons can touch. “To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained.” (Dominicae Cenae, Feb. 1980)

This stems from the fact that lay people’s hands are not anointed to touch the Eucharist, unlike the hands of a priest. St. Thomas Aquinas beautifully articulates this teaching in his Summa Theologiae.

“Because out of reverence towards this Sacrament, nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest’s hands, for touching this Sacrament.”

It suffices to say that Communion in the hand is illicit, despite the flippant approbation of today’s wayward bishops. Father John Hardon explains: “Communion in the hand began with the publication of the Dutch Catechism with nobody's permission except the bishops—in effect, in principle separated themselves from the Holy See.  One country after another began then to ask for permission, which the Dutch bishops never asked for.” (Speaking at the Call to Holiness Conference, Nov. 1, 1997)

Communion in the hand, more specifically, is tied to the late Cardinal Suenens of Belgium, a known heretic and initiated Freemason (initiated 6-15-67, code-name “LESU”) who introduced this practice to the Dutch bishops in the mid-sixties. Suenens, who oversaw the implementation of the worldwide charismatic “renewal” in the Catholic Church and who advocated married priests, was notorious for defaming the Eucharist and the priesthood.

However, Communion in the hand goes back to the heretical Arians of the third century who introduced this practice as a means of expressing their belief that Christ was not divine. Unfortunately, it has served to express the same in our time and has been at the very heart of the present heresy and desecration that is rampant throughout the universal Church. If we have “abuse” problems today, it is because we're abusing the sacrament—it’s backfiring on us!

Pope Benedict XVI did his part to try to purge the Church of this abuse, seeing how it has contributed mightily to the loss of the awareness of the Mystery of Faith. We might say that a form of ‘Eucharistic atheism’ has set in. Poor liturgical discipline has contributed mightily to apostasy, so the remedy is to return to our knees and receive the Eucharist on the tongue. Without this basic humility before the Eucharist, our efforts at restoring the Church are futile.

Those who approach the Eucharist in a casual, nonchalant manner would do well to consider the warning from St. Paul in Holy Scripture:

“Whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the Body and of the Blood of the Lord... For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the Body of the Lord.” (1 Corinthians 11:27, 28)

* In 1969, Pope Paul VI made an exception for the bishops of Holland by leaving it up to them to decide whether to adopt this practice, though he very much dissuaded it. Unfortunately, it spread rapidly from Holland to other countries with no formal sanction from Rome. 

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2018/02/23/cardinal-sarah-communion-in-the-hand-part-of-diabolical-attack-on-eucharist/

Read more >>

Vatican II: Revolution Under the Guise of Reform

Guest Post By David Martin

Perhaps the greatest curse of our time has been the misguidance of the flock of Christ under the illusion of divine guidance, a treacherous path that was set in motion at Vatican II. Cardinal Ratzinger even told his friend Fr. Ingo Dollinger—a close friend and spiritual child of St. Padre Pio—that the Third Secret of Fatima spoke of "a bad council and a bad Mass," presumably referencing the Second Vatican Council. https://onepeterfive.com/cardinal-ratzinger-not-published-whole-third-secret-fatima/

But some will lash out at this, arguing that a dogmatic council cannot err because it is guided by the Holy Spirit. But who ever said Vatican II was dogmatic? The fact is that there was no dogma defined at the Council. Benedict XVI while a cardinal even pointed out the non-infallible status of Vatican II, as we see in his address to the bishops of Chile in 1988:

"The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of super-dogma which takes away the importance of all the rest." (Cardinal Ratzinger on Vatican II)

Pope Paul VI also cited the non-infallible status of Vatican II when he said that the Council "avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the Church’s infallible teaching authority." (General Audience, December 1, 1966)

The Holy Father also said in 1970: "In many areas the Council has not so far given us peace but rather stirred up troubles and problems that in no way serve to strengthen the Kingdom of God within the Church or within its souls."

It was this same pope who lamented the outcome of Vatican II on the ninth anniversary of his coronation, when he declared: "From some fissure the smoke of Satan entered into the temple of God." (June 29, 1972)

The fact is that Vatican II in many ways dissented from Church teaching. For instance, the Council teaches that "it is allowable, indeed desirable that Catholics should join in prayer with their separated brethren" on the grounds that "The Holy Spirit does not refuse to make use of other religions as a means of salvation." (Unitatis Redintegratio)

This radically contradicts the Church's infallible teaching that the Holy Spirit works only through the Catholic Church, outside of which there exists no salvation (extra ecclesiam nulla salus). Pope Pius IX in his Syllabus of Errors condemned the Protestant notion that "Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation."
 
The Syllabus of Errors also warned against attempts to revolutionize the Church, yet the conciliar document Gaudium et Spes (in conjunction with the documents on Religious Liberty and Ecumenism) was intended to counteract the Syllabus of Errors and to revive the rebellious principles of the French Revolution of 1789. Cardinal Ratzinger attested to this in his 1982 book, Principles of Catholic Theology:

"We might say that it [Gaudium et Spes] is a revision of the Syllabus of Pius IX, a kind of counter-syllabus... Let us be content to say that the text serves as a counter-syllabus and, as such, represents, on the part of the Church, an attempt at an official reconciliation with the new era inaugurated in 1789." (Cardinal Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, pp. 381-382, Ignatius Press, 1987)

Hence, we see Vatican II conniving with the French Revolution of 1789, which was Masonically generated to instigate rebellion against the Faith, just as the Council connived with Luther's Reformation which was generated for this same purpose. But as with the Reformation, the Vatican II revolution was waged under the pretext of a reform so that people would see it as "magisterial."

What we are witnessing today is the Magisterium vs. the counter-magisterium, which is precisely what Pope John Paul II while a cardinal was trying to alert us to in his prophetic warning about the rise of an "anti-Church" that would preach an "anti-Gospel." During his visit to America in 1976, Cardinal Karol Wojtyla delivered this prophetic message in Philadelphia, on the occasion of the bicentennial anniversary of American Independence.

"We are now standing in the face of the greatest historical confrontation humanity has gone through. I do not think that wide circles of American society or wide circles of the Christian community realize this fully. We are now facing the final confrontation between the Church and the anti-Church, of the Gospel versus the anti-Gospel. We must be prepared to undergo great trials in the not-too-distant future; trials that will require us to be ready to give up even our lives.... How many times has the renewal of the Church been brought about in blood! It will not be different this time."

A true renewal would mean restoring the Church to its former position of honor as it stood before Vatican II. Such efforts will inevitably bring great persecution and even "blood" upon those who push for this, so great is the modern-day addiction to the conciliar idol of change.

Let's face it, the new church of man stemming from of Vatican II promises confused Catholics that they can now dispense with 'archaic' rules and regulations, assuring them that God accepts them as they are, and that they can even live in adultery knowing that "no one can be condemned forever, because that is not the logic of the Gospel." (Amoris Laetitia, 297)

What we're really looking at today is a revival of Martin Luther, the culprit who first generated this crack-pot theology. Consider Luther's famous advice to his disciple-companion Philip Melanchthon:

"Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly… No sin will separate us from the Christ, even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day." (From Luther’s letter to Philip Melanchthon, August 1, 1521, LW Vol. 48, pp. 281-282)

Reviving the cause of Luther in fact was a key objective of the Second Vatican Council, as affirmed by Fr. Edward Schillebeeckx, a prominent figure of the Council who said: "The accusation of connivance with the Reformation is therefore not without foundation."

Conniving with the Reformation is something the post-conciliar church officially recognizes, as we read in the 1980 Joint Catholic-Lutheran Commission which grew out of Vatican II: "Among the ideas of the Second Vatican Council, we can see gathered together much of what Luther asked for, such as the following: description of the Church as ‘The People of God’ (a democratic and non-hierarchical idea); accent on the priesthood of all baptized; the right of the individual to freedom of religion."

Unfortunately, this connivance has now reached the point that the Vatican on October 31 issued a postage stamp on which Martin Luther is depicted kneeling with St. John before Jesus. Shall the Vatican also issue a stamp with Hitler kneeling before Jesus?

The point being that Luther was a heretic and notorious enemy of God, who taught that Jesus was an adulterer, who rejected six books of the Bible, who dubbed the Sacrifice of the Mass "sacrilegious and abominable," and who utterly cursed the papacy. Should Rome be commemorating Luther and praising him as "a witness to the Gospel?"

It was for reason that Luther was excommunicated in 1521, whereupon the Council of Trent later condemned his Reformation, decreeing that those who hold to its errors are an anathema. How is it then that Rome is now praising a heretic who the Church officially holds to be an enemy of the Christian Faith?

The answer: Vatican II had a key role in infecting the Church with this heresy. There were six known Protestant delegates at the Second Vatican Council who played a significant role in shaping the Council documents. Michael Davies confirms this in his book on the New Mass where he states that "six Protestant observers were invited to advise this Consilium. They played an active part in the preparation of the New Mass." Their names for the record were: Canon Jasper, Dr. McAfee Brown, Professor George Lindbeck, Professor Oscar Cullmann, Pastor Rodger Schutz, and Archdeacon Pawley.

Cardinal Augustine Bea, who headed the Secretariat for the Promotion of Christian Unity, boasted of the contribution made by these Protestant delegates in formulating the Decree on Ecumenism, when he said: "I do not hesitate to assert that they have contributed in a decisive way to bringing about this result."

Professor B. Mondin, of the Pontifical Propaganda College for the Missions, stated that delegates such as Dr. Cullmann made "a valid contribution" to drawing up the Council documents.

This is not to mention people like Gregory Baum, the ex-priest and gay advocate who drafted the conciliar document Nostra Aetate for the Second Vatican Council, or Annibale Bugnini, the suspected Freemason who was the principal architect of Sacrosanctum Concilium, which laid out the design for the new Mass.

Hence Vatican II in the final analysis was neither dogmatic, nor was it magisterial in the ordinary sense, but was a carefully contrived revolution to instigate departure from Church tradition, but in such a way that this is seen as the work of the Holy Spirit.

This is why the Third Secret of Fatima urgently needs to be released, because only then will it shed light on what really happened at Vatican II and how it has caused the Church in our time to degenerate under the illusion of progress.

Read more >>

The Detestable and Abominable Practice of Cremation

A fitting reminder in this sermon on cremation.  For my past article on cremation, see Why Cremation is Not Permitted for Catholics

Read more >>

Francis Empowers Bishops to Lay Down Their own Liturgical Regulations

Pope Francis celebrates Mass in Villavicencio, Colombia, Friday, Sept. 8, 2017. (Credit: AP Photo/Andrew Medichini.)

 

Guest Post By David Martin

Pope Francis has issued a motu proprio Magnum Principium, a modification of Canon Law 838, which grants bishops’ conferences greater control over the translation of liturgical texts. This includes the power to make adaptations which the bishops deem appropriate for their regions. 

Until now, Canon 838 (§1) stated that "The direction of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, namely, that of the Apostolic See." Paragraph §2 said: "It is for the Apostolic See to order the liturgy of the universal Church," but now the Apostolic See has the task of "recognizing adaptations approved under the law of the Episcopal Conference." (§2) In other words, the power of the Curia is reduced from authorizing to approving texts that are generated by episcopal conferences.

Paragraph §4 makes it clear that the pope has now given bishops the power to determine much of the Church's liturgical direction. "Within the limits of his competence, it belongs to the diocesan bishop to lay down in the Church entrusted to his care, liturgical regulations which are binding on all."

This opens the door, not only to greater liberty in translating liturgical texts, but to creativity in drafting their own texts. What we are seeing is a further attempt to pull the Catholic world away from the Church's centralized authority and have a whimsical free-for-all.

Francis himself, on October 17, 2015, called for a "healthy decentralization" of power in the Roman Catholic Church, including changes in the papacy and greater decision-making authority for local bishops, so this latest motu proprio is part of his plan to execute this decentralization.

It calls to mind the subversive designs of Mgsr. Annibale Bugnini—the key liturgical planner of Vatican II and principal architect of Sacrosanctum Concilium—as he relayed them to Masonic Grand Master Licio Gelli in a *letter dated July 2, 1967: "The greatest liberty was given to choose between the various formulas, to individual creativity, and to chaos!"

Under the pretext of making the Faith more accessible to the laity, the enemies of the Church introduced vernacular at Vatican II for the purpose of rendering the Church secular and divided, as opposed to holy and universal. It appears that Rome is now going the full nine yards with this plan.

However, if holiness, unity, and crystal clear communication from God to man is what Francis aspires for, he will promptly scrap these modernist trappings and return the Mass to its original formula in the Latin Tridentine Rite—the formula which accomplished this perfectly through the centuries. This is what Pope Benedict XVI aspired for during his active pontificate, so why shouldn't Francis?

In speaking of the Traditional Latin Mass, Pope Benedict said on April 30, 2011: "What was sacred for prior generations, remains sacred and great for us as well." (Universae Ecclesia)

The irony of all this liturgical updating is that Latin—the very thing that modernists despise—is all too conveniently used as a tool to pull the faithful away from their Latin heritage. Perfidious documents such as the latest are published in Latin to make them appear "religious," but is this not Pharisaic? Vatican bureaucrats should at least have the decency to publish their revolution in their own Esperanto and reserve Latin for the holy things of God.

*This correspondence is taken from Andrea Tornielli's Dossie Liturgia Uma Babel Programada, that appeared in the June 1992 issue of 30 Days.

https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2017/09/breaking-motu-proprio-magnum-principium.html

Read more >>

Bishop of Rockford Attempts to Return Church to the Chaos of the 70s

 

The following is taken from EWTN.  I would encourage our readers to not only pray for the Bishop in his misguided efforts but to contact the Ecclesia Dei Commission in Rome. Simply put, what the Bishop is attempting to "forbid" and "require" is illegal and contrary to the law of the Church.  As such, it is no law at all.

Bishop David J. Malloy has doubled down against our Catholic liturgical tradition under the false banner of unity. As noted today by Fr. Z at his site:

In this letter, a follow up to their diocesan “Presbytery Day” (where he spoke to them about “challenges”), the bishop writes:

“Following that talk, I write now to ask for your cooperation on several matters that have since been referred to me in connection with my comments last September:

First, as I noted at that time, we are all aware of the on-going discussion surrounding the celebration of the Mass “ad orientem”. However, for the reasons I discussed at that time, and in order to underscore our unity in prayer and to avoid differences between and even within parishes on this point, I ask that no Masses be celebrated “ad orientem” without my permission.”

Of course this move, which runs contrary to the liturgical tradition of the Roman Rite, contrary to the recent recommendations of Cardinal Sarah (prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship), and contrary to the GIRM itself, is the heavy handed modernist tactics of the Seventies and Eighties revisited.

Additionally, the bishop has forbidden…yes FORBIDDEN…his priests from offering Mass in the Extraordinary Form without his permission, specifically citing Articles 5 & 2 of Summorum Pontificum. As Fr. Z correctly notes:

The Bishop of Rockford wrote “with due regard to Art. 2” and then he completely ignored it and wrote something that precisely contradicted it. According to Art. 2, priests of that diocese – or any other diocese in the world for that matter – do not need his permission.

So now, for the faithful of Rockford, they are being returned to a time in the Church when self-loathing Catholicism ruled the day. Back to the days when one need look no further than the chancery to find anti-Catholicism; for that’s what any attack against our liturgical heritage is. Against our past. Against tradition. It’s anti-Catholicism.

But wait; there’s more.

In his letter Bishop Malloy has also advised his priests that “any modifications being carried out in the sacred space of parish churches” requires diocesan approval. Specifically cited are the moving of altars, tabernacles, or “questions involving altar rails.”

In the Diocese of Rockford, Illinois it would seem that the groovy Seventies have indeed returned; at least liturgically.

Those who oppose our Catholic tradition, who oppose the Latin Mass, and who (apparently) believe that mercy and accompaniment do not apply to traditionalists, are feeling quite emboldened these days.

It’s going to get worse before it gets better. Trust me.

And pray for Rockford.

Published with permission of Brian Williams, Liturgy Guy

Source: EWTN

Read more >>

Graduates of Jesuit Colleges in Congress Overwhelmingly Pro-Abortion

Image Copyright 2013 by A Catholic Life Blog

The Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities recently celebrated the fact that 56 members of the new 115th U.S. Congress (a full 10 percent) attended a Jesuit college or university.

AJCU President Father Michael Sheeran, S.J., said, “A hallmark of Jesuit education is service to others, and we are proud to see that commitment represented by the alumni of Jesuit institutions who serve in the House and Senate. We appreciate their leadership and look forward to working with them during the 115th Congress.”

As boastful as the AJCU seems about this (it’s on the banner of their home page), I’m not sure a celebration is in order as among those legislators there are precious few who are reliably pro-life.

I searched their voting records and found that out of the 12 Jesuit-educated Senators, there are only two reliably pro-life legislators. Two! The rest are either reliably pro-abortion or have mixed voting records.

Out of the 44 congressmen who attended a Jesuit college or university there are only 12 reliably pro-life legislators while there are 32 legislators with pro-abortion or mixed records.

Those who defend and promote the abhorrent evil of abortion are not deserving of praise for “leadership” nor of “service to others.” One would think that the rejection of fundamental Catholic teachings on the dignity of life by alumni might cause Jesuits to reconsider how they’re educating their students.

Source: Cardinal Newman Society

Read more >>

Communion in The Hand Undermining the Faith

Guest Post by David Martin

With the crisis of faith ever intensifying, it somehow has evaded the Catholic hierarchy that the crux of the problem has been our casual and disparaging regard for the Holy Eucharist, reflected most especially by today’s errant practice of receiving Communion in the hand.

This is a Protestant practice that was introduced in the late-sixties by renegade bishops to detract from Christ’s divinity and to foment a false empowerment among the laity.

However, the faithful are not empowered to touch the Body of Christ as if they were priests. And whereas this is allowed today as common law, no pope to date has formally approved Communion in the hand. Lay people simply are not consecrated to handle the Blessed Sacrament, so that should they do so, a sacrilege is committed.

This in turn brings on spiritual repercussions and draws the plague of the devil upon the church, so that what is nurtured is an adulterated mindset (evidenced by all the profanation and display of indecency in church), as well as heretical notions about the Sacrament and the Holy Sacrifice (i.e. the Eucharist is holy bread, the Mass is a meal, the Mass is a community gathering, etc.) If Catholics today no longer believe that the Eucharist is the Creator Himself in person, it is because of this diabolical practice that has cheapened their religion and nurtured this apostate mentality.

It was for reason that Pope Paul VI in his instruction Memoriale Domini (May 29, 1969), warned that Communion in the hand “carries certain dangers with it… the danger of a loss of reverence for the August Sacrament of the altar, of profanation, of adulterating the true doctrine."

The late Fr. John Hardon, speaking at the Call to Holiness Conference in Detroit, Michigan, on November 1, 1997, told his audience: “Behind Communion in the hand—I wish to repeat and make as plain as I can—is a weakening, a conscious, deliberate weakening of faith in the Real Presence…. Whatever you can do to stop Communion in the hand will be blessed by God.”

Communion in the hand indeed caters to human pride and warps our conception of Jesus Christ. It serves no other purpose than to nourish contempt for Christ in the Eucharist. It promotes personal uncleanness and fosters the general mentality of transgressing into forbidden realms (touching that which we ought not), which calls to mind the transgression of Eve when she rose up in her pride and partook of the forbidden fruit.

However, the author of both is the devil, who is given great strength to work among us in the Church through this practice. His objective is to destroy the monarchical concept of the Church where Christ is no longer seen as the King of kings in His palace. The ancient serpent seeks to cast mockery on Christ’s divinity where he is reduced to a mere man, “symbolized” by bread and wine, and Communion in the hand has been an effective tool in hand to advance this heresy.

Hence, Pope Paul in his 1969 pastoral letter reaffirmed the Church’s teaching on the reception of Communion, stating, “This method [on the tongue] must be retained.” This was in response to the Dutch bishops who were clamoring for Communion in the hand against his wishes and in defiance of the centuries-old prohibition against it.

The prohibitions against Communion in the hand go back to the early Church. Pope St. Sixtus I (115-125) issued the following decree: "It is prohibited for the faithful to even touch the sacred vessels, or receive in the hand.”

Communion in the hand has in fact received several ecclesiastical condemnations. The Council of Saragossa (380 AD) excommunicated anyone who dared continue receiving Communion in the hand. This was confirmed by the Synod of Toledo (589), known for its staunch defense of Christ’s divinity.

The Sixth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople (680-81) likewise forbade the faithful from taking the Host in their hand, even threatening transgressors with excommunication.

The Synod of Rouen (650) condemned Communion in the hand to halt widespread abuses that occurred through this practice, and as a safeguard against sacrilege. The Council decreed:

“Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layman or laywoman, but only in their mouths.”

The foregoing prohibitions have never been legally overturned. Communion in the hand is simply carried on today as “common law,” and has served no other purpose than to nurture contempt for Christ in the Eucharist. It is no wonder that St. Basil the Great regarded Communion in the hand as “a grave fault.” (Letter 93)

Communion in the hand indeed reflects a lamentable blindness of spirit in not acknowledging the physical and supernatural presence of the Son of God under the species of bread and wine. The light of holy dogma is urgently needed today to dispel this ignorance which is alienating the faithful from their Eucharistic King.

During the Consecration of Holy Mass, the Sacrifice of Christ is reenacted on the altar through the commemorative formula commanded by Christ to his Apostles—This is My Body, This is My Blood—so that upon pronouncing these words during the elevation of the bread and chalice, the substance of bread and wine is changed into the very substance of Jesus Christ, whereby the substance of bread and wine ceases to exist. It is now the substance of Jesus Christ, only and entirely, without any other substance mingling with it.

The acknowledgment of this supernatural Mystery is the first and foremost requirement placed on us by the Church to receive Holy Communion, without which one may not receive. To this end, the Church has always taught that communicants not touch the Host, since it is the very substance of the Creator Himself which only the consecrated hands of a priest may touch.

Hence by allowing lay persons to handle the Host, it tends to erase this dogmatic fact from mind and suggests mightily that Holy Communion is just a formality, i.e. a holy meal, a community gathering, where people can come up in cafeteria fashion to have their “blessed bread.” Yea, it promotes all manner of disrespect, i.e. women coming up in promiscuous attire with holes in their jeans.

Gallop surveys indicate that a mere 30 percent of America’s Catholics believe in the True Presence. And whereas Pope Francis may see the tenacious adherence to dogma as “idolatry,” he needs to understand that his failure to teach dogma is causing his church to fall into the idolatry of human worship where the people at Mass turn to each other instead of to their God in the Eucharist. It’s now become a “peace be with you” church, instead of a place of adoration.

The faithful would do well to consider the conduct of Moses when he approached the burning bush in the mount. The Lord ordered him to put off his sandals because he was on holy ground. And "Moses hid his face: for he durst not look at God." (Exodus 3:6) And to think that this was only a manifestation of God's presence, not an actual physical presence.

With how much greater reverence must we approach the altar where the Creator Himself dwells day and night in full Body and Spirit? Shall we mock Him and do a little dance (guitar Mass), and then stick our dirty hands out and try to make the Lord of Hosts our pet wafer? God forbid!

Thanks to Communion in the hand, members of satanic cults are given easy access to enter     the Church and take the Host, so that they bring it back to their covens where it is abused and brutalized in the ritualistic Black Mass to Satan. They defecate on the Host and crush it under their shoes as a mockery to the living God, and we do nothing to stop this? Among themselves satanists declare that Communion in the hand is the greatest thing that ever happened to them, and we assist them with our casual practice?

Mike Warnke, a former satanic high priest who converted to Christianity, warned the U.S. bishops that allowing Communion in the hand was a mistake, pointing out how this allows satanists easy access in procuring the host, which they desecrate in their satanic rituals.

This is confirmed by Fr. Andrew Trapp of South Carolina, who posted a web-story about a former satanist in his prayer group [Nicholas] who revealed to him how they steal consecrated Hosts from Catholic Churches for the purpose of desecrating them in the satanic Black Mass.

It was for reason that Benedict XVI attempted to reverse this practice during his pontificate.
Cardinal Llovera, the former Prefect for the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, stated in 2009, “It is the mission of the Congregation for Divine Worship and Sacraments to work to promote Pope Benedict’s emphasis on the traditional practices of liturgy, such as reception of Communion on the tongue while kneeling.”

The pope was clear that he did not want Catholics receiving Communion in the hand, nor did he want them standing to receive, for which reason the faithful at his Masses were required to kneel and receive on the tongue. Benedict’s objective was to foster renewed love for the Eucharist and to offset the various trends of our time (guitar liturgy, altar girls, lay ministers, Communion in the hand) that have worked together to destroy our regard for the Sacred Mysteries.

The centuries-old ordinance allowing only the consecrated hands of a priest to handle the Body of Christ rules out lay “Eucharistic Ministers” as well. The Council of Trent puts to shame today’s burlesque practice of allowing lay people to distribute Communion.

“To priests alone has been given power to consecrate and administer to the faithful, the Holy Eucharist.” (The Council of Trent)

Pope John Paul II, lenient as he was in enforcing the rule, made it clear that the Sacred Host is not something that lay persons can touch. “To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained.” (Dominicae Cenae, Feb. 1980)

This stems from the fact that lay people’s hands are not anointed to touch the Eucharist, unlike the hands of a priest. St. Thomas Aquinas beautifully articulates this point in his Summa Theologica.

“Because out of reverence towards this Sacrament, nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest’s hands, for touching this Sacrament.”

It suffices to say that Communion in the hand is illicit, despite the flippant approbation of today’s wayward bishops. Father John Hardon explains: “Communion in the hand began with the publication of the Dutch Catechism with nobody's permission except the bishops—in effect, in principle separated themselves from the Holy See.  One country after another began then to ask for permission, which the Dutch bishops never asked for.” (Speaking at the Call to Holiness Conference, Nov. 1, 1997)

Communion in the hand, more specifically, is tied to the late Cardinal Suenens of Belgium, a known heretic and initiated Freemason (initiated 6-15-67, code-name “LESU”) who introduced this practice to the Dutch bishops in the mid-sixties. Suenens, who oversaw the implementation of the worldwide charismatic “renewal” in the Catholic Church and who advocated married priests, was all about defaming the Eucharist and the priesthood.

However, Communion in the hand goes back to the heretical Arians of the third century who introduced this practice as a means of expressing their belief that Christ was not divine. Unfortunately, it has served to express the same in our time and has been at the very heart of the present heresy and desecration that is rampant throughout the universal Church. If we have “abuse” problems today, it is because we're abusing the sacrament—it’s backfiring on us!

Hence Pope Benedict did his part to try to purge the Church of this abuse, seeing how it has contributed mightily to the loss of the awareness of the supernatural presence of Christ in his tabernacle. We might say that a form of Eucharistic atheism has set in. Poor liturgical discipline has given way to apostasy, so the remedy is to return to our knees and receive the Eucharist on the tongue. Without this basic humility before the Eucharist, our efforts at restoring the Church are vain.

Those who approach the Eucharist in a casual, nonchalant manner would do well to consider this warning from St. Paul in Holy Scripture:

“Whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the Body and of the Blood of the Lord... For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the Body of the Lord.” (1 Corinthians 11:27, 28) 

Comment by A Catholic Life - For more information, please see my prior post entitled Mission: Restore Eucharistic Reverence

Read more >>